I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Leave it alone.

It is easy for the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. H. J. Bekker) to say that, but it will not solve the problem. You can pass a flippant remark for the sake of party considerations and for the sake of your seat, but it will not solve the problem. It is a problem which has every European by the throat. I hope that the reason for the Prime Minister not tackling and solving this question properly is not that South Africa must simply be sacrificed for the sake of his holistic idea. I hope that South Africa’s interests will not be sacrificed by him for the sake of a great Empire unity. I think the Prime Minister owes South Africa a statement as to why he is not tackling and solving this aspect of the matter, for he knows and admits that it is the greatest and most urgent problem. I think, too, that it is no more than right towards South Africa that the Minister of Finance should tell South Africa now for good and always where he stands and what he wants. I want to utter a warning to those in South Africa who do not agree with the viewpoint of the Minister of Finance that today he is playing a game in a party of which the majority of the members do not share his views, a dangerous game, as a result of which he is gaining ground and converting people to his viewpoint. It would be in the interests of South Africa and the country in general if he would say openly where he stands, so that South Africa could choose for always, not between the United Party and this party, but between the great principles which concern us and our descendants. The Minister of Finance is gaming converts. We have seen how the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan), who came here animated with great ideals, stood up and apparently abandoned the principle of guardianship of the European. His last speech aroused serious suspicions among us, and created the impression that he is rapidly being influenced by the Minister of Finance. Thên there was the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg) who apparently also found that it would pay him to make propaganda in order to become a representative of the Indians in South Africa in this House. This game is being played today. The Minister of Finance is playing a game to convert people to his principles, not his party, and there are perhaps people who are already preparing themselves for the seats which the Indians will obtain. The Minister of Finance is managing to convert certain people to his views, and South Africa will have to suffer for it. Before I sit down I want to utter another warning in this connection. Owing to the battle which is being waged politically, the outlook of a section of the population is perhaps very narrow, and there is a section of the United Party who today think only in terms of war, and who reckon that if a few more non-European representatives come to this House, they will have the support of those people when it comes to a question of war or no war. It cannot be denied that that is the opinion among a section of the members. But let me point out that there is the danger that it can work like a boomerang. Practically all of us feel that the future struggle will be a struggle between East and West, a struggle between democracy and Bolshevism, and it can easily happen that the vast majority of the European population will decide to fight on the side of England and the democratic world, but that India will fight on the other side. Have you ever thought that in that event the Indian representatives may perhaps turn the scale in this Parliament if they hold the balance? They Will perhaps turn the scale in favour of the anti-war group, and in this way the result will be just the opposite to what hon. members on the other side perhaps expect. I want to make an earnest appeal to the Prime Minister—I cannot dictate to him how to solve the problem, and in any case I do not want to do so—but I want to appeal to him all the same to solve this question. The least we expect is that he will make an explicit statement to the country as to why he is not tackling this matter in its entirety and why he is doing his work by halves.

I want to say at the outset I personally support this Bill 100 per cent. This is the first attempt there has really ever been made to solve this problem once and for all by a policy of segregation. As was stated by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, we are determined to solve it and to retain the European structure of our society. The policy of this section of the House is known to all, but there has been no contribution towards a solution of the Indian problem from the opposite side of the House. We have had criticism directed by them at the liberal views that have been expressed by a few members on this side, but there has been nothing dealing with the merits of the Bill. The more I listen to the views expressed by members opposite, the more I am convinced that we are tackling this problem properly. It is a problem of evolution, it is not a problem you can legislate on today for all time. It is a problem of an evolutionary nature, and irresponsible and ill-founded criticism, founded on the fear complex, that is the stock-in-trade of members on that side, will be used by them until the next general election. Hence their amendment with a view to this legislation being postponed until 1948. They are a politically bankrupt party, and this is the one straw they are clutching at. In 1938 they fought an election on this “swart gevaar”. They have indulged in criticism of the liberal views of the Minister of Finance.

He is a negrophilist.

If he is a negrophilist, what is the Leader of the Opposition, and what are some of the other members over there? Do you know that, according to the report of the proceedings of the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament on the Native Bills, before representation was granted to the natives in this House, hon. members on that side were prepared to give direct representation to natives in the Senate?

When did they say that?

This was at a joint sitting of the Committee of both Houses 1930-1935.

It is not true.

Mr. Wessels moved that, subject to obtaining eventual uniformity, the committee accept a motion in regard to representation by natives in the Senate, and the people who voted in favour of that included, amongst other members sitting over there today, the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux), Mr. Tom Naudé, Dr. Stals, Mr. Strydom, Mr. van W. le Roux van Niekerk. If we want to come to liberal views, there were no more liberal views expressed in this country than by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. He fought for the rights of the Indians and the rights of the natives. He said he was fighting for the extension of the vote to the coloured women. I will read you a letter written by the hon. Minister of the Interior at that time, Dr. Malan, to Mr. P. Asshan, of 76, Van der Leur Street, Cape Town—

Have you not a better argument than that?

What is wrong with the letter?

He is worse than a negrophilist.

If that is all you can use, you are bankrupt of argument.

The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) said the Minister had swallowed all his principles, but surely his own leader has.

Is that one of the principles?

Yes, it is one. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. H. S. Erasmus), who has just spoken, has asked us whether we cannot include the Cape. But the policy of the Leader of the Opposition is to leave the Cape alone. The Leader of the Opposition in his speech at the Malay Congress at Cape Town, on 18th June, 1925, said—

Who said that?

Dr. Malan said that. At a coloured congress on 1st April, 1928, he expressed similar views. He said—

Those are your liberal views. If you want to fight the next election on liberal views and views expressed by this side of the House, we are prepared to accept that.

Do you agree with the views expressed by the Minister of Finance?

I agree with the views expressed in this Bill.

Do you agree with the Witwatersrand University speech?

That has nothing to do with this Bill.

Order, order. Will the hon. member just address the Chair and not be deflected by interruptions.

We have had no contribution, as I said before, in regard to the merits of the Bill from that side. What are the problems and their ultimate solution? That is what we have to discuss, and the Prime Minister has tackled it in a statesmanlike way. The problem is, as has been stated by many other members, that in 1860 Indians were brought here to work in the cane fields of Natal. They were indentured as labourers because at that time it was practically impossible to get labour for the cane fields. In those days the Zulu male considered himself a warrior and a hunter, and he thought it beneath his dignity to work in the cane fields. The result was it was very difficult to obtain native labour. These Indians were indentured for five years and they could extend the period for another five years. The Government of Natal agreed at that time that if the Indians stayed for longer than ten years those who did not go back to India would be compensated by a grant of Crown land, the equivalent in value of their passage to India.

How many accepted that?

I do not know how many accepted it. In any case they obtained vested rights in this country, and therefore to say we have to approach the problem by considering whether they are temporary residents is beside the point. For practical politics they are permanent residents. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) founded his whole argument on the assumption that these people were not permanent residents, but practically a quarter of a million of them are permanent residents.

The agitation we have today comes from the Indian Congress. They do not represent the majority of Indians. They represent a small influential trading class of Indians, usually Moslems. Only about 10,000 Indians are represented by congress. The other 240,000, the labouring class, are not interested. They do not care whether they have the right to vote or not, because they have never had it before and they have never had it in India. It is immaterial to them. This agitation comes from a section of the Indian community who have said they will be satisfied with nothing less than the franchise on the common roll. We have to protect ourselves, and the supremacy of the European race must be maintained, and this is the first step in that direction. We have had one commission after the other enquiring into this matter. This amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition asks for another select committee, and is thus just postponing the issue. We have the Broome Commission report and their recommendation for another round table conference and the loaded franchise. What will be the use of that? In America they have made a farce of the loaded franchise. There the negro is set an intelligence test where quiz questions are put to him and they try to plough him, no matter how sound his general knowledge. They ask him some stupid question like: Who is the Leader of the Opposition in South Africa? He will not know that, and so he cannot get the franchise. Is that the sort of thing we wish to see here? What is the position today in most small towns in the Union? In my own small town of Middelburg 30 years ago we had four commercial streets, and in those streets practically all the businesses were in the hands of Europeans. But now we have one street left for European businesses and the other three are in the hands of the Indians. No new general business has been opened by a European in my town for the last 30 years. That is the position in most towns today. The Indian is encouraged to such an extent and is such a parasite in those small towns that the European businessman cannot exist. Now we are making an honest attempt to protect our European structure by giving them free areas. They have always stated they have no place to invest their money. Now they can invest their money in the free areas, and they can develop along their own lines. They will not have the excuse that every Indian must open a business because there is no other avenue open to him.

The problem of the Indian is more or less his religion. I have had experience with Indians from a medical point of view. The Indian lives in a small room behind his shop, and he breeds because it is his religion that when one child is born the woman must see to it that before that child is out of her arms the next one has been born or is on its way. I have seen most prolific cases amongst the Indian women. In one case a mother had eighteen babies. They get married at fourteen, and from the age of 16 they start producing children, and by the time she is 30 the Indian woman is broken in health and spirit and a prey to all the diseases, especially tuberculosis. I know of one instance of an Indian who had four child marriages one after the other, and had just buried the last of his wives. The problem in India is the same. There are four hundred millions in India, but the population is practically stationary. The death rate is nearly equivalent to the birth rate. The death rate is astounding, and it is astounding because of the life these Indians lead. In India, half the population from the cradle to the grave never get a square meal. That is a fact. Half of the population never have a proper balanced meal one day of their lives. And then these people have the audacity to come and tell us that they are unfairly treated in this country. We are prepared, according to the upliftment clauses, to give them all the rights they deserve, but we are the guardians of European civilisation in this country, and it is our duty to see that that guardianship remains in our hands and does not pass over to the non-European races. With a coloured population on the common roll, with a native population clamouring to be on-the common roll, and with the Indians wanting to be on the common roll, what will be our plight once these people get the majority in this country, unless we can peg them down? I am not in favour of keeping them in economic and social subjection for ever. We are in an evolutionary stage, and the solution lies in this Bill presented by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, and a scheme of mass immigration of Europeans to this country. I have stated before that the solution for South Africa is mass immigration of Europeans. Only when we do that will we have solved our problems, and we can find employment for them all. Unless we do that, we will have the position of Indonesia. What happened there? The Hollanders thought that they were the ruling class and could keep the Indonesians in subjection for ever. Today I think the Hollanders are just about to get their marching orders to clear out of Indonesia. Unless we are prepared now to increase our European population, our fate will probably be the fate of Indonesia. Other European communities in the past have disappeared, and we are in danger of disappearing in the future. But, if members on the opposite side of the House would only cooperate with us in trying to solve these problems, instead of trying to make political capital out of the issue, we would be able to do something. Not one constructive suggestion have we heard from that side. If they would co-operate and stand by the European community in solving these problems, then we would have a chance. If they would help us and support an immigration policy, if they would help us to get a European population of ten million to balance against the non-European population in the country, they would do something constructive in the interests of South Africa. This Bill has the support of the majority of members on this side of the House, and most of the Transvaal members, as far as I know, with few exceptions, are prepared to accept this Bill, and we welcome it.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat said there has been no constructive criticism of any sort from this side of the House. All I can say is that the hon. member has apparently not read the amendment proposed by this side, and that he completely fails to realise that we on this side of the House really want a solution, not only a solution of the Indian problem, but a solution of the native problem and the coloured problem for which we stand. Then he also stated that the great majority of members on that side are in favour of the Bill. We realise that they are not all in favour of it, and he frankly admits that the majority on that side are in favour of the Bill. If the majority on that side favour the Bill, then I ask him if the minority on that side will range themselves with those who really want a solution of these problems? Then the hon. member says that the Transvaal members are completely satisfied with the Bill. I assume that the hon. member is also satisfied with the provision that is made here for the Transvaal, that where there is today an Indian lessee on a farm the existing servitude will remain for ever on that farm I think his constituents would very much like to know that from him, particularly those who have farms with Indian lessees on them.

The Leader of the Opposition stated that we must not attack vested rights.

It is not a matter of vested rights to lease a farm and then to lay down that that servitude will remain in perpetuity. My hon. friends on the other side have apparently lost sight of the fact that the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition asks that the necessary steps be taken for “the solution of the colour question in all its aspects upon a basis of separation, including the Indian, coloured and native questions”, by referring it to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament for consideration and report. Then the hon. member says that we on this side do not wish to co-operate, that we will not cooperate to make a success of the thing.

He is talking through his neck.

South Africa has adopted a course which is scientifically unsound in giving representation in Parliament to groups in the country, and this is what this side of the House is opposed to.

You all voted for it in 1936.

We did not vote for this. The course we have adopted of giving representation in this House, and not only representation but representation with the right to vote, is a harmful method. We can realise that in the Senate, and perhaps in this House, we require advocates for certain sections of the population, but to give these advocates in the House the power to vote on all problems affecting the future of South Africa, and problems which in many cases have to do purely with one section of the population, is in itself a wrong principle, and because we realise that it is a wrong principle in regard to the three native representatives, we say that the character of this Parliament is changing from being a House that reflects the opinions of the people until now it is a patchwork-coloured blanket that we are trying to make, and we do not know what it will lead to.

You voted for it.

It is now proposed to give the Indians three representatives in this House. Later on other sections will come along, and that side of the House will wish to give them representation as well.

You put the native representatives there.

We did not put them there; hon. members opposite put them there. The thing started with the co-operation of hon. members on the other side, and I maintain we in the first place took a course which was faulty, and it is time we called a halt; and for that reason we are not in favour of going on with this sort of representation. That these people should have spokesmen is quite a different question, but to give them a voice in the House, where they will be elected on another basis and appointed on another basis is an erroneous principle which will undermine the system under which we work; it will land us in big difficulties in South Africa, and the sooner we put an end to it the better. On this side of the House we have perceived for a long time that while we need spokesmen for certain sections of the population we also require members and even representation for their separate interests in separate bodies unattached to Parliament.

What about the Senate, should they have representation there?

I regard the Senate as a good place where spokesmen can function.

Without a vote.

They may vote there. My point is this, that while these representatives today are merely spokesmen they are used behind the scenes for their votes, and this is quite wrong. We cannot put up with them being appointed in this House to use their votes for certain purposes apart from those for which they have been appointed. I am convinced that no one in the House will deny that it is a false principle that members who are elected for a definite purpose in the House should vote and have a say in that direction. Our opinion towards that part of the population has always been associated with this, that while we are treating these people on a basis of separation we must be in a position to look after their interests scientifically and effectually. This is inspired by the spirit on this side of the House that we want to give and do much more for the Indian population, the coloured population and the native population. It is inspired by a spirit of right and justice, that we do not want to have the votes of these people used to promote the interests of certain European parties in the country. It may be that party today and tomorrow it might be this party, but we are averse to them being used as a football to be kicked hither and thither, and to their being used to promote the interests of one party or the other. I say with emphasis that our opinion is inspired by the one desire, namely, that we shall be free to give those sections of the people an immediate opportunity to develop, to give them what they are entitled to, and to uplift them. Under the circumstances in which we find ourselves today in reference to the Indians and the coloureds and the natives it is impossible to do for those people really in all friendship and affection what we would like to do, because as soon as you try to help them in certain directions it is used for the purpose of giving them power as against the European population of the country, and that we should avoid at all costs. We will thus see that what is being prevented is that a new group should be formed in Parliament that would immediately launch propaganda for the extension of that vote. It is fundamentally wrong that they should come here to agitate continuously for a bigger vote for the nonEuropeans. To a scientific mind it is very pleasant to contemplate that in Parliament we can have 200 members, each of whom represents 50,000 voters in South Africa, whether they are coloureds, Europeans, Indians or natives. That looks nice on paper. Mathematically it is fine, and we all like a nice mathematical problem. As has been repeatedly stated on this side of the House, the European part of the population realised that under the system to which this will ultimately lead it means there will be forty European representatives in Parliament, five Indian representatives, twenty coloured representatives and 110 or 130 native representatives. The European section of the community is not in favour of that, and they do not want it.

We shall never allow that.

My hon. friend says they will never allow that. I do not say that is what that side of the House wants. I say that it will eventually lead to that, and I want the representation we give to those sections of the people to be of a completely different character. This is not representation that will enable the non-Europeans to achieve things by their voting power. It is not the intention that through their voting power they can achieve anything in this House. Why, then, give them voting power that they can use? They cannot, of course, achieve anything with that vote. There you have now three native representatives and three Indian representatives if this Bill is adopted. With their voting power they cannot achieve their purpose. But why, then, give them that voting power? Is it not clear that if we have a joint committee sitting for six months, or if necessary for a year, we would then be able to come to a decision as to what sort of representation is best for those people themselves, what sort of representation will result in their being able to obtain something in a material sense that will uplift them and give them better opportunities?

What is your suggestion?

My reply is that we can do much more for these people if we do not give them voting power, in the Senate either, but that we shall only have people here and in the Senate who will be their spokesmen, and then we can see that their interests are promoted by the provision of separate councils for them outside Parliament.

Did you vote for the Natives’ Representation Bill in 1936?

No. We can see that their interests are looked after in this way. If we wish to look after their interests to the utmost, what happens? Are the interests of the coloured people in Cape Town looked after as they should be? Yes, we have here two or three members who stand up and plead for the coloured people, and what happens to the coloureds? Do they improve in the Western Province? Yes, a small group of them improve, but what about the others? They can only sink and degenerate. Nothing is being done for these people. Their vote is used, and an ex-member of Parliament has written that it is a vote that can be bought collectively and wholesale. There lies the danger. There is no section of the European population whose vote you can buy wholesale. Mr. Long has written that the representation of the coloureds as it is today is not in the best interests of the coloured man himself. This side of the House had also a definite proposal for the Cape coloureds. At the moment it may be only my opinion, but it has been stated by numbers of members that we must give the coloureds European representation in Parliament, and that, too, on a basis of their numbers, because they are a permanent section of the population, but not linked with the European voters as they are today, because today their interests are not looked after as they ought to be. They are bound up with other interests. We come, then, to the conclusion that in any case these are premature proposals that are now before the House, proposals that prepare the way for the Cape Province to be opened up to great masses of Indian capital which they will invest uneconomically in the Cape Province merely to gain control over certain towns and certain parts of the Cape Province. We cannot put up with that in the Cape Province. Not a single member who represents the Cape Province has risen and protested that the growing mass of capital being invested in the Cape Province should be stopped and that provision should be made for that in the Bill. We did not draft the Bill. There is not a single word in the Bill that seeks to prevent that volume of capital fleeing from Natal to the Cape Province. Last year £750,000 of that capital fled from Natal because they knew what was coming in Natal. They have been expecting it for a few years, and now capital is fleeing from it to a much greater degree, and it is disastrous for the Cape Province that it should happen in this way. When that capital flees here, it enables Indians to penetrate any part of the Peninsula and any part of the country. Let us investigate the position. Hon. members opposite say they are satisfied with that position. Are they honest when they say that the Indian in the Cape Province can buy any house in the Peninsula in any residential area with one exception? Where those members and the Ministers live there are servitudes on the land, and the servitudes lay it down that the Indians may not buy there; in other words, if you are wealthy enough, you can with your wealth place such servitudes on the land and the neighbourhood you live in, but if you are poor you will be forced to buy land and to make your living in an area that is a mixed residential area. You will have to live in the same area as coloureds and Indians, and in some instances with natives as well. These are matters which we on this side of the House wish to solve. These are serious questions we wish to solve with the assistance of hon. members on the other side. There is no question, as my hon. friend on the other side said, of our not co-operating and of our not making proposals. We wish to bring the whole problem of the coloured franchise in South Africa and in the Cape under consideration and discussion. We want to discuss the whole future of those people. We want to know: Are they going to remain slaves in the Cape Province of bad conditions and of the abuse of liquor; are they going to remain like that? Are we going to see they are given an opportunity to be uplifted on the basis of separation? If we are in favour of that we must accept the amendment proposed by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, that we should discuss jointly the question of the Indians, and consider in what way, without making them feel they are oppressed, we can make them understand that in South Africa we shall go as far as we possibly can with the policy of separation provided it results in the improvement and the uplift of those sections of the population affected by separation, as well as the European section of the population. We can then see what we can do for those sections for whom we wish separation and for whom we will ensure separate residential areas and a separate social environment. We do not agree with the new element that has come into this country in the last fifty years who do not wish to draw any colour line. We do not go with those people who consider that you must let events run their course and who consider that you must so set to work that eventually 50,000 people in South Africa will be represented by one member of Parliament, whether he is a European, a coloured person, a native or an Indian. Through the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition we wish to arrive at the position of also solving the native problem in South Africa in the same way. What is happening today? What is the effect of the legislation that we have had in the past? We find that in the native areas it has not resulted in the natives becoming alive to the fact that they themselves must work to contribute to their existence, not only in periods of starvation but also in periods of abundance. What is happening today in the native areas? We know that these people are not organised for work when things are going well. They allow their women to work, and they send their men to the mines to work when necessity drives them, but there is no proper organisation amongst the native people to bring it home to them that anyone who wants a haven in this country must work honestly and regularly. Therefore we want to see the whole problem tackled de novo and regarded from every point of view so that we may arrive at an eventual solution. I speak about a final solution, but I know, of course, that there will not be a final solution. We know what the upshot will be. I am not pessimistic about it, but I believe that the system proposed here will bring developments, and the time will come in the course of centuries when they will no longer be a danger to the European population, if you wish to describe it in that way. I am ashamed to speak about European civilisation and to compare it in the same breath with Eastern civilisation. I am not enamoured of what you call European civilisation. I have no illusions in regard to it, but I would just say that European civilisation is different to Eastern civilisation, and it is different to the noncivilisation of the greater part of the native population, but it is a civilisation in which we can have so much pride as to say that we must defend our European civilisation at all costs. What we want is a better European civilisation, and that we should develop and establish an honest European civilisation, a European civilisation that will not be dishonest towards those other elements amongst which Providence or the mistakes of the past have thrown us in this country. We cannot achieve anything in the way we are going at present with this Bill which is dealing with the matter piecemeal, and attempting to solve it in a fragmentary way, and which is góing to saddle Parliament with a system which it will not easily free itself of, a system which will occasion great difficulty to Parliament, and so we ask and we ask in all earnestness that the proposal of the hon. Leader of the Opposition shall be adopted and that we shall all really co-operate to solve the problem.

The subject normally referred to as the Indian problem is one which has caused a considerable beating of the drums in and about Durban. The agitation which has gone on for some time has largely been conducted by those whose forefathers are mainly responsible for the position as it exists today. Those who have made profits from the importation of Indian labour, those who made profits from the services rendered to the Indian community, are those who are largely responsible for the position that exists today, and who are certainly responsible for leading the agitation which developed into the position described by the Minister of Finance as a “state of mass intolerance in Durban”, and being what he referred to as one of the least creditable aspects of life in South Africa.

I approach this subject from a socialist point of view. I declare and reiterate my faith in the socialist solution to social problems. I have developed no fear of any race or group in South Africa, and I think any fear on the part of the European population is unwarranted and unjustified. The key to the reason for any social problem must be searched for in the economic conditions of the country, and in the examination of Our economic conditions one can find a reason for the present condition of mind on the part of the people of South Africa. The first point that strikes me in regard to the Bill itself is that it is an abrogation or a unilateral act on the part of the Government of South Africa in breaking treaty obligations because the communique after the 1926 Round Table Conference was clear and specific on the point that the two governments, in following out the agreement, were to exchange views from time to time.’ It would seem therefore that this Bill is a unilateral act and does in effect repudiate the 1926 Agreement without any formal notification by the Government of South Africa. Largely it is an Act not in conformity with international standards of conduct of government in the relationships of government as between one state and another, and that I believe is a powerful reason why this Bill should be sent to a Select Committee. In suggesting the Bill goes to a Select Committee I also believe that the Government of India should be invited to give evidence before such a Select Committee. I am inclined to believe that the Government of India will accept such an invitation, and would lead evidence before a Select Committee so appointed. The appointment of a Select Committee and referring this Bill to it does not endanger the present position, because there is unanimity in this House, there is complete agreement in this House, that in the event of the passage of the Bill being delayed it would be desirable to re-proclaim or extend the Pegging Act and observe the status quo until such time as we have a real and true solution to the problem with which we are faced today. I honestly believe we have reached the point in the development of the position in which there are reasonable prospects for an agreement being reached between the representatives of Indian opinion and the representatives of European opinion in this country on the subject. I believe a second powerful reason why this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee is that if there is anything the House can do to create the possibility of getting a measure by consent then that act should be performed by this House and we must make every effort to see such an event is made possible. I have spent a considerable part of my adult life in negotiating agreements where there have been points of conflict. It is true it has largely been in the field of trade union activity. Often when things have seemed blackest, when the possibilities of a solution seemed most remote, conditions have been created in the last minute in which the two opposing parties could be brought together and a solution finally reached. I believe those conditions have been created today. The conditions have been created today by the presentation to this House of the Bill now before us on the one part, and on the other part the threat—if you like—by the Indian community of South Africa to invoke the aid of the Indian Government and to have the matter referred to UNO. The leader of our party declared himself in association with the Prime Minister in resisting any threats of interference by the Government of India in the internal affairs of South Africa, so that we are quite clear on that point. But nevertheless the threat does exist, and the threat has been made that the aid of the Government of India would be invoked on this question, and while that is a possibility, and in the desire to avoid that, without submitting to any threat, I believe it is desirable to avoid such a possibility by referring the matter to a Select Committee and inviting the Government of India to lead evidence before such a Select Committee. The House is likely to sit till the end of June. It is possible before the end of June for a Select Committee to carry out investigations and to make a report in time for this House during this session to pass appropriate legislation, particularly if consent or agreement is reached upon the point. It does not take considerable time by air passage for representatives of the Indian Government to come to South Africa to lead evidence before a Select Committee, and certainly it is possible for a Select Committee to take evidence and make a report during the time Parliament is in session in 1946. But even if that is not possible, the matter is of such tremendous importance to the future welfare of South Africa that Parliament could be re-convened at a later stage of the year for the purpose of dealing with such proposed legislation.

I am opposed to the Bill for the reason it is a unilateral act to which I am not prepared to give my consent, and for the reason that I think it should be referred to a Select Committee. A statement was made on behalf of our party that in the event of the Prime Minister not agreeing to refer the matter to a Select Committee, our party would support the second reading of the Bill. I have been given dispensation, and I am permittéd to differ from our party in that respect. I believe it is a weakening of the resolution, in demanding the appointment of a Select Committee, to declare in advance that in the event of such a Select Committee not being appointed—and there has been no indication from the Government benches that they are prepared to agree to a Select Committee—that it is a weakening of the resolution by indicating in advance that we are prepared to vote for the second reading of the Bill.

There are other reasons that cause me to be opposed to the Bill. The whole question of the Indian problem has been created in the first instance by the living together side by side—in juxtaposition—in residential areas of Europeans and Indians. It has also been occasiond by the difference in living standards and social customs of Europeans as compared with Indians. But on these two fundamental points there is agreement between the Europeans and the Indian population. It is agreed by both sections that western civilisation should prevail, and that western standards of living should be observed and maintained; it is equally agreed that it is desirable that there should be an agreement as between the Indian community and the European community on residential occupation to avoid the racial animosity that has developed consequent upon people of two different races and of different social standards and customs living side by side. Agreement having been reached on those two fundamental points, I submit it is not impossible to get agreement and consent on the other outstanding features of this whole question.

On the question of intermarriage, on the question of miscegenation, it is equally condemned by the Indian community as a whole as it is done by the European community. In Durban the penetration into European residential areas has been brought about not by the Indian community in the mass, but by a few wealthy Indians who, unfortunately, are infected by inverted Chauvinism and snobbery, and desire to live in European areas purely from the point of view of snobbery.

That is not correct.

I am making that statement. The number of Indians who have penetrated into European areas in recent years is limited, and the persons responsible for it could be named on the fingers of two hands. I could give the names of the persons, but it would serve no good purpose. The action of that few has been condemned by the responsible spokesmen of the Indian community. The representatives of the Indian Congress have condemned these persons for their action, which has brought about a state almost ’ of mass hysteria, or mass intolerance, which is adversely affecting the Indian community as a whole. The principle embodied in the Bill which provides for residential separation, or what I prefer to call zoning, is one which is accepted by members of the Labour Party, and I am not excluded on this particular point.

The Labour Party has agreed to support the second reading of the Bill, because they hold to the belief that any opposition to the Bill on the second reading will be a vote against the principle of zoning and against residential separation. I do not subscribe to that view. I do not believe I am called upon to accept responsibility for measures introduced by the Government, the form of which —I am not now referring to the content—to my mind does not present a solution to the problem. I believe there is a solution to the problem. It is embodied in the booklet I have in my hand which was published by the Natal Executive Committee of the South African Labour Party in 1943. The principle submitted there is in part now embodied in the Bill, the appointment of a Commission equally representative of both communities, with a judicial head to the Commission, as provided for in the Bill now before the House, and which perhaps originates from the very pamphlet which I hold in my hand, because it was circulated in Durban to some considerable extent.

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

When business was suspended before lunch I was dealing with the booklet I have in my hand, headed “Indian Penetration,” with a sub-title “Labour’s Plan,” which was distributed quite freely in Durban, through the medium of advertisements in newspapers, through the leading bookshops and on the street. The suggestions put forward in this pamphlet were, insofar as we were able to test the reaction, well received by the public of Durban, suggestions which are based on sanity and reason on the part of the European population of South Africa, who are prepared to accept a solution of the Indian problem on a basis of justice and equity. The proposal embodied herein is a proposal based on the corner stones of justice and getting consent to the solution of the Indian problem. It visualises the setting up of a permanent committee representative both of Indians and of Europeans, with a judge as the chairman of the committee, but it is quite unlike the board proposed in the Bill. That proposed board is an advisory board. The manner we are suggesting of dealing with it is by the appointment of a committee with plenary powers, because it is necessary to vest such powers in such a board. There have been suggestions in the past of having voluntary committees established to control the state of affairs in Durban, but such committees have not been of any good by reason of the fact that there was an absence of such plenary powers. It is necessary for such a board to have plenary powers and the sanction of law in order to become effective, in exactly the same way that we require the sanction of law for wage agreements and determinations. There are always some recalcitrant persons who require the exercise of plenary powers to ensure that they will follow what is laid down for the settlement of any problem; and when I made reference before lunch to a small number of people, ten or so, being responsible for the penetration into the European residential areas, I was not merely referring to the number of houses which had become occupied by Indians, but to the number of persons who were responsible for that, people whose vested interests drove them to the point of acquiring houses from Europeans which became occupied by Indians and led to the existing animosity. Those interests were largely fostered by estate agencies; they made use of loose capital which had been accumulated through black marketeering activities. It is true, of course, that some of the Indian merchants in this country are guilty of black marketeering, selling rice to the poorer Indians in Natal far above the price laid down in the price regulations. The accumulation of this black market money led to investment in the form of property acquisitions. But the charge of black marketeering is not a charge levelled against the whole Indian community anymore than such a charge could be laid against the European business community as a whole. There are some guilty persons, and in the case of the Indians those guilty persons are in the minority, just as such Europeans are in the minority. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) precipitated my dealing with this particular booklet. At the point at which he made the interjection, I was dealing with the principle of zoning, and the decision of our own party to support the second reading of the Bill, and the reasons why they felt it advisable to support the second reading of the Bill. Those reasons I cannot agree with. I find myself unwilling to support a measure which is not based upon consent. I am most unwilling to accept responsibility for Government plans if in the main those plans are not based on the principle of consent. I believe it is possible to get consent for the solution of the Indian problem through negotiation, and I believe that it is necessary at this stage, when both sides stand on the brink of open conflict, where one party is imposing upon the Indians something they are unwilling to accept, and the Indians are appealing to international intervention, to find a basis of consent. We should do our best before that happens to find such a basis, and I think that consent could be got through the medium of a Select Committee.

Where are you going to find it?

Mr. Speaker, I recall one occasion previously when you advised me to disregard interjections coming from the House, and I think that if the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer) will allow me to conclude what I was about to say, he will find that I will deal with all the points.

The hon. member for Hospital commended the Minister of Finance for what he described as a courageous speech. Now, all the reasons and arguments advanced by the hon. Minister of Finance in relation to political rights, in relation to property rights, and in relation to residential separation, are arguments with which I fully agree. It is not necessary for me, therefore, to reiterate in different words the arguments made by the Minister of Finance, and I am doubtful whether he would feel himself to be in good company if I stressed the fact that I feel as he feels on these particular points. But the position of the Minister of Finance is quite different from mine. He is bound by party discipline in the same way as every other member of this House is bound by some form of party discipline. I do not object to his acknowledging that he has to vote for the second reading of the Bill in spite of the arguments he adduced. It is necessary for him, in the interests of his party, to vote for the measure, because the Government naturally requires as large as possible a majority for the passage of this Bill. But my position is not the same. I do not have to rationalise the position. I do not have to seek for reasons why I should support the Bill, because I am not responsible for the actions of the Government, and if it were possible to secure through amendments the things which we set out in this pamphlet, after the passing of the second reading of the Bill, I might be induced to support the second reading. But in the belief that within the structure of the Bill it is not possible to tinker with it by amendments to reach a true solution of the problem, I am unwilling to vote for the Bill, and in that respect my party can exercise a little laxity in regard to the discipline of members on these benches, and I have their permission to refrain from voting. The Minister of Finance is not in that happy position. But it does not call for the particular tribute that was given by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) to the Minister of Finance who was commended by him for having made a courageous speech. To me it is not a courageous speech, but expressing one’s opinions and one’s convictions. The expression of honest convictions is not necessarily allied to courage. It is the most natural thing to express one’s beliefs, and even if they are not accepted by the whole population, at least one is respected for the expression of such honest opinion. The hon. member for Durban (North) (the Rev. Miles-Cadman), in initiating the discussion from our benches, said quite correctly that, come what may, he was prepared to stand by what he had to say, irrespective of what the results might be at a subsequent election. I want now to refer to the 1926 Agreement. It provides: (1) Both governments — that is, the Government of South Africa and the Government of India —reaffirm their recognition of the right of South Africa to use all just means for the maintenance of western standards of life: (2) the Union Government recognise that Indians domiciled in the Union who are prepared to conform to western standards of life should be enabled to do so. That last point, of course, establishes beyond question that it was expected there would be a permanent Indian population within the borders of the Union, and their needs were to be met in the upliftment clause.

The allegations that were made against the Indians at that time were generally summarised in the phrase that they were a menace to European standards because they lived on the smell on an oil rag. The allegations, divided in parts, fell into such challenges as these: (a) The Indian did not make South Africa his permanent home: (b) he did not invest his savings in South Africa, but transferred them to India; (c) he lived in a state of congestion by way of joint family life; (d) he accepted a lower wage than Europeans; (e) he did not help himself to improve his social and educational standards. That was the indictment which was made by the European population up until 1926, and it was generally summarised in the phrase that they lived on the smell of an oil rag. How has that position been met by the Indians and, arising out of the uplift clause in the 1926 agreement, how have they mended their ways? They certainly mended their ways by the small number who were moving between India and South Africa, making this country their permanent home by bringing over their wives and children. Previously they had refrained from bringing their wives and daughters to South Africa, and only sons were brought to South Africa. But they have made South Africa then permanent home, they have invested their savings by acquiring property, they have broken up the joint family system and are living in separate homes in better houses, they have accepted the principle of equal pay for equal work and have become members of trade unions. I have enumerated the charges that were made against the Indian community before the 1926 Agreement, and have shown how they have responded and done what was expected from them. They have in an ever-increasing degree raised their standards of life, they no longer accept lower wages than European workers, they are organised into trade unions and where it is possible for them they prefer to be organised into trade unions where there is no colour bar restriction. In every respect the challenge made against them in 1926 has been met on their part. They have improved their standards of living. They have fulfilled the requirements in regard to primary and secondary education by the building of their own schools at their own expense. All these things have been done by them. So why, having done everything possible to mend their ways and meet the allegations made against them in 1926, why should it be necessary now to punish them for doing the very things we wanted them to do? That is the implication of the Bill. The passage of such a Bill as this without the consent of the Indian population is imposing something against them, is condemning them and punishing them for doing the very things we asked them to do. Those are some of the reasons why I am opposed to the passage of the Bill. The Bill itself provides for the establishment of an advisory board. The reasonable assumption from that is that after the passage of this Bill we are to have the consent of the Indian community and we are to have their representatives as part and parcel of the board, and that in the future they are to co-operate in regulating and controlling the acquisition and the residential occupation of property by the Indian community. If that is a reasonable and just assumption, why put the cart before the horse, why close the stable door after the horse has bolted? If it is right to have that after the passage of the Bill, surely it is better to have it beforehand.

On the question of land tenure, as a socialist I say that inevitably when you have a multi-racial population as we have in South Africa, or whether we were a completely homogeneous population, trouble arises from an immoral state of affairs in which land is the cultural heritage of the whole population, and which belongs equally to children yet unborn, when that land is allowed to be vested in the hands of private individuals you must reach a state when there is social discontent, if we disregard entirely what some describe as divine laws. Curiously enough those who proclaim themselves to be Christian or National Socialists are the last to agree that land is the social property of the whole of the community, and they continue to advocate an immoral system under which land belonging to the whole community is vested in a few individuals. While that continues you will get unrest whether we have a multi-racial or a homogeneous population. The Labour Party stands, and always has stood for the control of investment, and they certainly stand for a control of land in the direction in which those who nominally hold occupation for social usuage shall hold no absolute right to continue with it, but shall pay to the State its rental value, and only in the case of land used for living purposes shall a person be entitled to hold title and ownership to that land. We advocate the control of investments, and this is not directed against the Indian community only, but also to our own European capitalist. On that basis I believe there is also a solution to the question of land tenure, but it is a solution which I know the Government would be very unwilling to accept. One must respect human rights, and there is no respect for human rights in a Bill which lays down that the right to impose restrictions with regard to the acquisition and occupation of fixed property in the province of Natal shall be confined to one racial group. A solution along the lines I have suggested is a solution which would avoid the necessity of having a Bill which commences with the title placing a racial stigma on a race group in this country. If it were possible to amend all these things by the setting down of amendments on the Order Paper I might be prepared to vote for the second reading of this Bill. But knowing that is not possible within the structure of the Bill as presented to the House I am compelled to oppose it and sincerely and strongly to urge on the House that they take steps, all the steps possible, before the conflict reaches the exploding point, a conflict which has now reached a point where we are willing to impose on these people a Bill unwelcome to them, and which has therefore resulted in their invoking aid from overseas on a matter which should be essentially an internal matter for the people of South Africa. It has been argued, quite reasonably, it would have been a much wiser and much saner act to have first of all given the Indian community a franchise before dealing with the other aspects covered in this Bill, and there is some basis for that suggestion. The provisions for a communal franchise are provisions which, if followed on the pattern suggested by the Prime Minister in his speech when he introduced this Bill, can only lead in South Africa to a conflict between different race groups. The very pattern outlined by the Prime Minister is a pattern that will compel and bring about a non-European united front in this country. [Time limit.]

I move—

I object.

The Indian problem has up to the present made considerable progress in this House. When we listen to the various arguments that have been adduced here, arguments based on the past and that are now being applied to the future and the present, we are surprised at the attitude of some hon. members and groups of members in this House. I regret that an extension of time was not conceded to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, because I would like to have heard what more he has to say about agreements to be made with the Indians for a solution of this problem. He mentioned here all the things that the Indians are supposed to have done and everything that can be done to meet them in order to solve the problem. But let me tell the hon. member there is only one thing —and we know from our past experience— that will satisfy the Indians, there is only one demand they are putting forward, and that is equal rights and equal status with Europeans in South Africa.

What about the Pretoria Agreement?

We have here a new or superior section of the Indian community, and my experience is—and this has been the experience of the country—that no measures in connection with the upliftment of the Indians or anything of that sort will satisfy them. They are advancing only one demand, and that is equal status for the Indians with the Europeans in South Africa. They make only one demand, and if we do not accede to that demand it avails nothing to talk about an agreement.

But what about the Pretoria Agreement?

We understand very well the attitude of our hon. friend here who makes interjections. We know that he looks through dark glasses and as a result he sees only a black race in South Africa, and consequently also a black South Africa. I would like to tell him at once that with that attitude he is undermining the position of the natives whom he should be representing. He is making the position of the natives very difficult for the future; if in future difficulties should arise between the Europeans and the natives he will be the cause of that and no one else.

But you have not yet told me whether you know about the Pretoria Agreement.

He tells all sorts of things to the natives, and instead of him acting in an advisory capacity he does not do that but will only put demands to us here that this or that is the right thing for the natives. Small wonder many people feel we will do much better with a native as representative in this House in order to advance their interests than with the members who are now representing the natives.

I thoroughly agree.

But we must leave that there. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Wanless) says we must secure a solution by means of an agreement with the Indians. He has not mentioned any case to us where a solution has been found as the result of an agreement that has arisen from representations addressed to the Indians. Unfortunately I must here agree with the members who stated that the Indians in South Africa are making their position much worse than it was ever before, because in South Africa they have viewed this problem from an international standpoint instead of a national standpoint. It is the same mistake that India made by wishing to interfere in a local matter which it knows nothing about and regarding which it has much to learn, namely to regard this problem in South Africa from an international viewpoint and not from a national viewpoint.

I would at once congratulate the Prime Minister cordially on having had the courage to introduce this legislation and on having always remained consistent in respect of the policy he has followed and which has now brought him to the stage of introducing legislation of this character. I shall vote for (the Bill. I shall vote for it because I feel that I can defend this legislation and the standpoint of this legislation on the platteland, and I shall do that. But I would say this to the Indians, they are the cause of the difficulty that has obliged the Prime Minister to come with legislation of this character because in the past they have ignored and broken all agreements, because they went in for further penetration, because they trespassed where they had no right. They said they would not do it in the future but they did it. We have sections among the Indians in South Africa. We have the Hindus, who are absolutely satisfied with this Bill and with the laws that the Government wishes to make, as well as with the agreement that the Government made with the Indian community in South Africa. The section who are not satisfied and who will never be satisfied, and who have now made an appeal to India and to other foreign powers, is comprised of Mohammedans who came to the Union illegally years ago and who were not brought into the country. I do not say this about all of them, but at least 60 per cent. of them have entered the country illegally, and after all sorts of difficulties had arisen reconciliation was affected with them and they were allowed to stay here. If they will now cast their minds back to that time, they ought to appreciate the action of the Government of the Union and they ought to drop this agitation and this international appeal. They must admit that their treatment was exceptionally good.

I turn now to the arguments that were advanced by members on the other side. I listened with interest to the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer), and I am sorry he is not here at present. He said they also stood for representation of minorities, but not for representation in the sense in which it is now granted to the Indians in this Bill. He does not want representation of the Indians as a group in this House, nor does he want the representatives of the natives here. In the Senate they are quite free to be represented. We thus have the position that that hon. member does not wish to give representation to those people in the Lower House, but in the Higher House they may indeed be represented. An interjection was made from this side, and thereupon the hon. member for Stellenbosch said that they did not vote for the legislation that gave this representation to the natives. He flatly denied that. He said that, and quite a number of our friends behind him also denied it. Do they know that the Bill adopted in 1936 was a Nationalist Party Bill? It was their hobby ever since they came into power, and there were combined sittings in 1925, 1926, 1927, 1929 and 1930, and all on the same question. I should like to return to the repudiation made by my hon. friend. He said they did not vote for the Native Bills of 1936.

We wanted Bill No. 1.

If my hon. friend will exercise a little patience, he will learn a great deal before we have finished with this Bill. I have the Hansard report before me of the Joint Sitting at which the Bill was adopted at that time. Here we have the persons who voted for the Bill and those who voted against it. The figures for the division were 168 for the Bill and 11 against. Amongst those who voted for the Bill I find the following: Karl Bremer, F C. Erasmus, J. J. Haywood—I am only mentioning those who are still here—J. C. Kemp, S. P. le Roux, P. J. H. Luttig, D. F Malan, P. O. Sauer, G. P. Steyn, J. G. Strydom, J. F. T. Naudé and L. J. Vosloo.

What is the argument?

How, then, can our friends on the other side deny that they voted for the Bill? I repeat that this was their pet topic in. 1925, 1926, 1927, 1929 and 1930, when it was under discussion in the Joint Sitting. They went further. They did not want only three representatives in this House. They were more liberal, and they themselves proposed that there should be seven native representatives in this House. Let my hon. friends deny that. Then we want to point out what the position was at that time. I recall that in 1935 another Select Committee was appointed to enquire, and there are members sitting on the opposite benches today who were members of that Select Committee, and for what did they vote on that Select Committee?

What has that got to do with this matter?

In a minute I shall read out the Hansard report of 20th February, 1929 (column 162), from the speech of Mr. P. W. le Roux van Niekerk, to show what they voted for. He was a champion of the natives and a member of the Nationalist Party at that time. He is now in the Senate. Then my hon. friends will understand what the policy of the old Sap Party was and also what our friends on the other side voted for. Seeing that my hon. friends approved that sort of thing in connection with the natives, they must preserve that attitude today, because it is legislation that they forced on the people when they were in power. I read from the Hansard report—

This was an agreement that Gen. Hertzog as Leader of the Nationalist Party made with the present Prime Minister, who at that time was Leader of the South African Party Opposition. I read further—

This was the old South African Party—

What does the hon. member say now? If my unfortunate friend still doubts, I shall buy him a copy of Hansard and give it to him, and he can frame it so that his children’s children may read it. This was the Nationalist Party, the great champions of European civilisation, and now they wish to criticise our Prime Minister.

To what party did you belong?

I shall say this for the umpteenth time. It was my misfortune at that time to be a member of the Nationalist Party and because this was the sort of policy they followed, and because they somersaulted time and again I said I would not be a turncoat and I would go to a party that was consistent, and that is why I stand behind the Prime Minister, and I shall vote for this Bill because I feel that since the commencement of Union he has always been consistent on this matter. Now I hope the hon. member knows it.

Now you are talking nonsense.

I cannot help it if people who are vulnerable are hurt. If they are vulnerable they should wait until they are hurt, and if hon. members lay themselves open as a result of their policy in the past they must expect to be hit. I am sorry for them, but I cannot help it. I read further—

This is one of their big noises who is still in the Senate. I hope that hon. members are now convinced that the policy they followed was much worse that what is now being followed or that will be followed in the future. But I wish to go a little further. In connection with the Indian problem, which is today a burning question, I want to say frankly and without reserve that the party on the other side and the Leader of the Opposition by their policy of the past are the cause of our being landed with our present difficulties. They cannot get away from that.

You know that that is not so.

The hon. member is still at school, he is still young. He will improve. I shall have many things to tell him before this Parliament is dissolved, and I shall still quote a good deal to him, and then I hope he will return to his voters and tell them that he never had such a school as this Parliament, and that he never acquired as much experience of what his party had done in the past. He must hear the truth. I now return to the uplift policy of the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the Indians. I have in mind the Cape Town “Gentleman’s Agreement”. I should like again to read out something the hon. member should endeavour to remember. You will recall that in 1924 when the old South African Party went out of office and a general election occurred the present Prime Minister was engaged in pushing the Class Areas Bill through Parliament. With the dissolution of Parliament the Bill was left in abeyance and it was hoped that the incoming government that was formed by the Nationalist Party in 1924 would go on with it. Here I should just like to read out what occurred in connection with the Class Areas Bill—

The new Minister of the Interior was the present Leader of the Opposition. I am reading this passage in reply to the accusation against the Prime Minister that throughout his life he has followed a policy of postponement and procrastination. At that time who was the person who delayed? Now our Prime Minister comes with the Bill and the Leader of the Opposition moves an amendment to postpone this matter for two years in order that it may be given further consideration. It is a matter that has engaged the attention of statesmen in the Union ever since 1907. As if hon. members on the other side have not had enough time to study the matter and to decide what course they will take! I read further—

The South African representatives acted for the government of the day and did not accept that resolution, but now it is stated that the Prime Minister of today and the old Sap Party were not logical and ran away from their responsibility. Let me read further—

Now hon. members should say where the inconsistency of the Prime Minister comes in. They are pretending they are not listening, but they will have to hear.

We do not listen to nonsense (kaf).

I come to the Cape Town “Gentleman’s Agreement”, paragraph 6. I should like the hon. member to absorb this “kaf” (chaff). It is good for people who are not used to better food. It says—

1. (6) In the expectation that the difficulties with which the Union has been confronted will be materially lessened by the agreement which has now happily been reached between the two Governments, and in order that the agreement may come into operation under the most favourable auspices and have a fair trial, the Government of the Union of South Africa have decided not to proceed further with the Areas Reservation and Immigration and Registration (Further Provision) Bill.
2. (7) The two Governments have agreed to watch the working of the agreement now reached and to exchange views from time to time as to any changes that experience may suggest.

I am now showing what the Leader of the Opposition did at that time as Minister of the Interior. In spite of the Pegging Act, in spite of the breaking of the Pegging Act by hundreds of members of that community, what did the Leader of the Opposition do? He procrastinated and procrastinated in order to see how the agreement would work. But today when our Prime Minister comes with a Bill to dispose of this unpleasant matter once and for all they come and say that the Prime Minister wishes to press the measure through the House and they propose that it should be postponed for two years. The further penetration can take place, it does not matter now. I maintain that it is a policy of that sort that is the cause of the difficulties we are faced with today, and when I say this I do not wish to blame the Indian community alone for the penetration and the infringements that have occurred, because Europeans have been just as guilty as the Indian community. I should like to see this Bill go through as it is, but if there is one amendment I should like to see it is that for infringements of this sort, penetration, not only should the Indian be punished but also the Europeans who have assisted him to break the law. Then we shall do right towards the Indians. Many Indians have penetrated into areas with the assistance of Europeans, and the Europeans have been in most instances persons who are opposing the Prime Minister today because they feel that they will no longer be able to make the profits from such infractions of the law that they are making today. I think it will be a good thing if the Europeans were pulled up just as much as the Indians. But we go further. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemo) made threats and he issued a challenge that he would tell our constituents how we voted in connection with the Bill. I accept the challenge and invite the hon. member to my constituency to tell my voters how I voted. He is welcome. But I feel I must lay down certain conditions. When the hon. member accepts the invitation there are certain conditions. I am sorry that the hon. member pretends he is not listening.

Come to Lichtenburg.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick) is welcome to assist the hon. member for Wolmaransstad but there are certain conditions. He must also tell the voters — this great superAfrikaner, who thinks no one else but himself can be an Afrikaner — he must tell the voters what he did in connection with the importation of Chinese in 1907. He pretends that he does not hear. I wish to tell the House and the country today that this great super-Afrikaner, the Boer general from 1899 to 1902, and later the great rebel of 1914, hired a National Scout in 1907, a traitor to the Boer nation …

I do not think this has anything to do with the debate.

Then I shall not mention that person any further. But I refer to the problem of the Chinese because to a large extent I put it on the same footing as the problem of the Indians, and seeing hon. members on the other side are making such a fuss about this problem I will just say that that person had petitions signed for Chinese to come into the country, and for that purpose he not only appointed that person to obtain petitions but he received money from certain mining magnates to do this.

You know that is untrue.

I say that he should also tell the voters that story.

The hon. member knows that is not true.

I cannot hear what the hon. member says.

He says that you lie.

The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) says that I lie. Well, that does not matter. Today everything that is true and right is stigmatised as a lie, but that does not make it any the less the truth. I say that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad gave 1s. a name for petitions to retain the Chinese in the Union. He received 5s. a name. I should like to know what became of the other 4s.

I have already said that what the hon. member has stated is untrue. Let him repeat it outside without the privilege of the House.

I must ask the hon. member to return to the Bill.

I shall leave that point. I only mentioned it on account of their objections to the colour problem today. I should like us to be consistent when we discuss this matter. I return to the gentlemen’s agreement of 1926. Today they say that the Prime Minister is acting hastily and is proposing something which is not acceptable. The Prime Minister is acting consistently, in conformity with his past policy, and this Bill will be one of the most popular measures ever accepted by the House.

The battle for South Africa goes on. It is the battle of the non-Europeans and the Europeans are fighting a losing battle. The hon. member who has just sat down, made a contribution to this debate which certainly does not redound to the credit of this House. Not a single other member on the other side or this side of the House has made use of that kind of argument.

He spoke the truth.

We expect that people will be serious about this matter. It is a vital question we are dealing with and it demands the attention of every white South African to whatever party he may belong. We will not solve this problem unless we realise our responsibility as Europeans For that reason I shall not go further into that kind of argument. I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister: India has a status, but we know that it is not a Dominion status. I should like to know what the status of India is. Is it a Crown colony, or does India enjoy a status which in some respects is higher than that of a Crown colony? I should like to know that. And why do I want to know that? Because the Indians are threatening us with economic sanctions and we are a Dominion, we are a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and according to the interpretation of the Status Acts given by the Prime Minister, the Crown is indivisible. By that we understand that if any nation takes steps against one of the members of the Commonwealth, it affects the other members too. India has a Viceroy who represents the King there. I now want to ask the Prime Minister whether he knows or is prepared to tell us whether that Viceroy has informed the King of England of the British Government that India intends to apply sanctions against the Union? We ask that because we are becoming suspicious. The matter is not quite clear to us, seeing that we do not hear anything about the attitude of the British Government in this matter. We should like to have clarity on this point. I want to dwell on a few other points before I come to the Bill itself. I am glad that the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson) is in his seat. The other day the hon. member told the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. E. R. Strauss): Look here, you as a Freestater should not interfere with matters pertaining to Natal. Well, we in the Free State are interested in Natal. Some of us are more entitled to be interested in it than the hon. member is. I want to know whether any of his forefathers are buried in Natal, whether they shed their blood for Natal. We did. My forefathers shed their blood for Natal. My great-grandfather fell at the capital of Dingaan. Some of my forefathers fought at Bloedrivier. Today some of my family are living in Natal. I want to leave it at that. Every citizen of this country is interested in Natal because we form one great union. We, the Europeans, are one great family, and we dare not say to one another: You have no interests here and you have no business there.

Who has ever said that?

You said that to the hon. member for Harrismith.

I did not.

There are certain things which alarm us Freestaters. We are upset because the franchise may be extended to the north. The Free State is being encircled. What is the position of the Free State? Fortunately our wise ancestors passed a law preventing the Asiatics from coming to the Free State.

Not your ancestors. They were in the Cape in those days.

My ancestors were not in the Cape in those days; they were in the Free State. But seeing that the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) is so obstreperous, I want to tell him something. The other day he said that our ancestors came from working class stock.

Shame.

I did not intend discussing this matter, but I just want to tell him that my forefathers were the Beggars and the Huguenots.

Your ancestors were Germans.

My ancestors belonged to the nobility of Europe. That is the reason why they were immune to degeneration in South Africa. I shall be glad if the hon. member will afterwards get an opportunity to say what he wants to say.

You cannot teach me the history of South Africa.

I must ask the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) to stop his interjections.

It looks as if the hon. member for Hospital thinks he possesses a monopoly of speaking, but when he had to fight for the Free State he went into hiding. Then he never took up arms.

That is not true.

The hon. member should rather leave personal remarks alone.

It takes all the patience one has when one is interrupted by a member such as the hon. member for Hospital, but I shall leave it at that.

The hon. member should not allow himself to be distracted by interjections.

I repeat that there is anxiety in the Free State, because we are being encircled by this franchise which is being extended to the north. We have legislation protecting us against Asiatic infiltration, but we should remember that in the Free State we have 18,000 coloureds and in the Transvaal there are 56,000 coloureds and in Natal 20,000. The Transvaal has only 28,000 Indians, i.e. a minority group, and today under this legislative measure before us representation is to be granted to this minority. What alarms us is the following. If those coloureds of the Transvaal and Natal and the Free State start an uprising and demand representation in this Parliament, what should we tell them? What is the attitude which the Prime Minister will take up when one day that demand is made? I repeat that we are perturbed about these matters.

Then there is a further matter which alarms us. We had the statement here by the Minister of Finance, and that also means the removal of the colour bar. He is a responsible person; he is the Chancellor of the University of the Witwatersrand. There are people looking to him for guidance and leadership. The University of Cape Town, as we all know, is a sister university of the one on the Witwatersrand, and I have here before me a pamphlet entitled “Socialists and the Colour Bar.” It has been published by the Students’ Socialist Party. I just want to show you what their attitude is and how dangerous is the proposition which the Minister of Finance has laid down for the future generations in South Africa. The future population’s leaders come from those universities, and if this guidance continues we have every reason to be alarmed about the future. I just want to read here what they say in this pamphlet—

I wonder who wrote that?

The author does not believe that himself.

I suppose it comes out of the Kruithoring.

When you smell powder (kruit) you get frightened.

No, this did not appear in the “Kruithoring”. We want to put the following question to the Prime Minister. The Minister of Finance has now laid down that proposition. In 1912 General Hertzog also laid down a policy at De Wild, where he said: South Africa first and thereafter the British Empire. That proposition of the late General Hertzog he afterwards interpreted as meaning that the mastery of the white races in South Africa should be maintained. In that Cabinet the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister also held a seat. Today the Minister of Finance comes along and says: Down with the colour bar, remove it from our Constitution. I maintain that this is the policy which is being laid down. That proposition has not yet been repudiated by a single member on the other side.

I suppose you were not in the House.

I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he is in agreement with the proposition put forward by the Minister of Finance as his personal opinion. We should like to know that. We should like to know what the considered opinion of the Cabinet is in regard to the proposition put forward by the Minister of Finance. We should very much like to hear that, because the Minister of Finance finds himself in the position that when the Prime Minister should resign or withdraw from public life, he would take over the leadership, and we should like to know what the Prime Minister thinks about this matter, because we want to fight that proposition. We cannot allow it here. I am positive that there are certain friends on the other side who are one with us in our views on this question.

I now want to come to another matter and I want to say that we feel that something else is taking place here which disturbs us to some extent. In 1911 the position in India was rather confused but a war was in the offing and that confused position in India had to be straightened out and in what way was that done? Part of the population in India were called extremists. The slogan of those extremists was “India for the Indians” and their numbers grew continually. What had to be done to get the Indian people once more united behind the Imperial government? The then King and Queen were sent to India. I read the following in the book “India, the Right of Self Government”—

What book is that?

I already said it was called “India, the Right of Self Government”.

Who wrote it?

Definitely not you.

John Coltman.

Don’t answer him.

We know that the position in South Africa is also becoming more and more critical for the Prime Minister. The ground is beginning to give way from under his feet. This Indian question is a question which will have far-reaching repercussions. The English-speaking section in Natal feels oppressed and this legislation cannot be called anything else but a contaminated outcast. Everybody is afraid. Some come and advocate this, but there is4 always a “but” attached to it. The King and Queen are to come to South Africa next year and the ultra-loyalists will see that a mass loyalist demonstration will be staged before the Royal Family on that occasion. There are English-speaking friends who are gradually turning away from the United Party. There are English-speaking friends who now already state that South Africa is their home and that their loyalty lies here. Those friends must now be brought back into the fold and what is the best way of catching them? The best way is to bring the King here.

They are going to catch you.

The hon. member must now come back to the Bill.

I am pointing out now that just as in the case of India things are being done in South Africa with the same purpose because this difficult position has arisen in regard to this Bill. But I shall come back to the Bill now. The first part of the Bill deals with the acquisition of land. I now want to ask the Prime Minister: We do not have in our possession all the information about the free areas of which we were told. We received maps; we looked at them but we were not told what the extent, in terms of morgen, of these free areas would be. We were not told how many Europeans are living in those free areas and how many natives are living there. Those are the things we want to know. The hon. member for Hospital said here that the Indians made Natal. I say that this is an insult to the Europeans in Natal. The Europeans made Natal, but what the Indian did do is that he exploited and robbed the poor natives. That we know who have been living there. We say that the native must enjoy the same protection in those free areas as the European. I am convinced that even today, whilst this legislation is before this House, the land values in those areas which are supposed to become free areas, are dropping. The Europeans living there today will not want to stay in those free areas. There will be very few who will stay there. They will leave and this has been proved; they also asked this in connection with the Pegging Act. They do not want to stay together with the Indians in Durban.

That is the sole object of this Bill.

But are the Europeans being protected against losses? Those land values are going to fall. What protection do these people receive? Has the Government taken any precautionary measures to see that those European persons will receive a justifiable market value for their land when they want to move? Has provision been made for the natives now living in those areas, if they want to leave? Where can they go to? We say that we are concerned about these natives, for they assisted in building up Natal. I have never seen an Indian take a whip in his hand to lead a team of oxen; he is incapable of doing it. We say that we are concerned about this matter because large numbers of them are affected. We do not know what the numbers are. We cannot but appeal to the Prime Minister and tell him that we should like provision to be made for those Europeans, so that they will not suffer great losses by having to leave those areas. We should like to see him make provision for the natives living in those areas if they want to leave those free areas.

I now come to the second part of the Bill dealing with the granting of the franchise. On principle, we have always objected to the franchise being extended to the north, and, as I have pointed out, the franchise is now to be given to a minority group in the Transvaal, namely, 28,000 Indians, and there is a large coloured population in the Transvaal, and we feel that they will also afterwards come and demand the franchise. Finally, I just want to say that I am convinced that if the amendment proposed by my leader, the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan), would be accepted, the right kind of Bill would result. Surely there is nobody here who is not anxious that this question should be solved once and for all. We should find a way out of the difficulty. This proposal offers the assistance of this side of the House by asking for a Select Committee of both Houses. On such a committee it will be possible to get together the best brains of Parliament. Everybody feels that this question must be solved. Everybody feels that all must receive a square deal, and the Europeans in the first place. For that reason I wish to support this amendment wholeheartedly. I consider it to be a sound proposal which is now indicated to solve this difficult position and to obtain the best Bill possible.

It is peculiar to hear the excuses of my hon. friends on the other side. The hon. member for Frankfort (Col. Döhne) feels very nervous that everything will go wrong, yet he still asks that we should postpone the Bill. Until what day must we postpone it? How long did it take to solve the native question? Do hon. members on the other side want us to allow the Indian difficulty to continue for another two years? After my hon. friends on the other side made the promise in 1924 that the Indians would be driven into the sea, they still want the Bill to be postponed now, and that we should again experience what we experienced in 1924. Is it the expectation of the Opposition perhaps that they will be in power within two years, and that they will then be able to introduce a Bill? It is a vain hope. We are all very pleased that the Free State is protected, and the Free State ought to be grateful that the other provinces are also inclined to continue to protect them. If we want to seek salvation in the rest of the Union, if we want to seek salvation in Natal, then it is my opinion that we should tackle the matter today, because the circumstances which exist demand legislation. The son of a soldier returned to the Union the other day from Mauritius. He told me that he could not obtain any work there. The Indians give all the work to their own people. Mauritius did not always have Indians, and still less did Natal always have Indians. Why should we allow Natal to go the same way as Mauritius has gone? The time has arrived when we should put a stop to the Indian penetration. A great deal has been said in this House about what the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance was supposed to have said in Johannesburg, but I think the House can satisfy itself as to what the intention of this legislation is. It is a clear expression of the opinion of the Cabinet and of this party. Any person is free to express his personal opinion outside, and especially on an occasion such as Graduation Day. This Bill, however, gives expression to the belief of this side of the House, and no purpose is served by trying to draw all kinds of conclusions from the speech of the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance at Johannesburg. The hon. member for Frankfort stated further that they see that this legislation is going to have far-reaching effects, and he spoke of the rising might of India and the power of the U.N.O. and all that type of thing. I have, however, just returned from the Transvaal, and everywhere I asked: What is the impression that this Bill has made on you? Everyone with whom I spoke said: “Thank the Lord that the only person who has the will and the strength to put through this legislation is still living.” They refer to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. I should like to see what would have happened if the Leader of the Opposition had to justify this matter before the U.N.O. I should have liked to see what position he would have held, and what value would have been placed on his point of view if he had to appear before the United Nations.

What have the United Nations to do with this?

I am not speaking of that; the accusation came from that side.

We did not speak about the United Nations.

The hon. member for Frankfort has just spoken about it, and I am just replying to it. In any case, even if the matter does not go before the U.N.O., what must we expect from the person who will have to deal with this matter in the future? It is impossible to think that anyone other than our Prime Minister could tackle this matter and solve it in a satisfactory manner. The people of the Transvaal are naturally concerned about the fact that the Indians are going to obtain more rights. They are concerned about it, but it is a matter of negotiation, and there must therefore be a measure of indulgence, and having regard to the fact that we are going to receive the greatest benefit for ourselves, by far the greatest, it is by far the best to support this matter. So far as my constituency is concerned, I have not the slightest doubt that we support the Prime Minister and I will vote for this Bill. We are referring now to what the Leader of the Opposition did in regard to this matter. Naturally, to a great extent we can look to their past to see what they did. The hon. member for North Rand (Mr. van Onselen) stated a short while ago what the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition was in the past.

It was absolutely distorted.

We frequently hear of distortions. According to our experience in the past, distortions have not usually been made by this side of the House, but I want to quote what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said when he was Minister of the Interior. We must remember that in 1924 the Indians were to be driven into the sea. I had a good old man with me then, a former member of the Transvaal Parliament. He travelled right through the country in connection with the Indian question. He held meetings opposing the Indians. He also had considerable influence, but I will never forget the expression on his face when I ran across him accidentally one day in the main street of my town. The street was bedecked with flags from one side to the other. It was the occasion when Mr. Sastri arrived here as the representative of the Government of India. I asked the old man at the time, he was a very virtuous man: What is the position today?

Who put up all the flags there? It was your S.A.P. town council.

If the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) wants to insult someone let him do it. It was not my town council.

I am not insulting anyone. I am only stating the fact that it was your S.A.P. town council that put the flags there and that you cannot deny. The people who put the flags there were the town council of Potchefstroom.

That is not true. The fact remains that those flags were hung there. Those flags would not have been there if Mr. Sastri, the High Commissioner for India, had not arrived there and the question is who brought him there? It was the Leader of the Opposition.

Was your leader opposed to it?

I then asked the old man — he is now deceased — what he thought of it and he said this is now what has happened as a result of all the endeavours they made in order to drive the Indians into the sea. This is what the Leader of the Opposition as Minister of the Interior stated—

That is what he said on 16th March, 1927, according to Hansard column 1709. It seems to me that the Opposition now want to tell the public the same story; if they only had the power they would have done it in spite of the fear which the hon. member for Frankfort has of international developments; but what did the Leader of the Opposition say in his speech in the House of Assembly on 16th March, 1927? He was prepared to meet the Indian to the extent of granting trade licences and this is the thorniest problem on the platteland, this question of trade licences. He came into power and the first thing that he said was that he refused to do anything to limit the granting of trade licences to Indians and he sheltered behind the fact that it was a matter which rests with the provincial administrations. But I go further. In his legislation of 1932 he made provision to legalise unlawful occupation of ground by Indians in certain circumstances, to legalise unlawfully obtained rights by Indians, to perpetuate the evasion of the law in regard to land tenure by allowing the Indians to substitute a European guardian on his demise by another European guardian.

Was your Leader opposed to that legislation? This is a reasonable question.

I am talking of what the Leader of the Opposition did.

The question I put to you was a reasonable one.

My hon. Leader was not the Minister, nor was he in the Cabinet.

Was he opposed to it?

You can ask him that yourself.

There he sits; he can tell you immediately.

I say that he legalised the unlawful occupation by Indians in certain circumstances. Are there any other questions?

It does not help asking you because you have not got the coinage to reply.

That is what the Leader of the Opposition did. Is it not now the purpose of this Bill to rectify those matters? Is not the reason for the introduction of this Bill to rectify those things? My hon. friends on the other side want to tell us that something else is intended by the introduction of this Bill. My opinion of the Segregation Act has always been that it is a question of separation. I did not think that anyone of us would ever ask that the non-Europeans should be removed hundreds of miles away from the European because we require them and if we do not start with a policy of separation we will be lost. The position in Natal is gradually becoming impossible and that is why I am so pleased that this Bill has been introduced. Naturally there are many European owners in Natal who will be affected by this legislation but if something is not done in Natal then we know what will happen. We see today that the same thing is already happening in the Transvaal and that is why definite steps must be taken at some time or other and the sooner the better. The matter is urgent. If the matter is referred to a Select Committee it will take a few years before legislation will be placed on the Statute Book. One hon. member stated that the Indians must be given an opportunity of giving evidence before a Select Committee. Those things leave us cold. This is the opinion of the people of the Transvaal: It is our concern, as stated by the Prime Minister, and we must act ourselves according to our own convictions. There is no need for us to call in other opinions and the sooner we ourselves tackle the matter the better it will be for South Africa. We know that there are various members who have taken action against the Indians both here in Parliament and outside and said many things against them but we also know that those same members often had the support of the Indians in doing certain things, lawful and unlawful, and the sooner we dispose of these things and the sooner we follow the policy laid down in this Bill, the better. The members on the other side do not only want the Indian problem dealt with in this one Bill but also the whole coloured problem as well as the native problem. That is of course impossible. The Prime Minister in this Bill has given us a lead for the future and the Prime Minister is going in that direction. South Africa will be disposed in the future to follow that lead and then we will solve those other difficulties. We have our native legislation and this Bill in connection with the Indians goes more or less in the same direction. It cannot be said that a new system is now being introduced into South Africa by this Bill on the strength of which we will act in the future. I am very pleased that this House will be accepting this legislation in a few days’ time. I am hoping for just one thing and that is that the members of the Opposition will form a better opinion so that we can vote together or that we will attain a large measure of agreement when we come to the details of the Bill so that we can remove the danger as quickly as possible which is threatening us. The world today is not in the fortunate position in which it was previously. The whole population and the country expects that we will solve this matter because the sooner we can dispose of these things the better and before we are confronted again with other important matters which will be of great importance for the future of South Africa.

I do not wish to reply to what the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. van der Merwe) has just said, but I may perhaps call attention to one or two little points. Apparently he was not sure of the attitude of his own leader, the hon. the Prime Minister, about the coming of Mr. Sastri. Let me tell the hon. member at once that he need have no doubt about the matter. The Prime Minister was 100 per cent. in favour of it.

He knows it very well.

The Prime Minister welcomed him. He wished to have him here, and he welcomed him. The hon. member just tried to get away from the matter. I also just wish to tell the hon. member in this connection that as a result of the agreement made at the time by the present Leader of the Opposition, when he was the Minister concerned, more than 17,000 Indians left the country. That is a considerable number.

Some returned again.

Some may have returned, but many nevertheless left.

One member spoke of 5,000.

No, the number is 17,000. But whatever the number may have been that left as a result of it, it was a considerable number, and much gratitude is due to the Leader of the Opposition for what he did. It is strange to me that the hon. member for Potchefstroom is in such a good mood this afternoon. He told us about the flags hung out in Potchefstroom to welcome Mr. Sastri. Who hung out those flags? It was not the Nationalists, and if it was not the Nationalists, then it was his own people, the supporters of the United Party. He did not also tell us that it was the Union Jack that they hung out. Unfortunately it was the position that they did so. I only mention it by the way. I have merely called attention to these few things said by the hon. member, and I do not wish to dwell on his speech any longer.

I wish to return to a matter that I have just mentioned, because one feels that this is now the third important debate that we have had in this session, and that there has been a pleasing feature in connection with all the discussions. We have had the debate on the motion of no confidence that took a few days, and that was fully discussed, we have had the discussion about the proposal to go into Committee of Supply, and now we again have this important discussion, and I must say that it is pleasing and that we are all very happy about it that this very important debate has been carried on in the spirit in which it has been done so far. The discussion was on a fairly high level. Matters were dealt with on their merits, without any personal or political bitterness. We naturally find exceptions such as the hon. member for North East Rand (Mr. Heyns). I do not blame him in the least. If one is born like that, then you cannot help yourself. He, however, was one of the exceptions, and one might just as well forget them. It is pleasing, I say, that we could carry on this discussion in such a spirit, and that in view of the importance of the matter there was no personal and political bitterness. It is a happy spirit as far as this matter is concerned. We are thankful for it. Let us try to maintain this spirit. Where this spirit exists in the House at the moment, one feels the more that the Prime Minister should not have considered this matter from the party point of view, but that in the interests of the nation he should have considered it on a wide basis. I regret it that the Prime Minister did not make use of this spirit and this opportunity to deal with the matter in a different way than he did. Why did he not deal with this great and important matter—it is called the Indian problem, but it is not merely an Indian problem but actually the whole colour problem, because you cannot deal with the Indian problem separately, since it forms part of the great colour problem—why did he not deal with this great problem facing South Africa at this time in a different way as a great national problem, instead of making it merely a party matter, and making use of his majority to put it through; why did he not rather approach the problem in a different way as a great national matter and try to obtain collaboration? He could so easily have done so. That is what we expected of him and that is what the nation expected of him—he could have approached the Leader of the Opposition and said to him: Look, I intend introducing this legislation, and let us discuss the matter. I feel convinced that hon. members will not differ with me when I say that if there are two men in the country who are fully informed in connection with the Indian problem, then the Leader of the Opposition comes first, who conducted all the negotiations at the time, not only with the Indians in South Africa, but also with the Government of India; it was he who held the discussions, and we know that at the time he invited the Leader of the Opposition, the present Prime Minister, to send his representatives, with the result that Sir Patrick Duncan and Mr. Heaton Nicholls were present at the discussions held with the Government of India. Why did the Prime Minister not do the same? The person best informed on this problem is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He had to go into the matter up to the knottiest details in the consultations that were held, and they came to an agreement that for a time in any case was fairly satisfactory and as a result of which a considerable number of Indians left the country, as I have already indicated. The Prime Minister is also fully informed on this matter, and I do not think that two men can be found in the country who are more suited and competent than the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister to solve this problem in the interests of South Africa. Why does the Prime Minister not make use of this opportunity? I understand —I do not know whether it is a secret—but I understand that the Prime Minister summoned the Leader of the Opposition and told him that he was going to introduce this legislation, and that he explained the provisions of the legislation to him, but that is all. It was a bare communication. As he went so far, why did he not go further and say: Look, let us have a discussion, let us try to understand one another’s point of view and see whether we cannot come to an agreement; let us see how far we can progress.

What was the reaction of the Leader of the Opposition?

It is not a question of what his reaction was. It was merely a communication to him, and it was not for him to do anything. The only person to whom it was left to propose anything further was the Prime Minister. It is much to be regretted that the Prime Minister did not make use of the opportunity to say: Look, let us try to find a solution to the matter. I feel convinced that if this matter is referred to a Select Committee or something of the sort before the Second Reading—call it a conference—on which all the parties are properly represented, the spirit prevailing in this debate would also have prevailed there, and that the matter would not have been considered as a party measure, and that a serious effort would have been made to find a sound solution. Members should have been left free to give their views on the Bill as their consciences dictated. I say that I am convinced that members would have dealt with the matter ’ in this way, and under the guidance of these two Leaders who are well informed, I feel convinced that we would have reached a solution that may perhaps not have given 100 per cent. satisfaction, but that would certainly have given a greater degree of satisfaction than there is today with this Bill. I remember that in 1936 we were faced with almost precisely the same difficulties in connection with the native legislation. For years—the hon. member for Potchefstroom has stated how long it will take if we now follow the course that we on this side propose—for years we held consultations there, and even if it takes some time, we must bear in mind that we are busy with the whole fate and future of South Africa. Even if it takes a long time to go properly into the matter, we shall nevertheless have the benefit of it just as we had in the case of the native législation. The hon. member also stated that in 1936 we were faced with practically the same difficulty in connection with the vote. We tackled the native problem at that time, but what the hon. member for Potchefstroom and other hon. members on the other side forget is that at that time we had to deal with the native vote that existed here in the Cape, where the native had the right to vote on the same list with the white man. That is a fact that they must not forget. They read out here that the Nationalist Party in the beginning proposed that four, five or six representatives should have been granted. Those hon. members are perhaps not aware of the circumstances at that time, but they must realise that they had to have a majority of two-thirds to take the vote away from the native in the Cape. We simply had to give way. We could not help doing it. At that time we were prepared to stand together; fortunately we were sensible enough to have discussions. The Leader of the Opposition, the present Prime Minister, the late General Hertzog and the representatives of all parties met in a combined Select Committee, and all these matters were thoroughly discussed, and the happy result was that we came to the House with a measure—fortunately or unfortunately, I was a member of that Select Committee—with a measure that was not perfect, but that nevertheless partially solved the matter. We were compelled to give way because we needed a majority of two-thirds to take away the native’s vote on the common voters’ list. We then gave the natives three representatives in Parliament. It was not as if we had a free choice. We had to do it, otherwise we could not get the majority of two-thirds. I tremble today, and I think that all the members tremble with me when they think what the position would have been if we had not taken the native’s vote away on the common voters’ list. What would the position have been if the tens of thousands of natives who today can comply with the trifling requirements were today on the common voters’ list with the Europeans in the Cape; just think what the position would have been. But at that time we looked upon it as a national matter. It was a great problem in the country, and I feel convinced that also on this occasion we should have made a national matter of this matter. It can only be ascribed to the fact that we on that Select Committee for a few years, not merely for a few months could bring the matter so far, that we could solve the matter in this way.

Why cannot it be done here now?

There is one convert already. I hope I shall get his support. I wish to appeal to the Prime Minister, and if he accepts our suggestion, then I feel that it will not only have the approval of us on this side, but also the approval of the majority of the members in this House. I do not think that anyone will be so foolish as to be opposed to it. Surely the Prime Minister wishes to have the approval of all and not only the approval of the members of this House, but of the country outside? In this connection I also wish to call attention to another matter. If we can really treat this problem as a national problem here, then I feel convinced that it will bring the public outside in a better mood towards Parliament, and that the public will again develop greater respect and regard for Parliament. Because I am sorry to say, but I am afraid that it is so, that there are many people outside this House, and their numbers are unfortunately not small, and their numbers are beginning to increase, who do not exactly have a high opinion of Parliament as it is now constituted. During the war years we had the position that the Government to a great extent ignored Parliament; the Government was a dictatorial government, and consequently there was not that respect for Parliament that the nation should have for Parliament. It is necessary that we should act in such a way that the nation will again regain that confidence in and respect for Parliament. It is decidedly necessary that the nation should have respect and regard for Parliament. It should be the attitude of members here to bring the nation under the impression that this House, that this Parliament, does not only vote according to instructions, but that we can deal with a matter here as a national matter. This should be our aim at the present moment, and I say that there was an excellent opportunity to do it in connection with this problem. If we could have approached this matter, not from a party political attitude, but as a serious national matter, then we can again regain the confidence of the nation.

Let us now look back at what happened in this House in connection with this Bill. So far not a single member has stood up here and said that he accepted the measure 100 per cent. Take in the first place the hon. members on the other side. Everyone of them had a “but” in his speech. It began with the Minister of Finance. He told us honestly what his attitude is. He accepts the Bill only because, as was also stated by the hon. member for the Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit) and other members, it is thé thin edge of the wedge. It is an instalment and later they are sure of obtaining more for the Indians. They accept it as an instalment, and that is where the danger comes in. It is the thin edge of the wedge, and that is why we realise the danger of it. They say that they are going to vote for the measure, but they are not satisfied with it. At the other extreme again we have the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo). He is a Transvaal farmer and he says that he detests the whole Bill. He said that more rights are granted to the Indians than to the natives, but again, as a loyal party member, although he is opposed to the Bill, he is still going to vote for it. It is an unsound state of affairs that this should be the position, that all the members on the other side are not in favour of the Bill, but are prepared to vote for this measure only as a result of their loyalty to their party. Look at the position that we have in the Government party. The Government party is deeply divided over the Bill. The Nationalist Party has put it attitude clearly. We do not vote for the second reading of the Bill. We accept the apartness in the first part of the Bill, but there are also dangers connected with it. We are definitely opposed to the second part of the Bill. Then we come to the Labour Party. It is an extraordinary position that we see in the Labour Party lately. In connection with practically anything of importance that is discussed here, they talk till they are blue in the face against the measure, but when it comes to the vote they vote for it. We can really no longer take them seriously. We cannot take them seriously, because although they have spoken against this measure, they are nevertheless again going to vote for it. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) the other day told us here that although they spoke strongly against the Bill, they are still going to vote for the second reading. In other words, they are going to accept the principle of it. The Dominion Party is in precisely the same position. The Leader of the Dominion Party spoke strongly against the Bill. At times he almost spoke like a Nationalist, but still they are going to vote for the Bill. Then we come to the representatives for the natives—three in number. We have just the same position here. We should have expected it from them. They have shown clearly that they are not acting here as representatives of the natives, but as the representatives of the Indians. They do not look upon the matter from the point of view of the Europeans, but only from the point of view of the Indians and the nonEuropeans. This is an indication to us of the trouble that we are going to have in the future. To us it is really a warning. If we are now going to give this representation to the Indians, it will simply mean that the three representatives of the Indians will range themselves on the side of the representatives of the natives, and this will therefore mean that the natives will have six representatives on the one hand, and that the Indians will also have six representatives on the other hand. They are going to form a bloc of six representing the vote of the coloureds, a bloc of representatives against the European population. This is where the great trouble is going to arise in the future. No, I say again, nobody is satisfied with this Bill. Even the Prime Minister does not feel very happy about it. After this discussion that has taken place, he also does not feel sure about the Bill. But take now the people in whose interests the Bill was introduced. The Indians are the most dissatisfied with the Bill. They rejected the Bill with contempt. They are not satisfied with it, land they go so far as to say that they are going to boycott the Bill and that they are not going to make use of the rights granted to them in it. Would that it may be the case that they may not be able to send representatives to this House. But I am afraid that it will nevertheless happen. The position is that the Prime Minister, when he goes overseas, would like to be armed with this measure so that he can go there with this Bill and say: Look, the Indian problem in South Africa is solved and the European population as a whole supports the solution. I am afraid that this hope of his has unfortunately been frustrated. There is not a measure of unanimity. I feel for him in his unfortunate position, and that is why I should like to see him agree to the appeal that we are making to him. I call upon the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) to support us. We ask the Prime Minister, now that such an excellent spirit is prevailing here, to make use of the opportunity; let the Prime Minister show that he is a great national figure, and not merely a party leader; let him even at this late hour and stage say: Good, I shall act from a national point of view and not merely from a party point of view; I shall allow the matter to be discussed at a committee or conference where all the representatives of the nation will have the opportuuity to make their contribution towards solving this matter in a satisfactory manner. Allow me to give him the assurance, and I am convinced that the Leader of the Opposition will support me, that we shall not make use of it to say that he gave way before the criticism of the Nationalist Party. We shall accept it as a concession and a spirit of accommodation. We know that he has the majority behind him who will vote precisely as he tells them to vote. They cannot do otherwise. Although he can push the Bill through, I wish to appeal to him not to do it in this way, but to give the nation the opportunity to consider the Bill so that some degree of unanimity may be obtained about it, so that we can rouse a feeling in the country that will be satisfied with the Bill. If we can get the opportunity to deal with the measure in this way, and if members of the other side can get the opportunity of also expressing their feelings, then we shall be able to pass a measure here that will not be a party measure, but a measure with which the Prime Minister can go overseas and can say that it is the attitude of the whole European population in South Africa. He can then say that it is the decision of the people of South Africa. Think how his hands will then be strengthened. I hope that this suggestion will even now be found acceptable to him. I am afraid, however, that this is not going to be the case, and I therefore wish to draw attention to a few further aspects on the Bill. If this Bill had been referred to a conference or a Select Committee, I am convinced that the few points that I am now briefly going to raise would not have appeared in the Bill in this form. It shows that they are matters that perhaps did not receive the attention that would have been given to such matters in a Select Committee that deals with such a matter from all points of view. In the first place, there are the regions that are set aside for Indian occupation, and where there may also be European occupation with them. Europeans may go and buy there and live there, and Indians may also go and buy and go and live in the areas set aside. But the danger of it is this. Allow me to say at once that I realise that the argument may be advanced that we have the same position under the Native Bills. In them we also find that provision is made so that Europeans and natives may buy in certain areas. But there is nevertheless a very great difference. We must bear in mind that in such regions individual natives cannot buy alone. There is the Native Trust to which millions of pounds have been made available, that is going to buy land there for the natives. We know that the Native Trust has also already bought a great deal of land. Not only they— and we must remember that they can also expropriate land—but also the native tribes can buy ground there. But what now is the position in connection with the Indians? The Indians and the Europeans can buy there together. The Indians are now already saying that they are going to boycott the Bill and that they are not going to buy in those areas. This may happen, and what then is the danger that arises there and that, in my opinion, is going to be a real danger? In the first place, we do not have a trust that is going to buy land there for the Indians such as in the case of the natives. There is also no tribe that is going to buy land there for itself. It is only the individual Indians who can buy, and they say that they are not going to buy there. What now is going to be the result if the Indians boycott those areas? The land will lie there and it will fall in value, and the result is going to be that the poor class of white man is going to buy land there. The result will be that instead of our getting separteness, we are going to get the position that the poor class of white man will go and live with the Indians in the parts set aside, because they have the opportunity of obtaining land there cheaply. Instead of getting segregation, we shall get a mixture of races. I am afraid that this is going to be the result.

Then I come to the political rights, which I can almost say are being thrust upon the Indians. They do not wish to have those political rights. They definitely refuse to accept the political rights that are now being granted to them. Here again the argument is used that the Indians, just like the natives, are getting representatives in Parliament. But the people who advance the argument forget that the position also differs here. As far as the natives are concerned, we were faced at that time with a position that the natives already had the vote here in the Cape. The natives had the vote, and it was only as an extreme measure, because we could not do otherwise, that we made the concessions and allowed three representatives of the natives to take a seat here in Parliament. We simply had to give way in order in this way to obtain a majority of two-thirds in order to remove the native vote from the common list where it was such a danger to us. There were already 17 or more constituencies in which the natives had a say, and we can realise what the position would have been today if they still had that vote. We had to get two-thirds of Parliament to agree to it in order to take that vote away from them. It was not our aim that they should be here. We desired that they should be represented in the Senate. Discussions took place and, as I said, we could not get the support of the members on the other side unless we were willing to concede that the natives should get three representatives in Parliament. It was an experiment to which we agreed, but allow me to say here that that experiment has not been a brilliant success. Has it helped to create good relations between the native representatives who have to act here on behalf of the natives, and the representatives of the European part of the population? I am afraid that it has had the opposite effect There is already a strong feeling that native representation in Parliament should be abolished. One feels that there is much to be said for it, and if it does happen it will be those hon. members alone that will be responsible for it. We cannot now use the argument that because we have given the natives representatives in Parliament we should now also give the Indians representatives. They are in an entirely different position. They have no political rights in the country. They are being deprived of no political rights so that we have to give them something else in its place such as is proposed in this Bill. Let us now assume that, if these three representatives of the Indians come to Parliament it will give greater satisfaction and build up a better racial feeling between the Europeans and the Indians; will that be the position? Shall we get satisfaction among the Indians? I think that it is clear that we shall not get satisfaction as far as the Indians are concerned. Even now they are not willing to accept it. We have now already seen in the House what the position is with the native representatives, and in future it will not only be they who will act, but there will also be the three representatives of the Indians who will act as agitators to see whether they cannot obtain greater rights. We see now what the native representatives are busy doing, and we can be sure of it that these three representatives of the Indians will range themselves on the side of the native representatives to agitate for full equality with the Europeans in the country. They make no secret of it. That is what they are aiming at. And when they have that position, and the danger is that it will be almost impossible for us to get rid of it. It is very difficult to bring about a change in such a matter. Once such a thing has been done, we must realise that it is going to be very difficult ever to recall it again. If we wish to make a change one day, it will be extremely difficult, and that is why we should think well now before we take such a step. I wish to make a strong appeal to the Prime Minister. Let him agree to our trying to find a solution that will give satisfaction not only to this House, but also to the nation outside, and I am convinced that we can also bring about a greater degree of satisfaction among the Indians if we explain the matter to them. We accept the part of the Bill dealing with segregation, because it contains that principle, although changes will have to be made. I am glad that the Prime Minister now also accepts that principle. There was a time when one began to doubt whether it was still the policy of the Prime Minister, and I am glad that he has again adopted that attitude in connection with this Bill, because it is high time that we should now make the Indians understand that the European population will never allow Indians and Europeans to live together. They must grasp and understand this, and I am glad that the Prime Minister has in any case taken that step and that he has made it clear to them that he will not be influenced by threats. Now I should also like to address a few words to the Indians. They are certainly not advancing their case and it is certainly not a sensible attitude to send such insulting telegrams and such provocative telegrams to members of Parliament as they have done. The telegrams have already been read out, and I just wish to read them out again to show their insulting tone. The first telegram on 26th March reads—

What do you say to that?

Yes, we are just as opposed to the Bill as the Indians, but for quite different reasons. They are opposed to the Bill because they desire more rights, we are opposed to it because the rights in the Bill are granted to them. There was a second telegram and it will explain what the attitude of the Indians is. Hon. members must just listen to it. It shows that if you vote for the Bill you will merely encourage them in the wrong. The second telegram reads— reads—

It is an extremely reprehensible tone that is adopted, but you still get members who wish to support those people, the organised Indians in our country. I think that it is time that the Indians are warned that they must not use threats, and I am glad that the Prime Minister has also stated that he will not be deterred by their threats, and by threats of the Government of India. They threaten us with a boycott and other retaliatory measures they wish to apply. Let me just point out that it may work like a boomerang. What will happen if the Indians in the Transvaal—I am now speaking of the Transvaal because I know the conditions there—are paid in the same coin? The Indians in the Transvaal at least are a hundred per cent. dependent on European support, and not only a political party, but also other organisations may be used if they wish to apply the same counter-measures and to boycott them. They will be able to put out guards and allow nobody to buy from the Indians. I wonder how soon they will be broken. I do not advocate it, but if the Indians go on in this way and use such stupid threats and attempt to frighten the Europeans, then it is time to warn them. We shall not allow them to frighten us. At Pietersburg we have many decent Indians of the old type, good inhabitants, and I feel convinced that they do not agree with the insulting language of the telegrams, but if the Indians act as an organised body, then it is time that the other Indians should repudiate that organised body. I just wish to say something in connection with one incident of which perhaps few hon. members are aware and of which the nation also does not know. During the war a large number of engineers were sent to India, engineers of the Allies, in connection with important war work that they had to go and do there. Roads had to be measured out and engineering work had to be done. Among them there were South Africans. I think there were four of them, officers of high standing. There were Canadians, Australians, Englishmen and Americans, and then the Indian Government said that the four South Africans could not work there, and that they would not allow them to operate there, and they were compelled to return. That is what the Government of India did. They said that they would not allow the South Africans to work there with the other engineers in India. Just think of the insult offered to those South African officers. They had to go to the Australians and Canadians and others and say that they had to return because the Indian Government would not allow the South Africans to work there. That is the spirit of bitterness that characterises the actions of the Government of India. I hope that a better spirit will arise, but if they act in that way, then South Africa will also have to insist on its rights and act. May I then just make this further appeal to the Prime Minister: This is the first legislation in connection with the colour problem after the war. May I ask him, if a colour problem again comes up for discussion and he intends introducing such new legislation, to attempt to obtain collaboration with the different parties and with the different groups so that we can treat these great matters as national matters and not as party matters, especially where it deals with the colour problem. The future of South Africa and of European civilisation depends on the treatment of the colour problem, and he must not treat that matter as a party matter. Then the nation will also develop greater respect for Parliament. I think that the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) has already pointed out that we also hope that if representation has to be given to Indians—I am not in favour of it, but if it must happen then I hope that it will be laid down that the representatives of the Indian population may present their case as well as they can in the interests of the Indians, but that they will not be able to vote. Because what would it mean if they could vote? The three will not be able to put a measure through this House, but will only be able to use their vote when a difference exists between one part of the Europeans and the other part. In this way they will possess a power that they would otherwise never have had. If they have to come here, let us give them the right to talk and to act here, but not the right to vote in Parliament.

Mr. Speaker: I would invite the attention of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to Section XI of the Act, which reads as follows—

Who are the Syrians? I think that if we go through the trading classes in the Transvaal, and if we examine a large portion of the trading classes in Natal, we will find that a large number of these traders are Syrians or near Syrians, people who have never seen India. They come from the Gulf of Basra and from the Red Sea; they come from the slave traders of East Africa; they come from Palestine, from Syria and from Turkey. Mr. Speaker, I think it is wise that the House should know who these Syrians are, and in the “Encyclopaedia Britannica” there is a definition I would like to quote—

It is easy to deduce from this that Syrians are actually Asiatics, and the fact of the matter is that we are admitting a large number of admittedly Asiatics to be considered as Europeans, for the purposes of the first part of the Bill. When we consider a little further what the government of Syria is, we find the following—

This concerns Natal vitally; it concerns the Transvaal vitally, and may I say that every provision of the Bill which is before us can be avoided by persons claiming Syrian origin.

How many Syrians are there in Natal?

Possibly the Census may show that. I cannot give the figures, but I do know that in times past these traders insisted that they should not be called Indians, but Arabs. Moreover, they were referred to generally throughout Natal 40 years ago as Sulemans. If that is not an Asiatic appellation, I leave it to the House to judge. Now I consider that this is a vital definition, and I would ask the Prime Minister seriously to consider this matter of the inclusion of Syrians amongst Europeans for the purpose of this Bill, and I am asking him to consider whether he will accept an amendment, to omit the word “Syrian” in the Committee stage. That is the reason I have drawn attention to the fact that the object of the Bill would be largely upset if this definition is embodied as framed. And still on this question of Syrians, I would ask the House to consider where the agitators at present agitating against the Bill originate. We find from the telegrams we are receiving that there is a United Indian or Asiatic Association in the Transvaal. I wonder, if we could get hold of these people, whether it would be satisfactorily proved that even oné of them had ever been to India in their lives, except as a visitor. They were not originally Indian born, but want to be considered as Indians as far as the representation part of this Bill is concerned, but as Syrians for the purposes of occupation of property and residence.

The point is that they were born in South Africa.

I will come to that. I suppose that of all the Natal members I am the only one who has received an invitation to visit Natal recently in connection with this Bill because the Bill was only issued last Wednesday week, and it could only reach Natal last Monday morning, and if anyone else has visited Natal since then, I would have known about it.

The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) went there.

That was before the Bill was printed. Let that pass. I may inform members that it has been said in Natal that the only people who have consulted them are the Nationalists. I was not invited, but practically ordered to attend a special meeting of the Natal South Coast Voters’ Association, which has twenty-six branches in my constituency. They convened a meeting by telegram and telephone, and advertisement, and invited representatives from every local authority on the coast. There were eighty delegates at the meeting, representing practically every part of my constituency. I was required to explain the implications of the Bill, and I did so, so far as I could. Everyone will admit that the Bill is very very difficult to dissect and to analyse. It is not in plain language. One needs a whole pile of law books alongside of one in order to understand it, and to get the proper implication of some of the clauses one has to pass from one to the other and by the time one has finished, one has forgotten what one started out to find. Now, the main impression I got at the meeting I received from resolutions submitted to the meeting by a young ex-volunteer in which he called upon me to throw out the Bill and to ask the Prime Minister to come to Natal and hear what they have to say before he brings the Bill into Parliament. Of course that was done through inexperience. I explained that I could not throw out the Bill [Laughter], and that the Prime Minister’s leadership of a party which outnumbered every other party in the House, and which would give him their undivided support, resulted in only the Prime Minister himself being able to throw out the Bill. They then submitted a much milder resolution, and with some opposition to a simple phrase in it, they passed a resolution which was communicated to the Prime Minister by telegraph, in which they approved of the Bill in certain respects, but had strong objection to the composition of the board and recommended that the board. shall consist of five members, with alternates, and that the quorum should be five. They had no confidence in a board of five members and a quorum of three, of whom two might be Asiatics. And one can see the danger of that. Presuming that on an occasion the only members present are the chairman, a legal man, and two Asiatics, does one imagine that the European is going to get justice from a board of that sort? And that is what is laid down in the Bill. And I do not think they have a very high appreciation of the Minister of the Interior. They look back upon his administration of the Pegging Act and recall that there were sixteen applications from local authorities for an ad hoc commission to enquire into particular allegations, but that he did not appoint one such commission; but he has issued permits, and they damned these permits from the ceiling to the floor at the meeting I attended.

Is that the only thing they have against the Bill?

No, it is not. May I again mention the fact that although the Prime Minister has said that this Indian problem is due to a historical mistake, there was another historical mistake which was much more serious than the introduction of Indians into South Africa. I refer to Act 17 of 1895, clause 6, where every indentured Indian who after the expiry of his indenture refused to return to India was obliged to take out a licence to remain in the colony for which he had to pay the yearly sum of £3. That ensured that every Indian in Natal was a temporary resident and that every one of them could be expelled from Natal if he did not pay his licence. Then the Solomon Commission in 1912 or 1913 made certain recommendations as to the yearly licence of £3, recommending that it should be remitted, and by an Act of the Union Government, at that time under the premiership of Gen. Botha, assisted by the present Prime Minister, who introduced the Bill, it was remitted, and these Indians apparently became Union nationals, because they were no longer temporary residents in Natal residing there by virtue of a licence. So the bigger of the historical mistakes was made by the Union Government in 1914. I hope we shall not hear too much more about Natal being responsible for the present Indian — I cannot call it a problem — but position.

And menace.

Yes, it is a menace also. We find that the people of Natal, and the Durban Joint Wards Committee, having now seen copies of the Bill and digested some of its contents, and realised the implications, are changing their opinions in regard to the Bill. At first they were wholly in favour of it. That was before the Bill was printed. On March 23rd the Durban Joint Wards Committee in full session unanimously recommended as follows—

On 30th March, when they had had time to see the Bill, they said—

Not the Minister, but the approval of Parliament. I hope the Prime Minister will seriously consider that recommendation, because this Durban Joint Wards Committee is not an unimportant body. It practically represents the whole European population of Durban. As further evidence of the fact that the people of Natal are waking up to the implications of the Bill, may I read a telegram I received this morning—

They are waking up.

Who signed that?

The chairman.

How could he sell his property to an Indian?

A fortnight ago the town clerk of Harding sent me a wire to support the Bill in its entirety. I told them that was premature because we did not know the contents of the Bill, and the reply by telegram which reached me at Scottburgh was—

Who signed it?

The Town Clerk of Harding signed it. I have quoted these telegrams as an idea is prevalent that Natal has been consulted. Natal has not been consulted. Natal is being offered as a burnt sacrifice on the altar of expediency. That is what has happened. The Minister smiles, but I think he knows what I am referring to, and owing to an injunction laid upon me I am not permitted to relate it.

What is the sacrifice?

Let me come to the Bill itself. I refer first of all to Clause 10, subclauses (1), (2), (3) and (4), which seem to me to be the crux of the whole question of land occupation and tenure.

What does the Town Clerk of Harding say about that?

Clause 10 (1) reads—

Then Clause 8 (3) reads—

Contrast that with Clause 9 (4)—

Where are we? In the one section the Minister “shall not grant any permit,” where there is the anti-Asiatic clause in title deeds, but in the next section “no provision discriminating against any race or racial group shall be inserted in the title deed …” Where are we? I am putting that question to the Prime Minister. Where are we?

Ask the Town Clerk of Harding.

If anybody can read sense into these clauses after an hour-and-a-half I shall be surprised; I give it best. Clause 4 states—

What does it mean? I wonder whether the Minister of the Interior could inform us what it means? [Laughter.] You people may laugh but please recollect for the time being Natal is vitally interested in this matter. It is not a subject for levity or rude remarks. This in a matter which affects every man, woman and child in Natal, and in the words of one of the ex-soldiers last Thursday at Scottburgh: “The elderly men are making these laws which will affect us when they are dead and gone; we shall bear the brunt of all this when they have passed to oblivion”. That is happening and that is what will happen, so I ask you to deal with this matter without levity and with all the seriousness it demands.

Do you want the Indians to be consulted or only the Europeans?

The Indians have been consulted time and again by the Prime Minister through their Congress. There is another aspect of the first part of the Bill to which I would draw attention. Clause 12 states—

1. (a) every application for a permit required under sections two, four or five;
2. (b) every determination to be made under sub-section (2) of section six;
3. (c) the desirability or otherwise of declaring any area under section nine to be an area in respect of which the provisions of sections two, three and four shall not apply;
4. (d) the desirability or otherwise of assigning any area under paragraph (d) of section two of Law No. 3 of 1885 of the Transvaal; or of the alienation to Asiatics of land situate in an area set apart under section ten of the Municipal Amending Ordinance, 1905 (Ordinance No. 17 of 1905) of the Transvaal.

That refers to Vryheid and Utrecht. But we find on page 14 of the Bill clause 20, which states—

That proclamation applied to Vryheid and Utrecht. The provisions applied to the whole of the Transvaal, and after these districts were incorporated into Natal, after the Anglo-Boer War — this proclamation was issued. Now it is repealed. Yet this board which has to be set up and nominated by the Minister of the Interior is to “enquire into and advise the Minister” whether properties in those areas may be acquired by Asiatics. Do you think Vryheid and Utrecht will put up with such a thing? They will not. They want to know whether their present position will be maintained. At present no one there knows whether this precious board is going to recommend some of their land to be alienated to Asiatics. They have been safe since 1885. From 1946 they will not be safe, and that is what I want the House to realise. I should like to stress the significance of clause 49 in regard to the election of members of the Provincial Council of Natal. It states—

That means that Indians may be elected to the Provincial Council of Natal. That is what it means in plain language, and that is what the people of Natal are going to object to and object to with every ounce of strength they have. Moreover, it is implied in this that the Natal Provincial Council can pass an ordinance which will have the effect of enabling Indians to be elected to Municipal Councils, Town Councils, Town Boards, Health Committees, Malaria Committees and any other local authority in Natal. And the people of Natal are waking up to the fact, and they say: “We will not have it.”

How are they going to stop it?

The Prime Minister is reasonable, and we in Natal are relying on the Prime Minister to see we are not saddled with this sort of thing

The United Municipal Executives are behind us.

Oh, you are Indian-minded.

Order, order. Will the hon. member address the Chair?

I am sorry, Sir. We rely on the Prime Minister to see Natal is not saddled with Indian representatives in these local councils or in the Provincial Council or in Parliament.

But your leader said he was prepared to have them in the Senate.

That is not so bad. But, personally, I feel that having Indian representatives in the Senate or in this House and as members of local authorities is a dangerous thing. If the proposal is agreed to in this House, a sectional interest will be set up, and the creation of sectional interests will militate against the proper consideration of matters brought before this House. It is all going to have tremendous repercussions, because it opens the door to their political equality, and in that connection I will refer to the speech that was made by the Minister of Finance. I will say that he has nailed his flag to the mast. He is out for the representation of the Indian, and of every coloured person in the whole country, on the common roll. If he gets his way and if ever he is in a position to command the majority of members in this House and impress his ideals upon them, we may look forward to the Prime Minister’s bench being occupied by one similar to Abdul the Damned, but instead of a bench there will probably be a divan with cushions and a Turkish pipe. That is the logical outcome of the attitude of the Minister of Finance. If it comes to a Parliamentary mixture of that sort, God forbid that I should be a member of this House.

In conclusion, may I say we in Natal rely on the Prime Minister’s sense of fitness, fairness and justice to see that the heritage of the Europeans of Natal will not be menaced by these parasites, and in that category I do not include those people who are descended from the indentured Indians, but I particularly refer to the trading class, which is battening on every section of the community in the Cape, Natal and the Transvaal—thank God, the Free State was wise enough to exclude them in their day; but I do ask that the Prime Minister will extend to the Europeans of Natal the protection they deserve.

The only thing we want to say in reference to the speech of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) is just this. We want to remind him that he represents a Natal constituency and that it is largely a Natal difficulty that gave rise to this legislation. We therefore expected a little more gratitude from a Natal representative. Apparently they want to assume for themselves all the advantages of any legislation, but they definitely refuse to accept any responsibility in that connection. I want to come back to the speech of the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé). Unfortunately he is not here. I want to congratulate him, however, in his absence, on the calm and collected and nice way in which he dealt with this Bill. There are a few points, however, that we must refute. He replied to the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. van der Merwe) in connection with the arrival and the reception accorded to Mr. Sastri as Agent-General of India. We want to remind him that it is his leader who allowed Mr. Sastri to come here. We do not want to go deeply into the history of this matter, but let us take as a starting point the Imperial Conference of 1923. At that Imperial Conference the present Prime Minister was present, and he very clearly gave the delegates of India to understand that a High Commissioner from India would not be welcomed in South Africa and that we simply did not want him here. Unfortunately for this matter his Government resigned in 1924 and the Nationalist Party Government came into power. They then made an effort to re-introduce the legislation which had been introduced in 1923 by the previous Government, but India opposed it and the hon. Leader of the Opposition heeded that opposition. We know what the outcome of it was—the Cape Town Agreement. It does not lie in the mouths of hon. members on the other side to criticise us in this respect.

There is another matter which the hon. member touched upon, and that we must also refute. I fully agree with him, and we all realise that this is an important and serious Bill, and to the best of our ability we want to give every possible attention to it. The hon. member naturally supported the motion of his leader, and advocated that this legislation be postponed and referred to a Select Committee. But this matter has been referred to commissions repeatedly for investigation, and we have repeatedly had reports from commissions in that regard. I think all the facts in connection with this matter are at the disposal of the Government, and not only at the disposal of the Government, but both sides of the House are in possession of all the facts relating to this matter.

Furthermore, in the course of this debate which has been conducted here during the past few days, all these arguments have been repeated and all the facts which can be revealed have already been revealed to the country and to this House. How could we at this stage collect any further facts and further information if we were again to refer this matter to a Select Committee? But I want to say again to the hon. member for Pietersburg…

We did not refer to a commission.

Although this matter was not referred to a Select Committee, there were other committees which examined this matter just as thoroughly.

Not the question of the franchise.

I just want to say that the position in Natal does not permit of further postponement. When we talk to people in Natal who suffer because of this problem, they emphasise this aspect of the matter that a state of confusion and of dislocation has arisen in the whole life of Natal, and that this matter must be solved at the first possible opportunity. The hon. member for Pietersburg stated that they support the first part of the Bill. Since there is no difference of opinion as far as the first part is concerned, let us once again emphasise that the first part of the Bill, in broad outline, follows the same lines as the legislation introduced in 1923 by the old South African Party Government. That is the Bill, the passage of which was interrupted by the intervention of the Nationalist Party Government in 1924, and which is now being proceeded with by this Government. Apparently, therefore, we are all agreed on the first part.

Now we come to the second part of the Bill. What is the real difference? The difference is based on the fact that hon. members on the other side say that they, and with them the whole country, are entitled to regard the Indian population as a temporary population in South Africa. We, on the other hand, say that we are compelled of necessity to regard the Indian population as part of the permanent population, mainly as a result of action adopted at that time by the Leader of the Opposition as the responsible Minister. Let us go into it briefly. Under the Cape Town Agreement we had voluntary repatriation, and it must be noted that it was voluntary repatriation. Then we had the so-called “uplift clause.” This clause was for the benefit of the Indian population which did not want to be voluntarily repatriated to India. Upliftment means that they must be uplifted in terms of the Cape Town Agreêment—that they will be uplifted to the standard of Western civilisation. If they were to remain a temporary part of the population, what would the uplift clause mean? If we want to uplift them, and if we want to uplift them to the level of Western civilisation on a permanent basis, surely the motive is to make them more qualified to form part of the community in South Africa. The Eastern civilisation and the Western civilisation differ very widely. If we want to uplift them to the level of Western civilisation surely we do not want to qualify them to return to the misery, poverty and starvation which obtains in their country of origin. In fact, they tried to escape that misery by coming to South Africa, and if we say that we are going to force them to return to India and we then proceed to uplift them to the level of Western civilisation, we are certainly not qualifying them to fit into the population of India. No, that uplift clause was the first admission that they are a permanent part of the population, and hon. members on the other side were prepared to incorporate that in the agreement. The hon. member for Potchefstroom quoted what the Leader of the Opposition said, and I should like to repeat it—

Is that not an admission that they form a permanent part of the population? And that established right to which the hon. member refers is a right which they obtained unlawfully; but he went so far as to say that although they obtained this right in conflict with the laws of the country, we must allow the Indians to retain those rights. In 1932 he went further and introduced the Transvaal Asiatic Land Tenure Act which legalised the occupation of land by Indians, especially in the proclaimed areas of the Witwatersrand and allowed them to transfer their rights, even if it meant substituting a European guardian by someone else. No, I am afraid that that argument cannot be reconciled with the facts. That is the great difference between us today. If we are compelled to accept the Indian population as a permanent part of the population, what is the solution of the matter? The Minister of Finance has replied to the Opposition critics effectively. I want to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges). No one would cast any doubt on his capabilities. He is a capable lawyer, and he is qualified to explain the law in all its finer details; but there is one great defect in all his arguments, and that was clearly set out by the Minister of Finance. We cannot regard the Indian population as a temporaty part of the population, and I say that fully conscious of the great seriousness of the matter, and not with a view to making political capital out of it. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition was no doubt sincere. He undoubtedly studied the interests of the country. In taking the action he did he meant well and believed it to be in the interests of the country and of the nation, but unfortunately he complicated the issue and during the time he was the responsible Minister he practically paved the way for the future and bound this Parliament. It is no use speculating now what would have happened if the Government had not resigned in 1924. If the Prime Minister had not resigned at the time but had remained in power, he would have found a solution along the lines of the 1923 Bill. But there was a change of Government. The Nationalist Party came into power and adopted a different course, a course which the Primp Minister strenuously opposed. He did not want the Agent-General here; and we say therefore that today we are heirs to the policy of the Leader of the Opposition while he was the responsible Minister. We are accused of favouring the natives and of being liberalists. But when the Leader of the Opposition was Minister of the Interior he was very much more liberalistic than even the Minister of Finance at the present time.

Do you believe what you are saying?

Yes. The hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) read to the House those letters which the Hon. Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Indians. We know what his colour policy was and what his attitude was towards the colour problem. We also know what his attitude was towards the Indian question. Hon. members on the other side were very liberal while they bore the responsibility of Government. At that time they were extremely liberal. In the words of the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Potgieter), they were ultra-liberal, but as soon as they were no longer in power they abandoned that liberalistic policy and now they are using it as a weapon to attack us. But with the best intentions in the world they approached these problems and tried to dispose of them as they existed at the time, and today we are the joint heirs of what has transpired in the meantime, and we must try to find some solution. What is the solution? All sides of the House subscribe to the first portion of the Bill. It is only in connection with the second part that there is a serious clash, a serious difference of opinion. The first criticism which has been raised is that we are now introducing a new trend in our political life, namely, the question of group representation. The hon. member for North-East Rand (Mr. Heyns) poved very clearly from the minutes of the joint sitting that the question of group representation arose in the Government of which the hon. Leader of the Opposition was a member at the time.

He misquoted everything from beginning to end.

He was not a Minister in 1936, it is true, but it took ten years to pilot these Native Acts through the House. But the hon. Leader of the Opposition went even further in introducing those Bills. Unfortunately, I only have the English text here, but when the then Prime Minister, the late ’ Gen. Hertzog, moved a motion to the effect that the Bill be read for the first time, the hon. Leader of the Opposition moved an amendment, and what was the amendment? Not only to have the natives in this House represented by a group, but to have even the coloureds represented in this House by a group. He proposed that we should have three groups in the House, one representing the Europeans, one representing the natives, and one representing the coloureds, and the words he used at the time in support of his amendment are quite important. Let me quote them—

He went on to say that we should not close our eyes to what is happening in other countries. He pointed to Kenya as an example. He also said: “Take New Zealand, for example.” Hon. members know that in Kenya there is group representation not only in respect of Europeans by Europeans, but of Indians by Indians, and of natives by natives. In New Zealand there is group representation of the Maoris, and this is what the hon. member said at the time—

I should like my friends on the other side to listen to this—

Who said that?

This was said by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. If, therefore, we had followed the liberal policy as set out by him in that joint debate, we would today have had native representatives and Indian representatives in this House.

Oh, no.

Oh, yes. He stated: “We must not be blind to what is happening in the rest of the world; see what happens in other parts of the world and follow their good example.” And he particularly emphasised the example set by New Zealand. My hon. friends can read it for themselves. We are today being described as liberalists, but we are not going as far as my hon. friend asked us to go at that time. We say we are prepared to give the Indians representation in this House, but through Europeans. We are not following the example of Kenya and New Zealand, although that is the example which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition advocated at the time. But that policy of group representation is still inherent in their outlook; it is still part of their political principles, because in the proceedings last year, when the Electoral Laws (Amendment Act) was referred to a Select Committee, the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) introduced the following motion—

Are you against that?

That is quite correct.

What becomes of their argument that the Prime Minister is traversing new ground, that we are traversing new political fields?

In this Bill you are giving the franchise to people who have not had the vote in the past.

Throughout their arguments they emphasised this aspect that we are now going to have groups in Parliament; that we are going to have a group here and that we are going to have a group there, and that the time will come when we will have five or six groups.

The coloured person has the vote.

I shall deal with that in a moment.

He suppresses that.

I am now dealing only with the principles which are bound up with group representation, and the argument which has been advanced by them in this House in the course of this debate is that group representation is dangerous, that it threatens the European civilisation in South Africa, and that it will lead to the downfall of European civilisation. But the third reading of the Natives’ Representation Bill was passed at the time with 11 votes against it; and those 11 dissentients are not to be found in the ranks of the Nationalist Party. Of those 11 members, six are still in the House, and not a single one of those six members is to be found in the ranks of the Nationalist Party. I want to ask those hon. members whether they are in earnest when they make the statement here that this group representation of a quarter of a million Indians in South Africa must inevitably lead to the downfall of European civilisation, when in 1936 they wholeheartedly granted group representation to eight million non-Europeans, 32 times the numerical strength of the Indian popoulation in South Africa?

You know that you are distorting the facts. The coloured people had the vote.

We are now dealing with the principle of group representation because member after member got up and was unable to resist the temptation to use this position as a battle cry and to say: “Look what the United Party is doing now; the United Party has now for ever doomed European civilisation in South Africa to destruction.” We are just as colour-conscious as any member on the other side, and I am as opposed to any racial mixture as the most ardent Nationalist on that side could possibly be, but my hon. friends must advance arguments which are in consonance with the facts. Let me again quote what the hon. member for Middelburg said. In this Joint Select Committee in connection with the Natives’ Representation Bill, the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) voted for the amendment of Mr. Heaton Nicholls, our present High Commissioner in London, that natives be given a seat in the Senate. Hon. members say it is only the Senate, but the Senate is the highest legislative body we have in this country, and if it is good enough for the Senate, my hon. friends must be consistent. And if we were again to have a joint sitting, who would sit next to those natives—the people who proposed that they be given a seat in the Senate? We fully realise the seriousness of this matter, but we must find a solution. I said a moment ago that this matter does not permit of further postponement, and the Prime Minister has taken his courage in both hands and has tried to find a solution. Now that the hon. member for Pietersburg is back in his seat, he says: “Yes, but the Prime Minister welcomed Mr. Sastri in this country.” There we have the true democrat, and it is an example that we would commend to all sides of the House as worthy of emulation. The Prime Minister did not want to bring Mr. Sastri here.

He co-operated in bringing him here.

He stated at the Imperial Conference in 1923 that he did not want to have any Agent-General from India in this country, but once he was here—even though he was brought here by a Government in which the Prime Minister had no part—he subjected himself to the majority decision of Parliament and treated the ambassador of another country with all the respect to which his high position entitled him. I repeat that we do not want to have any racial mixture. We wholeheartedly agree with hon. members on the other side that we should do everything in our power to keep the various races separate. But we are faced with this problem today: we have an Indian population here as part of our permanent population, and if Opposition members also want to adopt the attitude that we are obliged to recognise them as a permanent part of our population, then I would ask them what solution they suggest. The hon. Leader of the Opposition stated at the time that it is the duty of every civilised nation to grant certain elementary rights to every part of the civilian population. Well, is it not necessary then to give them a certain amount of representation as well? If we had had any alternative, we would have preferred to follow a different course, but I do not see how we can do it today, especially after the course adopted by the Leader of the Opposition at the time as the responsible Minister. He gave these people to understand clearly by means of his action that they would be regarded as a permanent part of the population, and that as such they would enjoy certain rights in this country. But I do not go so far as to say that those rights should be expanded. I am wholeheartedly in favour of our maintaining our position as Europeans in this country, whatever may happen, so that we may protect our European civilisation for the future, so that European civilisation will not be imperilled in any way. We are not going to give the Indians three representatives today and five tomorrow and ten the day after tomorrow. I say we must give them group representation but in such a way that although they will be able to air their grievances in the House, they will not obtain a position of power which will enable them to endanger European civilisation in South Africa.

As far as the Indians are concerned, I should like to endorse what the hon. member for Pietersburg said. There is not a single Indian in South Africa today whose lot is not 100 per cent. or perhaps 1,000 per cent. better than it was in India. Whether or not the Indians oppose this Bill, it will make no difference to us, but this strenuous opposition on the part of the Indians to this Bill should, in fact, satisfy my hon. friends on the other side. If the Indians were of the opinion that this Bill gives them the power to be the dominant race in South Africa eventually, they would have accepted this Bill with open arms; but they realise that we are not relinquishing our European guardianship in South Africa by means of this Bill, and that is why they are opposing it so strongly and so strenuously. I feel that in the circumstances—and I say it with all due deference and with all due respect—the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister had no alternative, and we are going to support him. We are going to do our best to make a success of this difficult matter, and we are going to do our best to find a solution so that on the one hand we will have an Indian population and on the other hand a native population and a European population, where each section can develop according to the light it has received from Providence.

Unfortunately I cannot agree with the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson). He accuses the Nationalist Party of being responsible for the fact that we have three native representatives in this House. I just want to remind him that Bill No. 1 was the Bill which the Nationalist Party wanted to pass, and in that event there would not have been a single native representative in this House, but only a few in the Senate. I hope hon. members on the other side will not repeat that accusation. The fact that Bill No. 2 was passed simply means that this side was obliged to accept the lesser of the two evils, and that is to take the franchise away from the natives in the Cape Province and in exchange for that to give them three representatives in this House. If that had not happened, we can imagine how many natives would have had the franchise in the Cape Province today. They would have been the deciding factor in every election. I think the hon. member for Ermelo will agree that although it is undesirable to have native representatives in this House, it is better than to give the franchise to the natives, who would then be the deciding factor in 20 constituencies in the Cape Province, and I hope that the day will arrive when even the native representatives will be eliminated from this House and when they will no longer have a say in the legislative body of this country. As far as the Indians are concerned, it has been urged that we should protect their rights. But the question immediately arises, who are these Indians who are dealt with in this new legislation, which is before the House, namely, the Asiatic Land Tenure and Indian Representation Bill? These Indians are workers who were imported into this country to work here. They came here under contract in 1860, but they were remunerated for the work they did in Natal. They had the fullest right to return to India after the expiry of the five-year contract, and what is more, not only did they have the right to return but subsequently there were negotiations between the Indian Government and our Government, which permitted of their repatriation. The State agreed to pay for it. They obtained free passages and they were free to go back. Only 17,000 Indians availed themselves of that right, and the fact that the others remained in this country does not mean that there is an obligation upon us today to grant these rights to those who remained behind. It does not justify the claim on their part to be regarded as permanent inhabitants. It is very inconsistent to argue on those lines, as the hon. member for Ermelo did. If we were to adopt that policy in the case of every racial group which comes to this country, it would create an insoluble problem for us. No, we on this side of the House do not regard it in that light. We regard the matter in the same light as India regards it. They still regard the Indians in this country as part of their population. After these Indians have been in this country for 85 years, India still wants full authority over them. Why then should we be concerned about them? We ought to send them back. We are faced in this country with the colour problem; we have the native problem which remains to be solved, and we are Still saddled with the problem of our own countrymen, namely, the poor whites, and we are now creating problems for ourselves which are going to cause unnecessary trouble for us. Just as little as the natives who leave the protectorates to take up employment in the mines are entitled to demand the franchise and the right of owning fixed property on the Witwatersrand, so little are the Indians entitled to demand those rights. That is the position, notwithstanding the fact that the native, after all, is an inhabitant of this country. If there is one section which has the right to demand this, it is the natives rather than the Indians. The Indians are foreigners. They were not born in this country. We must agree on this matter. By means of this legislation we are going to create a great problem which we shall not be able to solve easily. As I have already said, the Indians were offered an opportunity to leave this country and they did not avail themselves of it. Our responsibility towards the Indians therefore falls away. They had the fullest opportunity to avail themselves of this resolution, but they preferred not to do so. The Indians who are in this country today must abide by any decision which is taken by the Government with regard to them, and they must not make a hullabaloo, as they are doing at present, in appealing to England and in appealing to Russia, and even to the natives and the coloureds of this country. That goes to show how impudent they are becoming and to what lengths their impudence goes. They think we are under an obligation to take care of them, but they go even further. They want to have rights in this country which the coloureds and the natives have not even got. Is that not far-reaching? Since the Indian problem has therefore become a danger to European civilisation in South Africa, it is the duty of the Union Government to take steps to ensure the safety of the Europeans. This penetration on the part of the Indians into European residential areas, the purchase of fixed property in European residential areas, and the conquest of the trade of the Europeans, are dangers which are today threatening the European population. The standard of living of the Indian in this country is such that he is able successfully to compete with the Europeans in the economic sphere, so that the European cannot make a living. We know that the majority of them live in crowded conditions in a few rooms. One finds a whole family or a few families in those rooms, and there they breed like rabbits. This is a problem which is endangering our safety as à result of the increase in the Indian population. Furthermore, they usually live on their trading sites, and consequently they are able to compete on a very cheap basis, and this is a source of danger to the other inhabitants of this country. Europeans as well as non-Europeans. In other words, the Indian is nothing but a parasite living on the population of this country. He lives on the permanent population of this country, because he is able to live on a low standard with which the other sections of the population cannot associate themselves. Some solution must be found. When we talk about a solution, the Indian shows his true colours. In other words, he shows his teeth. He makes an appeal even to the Security Council of the United Nations Organisation, as we have seen in the newspapers, and he makes an appeal to India and Russia. In other words, he opposes the action of the Government in applying certain measures for this country’s protection. But they go even further. They are prepared to leave everything, and even to abandon the sanctions which they want to apply to us, if we go so far as to give them the franchise. Just imagine. Let us ask ourselves who these Indians are who are asking for the franchise. When one goes to India one finds that the great masses of Indians live on the lowest level, even lower than the blackest natives in this country. It will still take centuries for those Indians to attain the level of European civilisation, and notwitstanding this fact, they have the impudence to demand the franchise and equal rights with the European, and that is something we have to face; it is a threat on the part of India against this country. In other words, India is holding a pistol at our heads and telling us that if we do not grant these rights to the Indians, she will apply sanctions against us, and the sooner we act in this matter and find a solution the better, and the solution is for the Government to buy all fixed property belonging to the Indians. They must be repatriated to India, and that is the only way in which we can solve the problem. We know that there was a time in the past when large numbers of Chinese were imported to work in the mines, and they also became a problem, but we did not peg specific areas for them and give them the franchise. We sent them back. We can thank the late Gen. Botha for that. If we had not done this at the time, we would have had a Chinese problem in this country, too. It is therefore the duty of the Government, since a joint committee cannot be established today, a fact which we very much regret, to solve this problem on permanent basis. It is no use doing patchwork. We must do the right thing and that is to repatriate them. If that is done,. India must also do her duty. We brought back to this country countrymen of ours from the Argentine and Angola, and we did not leave it to those countries to bear the sole responsibility. We contributed our share, and since it is necessary to repatriate the Indians it is not only the duty of this country but it is also the duty of India to contribute her share, because India admits that the Indians are still her people and not our subjects. These Indians are foreigners, but they are only foreigners when if affects economic questions when it suits them. For the rest they do not want to have anything to do with us. The Indian is an Asiatic and must therefore be treated as such, and we must see to it that in this respect we are protected and that we are no longer exploited. It is a greaty pity that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister could not arrange for a consultation between both sides of the House with a view to solving this difficult problem. If that could have been arranged, the Indian problem and the native problem as well as the coloured problem could have been tackled at the same time, and we as a European race could have found a solution for this problem, at the same time doing justice towards the non-European races. But unfortunately that road is no longer open, and for that reason we want to adopt the only other course which remains. This Bill is dangerous; it is very much like an atom bomb threatening the European civilisation. It may explode at any time and destroy European civilisation. By means of this legislation, we are going to recognise the Indians as a permanent part of the population, and we are going tó give them the franchise and a measure of say in this country, which they do not recognise at all as their home. If this Bill is accepted in this form, 250,000 Indians will be given a say through the medium of the votes they will have in this House. How does that compare with the conditions of the other non-European races? The Indian will be given the right to have three representatives in the House. If we take the coloured population at approximately 800,000 and the natives at 8,000,000 and the Europeans at 2,000,000, and if we were to give all sections representation on the same scale as in the case of the Indians, what would our position be in this country? The position would be that the Indians would have three representatives, the coloureds would be given nine representatives, the natives 96 as against 24 in the case of the Europeans, that is, if we were to give equal rights to the non-European population. What would then become of us? We would then be wiped off this earth. If we give this representation to the Indians, do you think the eight million natives would be satisfied with only three representatives in this House, while these foreign Indians also have three representatives? And would the coloured people, be satisfied in view of the fact that they have not even got a single representative here? By means of this step we are taking here we are creating a most dangerous problem. For that reason I make an appeal to the Prime Minister to see, even at this eleventh hour, whether some means cannot be found of solving this difficult problem by means of co-operation. We must take into account our duty towards the coloureds as well as the natives, and we must realise that in taking this step in respect of the Indians, we cannot ignore the claims of the other groups, but that we must see that justice is done and we must do the right thing. I hope that the Prime Minister will still accept this view before we vote on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, the speech of the Minister of Finance was in my opinion a complete vindication of his attitude to this Bill. He weighed its merits and demerits in the balance and made his decision accordingly. Such a scrupulous operation was apparently above the comprehension of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). He treated it with derision. This will not disconcert the Minister, for it is a mark of an inferior mind to deride what it cannot aspire to. The hon. member accused the Minister of swallowing his principles. Sir, I readily concede that the hon. member is incapable of such an act of deglutition. If the hon. member for Beaufort West had to live by swallowing his principles, he would die of inanition. The hon. member tried, to the best of what he believes to be his ability, to prove that the Minister ought to resign. Sir, there is no greater service that the Minister could render the reactionary forces than to resign. His resignation would split the progressive forces and ensure a triumph for reaction. The Minister has proved more than once that he is incapable of betraying the cause of liberalism. He proved it on a previous occasion by resigning. He proves it on this occasion by not resigning. On both occasions he takes his stand on the high ground of principle.

Throughout this debate, it seems to me, there has been a reluctance to face up to the international implications of this question. These implications may be very far-reaching. From the international point of view, it is not the liberal element which is embarrassing this country. It is those who insist on treating the whole problem as if it could be divorced from its international implications. With the notable exception of the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard) every speaker has repeated the same theme— the Indian problem is entirely a domestic matter to be settled by the Parliament of South Africa. The course which the Indian Congress is pursuing is a challenge to the Government of this country, and a denial of our sovereignty; if the Indians try to induce outside powers to interevene, they will do their cause no good; they will merely forfeit their right to be regarded as good citizens. So runs the theme; but the very force and frequency with which it is repeated, is, in effect, a recognition of the fact that the dispute has already gone beyond the scope of a domestic issue. Let us face that fact. As long as the Indians in this country feel themselves to be aggrieved and affronted and have no constitutional means of obtaining redress, nothing will prevent them from appealing to India and seeking her intervention; and India has made it plain both by word and deed that she will not renounce her concern for the Indian community in this country.

And how does that concern us?

I will explain. India will not renounce her concern until their rights and dignities have been established on an acceptable basis. Thus we find ourselves face to face with India on this issue. Whether the hon. member likes it or not, the dispute has been lifted out of the domestic arena onto the international plane. It is on that plane that we shall have to deal with it. That polished diplomat, the hon. member for Beaufort-West (Mr. Louw) says that we should tell India not to poke her nose into our domestic affairs. I have a feeling that India will not be intimidated by such crude phrases. We are all conscious of the destiny and growing power of India. India is on the threshold of an independent development. With her vast manpower, her resources and strategic position, she will undoubtedly emerge as the first power in Asia and a great world power. That is a factor we cannot ignore. It is vital to the safety of South Africa that India should remain within the Commonwealth. There are undoubtedly strong forces working to keep India within the Commonwealth; but there are also strong forces working in the opposite direction. Leaders like Nehru make no secret of their ambitions. They believe that India’s natural affinity is with Russia and China. By our handling of the Indian problem, are we not strengthening the hands of leaders like Nehru, who would lead India out of the Commonwealth and into the Russian orbit? I need not enlarge on the tremendous consequence of such a reorientation of power. It would profoundly alter the balance of world forces. The secession of India from the Commonwealth would leave a great gap in our strategic chain. New Zealand and Australia would be isolated in the far Pacific. Britain would not longer be a first class power; and South Africa would be in the most precarious position of all, a lonely, friendless outpost, exposed to dangers to some extent of our own making. Surely the collective wisdom and statesmanship of the Commonwealth should be brought to bear upon our relations with India. The British Government is playing its part. Today we have in Britain a Government which is genuinely anxious to work out a constructive and enlightened policy for India, and to set her on the road to full Dominion’ status. That task is not an easy one. There is much bitterness to overcome, the bitterness of a militent nationalism struggling to be free and independent. But Indian nationalism in the day of its triumph, may be more ready to recognise what Britain has done for India. Whatever its sins of commission and ommission, when everything has been weighed in the balance, I think it will turn decisively in Britain’s favour. After all, if India has acquired experience in the working of representative institutions, if India has mastered the arts of democratic government, if India is better equipped to face an independent future than any other country in Asia, this is due chiefly to British rule. If any Government is capable of keeping India within the Commonwealth, it is’ the present British Government. But are we playing our part? Are we not dissipating the fund of goodwill which the British Government is building up? Dare we shut our eyes to the fact that India may reject a Commonwealth arrangement which would involve her in some sort of partnership with South Africa? I fear that we must be a source of embarrassment to the British Government. Mark you, we have not heard one word of complaint from the British Government. There has been no hint of interference. The Opposition may note that, as far as the British Government is concerned, our sovereignty is being scrupulously respected. But that does not free us from the obligation of acting with wisdom and circumspection in our handling of the Indian problem. Britain’s correct attitude is not a sign of indifference but of forbearance. It shows a respect for our sovereignty, but it is also a tribute to our political maturity. The respect for our sovereignty we are entitled to. The tribute to our political maturity we have still to deserve. We shall only deserve it if we pursue a policy which will not estrange India from the commonwealth, which will not lead to the weakening and disruption of the Commonwealth but will lead to its strengthening and consolidation, a policy which is as much in our interests as in the interest of Britain.

I would like to address myself to the Dominion Party. I listened with very close attention to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). I admired his eloquence although I deplore his attitude. Indeed, I was so captivated by his old-world charm that I imagined myself back in the 18th century. I saw before me a statesman of the reign of George III, a statesman who argued with the same force and eloquence against the principle of “no taxation without representation”, and in consequence lost the American colonies to the British Crown. Now, is the hon. gentleman not, in effect, arguing against the selfsame principle today, and is he not perhaps rendering a similar disservice to the Crown? It is impossible to reconcile the attitude of the Dominion Party to the Indian question with the high principles they profess. They have constituted themselves the custodians of the Crown. They who were so eager to defend its indi visibility are now ready to shatter its integritv. In this respect the Nationalist Opposition are far more logical. An illiberal approach to the Indian problem commends itself to them on its own grounds, but if in addition it has the effect of weakening or disrupting the Commonwealth, it requires even greater merit in their eyes. The Dominion Party, by their political maladroitness, are playing into the bands of the very forces they set up to fight. I make no apology for upholding the Commonwealth point of view. I venture to believe that it represents a considerable body of enlightened opinion. I believe that South Africa can best work out its destiny within the Commonwealth. As a small State outside the Commonwealth, we should be completely at the mercy of external forces which we could neither influence nor modify. Inside the Commonwealth, we are an effective political force We can help to shape and even motivate a common Imperial policy. I believe that the attitude of progressive-minded people towards the Empire should be governed by two principles. In the first place, the Empire, whatever its defects, represents a unified system; and in the present anarchy of international relations we should cling steadfastly to any unitv we have already achieved; we should certainly not seek to increase the number of so-called independent states. We should encourage every tendency towards cohesion and resist every tendency towards separatism. The second consideration is still more important. We must recognise a change in the character of British Imperialism. British Imperialism as an aggressive force has ceased to exist. It has outlined its epoch of expansionism. It is no longer dynamic, predatory and over-bearing. The Empire is coming to an end by a process which is turning it into something which is not an Empire at all. This process of de-imperialisation has been in progress for some time, and although it is far more important and significant than attempts at increasing the Empire, it is a process less noted and understood by the world at large. Yet it is of the utmost importance, for it gives hone for a solution of the problem of imperialism. This transformation of an Empire into a Commonwealth is a process to which South Africa, under the leadership of General Botha, General Hertzog and our Prime Minister, has made an invaluable contribution. This process can continue only if the member states consciously work together towards that end and maintain sufficient unity to present a common front against external aggression. Given this fundamental unity and a common purpose, I see no reason why the Commonwealth should not undergo a further process of decentralising evolution. It has not yet reached its final form. I am not thinking in terms of paper constitutions and doctrinaire formulas. There is a tendency, when discussing the future of the Commonwealth to lose ourselves in legalistic disputes about such things as the indivisibility of the Crown, the right of secession, etc. Such disputes have only an academic value; they will not determine the real shape of things. The Statute of Westminster for example, did not lay the foundations of the British Commonwealth of Nations. It merely registered certain relationships which had already evolved, and which it was desirable to place on permanent record. I see no reason why the Commonwealth should not continue to develop on these lines. The pressure of progressive forces within, the need to adapt itself to a changing world without, will determine its final shape. We shall then find the formulas to fit it. It seems to me that the next stage in its development is a sort of regionalism, a regionalism advocated by the Prime Minister, whereby the Dominions will assume a far greater share of responsibility for the progess and welfare of their more backward neighbours in the Empire. South Africa should gather inspiration from its own historical experience. As a country which has itself envolved from the inferior position of a colonial dependency to full Dominion status, it should be ready to champion the cause of the more backward peoples of the Empire, and help them to develop on similar lines. Therein South Africa can rise to real greatness, and assume a role of leadership on the African continent. That seems to me a far more inspiring prospect than a narrow isolationism which would reduce South Africa to a negligible role on the continent of Africa. We must, remember, above all, that the Commonwealth is not only an international but an inter-racial structure. If we are to quality for a role of leadership and pre-eminence, we must first show that we can solve the problem of race relations within our own boundaries. We must show a capacity for statemanship in framing a society which will enable the various racial groups to live together in peace and contentment and make their maximum contribution to the common welfare. We shall not bring this about by a policy of segregation without consent and representation with a colour bar. We talk a great deal about preserving western civilisation. I am as anxious as anyone in this House to preserve western civilisation; but I believe that western civilisation, if it is to be true to its own genius, has a higher mission than merely to be on the defensive. I believe that the more it diffuses its benefits, the more it will enlarge the area of its own safety and ascendancy. But the more it puts up barriers for its own protection, the more it will be threatened by the growing forces it excludes from its benefits. Unless we recognise this great and simple truth and bring it into our legislation, we shall be an increasingly unhappy society—white and coloured, divided but inseparable, locked in perpetual conflict, the dominating and the dominated, moving towards inevitable disaster.

I shall not dwell on the arguments of the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Friedman). At the outset I shall confine myself to the statements that have been made by the hon. member for North-East Rand (Mr. Heyns). He stood up here and, although I rather doubt whether it is worth while referring to his speech, said certain things which touch me so closely and which touch the Afrikaner people so closely that I cannot refrain from dealing with them. He tried to belittle the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) and to make certain allegations against the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, a member whom the Afrikaner people regarded with pride as a young Boer general who fought in the second War of Freedom for Afrikanerdom. For the hon. member for North-East Rand to stand up here and make false accusations against the hon. member for Wolmaransstad is a scandal, nothing less than a scandal. The hon. member for North-East Rand is himself a man who rebelled in 1914 in order to try and win back for the Afrikaner what was once their love and their pride. He rebelled with and followed the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, but now he comes and makes allegations in regard to what was done in 1905, things that were entirely untrue, and I repeat it is a disgrace.

Did he not circularise petitions for the Chinese?

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad stood up here and said it was untrue, and I shall not go further into the matter. Now I come to the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson). When we are trying to secure co-operation and to find a slution the hon. member comes and says that we have argued so long on these matters that in Select Committee we could get nothing that we cannot obtain by our present arguments. Is it logical for a Government frontbencher to employ such an argument? It has frequently happened in the past that legislation of a much less important character has first been considered by a Select Committee. We have time enough to do that. That argument of the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) falls absolutely flat. He says further that the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) stated that we entirely agree with the first part of the Bill, which is also not true. The hon. member stated very clearly that we agreed in principle provided certain alterations could be effected. As it stands here we do not accept it. He further asserted that the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Minister of the Interior arranged for the Indian Agent-General to be brought here. What are the real circumstances of the case? We got the Agent-General here with the approval of the Prime Minister, but with what object? That he should try to exert his influence on the Indians so that they could give effect to the legislation of the Leader of the Opposition, so that as many Indians as possible could be repatriated. It was not a question of an appointment for the promotion of Indian interests. It was for the sake of Indian co-operation in the repatriation plan that we got the Agent-General here. The hon. member for Pietersburg explained the matter so well in connection with the distortion of the hon. member for North East Rand (Mr. Heyns) regarding the native franchise in 1936 that I did not think it would be necessary to go into it. But the hon. member for Ermelo again tried to give out that the party on this side wanted to go still further than the legislation eventually went. We know what the circumstances were. There was the first Bill in which representation was only given in the Senate to the natives. I and other members who at that time belonged to the Fusion Party were obliged to let that Bill drop and to accept Bill No. 2 which gave representation to the natives in the Assembly. He says now that the Nationalist section accepted that proposal. It is quite correct that we eventually adopted that legislation, but we must not forget that the natives, as far as the franchise is concerned, had an equal say with the Europeans in the Cape constituencies of the Assembly. We wanted to alter the franchise and we succeeded in so far that they got representation in a different way. Now we are told that on that account we should also adopt this legislation. We are dealing here with legislation which gives the franchise to the Indian community. They are getting representation in Parliament, though they did not have it previously. This is an entirely different matter, so why do we get such a distortion of the facts from members on the other side?

This legislation that has been introduced is, I think we will all admit, legislation in regard to which there is no semblance of unanimity. As far as my knowledge of Parliament goes there has never been legislation before this House on which less unanimity has existed. Posterity will look back and admit that this was the case. In the past we have differed on legislation in respect of language and economics. But here we have to deal with a matter where all Opposition parties absolutely and definitely oppose the measure. We even find the admission of members on the other side that they do not fully support the Bill. We as members of the Nationalist Party oppose the Bill. Unfortunately we are comprised mainly today only of Afrikaans-speaking people. The Dominion Party is comprised solely of English-speaking people, and the Labour Party is comprised of English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people. But we find nevertheless that all these parties oppose the Bill. It is very clear to me that all these parties are not opposing the Government on the ground of race or language difficulties. They are differing from the Government party on a much broader principle.

The Labour Party are going to support the Bill.

They are fighting the measure. As the hon. member for Pietersburg has said, they oppose the measure, but then they have not the courage to vote against it. Nevertheless we shall find that when it comes to a division on this Bill several of the Labourites will be absent. There is no language difference or race difference over the Bill, so why was there not consultation? The hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) rose here and asked what contribution the Opposition had furnished in connection with the Bill. Apparently he has not yet read our party’s amendment. If he had read it he would have found out what we on this side propose, and perhaps it would have been acceptable to them. We shall show on our side absolute preparedness to go further into the matter and perhaps then we shall be able to draft something which will be acceptable to all. As a party however, they are strong enough. They can rely on their own strength to push the Bill through Parliament. They can do so violently, but that will not find approval with the public because the public will recall what took place in 1927 when the Leader of the Opposition, as Minister of the Interior tackled the Indian problem by consultation with the other parties in the House. Although he did not succeed completely in his efforts he nevertheless achieved considerable success. As the hon. member for Pietersburg has said if there is anyone who is conversant with the Indian problem it is the Leader of the Opposition. But he is ignored. Still, he proposed this amendment and the Prime Minister ought to make some use of it. We do not wish to be provincial, but we cannot get away from it that the people in the Free State must feel very hurt over legislation of this sort. Up to the present they have succeeded in keeping the Free State free of Asiatics, and now the Government comes with legislation which will give the Asiatics some say in the Free State.

That is not so.

This Bill gives the Asiatics the right to elect three representatives in the Assembly, and they will have the same right as other members to vote and to speak on any matter. This is where the tragedy comes in. In the Free State the Government has only one representative out of 14 members, that is the Minister of Labour. This implies, consequently, that the Prime Minister has not consulted the other thirteen constituencies. As things are now the Bill will go through, and what we regret is that one member of the Free State, the son of one of our great Afrikaners, namely President Steyn, allows legislation of this sort to be adopted which will also have an effect on the Free State. It is a tragedy, and if the Minister of Labour did not think of his country and of his people he should have thought of the role his father filled. It would have grieved his father to see what is going on here now. The population of the Free State may be limited but its strength is certainly greater than that of the number of Indians in the country. The Indians are now getting the franchise and the Free State has not been consulted by the Prime Minister.

Then I wish to say something in regard to the form in which the measure has been presented. The Prime Minister has linked together two separate parts of the Bill. With certain amendments the one part is acceptable to this side, and to the Dominion Party and perhaps also to the Labour Party. But a tail is tacked on, a second part, and that part is not acceptable to us, and members on the other side also find it difficult to swallow that second part. Everyone who stands up on the other side concentrates his attention mainly on the good points of the Bill, on the first part, but when they come to the second part they flounder all over the place in an endeavour to set up a defence. It is clear that those members do not feel happy over the second part. When it comes to a division they have no choice between the first part and the tailpiece of the Bill. In that way the Prime Minister is compelling them to vote for the tailpiece as well.

After listening to the Minister of Finance it is very clear to us that the Prime Minister in order to retain the Minister of Finance in the Cabinet gave in to his opinion. He has now declared unequivocally that he stands for absolutely equal political rights for Europeans and non-Europeans in the country. According to him there ought to be no dividing line between European and non-European in the political sphere. The Prime Minister has had experience of the Minister of Finance. I was a member of the Fusion Party in 1939 when the late Mr. A. J. P. Fourie was appointed to the Senate to represent the natives. The Minister of Finance did not agree with that, and he and the present Minister of Transport resigned from the Cabinet. He went further. The first Pegging Act came. He did not see his way to agree to it and he and Mr. Blackwell left the caucus. I can understand the Prime Minister being a little afraid of the attitude of the Minister of Finance. He had to pay the price by bringing in the second part of the Bill, notwithstanding the fact that the Minister of Finance is not completely satisfied with it. Still he succeeded in his purpose, because he now has the opportunity to extend those rights in the future.

Then I come to members on the other side. There I must give the Prime Minister credit that it is only by virtue of his strong personality that many of these members were influenced to accept the second part of the Bill. At first they were opposed to it, but the strong personality of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister brought them to the point of accepting the second part of the Bill. I maintain, without any disrespect to the other members of the Cabinet, that no one else on the other side could have influenced those members to vote for this Bill. But the question is whether their constituents are satisfied with the attitude they have taken up here. I am convinced that dissatisfaction will be prevalent amongst them. I want to say plainly to the Prime Minister that this concession he has made to the hon. Minister of Finance, to the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) to the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg) and a few others, will dig the grave of the United Party. I do not mind him having done that, but what I am worried about is that in doing so he is undermining the position of white civilisation in this country. On that account I am concerned.

Now I turn to the Minister of Finance. He stated clearly here that he is opposed to any colour bar in connection with oplitical rights. To that he added that the Opposition could now go round the country and try to make political capital out of it. It is not always our motive to make political capital, but a duty rests on us when such a definite statement is made, and that too from someone who will become the Leader of the United Party should the Prime Minister retire. When we go round the country it is not that we want to make political capital but we regard it as our duty to make the country thoroughly conversant with the attitude of the Minister of Finance. Every good parent strives to make provision for his children and his descendants. When we have legislation of this nature we cannot, as parents, do otherwise than be filled with apprehension and distress over what is coming in the near future. Parental alarm is easy to understand. But without casting any reproach on the Minister of Finance I would just say that he as an unmarried man does not know what that parental alarm is. I do not want to reproach him for not having a family. But I do not believe that he is able to feel like the parent with children to follow him. We can read about the parental feeling in books, but it is only the parent with children who can get the genuine feeling of the parent in his heart concerning his child. It is very clear to us, as things are shaping, that the legislation that has been introduced here will be placed on the Statute Book, and it is only the beginning. It appears to us it is going to produce great danger in the country. European civilisation is being menaced. Now I want to ask the powerful Indian people in India whether when we can clearly see our future is threatened we should concede everything they demand? Is it reasonable that they should insist on these concessions? As things are going now it is more or less clear to all of us that the people of India will shortly have absolute freedom. It looks as if things are moving that way. Seeing they are getting that freedom in India is it right that they should present all sorts of demands to South Africa on behalf of the Indians in South Africa, although it may imply our downfall. No, it is not right. The South Afrcan Indian population is lucky to this degree, that perhaps as a result of their religion, or perhaps as the result of their mode of living they have remained a pure race. When they think about India, which is going to obtain its freedom, they can find a home there. So why should they master the Europeans with their great numerical strength? It is not right. In my constituency I have Indians who have gone ahead with the support of Europeans, and I feel that they will not press for these various things we hear of. I have respect for such Indians and I am convinced that that class will understand our position and will appreciate our concern. I hope that that section of the Indians will try to use their influence and move the others to modify their demands. The representation of the Asiatics by theree members in this Assembly is dangerous. We have gained experience with the three representatives of the natives who are sitting here. The Minister of Native Affairs himself realised that he has to warn these members that if they continue along these lines they become nothing else but agitators, and that thereby they will be injuring the interests of the natives. Now three Asiatic representatives will be added to them, and we can realise what agitation will be set up for certain colour groups in the country. If it was a case of their confining themselves to specific Asiatic affairs or native affairs we could understand it. But the position is now that they can take part in any debate and they have the same privileges and the same say as other members. As things are going we shall in a short time have two parties in this country of almost equal strength. The Nationalist Party is growing in strength. The party on the other side is waning in strength, as the Minister of Native Affairs himself admitted, as a result of the Caledon election. They are slipping back and in a very short time the two parties will be very close to each other. Then we shall have these six representatives of the natives and the Asiatics, and what power will they not be able to exercise in the House?

And three Communists as well.

I would not accuse those three members of the Labour Party of being Communists. I fear, however, that they are sailing very near the wind, but the hon. member will agree with me that when we have two parties here who are virtually of equal strength, and when we have these six representatives of the natives and the Asiatics on the cross benches—they may have the balance in their hands—they will be able to exercise a tremendous influence here.

Now I come to the composition of the board. I see that these people can be appointed for five years, and after the five years they may be re-elected or the vacancies can be filled. But it is laid down in the Bill that before the end of the five years they can be retired on various grounds. They can be retired, for instance, if they are guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment without the option of a fine. If they are absent without leave from three consecutive meetings of the board, or if they are guilty of misbehaviour, the Minister can deprive them of membership of the board. It appears that the appointment of members of the board is going to be done in a rather off-hand manner when provision has been made for all these sort of disqualifications. But when one thinks of the powers this board has you ask yourself whether it is not a wrong principle. I would rather see the power to delimit areas left in the hands of the Government, or of the department, subject to approval of Parhament. Portions of land may be demarcated which may have belonged to families for a long time. We have seen that the Minister of Lands is engaged in expropriating land in Dongola, but he has to bring it before Parliament and Parliament has the final decision. I do not think that powers of this description should be in the hands of a board composed as this one is, and on which two representatives of the Asiatics are sitting, and two other members appointed by the Government besides the chairman, who will be appointed by the Government. I can see clearly that when it comes to demarcations we shall have instances where land that has been inherited for generations and to which great sentiment is attached may be demarcated under the Bill. This board is acquiring the powers to do that, and a heritage of this kind may be made available as a mixed area. This can only have the result of the sentiment of the heirs being absolutely wounded. This must also have the result of depreciating the value of those areas and it is very obvious to me that in these circumstances this should not be left in the hands of a board but it should be left to the decision of this Parliament.

There is only one small point I should still like to bring in, perhaps it is rather untimely but I cannot let the opportunity slip. We have heard from hon. members on the other side, especially members such as the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) and the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg) that they are worried about the rights of Asiatics. They want to give equal rights to Asiatics. Then I would advise them to give that advice as well to those of their own race in Palestine. Difficulties exist today there between the Arabs and the Jews. Let them also be broadminded there and give equal rights to the Arabs. Why make trouble, give these people equal rights and eliminate the trouble in that way. They want to preach certain things to us which they are themselves not prepared to practise. I do not think it is reasonable of those members to put these demands to the Afrikaner people.

In conclusion, I would say that we have to deal with a matter of such extreme importance, the results of which will be of great significance to European civilisation, I would again appeal to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to bring about unity. The people are yearning for unity, and here is a golden opportunity to attain a large measure of unity which will lead in the future to a definite upliftment of the Afrikaner people and as a result of which English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people will live together happily in the future.

It has been obvious from the speeches in this debate that the members on the Government benches were very anxious to find out particularly and precisely what the Labour Party point of view on this Bill is. I do not know whether they are satisfied or not. It seemed to me that they wanted us to indicate how crystal clear our ideas were, presumably in order that they may follow us when we have demonstrated that crystal clearness. But it is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that sometimes when gazing into the crystal, the crystal clouds and the vision is not discernible, and so we have not been able in this party of ten people to give that advice and guidance to the cohorts of the United Party that they evidently sought, and so, as our original speaker said, this is still a United Party Bill. It is still something that the United Party must not only claim responsibility for, but must take full responsibility for, because as was said by another speaker, there has been no indication as yet of any suggestion of deferring the Bill to further consideration before presenting it to the House. By the prolongation of the debate we are apparently to take it for granted that the Bill is going through, and I suppose we can readily take it for granted that, except where the Minister will be graciously pleased to indicate an amendment of bis own wisdom, it will go through Committee merely, by virtue of the fact that there are enough people to see that it does. Now, we have no quarrel with that procedure. That apparently is the procedure recognised by Parliament, and if we had a quarrel, it would not make any difference. But, I think personally that enough has been said both from the Government benches and from the other benches to prove conclusively to any reasonable person that there is very good ground for reconsideration of the things involved in the problem before the House, before a cut and dried Bill is presented to us, which can be claimed to solve the problem. I want to refer for a moment to a very definite statement at the beginning of the White Paper which was issued to us on the Bill—

I want, to emphasise that word “permanently”; it is not for a time, not for a long time, but permanently—

Now, the only people who want ultimate wisdom apparently in this connection are the Dominion Party. Perhaps the Nationalists do too, I am not quite sure of this, but certainly the Dominion Party want ultimate wisdom now. They want that problem settled so satisfactorily from their point of view, and so permanently, that there will not be any Indians left when the problem is settled. That is their cast iron attitude in the matter. The Nationalist Party should find cause some alarm in this word “permanently”, because they are most concerned apparently as one of the biggest parties in this House that something different should be done than the Government intends, and they have indicated in their approach to the matter that they want the whole of the coloured question in all its aspects on the basis of separation, including the Indian and native Questions, cleared up and they propose to do it by way of a Joint Committee of the Houses, which will bring in the Bill or Bills necessary. They should be very alarmed at the word “permanent” here in this White Paper, and there are other people who should be verv alarmed too, and one is the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance. He should be very alarmed at the use of the word “permanent” because in effect on his own argument he is voting for some permanent thing that he proposes at some time if he is able, to alter. That is not very logical. But if he were logical he would perhaps no longer keep his post as Minister of Finance. Not that I think that South Africa would suffer overmuch if that were so. No one believes that he was sent from God to be our Minister of Finance, and in passing, Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation of the manner in which the member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) replied to the Minister of Finance, and dispersed any illusions he may have entertained at the time of making his speech. I have no great sympathy with the view of any of our Nationalist friends, but I certainly think that the member for Beaufort West did the country a great service when he so ably dealt with the Minister of Finance. He deprived him of any illusion that he might feel inclined to hang on to and exposed him, and I think rightly so, in his attitude to this Bill, and disposed of his claim to be the thorough Christian gentleman that he wanted to be inferred when making the speech.

Do you mind if I say “nonsense” to that?

Well, you may say it, but I will not give you a medal for it. Having said that, I want to say this, that the bringing of religion into what after all is a matter of fair play is overdone. My colleague rightly said that the people who are supposed to carry out the injunctions of the Master they profess to serve are more often bringing up the rear than in the van, and he said a very true thing, because if you apply in this modern year of 1946 all that has been said about this problem by Christians through the 2.000 years, that have passed there would not be any problem left. I do not make this as a rash assertion on my own authority. One could go on quoting forever and a day from authorities recognised by Christians the world over in support of that fact. We hear constant references to God and the brotherhood of man, but when we try to get a little matter of fair play on to the Statute Book we have to listen to the kind of speeches we have heard in the past few days on this debate. Not one of our friends on the Government benches really spoke in defence of this Bill. From those benches the Indian has been bully-ragged and blackguarded, and members have suggested that both in the rich one and in the poor one you have a most unsatisfactory citizen. They have said the Indian is no good, and will never be any good. But nevertheless they conclude that the Indian must have the vote, not as we have the vote, but we must give them the vote in the way suggested in the Bill. Then, having descended to a level of hooliganism in their characterisation of the victims, they propose to shackle the victims permanently with the kind of franchise that is proposed in the Bill, and the only argument that stands out in support of a very unsatisfactory position, is the one of expediency.

Is your leader voting against the Bill?

My Leader has not told me whether he is voting against the Bill. I have not asked him. Why are Members so anxious to know what the Labour Party is prepared to do in this or that? Are we really so important after all? If we are, for all our importance and for all our value, I have still to plead that we are only human, making this qualification, that if we find ourselves in a difficult position, we do not try to hide the fact nor do we try to deceive people. We have had the most childish exhibition from the Government benches for the last three or four days. They have been trying to kid somebody that they really believe something. They do not believe anything at all. Therefore, in a foolish kind of way they are trying to put this Bill on the Statute Book, first of all to quieten their own consciences and secondly to take credit for doing something for the Indian. Now, Sir, I take the point of view that it is not reasonable in a world of reality, once you have agreed that people in any country shall vote for their representatives on public bodies, to discriminate between the people concerned. If a person is a citizen of South Africa by virtue of the fact that he or she was born here, the logical conclusion to come to is that he or she should have the vote. There should be no doubt about that. I think this, too, that having agreed that that is the position, then the people that have the vote should have the right to select their representatives, not only when they vote for them, but when candidates are selected. I am not believing something that is outrageous, something that the world does not accept as truth, it has world-wide acceptance. And only in South Africa is exception taken. Because of this United Party members are only doing something they are compelled to do, and will see to it that they do no more than they are compelled to. The question of expediency one knows plays a very big part in human arrangements, but that does not absolve people from standing out when it is their duty to stand out, and speaking when it is their duty to speak, and put their point of view from what may be called the platform of truth. The claim is not made that one speaking from these benches is the only person that speaks the truth. But the challenge is made to the House that you know the truth, and do not follow it. That challenge has been made before. It was made in the early days of the Christian church when the Apostles said: “You know the truth, but you do not follow it.” The same challenge is made today, and it is not implied that I am the only one who sees the truth. I do want to say that the drawback suffered by the Labour Party in the matter is lack of public opinion. The United Party, however, has ample public opinion, but the United Party has not consulted that public opinion.

Do you?

I have just said we have very little public opinion.

I agree with you.

The United Party has not listened to its public opinion and will put this Bill through as a party measure, as I said in the beginning, never once faltering. Now, Sir, for myself I am going to be expedient. I am going to vote for this darned thing, because, though grudgingly, the United Party have been compelled to do something that is at least a little step towards the ideal. They are doing it as grudgingly as they can, and I am going to see that no vote of mine stops it from going through. But if they think I am doing it from aný other motive than expediency, they think wrong. And if other members of the Labour Party are not expedient, let the members of the United Party look into their own hearts, and then agree that there may be reasons why they should not be. If some of them vote against the Bill, so would some of the Government members, if it were not for the nature of the discipline exercised, which I admit one cannot quite understand. On their own showing, I think a lot of them have not spoken what they feel. That has been apparent from this debate. There is hardly one of them that believes in this Bill. The Deputy-Prime Minister does not believe in it. I do not think the Minister of the Interior believes in it. I am not so sure the Minister of Native Affairs believes in it, and yet they will vote for it. They will have done something which is desperately expedient, and I will have been a party to it, because I believe that in passing even this Bill at least some little thing will be accomplished in the way of progress.

Unfortunately I cannot say what was said by the hon. member who has just sat down. He said: “I shall vote for this darn thing.” If he calls it a “darn thing” I wonder what the people in the country think about it, and consequently as a Freestater I feel that it is my duty to raise my voice in protest since the Minister of the Interior is remaining quiet. He does not say a word about the difficulty with which we are faced at present and he is the responsible Minister. He does not say a word, but I do not hold it against him because only a short while ago when there was trouble in Johannesburg the Minister of Labour was also as silent as the grave. I say that I cannot agree with the hon. member who has just sat down. He said: “I will vote for this darn thing.” I cannot vote for it. I as a Freestater cannot vote for this legislation in any form. The danger is just this, that we are deeply convinced that this Bill is the thin end of the wedge. Concessions are being made here which will eventually have dangerous consequences. We in the Free State are fortunate in that we are not faced with this problem there, but as border representatives we run the risk that there may easily be an overflow as a result of all these concessions and, as a result of the liberality of the Minister of the Interior who has the right to issue permits to Indians to open businesses all over the place. We feel that once these concessions are made it will eventually lead to this result that the Free State will also suffer as a result of the introduction of this Bill.

You need not be concerned about that.

We are called upon in this country as the guardians of the inheritance of those who succeed us to protest against this measure. We realise this danger, and the worst of all is this, that some of the members of the Labour Party who make a hullabaloo here and who talk against the Bill are prepared to vote for it. They oppose the Bill, and the Dominion Party is doing the same thing. When they talk to us in the Lobby they tell us that the English-speaking people in Natal are up in arms and that they are dissatisfied and bitterly dissatisfied for this reason; they ask why provision is being made in this Bill, especially in the second part of the Bill, to give the Indians direct representation in the Provincial Council of Natal. They themselves realise the danger, and not only we on this side of the House, that eventually this Bill will result in the Indians gaining the upper-hand over the European civilisation in Natal. What have been the consequences up to the present? Why have the Indians succeeded in obtaining the best sites everywhere in the midst of Europeans? It has been told to me as the truth that these capitalistic Indians in the country are the people who are insisting that the Indians be given the franchise, and as soon as they have the franchise they will insist on more and more rights. The ordinary Indian in Natal is highly satisfied and content with the existing conditions. But what are these people doing? They buy properties from Europeans and they themselves do not live in those houses. They pay enormous prices in one of the best parts of Natal, and then they send an ordinary Indian to live in the house, and as soon as they get there they start ’ kicking up a din—“Chook-a-look-a-chook”—and eventually the Europeans are forced to leave that area, and in this way they drive the Europeans out of that area in increasing numbers. I have been in Durban myself. I have relatives living there, and I told them that I would not live in that area for any money in the world. I would be the most unhappy person in the world if I had to live in that area. And what is the Government doing today? Instead of taking advantage of the opportunity they now have to peg certain areas where Indians only may live, they go so far as to allow Europeans to live amongst the Indians. We are called upon to do upliftment work in this country, and there lies the great danger that I visualise in this Bill. We are faced with a tremendous problem in the poor white problem. Where are those poor people going to get a piece of land today where they can put up a home for themselves, if they are unable to buy land in the cheapest parts? And what is the Government doing? They are forcing the poor white population in South Africa into the mire instead of uplifting those people and giving them a civilised standard of living. No-, they have to be forced down into the mire; they have to live amongst the Asiatics. I feel therefore that I could never vote for that part of the Bill, and I cannot join my hon. friend on the Labour benches in saying that I will vote for this “darn thing”. I cannot vote for it. The danger lies in the direct representation which is being given to the Indians in Natal. Who has a greater claim to direct representation —the natives in this country or the coloured persons who are natives of this country, or the Indians? But this so-called insipid Government of today, under the leadership, inter alia, of the Minister of Finance has to do something to satisfy the Indians. The baby started to become naughty and had to be given candy. In that way the Government wants to relieve the pain in the baby’s stomach. That is why they are prepared to give the Indians direct representation. It is the thin end of the wedge. The native has a greater claim than the Indian in this country and the same applies to the coloured person. But the Government is giving the Indians that privilege although the natives and the coloured people have a greater claim to it, and in the not too distant future, if this Bill goes through; they will also demand this privilege. And when dealing with a dangerous man like the Minister of Finance, who may possibly become the leader of the party on the other side, a man who is the greatest liberalist that South Africa has ever known, who even stated in the course of his speech that he would welcome it if the Indians were to sit in these benches amongst us, we must remember that he would also be in favour of giving the natives and the coloured persons a seat in the House, and when that day arrives, I say with the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. E. R. Strauss): “Give me a machine gun and bring them before me and I shall mow them down as fast as they come.” That is how the people feel, and not only the Afrikaans-speaking section of the people but the English-speaking people as well, all people who have the interests of this country at heart. This legislation is the most serious and the most far-reaching legislation that has ever been introduced, and if we are going to reveal that spirit of concession, I am afraid we are toying with the interests of the State. Take the Minister of Native Affairs, for example. I thought a great deal of him and I still think a great deal of him, but he is also beginning to make too many concessions. The hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Wilkens) said that the Minister had stated that if the representatives of the natives carry on in this way, he will be compelled to do his best to take drastic action against them. Unfortunately the Minister of Native Affairs has in recent times revealed a spirit which gives me cause for concern. He is no longer the strong man he was when he first occupied this portfolio. Here we are dealing with people who are supporting the claims of the Indians. They were brought here to deal with native affairs in this House, and more particularly on behalf of the Cape. But today these people are moving amendments in regard to this legislation. They are trying to get this House to pass legislation which suits them so that when the Indians are given representation in this House they will occupy a stronger position. That is the great danger we foresee. As soon as those Indian representatives come to the House they will have the decisive vote, so that eventually the Indians will have to be admitted to the Free State to crowd out the European population there as they have done elsewhere. I say that the English-speaking people are dissatisfied. My hon. friend on the other side who is Afrikaans-speaking and who may be a descendant of the Voortrekkers, who also made sacrifices for the maintenance of European civilisation in this country, wants to vote blindly for this Bill, but if he does his descendants will dishonour his grave. We cannot blindly vote for legislation which we are convinced will be to the detriment of European civilisation in this country. For that reason we object to this Bill. I should have liked the Minister of the Interior to say whether he holds the same views as the Minister of Finance. We are interested to know what he thinks. I say the Indians have gone so far that they have not the slightest respect for this House. One need only read the telegrams which have come from them and to which reference has been made. They do not talk about “Dr. Malan” or “Gen. Smuts”. They talk about “Malan” and “Smuts”. I have never addressed the Prime Minister as “Smuts”. I address him as “Oom Jan” or “Generaal”. What we take exception to is that they think they can force us, and if I had been the Prime Minister of the State, I would have shown them a thing or two; I would have shown them that they ought to have more respect for the Europeans in this country, and particularly for a man like the Prime Minister. They want to intimidate us by threatening to break off trade relations with us. Let them do so. It will then be the duty of the Prime Minister to tear up this Bill immediately and to throw it into the flames. They will then realise that they have to go down on their knees and beg, if they feel that an injustice has been done to them. But the capitalistic Indian in this country who is imbued with the spirit of communism is the agitator in this country today. They want to dominate us and dictate to us. I want to make an appeal to my friends. The time for quarrels and disputes is past when we are, called upon to deal with such an important matter. I make an appeal to all organisations in the country. If you really have the interest of the State at heart, it is your sacred duty to abandon party political interests. Let us deal with this matter on its merits and be honest towards ourselves and towards those who will succeed us.

The last speaker here attempted to imitate the sounds made by the Indians with a Chuka-la-chukala-chuck. He should rather have attributed that noise to himself. He repeated the words of the hon. Leader of the Opposition such as “serious”, “far-reaching”, “urgent” and similar words: all these are the words used by the Leader of the Opposition and now he Chuka-la-chuka-la-chuck’s just like the Indians. But the criticism which is levelled against us is that we are driving in the thin end of the wedge. With all respect to the Opposition I want to say that the viewpoint put forward by the Minister of Finance concerns us all to a very great extent. He does not blame the Leader of the Opposition. He merely states what should happen. But long before that time the thin end of the wedge was already driven in.

Rather tell us of how you fight in the Caucus.

I consider that remark of the Junior Whip of the Opposition as undignified. I saw no one with a blue eye emerging from our Caucus. But I do not want to waste my time. I merely want to concentrate on Clause 3 of the agreement which drove in the thin end of the wedge. The thin end of the wedge lies in Clause 3 and not in this Bill. As one who has dealt with this matter for years as a member of the City Council of Johannesburg, I can not do otherwise than to associate myself with the view expressed earlier in this debate by the hon. member for North Rand (Mr. Heyns) when he complimented the Prime Minister on the courage showed by him in tackling this problem. For that matter, I wish to go further and say that it was only a Smuts who could have tackled this matter, either now or in the next ten years. It is a difficult matter and a matter which is complex and to tackle it demands moral courage, perseverance and determination, particularly to tackle the matter at this moment. In the past this matter was always referred to a round table. There was always a lack of courage, perseverance and determination. There is no doubt that the question of minority groups in the various countries will be pertinently and prominently discussed at the Peace Conference. We are concerned in the matter. Our reaction to this problem will be discussed at the Peace Conference and I repeat that this Conference will place the question of minority groups in the various countries, Europe and Britain, most prominently in the foreground. The question before the House this evening is thus—are we going to send the Prime Minister as South Africa’s representative to the Peace Conference with a matter left unsettled, or are we going to send him with a clean slate? Are we going to send him with a stone round his neck? Are we going to make it more difficult for him? South Africa has its native problem and it also has this problem which must be solved. South Africa’s contribution to the peace of the world will depend to a large extent on the solution of her own national problems and to what extent she succeeds. This legislation is an attempt to solve a problem. It is an attempt to solve a racial problem in South Africa. Although we would very much like the Opposition to show responsibility and would like them to view national matters seriously, we find that they are of no help to us. We ask them to make an attempt by means of this experiment to obtain a satisfactory solution because this experiment will be keenly watched by the world.

But is it not a solution?

The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) is interrupting me. I ask him: What has his party done? What has his Leader done to help us? Nothing. But it is so easy to make political propaganda all the time. And because he is this evening the only representative of his party from the Rand, it is very easy for him to mislead his party regarding the state of affairs prevailing there. As a matter of fact he would be surprised, after this strike on the Rand, to discover that his party is 50 per cent. nearer to our standpoint as regards this question, than it was last year. To come back to the Indian problem, what is the position today? Two sides are opposed to the Bill. The one objection comes from the Opposition and the other from the Indians themselves. As far as the Opposition is concerned, they object to the franchise. Their point of view is: We do not want to give any right to vote to the Indians.

That was also your viewpoint.

May I remind hon. members that they raised no objection to the granting of the franchise to the natives? If we look at the names of the members on that side who did not vote for that principle at the time, we will find very few. Now they remain silent. They voted in favour of that.

Who gave it to them?

At that time you voted for it and put yourselves in the position of guardianship over the less privileged.

Where were you at that time?

At that time I fought in the Cape. The fact of the matter is that hon. members on the opposite side adopted that principle. Now one can, and the country can, but ask the Opposition: Why do you exploit the position now for political reasons, after having adopted the principle of guardianship over the less privileged? This is the same principle. In what manner can it help to exploit it now for political purposes? No, in so far as the Leader of the Opposition is concerned, this country knows that in 1927, as far as the Indians are concerned, as far as Clause 3 of the agreement is concerned, the Opposition should raise no objection to placing themselves in the position of guardianship over the Indians. Where the native was deprived of certain rights, of fundamental rights, the “rights of man”, the Opposition agreed that he should receive other rights. The same principle applies in respect of this legislation. Here the Indian is deprived of his right to freedom of movement and in its place another right is substituted. Can the Opposition be so inconsistent as to oppose that?

Of what rights are the Indians deprived?

The rights which were granted to them in terms of the agreement of 1927. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) threatened to visit our constituencies and to intimidate us. The whole House and the country know the threats used by that hon. member. Even when he was still a Minister, he made threats. We will face these threats. I and the hon. member for North Rand are prepared to face them. But any Christian Afrikaner will disagree with that and what they today consider to be an important election cry, will meet with just as little success as when in 1938 they shouted against mixed marriages. I say that it is a matter which should be presented to the voters in the correct light and then they will not Pass judgment on it. But the fundamental cause of the misunderstanding between European and non-European today is that this matter is always exploited in elections. The time is not so very distant when we will exploit this matter for elections. The time is at hand, and I say that we should rather join forces to establish a united front. We shall be judged by those who will later suffer on account of our mistakes. We must be sensible. What is the position of the Opposition? They object only to the second part of the Bill. They do not want to say anything about the first part. At the beginning of the debate they indicated that they agreed to the first part. The country may appreciate that but why not, at the same time, attempt to tell the country about the advantages of the second part? Why remain silent as regards that? The hon. member for Westdene, whose constituency includes places like Newlands, must admit that his European voters in those parts are very pleased today, particularly in so far as the first part of the Bill is concerned. I want to leave it at that and “let them flourish in their own folly”. As far as the Indians are concerned, they are opposing the Bill and making a lot of noise. They are opposed to it for two reasons, firstly because the representatives will be Europeans, and secondly because of the communal franchise. Let us say to the Indians: We have made successful experiments in the country as regards the matter. We have made the experiment of having representation of natives by the present native representatives. The Opposition says it was a failure. Do they want to agree with the Indians? That gives me the idea that there are grounds for the telegram from the Indians which says that they agree with Dr. Malan. Why do they change over so quickly. No, they can leave that matter. We have here tonight an example of communal voting by European representatives. On this point we must unfortunately clash with the native representatives. They opposed the Bill on the grounds that communal representation by Europeans is not the correct thing. If that is so, why do they not resign? If they want to be honest, they must admit that they have to a large extent assisted in improving the position of the native in many respects by their representations in this House. Or should we expect that the Indians will not send good men to this House? If we should think that, we must have a very poor opinion of the Indians There should be no reason for the Indians to take up that attitude and especially the native representatives are the last people to say that it is the wrong thing, because their experiment has been successful. No, I see no reason why they should be so pessimistic about the matter. But let us challenge them. When the Bill has been passed, when the areas are demarcated, let us say to them: you were opposed to the Bill and to representation by Europeans on a communal voters’ roll. Do not send representatives to the House but allow your seats to remain vacant. Then we will se how many of the Indians who are making so much propaganda today and who want to plead their case overseas, will be satisfied. I would like to tell the people who have made representations to countries overseas and even to U.N.O. that they should in the first place take into consideration the general spiritual and religious position in our country. In the second place I think that if they make investigations they will find that the Indians in our country are not in such a bad position economically and otherwise as has been represented and that the propaganda overseas is quite incorrect and based on a lack of knowledge of conditions in our country. Thirdly, I want them to take into consideration, and this is important, that this agitation organised amongst the Indian community is propaganda with which a large percentage, perhaps 75 per cent. of the Indians in South Africa are not in agreement. The working class Indian sees an opportunity, in this to establish himself once and for all. Take the case of Johannesburg. The City Council there would have solved the question of the separation of Indians long ago had it not been for the struggle between the more wealthy Indians and the poorer class Indians. The wealthy Indian tries to make a political question of the problem of separation and allocation of land, while the poorer Indian is glad to get a place in which to live. I hope that those to whom the representations have been made will not allow themselves to be misled. It is, as a matter of fact, a good sign that even while this debate is still in progress there have already been indications in the newspapers on Saturday that U.N.O. did not consider this question as being within its scope and that they agreed with the standpoint of South Africa that it is a South African domestic affair. Now there is another important matter and I cannot recall any member of the Opposition having dealt with it. Only one member of the Dominion Party mentioned it so far, but even so it is the main principle of the Bill as far as European South Africa is concerned. The basic principle is the delimitation of the areas which are allocated under the Bill and in this regard I want to appeal to the Prime Minister and I hope that it will be taken into consideration in the committee stage. In the first place, provision is made in Clauses 10, 11 and 12 for a board which will advise the Minister regarding areas to be set aside. My first objection to this board is that boards which are constituted by legislation unfortunately show a tendency to become independent bodies which sometimes introduce and uphold a policy in direct conflict with the current Government policy. In other words one finds bodies which although they are subject to the authority of this House still develops into Parliamentary bodies with the same power as this House and I feel therefore that any decision made by that body should be subject to the approval of this House or at any rate that they should be responsible to this House for any decision taken by them. Secondly, provision is made in the second part of the Bill for representatives of the Indians in this House. Is it not reasonable to expect that the people representing the Indians here should be au fait with the conditions of the people they represent? Thirdly we come to the delimitation of the areas under Clauses 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Bill. I do not want to talk about Durban because I have not studied the position there but I am talking on behalf of Johannesburg. I have already pointed out the difficulties with which Johannesburg was faced in trying to find a solution. Nowhere in this Bill is any provision made, as far as I can see, for representation of local authorities and nowhere are any means provided for local authorities to make representations. That means, in other words, that when it comes to delimitation of areas the people who will have a say will perhaps be people who know nothing of the conditions and who do not understand the problem. And who would then become the natural intermediaries through whom representations could be made by local authorities, particularly by the larger municipalities? Obviously the members of this House. They will have to do the work. In a city such as Johannesburg the various representatives of Johannesburg would be approached and objections to delimitations would be pointed out to them. This is an important administrative aspect and I hope that it will receive due consideration. Then, last but not least, this board will consist of five members. I am fairly au fait with this matter and I feel that such a board would be too small. It would easily lend itself to malpractices and financial pressure and for that reason it is necessary that the final decision in regard to these matters should vest in a higher authority, a more comprehensive authority.

There are members of the Opposition who made interjections in an effort to belittle me. Let me return to them. When we listened the other day to the Prime Minister and to the Leader of the Opposition and when we listened to the standpoint of the Government and of the Opposition in the course of this debate, one fact emerged very clearly and that was that on the one side there is a responsible Prime Minister and a responsible Government and on the other side an Opposition which need have no responsibility while it is an Opposition. Their policy is to view matters merely against our local background and to gain temporary popularity in the country. But let me draw their attention to the fact that in taking up a similar attitude in the past they also gained temporary popularity. But what was the result? When the Leader of the Opposition took his stand against the war in 1939 he was perhaps the most popular man in the country. But what happened? The very same people who shouted “Hosanna,” rejected him at a later stage. Be careful that the same people who shout “Hosanna” today do not reject you again in 1948.

We heard something interesting here tonight. In the course of the debate a few interesting statements were made. One was made by the Minister of Finance, but tonight we heard two contradictory statements. The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Friedman) showed us how solidly he supports the idea of the Empire and Imperialism, as he calls it. Then the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) let the cat out of the bag saying: “We cannot let the Prime Minister go overseas to the Conference without first passing this legislation. He must be able to go there and say: ‘That is what we have done’ ”. This side of the House accuses the Prime Minister of at this stage trying to rush through legislation at all costs because he is in a hurry to go overseas. But in the same breath the same hon. member says: “Why do you ask for an extension of time? It is an experiment.” We oppose this measure just because it is an experiment. The Leader of the Opposition moved an amendment which is not an experiment. We do not want to make experiments. The hon. member refers to what happened in 1927 and the legislation then adopted. He refers to the native legislation which was adopted by a joint session of both Houses of Parliament. Let us be very clear about this. The experiments he refers to were experiments because the same elements now operating obstructed Gen. Hertzog, who was at the time the leader of the Nationalist Party, from putting into practice his original ideas with regard to native legislation at that time. He had to compromise, contrary to the ideas he originally had in regard to legislation intended to saféguard the European civilisation in South Africa. He looked to the future, but the same element which is now operated was then active, and the present Prime Minister, who at that time was the Leader of the Opposition, is the person who made it impossible for General Hertzog to pass legislation in accordance with his original ideas. Now there are hon. members who say that we as Free Staters have no interest in this debate. As an Afrikaner, a plattelander and a Free Stater, I have the greatest interest in this debate. The principle maintained by the Free State and which we inherited from our forefathers, is today in jeopardy here, and therefore I take an interest in the debate. It is easy to say that we have no Indian problem. Why is that so? Because the Free State maintained that great ideal of segregation to safeguard European civilisation.

Do you then wish to blame President Kruger?

That hon. member who is trying to lead me from my course should rather keep quiet. After the manner in which he participated in the debate and the attitude he adopted, he should rather keep quiet. The Minister of Finance made another very important statement in this House. There is an old proverb to the effect that he who makes his bed must lie on it. The Minister of Finance declared himself as the leader of the liberal group in South Africa. He is today recognised as such, and will be recognised as such in future. There are people who say that it is his Christian convictions which drive the Minister to that decision. I readily want to acknowledge that, but there is something even greater in my conception of Christianity, namely to preserve what has been entrusted to one. I say that my conviction is that I cannot do anything knowing that I am committing murder towards my nation and posterity. One cannot shield behind that. Every human being has been endowed with sense and reason and a capacity to judge, and has to act according to that. When one listens to the Minister of Finance it is clear that he is in favour of discarding the principle of segregation even in this Parliament. Let us have regard to the practical effect of that. It has already been stated here that there will be a group of six representatives of natives and Indians who eventually will drive in a wedge and will decide on matters affecting the country. Six votes between the Government and the Opposition are appreciable, and they will try to work themselves into such a position where by their voting power they will be able to demand from the Government rights and privileges which they would not else have received. But let us for a moment imagine three Indians and three natives sitting in the House, as the Minister of Finance wants the position to be. One must take it that they will have full privileges, just as other members. What will be the practical effect? They will not only vote about matters affecting Europeans and which do not affect them, but what will be the position in the lobbies and in the tea room? Will they be able to enjoy the privileges of other members? God save South Africa and the Afrikaner nation from the day when in the highest legislative council of the country Indians and natives will sit with Europeans on an equal basis. As a Free Stater I can only say that we will fight this legislation for as long as it is in our power to do so. But those will be the practical effects of the views held by the Minister of Finance. He wants to abolish all colour bars. It is said that the Free State will not be affected by this measure, but we also have a coloured population. The great principle of the maintenance of European civilisation is applied in the Free State in letter and in spirit, and our natives are satisfied. We have no internal division in the Free State, but what will happen in future? The amendment of the Leader of the Opposition is destined to make possible consultation, calmly and truly, between all groups, to discuss the matter. It aims at the continued existence of a white South Africa. If in 1923 and in 1924 and in 1927 and at similar periods we had always consulted together calmly and coolly, and if the elements which today again are operative had not interfered, then we would have laid down a policy for the future which would have made it unnecessary today to split hairs here about policy. The longer we wait and continue with patchwork without taking the whole problem into review, the more difficult it will be to solve those problems.

And you still want to wait two more years?

If you had not stood back when Gen. Hertzog wanted to solve the problem we would today have had a more fortunate state of affairs. We, as Freestaters, are anxious. We do not only think of the present Prime Minister, but of the future Prime Minister, the man who was selected by the Prime Minister as his successor. He is a man who has a philosophy of life which is of the greatest danger to the country. It is unfortunate that the Minister of Finance, on whose shoulders the cloak of the Prime Minister must one day fall, has no children. If he finds things too difficult, he will disappear, but we who have children to leave behind to receive this heritage, are anxious. In this Bill a little bit of segregation is introduced as a sop. We do not quibble about that, because it is in accordance with our policy. But there is the other great ideal of segregation, of complete segregation even as regards the vote, and here the Prime Minister, urged to this step by the pressure and coercion exercised on him from within his own party, proposes to give to the Asiatics that which they have never possessed, and to which they have no claims, and he says that in return for a little segregation, he will give them the vote. I hope that the Prime Minister will reconsider the matter, and give us an opportunity to pass legislation which will definitely lay down for the future a policy which will inform the coloureds and natives and Indians and Europeans in South Africa as to where they stand.

I support the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition. We as an Opposition feel that we have to defend the rights of white Afrikanerdom. Before I go further I just want to reply to what was said by the hon. member for North East Rand (Mr. Heyns). He said that he thanks the Prime Minister for what he has done and that he will vote for the Bill. Did not that hon. member receive the telegram which was sent to him and to me and to the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Native Affairs, by certain voters? The telegram reads—

It was a meeting of people who do not belong to the same political party, but a meeting of members of a general body—

The hon. member took no notice of it, but we as Afrikaners must fight for the rights of our European population and civilisation. The Prime Minister used words to the effect that in the war we had fought for a new world. I now ask whether this is the new world we are receiving, that we should give the vote to Indians to vote for persons who will come and represent them in this House. Is this the new world we were to receive, is it part of this new world that Indians should have equal rights with us? We put that question to the Prime Minister. We all know that the Indian constitutes a threat to us in South Africa, not only in the economic sphere, but also morally. We as representatives of the nation may not permit the rights of the nation to be abandoned in this manner. We feel that we should gird our loins to fight for the rights we inherited from our forefathers. If you want to give Indians certain rights, why not let them go to a part of the world which they can develop and live in? Now, rights are being given to them to come to areas which have already been developed, and where they can enjoy the privileges and the benefits of what has been built by our forefathers. We feel that we should oppose this Bill, and we ask the Prime Minister not to be in too much of a hurry, but to grant an extension of time in accordance with the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition, so that the Bill can be thoroughly examined by a Select Committee. That is what we are striving for. I hope and trust that the Prime Minister will still accede to this request. Already we have allowed the Indians to penetrate too far in the Transvaal, and there are parts, in the cities and even in small towns, where they have already dug themselves in as the biggest traders, and where they are oppressing the European population, and also other sections of the population. We feel that we cannot permit this state of affairs to continue. If the Indian community are to receive the same rights as Europeans, give them a limited area for themselves where they can prepare themselves, and fit themselves for such rights. But do not allow them to live amongst the white people in European areas, and on top of that still to have a vote. I received a telegram from my constituency, a copy of which was also sent to the Prime Minister, which I should like to read—

A similar telegram was also sent to the Prime Minister, and I expect him to lend an ear to the electors of Marico. It is various political parties and not only one, who took this resolution. They feel that it is time to act and to prevent this matter from going too far. It is the point of the wedge which is being driven in, and it will be driven in deeper and deeper, and the result will be that the European civilisa tion will suffer. It is not only we who will suffer through it, but especially future generations. I appeal to the Prime Minister and even to the Minister of Finance to see whether a change cannot be made in the Bill to provide for a postponement such as asked for in the amendment moved by this side of the House, in order that proper legislation may be framed. In the form in which it is at present before the House, it is impossible for us to vote for it, and for that reason we should like to tell our colleagues opposite—and there I agree with the hon. member for Pietersburg—that we should try to keep politics out of this matter. Let there be a meeting of the leaders of the various parties, and not only an interview with one or other leader, but bring the various leaders together, so that they can frame the Bill properly, and so that it will not only make provision for the Indians, but also for the natives and the coloureds, so that we can pass a Bill which will solve the whole coloured problem in South Africa. That is my request. I agree with the hon. member for Pietersburg that something of that nature should be done. I want to express my thanks to the Free State members for sympathising with us in our attempt to keep that class of person out of the country, although we shall not succeed in eliminating them altogether, because they are already in our midst. We must try not to give them this opportunity of becoming still stronger in the Transvaal.

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have the opportunity of coming into this debate, because I think to those of us who have liberal views, it is the most important issue that has arisen in this country since the war. I am one of those who quite frankly, like the Minister of Finance, do not feel quite happy about this Bill, but nevertheless, despite the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw), I propose to support it, because I feel that if this Government and this Party does not deal with this Indian problem a much worse fate may yet befall the country and the Indians, because what worse fate can befall the Indians at any rate than that hon. members opposite should take command of the situation. Well, Sir, I frankly am not too happy about the Bill, because, as far as I am aware, a communal franchise has never been a great success in any country, and I feel moreover that the particular communal franchise proposed by this Bill is too heavily loaded. I for one would have preferred to see a Standard IV limit, so that more of the middle-aged elements among the Indians would be able to come on to the roll, and I would also have liked to see the amount of qualifying income halved, so that it would be £60 instead of £120. I do feel the Government might well consider that point, and consider making the initial roll on a Standard IV basis, and after the initial roll any fresh rolls that are made could stipulate a basis of Standard VI for any new entrants. In that way we could include all the middle-aged elements of the Indians, with a gradually rising educational qualification.

But in the main I support this Bill because I am hoping that it will rid Natal of the bugbear, one might almost say the nightmare, of fear that exists there at the moment. Just at present the fear is exaggerated in Natal, but I think there is a reasonable and justifiable fear there that the Europeans will be swamped by the Indians, and I am hoping that this Bill will rid the Natalians of that fear, and induce them to look upon this matter in a more equable frame of mind.

I do feel this, moreover, that I do not agree with the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) when she told us that the native communal franchise has failed. She is herself the living proof that she is wrong, because the fact remains that the native communal franchise in this country has been of infinite value to the native. It has given him a platform in the councils of the country, and a voice from which to make heard in the highest court of the land his reasonable needs and his reasonable aspirations, and there is no doubt that it has succeeded, because the country is today, after ten years of the native communal franchise, far more aware than it ever has been of the native’s desires, his needs and aspirations, his hopes and his fears, and that is what I personally expect and hope for from the Indian representation. I feel that this country is far too compartmented. We of the Transvaal know little, and certainly those of the Free State know much less, of the Indian’s desires and hopes. Three “Indian” representatives will alter that again. I am supporting this Bill because I feel that the communal franchise, even while it is not all that we of the more liberal element would have desired, will at least give the Indians a voice in a court where their desires will be brought to the notice of the Government, who can assist in fulfilling them. That, too, is why I am supporting this Bill.

Meanwhile there is another factor. I am supporting it as an interim measure. I hope that Natal fears will be allayed, but I realise perfectly well that it is only an interim measure. I disagree with the hon. member for Cape Eastern when she says that the Prime Minister in his speech laid this communal franchise down as a permanent pattern of our society. I do not believe that he meant to do that for a moment. He recently stated, and I agree with him and have always felt, that our society is too dynamic to be put into any permanent mould of that kind. It must change with the changing needs and the changing circumstances of the country. I do not believe for a moment that this communal franchise is permanent. I believe that the time will come when it will change, and, Sir, I look forward to that day. But meanwhile I do feel that the best practical way to hasten it would be to open the doors to immigration. If we in this country had 5,000,000 whites instead of 2,000,000, then there would be no need for what is termed the fear of the rising tide of colour. I am perfectly satisfied that the answer to the fear of being swamped, whether by native votes or by Indian votes, is to open the doors to immigration, and I hope that once this Indian question is solved for the time being, the Government will seriously consider an immigration policy that will open the doors of this country to the many millions from overseas who seek to come out and people our empty spaces. That seems to me to be a policy that is in the interests of South Africa.

Do you think they should go to Rhodesia and fill those empty spaces?

That is something I am not prepared to answer, because I know nothing about the immigration figures in Rhodesia, and unlike members opposite, I do not like to speak on matters of which I know nothing. But the point is this, that when it comes to either streaming into Southern Rhodesia or streaming into South Africa, I think the place should be South Africa, because South Africa aspires to be the leader in Africa. It aspires to the hegemony of Southern Africa, and its claims are well founded. It is a country that has been longer established and with a far longer history than any other country in Southern Africa, and therefore it is only right that immigrants should be more attracted hére. So, as I say, I support this Bill, though I would frankly, like the Minister of Finance, have preferred a loaded franchise. I am hoping though, as I have said, that when it comes to the Committee stage the Government will consider halving the qualifications for entrants on to the communal roll, because I feel this, that the communal roll will be too small on the present qualifications. On the present qualifications it has been estimated that no more than 2,500 or 3,000 will be able to vote for three members. Three members to 3,000 Indians! It takes 10,000 Europeans to put one member into this House. So I am hoping that the Government will see fit at the Committee stage to consider halving the qualifications for the communal franchise, and making them a little less difficult. After all, it will not mean that any more members will be returned to the House, but it will mean that the communal franchise Will be dispersed more widely, and that, I think, will be better.

There is one other point which I hope the Government will reconsider. In terms of the Bill as at present drafted, it is suggested that the non-Asiatic wives of Indians shall not be allowed to hold land or property rights. I do hope the Government will reconsider that decision, because a good many of these women have property in their own rights, and I do believe that they should be allowed to continue to own property. It is a protection for them against the mishaps that marriage may perhaps bring them, and I hope the Government will accept some suggestions for deleting that section from the Bill.

Well, Sir, as I have said, I am not altogether happy about this Bill, but I do feel that under the present circumstances it is the best kind of Bill that this country could have. I am reminded of a question that was put to the great Greek law giver, Solon. One of his students asked Solon what were the best laws that he knew of. The great Solon answered: “For what people, at what time?” Well, that is a remark that is very pertinent to this country at this time. The Bill is not ideal. Those of us who have more liberal views would have liked to have gone a little further than the Government has done. But the Government must accept the practical limitations of the time; quite obviously, to judge by the expressions of opinion opposite, it has also done what all good governments should do. It has gone a little ahead of public opinion, and for that reason I am supporting the Government and this Bill.

To deal in a few words with the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) she stated that she is “not so happy”. There is only one state of affairs which will make that hon. member happy, namely the elimination of colour bars in every sphere and if there is free association between the various races in South Africa in every respect. Then she will be happy. I will go so far as to say that that is the only thing which will make her happy. But in order to state clearly what we on this side of the House want, I wish to move a further amendment. We had intended moving that amendment in the Committee Stage at the appropriate time, but this Bill is so complicated that we re-examined the position and discovered that we would not be able to do so in the Committee Stage. Therefore in order to state very clearly what our position on this side is in regard to this Bill, I wish to move the further amendment about which that hon. member will not be happy. The amendment is as follows—

Then we will have total segregation. We all agree unanimously on one point in this House, namely that this debate is of the very greatest importance. A great thinker once made the statement that there are moments in the life of a man which are not only the grave of the past but the cradle of the future. As a Netherlands philosopher once put it: “The present is born out of the past; the future is born in the present.” There is an undeniable link between what was, what is and what will be. We have to regard this Bill in that light. It is the link between what was, what is and what will be in the future, and now in connection with this important measure, we have seen the greatest public fiasco, on the opposite side of this House, which we have known in recent years in this House. There they sit, and not one of them is completely happy. They sit there and make us think of the old Boer who travelled with another old Boer on the train between Pretoria and Delagoa Bay.

We know that story.

I am glad that that hon. member interjected, because I should like to apply it to him. After the two old fellows had travelled for a little distance, one said to the other: Is this not wonderful; here we are sitting together and in a little while you will get out at Pretoria and I in Delagoa Bay. That is their conception of this Bill. The one goes to Pretoria and the other to Delagoa Bay, but they are both sitting in the same train. But I want to divide members opposite into four portions. The first lot are those who keep silent about the Bill. The second are those who rose here and passionately make excuses for the Bill, but who are eventually going to vote for it. I want to give credit to the hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) for being one of those who rose and passionately tried to apologise for eventually voting for it. How does he do that? He does it in a misleading manner. He rises in the House and makes the statement that in the Select Committee which at the time dealt with the native legislation the Nationalist Party proposed through Mr. Wessels that there should be non-European senators in the Senate. Then he reads certain resolutions. Allow me once again briefly to tell what happened, and then we will see what a misleading statement of the case has been made by the hon. member. On the Select Committee Mr. Heaton Nicholls proposed the following. I read section (5) which laid down that the native senators could be of non-European descent. To that Senator Langenhoven proposed as an amendment on page 16—

Why did the hon. member not read that also? I now go further. General Hertzog moved—

When this motion was put to the vote, who were the people who voted against it? It was the Prime Minister and all the people sitting opposite, with the exception of Mr. Nicholls, Colonel Stallard and another member. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance were members of the Select Committee and voted against the motion that there should be separation. We now go further. Mr. Nicholls proposed that those people, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance and those supporting him, should be properly tested to see whether they are serious in not wanting to give this separate representation. Mr. Nicholls made the suggestion and Mr. Wessels put the motion as a test, and that is the motion read by the hon. member. That motion was made as a test, as I said here, but he did not put clearly the condition connected with it. That was to the following effect—

I did read that.

I can understand the hon. member’s difficulty. He sits in the trap with all four feet. I said that that was the test. Unanimity was not arrived at and on 14th May, 1930, Mr. Wessels moved—

Now, who voted for that, and who voted against it? We find that those who voted agains† Mr. Wessels’s motion were Senator F. S. Malan, Mr. Hofmeyr, Mr. Joel Krige, Mr. A. O. B. Payn, Major G. B. van Zyl and a few other members of the S.A. Party. Then the hon. member for Middelburg still comes here with his distorted arguments in order to salve his own soul by making excuses. Why did the hon. member not tell the House that the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) in connection with the representation of natives in the Provincial Council moved that the representatives in the Cape Province should be Europeans and not non-Europeans? The Nationalist Party voted for that, but the S.A. Party voted against it. Why does he not tell that to the House? I think that is enough about that hon. member. I do not think his speech deserves more attention than this. I do not think it is worth anything more. Then there is the other section of members opposite. They are the people who bitterly attacked the Bill, but they attack it bitterly because it is not liberal enough. They are in favour of complete equality. They are those who follow the Minister of Finance. That group wants complete racial equality in South Africa. They are the hon. member who a moment ago said that she is not happy, the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg)— they are the members who together with the Minister of Finance strive to attain total racial equality in the country. Let me now come to two important figures in this debate. They are the Prime Minister himself and the Minister of Finance. The Prime Minister again played the role here which he has played in South Africa for so long—at one moment to blow hot and the next moment to blow cold. He is in a difficulty about this Bill. He had to satisfy his own caucus. He had to say something here which would appear in Hansard so that every element in his party would find something in it to read to his constituents in order to satisfy them. That is the reason why at one moment he blew hot and at the next moment cold. He felt unhappy about this Bill; he was anxious about it. It brings European civilisation into danger. He knew that many in his own party were dissatisfied with the Bill, and in order to satisfy them he said something to everyone. On the one hand he had to satisfy the Minister of Finance and the liberals, and on the other had he had to satisfy members like the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) who has not the least conception of what is going on, who cannot understand the implications of the Bill. So what does the Prime Minister do in the beginning of his speech? He rises in this House and like Pilate, he washes his hands in innocence. He made a speech here about the history of this problem—a historical mistake has been made and we are dealing with its results—

There he sits in his grey age. For thirty years he had the opportunity to raise his voice about our complex community and about dividing them into separate spheres in order to safeguard the future of the Europeans in South Africa. In all those thirty years he never did anything. Not once in thirty years did he make a single attempt to safeguard European civilisation, and to separate European and non-European. On the contrary, he did everything in his power to oppose any movement in that direction. He himself did nothing, but he and his allies tried to negative every attempt made in that direction; and now he has the audacity to wash his hands in innocence and to say: “We are the innocent victims.” Just let me deal with the hon. the Prime Minister a little further. In what manner is he now playing his old role of trying to satisfy everyone on his side? He makes statements in the House which are not true, examples of which I have already mentioned. Among other things he says—

He knows that that is not so. He knows that in native legislation there is a fundamental difference. He knows that that legislation aims at and provides for separate residential areas, but he says that this Bill is based on the same principle as that, and where, I ask, are those separate residential areas? He goes further and says—

But that is not so. The right of the natives to own land is limited, but the natives received no extension of the franchise in return for that. Let him rise, or let any man rise and tell me where the native received an extension of the franchise or where he received an extension of the franchise in the north, because of this right to own land which he received. It is not so. The communal vote was given to them in this native legislation. The communal vote was given to them in lieu of the usual vote, in lieu of the ordinary franchise. But now he goes further, and he has to try to satisfy the other side, and he says—

He is now following chronologically the process of development of this legislation in recent years, and eventually he comes to the Pretoria Agreement of 1944, and says the following—

I should like to lay stress on this—

That was the recommendation of the Pretoria Agreement, but he says this—

And what happened now? Because the Indians objected, because they were not satisfied, he abandoned this whole principle of the Pretoria Agreement, and today he is mixing them up in the same old way. The Indians object and gained their point. He says—

I should now like to pass on to a comparison between those two speeches. Let me compare the speech of the Minister of Finance with that of the Prime Minister in order to show the House, the country and the world outside that a sad rôle is being played in regard to the highest interests of the nation in taking such a serious decision as that with which we are now faced. Let us make a dialogue between what is said by the Prime Minister on the one hand, and by the Minister of Finance on the other. That dialogue will read as follows: The Prime Minister—

That is the Prime Minister, and now the Minister of Finance replies and says—

I just want to lay stress on this. The Prime Minister says that Indians are Union Nationals, and now the Minister of Finance says—

They are in direct contradiction to each other, but my allegation is this, and I say it with emphasis: They have agreed that the one should speak in this way to satisfy a certain portion of the population, and the other will speak differently to satisfy another portion of the public in order to put into effect this important “first step.” And now the Prime Minister says—

That is what he says. The Minister of Finance replies—

The one wants to lecture them, and the other says it is not for us to lecture them. But the Prime Minister goes further and says—

To which the Minister of Finance replies—

Now that is the position in connection with this dialogue, an absolute fiasco and ridiculous arguments such as one can never again hope to find on the part of two responsible people, members of the same Government, in connection with such an important measure. Just let me say this: Either they differ from each other, or they do not differ. If they differ—and it is for them to say whether they do and not for us —if they differ about the “fixed sure principle,” what right has the Prime Minister to keep the Minister of Finance in his Cabinet for one minute longer? But it is a matter for them to decide as to whether they differ or not. My contention is that they do not differ. What policy was the Minister of Finance aiming at in the speech he delivered here? I take it point for point. In the first place the Minister of Finance aims at this: He visualises a full franchise for the Indian in Natal, and when once he has achieved that there, why not apply it to the Indian in other places? And when once he has achieved it in Natal, why not in the Cape Province; and when once the Indian has received the vote, why not the coloured, and why not the native? That is his point of view, and that is his goal and his ambition for the future firstly. And secondly—the Minister repeated it again in his speech—this communal vote now being given to the Indian is only the first step. It is only the first step in the eventual goal of equality which he aims at. That is his second chief aim, and the Prime Minister agrees with me, or else he must put him out of the Cabinet. The third point is this. The Minister of Finance says—

And in 1936 he fought for it that the natives should not receive the communal vote, but the ordinary franchise; but he says—

What does that mean? He is still adopting the same standpoint that he adopted in 1936. The only difference is this. Today he sees no chance of fighting all out for it, but the very day he sees a chance to plead for it and fight for it, he will want to give the native a full franchise just as today he wants to give it to the Indian. He states—

The Minister of Finance further strives— I am making a very serious statement here at a very serious moment—there the Ministers and members opposite are sitting, and there are many of them who sit there today by virtue of the decisive effect of the nonEuropean vote. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Delport) who came into this House the other day is sitting there, thanks to the non-European vote. If it were not for the Hottentot vote we would never have seen the hon. member for Caledon in this House. And what do they want to do? They want to retain the non-European vote, and to extend it in order to ensure their seats in this House. But what does the Minister of Finance want to do further? He wants to see to it that those people come into Parliament. People like the native representatives, people like those I mentioned who do not feel completely happy, as many as possible of them are to come here to help him to abolish the colour bar, and for that reason he says that even in the constitution he wants to break the colour bar. He wants to break it there and he ’wants to see Europeans and non-Europeans sitting together in this House, and he is making provision for them to sit there in order to support him.

That is a distortion.

Let me put the position this way. In the beginning of my speech I said that there is an eternal link between what we were and are and will be, and that link between what we were and are and will be, as far as it effects the policy of equality in South Africa, I wish to illustrate by means of personalities, the link which was is Rhodes; the one which is is J. C. Smuts, the present Prime Minister; and the one of the future is the present Minister of Finance.

Hear, hear.

Hon. members are ad idem as regards this question, and they say “hear, hear”. The one is the successor to the other. The Prime Minister is the successor to Rhodes, and there sits his successor, the Minister of Finance. And what is their plan, what is their policy in connection with this important question of equality of races, or non-equality? Let me take the first of the three, namely Rhodes. In the year 1900 Rhodes wrote the following words—

That is the question Rhodes asks—

That is a civilised man, and Rhodes’s motto is—

Chuck him out.

And what is the point of view of the Prime Minister? In 1928—and he has never yet changed his point of view—he expressed himself as follows, and this is reported in “Die Volkstem”, his own newspaper—

That is the policy of the Prime Minister. Here he has followed step for step the policy enunciated by Rhodes. He goes further and says—

Now hon. members opposite say: Yes, but that was in 1928. For their own edification I should like to read to them what their present policy is. I quote from this pamphlet, “ ’n Politieke Handleiding vir Jonk en Oud”, which includes everyone. It was issued in 1945, and contains their policy. The heading is “Our attitude towards the coloured races”. It was issued by their secretary, Mr. O. A. Oosthuizen, their general secretary, and this is what he says—

He goes further—

And then follows the pith of the whole argument—

The policy of each and every one of them sitting over there—

Irrespective of class, irrespective of smell and irrespective of colour, that is their policy. It is very clearly and explicitly put in their own pamphlet. I wish to deal with this question by reference to a question put by one of our poets when he was putting a very serious question, a question which was of great interest and one which influenced the past of our nation, which is of importance today, and which will be of importance in future. One of our poets, in thinking of the past, the present and the future of our nation, put the question in the following words—

He rejects completely the idea of the sovereignty of the white man in South Africa. Returning to this Bill I want to say this again; I make this very serious statement, and I say that of the two million Europeans in South Africa, there are 1¾ million Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people who want segregation. I wonder whether a single person opposite would dare deny that? But they do not get it. They get everything except segregation in this Bill. But let me put the contrary: the quarter of a million Indians do not want segregation. They want to be amongst the white people and they get what they want; their wishes are fulfilled. That is being provided for in this Bill. Let me put it differently: One and three-quarter million of the population in this country, Afrikaans-speaking as well as English-speaking, desire no extension of the franchise to the non-Europeans, much less in thg northern provinces. When they are being asked outside, they say that they do not want it. But here the Indians are getting that extension of the franchise in the north. 250,000 Indians want the franchise. They get it and are asking for more, and if the Minister of Finance and his supporters are responsible for the government of the country, they will receive more, and since this debate started until the present moment, not a single member opposite has answered this question: Give it to the Indian today, and what will be your reaction when the coloured man asks for it; give it to the coloured tomorrow, and how will you be able to refuse it to the native from the Cape to the Limpopo? To that serious question affecting the future of our communal life in South Africa, not one single member on that side of the House has given any reply. Then hon. members say: But in this Bill we are providing a quid pro quo; we concede something, and the Indians concede something. As the Prime Minister put it, each side is making a contribution. The two areas which have been dealt with in this Bill are the red area and the white area. The red areas remain a mixture. The European can buy ground there, the Indian can buy and the native can buy. As regards the white areas, the European may not buy from the Indian. I put the provision as it is put in the Bill. In that white area the Indian may not buy from the European, and the European may not buy from the Indian, and they remain together. Where is any expression given to the desire of the white man, of white civilisation in Natal which wants a dividing line? Where is that done? Today, in this serious debate, we are entering upon a new era of our national history. There has been a process during recent years in South Africa for non-Europeans to penetrate into the sphere of the white man. Previously in our history we had the phenomenon of the European moving northwards, to areas where he could have space to develop the philosophy of the European and live as a representative of western civilisation, but today there is no more room for him to go to, and there is a process on the part of the non-Europeans to penetrate into every form of activity of the European. What will be the result of that penetration? When that penetration takes place there can be one of two results. There is either unhealthy contact resulting in association and intermingling, or there is friction which leads to clashes, and clashes which lead to the spilling of blood; and this Bill, and especially the speech of the hon. Minister of Finance, is a declaration of war to white South Africa, a declaration of war which deprives white South Africa of the right to resist that penetration which has systematically and steadily been going on in recent years in the sphere of the white man; and the question which every member of this House has to decide is; In this declaration of war for total equality or the elimination of the European population, or for the preservation of European civilisation, in this important decision, on which side are you? Just let me tell the hon. Minister of Finance this: He is asking here for certain rights for the Asiatics. Does the Asiatic enjoy those rights in his own fatherland? No, he does not. I have a very important work here written by Louise Ouwerkerk. She is British born and grew up in India where she lived for many years, and she alleges the following, that in India there is racial segregation. I read in this book that there is a theory that in India there are also two colours, one lighter and one darker. These are her words—

In India today a very small proportion of the population have the vote. You have segregation in India today. She states in this book—

There is absolute residential segregation in India, but in South Africa the Indians want to force their wishes and their will on us, and here they do not want that segregation. The author proceeds further to prove that in India there is absolute segregation also as regards residential areas. She says—

In India it is their religion that they should live apart. In South Africa, according to the statement of the Minister of Finance, and others of his followers opposite, it is according to religion that they should not live apart. No, here they must be thrown together for reason of humane and religious principles, but in India the opposite position obtains. She writes—

He remains what he is—

He is socially segregated and must remain there. There is no prospect of his escaping segregation in India, but in South Africa they demand the right to live amongst white people. The author further states—

even in the factories—

Here one has the great principle of that dividing line in India, between Indian and Indian, but here in South Africa they want to come and prescribe to us and say what we should do for them in South Africa which they have not got in India. In the beginning I said that we are faced with a momentous decision, a decision which does not solve this problem today, but one which is pregnant with possibilities for the course of development of the future, but here the Minister of Finance has delivered this declaration of war to white South Africa, and he is the man who will assume the cloak of the Prime Minister, and the day he wears that cloak what will he do with his power? No, he wants to destroy civilisation in South Africa. Let me tell him, as the poet has stated: The struggle begun by our fathers will be fought by us until our death or until we attain victory. That is the struggle of the Nationalist Party.

I shall commence at once with the Bill, and after what has been said by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat I would only like to point out that the policy of equality has already really been taken up in this Bilk I take Section 10. A Board is established that is called the Land Tenure Advisory Board, and it is composed of five members appointed by the Minister, two of whom may be Asiatics. You at once have two Asiatics out of five members; nor does this mean that the other three will be Europeans. One may be a coloured person, another may be a native, and the third may be a European. It is not stated at all what the other three should be, but two may be Asiatics. In the first instance I wish to emphasise this principle strongly. Why should there be two Asiatics out of a strength of five? Why must it be 40 per cent. Asiatic, though there are only 250,000 Asiatics in the country? If we take the coloureds, the natives,’ the Europeans and the Asiatics combined, the Asiatics represent actually only 2 per cent. of the population. But this is not the worst feature of the Board. This Board has even the right to appoint an Asiatic, a coloured person or a native as chairman. The Minister appoints the chairman. The Minister may appoint either a native or a coloured person. Under this Bill he gets that right. There is no provision obliging him to designate a European as chairman. It is clear that the equality policy is being introduced into the Bill here, but I go further. Let us glance at the last part of Clause 10. If there are three persons present, two of them Asiatics, those three can choose their chairman. It is self-evident that where two of three members are Asiatics, an Asiatic chairman will be elected. We at once obtain in this Bill the principle of equality between the four sections, coloureds, natives, Asiatics and Europeans. What more do we want? Here we have the aim of the Minister of Finance introduced clearly in the Bill and, falling as it does under the Minister of the Interior, knowing him as we do, we know what will happen. He does not bother much about a colour dividing line. He will easily manage to appoint coloureds to this Board. In the same clause on the following page we find that officials may be appointed to serve under that Board. Here we have a Board composed or coloured people. Two members are Asiatics, and the others may be all coloureds or natives, and European officials must work under them. What more do you want than this Bill to establish equality? It is incorporated in the Bill, and I hope that the Prime Minister will during the Committee stage state clearly what his policy will be. We shall assuredly have to propose amendments there. How can we place this dangerous weapon that I have indicated in the hands of the Minister of Finance, who may be the next Prime Minister? What are the functions of this Board? They are described in Clause 12—

1. (a) every application for a permit.…

When applications are made for permits for purchase by natives or Asiatics, or whoever it may be, this Board will have to advise the Minister as to who should be granted a permit and who not. The hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) should tell us whether he feels safe under the permit system. Is he prepared to place this in the hands of the Minister of Finance? This Board can have a preponderating number of coloureds and Asiatics, and they have to refer the permits to the Minister for approval.

Read the Bill.

There is nothing to protect the hon. member. Where is there protection for Vryheid?

There is protection. I repeat that.

All the decisions go through this Board. The Board has further to advise the Minister in respect of—

These are all things that the Board has to deal with. But the same Board assigns the new areas. Suppose more areas are required, more red spots as indicated on the plan. Suppose, for instance, that a part of Vryheid is also made a red area, and that this Board composed mainly of Asiatics, coloureds and natives exists and gives advice to the Minister of Finance when one day he is Prime Minister, they can declare any area in Vryheid or Utrecht as a red area where Asiatics, coloureds, natives and Europeans can purchase land. Under such a Board there would be no guarantee of security with such a Prime Minister as we may have, and such a Minister of the Interior. It is one of the cardinal points of the Bill, and it is a dangerous weapon, and we cannot leave it in the hands of a Government such as we now have. These red spots on the chart, or you can call them red blots or scarlet stains, will probably be preponderatingly Asiatic at the moment. A stigma is immediately thrown on the Europeans, an odour will immediately attach to all the buildings, and the land will in consequence at once depreciate in value. The Europeans will have to sell the land at once, or otherwise they will later be encircled by Asiatics, because where Asiatics move in or are present in a majority, especially if such an area is proclaimed by the Government as an Asiatic area, the properties will immediately drop in value. The Europeans will sell out and there will be more and more Asiatics there. This is one of the objects. But what injustice occurs there to the Europeans? Many of the poor people will not sell out, and the result will be that a sort of slum will be created where there will be Asiatics and poor whites. We also know that amongst the Asiatics infectious diseases often break out, and these will spread to the Europeans. The Asiatics are not always clean in their areas. Thus a sort of slum will immediately be created. How can we tolerate such spots in our country? If the matter were not so serious I should like to move a further amendment, namely, that all the members on the other side or those who vote for the Bill should have to live in one of those red spots for a couple of years. You may not force on others what you do not consider good enough for yourself. Let them go and live there. Let the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) open up a little shop there for lemons. Why should other people be placed in a position in which you do not wish to be placed yourself? Or otherwise let the areas where they have their home be incorporated in such red spots. Will they be satisfied? What moral right have you to saddle other people with things you do not want yourself? It is one of the first ethical principles that we may not do that. Whether as men or as Christians we cannot allow it. These red spot areas can be extended by the permit system. The Minister can grant more permits and make further areas Asiatic, and presently they will fall under the board as areas which are free for the purposes of purchase and sale. But this is not the only dangerous feature of the Bill. A danger exists not only in relation to what is found in the Bill but also in respect of what is not contained in the Bill or protected by it. Take Asiatic trade. Why is Asiatic trade not made subject to restriction? The extension of Asiatic trade is one of the great evils. Have the Asiatics any right to it? No. They did not come here as traders but as workers in the sugar plantations, to work in industries. They have no claim to that. The hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) has pointed out how, in his town, Middelburg, virtually all the streets have been appropriated by Asiatic traders. There are numbers of such towns in the Transvaal, and it is also starting strongly in the Cape Province, while in Natal it is exceptionally bad in respect of Indian traders more and more gaining the upper hand. The hon. member for Natal (South Coast) (Mr. Neate) affirmed that all the trade from Volksrust to Durban along the national road was in the hands of the Asiatics—all the trade licences. Why is it not limited? There is a clause in the Bill in connection with trade, but it simply says that an Asiatic who lives in premises where he carries on trade will not be regarded as the owner of the place and he will not be entitled to live there permanently, but he has the right to live there so long as he carries on trade. Consequently there is no restriction on trade. This point is very important.

The business methods practised by Asiatics were divulged in the Lange Report, paragraph 108. It is stated there that the Asiatic sends his money out of the country instead of spending it where he has earned it. The Asiatic is not a South African. The two things, race and nationality, must not be confused. The Indians remain members of the Indian race. They have an age-old culture behind them, and they will never be anything else than Indians, they will never be Afrikaners. As far as nationality is concerned they can never be assimilated. In the second place it is stated in the report that they are a source of danger to national health. I have already pointed out how Indians are frequently the cause of the breaking out of diseases. In the third place it is stated that they depreciate the value of fixed property. Every hon. member knows that if an Indian buys land alongside you, your property immediately depreciates in value. Why should it be allowed that under the permit system this can be extended? It is further stated that their living standard is lower than that of the Europeans. Whole groups of them live in the one building. All the clerks that help them in the business live together there. Then their trade standard and their business methods differ from those of the Europeans. They utilise inferior buildings as shops and pay less rent. As far as insolvencies are concerned, they and the Jews run pretty close together. This is one of the reasons why they prosper. I therefore regret that this Bill does not curtail their trade. Moreover they pay then* shop assistants lower wages, they evade the laws, they contravene the regulations in connection with the adulteration of foodstuffs. They frequently sell short weight, and in this way they can sell more cheaply than the Europeans. They carry on business that should be carried on by Europeans, and in that way they limit the openings for European employment. They produce nothing in the Transvaal, and they do not use the products of the country, but they import their necessities from India. Usually they live on curry and rice that is not produced here. These are all things that emerged in the Lange enquiry. They form rings to eliminate European competitors, just as the Jews form monopolies. The one helps the other, and in that way they can exclude Europeans. Their presence exercises a bad influence on the natives, who are jealous of the rights and privileges they enjoy as non-Europeans. Their religion, their manners, their morals and their language differ from those of the Europeans. They are not susceptible to assimilation and their presence is a danger to European authority. I have enumerated these things that were divulged in that report, because these dangers are being perpetuated and expanded by this Bill.

In conclusion, I wish to say that there are three solutions to the Asiatic problem. It is worth while reflecting on them. The first is the solution of general equality which is taken up to a certain extent in this Bill. Today we are convinced, as things are going, that this policy is going to be followed by the Government sitting there today. The Indians are already admitted in the universities, on the trains and on aircraft; they can drink in the same bar, and in many spheres there is equality between Indians and Europeans. And now we have this Board to which I have referred and which will possess such great powers and be able to exercise so much influence. The equality solution is apparently the solution for which this Government is striving, especially under the guidance of the Minister of Finance. The second solution is that of class division. Classes would be placed permanently in separate areas. In this connection there may be two factors. Working on a provincial basis, you can collect them into certain large areas where they will be entirely apart. You can have a big reserve in Natal and a big reserve in the Transvaal. Then you will have the smaller spots, a series of spots in the Transvaal and in Natal. This is the solution of division of classes. This Bill goes to a certain extent in this direction, and, to judge from certain members on the opposite benches, they envisage that the red spots will eventually be Asiatic spots entirely. The Prime Minister stated that he was now pegging the position, but it will not remain at that, and this is not a solution that is justified. The third solution is that of repatriation. I must admit this is a difficult matter, but still it deserves thorough consideration. England has in a certain measure an obligation to assist, because it is under the English and through the English that the Indians were brought into the Transvaal, not by Oom Paul. The English said that they were English subjects, and under the Convention Oom Paul had no right to exclude them, so that the Boer Republic had to admit Indians. The English Government has some obligation to assist in solving the matter, and the English Government ought to help in carrying out repatriation. The repatriation can be back to India. It is stated that India is already over-populated. But if India becomes a republic free from England, so that England no longer can bleed India, then India will have its own industries, its own shipping, and a great number of Indians could be absorbed. That is the solution of repatriation. It is difficult, and we will of course be put to considerable expense in that connection. But the expense will not be so terribly high, because the properties of the Indians can be purchased by Europeans, and in that way we shall get the money back. Then it will only be necessary to pay their passages and perhaps to give them a little capital. But it is not necessary to repatriate them exclusively to India. In co-operation with England, another territory can be designated—Uganda, Tanganyika or Nyasaland. In those territories they already have the Indians. Let us get the Europeans here and send the Indians there. There are possibilities in that direction. This should be a final solution as against the half-baked solution we now have, and which constitutes a danger to the future and can lead to war and to disaster. If mighty India can be consolidated, it may be a danger for South Africa. In this connection I disapprove of members of Parliament going round and exploiting this matter to catch votes, as was done in Caledon. The hon. member for Gardens (Dr. L. P. Bosman), for instance, a so-called scientist, said at Bot River: Beware, India has more money in one street than the whole of South Africa has; beware, two million Indians are ready to attack South Africa! If these things are stated by a member of this House as well as by a Senator and the new member for Caledon (Mr. Delport) then I say it is a disgrace. I would, however, state that this Bill is going to accomplish the destruction of the United Party, despite all their challenges. I shall welcome that, but I regret it will also entail disaster to South Africa if this Bill is adopted. Observe the disquiet there is in the country today. No one is satisfied with the Bill. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) is not satisfied. We have seen how the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) has felt unhappy. He started right back at Slagtersnek and approached under cover to Bloukrans, and finally ended up in the Transvaal. All the time he spoke in a frightened way because his conscience troubled him, but he wound up by saying that he would vote for the Bill. And what about the Natal members? The hon. member for Vryheid gave the impression of an old man struggling up a hill and every now and again stopping to draw breath and rest awhile, with a pack on his back, but eventually he got his words out. It appears to me that the hon. member is now used regularly to pilot the Prime Minister’s motions through the backbenches. In connection with the dual medium proposal he had to second; last year in connection with the Consolidating Native Bill he had to speak at once, and today he was again the first speaker on the other side in connection with this Bill. The hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) reminded me of the character who, when he tried to shear a pig, found “much cry but little wool.” The hon. members on the other side spoke very portentously, but in many respects it reminded me of their swan songs. I believe that many of them will not see this House again, after the next election. In truth the members on the other side really have no moral right to pass judgment on this Bill. They were elected in a khaki election as a war administration. What right have they to judge on this big measure? Some 1,750,000 Europeans are opposed to this measure, and if you held a referendum in South Africa today I am convinced 90 per cent. of the Europeans would vote against the Bill, while the Indians also would not want it. The country does not want it.

As far as the franchise is concerned I am to a certain extent in agreement with the hon. member for Jeppes. Why Standard VI? Why the qualifications of £120 as far as earnings are concerned, why £250 as a property qualification? Why these high requirements? Are the same requirements demanded of the natives? Why the communal franchise in this way? Is it not to appease the rich Indians a little bit? I should like to know from the Prime Minister how many Indians are going to have the franchise with these high qualifications? Why is this franchise denied to less educated and the poorer sections of the Indian community?

If there is one big principle that humanity has always felt very strongly it is that of self-preservation, and this is the reason why the tension has existed between the Indians and the Europeans on this Bill. It is a matter of self-preservation for the Indians on the one side and self-preservation for the Europeans on the other side, and this tension is not eliminated by this measure. Selfpreservation can only be assured to the two sections if there is a proper division, or otherwise repatriation. Unless this happens the tension will increase and become worse. If the Minister of Finance gets his way with the idea of equality there will in the following election be about 112 natives in this House, 25 Europeans, 10 coloureds and three Indians. This will be the right proportion according to the ideas of the Minister of Finance. No, there is no justification for this Bill. I should like to refer to the fact that many distinguished persons in the past have already expressed their views on this matter. There is, for instance, Sir Percy Fitzpatrick, who said—

Reference has already been made to Mr. Heaton Nicholls, who in 1921 voiced this view—

I quote this to show the danger if we accept the viewpoint of the Minister of Finance. He says that the municipal franchise should be granted to the Indians. What has occurred in Stanger? There the Indians are in the majority, and if the municipal franchise is granted there will be more towns and areas with Indian mayors and with an Indian majority in the town council. Consequently, we must apply the principle of separation to them. Let them keep apart, and let them exercise the uplift clause of which the Minister of Finance spoke. There they can have their castes, their universities and even their harems if they want them. Let them live there according to their own mode of life, and let the Europeans on the other hand live happily in their own way. As the Indians are very likely to exercise control in the municipal councils, it is a dangerous development for South Africa. It simply must not happen. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. J. N. le Roux) said it looked very much as if an attempt will be made to ensure that members will come to this House who will be opposed to the republican goal of the Nationalist Party. The three native representatives will never vote for it. If the Indians comport themselves on the lines followed in their own country, then they ought to be in favour of a republic. But the native representatives have already bound the representatives of the Indians in order to incite them. As I have stated, eventually the Indians would secure the franchise, also the coloured people in the north. It will be extended in every direction, and in this way they will gain more and more seats. I will go so far as to say if they can gain a few more supporters, they will not stop at the coloured vote, but they will try to give the vote back to’ the natives. The Minister of Finance, who is so exercised over the republican aims, over the new order that is supposed to be created and the revolution that is to be brought about, and all that sort of nonsense, will do anything to stop our republican aspirations. I have mentioned the three solutions, and I will in conclusion give another quotation from the Prime Minister’s speech in 1923 on a similar measure. According to the Year Book, he employed these words—

Further, he went on to say that it is a question of an economic conflict, and that it was not a question of race or colour, and then he said—

Namely, the economic problem. I have indicated the danger to the country as a whole. When one gains a general impression of this whole Bill, you cannot do otherwise than observe that more rights are given to the Indians. With all diffidence, I would say this is what is occurring here. Many concessions are given to the Indians. There is the question of the permits that may be issued. [Time limit.]

I have listened to the speeches that have been delivered by the members of the Government party. This is a very important measure, and only five members of the United Party are present on the other side. [Quorum.] The hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) intimated here that Transvaal Indians are assisted by Europeans, and that if it was not for the Europeans the Indians could not enrich themselves as they do. The hon. member’s knowledge is very limited as far as this is concerned. The Government is supporting the Indians. Just note how the mealie quotas were apportioned, and you will see how the Indians have been accorded the opportunity to exploit the people. The hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) let the cat out of the bag. He said that this legislation was introduced, not because it was so necessary, but to allow the Prime Minister to distinguish himself when he went to the U.N.O.” This is what we felt in the first instance, that this legislation is not so necessary, but that the Prime Minister wants an opportunity to go to UNO and say: This is what I did in South Africa to give their rightful dues to the Indians. Not only this, but we feel that in the first instance this legislation was not necessary because the Indians never asked the Government to give them their franchise. They were absolutely silent and satisfied, and now the Government makes a concession to the Indians which was absolutely unnecessary. We find in Clause 5 provision is made that there is no restriction on Indians who own businesses. They can simply continue with thosé businesses, which can only be taken over by Indians. These are the rights which under this legislation are being granted to Indians. We can observe nothing in this legislation of that segregation that was referred to by members on the opposite benches. They will still live together with the Europeans in the towns. In Volksrust there are Indians living amongst the whites, and there is nothing in the Bill to prevent this sort of thing. So they can continue to live amongst the white people. It is not stipulated that those living amongst the white people should be bought out and vice versa. This is the policy of this side. We maintain that when an Indian lives amongst the whites he must be bought out and he must go to an Indian location. The Government refuses to do that, and the Indians can continue to remain where they are now.

Then we come to the franchise provisions. As far as Natal is concerned, and also as far as the Transvaal is concerned, the Indians are now receiving the franchise because they can elect three members to the Assembly. This is a crime towards the white inhabitants of the Transvaal and Natal. We can only stigmatise this as a crime against white civilisation. Then there is the provision that the Indians will be entitled to sit as members of the Provincial Council of Natal. They will have that right to make laws governing the European’s child in that province. They can make laws in connection with roads and similar matters. We feel this is an injustice towards the European inhabitants of that province. I would like to give an assurance to the Prime Minister that this legislation that gives the Indians the right to legislate in respect of the education of our children, and hospitals and roads in that province, is an injustice to the Europeans. Then I come to the amendment of the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein). We have felt that two provisions are made in this legislation, or should be made, in regard to the delimitation of areas, namely, that compensation must be paid for the land that is expropriated by the State to place these people in the position to find a better haven elsewhere. Tn the present circumstances where demarcation has already occurred, the land has declined 50 per cent. in value. The people cannot sell the land at a profit. We observe that under the present provisions of the Bill there is no segregation, because in the demarcated areas both Europeans and Indians and even natives can buy land. We feel that the Government must produce a measure wherein will be specified that certain areas will be reserved exclusively for Indians, and I hope that no Europeans or natives will come in there. This should be legislation that one could take into consideration, but in this case we have still this higgledy-piggledy living, and therefore we feel that amendments will be necessary, and we have proposed this amendment. In the second place we feel there should be a valuation of the land and that these people should be paid out according to the full valuation as made by an impartial commission. I go further and I say that I feel that the composition of the board mentioned in the Bill is not satisfactory. We do not know what sort of people we are going to get on that board, and it is the board that is responsible for the issue of permits. If we get people on it like the Minister of Finance then we can be assured that permits will be issued from time to time. He will not even ask for what purpose the Indian wants the land. He will give him the right to obtain a permit for any place, even though the Indian wants to carry on business. The board is comprised of two Indians and two Europeans, with a chairman. He may be a negrophilist, and then nothing else but chaos will be created. In regard to the trading rights of the Indians we find that their businesses have been spread throughout the Transvaal. They are carrying on business everywhere, and no one else can open up a business. There are businesses on farms that have been leased to the Indians, and now by this law there will actually be a servitude in perpetuity on the farmer because that trading right can only be leased to Indians. I wish the Prime Minister would give his attention to this and introduce a modification of the Bill. At the moment no curtailment has been made, and we must not give the Indian the right to carry on business anywhere, and, as it were, give him a servitude. He can carry on as before, and there is nothing in the law to stop him. We feel there are clauses in the Bill which are aimed against the Transvaal Province. When we come to the Indian franchise the position is that we in the Transvaal have always had the idea that the non-Europeans there must have the franchise, but by this legislation the Indians are now getting the franchise, and they are in this respect being placed on an equal footing with Europeans in the Transvaal. The franchise of the Europeans is being encroached upon. Furthermore, as I have already stated, the Indians can carry on with their trading activities and with the exploitation not only of the European population, but also of the native population. I have instances in my constituency where the Indians have abused the rights that were given them, and where they have demanded much higher prices than those that were fixed, because they knew there were no inspectors. They have asked 200 per cent. and 300 per cent. more than the fixed price. Mealie prices were fixed, but they asked 4s. 6d. for 25 lb., which is 1s. more than the fixed price. It is that exploitation that places the Indian in the position to enrich himself and to qualify for the franchise in the Transvaal. There is nothing in the Bill to bring about any curtailment. They can simply carry on with this exploitation for their own enrichment and to acquire businesses, and they have already done this on a big scale. We have instances in the Transvaal where nearly all the businesses in the town are in the hands of Indians. Take a place like Leslie; there you have seven Indian businesses, and not a single European business. They have monopolised business, and we have the disastrous case there of an Indian marrying a white girl. This is the position we get. If there is a curtailment of permits, this evil would not take place. Under this Bill the Indians will retain their rights to continue in this monopolising of businesses. They get the financial power in their hands, and thereby they are better enabled to undermine the position of the white man. Consequently, we feel that this legislation does not go far enough and does nothing to prevent these things in the future. Accordingly, in the Committee stage we must amend these clauses in order to see whether we cannot improve the Bill. But it seems to me that the United Party believes that this Bill must be pushed through at everyone’s expense so long as the Indian gets his franchise and can run riot here in South Africa.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. van der Merwe) tried to prove this afternoon that the hon. Leader of the Opposition had negotiated with India and that he had admitted that India had some say in the internal affairs of South Africa. He stated tha† Mr. Sastri had come to this country from India as Agent-General for that purpose. I just want to say that the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and the South African Party of those days welcomed the arrival of Mr. Sastri in this country. At that time the Indian Government offered to co-operate with the Government in South Africa in an effort to repatriate the Indians from South Africa back to India or to some other part of the British Empire. For that reason the Leader of the Opposition co-operated and allowed Mr. Sastri to come here as Agent-General to assist in that scheme. As I have said, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the whole South African Party co-operated in this matter and welcomed this step. The hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) tried to prove this afternoon that the Leader of the Opposition was in favour of group representation in this House, and he quoted passages from speeches of the Leader of the Opposition indicating what his attitude is. Apparently the hon. member does not understand what the position was at that time. He was not in this House, and apparently he does not understand what the position was on that occasion. At that time the position was that the coloureds and the natives had the franchise on an equal basis with the Europeans. The Leader of the Opposition adopted the attitude that they should have been given separate representation. As far as the natives are concerned, the Nationalist Party was not in favour of giving them representation in this House, but it was in favour of giving representation to the coloureds. That is why there were two Bills. The first Bill, moved by the late Gen. Hertzog, provided that they would not have representation in this House. And the second Bill proposed to give them three representatives in the House. It will be seen that the Leader of the Opposition moved that the first Bill be passed. In other words, he, together with his whole party, was not ’ in favour of giving the franchise or group representation to the natives in this House. The hon. member bases his argument on the fact that we voted for group representation for the natives, and that therefore we are in favour of giving all sections group representation. That is altogether wrong. We had to choose between two evils, and we chose the lesser of the two, namely, to remove the natives from the European voters’ roll and rather to give them group representation. A two-thirds majority was required to put this legislatian through the House, and the best we could do was to give them group representation. That was our attitude at that time.

This Bill is of the greatest importance, not only to this House, but to the whole nation. It is of general importance to the European civilisation in South Africa. The members on the Government benches, the members of this party, the members of the Labour Party, and on all sides of the House, realise that this Bill is of the utmost importance to the European population. It is a measure which may have far-reaching consequences and which has implications, the_ full significance of which we may not realise today. The Asiatic question is part and parcel of the colour question in South Africa. When dealing with the colour question in South Africa, of which the Asiatic question is part and parcel, the European population as a whole should express its views. It affects the whole European population and the whole country. In the Transvaal and in Natal this Asiatic question has become acute, and it must therefore be tackled and solved. In the Transvaal and in Natal both English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking persons belonging to both political parties are agreed that this problem must be solved. The solution advocated by them is the solution that we on this side advocate. There is no difference on this point in those two provinces. One would have expected the Prime Minister to deal with this problem from a national point of view. It is one of those problems which threatens the European civilisation in South Africa, and it should be dealt with from a national point of view, from a broad national standpoint and not from a narrow political standpoint as it is being dealt with in this Bill.

The Prime Minister caused this question to be investigated by committees and commissions years ago. He knows what the problem is. He raised the matter in his party caucus and it took him weeks and weeks to obtain a majority there for this measure. It took him a longer time to get a majority in his party caucus than this House was given to put the Bill through. After obtaining that majority he bound his caucus through party loyalty to vote for this measure. Certain members got up in this House and admitted that they were opposed to the Bill. They were permitted by the Prime Minister to speak against the Bill, but not to vote against it.

That is wrong.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) said that as well as other members. They were allowed to speak against the Bill, but party loyalty bound them to vote for the Bill against their will. In that way they can have their speeches recorded in Hansard to console their consciences, and to make use of them in their constituencies, so that they will be able to say to their voters: “You will notice that we spoke against the Bill.” They do that because they know that the majority of the voters are definitely and inexorably opposed to this Bill which seeks to give the franchise to the Indians. The Prime Minister is a statesman with years of experience of political life in South Africa. He is a leader of the nation. Here he is dealing with a measure which is so vitally important to the country, and yet he introduces a Bill of this kind and avails himself of the steam-roller and of the party machine to push this measure through the House against the wishes of the European population of South Africa I am convinced, and I think hon. members on the Government benches know, that the vast majority of the European population in South Africa is opposed to giving the franchise to the Asiatics in the Transvaal and in Natal, and whatever this House may decide it is clear that at the next election hon. members on that side will have to give an account to their voters of the attitude they adopted as a result of party pressure exercised upon them. They will have to give an account to the voters to explain why they pushed this measure through the House against the will of the nation. There are certain national questions affecting the nation as a whole in respect of which the people expect us in this House to act on a broad national basis and not to approach the matter from a narrow political party point of view; we are expected to set aside all party considerations and to act in the interests of the European civilisation of South Africa, and this measure deals with such a question, one which should be above party political discipline and in respect of which everyone should act in the interests of the European civilisation of South Africa. This Bill represents the thin end of the wedge. On the Government benches, under the leadership of the Minister of Finance, we have a liberal group, and the Minister of Finance stated in this House in unambiguous terms and in a no uncertain manner that he regards this measure as a compromise, as the first step in the fulfilment of his policy. He regards it as the first instalment in the direction of a liberal policy in South Africa, as a first step in the fulfilment of the policy advocated by him, namely, a policy of equality between white and black in South Africa, and there is not a single member on the other side who denies that. We all know what attitude the Minister of Finance adopts. He makes no secret of it; he is very clear in that regard. He stated clearly that he is in favour of absolutely equal rights.

That is the policy of the Nationalist Party. What do the Indians say about this?

The hon. member ought to know the policy of the Nationalist Party. Our policy is to draw a line between white and black in South Africa, and we advocate a policy of separatism. That policy of equality emanates from the Minister of Finance, and he does not hesitate to say in this House that that is his policy. My hon. friends on the other side were forced through party discipline and party loyalty to make the highest and the greatest sacrifices for the sake of party discipline and party loyalty. The hon. Minister of Finance is not a back-bencher. He is one of the most influential Ministers in the Cabinet, but he is also the future leader of the party on the other side, and hon. members on the Government benches subscribe to the policy of the Minister of Finance. They chose him at their caucus as their future leader, as their future Prime Minister. That statement has been made in the Government’s own papers, that the Minister of Finance is going to succeed the Prime Minister.

No.

Do hon. members deny it?

We do not choose our leader at the caucus.

Hon. members on the other side now deny that the Minister of Finance has been nominated as the successor to the Prime Minister.

But they said that some time ago.

Do hon. members deny it? I should very much like to know.

We have our leader.

Do hon. members on the Governmentbenches deny that the Minister of Finance has been nominated as the successor to the Prime Milnister? I should like to know whether they deny it. They are absolutely silent now. I must take it, therefore, that he has been accepted as the future Prime Minister of South Africa by hon. mebers on that side. In other words, they subscribe to his policy of equality in South Africa. They cannot deny it.

You are saying that.

That is utter nonsense.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. van der Merwe) says it is utter nonsense that the Minister of Finance has been nominated to succeed the Prime Minister.

What does the Minister of Lands say?

Order, order.

Apparently they are now ashamed to admit that the Minister of Finance will be their next leader. They do not want to deny it outright. The Minister of Finance is not only the future leader of that party, but he also has a powerful liberalistic Press in this country supporting him, and that is the attitude adopted by the Minister of Finance. A few years ago we moved an amendment in this House to the effect that non-Europeans shall not adopt European children. We deliberately moved that. What was the attitude of the Minister of Finance? He stated that he did not want racial discrimination. In other words, he was in favour of non-Europeans adopting European children, because he did not want to discriminate between the various races. We proposed that there should be separate residential areas. I recall a deputation which came to see us here and asked us to put forward such a proposal. The Minister of Finance did not want it because he was not in favour of separatism. He is not in favour of racial discrimination in this country. While he was Minister of Labour we proposed that there should be separate trade unions. He admitted that there were certain trade unions to which both Europeans and non-Europeans belonged. He admitted that, but he did not want to accept our proposal, because he did not want to discriminate between white and black. Hon. members on the other side subscribe to his policy, and he is their future leader.

Trade unions cannot be registered.

The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) says that trade unions cannot be registered. I would ask him to read the reply of the Minister of Finance in Hansard, where he stated that there were 14 trade unions to which both Europeans and non-Europeans belonged. The hon. member does not even know that. He is a member of that party; he supports the policy of the Minister of Finance, and yet he does not know that. I can understand why he belongs to the party on the other side.

You are talking nonsense.

We proposed that there should be separate spheres of employment for Europeans and non-Europeans. The Minister of Finance was opposed to it. He favours a policy of equality and no racial discrimination. The logical consequence of a policy such as that advocated by the Minister is that it must lead to absolute equality between white and black in South Africa, and it must lead to the downfall of European civilisation in South Africa. It is of no avail for hon. members to pay lip-service to a policy of maintaining European civilisation in South Africa if in practice they adopt measures which are calculated to undermine and to wipe out European civilisation in South Africa. That is what they are doing in practice. On the platteland they pay lip-service to European civilisation, but in practice they are deliberately wiping out and destroying European civilisation in this country. The hon. Minister of Finance stated that he welcomed this measure, because it is an instalment in the direction of equality in South Africa, and the hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) also stated that she welcomed it for that reason, that this is an important step in the direction of equality in South Africa; in other words, the liberalists in this Parliament advocate a positive policy of equality in South Africa, and my hon. friends on the Government benches who ought to feel as I do and as this side of the House feels, lack the courage to act and to say firmly that they are not going to follow that road. Here they are taking the first step, and they will take the second and the third steps in that direction. The Prime Minister stated that the Asiatics in Natal will be represented, by Asiatics in the Provincial Council. But in the Transvaal the Asiatic population is too small, and for that reason they will not be given representation in the Transvaal. Let me put this to hon. members on the Government benches, especially those who represent the Transvaal: If the Asiatic population in the Transvaal increase to such an extent within a few years that they will be entitled according to the statement of the Prime Minister, to representation in the Provincial Council, what argument could they advance as to why the Indians in the Transvaal should not be given direct representation in the Provincial Council? In that event hon. members on the other side would be obliged to vote for it. We on this side who have consistently opposed the granting of direct representation to the Indian on the Provincial Council would be able to vote against it, but they would have to vote for it in order to be consistent. I want to put this further question to them: If you give the franchise to the Indian in the Provincial Council, what right will you have to refuse to give the franchise to the Asiatic in the city councils? If the Asiatic is allowed to sit in the Provincial Council, what moral right have you to deny the Asiatic the right to sit in the municipalities of the Transvaal or Natal, if you want to be consistent? If you take this first step, the time will come, sooner or later, when you will have to take the second step, and that is to allow them to sit in the municipalities of the Transvaal and Natal, and my hon. friends know that that is the case; but nevertheless they are going to vote for this Bill. There is such a thing as a law of self-preservation, and I say that the European population in South Africa, which numbers 2,000,000 as against 8,000,000 non-Europeans, has the right to introduce legislation and to take steps to protect itself against the vast majority of the non-Europeans. We have the right to do it. We find in Europe today that the Germans are being driven out of Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland. We find thousands of Germans dying on the road of hunger and misery, but they are being driven out. Why are they being driven out? Because those nations do not want them there. They are being forced to leave those countries. We do not hear a word of protest about it; hon. members do not complain about that. Every nation has a right to self-preservation, and the European population in South Africa also has the right of self-preservation, to protect its own interests and its own traditions, to maintain its own ideals in South Africa.

Who denies it?

A number of Afrikaners went to the Argentine and to Portuguese territory and we brought them back to South Africa at State expense because those countries were not treating them well. We paid for it. Now the Minister of Finance says the Indians in South Africa are being treated badly and he hopes that better conditions will be created for them in South Africa as a result of this legislation. In the same breath the Prime Minister says that the Indians who returned to India found that the conditions there were miserable and that they were treated so badly that they advised the Indians who had remained in South Africa not to leave this country, because living conditions were so miserable in India. But nevertheless the Minister of Finance and other members tell us it is a disgrace that we treat the Indians in this fashion. The Minister of Finance is very concerned about the interests of the Indians in South Africa. I do not know what the conditions are in Natal, but I want to say that for years in this House I have been urging that a slightly enhanced pension should be paid to our needy old people, but the Minister of Finance hardened his heart. He stubbornly refused to give those people an increased pension, although he knew that they were starving, and yet here he proposes to give the Indians further rights. I say that the policy which is being adopted by my hon. friends on the other side, and especially hon. members representing the Transvaal and Natal, will lead to the suicide of South Africa. We are in process of undermining our own European civilisation in South Africa. These people want to see to it that the franchise is given to the Indians. But why has England not given the franchise to the natives in Basutoland? Why has England not given the natives in Bechuanaland and Swaziland the franchise; why not? Why is Rhodesia not giving the franchise to the natives? It is because they realise that if they give the franchise to the natives, the European population will be driven out and the natives will be the dominant race. These hon. members who are so concerned and who are so loyal do not say a single word because the natives in those territories are not being given the franchise, but they have continually agitated that the franchise be given to the natives, and now they are agitating that the franchise be given to the Indians. The Prime Minister is giving the franchise to the Indians, and the Indians themselves are rejecting it with contempt. They are ridiculing it; they do not want it. The Government Party is forcing upon the Indians something which they do not want. Telegrams were quoted in this House this afternoon to show that the Indians are refusing to avail themselves of this concession, but nevertheless the Government Party is thrusting the franchise upon them. I cannot understand how members like the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans) and the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) and the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) and a large number of others can vote for this measure, knowing that this measure, according to the Minister of Finance, is the first step in the direction of complete equality between white and black in South Africa in the political and economic spheres. They know that the Minister of Finance is their future leader, and knowing that they still tamely vote for this measure.

Is that the reason why the Asiatics do not want it?

The hon. member for Vryheid finds consolation in the fact that thé Indians do not want it. The Minister of Finance has replied to that. He stated that he hoped that his friends, the Asiatics, would accept this as the first instalment.

And that is why they do not want it.

He consoled them with that thought.

But your leader wanted to give the franchise to coloured women.

Your Prime Minister wanted to give it to the natives.

That is a lie.

Who said it is a lie?

I do.

What are you prepared to bet?

I am prepared to bet him £100.

The Hon. Minister refers to the franchise to coloured women. Let me just say this: Both the Leader of the Opposition and the late Gen. Hertzog felt at one stage that we should give the franchise to both the coloureds and the Malays, but what did the Prime Minister do? He stated that he was prepared to give the franchise to the natives. Do my hon. friends deny that?

That is correct; he stated that on 17th February.

A certain evening at Bloemfontein I asked the Prime Minister whether he was in favour of giving the franchise to the natives.

They can read it in Hansard, column 1031.

At one stage the Prime Minister stated that he was in favour of giving the franchise to the natives, both male and female. I do not say that he is still prepared to do it; I hope not. I hope hon. members who are going to vote for this Bill will consult their own consciences and realise that this is an important step and that eventually it will lead to equality between white and black in South Africa and that they are leaving European civilisation in South Africa in the lurch.

I move—

I second.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 2nd April.