I move—

The hon. member was good enough to give me notice this morning of his intention to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing this matter, and I informed him that I did not consider that it was one contemplated by Standing Order No. 33.

I bow to your ruling, Sir. May I ask you whether it will be possible to raise this matter under the Prime Minister’s vote?

Yes, the hon. member will have full opportunity to discuss this matter at quite an early date.

May I discuss it under the Prime Minister’s vote?

That will depend on the Chairman of Committees, as the House is then under his discretion.

Well, if he does not allow me to discuss it, there will be a devil of a row.

I move—

The object is to make the first part of the Bill and the second part of the Bill separate Bills, so that each one of the two parts may be dealt with as a separate Bill and so that each part may be voted upon separately. These two parts of the Bill, which by this time are well known to all hon. members, have been linked together by the Prime Minister, and in introducing the Bill he indicated that as far as the Government was concerned thé two parts were inseparable. Let me say at once that it is altogether unusual to link together two parts of a Bill which differ so widely and which are of the particular character of these two parts. Because it is unusual we must look for a reason; we must look for a motive. I say that this linking together is unusual. Both parts of the Bill, it is true, deal with Indians, but having said that we have said everything that can be said in connection with the linking together of these parts. In all other respects the two parts of the Bill are totally different. Let me also say this: When we go into the political history of South Africa over the whole lengthy period in which legislation in connection with matters of this nature was before Parliament, both pre-Union Parliament and the present Union Parliament, we cannot find any example where there was a similar coupling together of differing legislation. It has happened more than once in the course of this debate that a comparison has been made with legislation that was passed in this House ten years ago, in 1936, in connection with the native problem. On that occasion legislation was passed in connection with both matters appearing in this Bill in regard to Indians. Legislation was passed in connection with the occupation of land by natives, where they may buy and occupy land and where they may not do so, and simultaneously legislation was passed in connection with the representation of the native population, but those two subjects were not coupled together in one and the same Bill. On that occasion two separate Bills were placed before the legislative body, and each one of those Bills could be discussed on its own merits. As the matter now stands in connection with the legislation which is before this House, it becomes impossible for the House, since these two matters are being coupled together, to discuss each one of the two parts on its own merits and to vote on the particular merits of each one of those parts. I say there is no precedent in our political history where a similar course was adopted in connection with a measure of this kind. It may be said, and it is said, that we are dealing here with a curtailment of the rights of the Indians. There is Indian penetration, particularly in Natal, into European areas, and because their rights are being curtailed, it is only right, on the other hand, that they be compensated by giving them representation in Parliament. But even if it were true that their rights are being curtailed, I say that even then there is no precedent in our history for the procedure of giving political compensation for the application of the segregation principle in one and the same Bill. Take the Transvaal, for example. In that Province the Act of 1885 did not remain unaltered throughout the years. There were openings under that Act to acquire land in the Transvaal. They were denied the right to acquire land individuaily, but there were openings for the Indians to form combinations, to form companies in which they had the greatest or the controlling share, so as to acquire land in that way. That may not have been the intention under the Act of 1885, but in any event they possessed that right. That right was taken away, but when it was taken away from the Indians in the Transvaal there was never any idea that the Indians should be given a quid pro quo politically. In the Cape Province, too, after the establishment of Union, the rights of Indians to buy land just where they pleased, as in the case of Europeans, were curtailed. That was amended by legislation of this Parliament as far back as 1913, and since that date natives have not been able to buy land in the Cape Province at all. A commission was appointed to delimitate areas where they were allowed to buy and which would be set aside as native territory where they would have the right to buy land, but when that right of the natives was curtailed there was no idea at all to give the natives in the Cape Province a quid pro quo by giving them political representation. In the days when the Natal Province was still a separate colony there was a curtailment of rights in that Province. There was a time when the Indians in Natal had the franchise, on an equal basis with the Europeans, in respect of the Natal Parliament. That right was taken away. They had a municipal franchise and that was also taken away, but although there was a curtailment of their rights, because the Government of the country deemed it necessary on the merits, it was not decided in this Parliament to give them a legislative quid pro quo by giving them political representation in this House in the same Act which took away those rights. I say, therefore, that what is happening here is quite unusual, namely, to couple these two parts together, to couple the second part, which is unacceptable to the people, to a large section on both sides of the House, to the first part which is more acceptable, with the object of getting the second part through the House. The question I want to put is this: What is the Government’s reason for combining these two separate matters in one Bill and saying in this House that the two parts are inseparably linked together? If the object was—and that may have been the Prime Minister’s original idea —to reconcile the Indian population to the establishment of the principle of separatism and segregation in Natal, he has failed in his object from the very commencement. In that case this Bill, from the point of view of coupling one part to the other, is a hopeless failure. If the object was to satisfy the Indians in that way, then we have the position that the Indians are so little satisfied with it that they have taken it upon themselves, knowing full well that it was the wrong step to take, to appeal to the Government of India, to appeal even to U.N.O. and to foreign countries like Russia and China. There is even some talk in their own ranks of adopting a course of passive resistance, and the three representatives they have in Parliament, the three native representatives who have taken it upon themselvts to act on behalf of the Indians in this House, have rejected this quid pro quo, if it was intended as a quid pro quo. Yesterday they voted against the Bill, and therefore against the offer of the quid pro quo, just as the Indian population in this country has rejected it. If, in coupling the second part to the first part, the object was to satisfy the Indians, then I say it has appeared to be a hopeless failure from the very commencement.

I want to know why this coupling together was resorted to. An opinion was expressed here—and I think it was also confirmed by the Prime Minister—that we must take into account overseas opinion in South Africa. Overseas opinion must be satisfied with what is taking place in South Africa. When I speak of overseas opinion, I refer in the first place to the views of India, and the Prime Minister himself replied to that when he introduced the Bill. He stated that he would not pay any attention to the dissatisfaction in India, to the threats which came from that quarter and, moreover, to the threat to breaking off trade relations with South Africa. This matter is a South African domestic affair. He regards it in that light and that is his reply in regard to the dissatisfaction and the threats of India. What overseas opinion must he take into account, in regard to which he is so sensitive? He tells us that he will be proceeding overseas in the near future and that he will be attending important conferences, inter alia, a meeting of U.N.O., and there he will have to take into account the opinion of U.N.O., because what we do in South Africa in connection with the Indian question is noted there, and what he is doing here he is doing in all probability to satisfy overseas opinion. He wants to arm himself by giving the Indians this quid pro quo, this compensation, for the application of the segregation principle to the Indians in Natal. There is yet another overseas opinion—I do not know whether we should regard it as an overseas opinion—but I refer to the opinion of England and the British Empire. England is being confronted today with a movement of independence in India. India wants to secede from the British Empire, and it is a very useful weapon for the Indians in India who are in favour of secession from the British Empire to be able to tell the Indians that in some parts of the Empire British subjects cannot obtain equality; that it serves no purpose to be British subjects because when they come to South Africa they are treated on the basis of separatism, and they want nothing less than a basis of equality. This is a weapon, and a strong weapon, in the hands of the Indians in their movement for independence, and I can well understand that the Imperialists in this country, the Prime Minister included, are just as concerned and more concerned about England’s interests in India than they are about the interests of South Africa in connection with the solution of the Indian question and the difficult and urgent colour problem. One can understand the Imperialists taking into account overseas opinion, but I cannot understand it on the part of U.N.O. or on the part of any other country.

It is dangerous, Mr. Speaker, for us to adopt this attitude in South Africa. It is a dangerous attitude to adopt to say that we should solve the colour problem in this or that way because we must take into account opinion overseas or the opinion of U.N.O. It means, in the first place, an admission on our part that the solution of the colour problem, including the Indian question, is not purely a domestic question to be decided by ourselves. It is an admission that it is not our own domestic affair with which countries overseas must not interfere. Moreover, if he yields to foreign opinion in connection with the solution of this problem, then I say it is not only an admission that they can interfere with our domestic affairs, but it is an invitation to them to intervene in the domestic affairs of this country, and that will be the result. If we cannot solve the coloured problem in South Africa other than by taking into account overseas opinion, we have the right to ask: Where are we going to stop eventually? Today they may interfere or bring direct pressure to bear on us in connection with the Indian question, and tomorrow it will be the broad colour problem—the question of the 8,000,000 natives of South Africa who for the greater part are not represented in this House. No, I think it is a dangerous attitude to adopt that we have to study overseas opinion and that we have to act accordingly. The solution of the colour problem in South Africa is our affair and our affair only. South Africa has almost 300 years of experience of the colour problem in South Africa and the best way of solving it, and South Africa need not be ashamed of what it has done in connection with the colour problem during these 300 years, either in its own circle or before the world.

May I remind the hon. member of Rule 79 which lays down that the debate in regard to an instruction must be strictly limited to the contents of such an instruction. It seems to me the hon. member is going somewhat beyond the scope of his motion.

I shall bear your ruling in mind, Mr. Speaker. I was only dealing with a reason advanced by some members on the other side as to why these two things should be coupled together, and I am trying to refute it. I shall deal later with the actual reason why these two parts of the Bill are being coupled together by the Prime Minister. But, first of all, I want to advance reasons why these two parts should not be linked together. My first reason is this. It is a wrong principle to force through the House a measure which the people do not want by coupling it to a measure which the people do want. This Bill consists of two separate parts. As far as the first part of the Bill is concerned, we have an entrenched right today to apply segregation. It is an accepted principle in this country, and it is only a question of the consequential application of it to a lesser or greater degree. The first part was an accepted principle in the Transvaal as long ago as 1885, and a new application has been applied to that segregation principle from time to time. We also have the principle of separatism in Natal where it is an accepted principle, and we therefore have the right to apply it in a new way. It is a principle which was accepted not only by the old Republican Governments which called it into being, but thereafter it was also accepted by the Imperial Milner Government. The principle has already been accepted in Natal as far as the Indians are concerned. What else does the Pegging Act mean? It was passed as a basis for action in order to curtail the penetration of Indians as far as the acquisition of land is concerned. It was necessary to establish more effective separatism and this House accepted that principle as far back as 1943, and placed it on the Statute Book. The temporary character of that Act was only intended to give this House an opportunity to apply that principle in the best possible way. It is an accepted principle and the further and more effective application of it is a matter within our rights because it is a matter in regard to which this House has already decided. But the second part of the Bill contains ‘a brand-new principle, and because it contains a brand-new principle, it should not be coupled to something that has already been accepted in principle, and in respect of which we are merely seeking a more effective application. In those circumstances, we dare not deal with the first part which we are entitled to expand and to apply in conjunction with the second part or make it dependent upon the acceptance of the second part. One does not buy one’s own property. I apply that remark to the first part. One does not barter one’s own horse in exchange for one’s own cow. We cannot buy the application of the first part of the bill with something else,-namely, the domination of the Europeans; we cannot buy the first part at the price of relinquishing the domination of the Europeans. A new principle is contained in the second part, a principle which we cannot couple with the first part. We must consider it upon its own merits and come to a decision. The second part contains the new principle that it is now proposed for the first time to give a section, at any rate, of the non-European population in the northern provinces representation in Parliament. With the establishment of Union a compromise was affected. The North regarded and still regards the system of the Cape Province as a dangerous principle which should not be extended to the north. The South Africa Act did not give the non-Europeans in the northern provinces the franchise. It was regarded as their protection. Now it is proposed to give the non-Europeans in the northern provinces the franchise, and, moreover, this section of the non-Europeans who were the last arrivals in South Africa and who had the least right to it, less right than the natives or the coloured people. It is the thin end of the wedge. This is the first of a series of steps which the Prime Minister visualised yesterday. Since that is the case I say it must be dealt with on its merits and it must not be coupled to something else which the greatest portion of this House and the country desire. There is another new principle which should also be dealt with on its own merits and which should not be coupled to something else, and that is that now for the first time non-European members will sit in the Provincial Council of Natal together with Europeans. This is a matter on which the northern provinces have laid great emphasis in the past. They held the view that as soon as this principle is abandoned and Europeans and nonEuropeans sit together in the legislative body of this country, the whole cause of the European race will be sacrificed. This is nothing but the thin end of the wedge; but here we have this new principle which is laid down for the European population, and it is a dangerous principle. The third new principle with which I dealt during the course of the second reading debate on the Bill is that by means of this Bill our entire parliamentary institutions as bodies representative of the people are being undermined.

I am sorry, but the hon. member is now quite of order. He must confine himself to the motion.

I shall not enlarge on that, but I just want to point Out how far-reaching and new one of these two parts is. We cannot limit the House by saying: “If you reject the second part you will not get the first part which you want.” My second reason for saying that the second part should not be coupled to the first is because, as I have said by implication, it smothers the true convictions of this House and the voice of the people as far as this matter is concerned. We have had the second reading debate and it must have struck everyone that even members who voted for this Bill in its entirety at the second reading, declared themselves in favour of the first part, but they did not have anything to say in favour of the second part, and some members on the other side went even further and declared themselves solidly opposed to it. By linking the one part to the other it simply means that the true convictions of members are being smothered, and the voice of the people whom they are called upon to represent in this House is being smothered.

You did not even vote for the first part.

There are numbers of members in this House who are prepared to swallow the second part of the Bill, and they said that quite frankly, for the sake of the first part. In other words, the second part is a bitter pill to them; it is diametrically opposed to their convictions, but the first part is coupled with it in the form of a sugar-coated pill to make it possible for them to swallow the bitter pill. Since that is the case I say it is tantamount to the exertion of pressure, improper pressure, on members to sacrifice their true convictions of what they regard as being in the interests of the country. It is an act of political sabotage; it is nothing but political gangsterdom—I can describe it in no other language. It says in other words: You will have no segregation in Natal unless you are prepared to swallow this bitter pill, and give the Indians a seat on your Provincial Council and give them political representation in this House. It is a case of “your money or your life”. That is the method followed by the Government. In my opinion the true reason why the Prime Minister is taking this extraordinary step of coupling the two together is that if we strip it of the decorations and trimmings with which he covered the real reason, if we see it in its nakedness, we find that the true reason is nothing but political expediency. To gain that end, the true national interests must be sacrificed. Let us look at the historical position for a moment. This danger developed in Natal. There was penetration on the part of Indians into European areas. Natal urged the Prime Minister at all times to protect them against this danger. The Prime Minister dawdled. As far as this matter is concerned, Natal almost revolted against the Government. They even made the following appeal to the Free State: “Please, throw in your weight with us, you who have no Indians, and give us your assistance.” For a long time the Prime Minister would not take any action. Why not? Because in the ranks of his own party there is a liberal group led by the Minister of Finance and he could not spare this group; in the face of their opposition he could not put through legislation, and he was in a difficult position, particularly because he had already nominated the Minister of Finance as his successor. Natal was in revolt. He had to keep Natal and at the same time he had to keep this liberal group within the ranks of his own party. It is party political considerations which counted and nothing else. What did he then do? The Pegging Act was passed. The liberal group was opposed to it. They almost left the party, but he stated that it was a temporary measure. In that way he satisfied them. By implication he sought to get away from the Pegging Act, and the Pretoria Agreement was then entered into with the Indians. That satisfied the Indians and it satisfied the liberal group in his party, but unfortunately for him it did not satisfy Natal, and then he again fell back on the Pegging Act, on the delimitation of areas as far as the acquisition of land and occupation were concerned. But again he had to satisfy his liberal group as well, and in order to do that he sweetened the bitter pill for the Minister of Finance to enable him to swallow it. And the Minister of Finance did swallow it. The sugar with which he coated the pill was representation for the Indians and the coupling together of the two parts of this Bill. For that reason—we understand it very well now—the Prime Minister could not accept any proposal to keep this matter above and outside party politics. That is why he could not act in this matter as we had acted in connection with the native problem. This was a matter which he had to rectify within his own party and he lost sight of the national interests. I just want to say this; this attempt on my part to rid hon. members, who feel that the second part is against the interests of South Africa, of the tyranny under which they have been placed and to enable them to act in the national interests and not in the interests of the party, represents the last opportunity they will have to free themselves and to study the national interests. If they allow this opportunity to pass they will be responsible for placing South Africa’s future at stake.

As I am seconding the motion of the Leader of the Opposition, I wish to say at the outset that in the whole of our Parliamentary history in South Africa there is no precedent for what is being done here by the Prime Minister. There is no precedent for subjects of such a divergent character being coupled with each other. There is no precedent for subjects so different in nature, in essence and in character being piloted through the House in this way. Precedent, indeed, is all the other way. There was the example of similar Bills, legislation that was comprised of two distinct parts, and those parts differed in respect of their nature, their essence and their character in the same way as the measures which are contained in the Bill now before us. On that occasion after due consideration and after the subject had been before a Committee of both Houses of Parliament for a considerable time, and after it had been presented to a Joint Sitting of both Houses of Parliament, the opposite precedent was laid down in this instance, namely, that this class of legislation must be laid before the House in separate parts. I refer here to the Native Bills that were brought before the House. There was the Native Trust and Land Bill, then there was the Natives (Urban Areas) Bill, and thirdly, entirely apart, there was the Representation of Natives Bill.

The Leader of the Opposition has said that already.

I understand that the Minister of Native Affairs is nettled. He cannot look after the interests of his own Department, and now he wants to meddle with this. The Minister will get the opportunity, should he risk doing so, of controverting these arguments. I predict that he will not do so. He only dares to make interjections, and in that way to use a foolish argument. My argument is that there is no precedent. In British Parliamentary history you have a whole series of examples which are recorded in May’s Parliamentary Practice. There you find examples of Bills which, on account of their radical differences, were separated beforehand, and you have examples of a Bill which was later split into two because it appeared that these parts of the Bill concerned subjects which differed entirely from each other. I maintain an injustice has been done to members of this House in linking together such completely divergent measures. Not only is it bad for any Parliament and for the democratic system, but it is urgently necessary to separate the two measures. I challenge hon. members on the other side to mention any precedent in our Parliamentary history where anything of this sort has been done. But, what is more, there is no substantial argument to join the measures together. The Prime Minister, in his explanation, gave no well-founded argument why the two measures should be tacked together. He presented a pistol at the head of the House and his own members, and said that he demanded that the one part should not be adopted without the other. He employed no arguments. Neither the Minister of Native Affairs, nor the whole Cabinet sitting there, nor any of the members on the other side, not one of them has adduced any argument to indicate the necessity for this coupling. The only arguments though you cannot really call it an argument, the only ostensible argument that the Prime Minister employed is that he said that he was going on the same lines as in the past in the case of the native laws: “Just as it was necessary at that time to give the natives a political status in the form of a franchise, so is it necessary now in the case of the Indians in Natal”—that is what he said. This is no argument. It is a phantom argument because it rests on a false foundation. What is this false foundation? It is that at that time land tenure rights were given to the natives in exchange for something that was taken away from them. That also rests on a false foundation: that the natives at that time, as is now the case with the Asiatics, got the franchise for the first time. There is absolutely no resemblance between the two cases. The natives had the ordinary franchise in the Cape, and it was not all the natives who then ’got the franchise, but those who had it in the Cape got the communal franchise. There is absolutely no analogy with the instance we are now dealing with. If you wish to carry this argument of the Prime Minister’s further, that because certain rights were taken from the Indians in Natal we must give them the franchise, then you will land South Africa in a very dangerous position. Then you will have to apply the doctrine in connection with coloureds and Indians and natives to give them the franchise in exchange for something else.

I wish to remind the hon. member of Rule 79; the hon. member is now making a second reading speech.

I am advancing the reasons why I maintain the Prime Minister is not entitled to lump these measures together.

The hon. member is going further than that.

I just wish to explain that the Prime Minister in coupling these two subjects is making the one a means of exchange for the other part. Thus he has no right to couple the two and then to make an article of barter of the franchise. We in South Africa hold a very high opinion of our franchise. We wish to fulfil our civic rights with our franchise. There is a very nice way in which we put that in Afrikaans. We say that the voice of the people is the voice of the King. This is the foundation of democracy. As the voice of the people is the voice of the King you may not couple the franchise to anything else which directly or indirectly or by implication makes that franchise a medium of exchange for something else. You may not do so. The Prime Minister makes this threat: If you will not accept the second part you cannot get the first part. Thereby he is violating a fundamental principle of our electoral law and he is entering on dangerous ground. What must be the inevitable consequences of such a step? If we accept this false argument of the Prime Minister then in no time it is going to have serious results. Tomorrow or the day after when legislation is again brought up affecting any rights of the Indians or the coloured or the natives in any part of the country they will hold up today’s precedent to us and say that in exchange for the taking away of vested rights they want the franchise. And how will we be able to refuse that? The Prime Minister is engaged on a highly dangerous precedent, it is dangerous for European civilisation. The Prime Minister has a long life behind him, he may still live ten or twenty years, but today he is writing his political testament. This thing that he is doing today and this coupling of these two subjects will yet be used in the future as a precedent for other things, developments that endanger the survival of European civilisation. This is the corollary. I would ask the Prime Minister why he should at this period of his life lay down this dangerous precedent for posterity. The procedure of the Prime Minister is not in keeping with the spirit of the National Convention and of the Constitution. I do not believe any hon. member will deny that it is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and of the National Convention. What was the position at the commencement of Union? The Cape Province said: At present we have the non-European vote and we will not surrender it. The North stated that they would not have the non-European franchise;

The hon. member is again going too far. He must confine his arguments to the motion.

I do not wish to transgress your ruling, but I would merely ask whether I may refer to the dangers of this coupling.

The hon. member is now engaged in discussing the whole franchise question, including the natives.

I merely wish to allude to the dangers in the future in regard to this coupling. It is a violation of the agreement at Union, because the North did not want any non-European franchise, and the South wished to retain it, and the agreement was that the Cape Province should just carry on but that under no circumstances would there be any extension to the North. This was the spirit of the National Convention and the Constitution. In this measure violence is done to the spirit of the Constitution. I wish to bring forward another argument. At the outset I stated there was no precedent in our parliamentary history for anything of this sort, and I wish to assert that right through our history from 1910 to 1946 there is no precedent. The question of the franchise, which has come up for discussion repeatedly in Parliament, has always been dealt with on a separate basis, and not in a single instance has any legislation in reference to franchise been tacked on to anything else, not once. I am speaking now of the principle contained in the second part of the Bill which deals with the electoral law, and I maintain you have not a single example in the whole of our history of the question of the franchise having been linked up with something different, and if this has been the case right through our history it was because it is with the highest respect that we deal with anything affecting the franchise of the people as a democratic State. And why now should this be done? Why should this be done without any solid argument being adduced in favour of it? I do not wish to repeat what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said, but I wish to put this proposition very strongly. The Prime Minister is sitting over there. It was not before he introduced this measure into the House that he advised the country of it and also about this combination. No, the public did not know a single thing about it, nor did this side of the House. He acted in consul tation with his own people, and now sitting on the other side of the House are members such as the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp)—and I must be careful now how I classify them—you have members sitting there like the hon. member for Vryheid and other hon. members who feel very sore at heart over this extension of the franchise to the Indians in the northern provinces. You can waken up the hon. member for Vryheid at midnight, slap him on the shoulder and ask: Do you want the Indians to get the franchise? And I think he will say “No”.

In the northern provinces?

I say in the northern provinces, in Natal and the Transvaal. I will give him every chance. I ask the hon. member for Vryheid whether he is at all in favour of the grant of the franchise to the Indians in Natal.

Order, order. The hon. member is out of order.

I only want to give the hon. member an opportunity. I do not wish to infringe your ruling but yet I hope that he will give a reply to that question. He has a chance to speak, but what is more I want to give the hon. member for Vryheid a chance to vote.

There is no need for you to give me a chance.

I want to stir him if I can, and if I cannot it does not matter. I want now to shake him up. Either he must vote for the procedure the Prime Minister is now following—an incorrect procedure —and either he must vote for it and swallow that Indian franchise as a bitter pill with its sugar coating represented by the other part, or he must refrain from voting. There are some members missing from the other side of the House today because they cannot see their way to swallow this thing. There is a motion on the Order Paper. I refer to the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans). He is not here because he has a motion on the Order Paper.

He is in hospital.

He is not present and if he was here with a motion on the Order Paper such as he has he would have to say that he would not allow the second part of the Bill to go through. There you have the one type, and the other type is those members who agree with us. You are here dealing with two vital subjects affecting land tenure in the first place, and in the second place you are dealing with a matter affecting the franchise of the people, and when you are dealing with these two important subjects there is no justification for combining them. You must divide them. But the procedure being followed here by the Prime Minister is a contribution of the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Finance’s object with this Bill—and that is why he is following this procedure—is the mobilisation of all liberal sections in South Africa inside Parliament and outside for the fulfilment of the ideals which he keeps before him as a liberal. We have heard that the Hon. Minister of Finance is a practical man.

Please keep to the motion.

We have heard the Prime Minister state that the Minister of Finance is a practical man, and this is just my argument. Because he is a practical man he is now accepting this method, and he accepts this method of coupling because it serves the object he has before him, and with that object before him we are not in agreement. The object is to mobilise the liberal elements in South Africa and not only to guide his first step, as he calls it, but incidentally also to pilot through the resultant “steps” to destroy white civilisation in South Africa and to replace it by his ideal.

Do you believe all that?

I maintain that the Minister of Finance, and with him the Prime Minister, see no prospect of ruling South Africa any longer unless they design methods by which they can extend the franchise to non-Europeans in the north.

Order, order. The hon. member is now out of order.

I submit to your ruling. I maintain that right throughout this debate no argument has been employed why it should be necessary to link these questions together, and here was the standpoint that we lay down; when a member is elected to this House he comes here to function as the mouthpiece of his constituents, and that enfranchised section of the public who send us here have never yet mixed up these two things. They have always regarded them as two separate things, and what right have we then to combine them in such a way as this? And what right has the Prime Minister to present hon. members on his side of the House and members on all sides of the House with such an alternative while he holds a pistol at their heads: You must accept all of it or none.

No pistol is held at our heads.

As far as the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) is concerned, I am not surprised at the interjections that he makes and no one is surprised at them, but what does surprise every one is how anyone like him got into Parliament. I shall round off the proposition that I have submitted here, and I say that the procedure the Prime Minister has followed was to issue an order to members of his side of the House. It was an S.O.S. It was a distress signal to his side of the House to reconcile the divergent elements who held conflicting opinions. I say that this measure is a distress signal. It is an act of despair on the part of the Prime Minister to reconcile the divergent groups on his side and to keep them together. It is an S.O.S., and it is a case, to put it quite clearly, of “It is your soul or your seat.”

And now my last argument, and I am prepared to defend my contentions. Members are sitting on the other side of the House whose convictions are in favour of this —and I give them a good deal of credit— that they should be able to vote for this thing separately; but if they dared to vote separately, they could never again stand as members for that side of the House, and they would lose their seats. This is so, and they cannot deny it. I would only say that the way in which the Prime Minister has proceeded with this measure reduces a measure of this sort to the level of a rubbishbin. It is a very important measure, a measure that affects two important aspects of our national life, namely, land tenure and the franchise, and I say the manner in which the Prime Minister has presented it to the House and is forcing it through lowers it to the level of a rubbish-bin.

It is just as well that I should also speak at this stage, so that the Rt. Hon. gentleman may reply to me, too. I propose to support this motion on an instruction of the Commitee to divide the two portions of the Bill each from the other, and in voicing my support for that I hope to avoid, and I shall certainly endeavour to avoid, breaking any rules or transgressing your ruling. I propose, as far as I possibly can, to devote my remarks to enunciating the reasons why we should divide the two. May I at the outset appeal to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister? I ask him to give this House the opportunity of discussing the two portions of the Bill, which are by no means related, separately. I ask him to give us an opportunity of discussing, considering and voting upon the two separate portions of the Bill, each without relation to the other, and I want also to let every member of the House, in view of the importance of the measure on the future of the country, have an opportunity of calmly considering it without whip cracking.

Hear, hear.

Now, Sir, my first reason for dividing them is this, that in the rules of the House the two portions of the Bill being counted each separately as a principle of the Bill, you ruled—and I presume quite correctly, Sir, and I bow to your ruling— that in Committee we cannot throw out any one portion of the Bill. We can amend the language; we can improve or disimprove, as the case may be, the various portions of the Bill or certain portions of the Bill, but we are precluded from rejecting one or the other in the Committee stage. Therefore, what is hurled at us is the obligation to accept the whole or nothing. Now, Sir, that is an embargo that is placed upon us that should not be placed upon us. Every member should have the right to consider each on its merits without each being complicated by the effect of the other. I urge that, Sir, on the Prime Minister most anxiously, and I do it for several reasons. First of all, I have the right to suspect, and I agree that I am suspecting correctly, that this is a question of party expedience, and the domestic affairs of the Government party, just as indeed the domestic affairs of the official Opposition and the domestic affairs of my own party, are matters for our own internal discussion; but no one party has the right to come to Parliament and ask Parliament to compose any party’s domestic differences, and that is what is happening.

Hear, hear.

We are asked to accept the franchise side of this as a sort of “makeway” for an obligation in order that we might get the other, or vice versa. I ask the Prime Minister to abandon that attitude. I ask the Prime Minister to allow this House free rein. Why do I do it? Because. Sir, never has there been a piece of legislation put before this House so fraught with consequences in the future. The economic, the social and the political life of the country are all three involved. Our social life, our economic life and our political life; and whatever way any individual or any group of individuals or any large group of individuals may view either the one or the other, this must be conceded, that it is fraught with great consequences upon the future life of South Africa. That being so, I enter a caveat first against the way in which this measure is being rushed through. I enter that most emphatically. Then I do appeal to all hon. members to try to realise that upon each and every one’s shoulders devolves the responsibility of the future of South Africa in relation to this. This is a matter of serious moment and is deserving of the gravest consideration in all details. That being so, what right has anybody to impose upon the House the condition that unless you take this you cannot have that. That is wrong, Sir. That is wrong in its very inception and it is very painful in its carrying out.

It is immoral too.

Yes, it may be immoral too, and I will say this that we are before the bar of public opinion, however much that public opinion may be educated or not, however it may or may not give meticulous consideration to this question, the fact remains that we are in the public eye today and it behoves us to remember that fact. It behoves us to remember that. We all have our opinions. We hold them more or less strongly. I am satisfied, Sir—and I can be contradicted perhaps if it is not true—but I am satisfied in my own mind that a very large number of members in this House who support the Bill in toto are very anxious to see one portion or the other thrown out. I am satisfied of it and I am equally satisfied that it is only the crack of the Whip that is getting all these members to support the whole of the Bill. That is one reason why I want to divide the two portions. I want to be able to ask this House, and I do ask this House, to focus its careful attention upon both important details, both important matters of principle, because on our vote depends either the progression or the retrogression of South Africa. I want to give an opportunity to every member of this House, according to his or her conception of the position, to give expression to that, both by voice and by vote. And, Sir, surely one should not have to make such an appeal as that upon a matter of such vast importance as this? Surely it should go without saying and I am prepared to be consistent in my observation in action. Now, Sir, if the two sections of the Bill are separated, each from the other, and each not dependent upon the other, then all those members who want any one particular portion by itself can vote for it. Those who want the other by itself can vote for it, and those who want both can vote for them. They are free and untrammelled in their choice of their own decision, and that is what I am appealing for. That is what I am begging of the Prime Minister to do, not to go away from this country, as he proposes doing in a very short time—on 12th April, I understand the Rt. Hon. gentleman wishes to go away—I do not want him to go away leaving this country in the throes of what must inevitably be a public outcry from one side or the other as the case may be. It should not be done, and I know this; I have sufficient knowledge extending through all these years of the Rt. Hon. gentleman’s character to believe that he does not want to do that. He would rather stay here and face the music. What is of importance in his consideration of this matter? Surely that of remaining here, giving us time to discuss this Bill, masticate it, as it were, and coming to conclusions based upon a calm application of our judgment or the implications thereof.

There is another big potent reason, very potent indeed, for separating these two, the consideration of which I wish to put before hon. members of this House. I think it has not been referred to before, but it is a positive fact that at the moment there is a British Mission in India. That British Mission is there with the object of endeavouring to bring about agreement in India, first of all as to the terms of its independence, its self-government, and secondly its relation to the British Commonwealth of Nations. Now, Sir, the indications are— and those who run may read, and I am one of them—that India having got its independence, for one reason or another, not only has it no desire to remain in the British Commonwealth of Nations, but it is determined to go out of it.

Order, order. I am afraid the hon. member is going right beyond the ruling which says that the hon. member must strictly confine himself in the matter to such instruction.

I submit to you most respectfully that I am bringing in an international reason why we should not be in a hurry to decide on this question of the franchise particularly.

The principle has already been accepted at the second reading and the hon. member must now confine himself purely to the motion.

Yes, but Mr. Speaker, in my judgment I am confining myself to the motion, but you have ruled otherwise, unfortunately for the case that I want to make and you are precluding me from doing that. But understand this, that the fundamental objection to having the two parts together is this, that in Committee we cannot throw out the one or the other, and in considering the question of franchise—I am not going into the merits or details of it—we have to consider this, that if as a result of the lumping of these parts together, the whole House wanting the zoning system and the majority not wanting the franchise system, the nett result is that you may have India outside the Commonwealth of Nations and you will have given some members of their race the vote in this country, people who by association and tradition are associated particularly with the country outside the Commonwealth of Nations. That is the point I want to make. [Interjections.] The very fact that hon. members are in that unthinking way interrupting me in the point that I am trying to make demonstrates most conclusively the necessity for us to be able to consider these things separately, one from the other. They are consoling their consciences and salving their souls by sneering at the point I am making, but that is one of the most important reasons why we should separate those two.

Where do the Irishmen come in?

Where does the Port Elizabeth Idiot come in? Is it not time that these foolish interjections were stopped when we are dealing with such a serious subject? I contend that that transcends all other reasons — the one that I have just indicated to the House. It transcends all other reasons why we should separate these two and why we should be very careful in examining meticulously every aspect of the Bill that is before the House.

Do you want the Union nationals to be all of one race?

Mr. MADELEY In order to meet the hon. member’s objection I will say that in the British race there are English, Scotch, Irish, Welsh and a few others.

And the member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McLean).

I doubt very much whether the hon. member can prove that he is Scotch, but that is by the way.

That is very much by the way.

I said at the outset I will endeavour to confine myself to the reasons why we should divide these two. Why the Committee should be permitted to throw out any one section and keep the other. The hon. gentleman by his motion is giving the way and I am showing the way under which every member of this House can devote his single-minded attention to the problems that confront us as envisaged in this Bill, and quite calmly and carefully decide what shall be his or her attitude, as the case may be, upon each and every section of the Bill.

It is a consolidating Bill.

It is not a consolidating measure; it is a dividing measure. There is no consolidation about this. This is a separatist measure, and that is the inevitable consequence of the passage of this Bill, whatever my friend, the political contortionist says about it. It is a fact; the very fact, that on all sides — and I challenge contradiction — on all sides there are differences of opinion upon this question, notably upon the franchise question, shows that this is a dangerous procedure; and the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance himself pointed out one of the consequences of this, that it should not be confined in its franchise proposals to lump representation in this House similar to the representation of the natives, but ultimately having a common roll in the election of any member to this House. I say that is a dangerous procedure. Hon. members may argue as much as they like but I have the right to express my opinion here and I am expressing it as forcefully as I possibly can, and I am not expressing my opinion only, but Sir, I am representing the opinion of the vast majority of the people of this country. I am satisfied of that, and that applies to the British, including the Scotch, and the Afrikaners, of South Afrika.

Hear, hear.

After all, we are the two sections of the population which are mostly to be considered and the effect of this legislation upon those two sections is one which should count in the minds and the vote of every member of this House.

I wish strongly to support the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and to express the hope that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and his side of the House will take the seriousness of the subject into consideration, and that they will comply with this reasonable request. I shall be brief. The Prime Minister has already intimated why he is introducing this legislation and why he is tackling these two subjects, the franchise and the land tenure aspect of the matter simultaneously, why they have been combined, and I should like now to go into those reasons. The first reason that the Prime Minister advanced is this, or rather let me commence with this, what gave rise to the introduction of this Bill? Was it an agitation of the Indians to get the franchise? Is this the reason why the Prime Minister introduced this Bill? Was it because he was driven to it by an agitation amongst the Indians to get the franchise in South Africa or in the northern provinces? Of course not. The Prime Minister will not stand up, and no one on his side of the House will stand up here or anywhere and dare to maintain that the Prime Minister has introduced this Bill just because he wished to comply with the demands of the Indians in respect of granting the franchise to them. No, he has been obliged to bring in this Bill as the result of that powerful agitation amongst the Europeans of Natal to stop the further penetration of Indians in their residential areas. This is the reason why this Bill is before the House today, because he must knuckle under to that demand of the Europeans in Natal that the Indians may not buy more land amongst them or live amongst them. I say that is the reason why the Prime Minister has been forced to introduce this Bill, and what is he doing now? The Europeans in the northern provinces, in the Transvaal and Natal are in a state of distress. The Indians have penetrated everywhere amongst them and bought land amongst them and are living amongst them, and they have created a state of affairs that cannot be endured by any decent white man. I am not referring to people who do not mind living mixed up with non-Europeans, who do not mind driving with them, and there are such people, too, in this House. They cannot understand why we are raising these objections to living with non-Europeans and travelling with them. They are sitting on the other side of the House.

Do not be personal.

If I wanted to be personal I would have mentioned the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure). I wish to refrain from mentioning names, but it is clear that the hon. member for Paarl took it to heart.

I live in a better neighbourhood than you.

That is possible, but he does not mind living with nonEuropeans and travelling with them.

Will the hon. member return to the motion before the House?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to leave the hon. member for Paarl. Things were indeed black for the Europeans in Natal, and the Prime Minister is capitalising that emergency that has overtaken the European to push his policy of equal rights further. In the course of his speech in introducing the second reading of the Bill he indicated his position as being that we must advance step by step in these matters. Here is one of the forward steps that the Prime Minister has taken with that Rhodes policy of his to give equal rights to all civilised people, no matter what their colour may be.

I think I must remind the hon. member of Rule 79 that he should not now make another second reading speech.

I should like the House to realise why the Prime Minister has combined these two parts of the Bill.

So long as the hon. member does not make a second reading speech.

One of the reasons is that it gives him the opportunity to advance that policy of his a further step forward. In order to obtain clarity in regard to his policy I would again recall how the Prime Minister himself set out his policy in public. He put it this way—

It was another Bill—

This is the Prime Minister’s standpoint, and he has never deviated from that standpoint, and it is that standpoint that he wishes to advance step by step, and this legislation in connection with the Indians represents a further step forward. He is making use of the distress of the European, he is abusing the distress of the European to give effect to that policy in this Bill, and that is why he is linking the two things together. I wish to turn to another reason the Prime Minister mentioned why these two things are amalgamated. He says it is the white man in Natal who brought the Indians there, and now the white man must give certain rights to the Indians. If the white man brought the Indians to Natal and if that is a reason why the first part of the Bill in connection with land tenure must be united with the franchise for Indians then I would ask the Prime Minister: What about the Transvaal? This Bill does not deal with Natal alone; it does not deal with Natal where the supar planters brought in Indians, but it deals also with the Transvaal and in the Transvaal it also gives the franchise to the Indians. Now I shall be glad if I can gain the attention of the Transvaal members in this connection. Is it the white man who brought the Indians in there? Will the Prime Minister dare to say that?

Why do you not keep to the motion?.

For that reason the Prime Minister cannot give the Indians of the Transvaal the franchise. He cannot give them the franchise to compensate them for things which he is supposed to have taken away from them in Natal. The Prime Minister says that we in Natal took away certain things from the Indians, and consequently these two things must be rolled into one. That is his attitude. I maintain that this can have no reference to the Transvaal because the white man did not bring the Indians into the Transvaal. On the contrary the white people in the Transvaal wished to check the Indians, but the Prime Minister’s spiritual affinities in politics, the British imperialists, prevented that.

You dare not say that. He has fought for the Transvaal, and what have you done?

There you have the “hanskakie” speaking again.

Say that outside.

I have done so, and I shall do so again.

The Prime Minister himself, of course, does not regard it as an insult when I say he is a British imperialist. He has the name of being the greatest imperialist of the century. He has accepted the title of the handyman of the Empire and he is proud of it.

The hon. member must return to the motion.

Because the white man did not bring the Indians into the Transvaal, the Prime Minister cannot say that the Indians in the Transvaal must be compensated with the franchise for something that is supposed to have been taken away from them. What are these rights that are alleged to have been taken from the Indians and in return for which they must now receive the franchise? It may possibly be said that in Natal they were deprived of certain rights. The Indians had the right to purchase land anywhere. But can that be said in the case of the Transvaal? No, and therefore I say that in the, Transvaal there is not the slightest justification for this step of the Prime Minister’s of giving the Indians the franchise, because in the Transvaal they were not deprived of anything. Even as long ago as 1885 legislation was adopted in the Transvaal to prevent Indian penetration, and despite all the efforts of the white man the Indian managed to penetrate by his crafty methods. If he did penetrate in that way it cannot now be said that he was deprived of rights, and that he cannot now be compensated for that. He did not have the right to buy land there or to possess land there. I again ask the Prime Minister: What rights were taken from the Indians in the Transvaal that they should now receive the franchise in order to send representatives to this House. The Prime Minister has no leg to stand on when he makes that assertion. Accordingly, I wish again to make an earnest appeal to him to meet our request to divide these two parts of the Bill and to convert them into separate Bills. Just this, in conclusion. The Prime Minister knows very well that if he divides these two parts of the Bill there are precious few people in the northern provinces who will vote for the granting of the franchise to the Indians. He can perhaps try out his own members on that, as to which of them are in favour of the Indians acquiring the franchise, if he does not hold a pistol at their heads in the shape of the part of the Bill referring to land tenure. Therefore I repeat that it is a reprehensible method the Prime Minister has resorted to in holding a pistol not only at the heads of his own party but at the heads of the Europeans in Natal by telling them that unless they accept the second part of the Bill they will not get the first part. This is a discreditable weapon, and it is doubly discreditable as far as the Transvaal is concerned. I would just say this to the Prime Minister, that in the north he will be held to account for this action and every member opposite who votes for the uniting of these two things will be held to account; they will be held to account for this action for giving the franchise to the Indians.

I shall do so.

And that will be the last thing you will ever do in the political world.

I wish in a few words to support the motion moved by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I would make an earnest appeal to the Prime Minister that if he still has the smallest grain of love for South Africa and if he has the slightest concern over the continuance of our European civilisation, he should accept this motion for splitting the present Bill into two parts. The combining of the two parts, as has been done in the Bill before us, represents one of the most important measures that has ever been introduced into this House since 1910. When we look at the implications of the measure not only for South Africa and not only to Southern Africa but to the whole of Africa, then I say I am not going too far when I maintain it is one of the most dangerous as it is one of the most important Bills that has been introduced into this House since 1910. It is not fair of the Prime Minister to exploit in this way the distress of the people and to push through the second part of the Bill. One cannot help observing that the story of Esau and Jacob is being repeated here. The Prime Minister is playing the role of Jacob in turning to account the distress of the people in order to achieve his purpose. He is bartering away the birthright of the nation. With the first part he can serve the interests of South Africa. With the second part he does not serve the interests of South Africa but the interests of the imperialists. What is more, in this way he will not serve the ideal of racial peace in South Africa. I challenge any person on the other side of the House to give me the slightest proof that if the second part of the Bill is adopted there will be any chance at all to realise the ideal of racial peace in South Africa.

The hon. member must come back to the motion and not discuss the principle of the Bill.

I would only point out the reason why the second part of the Bill must be detached from the first part. I maintain that the distress of the people is being exploited by pushing through the second part as well. When we recall Jacob’s action then it stands out in history as an unethical deed and for more than 4,000 years it has been regarded as unethical. This action of the Prime Minister is just as unsavoury and will ever grow more unsavoury with the public. That second part of the Bill has as little to do with the first part as day with night. It is necessary to make a division between the two. The first part of the Bill relates to a problem which goes back to the history of South Africa because Indians were imported. It has to do with a real problem. The whole history of the problem is bound up in that, namely, that of ownership and occupation of land. The second part bears no relation to that problem. The first problem goes back over a period of 80 years, and we know how the problem of the penetration of the Indian became greater and greater. On the other hand we get practically no instance of where Indians have demonstrated for the franchise. It is an entirely different problem. There has been no large-scale action on the part of the Indians, and not the slightest on the part of the Europeans for the adoption of the second part of the Bill.

The hon. member must not now debate the merits of the Bill.

The amalgamating of the two parts of the Bill is a big thing to us. I do not think I am using too strong language when I say it is an immoral act. If this Bill goes through in this way we are going to affirm a false policy which will be nothing else than a charter for Indian interests in South Africa. I say again that viewed from every angle if the Prime Minister wishes to do service to his people, if he wishes to interpret the feeling of the people he must divide these two sections of the Bill. That is the feeling of the public. It is the feeling of the great majority, even of the nonEuropean population, that the Indians should not get the franchise. If the Prime Minister wishes to do a good deed to South Africa and to interpret the feeling of the nation he must give effect to the motion that has been proposed by the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

I do not think it is necessary to make a long speech on this matter, but I wish very strongly and emphatically to associate myself with the motion of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. It is a matter of first-class importance that the first part, Chapter I, of this Bill, amended suitably as I think, should be passed into law as soon as possible; but I know of no such reason for haste for dealing with Chapter II, and, indeed, there are very strong reasons why the subject-matter of Chapter II should not be coupled with the subject-matter of No. I. They are radically different. They are in no wise associated together in the political propaganda which has been put forward by any responsible party I am acquainted with, and, indeed, the subject-matter of No. II has never been submitted to the electorate of this country. May I remind the Prime Minister of the time when his party was in coalition with the party to which I belong and the Labour Party? We appealed to the electorate on war issues, and it was never suggested at all at that time that legislation of this character should be thrust on the country without due consideration. But now the Prime Minister, by tacking the subjectmatter of Chapter II on to the subject-matter of Chapter I, is following a very bad constitutional precedent. I know it has been followed in the English Parliament when there was trouble between the two Houses of Parliament, and the principle of tacking a money Bill on to a difficult measure was adopted in times of stress. Is the Prime Minister thinking of precedents of that character when he is introducing a measure of this kind and resisting the division of these two subjects into two different Bills where they might be considered upon their merits quite’ dispassionately? Deep constitutional issues are at stake in this matter, and I firmly believe if this question was left to the open vote of this House there would be an overwhelming vote in favour of the motion which is now before the House. And I believe, if it was submitted to the country by a referendum, or any other means whatsoever, the same result would be achieved. This is a constitutional method of trying to get round that issue. The Prime Minister has put some of us into a very difficult position indeed. We have either to reject the subject-matter of Chapter I, if we vote against it, or we have to accept the subjectmatter of Chapter II. To me it seems right and proper that those who hold the views I hold, who supported the second reading, should vote for this Instruction to the Committee in order to divide the Bill.

I think that the caucus system has gone too deep and is threatening Parliamentary government. Parliamentary government does not work in most countries, it is only in countries of the British Empire that it has been successfully worked at all, and that has been because there has been great knowledge of the working of the constitution and there has been great restraint in Ministers and restraint in members of the Chambers of all our different Parliaments. Now the precedent which is being set by the Prime Minister in this Bill in coupling up these subjects is a very grave blow to that very happy system which has hitherto prevailed. I press very strongly indeed for the division of this measure into these two parts which will enable the Committee to bring up a report upon these subjects entirely separately, and legislation will follow accordingly. If that is not done, I shall probably on the third reading take some other steps to record our protest.

Is it too late to ask the Prime Minister again to reconsider the very critical step he is taking by tacking Chapter II to Chapter I? He is imposing upon the people of South Africa a piece of third-rate legislation which will be very difficult indeed to reverse without the verdict of the people being taken, and only by what the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has called the crack of the whip, and that is by exercising that very strong personal influence he has with members of his own party. It is a grave responsibility. I speak with deep regret in saying the words I have used, but if I refrained from saying them I would be neglecting my duty, and therefore I protest most strongly against the action of the Prime Minister.

The speaker who has just resumed his seat (Col. Stallard) forgets that the second reading of the Bill has been passed and that the principle has already been adopted. The attempt that is now being made to split the Bill to let one part go through and to let the other part come to grief, is in itself in conflict with the second reading that has already been adopted. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has accused me of having expediency as a motive; I have to placate public opinion and I have difficulty in my own party, and this is my solution. I absolutely deny that. The charge of expediency does not apply to me but to the Leader of the Opposittion. I am presenting a comprehensive solution of one of the most difficult questions in the country. We are tackling it and we want to see it through. It is a burning question of an urgent nature that exists in our country. That does not look like expediency on my part. On the other hand the hon. member wishes to postpone it indefinitely.

But that is not what I proposed.

The charge of expediency does not apply to us then but to the hon. member who moved this motion. In introducing the Bill I made it clear that we viewed this solution that we were proposing as a whole. It is a comprehensive solution of a question that has more than one side. The question of land tenure has been taken up in it. The European public in Natal are pressing for a solution of the question of land tenure in that province. In the Transvaal you have the same difficulty. The Indians for their part are equally insistent that the franchise should be granted to them and for it to be placed on an equal basis by a general combined roll both for the Europeans and for the Indian population. The dissension and difficulties were not all on one side. They were on both sides. The one side was concerned over the land question and the other side was equally strongly concerned on the question of franchise on an equal basis. It is not the case, as some members have asserted, that it is only the land question which occasioned difficulty. On the part of the Europeans it was the land question, but on the part of the Indian population it was the question of the franchise. We have two sides and must be satisfied if we wish to have a comprehensive solution of the question. The Government then presented a comprehensive solution. We are dealing not only with the land question but with the franchise question. It is a comprehensive solution of the whole question.

May I just ask …

Let the hon. member give me a chance. I did not interrupt him. The Government proposes a comprehensive solution embracing both parts of the question. That motion was adopted in principle by the House in the second reading, and now the other side comes up and in a cunning and indirect manner an attempt is being made to let one part of the Bill go through and to wreck the other part. I cannot agree to that. The position of the Government has been made clear. The Bill must be dealt with as a whole. We cannot divide it now so that one part may be adopted and the other part rejected. It is clear from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, and also from his motion, that he wishes to deal with the second part, so that the one part can go through and the other can come to nought. We want to solve the matter, and you can only get that by proposing a solution as a whole. The object of the Government is not based on expediency but on considerations of tackling this question root and branch in an honest manner and solving it from all angles. I believe also it is a solution that in the course of years will work well and stand on its own legs. The Leader of the Opposition has stated that my object has already miscarried; our purpose in the Second Chapter on the franchise has been repudiated by the Indian population. He states that the Government thought, or I thought, to appease foreign sentiment and to appease Indian opinion and in order to do so I took this step while an internal question on the basis of internal sentiment ought to have been dealt with. I will accept that test. Does the hon. member not believe that the Government desires to do justice towards a great internal problem viewed from an internal standpoint. I am not dealing here only with the pacification of Indians or with the pacification of overseas opinion, but because we have to deal with an internal question which is eating like a cancer into our lives and which we in South Africa must tackle and solve. The Leader of the Opposition goes further and says that it is a wrong principle to couple one subject which is acceptable with another which is unacceptable, and he says it will not be right towards the public and that public opinion is thereby being violated. The Leader of the Labour Party employed the same argument and stated that you cannot accept one part of the Bill and reject the other party by your vote. The hon. member has a misconception of the matter. This House can deal with the Bill, it can adopt Chapter I, and when it comes to Chapter II it can vote on it clause by clause. This Bill is not comprised of two Bills, it is one, and the leader of the Labour Party is entirely wrong when he says that if the one part is adopted the second part must also be adopted.

Can we throw out the second part?

In Committee one clause after the other can be rejected.

What happens then to the title?

The designation of the Bill can then be altered in accordance with the results of its handling in Committee. If necessary the title can be altered in conformity with that. To me the matter is clear. We have adopted the principle of the Bill in regard to both branches, both parts. Now we are going to discuss the Bill in detail, and if hon. members on any side of the House do not agree with the clauses in Chapter II they can vote against those clauses. No one is preventing them. But the standpoint of the Government is that it is a whole and is the solution of a great subject that is important to both sections. It must be adopted altogether in order to obtain a solution and the Government is desirous of both parts being adopted as an indivisible whole.

The Native Bills were dealt with in three parts in three different Bills.

Let it stand at that. The Leader of the Opposition says that there is no precedent for this procedure. If that is so it does not break my heart. We did not go into the matter of precedents, we are continually making new precedents, the world is advancing. We are not dealing here with precedents but with a big subject which must be dealt with and solved on its merits. Do not let us be worried about precedents but let us do what is right and honest and remove this subject from the sphere of difficulties in South Africa. Let us eliminate one of our greatest and most burning and most dangerous problems.

But this does not eliminate it.

On a point of order, in view of what the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has said, that when we discuss the Bill in Committee members are free to reject all the clauses in the second part, I think it is necessary that the Speaker should give a ruling in connection with that, because otherwise there will be confusion. What I have in mind I have committed to paper, and I should like to have Mr. Speaker’s ruling. Possibly it may be given later in the debate, but I think it is a matter of importance—

1. (1) Does the adoption of the second reading of the Bill imply that the principle contained in Chapter II has been adopted in the same way as that contained in Chapter I?
2. (2) If so, can the Committee of the Whole House reject the principle contained in the first chapter or the second chapter bearing in mind the provision in the second paragraph of the preamble, which reads—

That is to say that the matters contained in the first and second chapters should be dealt with together—

Indians in the provinces of Natal and Transvaal may be represented—

1. (a) in the Senate, by two senators;
2. (b) in the House of Assembly, by three members; and
3. (c) in the Provincial Council of Natal, by two members.

Clause 40 covers the whole ground and after the principles have been adopted in the second reading in respect of the second part of the Bill as well, may we then reject it as a whole?

The Committee of the Whole House can reject any clause in the Bill, but an instruction is necessary to divide the Bill into two parts.

May I know what has happened so far?

The hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) has raised a point of order as to how far the committee of the whole House on this Bill may go in view of the fact that it embraces two distinct matters, referred to in the preamble, both of which have been accepted in principle on the Second Reading. My answer was that it is competent for the committee of the Whole House to reject any or every clause in a Bill referred to it, but that if a committee desires to divide a Bill into two parts, it can only do so by means of an instruction from the House.

Thank you, Sir. As a point of further explanation, does that mean that we can reject all the clauses of a particular Bill dealing with principle, and leave an emasculated Bill?

Yes. [Interjections.]

We have only one Mr. Speaker. May I ask that I be not interrupted while I address the Chair? May we reject every clause and leave no principle at all?

Yes, it is competent for the committee to reject any clause in a Bill, but if the committee wishes to divide a Bill an instruction is necessary.

The first argument of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister is that the second reading of the Bill has already been adopted, and this attempt to split the Bill into its natural parts has actually come too late. I think there is no more damning admission of the political immorality of the Government’s action than this admission. Because we see now what happened. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard) is 100 per cent. in favour of separating the two. In the second reading, debate he spoke against the franchise part of the Bill, but he was compelled by the action of the Prime Minister to vote for the second reading. If the Prime Minister wishes to advance that as an argument that the second reading has been disposed of, that we have adopted the principles, then I say it is an admission of the political immorality of his action in combining the two parts and in placing the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) in that position. Now the Prime Minister comes and says: You have been caught; there is no way of escape open to you now. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister spoke about a cunning trick of the Leader of the Opposition, but I think if ever there was a cunning trick it was the action of the Prime Minister in joining these two things together. It amounts to nothing less than political extortion. We know what happened in the case of Natal. The great majority in Natal were not and are not in favour of the franchise provisions, but they were told, and if it is not so the Prime Minister can deny it: If you wish to have these provisions in connection with land tenure in Natal you will have to swallow the provisions in connection with the franchise. The pistol was held at their heads, It was nothing else than political extortion. The second reason which the Prime Minister advanced as to why the two should be joined is that we are here dealing with an all embracing solution of the problem. But is that so? Will the Prime Minister seriously assert that this Bill is a comprehensive solution or measure in connection with the matter. Is it in any sense true in respect of the Asiatic problem that is today a burning problem in our country? Are there not other things in connection with the Indians, in respect of which they have been agitating now for twenty or thirty years?

I must again draw the hon. member’s attention to the rules. The hon. member is again going into the merits of the whole matter.

With submission, I am dealing with what the Prime Minister stated. He said that it is a comprehensive solution and I am testing whether the reasons the Prime Minister advanced are good reasons. My contention is that the reasons have no substance because this is not a comprehensive solution. The Prime Minister stated that he refused to accept the instruction because this is a comprehensive measure, and consequently the two parts belong to each other. I wish to show that this is not a comprehensive solution of the matter. It is not only on the problem of the occupation and possession of land and not only on the problem of the franchise that the Indians are concerned. If it has to be a comprehensive measure it should also deal with the question of licences, with trading rights and immigration. Consequently this is not a comprehensive measure, and this can be no reason for arbitrarily throwing the two parts together. There is no logical ground for that. This is the first reason I advance, that it is repugnant to one’s logical sense to join these two things while this is not a comprehensive solution. This one relates to ownership and occupation of land and there is no logical connection between that and the question of franchise to persons. The two things are removed from each other and have nothing in common. This is the logical ground I mentioned, but there is also a psychological reason why I think it is undesirable to link the two, and the first point in this connection is, and I will not dwell long on it because it has already been mentioned, that by this line of conduct the Prime Minister is imposing a restriction on the free and unfettered consideration of these two measures. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has already indicated how it curtails the rights of every member of this House in regard to free consideration and discussion and the right to give free expression to your own opinion. The striking example of that is the position in which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) finds himself. Although he is opposed to the second part and in favour of the separation of the two parts he is obliged to vote for the whole thing because he wants the first part. This is an invasion of the rights of every individual member of the House. This resort to methods of compulsion is a bad phenomenon in this House and consequently we cannot adopt it on psychological grounds, and hon. members on the other side ought, if they are serious and wish to be honest with themselves, also not approve of it for this reason. If they were in opposition and anything of this sort happened they would be the first to raise objections. But I appeal to them as parliamentarians and not as members of the Government party to let their protests be heard against this infringement of their rights. But there is a second reason why I take exception to this on psychological grounds. I do not know if the Prime Minister realises that by joining these two together he to all intents and purposes brakes the silent admission that all our legislation in the past in connection with the ownership and occupation of land was not morally defensible. By saying here, “If you want the one you must add the other”, he makes a tacit admission to the outside world that all our legislation of the past is morally indefensible on this point. It can only be defended if a quid pro quo is given. I do not know whether the Prime Minister realises the ethical implications of his conduct in this connection.

As a third reason I wish to advince the psychological reason why this ought not to happen. The action of the Prime Minister will be regarded outside as far as the community is concerned as nothing less than a sign of weakness on the part of the Government. The Prime Minister spöke about moral courage. The fact that they will not allow the first and second parts of the Bill to stand on their merits reveals moral cowardice. They have not the moral courage to regard the matter on its merits, and I ask the Prime Minister when he says that he has moral courage to let these matters be* brought to a decision singly. If he wishes to demonstrate that he has moral courage he will have to say: Good, I am prepared to have this matter decided on its merits and in the deciding I shall not make use of the assistance of my Whips, and I shall leave it open for hon. members to decide. Then I am certain that the overwhelming majority of the members of this House will wish that the two parts were separated so that they could give an unfettered expression of their opinion to the merits of each of these matters and are not bound and do not conditionally sell themselves. In the third place I object on constitutional grounds. I think that the combining of the two is nothing else than constitutional chicanery, a sort of trick that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) has already condemned, a sort of trick which the British Parliament resorted to under exceptional circumstances. If there was difficulty between the two Houses of Parliament then because the Upper House had lesser powers in connection with Supply Bills an important principle having nothing to do with Supply was taken up in a Supply Bill, and in this way an effort was made to eliminate the power of the Upper House. But this is not a sound principle, and I think it is everywhere admitted that from the constitutional angle it cannot be proper. But I say further that we are here dealing with constitutional chicanery. The Prime Minister wishes to impose on the House the decision of his own caucus, and the caucus is again subordinated to the political despotism of the Prime Minister himself. There has been much talk here, especially on the other side, about the despotism of people who want to be Fuhrers, but in the last resort I wonder how often the other side have sinned against the principle that is here condemned, and I wonder how often they have done the same thing. But it brings the whole Parliamentary system into discredit. We are doing no service to the Parliamentary system when we make decisions on such important matters subject to the supreme will of one or two persons in the Government. We stand for the preservation of the Parliamentary system, for popular government, but the people who today utilise Parliamentary procedure in this manner are driving a nail into the coffin of the Parliamentary system, and the tragedy is that the nail has been driven in by people who insist that they are champions of the Parliamentary system in South Africa.

But there are also practical reasons that I should like to mention why there should not be a combining of the two parts. The first part that deals with ownership and occupation of land is a link in the long chain of laws in the various provinces and also of the Union Government. It is the result of costly experience in the past as far as this matter is concerned. There was a series of Commissions that investigated the matter and issued reports. I would only mention the Lange Commission, the Feetham Commission, the Murray Commission and the Broome Commission. They thrashed out the matter thoroughly. That is the one side of the case. The first part of the Bill is a solution, or a measure, that is the fruit of all the legislation of the past and of the results of the enquiry that was instituted by these various Commissions. One thing that transpires from all these enquiries by Commissions is that in a great measure our legislation in the past has been in vain, because evasions have always occurred, and time and again condoning legislation had to be adopted to validate ilegal ownership that had occurred in the past, especially in the Transvaal.

But now I come to the second part that deals with the franchise, and it is not a part of the fruit of a series of legislative measures in the past, it is not the fruit of enquiry by a long series of Commissions, but it is new ground that is broken here in regard to legislation in South Africa during the past 50 years. The last occasion on which any Parliamentary franchise was granted to Indians in the northern provinces was in 1896, 50 years ago. Here now we have to deal with quite a different part. The first part of the Bill is based on experience and reports of Commissions, but the second part is something that has been thrown amongst us for the first time in all possible haste. The Prime Minister did not give us any chance. The old Pegging Act expired on 31st March, and it was only on 20th March that he first placed this measure before us, and it must be completely disposed of before 12th or 17th April. There was no opportunity to consider the second part properly, or to give the general public an opportunity to digest it as they should, or to understand it properly. When the Prime Minister says that the principle of the communal franchise has already been investigated in connection with native legislation. I would point out that this is not the case. The committee that investigated that matter did not recommend the communal franchise in that case. It was first taken up in Bill No. 2, it was not in Bill No. 1, but in any case even if it should be regarded as a precedent, what was our experience in this House and in the country in connection with the principle of a communal franchise? If we are to judge by what happened in connection with the communal franchise of the natives, is this something to imitate? But on another practical ground I wish to condemn the action of the Prime Minister. The first part of the Bill became urgent as a result of the lapsing of the Pegging Act, and the argument of the Prime Minister that there is now a time factor in this connection applies in regard to the first part. The question of whether the Pegging Act should be extended both in regard to its duration and in regard to the nature of its provisions is a matter for haste. But what urgency is there for the second part? The Prime Minister himself admits that there is no urgency for the second part. Curiously enough, although the Prime Minister wants the two parts to be viewed as one, the two parts cannot be brought into effect on the same date. The Prime Minister himself lays down in his own Bill that the first part will be brought into effect on a different date to the second part. According to Clause 56, the second part, the part dealing with the franchise, will not come into operation if the Bill is adopted, as is the case with the first part, but on a date to be fixed by the Governor-General by proclamation in the “Government Gazette”. In other words, they bear so little relationship to each other, that the two parts cannot even be brought into effect on the same date. It is an admission in the first place that there is no urgency for the franchise part, and, further, that the first part and the second part have so little bearing on each other that it is not, necessary to bring them both into operation on the same date. For this reason I feel that the answer the Prime Minister gave, the reasons he gave why the two màtters should be separated, are reasons that have no basis and reasons which reflect no credit on him. I do not think that the case that he has put up here is a case that can be viewed on any grounds as a strong case. Although the Prime Minister has already given his decision, I wish to ask him for the sake of the principle I have mentioned here, and the honour of our Parliamentary system, not to persist in his attitude, an attitude that one cannot regard as otherwise than political peddling.

Parliament can naturally do almost anything, and it also does some very strange things. Nevertheless, it seems strange that after being in existence for so many years, the Union Parliament should eventually create a precedent by doing something which it has never done before. The Prime Minister has combined two separate Bills in one Bill. He is able to do so with his majority behind him. But there are certain things which he cannot do and which he dare not do. He could not have put it through his own caucus if he had separated the two sections, and the Bill appears before us in this form as a result of the open discord among the Unit Party. They make no secret of it. The Prime Minister could only get this Bill through his caucus by giving them the choice that if they rejected the first portion, they would not get the second. In order to retain unity within his party, the Prime Minister had to take this atrocious step. The other thing he could not do was that he could not dare to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, or to a Joint Select Committee. This he dared not do, because no Select Committee of this House, or no Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament, would, in my opinion, create a precedent of this nature. He knew that; he knew what previous Select Committees had done in connection with matters of this nature. For that reason he dared not accept the proposal to refer this Bill to a Select Committee or to a Joint Select Committee. A Select Committee of this House has never been prepared to create a precedent of this nature for the purposes of expediency. A Select Committee deals with questions from a more objective point of view, and for that reason Select Committees have in the past always adopted the policy that separate questions should be dealt with in separate Bills. There was a striking example of this in 1944 when a question was referred to a Select Committee, namely the Irrigation Adjustment Bill. The Select Committee returned the Bill to this House after they had separated it into two parts. They said that the one part dealt with Riet River and the other with the Breede River, and that the two questions could not be dealt with in the same Bill. Both were similar; both dealt with irrigation, but they were of a separate nature and that is why the Select Committee separated them. I say therefore that the Prime Minister could not dare to send this Bill to a Select Committee, for the Select Committee would not create such a precedent. The Native Bills have already been discussed here. The Prime Minister said in his reply that we should not discuss them. But nevertheless I wish to do so. In that instance we were also dealing with the solution of the whole problem—it is called a solution—but did one member ón any side of the House stand up in 1936 and say that because the three Bills dealt with the solution of the native problem they should all be dealt with in one Bill? No one in this House, neither in the Nationalist Party nor on the other side, adopted that viewpoint. On the contrary, everyone was pleased that they were dealt with in separate Bills. I would like to have heard the Prime Minister in 1936 in this House if a proposal had been made that all three Native Bills should be dealt with in one and the same Bill. He would have called the country as his witness that this would have created a new precedent in the Union Parliament. But now, to save his skin as far as his party is concerned, he has tackled the question in this way and created a precedent of this nature. I may not criticise how this Bill has been dealt with up till now in order to place it before the House. I simply want to point out that everything points to the fact that Bills which deal with separate questions should be split. There is one exception, namely the rule which is followed in the British Parliament, and it is a rule which we also follow here, and there is only one exception to that rule. The rule that separate questions should be dealt with in separate Bills is set out by May in his “Parliamentary Practice” on page 482. There he deals with the principle of separateness in Bills which are introduced in the British Parliament, and then he says that in 1874 an exception was made, namely that in financial Bills which deal with financial matters and taxation, various matters can be dealt with in one and the same Bill. That is the exception which is quoted by May. It seems, therefore, as though the Prime Minister is not only creating a precedent for the Union Parliament, but that it would also be a precedent in the British Parliament. The Canadian Parliament makes the matter perfectly clear. In 1942 it appointed a commission to compile rules for it as to how Bills should be dealt with, and what was adopted by the Canadian Parliament as a result of that commission? It was the Commission on Uniformity of Legislation in Canada, 1942. As a result of the report of this commission, certain rules were adopted by the Canadian Parliament in connection with Bills of that nature. I will quote two of those rules—

1. 3 (1) A complex Act should be divided into parts, each part being treated as a simple Act and containing the principle in concise form.
2. 3 (2) An Act should not be divided into parts, unless they are so different that they might be appropriately embodied in separate Acts.

That is the case in this instance. If a Bill like this was introduced in Canada, according to the rules of Parliament the Speaker would be compelled to rule it out of order in its present form Canada is a member of the Commonwealth and although there is no definite rule of this nature in our Parliamentary procedure, it is generally accepted that it is the rule which is followed and that there can only be one single exception, as I have indicated.

Since the white man came to this country he has shown a tendency to protect himself by decreasing the political rights of the nonEuropeans instead of increasing them. This process went on for a long time, until the white man slowly tried to protect himself by curtailing still more the political rights of the non-European. This has been the case during the course of the last few years, and I do not think that one example can be quoted during the last 25 years where a measure has been piloted through Parliament to extend the political powers of the non-Europeans. What was the cause of the European striving so much to protect himself by curtailing the political powers of the coloured races?

I am sorry, but the hon. member is out of order. The hon. member is now discussing a principle which has already been accepted.

I just want to say in passing that my argument is that the Prime Minister could not get the one portion of the Bill passed if it were separated from the other part, and that is the reason why he has introduced the two jointly, and I want him to divide them. He could not have put the one portion through in any other way, and my own feeling is that if he were to divide them he would not get them through. I want to say in passing that this deed of the Prime Minister is something which has not been done for many years in this country. If this attempt of his succeeds, the political rights of the nonEuropeans will be extended, instead of their being curtailed in the interests of the Europeans. I will leave it there. This is the first time since Queen Victoria gave the coloureds in the Cape Province the franchise in 1852 that anyone has introduced a measure —and at that the Prime Minister—to give the non-European race political rights.

The hon. member must not further that argument.

Let me conclude by saying to the Hon. the Prime Minister that this may be a precedent he is creating which he is very fond of, but a precedent which one creates can easily become a boomerang which will ultimately rebound on oneself.

I think it is a matter very germane to the discussion of this subject to remind hon. members that when this House was legislating upon the very important subject of the representation of the natives and upon additional security for their land holdings in the Union, we realised that we were dealing with the interests of the aboriginal inhabitants of this land; and I think we were careful on that occasion to deal with the two subjects in separate divisions. We first of all in this House passed an Act providing for the representation of the natives; that was Act 12 of 1936 which was assented to on 16th April, 1936. The question of their land, Sir, was dealt with at a subsequent stage and a subsequent period of the year. That Act, No. 18 of 1936, was not assented to until 13th June, 1936, and it provided—

It seems to me that that example provides a very good parallel for the proposal to deal with the present subjects in two separate Acts, that in any case it is an example of the care that was observed in this matter to see that the representation of the natives would not in any way be tied up or involved with the question of their land. I will not say that the Representation of Natives Act is in any way perfect — to my mind it is a very imperfect Act which we may in our own good time remedy by a more ample measure—but I am quoting this parallel to show that there is nothing sinister about this proposal at least as far as I am concerned. I cannot think of anything that could be sinister about the proposal. It is to my mind a sensible way of dealing with two separate subjects, and there is no doubt that in the province I come from the separation of these two subjects will be regarded as most essential; and therë will be great disappointment if the proposals that have been debated this afternoon should be rejected by this House. There is to my mind a great need for dealing less hurriedly than we seem to be doing with these important subjects. I should deplore very much if we gave the impression to other countries and those ready to seize on any particular phase of our transactions in this House as an indication of hasty legislation, I should be very sorry if we were to do anything that would minister to that wrong idea abroad. When a number of us visited India as a parliamentary delegation we could see the proneness of the people there responsible for their Press propaganda to make tremendous capital out of whatever small incidents might happen in relation to the Indians in this country.

I am afraid the hon. member is not observing the rule. The hon. member must confine himself strictly to the actual motion before the House.

I shall endeavour to abstain from that line of the debate for the rest of my remarks. I am merely concerned that we should endeavour to deal with this matter with fairness to the people concerned, and I hope that even now at this stage it may be found possible for the proposal that has been made for the separation of these two subjects by the committee to be agreed to.

If there is one person in this House who gave us a crystal-clear reason as to why these two portions of the Bill should not be combined in one Bill, then it is the Prime Minister himself. The Prime Minister advanced the argument that this Bill need not be referred to a Select Committee because the whole House is in agreement with the first portion of the Bill. In addition he said that as regards the second portion there is such a far-reaching difference of opinion as far as the principle is concerned that he does not think there is a chance of the various sections in the House reaching agreement there anent. The Prime Minister knows that this principle he mentioned is not only a principle on which there is a divergence of opinion between one person and another, but on which there is a large amount of divergence among his own party ranks, and now the Prime Minister wants to link these two sections of the Bill together in order in that way to get the second portion through as well. There cannot be a shadow of doubt as far as that is concerned. We had the case of the leader of the Dominion Party. Yesterday he voted on the other side on the second reading, but he stated clearly that he was not in favour of the second portion. The Prime Minister has pegged his members down on the other side. The leader of the Dominion Party is naturally not in that position, but he also says that he had to vote for the second portion in order to get the first.

That argument has already been advanced by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges).

Then I just want to say that where a difference of principle exists, no person, not the Prime Minister or any other person, has the right to bind his party in this way and then to salve their consciences by telling them that if they vote against the one portion, the other portion will also fall away. As the Prime Minister said, we can reach agreement over the first portion of the Bill, but we must realise that it is now being used to obtain the support of members on the other side for the second portion. The second portion can decide the future of the nation, and it has nothing to do with the first portion. For that reason I want to say that members who sit on the other side must realise what the position is, and that they must see what this Bill can mean for the future of the nation. It is not right for the Prime Minister to bind a group of members on his side to such an extent that they must of necessity vote for the Bill. The Prime Minister advanced various reasons as to why these questions cannot be separated from one another. He said that the difficulty originated in Natal, and that the difficulty was of a twofold nature. I want to ask the Prime Minister, if that is the reason, can he tell us which section of the nation appealed to him to give the franchise to the Indians? We know that there was much agitation afoot for the first section of the Bill. That we all know. In principle we agree on that point, but what the Prime Minister is doing here is that he is misusing the difficulty in Natal by forcing people in Natal to give in to that group of whom the Minister of Finance is the ringleader. They are using the difficulties of property ownership in order to reach their goal of giving the franchise to the Indians. That is no reason why these two pieces of legislation should be linked together. The second reading is through, but I want to say this to the Prime Minister, and he is aware of it, that when his people discuss this matter among themselves, and when they discuss it with us, they express their disappointment that these two portions should be linked together. Everybody says that they are prepared to vote for the first portion, but that they are voting against their own convictions for the second portion. I want to put this challenge to the Prime Minister. If there is no question of fear, then split the two sections, and I guarantee that the Prime Minister will not get the second portion through the House. For that reason I say that this linking together of the two portions of the Bill can have far-reaching consequences, consequences of such a drastic nature for the future of the nation that we cannot allow this to happen. That is why I feel that the Prime Minister must allow his own people to vote in accordance with the dictates of their own consciences and according to what they think is best for the future of the nation, and then we can see the result. The second portion of the Bill is of such a far-reaching nature that personally I am of opinion that the Prime Minister needs a referendum from the nation before he can put the Bill through in its present form. We in Parliament are responsible, and we have no right to vote for a measure which the nation does not want. No, I say that the question is so serious that a far-reaching measure such as this, before it is placed on the Statute Book, needs a referendum from the nation.

The hon. member is completely out of order. He must confine himself to the motion.

I shall do so. I just want to point out that the two portions of the Bill differ so widely from one another that whereas the one portion can easily be put through, the other portion, in my opinion needs a referendum. For that reason I want to express the hope that apart from what the Prime Minister has already said, he will still consider splitting the two sections. His own supporters cannot go to the nation with a clear conscience. They cannot justify their viewpoint if the Prime Minister does not do it. The Prime Minister must be big, and that is why I appeal to him to accept the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition. Then we can separate the two portions from each other, and then we will be able to set to work in a way which will enable us to give the general public what they want, and we will be able to congratulate the Prime Minister on this measure; if not, the Bill will only have fatal consequences for cur own future. But there is another reason and the Prime Minister said so here. He said that one of these days he is going overseas and there he will have to give an account when Union affairs come up for discussion at the U.N.O. That is no justification for the Prime Minister’s viewpoint in linking together these two divergent Bills. The Prime Minister says that as far as this matter is concerned, he is paying no heed to influences from abroad. Then there is all the more reason—if this is not the motive of the Prime Minister in putting the Bill through quickly by linking the two sections together, because he cannot get the one through on its own— then I say if this is his real intention, let him accept the amendment of my hon. Leader and split the Bills. I want to make an earnest appeal to each of my English and Afrikaans-speaking friends. We must decide the destiny of the nation. If you know that the two questions must be separated, then we ask you to act in accordance with the dictates of your own conscience, and then you will be able to appear before the tribunal of the nation with a clear conscience. Help us to have the amendment of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) accepted, which is the only practical solution.

I suppose that my attitude of mind yesterday was common with that of many members of the House, and would be a very cogent reason for supporting the request which is now being made to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to split this Bill into two sections. My attitude of mind, after hearing arguments and digesting the Bill, was that although I could accept Chapter I with certain amendments, I find myself entirely opposed to Chapter II, and I am backed up in that opinion not only by a representative delegate meeting from all parts of my constituency, which I met last Thursday, but by various letters and telegrams which I have received, which lead me to the conclusion that the people of my constituency, and I believe the people of Natal generally, are opposed to Chapter II of the Bill, the ’ franchise chapter. That being so, and I being a representative of Natal, which is very closely affected by the provisions of this Bill, I have an idea that the Prime Minister should give closer attention now to what I have to say and to what other people of Natal have to say. After all, whose fate is being decided here in this House at the present time? It is not the fate of the Cape; it is not the fate of the Free State; it is not even the fate of the Transvaal, but it is the fate of Natal. What are our boys going to say when they find that the whole of Natal is going to be represented in local authorities….

Order, order. The hon. member is quite out of’ order. He must confine himself to the motion before the House.

That is what I hope to do.

The hon. member ought to know what the motion before the House is.

The motion is that it be an instruction to this Committee to split this Bill into two. Am I correct in that? I am asking the Prime Minister to give close attention to the fact that the majority, I believe, of Natal people are opposed to the second part of the Bill, and that while they are prepared to accept the’ first part of the Bill with certain amendments which will close up certain cracks, the second part of the Bill is rejected in toto by every section of the community. That I believe to be a fact; I believe it to be true, and I do ask the Prime Minister to give the closest consideration to the proposal before the House and to decide that he will allow this instruction to be passed by the Committee.

I would just say to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that if we had to deal here in this Bill with two similar and equivalent principles, we should have no objection to approaching these two principles as a whole in this Bill. But here we have to deal with two principles which are dissimilar and distinctive, and now my question to the Prime Minister is this: If these two principles are dissimilar and divergent, what reason has he to demand of us that we should take the one principle as the standard to judge the second principle? I am certain that the Prime Minister will agree that he is embarrassing us considerably in our choice, but I cannot see how it can be expected of me to approve or disapprove of the two principles in one Bill. I do not disapprove of a principle on the grounds that I approve or disapprove of another principle. I approve of a principle because either I approve or disapprove of a principle as such. Consequently, it is to me an entirely unethical approach to this Bill. The way in which we have to set to work to come to a conclusion and to make a proper and impartial choice, I say that our task is embarrassed thereby, because here we are asked to act in an illogical and unethical manner. The Bill reminds one of arithmetic. Involuntarily one thinks of a numerator and a denominator. The latter part of the Bill must outbalance the earlier part, or rather the latter part must cancel out the first part, and I say that this is where we cannot agree, and that is the reason why we ask the Prime Minister to split the Bill into two so that we may make a reasonable choice and draw an honest conclusion.

When one looks at the proposals which are being coupled together in this Bill it is, in my opinion, more or less a coupling together of South Africa and England. The people of South Africa are anxious to restrict or totally to eliminate the acquisition of land by Asiatics. England, on the other hand, or the British Commonwealth together with India, are anxious to give the franchise to the Indians. I have a good reason for saying that. I have before me the official year book of 1939, No. 20, and I just want to quote from it briefly. It is stated here—

I just want to point out that this Bill is a Bill which affects Imperial interests, and the coupling together of these two parts of the Bill practically represents a coupling together of two parts of the British Empire. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) stated that commission after commission had sat in England and that there the question of the acquisition of land was dealt with but never the question of the franchise; and now these two matters are being coupled together. If you look at the official year book you will see that conference after conference sat in England in connection with this matter. Conferences were held in 1917, 1918, 1921 and 1923 and these two matters were not coupled together at any one of these conferences. I just want to quote a brief passage in connection with one of these conferences. The position of the Indians in the British Empire was discussed at the Imperial Conference of 1921, and it is stated in this year book—

In other words, the British Commonwealth is in favour of regarding the Indian as a British citizen. I should like to point out what the views of the Prime Minister were in those days.

What has that to do with the motion?

Order, order. I think the hon. member is wandering very far from the motion.

I regard it practically as a coupling together of the interests of England and the interests of South Africa.

Order, order. That is very far-reaching.

It is stated here specifically. Let me read it again—

Order, order. I must remind the hon. member that the second part of the Bill has already been accepted. The hon. member cannot now discuss the principles of the Bill.

I bow to your ruling, but I do feel that if one regards it in this light, then we are not dealing here with purely South African interests.

The hon. member has already advanced that argument.

I just want to point out that at that conference the Prime Minister opposed the granting of the franchise to the Indians, but nevertheless he links up this question with the other part of the Bill. I just want to say in conclusion that throughout the Transvaal British interests have always opposed the granting of the franchise to the Indians. We have always opposed Indian occupation. Why are these two matters now being coupled together?

I just want to point out that the Prime Minister has not yet given any convincing reason why the two parts of the Bill cannot be separated. We on this side fully realise the difficulty and we are also convinced that his attitude is: “You can talk and say what you like, but once and for all I have adopted this standpoint and I am going to maintain it”. We believe that the Prime Minister’s difficuly is this, that in his party he has the Minister of Finance who is in favour of extending the franchise to the Indians. On the other hand he has a large section in his party which is in favour of pegging the red spots on the map. He then had to effect a compromise in order to avoid the disintegration of his party, and the only way he saw of avoiding it was to couple those two extremes together in one Bill. In my opinion that is the only reason why the Prime Minister is placing the Bill before the House in this form, and I want to say that I am afraid that in the future South Africa will have to pay a price for that action on the part of the Prime Minister for the sake of the unity of his party, a price which is far too high for South Africa to pay for the unity of the Prime Minister’s party.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—51:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Christie, J.

Christopher. P M.

Döhne, j. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Latimer, A.

Le Roux. J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Neate, C.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stallard, C. F.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Sullivan, J. R.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Noes—81:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hemming, J. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H.J.L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Motion accordingly negatived.

After the somewhat protracted count which has just taken place, I would like to move the second of the two motions before the House, the one that stands in my name on the Order Paper. I might just read it to the House—

We must have clarity on this. Clause 2 is the clause which deals with the restriction on certain agreement relating to fixed property in Natal. The clause says—

Then the second sub-clause reads—

1. (3) Any agreement entered into in contravention of sub-section (1) shall be null and void.

And then it is stated—

I may say that as far as the application of this clause to the Cape Province is concerned, we are not tied down by the question of 21st January, 1946. As hon. members will remember, it was on that day that it was stated in the Governor-General’s speech that legislation was going to be introduced with regard to this matter as far as it affected Natal, and it was therefore necessary that a fixed date should be laid down after which no transactions would be legal under this Act. If that had not been done, transactions would have taken place at a very enhanced pace. The people would have tried to avail themselves of the opportunity of circumventing the provisions of the Bill which was to come before Parliament, and consequently the date was fixed as 21st January, 1946. It will not be necessary to fix that date in the case of the Cape Province as the provisions of this clause, if they were to be applied to the Cape Province, would probably only come into force on the day this Bill is passed by Parliament. Moreover there is no great haste in applying the provisions of this Act to the Cape, as is the case in Natal, where we already have a state of crisis existing. The great advantage we are enjoying in the Cape Province is that this matter can be tackled in a much calmer atmosphere. It can be tackled before any crisis occurs. We can make provision in the Cape Province to avoid a crisis such as that which exists in Natal, and in the other provinces at the present time. In a calm atmosphere and having seen what is occurring in the northern provinces we should make the necessary arrangements here and prevent that disruption which to a large extent is being caused in Natal at the present moment. The third clause—I shall not read the whole of it —deals with restrictions on the holding of fixed property in Natal by certain companies. This is a clause which is almost of greater importance to the Cape Province than it is to Natal because of the influx of capital into the Cape Province which we may expect after the restrictions which have been laid down come into operation in Natal. We can expect an enormous influx of capital into the Cape Province, and in most cases the purchases which will be made in the Cape Province, will be made by companies. I notice that it is now practically six o’clock and I will resume after six.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

The object of my instruction is to make the provisions of Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of this Bill applicable to the Cape Province. Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of this Bill are those which deal with segregation, as regards ownership, and occupation. We feel that it is necessary, especially as a result of the restrictions which we can expect from this legislation, in the north, that protection should be given to the Cape Province, and that if protection is not given to the Cape, we will find conditions in the Cape within a very short time similar to those in the Transvaal and Natal today. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in his second reading speech uttered a word of warning to the Indians, that if they create conditions in the Cape Province similar to those they created in Natal and the Transvaal it would be necessary to introduce legislation on similar lines to the Bill we are introducing today. He said that he hoped that this warning which he was giving to the Indians in the Cape would be sufficient. I and everybody else very much doubt whether that warning will be sufficient. In his second reading speech the Prime Minister referred to the fact that he had on previous occasions given warnings to the Indians in the northern provinces, which warnings had gone unheeded. He also stated that the Indians consistently made attempts to get round the laws as they exist today in the northern provinces, and that one of the objects of the Bill before the House was to tighten up the laws and to make it impossible for Indians to get round them. Well, if the warning failed in the northern provinces, and it did, what effect will it have in the Cape Province? Does the Prime Minister really think that his word of warning as regards the Cape is going to be heeded by the Indians? They did not heed it in the Transvaal or Natal. What is that warning worth? We feel that the warning is worth very little indeed, and that we should take the necessary steps now in the Cape to prevent an acute position as we find it in Natal.

Before I go any further, let me review the position in the Cape as we find it today. In the Cape we have today about 13,000 Indians, i.e. half as many as we have in the Transvaal, but we must remember that there is a very great difference between the Indians in the Cape and those in the Transvaal, in this respect that penetration by Indians as far as ownership is concerned or occupation, is not limited. The Indians can occupy property in any part of the Cape Province. They can buy property in any part of the Cape Province. There is no limit to it whatever. And we must also remember this, that as a result of the damming up of investment by Indians in the northern provinces as a result of this Bill, there will be a large amount of Indian capital seeking investment, and they can consequently find unlimited and unrestricted scope for investment for that capital in the Cape; and it is perfectly obvious and proved by facts that that capital is already being diverted from the north to the Cape Province. An enormous increase in land transactions in which Indians are concerned is already taking place in the Cape and will so continue unless stopped.

What is your proof of that statement?

I will come to the proof now. I take the amount of land transactions in which Indians are concerned in the area covered by the Deeds Registry in Cape Town. That does not apply to the whole of the Cape Province, but only to the south. The northwestern districts fall under Kimberley, and the eastern districts under Kingwilliamstown. I am only dealing with the area covered by the Deeds Registry in Cape Town now. In 1943 an average of 30 acquisitions of property per month by Indians took place. I compare 1943 with 1945. Last year there was an increase from 30 to 48 acquisitions a month. In other words, during the whole of 1943 360 properties in the Cape Province were acquired by Indians, and by 1945 it had increased to 585, only in the area covered by the Cape Town Deeds Registry.

Did you follow up occupation?

I will come to that later. This is ownership. These transactions had increased by 55 per cent. in two years, which is very serious. It is so serious that you must realise that there is some factor behind this, which is diverting capital from the northern provinces to the Cape. The value of the property acquired by the Indians in 1945 in this area amounted to just under £¾ million.

Now, the first fact that one sees in this is this tremendous increase between 1943 and 1945, an increase in the number of properties acquired of between 50 and 60 per cent. That definitely shows that the trend in the Cape Province is a trend in the direction of the acquisition of property by Indians on a scale which we did not have before, that the repercussions which we will have as a result of this Bill becoming an Act of Parliament, are that we can reasonably expect that the acquisitions of property by Indians in the Cape Province will be on an increased scale for the reason I have already stated, that we are diverting Indian capital from the north to the only province in South Africa, except the Free State, where they have unlimited and unrestricted opportunities for investment. Another disquieting factor in regard to this acquisition of property by Indians is that in the area covered by the Cape Town Deeds Registry Office no less than 336 properties were acquired last year by Indians from non-Indians. Someone made a remark to the effect the other day: Why do Europeans sell to Indians? That does not help us. The point is that they do it, and of these 585 properties acquired by Indians in this area of the Cape Town Deeds Registry last year, no less than 336 were acquired from non-Indians, which definitely shows that the trend or direction is for Indians more and more to acquire property in this area from non-Indians. In other words, property belonging to Indians is increasing at what, I think no one living in the Cape can deny, is an alarming rate.

Let us analyse these transactions a little further. Eighty-three per cent. of these transactions were passed in Cape Town. An average of 40 properties per month, or 480 during 1945, were acquired in the Cape Peninsula by Indians.

Are these Indians from Natal?

I will come to that. Four hundred and eighty properties were acquired by Indians in the Peninsula last year. In 1945 in Port Elizabeth, which is a considerably smaller town than Cape Town, no less than 50 properties were acquired. As regards Cape Town, the chief Indian penetration took place in the suburbs of Goodwood, Parow, Maitland, in the constituency of the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, Salt River, and Woodstock. I myself am perfectly satisfied that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, the hon. Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) view this Indian penetration in their constituencies with great alarm. Many other districts in the Cape Province also suffer from Indian penetration, chiefly Stellenbosch, Malmesbury, Paarl, Cradock, Graaff-Reinet, Albany, Britstown, Uitenhage, Worcester, Queenstown, Somerset East, Fort Beaufort, Cookhouse, Aliwal North Tulbagh, Laingsburg and Knysna. These are the areas not covered by the Cape Town Deeds Registry. In the area of Kimberley and Vryburg, the north-western districts of the Cape, property transfers are covered by the Registry Office of Kimberley, and I think it is a known fact that there has been a large amount of Indian penetration in Kimberley in the last few years, and we know that in Vryburg the position has become so acute that a meeting of protest was held a few weeks ago in Vryburg, not only protesting against Indian penetration there, but asking the Government to take the necessary steps to put a stop to it. It is therefore not only the area covered by the Cape Town Deeds Registry where this penetration on a large scale is taking place, but also in the northwestern districts, and especially in Vryburg it has taken place on an even more alarming scale than in the Western Province

What is the percentage of Indian registrations?

That is no argument. The fact is that Indian penetration increased in two years by between 50 and 60 per cent. That is alarming. If there is an outbreak of some serious disease, does it help to say what is the proportion of the population suffering from that disease? No, the disease must be stamped out. That is the crux of the matter

That’s what Mr. Hofmeyr calls a specious argument.

The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. A. O. B. Payn) asked me this question: How many of these Indians come from Natal, and how many are Cape Indians? That is very difficult to find out. In the registration of properties, there is no indication as to whether an Indian lives in Natal or whether he is domiciled in the Cape Province. We also find this extremely disturbing fact, that an Indian who is a prohibited immigrant in the Cape Province, and is not allowed to reside in the Cape, can still own property in the Cape, and many Indians who reside in Natal and who are not allowed to reside in the Cape can send their capital to the Cape to acquire property. That is an extremely important factor. Where we are getting Indian penetration in the Cape Province as far as ownership is concerned, that penetration may be through and by prohibited immigrants in the Cape.

Now I want to compare the conditions that we find in Cape Town today with the conditions in Durban when the Government wisely introduced the Pegging Act. Durban has 100,000 Indians, and in 1941 in Durban, a town nearly the size of Cape Town, Indians bought property to the value of £136,000. In 1942 the value of the property had increased from £136,000 to £334,000, and as a result of that increase the Government decided to introduce the Pegging Act in Natal and to prohibit the acquisition of further property by Indians except in certain areas. The position became acute in Natal, and it became acute as a result of the fact that acquisition of property in Durban by Indians had increased from £136,000 to £334,000 in one year.

That was due to fluctuation in price.

It does not matter what the cause was. The position was acute because Indians bought property to the value of £334,000 in 1942 in Durban, and as a result the Government wisely ’ introduced the Pegging Act. Do you know what the position was in Cape Town last year? The Indians did not acquire £334,000 worth of property, they acquired property to the value of £600,000, practically twice as much as was acquired in Durban in 1942, and in 1942 the amount of property acquired by Indians in Natal was considered so excessive that a Pegging Act was introduced to put a stop to it. All I can say is this: that if it was necessary in Durban to introduce a Pegging Act when 100,000 Indians acquired £⅓ million worth of property, then it is doubly necessary to introduce a Pegging Act in the Cape Province, when in Cape Town the Indians acquired £600,000 of property in twelve months. I think that these figures which I have given have shown that there is a very great danger in the Cape Province with regard to Indian penetration. Indian penetration as far as ownership is concerned is on a greater scale than it was in Natal when the Pegging Act had to be introduced to put a stop to it. We feel that the Cape needs protection, and the object of the instruction which I have moved tonight is to give that protection to the Cape. What protection have we in the Cape? The only protection the Cape has is the pious warning the Prime Minister gave in the second reading when he warned the Indians that if they went on buying property in the Cape Province, some day something would have to be done to put a stop to it. There is nothing to prevent Indians in the Cape acquiring property, and there is nothing even to prevent Indians who are not allowed to live in the Cape from acquiring property. The Prime Minister in his second reading speech said: We are solving the Indian question. Those were his words. He might think he is solving the problem as far as Natal and the Transvaal are concerned. Opinions may differ, but there are many people who may think now that he is solving the question in Natal and the Transvaal, but I say this that even if the Prime Minister is solving the Indian question in the Transvaal and Natal, he is creating a new Indian question in the Cape Province, and if we are going to solve the Indian question, we must solve it not only as far as Natal and the Transvaal are concerned, but in the Cape Province as well What we ask is that in this Bill before Parliament the necessary steps must be taken to protect the Cape Province against Indian penetration, and the difficulties which have resulted from Indian penetration. Things should not be allowed to deteriorate until we reach the stage of acute crisis in the Cape as we have today in the Transvaal and Natal. If it is right to introduce the Pegging Act in Natal, and if it is right to compensate the Indian in Natal by giving him representation in Parliament, then why should it be wrong to introduce those measures in the Cape Province? At present the Indian in the Cape has the vote. In Natal we are giving him the vote. If he is getting the vote in Natal as the price of a Pegging Act, why can we not have a Pegging Act in the Cape Province where he has the vote? If it is right and proper and just, and it is in the interests of the white population in Natal, that we should have demarcated areas in which Indians can live, and in which Europeans can live, why is it wrong to have those areas in the Cape Province as well? In this case what is sauce for the goose of Natal is sauce for the gander of the Cape Province. If hon. members think logically, they cannot get away from the fact that if we are justified in protecting the European in Natal from Indian penetration, we are justified in protecting the European in the Cape Province from Indian penetration. Would the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, who represents Vasco, like to see Indian penetration in Vasco as we have had Indian penetration in parts of Natal? Would the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) like to see Indian penetration in Woodstock? Would the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg), would the Minister of Finance, would the Minister of Justice in their constituencies, would the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. de Kock)—excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I cannot say would he like to see Indian penetration in Vryburg, but is he satisfied with the Indian penetration in Vryburg today? I may be wrong, but I think the hon. members I have referred to feel with regard to Indian penetration exactly as I feel. I am willing to grant most members on the opposite side of the House who are voting for this measure before us today are voting for it because they think to a certain degree it is putting a stop to Indian penetration in Natal, and they are voting for the Bill because they want to put a stop to this Indian penetration. Are they satisfied that Indian penetration should take place in their constituencies? There are hon. members here from Port Elizabeth in which a large amount of penetration is taking place; are they satisfied? Do they think it is in the interests of Port Elizabeth that unrestricted ownership of property by Indians should be allowed? Are they in favour of this, that with a diversion of capital from the northern provinces to the Cape Province this acquisition of property by Indians should take place to a much greater extent than it takes place at present? I am perfectly satisfied in my own mind that those hon. members agree with me and feel exactly as I do. Now there is a chance for those hon. members to assist their constituencies and assist the Cape Province to take the necessary protective measures to see that the conditions as we find them today in Natal do not take place here in the Cape Province.

Why do you not practise what you preach; why did you vote against the Bill?

The right hon. the Prime Minister believes in a laissez faire policy. He believes in allowing things to develop. Things have been allowed to develop in the northern provinces. The Indian question has been allowed to develop in Natal, and now we have reached an acute stage, and it is necessary to come to the House and rush through legislation to rectify, to a certain extent, the position as we find it today. Would it not be much wiser to tackle this problem in the Cape Province before it becomes acute as it has become in the northern provinces? We can do it now in the calmer atmosphere of the Cape Province where we see the definite direction in which this difficulty is developing. We can now tackle this problem, Mr. Speaker, and we can make certain now that conditions as they exist in the northern provinces will never exist in the Cape Province. I am absolutely certain of one thing: If nothing is done with regard to the Cape Province, within fifteen or twenty years we shall have a position in the Cape Province just as acute as in Natal, and again we will have to come with hurried legislation. Is it not much better to tackle this question now than to wait for the relentless forces of a crisis to jog the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister into action? That is the trouble we have with him. With regard to all the problems of South Africa we can never get him to tackle the problems before they become acute. Only crises will jog him into action, and our belief is we must not wait till a crisis occurs in the Cape Province, but before that crisis occurs we must take the necessary steps to protect the Cape Province, as today we are trying to protect Natal, and as the Free State is already protected. We must take this step before it is too late, and prevent conditions arising in the Cape Province as we find them in the Province of Natal today.

I second. After having listened for more than eight days during this debate to the speeches in this house, the intelligence of hon. members on the opposite side must appear to be very peculiar. They pleaded here for restrictions to be imposed upon the Indians as far as land tenure is concerned and this evening they are opposing this motion tooth and nail.

You voted against this Bill.

Listen to that bit of lunacy, coming from somebody who should have been in Valkenberg. He says we voted against the Bill yesterday. We now come and we want to apply the provisions of this Bill to the Cape Province. Was the hon. member not here this afternoon when we tried to have this Bill divided into two parts, the question of representation and the question of land tenure? It is impossible to argue with that member and for that reason I will not do so. But it is strange that the people who argued that restriction should be imposed on the Indians with regard to land tenure are this evening opposing this motion tooth and nail. [Interjections.]

Order, order.

I know it is very difficult for you, Mr. Speaker, to keep these people in order who have to vote against their own convictions tonight. They know that if they vote for this motion, they have to vote against their own voting herd. The reason why the coolies are restricted in Natal and the Transvaal, is that they have no franchise there but here in the Cape they have the franchise and for that reason, hon. members on the opposite side want to make a joke of this instruction. That is why they are not inclined to listen to the arguments advanced on this side of the House. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has given certain figures here but I want to analyse those figures still further. The hon. member for Humansdorp said here that during the year 1945 transactions in fixed property in the Cape Province amounted to £750,000. These are transactions registered in the Deeds Office in the Cape Province and he further stated that transaction in fixed property to the value of £600,000 were negotiated between Indians in Cape Town alone. Fixed property to the value of £340,000 was acquired by Indians from Europeans. In other words in 1945 the Indians here in Cape Town purchased fixed property from Europeans, as a result of which the Indians have become richer to the value of £340,000 in respect of fixed property.

Shame.

Out of the 585 transactions which took place in Cape Town, there are 336 cases where Indians purchased from Europeans and persons who were not Indians. The hon. member for Humansdorp made a comparison here but I want to make a further comparison. Durban is a city in which there are 100,000 Indians. Here in Cape Town there are only 6,000 Indians. As the hon. member for Humansdorp said: They buy property in the wealthiest parts of the Europeans and in 1942 they purchased properties to the value of £334,000 and the Indians in Cape Town acquired property to the value of £340,000. In Durban there are 100,000 Indians and in Cape Town there are only 6,000. [Interjections.]

Order, order. I must ask hon. members to allow me to hear what the hon. member is saying.

They find it difficult to remain silent after dinner.

I do not know whether it is the after-dinner effects which are still in their heads, but there are other deductions I want to make and that is that you have had to call these members to order three times now because they are so frivolous as to be making jokes about the penetration of Indians here into Cape Town. It is not drink which has gone to their heads.

Order, order.

I said it was not drink which had gone to their heads. I did not say it was drink.

Order, order. The hon. member must withdraw that. The insinuation is there.

I have withdrawn it. I said it was not drink.

He said it was not drink.

I am prepared to withdraw what I said, that it was not drink which had gone to their heads and I have withdrawn that.

But then it is drink.

Now I do not want to say what they have in their heads because then you will call me to order again.

You are judging others by yourself but you will not find anybody like yourself.

No, that hon. member is in the position that in his constituency the Indians also buy land and he has not the courage to vote for this motion. The hon. member has the courage to vote for restrictions to be imposed on the Indians in Natal and in the Transvaal where the Indian does not have the franchise but in his own constituency in Hottentots-Holland where the Indians have the franchise, he does not have the courage to vote for these instructions. He is the very last man who should talk about courage, even although he may have that thing in his head which I may not call by its name. I want it to appear in Hansard that you, Mr. Speaker, have had to call hon. members on that side of the House to order three times because they were making a joke of this serious question of Indian penetration in the Cape Province and especially in Cape Town, and because they are so noisy that you and others in the House cannot hear me. But now I want to continue with these figures. One might imagine that the Indians who have bought land in Cape. Town have done so on a very small scale, but out of the 336 land transactions made here in 1945 there were eighty in respect of which the value of the property was more than £2,000 each. There were two of the Indians who bought property in 1945 for £12,000 each here in Cape Town. Hon. members asked here where the Indians were coming from. They tried to suggest that the Indians were from Cape Town. No, that is not so. They can investigate the position themselves in the Deeds Office and they will find that a certain Indian who came from Natal bought property here for £13,000. He bought houses and shops and a few flats. He bought 22 houses for an amount of £485 each and he also bought flats and shops. Then there are other Indians who come from Johannesburg. One of them bought property here to the value of £10,000.

What are their names?

My hon. friend can get their names from the Deeds Office.

But I would like to hear it from you.

Now the hon. member asks me what the names of these Indians are. These names were looked up in the Deeds Office and the person who obtained the information investigated the position very carefully.

Who is he?

Why do my hon. friends not go to the Deeds Office and then come along and repudiate these figures?

Figures are most long suffering.

It is because they have a guilty conscience that they are suggesting that the figures quoted by the hon. member for Humansdorp are not true.

No, we can believe him.

The hon. members are trying to suggest that the figures that I have quoted here are not correct. Let them go to the Deeds Office and make enquiries and let them bring the figures here. The onus is on the other side of the House if they do not want to take our word for it. Let them give us figures of the amount of property bought in Cape Town by Indians during the year 1945. But we are not the only people who want to know this. We are not the only people who are worried. Go to any person in Cape Town, English or Afrikaansspeaking, and he will tell you that he is worried. I sat in the tram today next to two English-speaking persons who told me that they were worried because although the Indian penetration is being stopped in the Transvaal and in Natal, they will now come here to buy property.

They cannot buy it here.

How can people come and tell me that the Indian cannot buy property here? Do you mean to tell me that all the things that the hon. member for Humansdorp has said are untrue? Do you know that a prohibited immigrant can come and buy here?

He cannot come here from Natal and buy property.

Of course he can.

The man is talking nonsense.

Does that expert on the law not know how the Indians do business? Does he know that although the Indian does not put down his own name, he gets other people to buy property for him; but does he not know how the Indians in Johannesburg carry on trade under the names of other people? Does he not know how the Indians in the Transvaal use other names? Let the hon. member get up and show me the law which prohibits an Indian from Natal to come and buy property here.

That is the position.

That is not the position. The members on the opposite side are getting rather uproarious.

Order, order.

That hon. member can make a speech when I sit down and then he will have enough time to refute what I am saying. But I want to go further, and I want to say that during the month of July, 1945, there were 63 land transactions by Indians in Cape Town. In the month of July the largest number of land transactions took place in Cape Town, but in the month of March there were 55 land transactions and Indians bought land to the value of £89,000. You are free to go over to the Deeds Office and to examine the position and then you will be able to see whether it is so or not.

Paul, can you do no better than that?

And now the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) wants to know whether they are the best Indians. He knows that it is the best Indians who have bought property in Natal. It is the wealthiest Indians who are also coming to Cape Town.

Do you extract their teeth?

I just want to say this: That hon. member wants to know whether I pull their teeth. If I were to pull his teeth then he would lose the bad taste in his mouth and then he would be a decent person.

Order, order. I hope that these personal reflections which do not do the House credit will be stopped.

It is a shame.

Do the Indians who buy property at the Cape live in those houses?

If you could get these people to keep quiet, I will continue.

Order, order.

One cannot even put a reasonable question to you.

Now I would like to put the following question to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. You have come here now and you have uttered a warning to the Indians in Cape Town that they should not penetrate into this area. Do you expect in any way that the Indians will take any notice of that warning if your followers who are sitting behind you tonight treat the whole question of Indian penetration in the Cape Province in such a frivolous manner and make it so ridiculous? Not only do they consider the question of penetration in the Cape Province in a frivolous manner but they are putting up their own leader to ridicule. Through their behaviour they are showing that they have no respect for their Prime Minister and leader, and that is why the Prime Minister is sitting there with his head bowed in shame for his followers. He feels ashamed of their conduct. He is ashamed of the manner in which they are carrying on in the presence of the people who are sitting in the gallery. He is ashamed of the manner in which they are making a joke of this matter in the presence of the public. They are practically giving him a slap in the face.

Order, order. The hon. member must come back to the motion.

And now I want to go further, and since hon. members want to deny that Indians are allowed to buy property in Cape Town, I just want to tell them that they can go to the Deeds Office and there they will find out that even a prohibited immigrant may buy property here. There is no law forbidding a prohibited immigrant from doing that. He can buy land here. Well, here in Cape Town we will leave it to the electorate to deal with persons like the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) and the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland. But I want to come to another point. According to the available statistics the Indians are buying at Malmesbury, Paarl …

And in Burgersdorp.

Yes, and in Burgersdorp. During the past year Indians negotiated eleven property transactions there, and that is why I am talking on this question tonight. I was one of those who came to Burgersdorp and tried to prevent Indians from obtaining licences there, but as the law stands today there is no reason why they cannot obtain a licence. One cannot make a legal issue of it and on the strength of that refuse to grant a licence to an Indian because of the fact that he is an Indian. The Indians are penetrating into Burgersdorp, Paarl, Malmesbury, Cape Town and Stellenbosch.

Not from Natal.

And one can do nothing about it, and that is why I am asking the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. J. C. Bosman) personally whether he is satisfied with the fact that the Indians are further penetrating into Malmesbury.

They are not penetrating there; it is very slight.

Now listen to what the hon. member says. He says they are not penetrating there but only very slightly. What is the standpoint of the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker), the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Dolley) and the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Mr. V. G. F. Solomon) and the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. de Kock)? No, the position has come to this: When the Prime Minister says that he has solved the Indian question, then I can only say tonight that the question has not been solved. There has been a temporary respite in the Transvaal and in Natal, but the Cape Province will become the victim as a result of this respite in the Transvaal and in Natal. The Indian who is now prohibited from buying in the Transvaal and in Natal will now invest his money here in the Cape Province. The hon. member for Humansdorp said that the Prime Minister believed in allowing things to develop, but one of these days he will not be here any longer, but the Minister of Finance will be here and he will be the leader of the United Party, and as the position is in the Cape Province today, so the Minister of Finance would want it to be, and it would not worry him for one moment; and that is why we on this side of the House are so concerned about the prevailing conditions, and for that reason I hope that the Prime Minister will accept this motion of the hon. member for Humansdorp.

Mr. Speaker, I must say I am entirely unconvinced by the case which has been put up by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer), entirely unconvinced.

Hard heart.

The position at the Cape is essentially different from that of Natal and also largely from the position in the Transvaal.

It is a matter of degree only.

You must take that into account, too. A matter of degree is very important. We are not dealing with trifling matters. We are dealing with serious matters.

Your own people do not think it is serious.

Order, order.

I am waiting for the hon. member to give me a chance. He does not rise, but he sits and speaks.

Your own people do not regard it as serious: Judging by their attitude tonight, they do not.

The position, I say, is entirely different here. Look at the population situation. Look at the European population of the Cape Province and the European population of a place like Natal, or of Durban. The population of the Indians at the Cape is 13,000.

How many?

Thirteen thousand

And how many in the Transvaal?

Double that. In Natal the Indian population is the same as the European population, and therefore the position is essentially quite different. After all, I have heard of this so-called Indian penetration at the Cape only during this debate.

That I quite believe.

Yes.

Your trouble is you only hear of these things too late.

It is entirely a different situation. It is only now this question is tackled in Parliament

If you only heard of it now….

If you would listen to me; I have listened to you.

If you only heard it….

Order, order.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to sit down if I cannot get a hearing. I have listened to the hon. member for half an hour, and then I cannot get a hearing.

It is a fair question.

What is the question?

If you only heard of it in the debate, why did you warn the Indians of the Cape in your speech?

I heard it here.

You were the first to speak.

It was because of what I heard here. I thought it necessary to issue a warning. It is common cause at the Cape, and there has been no crisis. There has been scarcely any talk about it, and we are asked to put this Cape case on the same footing as that in Natal. It is absurd. It lis quite absurd. Figures are quoted to us as to transactions here. But I attach no importance to these figures unless they are properly investigated. In Durban a proper judicial enquiry was held. These figures were dissected. They were proved to be penetrations. There were proved to be Indian penetrations into settled white areas at Durban, and the figures were properly investigated, dissected and enquired into. Nothing of the kind has happened here. A lot of figures are promiscuously flung at us. We do not know where they come from or whether they are correct, whether they are local Indians or Indians from abroad, whether it is penetration or whether it may be quite innocent purchases and not penetration at all.

It might be Malays.

You have to dissect these cases properly……

Cannot you find a better argument?

…. and it is a case where proper enquiry has to be made. Suppose an Indian from Natal were to buy property here, under the law of the land he cannot come and live here, he cannot come and trade here. What is the use of him buying here? The case is entirely different from that of Natal, and therefore no case whatever has been made out for action here. If it becomes acute in future, let action be taken then. I issued my warning. I hope it will be heeded. I hope no Indian penetration will take place here as elsewhere. But as the situation is today, I am quite clear that we would be premature in taking action now, and would be acting in a spirit of alarm and taking unjustified and unnecessary action, and we would only be stultifying ourselves. I do not think that action of this kind ought to be taken anywhere without proper enquiry. Figures are flung across this House, but there is absolutely nothing to substantiate the figures.

Will you authorise an enquiry now?

Why should I?

We have proved that there is a prima facie case.

Do not let us jabber about prima facie cases here. Have you ever heard such a thing! We are asked to change the law of the land because some members opposite have made out a prima facie case.

There is such a thing as a prima facie case in law.

No, we would be making ourselves utterly ridiculous, and this party certainly will not take any action like that in a spirit of panic and on such a slender basis, without any proper investigation or facts to go on. I cannot accept this amendment.

I have frequently listened to the Prime Minister, but I have never heard him speak with less conviction than this evening. The Prime Minister must excuse me, and you, Mr. Speaker, must excuse me for commenting now on the attitude he took up to a polite question we put to him from this side. He took umbrage at members and he regarded it as discourtesy towards him. But while a previous member on this side was speaking the noise on the other side of the House was so great that it made one think of a place where the people are not sober. The Prime Minister did not make any objection to that conduct of members on his own side, so it does not befit him to take up such an attitude when polite questions are put to him. It does not suit hon. members on the other side to conduct themselves in that way if they expect that we should show respect for the Prime Minister, as we would like to show it to him.

We respect your leader.

We are prepared to give the Prime Minister the respect that is his due, but then it is not fitting that hon. members on the other side should kick up such a dreadful row, a row that is a disgrace to this House. The Prime Minister attempted to make this motion ridiculous. His first assertion was that it was in this debate he heard for the first time that Indians were buying land on a big scale in the Cape Province. Thereupon the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) rightly pointed out to him that he was the first person to mention it during this debate, and so much importance did he attach to it that he sounded a warning about it in his speech. Now the Prime Minister pretends that the first time he heard of it was in this debate, and that he got frightened of the bogey we held up. One would like to accord the Prime Minister the respect that he deserves, but then he should not come along with that sort of stuff. He is the man who in all seriousness pointed the finger of warning at the Indians, and told them that if they continued to buy land here in the Cape they would also occasion a crisis here and steps would also then be taken against them. The position is that the Prime Minister knows about the penetration in the Cape Peninsula. This is not the first time that he has heard of that for the simple reason that the newspapers for week on end were full of it.

Which?

The English newspapers like the “Cape Argus” and the “Cape Times”, and every member could see it. When we are dealing with a serious matter like this it is not seemly to say such things here.

I turn to another matter before I come to the merits of the case. The Prime Minister’s excuse for not applying the Act to the Cape Province is that there are only 13,000 Indians in the Cape and the number is so limited that it is not worth while to give them attention. I immediately asked how many Indians there are in the Transvaal and he had to admit that there are 25,000 in the Transvaal. The Transvaal has a much bigger European population than the Cape, and if the 25,000 Indians are such a menace there that the Prime Minister wishes to apply this legislation then it does not become him to say that 13,000 in the Cape Province are such a small number that we do not need to worry about them. Apart from these figures that have been mentioned here I want to ask the Prime Minister and the Cape members, in view of my own observations of the Indian problem in the Cape, whether the position in the Cape Province is not equally as serious as it is in the Transvaal. While in the Transvaal the 25,000 Indians are really spread over the whole country, throughout the platteland as well as in Johannesburg, the 13,000 in the Cape Province are concentrated for the most part in the Cape Peninsula.

The hon. member said that there were Indians in Burgersdorp as well.

When one is dealing with a matter of that sort and hears an interjection of that description one wonders whether another doctor should not come to the assistance of that doctor. For all practical purposes the Indians are concentrated here in the Cape Peninsula, and consequently the problem is serious here. From my own observations in Claremont and Wynberg —I live in that vicinity—I want to say that in the Main Street there are numbers and numbers of shops belonging to Indians. Members will be surprised to see what percentage of those shops belong to Indians— not to Malays.

How do you know that?

One knows them by their language, and people who have grown up here can tell at once whether a man is an Indian or a Malay. The Indians speak English and Afrikaans different to the Malays. The younger generation who have been born here are in a different position, and in the future it will be more difficult to distinguish between them, but we have never any difficulty in distinguishing adults and members know it. I speak as one who comes from the north and knows what the position is in the Transvaal. On the other side we see the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo). Let him testify about his own town. It is the same with many other platteland towns in the Transvaal; when you enter them you imagine you are in Bombay and not in South Africa. That is the position there, and my hon. friend admits it is so. Take Ventersdorp; in the centre of the town there are coolie businesses. That is the position there and we fear that the same problem will arise here in the Cape. It will come here just as certainly as the sun is in the heavens. In the course of his second reading speech the Prime Minister pointed a reproachful finger at our forefathers and said we had landed in this state of affairs as a result of their mistakes. Now the Prime Minister states it is our duty to prevent the position in Cape Town developing into a festering sore as in other parts of the country.

Why are you voting against the Bill then?

It is very difficult to talk to anyone like the hon. member for Hospitall (Mr. Barlow) who simply cannot see a principle squarely. We are voting against this Bill because it seeks to extirpate one evil by instituting a greater evil. We are inexorably opposed to the Indians getting the franchise.

I think that the hon. member must return to the motion.

With all respect, Mr. Speaker, I am arguing that this Bill should be applied to Cape Town and the argument directed against me is that I may not advocate that because I voted against the Bill on other grounds. I can reply to that argument and refute it. I desire that this Bill, bad as it is, should also be made to apply to Cape Town because we wish to check Indian penetration in order to prevent a repetition here of the tragic state of affairs we have already experienced in both the Transvaal and Natal.

And that is why you voted against the Bill.

The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) would be entirely satisfied in voting for every coolie in the Transvaal receiving the franchise if the Prime Minister merely ordered him to do so. To please the Prime Minister he would sell his soul and not stir a finger to save the white race.

He is not looking for the leadership of the United Party.

I entirely agree. I do not think that anyone could ever accuse the hon. member for Rustenburg of that. For the reasons I have mentioned I support the motion of the hon. member for Humansdorp, and I would ask the Prime Minister to accept it in view of the fact that quite spontaneously, and without our influencing him at all, he warned the Indians against penetration in the Cape Province. He did say it was from us he heard for the first time about this penetration. We did not mention it to the Prime Minister before he introduced the Bill. The hon. member for Humansdorp has now mentioned the figures. The Prime Minister is aware of the position and I ask him to do what the hon. member for Humansdorp has requested, and thereby prevent us having the same sorry state of affairs in the Cape Province as we already have in the Transvaal. If the Cape members are not prepared to save the Cape Province from this menace; if the Cape members are not prepared to take steps to save the Cape Province from this danger, then I wish to make an appeal to the Transvaal members, who know what the significance of this matter is, to exert their influence in the interests of a white South Africa to prevent the deplorable conditions prevailing in the Transvaal and Natal arising here in the Cape Province.

I listened with great disappointment to the Prime Minister. He admits that there are 13,000 Indians in the Cape Province, while there are 25,000 in the Transvaal. In the Transvaal and in Natal the Indians will in the future be prohibited from freely buying land, except in certain fixed areas. In the Free State the Indians, may not buy land, nor have they got the franchise. Our forefathers passed laws many years ago to keep the Indians out of the Free State. They looked to the future, and if they had not passed those laws we would have had the same position today in the Free State as we have in the Cape Province and elsewhere. In the Transvaal, laws were also passed in an effort to limit the Indians to certain areas. Now I want to put a fair question to the Prime Minister. If it is in the interest of the Transvaal and of the Free State not to allow Indians to buy land freely there, why is it not in the interest of the Cape Province to have a similar prohibition here? Surely it is easier to do it now while we have only 13,000Indians. If we wait until there are 50,000 or 100,000 Indians in the future, it is going to be very much more difficult to check them. The Prime Minister says the position in the Cape Province has not yet been investigated, while in Natal commissions of investigation have been appointed from time to time, and that the reports of those commissions indicate what the position in Natal is, and on the strength of those reports, the Government deems fit to introduce this legislation. I want to ask him whether the idea of introducing this Indian legislation occurred to him yesterday or the day before yesterday. No, he thought of it a month ago and perhaps a year ago. Does he not think that in the interests of the Cape Province he should have caused an investigation to be made into the position in this province? The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) stated very clearly that when he spoke for the first time the Prime Minister issued a warning that if the Indians continued to buy land in the Cape Province he would also take steps as far as the Cape Province is concerned. When he uttered that warning he must have believed that the present state of affairs is unsatisfactory. I ask any person with commonsense, if the Indians are no longer allowed to buy in Natal and in the Transvaal, and if they cannot buy in the Free State and we do not prevent them from buying in the Cape Province, is it not natural that they will buy in the Cape Province on an increasing scale? I want to say to the Prime Minister with all due respect that it is a hundred times better to prevent this influx while it is still taking place on a small scale, because if we allow it to develop and to assume greater proportions, it will become increasingly difficult, and many more people will become dissatisfied. In Natal we now have a couple of hundred thousand Indians who are dissatisfied and who are demanding the same rights as the Europeans to buy and to occupy land. If we rectify’ this matter at this stage we shall have 13,000 Indians here who will be dissatisfied, but as time goes on the numbers will become increasingly greater. It is better to solve this problem now, but I am afraid the Prime Minister is inclined to let things develop and to leave to posterity problems which it will be more difficult to solve then than it would have been if he had checked these things in time. The Free State checked this influx timeously. If the Cape Province checks this problem in its initial stages it will be much better than to postpone it for years and years. I cannot see what objection there can be to the acceptance of the motion moved by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer). We are asking the Prime Minister to do no more than he is doing in Natal and in the Transvaal. Why should we allow the Coolies to flock to the Cape Province to buy properties here? We must think of the future when it is going to be very difficult to solve this problem, and if posterity is saddled with this difficult problem, there will be one person only who will be blamed, and that is the present Prime Minister.

I can well understand that the Prime Minister is irritable. I have not seen him so irritable for a long time. He was irritable in the first place because of the strong case presented here for the motion of the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer). He is also irritable because he knows that the Cape members are seriously concerned about the position. Let him allow the members for Port Elizabeth to get up here tonight and to tell us whether they are satisfied with the position in Port Elizabeth. I challenge him to allow those two or three members to tell us what the position is there. I want to tell the Prime Minister that I had a talk with somebody this morning who stopped me in the street and who knows me. Formerly he was a well-known teacher in Port Elizabeth and he is now in East London. He told me that he hoped that we will also give attention to the penetration of Indians into the Cape Province. He sat here in the House for three days to listen to the debate in which he is interested. He is concerned over the position and he says that the people in East London are concerned because in the past months several transactions have taken place in East London between Europeans and Indians. I hope that the Prime Minister will not also tell me, as he told the hon. member for Humansdorp, that he did not believe him.

No, I did not.

I am not prepared to mention this gentleman’s name here but I am prepared to give his name to the Prime Minister. But just let him allow members from his own ranks to give vent to their feelings and he will know what the position is. The standpoint of the Prime Minister is—he has stated so repeatedly—“The position is entirely different”. The position is entirely different in Natal. In what way is it different? It is surely a question of degree. The same tendency and exactly the same process which took place in Natal, and is now taking place in the Cape Province. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has ever been in Vryburg. It is a part of the Cape Province just as Cape Town is part of it. Let the Prime Minister ask the member for Vryburg what the position is there. There are rows and rows of Indian shops in the main street of Vryburg. There is no difference between the Cape Province and Natal, except in a question of degree. That is the only difference between the two.

Now I come to another point. The hon. member for Humansdorp built up his whole case very largely on the figures which he quoted here, and the Prime Minister based his whole case on two arguments. The first was that the position was entirely different from what it is in Natal and I have shown that it was only a question of degree. The second is that he attached no value to the figures quoted by the hon. member for Humansdorp. These are figures obtained from the Deeds Office in Cape Town but the Prime Minister says that these figures of the hon. member for Humansdorp are not correct. He attaches no value to them.

I said that the figrues have not been investigated.

The Prime Minister built up his whole case on the fact that these figures are not correct. Will he be prepared to have an investigation made? Since we have to deal here with an increasingly serious mattér, will the Prime Minister be prepared to have these figures quoted by the hon. member for Humansdorp investigated? Of course not, because if investigation is made we will find out what the position is and then the Prime Minister will realise that there are grounds for this motion moved by us. The Prime Minister is a man of experience and any person with common sense knows that if the opportunity to invest is checked at one place, it must find an outlet somewhere else. We find that in trade; we find that in export; and it is the same with capital investment. Why should it then be different in the case of the Indians? Here we have a Bill now which, if it is passed and it will be passed in view of the majority which the Prime Minister has behind him, will have the direct consequence that the wealthy Indians in Natal and in the Transvaal will to a large extent not have any opportunity there for the investment of capital. They will be obliged, just as it happens as in commerce and also in industry, to look for new outlets for capital investment and for that reason the capital will come to the Cape Province where there is no restriction against their buying property. That is the natural tendency. It must happen. But we have again the old policy of the Prime Minister to allow things to develop and that notwithstanding the fact that the Prime Minister in his opening speech uttered a word of warning. Now he is running away from his own warning. Now that he is being hemmed in, just as the Indians in Natal are hemmed in, with figures quoted here by the hon. member for Humansdorp, he is running away from his own warning which he gave in his opening speech in this debate. Members on the opposite side are also running away and they know it. I say that he was the first to utter a warning and he should not come here now and ask us where we get hold of this. We quoted certain figures here and the Prime Minister must not come and ask us where we got hold of these figures. The Prime Minister knows that there is general concern in the Cape Province and he should have these figures investigated. Should he find that they are substantially correct, then there is only one thing the Prime Minister can do and that is to apply the same measures in the Cape Province which he is now applying in the northern provinces and for exactly the same reasons.

The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has given certain figures regarding the acquisition of property by Indians in the Cape, and the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in his reply stated that the position in the Cape is not comparable with that in Natal, since there are only 13,000 Indians in the Cape Province. But what about Indians in Natal and Transvaal purchasing land here?

They cannot come and live here.

If the hon. the Minister of Finance wants to convey that they cannot buy property here I may remind him that there are apparently many ways of evading the law. It was suggested they cannot even purchase here. Even if they cannot purchase here my point is there are still many ways of evading the law. Either these purchases are made by Indians outside the Cape, or if it is suggested nobody can purchase land in the Cape who is a prohibited immigrant as far as the Cape Province is concerned, then the purchases must have been made by the 13,000 Cape Indians. That suggestion has been made, and I think it is probably based on Section 8 of the Immigration Act of 1913. Is that what the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit) is referring to?

I will find it now.

If he is certain of that, it is a complete answer to the Minister of Finance. It is then quite clear that all the property that has been purchased in the Cape Province has been purchased by the 13,000 Indians here, and they, Mr. Speaker, have purchased twice as much in one year as the 200,000 Indians in Natal purchased in 1942. You may say the position is not comparable; perhaps it is not comparable, but not in the sense the Prime Minister meant it. On the contrary, if these figures are anything like correct, even if they are 1,000 per cent. out, i.e. even if only one-tenth of the purchases were made, the position in the Cape is as bad as it was in Natal in the peak year of 1942. Let us see what was the position there before the peak year; we do not know whether we have reached the peak year as far as the Cape Province is concerned. If those figures are not correct I say it is within the power of the Prime Minister to control them. After all, these are figures which anyone can get at the Registrar of Deeds’ Office. But if they are not correct at any rate let me ask the Prime Minister this: On what figures did he base his warning in the second reading debate? I cannot accept that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will come here and in all seriousness issue a warning of that nature unless he had some sure ground for that. I want to ask him what was that ground; where did he get it? Why issue this serious warning to the Indians at the Cape unless in his mind there was an alarming penetration of Indians and purchase of property by Indians in the Cape. You cannot have it both ways. It is a simple problem in logic. If he had information sufficient to justify the seriousness of his warning, the figures cannot be far out. Even if they are out they must still be very high. But the point I want to make here is that, assuming these figures are alarming as the Prime Minister indicated in his second reading speech, in introducing the debate, if it is as serious as that—even assuming it is not as serious as the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) pointed out—then I say that the fact that the Cape has only one-fifteenth of the Indian population that Natal has shows that pro rata the purchase of land by Indians in the Cape is very much more serious than it was in Natal in its peak year.

Did not the Prime Minister follow on an interruption on your side?

I am afraid I cannot accept the hon. member’s estimate of the Prime Minister, that he could be induced to give a serious warning of that nature merely on an interruption from this side. I credit the Prime Minister with a greater sense of responsibility than to admit even such a soft impeachment as that. What was the position before the peak year in Natal? I find in the thirteen years from 1927 to 1939 the purchases by the 100,000 Indians in Durban amounted to £750,000, which is the figure in one year now for the Cape. Then I find that there is an increase in 1940, 1941 and 1942; 1942 is the peak year that we have the figures for; it was £336,000, half of the figure for 1945 in the Cape with its 13,000 Indians.

Are these official figures, or are you guessing?

No, these are official figures. How did the Broome Commission regard these figures, which I think everybody must admit are not one-tenth as alarming as the figures for the Cape? They said in their latest report—I have the Afrikaans version here, and I will translate it as I go on—

That is the considered judgment of the Broome Commission in regard to these Natal figures. The Cape figures that have been given by the hon. member for Humansdorp may not, on being checked, be quite as alarming as suggested, but, taking it at its low-water mark, taking it that the figures are so alarming that they justified the Prime Minister in sounding that warning, then, if we want to save the Cape Province, if we want to prevent a recurrence here of the position that has arisen in Natal, it is the negation of policy to sit here and to say that this is a matter of no importance. These facts, Mr. Speaker, are of such a nature that, even if the Prime Minister has not those figures, he will wait with this part of the Bill and see to it those figures are made available before this Bill is passed into law. It is not so difficult to control that. You need not have a Commission to go into all that. The Prime Minister must have some information of his own. In any case, my submission is the facts which the Prime Minister has in his possession are sufficent to warrant the motion which has been proposed by the hon. member for Humansdorp, and I say it would be culpable negligence on the part of this Government and on the part of this House to allow this opportunity to pass by without seeking to prevent the evil in the Cape that has reared its head in Natal and which the Government is trying to scotch in this Bill. I think the facts call for action, and I regret exceedingly that the Prime Minister has sought to dispose of this matter in such a cavalier way. I do not think he has done justice to his position or taken account of the grave consequences which may result if one does not take action at this stage. I would impress upon him that, if there is any real need for the first part of the Bill in the northern provinces, if the outlet for purchase is closed there and you have all that capital unable to find a reasonable outlet in the northern provinces, it must necessarily flow down to the Cape Province, and then we will, in a few years, have the position we have had in Natal for the last couple of years. The Prime Minister has said this is an attempt to solve this question on a grand scale, to solve it in one measure. How can he say that if it has only a partial application? How can he say that when, as far as these provisions are concerned, there is no attempt to include the Cape Province?

There is another aspect to which I want to draw attention, and that is that where an Indian purchases property in a white area it immediately depreciates all the surrounding property. I was recently consulted —not professionally—but somebody asked me, not a member of my party, an Englishman, what protection his mother-in-law had….

Do not Englishmen belong to your party?

This one did not happen to belong.

There are no Englishmen in your party.

I say that this one was not a member of my party. But I cannot allow this slur on Englishmen to pass by unchallenged—that they are so devoid of intelligence that they refuse to belong to the only party which is able to work for the salvation of South Africa. That I cannot allow to pass. I have too many English-speaking friends for that. But the point is, he asked me what protection Europeans had in the Cape Province against an Indian coming and purchasing the next-door plot, with resultant depreciation in the price of their own property. I had to tell him there was no protection. I said: If you want protection, we will try and give it to you, but it will ultimately depend on the Prime Minister; he is the only one who will be able to do it.

Did you tell them you had voted against the Bill for their protection?

I think they have sufficient intelligence….

More intelligence than he has.

That does not say a lot. I wonder, if the Prime Minister had given the franchise on the common roll, coupled with these provisions in regard to ownership and occupation of land, how many people on the other side would have been able to swallow it? And if they were not prepared to swallow it, would it have been said: You have voted against the part that deals with land ownership and occupation. The debate this afternoon was, after all, to give members of this House a fair opportunity of expressing their convictions on this matter without this political blackmail of saying you must swallow the whole, you cannot get the part you like. It is political blackmail and no argument. It is not an argument, at any rate, which shows any sign of intelligence to say we voted against the Bill while we are trying to give protection in the Cape Province. It is quite clear it is not only a question of occupation of land. The Minister of Finance has said that people from other provinces cannot obtain occupation in this province. Natal has shown very clearly it is not a question only of occupation, but also a question of ownership. The Prime Minister himself knows that all the attempts to confine this limitation only to occupation have proved fruitless. Unless you tackle this matter on the basis of both ownership and occupation you will never be able to settle it satisfactorily.

There are many towns in this province which feel acutely the position of Indians purchasing property among the Europeans. I would like to ask the hon. member for the constituency represented by Mr. Jimmy McLean, are they satisfied with this Indian penetration in the European areas in Port Elizabeth, with these purchases which are included in the £750,000?

Jimmy has been zipped, he may not speak.

It is significant that on this very important point which vitally affects the whole of the Cape Province not a single member from the Cape Province on the other side has had the courage, or the permission, to stand up and speak. It is also significant, and I do not think it has escaped the notice of persons in the galleries, how very active the Whips on the other side have been. I say again, if the Prime Minister wants to do a service to the Cape Province, if what he has said here regarding the urgency of the first part of the Bill, if that is seriously meant, he has to implement it by including in it provisions which will allow the Government to deal adequately with the position in the Cape Province and save a recurrence of the trouble which has exercised our minds and the minds of the people of Natal in the last couple of years.

It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, to see how the Opposition are able to judge what our Whips are doing and how they are going about things. We have heard that no one on this side is allowed to speak or has had the courage to do so. I should like to reply to certain points that have been raised this evening, particularly by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer), the mover of this motion, and the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges). The whole point made by the hon. member for Humansdorp is that when this Bill comes into operation there will be a large amount of money available for investment by Natal Indians in the Cape. I pointed out when the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) was speaking, that there is a law that prevents these transactions taking place, and I now propose to refer to that particular Act, Act No. 22 of 1913, the Immigrants’ Regulation Act, which states in Section 8 (1) and 8 (2)—

1. (1) No prohibited immigrant shall be entitled to obtain a licence to carry on any trade or calling in the Union or (as the case may be) in any province wherein his residence is unlawful or to acquire therein any interest in land, whether leasehold or freehold, or in any other immovable property.
2. (2) Any such licence (if obtained by a prohibited immigrant) or any contract, deed or other document by which any such interest is acquired in contravention of this section, shall as from the date that the holder of the licence or interest is dealt with as a prohibited immigrant under this Act, be null and void.

What machinery have you in the Cape Administration to control that; what about companies?

They have the same control in the deeds office as they have in regard to all property sold.

Does that prevent a company formed by Indians owning land?

Does the hon. member think this particular clause can be got over?

Easily.

The hon. member, with his legal knowledge, should have moved some amendment to this Act previously.

We now move.

We know that in the case of every law that is passed people will find some loophole, but I submit in the main this clause is effective. One or two people may get away with things, but in the main the law will be carried out and there will not be many evading it. I take leave to doubt the figures the hon. member for Humansdorp gave us tonight, not the numbers, but I doubt their authenticity, particularly whether they are all Indians who bought the properties. I know for a fact many of these properties have been bought by Malays, not Indians at all; in many cases their names are similar to the Indian names. I also know many of these Indians and Malays sold properties; whilst the boom was on in Cape Town they have been offered tempting prices. As the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg said, prices went as high as £2,000; in fact, that was nothing for a property which in pre-war days was worth only £600, and therefore the Indian or. Malay who bought property for which he paid £2,000 got something which was worth only £600. I am satisfied the transactions cover both Indians and Malays and not Indians alone.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member wishes to know whether I read into this clause that an Indian is prevented from lending money for the purchase of property, but surely if he lends money he acquires an interest in that property. I am not a legal man, but that is how I view the matter. The point I want to get at is this: When these properties have been sold naturally the people who have sold them have had to acquire other properties in which to reside or carry on their businesses, and I therefore say that the so-called menace of Indian penetration in the Cape just does not exist. It is extraordinary that we have to get members of Parliament from outside the Peninsula to come and tell us what takes place here, as if we would not be alive to what is going on. I have never heard of a meeting of protest being held asking us to take the matter to the Prime Minister. I agree entirely that the only right and proper course is to let the matter rest where it is for the time being. Should anything happen in the future, should there be sufficient evidence forthcoming that can be substantiated by a proper commission of enquiry, it will then be time enough to take action. But as things are at the moment there is no need for it at all. This is only a move on the part of the Opposition to try to jeopardise the passing of the Bill. They have been beaten hopelessly in the first round and now they are trying to sabotage the second round. I congratulate the Right Hon. the Prime Minister on the stand he has taken, and I am sure that from every member on this side he will have the fullest support.

I would like to give the Prime Minister a few more figures, and this time he cannot say that these figures were just taken from some office or other, because they have appeared in official books. I just want to go back to the census of 1875, on page 3. There it is stated that at that time there was an insignificant number of non-European foreigners. In 1891 another census was taken and there were then 1,453 Indians in the Cape, namely, 1,065 males and 388 females, 915 of whom lived in the Kimberley district. That was in 1891 when the diamond mines were opened. At that time already there were nearly 1,000 Indians in Kimberley. In 1904, the date of the next census, there were 8,489 Indians of whom 7,648 were males and 841 females. In 1911, according to the census, there were 6,606 Indians, of whom 5,590 were males and a little more than 1,000 females. There were slightly fewer Indians and I shall say in a moment why there was a slight decrease. In 1920 there was another census and there were then 7,696 Indians, of whom 5,724 were males and 1,972 females. In 1936, the date of the last census, there were 10,508 Indians, together with a fair number of Chinese who are also Asiatics; of that number 6,777 were male and 3,831 were females. We have heard that in 1945 there were already 13,000 Indians. In other words, in the short period from 1875 up to the present, the number has increased to 13,000. Because the position developed in this way the Cape became perturbed, but no steps were taken. In 1902 an Immigration Act was passed and the definition of an immigrant was that an immigrant is a person who must be able to write in the characters of one of the European languages. He had to be able to write in the characters of a European language. It was clear that the Act was aimed at the Asiatics, including the Indians in Natal. But subsequently, as a result of evasions of the law, further legislation was introduced. Unfortunately for South Africa, but fortunately for the Jewish race, it was then laid down in the Act of 1906 that Yiddish, the characters of which were not European either, would also be accepted as a European language. That was to enable the Jews to be admitted. It is almost a pity because this is another problem which we shall have to deal with in the near future. At the same time an Act was also passed in the Cape, the Chinese Exclusion Act, No. 37 of 1904. The Chinese entered this country in fairly large numbers, and at the time this Act was passed there were already 1,380 in the Cape Colony. Eventually it restricted the entry of Chinese into this country to some extent. I mention that because they are Asiatics and they also fall under this Bill. A distinction has been drawn between these two classes of Asiatics. The Indian Asiatic enjoyed the protection of the British Government because he was a British subject. The Chinese Asiatic did not have that protection, and I just want to make the point that the reason why we find so many Indians here is because we are coupled with the British Empire and the Indians are protected as British subjects. The same thing happened in the Transvaal and is still happening here. They are protected as British subjects. Unfortunately or fortunately the Chinese did not have that protection. I want to ask the Prime Minister now whether he still adheres to the words he once used, namely that “they have no case”? I have the census figures here. It will be noted that during all these years the number steadily increased. I just want to draw the Prime Minister’s attention to that. A case has already been made out here, and notwithstanding the fact that the Indians in this province have to contend with competition from Malays, their numbers have grown. The Malay is a fairly keen competitor of the Indian, and notwithstanding that competition the Indian population in this province has increased considerably. The coloured people are also fairly keen competitors of the Indians and notwithstanding that there are still so many Indians. I just wanted to bring these further figures to the notice of the Prime Minister for his consideration.

The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) attempted to twit me into speaking tonight by the remarks he made, but I had decided to say something about this matter long before any member of the Opposition or long before any member of my own side thought otherwise. I want to say that that so far as I am concerned, I have not been told by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, as the Opposition appears to think, that I must not do this or that and that I must vote as he tells me.

What about the Whips?

I have never been told by them either and I am so Scotch that if I were told, very likely I will not do it. Anyway, I want to say definitely that a great deal of what the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) said, is true in regard to the penetration of Indians and in regard to the penetration of Indians in Port Elizabeth. I am not satisfied, because of the vote of the Opposition, in the first instance, that this is not an attack on the Prime Minister and the Bill and a method of destroying the Bill in toto. That I cannot agree with at all. But I want to say this in regard to the position in the Cape Province. I have said this before with regard to the position in the Cape Province, as compared with other provinces, and I cannot understand, since we have had the Act of Union, why there should be this piece-meal legislation, because it is piece-meal legisation. I would like to give the details but I know I will be pulled up by Mr. Speaker if I give the details in regard to such questions as housing, licences, and health in the Cape Province, as compared with other provinces.

Order, order.

Yes, I knew I would be pulled up. Anyway I will leave it at that. But I do say this, that we must not wait until a crisis occurs. There is almost a crisis in Port Elizabeth now, not because the Indians are buying property only—and they are buying property—but because of other things, in leading unintelligent people in the way they ought not to go from the municipal point of view. I hope that our leader, the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, will in the near future see to it that we must of necessity bring the Cape Colony into line with other parts of the country in respect of Indian penetration.

But why wait?

I am prepared to wait because the Prime Minister is a much more experienced man in this respect than I am. I was going to say that he is a much more experienced politician, but I do not want to be a politician. I am prepared to follow him. He is a statesman and the best statesman South Africa has ever had to my mind. But I want to say that what the Opposition has said, has only proved to me that while in some respects they are correct, their main object in dealing with this matter, as they are dealing with it tonight, is an attempt to kill the Bill. But they won’t succeed,

It is remarkable to witness the conduct of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McLean), who has just sat down. Here we have an hon. member representing a constituency in the Cape Province.

He could no longer contain himself.

He says he wanted to talk about this subject before anyone had talked about it or had decided to talk about it. He got up and stated that the conditions were serious as far as the Cape Province was concerned. Not only is the position serious as far as the penetration of Indians is concerned, but also the position with regard to the purchase of land by Indians; and he referred particularly to his own constituency, the main town of his own constituency, namely Port Elizabeth. When he expresses the conviction that a serious position has already been created in the Cape Province and particularly in his constituency, he does not speak as a representative from whom his constituents can expect that he will adhere consistently to his convictions, if he does not support this proposal of the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer), which begs the Prime Minister to avail himself of this golden opportunity, since legislation of this nature is under discussion; he does not say that he supports us and that he will accept this motion with a view to helping us to solve his own difficulties for him. It also inexplicable to think that this step which the Prime Minister and his Government and his party have taken, this step to introduce legislation in order to put a stop to the penetration of Indians and to deal with the ancillary matters which are dealt with in this Bill, as framed, is an idea which occurred to the Prime Minister all of a sudden. This is not an idea which occurred to the Prime Minister at a moment’s notice. This step was taken after a long period of agitation, of concern and anxiety on the part of the Europeans in those parts of the Transvaal and particularly in Natal. I say it is upon their insistence that the Government was compelled to introduce legislation, and I want to express my agreement with hon. members and with the Government that the conditions have become almost untenable in certain provinces with regard to the penetration of Indians and the purchase of land by Indians. On that point this side of the House, in the circumstances set out by us, are prepared to assist the Prime Minister and his Government as far as possible to put a stop to that evil and, if possible, to exterminate it. But I want to put this question to hon. members of Natal as well as of the Transvaal; as a matter of fact, I want to put it to all hon. members on the other side who support the Government: If they are deeply convinced that there is a danger in Natal and in the Transvaal, as far as this penetration is concerned, if they want the Government to do something in connection with this matter, why are the members on that side of the House silent this evening, and why do they not support the justifiable request which is made by this side of the House to the Government that the same steps be taken in the Cape Province, where these undesirable conditions exist, possibly not to the same degree as in other provinces, but where the same conditions do exist; why do those hon. members not concern themselves about the fate of their own European brothers and sisters, and why do they not assist us to obviate the possible state of disorder and chaos which may come into existence here? We have reason to ask hon. members on that side what prevents them; why are they afraid to let the Government intervene in this province?

I want to come back to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and deal with what he said at the second reading of this Bill. He spoke in English, and I wrote down in this little book that portion of his speech which deals with the position in Natal, in the very words he used. At the back of his mind was the possibility of penetration and of dangers which may also be created in the Cape Province, dangers of the same nature as those which arose in Natal, and this is what he said; speaking in regard to the penetration in the Cape Province, he uttered the following warning—

He sounded this warning note—

There he refers to the Cape Province—

What did the member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) say just before that? Read that, too.

I am reading the exact words used by the Prime Minister. As a rule, you do not take any notice of what other members said. I ask the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) to pay attention to the actual words used by his Leader in this debate.

As a result of what?

As a result of the possibility of penetration and even as a result of actual penetration on the part of Indians and the purchase of land in the Cape Province by Indians.

As a result of whose interjections? You do not know English.

I say I am quoting the actual words of the Prime Minister. Ask the Prime Minister why he is so concerned about the position here; why did he issue such a serious warning in connection with the possibilities here? He will give that reply if he gives expression to the anxiety in his heart. He stated in English—

Can one describe it more seriously? He says we will have panic in this province.

He added: “If it should happen”.

He says fear will spread in this province.

“If that happens”.

The hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure) says, “If it should happen”. It has been proved over and over again that it is happening here.

The Prime Minister said: “If it should happen”.

Has it not happened? Does the hon. member deny that it has happened?

The Prime Minister added: “If it should happen”.

The hon. member does not want to give me a reply. The Prime Minister went on to say that fear will spread in this province and he says that Governments in the future will be placed in this undesirable position in which this Government finds itself today. In what undesirable position does this Government find itself? The undesirable position which has been created in Natal and in the Transvaal is due to the penetration of the Indians and the purchase of land in those provinces by Indians. That is the difficult position in which the Government is placed. And then we had hon. members like the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit) saying this evening that the law forbids the purchase of land in the Cape Province by Indians living elsewhere. I want to draw the attention of hon. members to the words uttered by the Prime Minister in his second reading speech. He stated that in the provinces of Natal and Transvaal we have had pegging and other laws but nevertheless these things happened there. The Indians themselves have broken those laws, and the Prime Minister turned to his side of the House and said: “And they have succeeded in a very clever and shrewd way in breaking those laws”. If it is true that there is a law in the Cape Province, which, to a certain extent, forbids Indians to buy land, is it not just as easy for that same community to break the law and to evade it in this province as they did in Natal and Transvaal? We find that an Indian marries a Mohammedan women. It is unlawful according to them, but an Indian marries a Mohammedan woman; he may be resident in the Transvaal or in Natal but he marries her and lets her come to Natal or the Transvaal, as the case may be. She may be living in Cape Town for example. She can then buy land for him here with his money in her name. That is the very type of evasion of the law to which the Prime Minister referred and which has been taking place in the past. I am merely mentioning an example to show how easily it can be done, and if that is the case I want to ask the Prime Minister, since he issued a warning in his second reading speech in regard to the dangers and the possibility of danger, why the Government cannot avail itself of this golden opportunity, since it is now putting legislation of this kind through the House, since it has become convinced of the dangers and the difficulties created in other provinces in the past and the possibility of danger of the same nature arising in this province—why, in those circumstances, does he not avail himself of this golden opportunity to avoid those dangers by merely adopting the course suggested by the hon. member for Humansdorp in his motion? I am sorry that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McLean) is not in the House at the moment. But I just want to quote something to show the Prime Minister what is happening already. In the “Eastern Province Herald” of 26th March, an Eastern Province newspaper, an advertisement appeared in these terms—

Scarcely had these people seen that it was proposed to put a stop to their penetration in Natal and the Transvaal and that legislation to that effect was going to be passed, or immediately they moved in the Cape Province, and at no other place than in Port Elizabeth, and they gave notice of a public meeting to take steps for a specific purpose, as set out in this motion. Is that not an indication to the Prime Minister of the direction in which things are developing even here in the Cape Province? If he does not want to take any notice of that, then I suppose no amount of talking, no figures and no statistics will convince him. In that case he has made up his mind once and for all that he is not going to yield. He is adopting this attitude: “I have gone so far with regard to this great problem, and you will not persuade me to go further, and you will not get my supporters away from me.” The Prime Minister stated that the people of Natal and the Transvaal had made a historical mistake. That is true. He says they made a historical mistake, and he says we have today become the victims of that historical mistake, whether it was by provincial governments or by the Union Government. I want to tell him again that with the responsibility he bears he dare not leave the situation as it is in the Cape Province; he cannot ignore the possibility of difficulties of that nature arising here, without lifting a finger to do anything about it. By merely issuing a warning he will not solve this problem. Warnings will not keep those people away from the Cape Province. He must take strong action. If it is right according to the view of the Prime Minister and according to hon. members on the other side to deprive the Indians in Natal and the Transvaal of so-called rights, why cannot they regard it as right that the same people be treated in this province on the same footing? These are the same people who are doing the same things, and we merely ask that they should be treated here on the same footing. In the Cape Province they already have the franchise, but we do not want them to do those other things which they are doing in the northern provinces, and we want to treat them on the same footing as the Indians in the northern provinces. I want to make an urgent appeal to the Prime Minister to avail himself of this opportunity to put a stop once and for all to this possible evil, if it not an evil already.

I am just rising to do what the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. de Kock) really ought to have done, and that is to bring to the notice of the House the resolution that his town adopted a few days ago at a big public meeting. Apparently the hon. member for Vryburg regards this matter, as far as his constituency is concerned, of so little importance that he will not even attend this debate. In any case it is as well that his constituents know this. I am doing now what he should have done, and that is to bring to the notice of this House the resolution that was taken by his constituents.

But before I do so I should like to refer to what the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit) stated here. He brought this House under the impression that Asiatics from Natal and prohibited immigrants may not purchase land in the Cape Province. I do not know why the hon. member did not make certain of the law before he spoke here: When you read out an Act in this House it is not right to read out merely one part of it and not another part that does not suit you. The hon. member read out Section 8 of Act No. 22 of 1913, which deals with the prohibiting of immigrants from purchasing land in the Cape Province. But for reasons of his own he only read the first part of the section and not the second part. What does the second part say? It reads as follows—

This means that the transactions that have been entered into will be null and void from the moment the person is regarded as a prohibited immigrant; and from what moment will an Indian from Natal be regarded as a prohibited immigrant? He is regarded as a prohibited immigrant from the moment he is in the Cape Province. So long as he is in Natal he is not a prohibited immigrant, and under Section 8 of the Act he is absolutely entitled to purchase land and they are in fact buying it in that way. The hon. member for Cape Flats is not in the House at the moment, but I want to say to him: Do not bring the House under a false impression when you quote the Act here. The fact is that under Section 8 (1 and 2) an Asiatic who is a prohibited immigrant from Natal may buy land in the Cape Province and it can be transferred to his name, but as soon as he comes here he is a prohibited immigrant and only then is the transaction null and void. What happens, of course, is that the Indians in Natal buy land here and allow it to be occupied by someone else. But furthermore, companies are formed and this the Asiatics are doing on a big scale. There is nothing in this Act that prohibits a company from receiving transfer in their name. I would just say this, that anyone who wishes to intimate to the House that a prohibited immigrant from Natal cannot own land in the Cape, let him read Section 8 of the Act.

The resolution that was taken at the public meeting at Vryburg on 15th March, 1946, is the following. I want to read it out here for the simple reason that it seems to me as if the Prime Minister is rather nervous about asking his department to get the figures for him. It is very easy for him to get the figures. He can ask one of the clerks at the Deeds Office to send them across. If other persons can get them he can also get them, but because the Prime Minister hesitates about obtaining the figures it is as well that we should bring to his notice resolutions of this character that the people have been compelled to adopt. I would like to confirm what has been stated here that when you visit certain towns in the Cape Province you cannot really believe you are in the Cape Province; you imagine you are somewhere in the East. Vryburg adopted the following resolutions—

The resolution reads that the meeting had learned with indignation of the following points—

1. 2. That this penetration of Asiatics as landowners has alarmingly increased, even into the most central European business and residential quarters in the heart of the town.
2. 3. That a continuance of Asiatic penetration amongst the white population is regarded as undesirable and cannot be tolerated.

Consequently this meeting protests with all earnestness against this penetration and against the purchase of land by Asiatics in our midst and submits the following request with all diffidence but at the same time in all seriousness:—To the mayor and members of the municipal council, to take effective steps without delay to ward off the danger of Asiatic penetration; and to send immediately to the Prime Minister at Cape Town a strong and influential deputation with instructions that seeing that legislation in regard to Asiatic penetration is being considered in the Assembly to protest with the utmost vigour against such Asiatic penetration and to urge on the Prime Minister that the Indian problem be regarded as a whole and that the Cape Province be added to the northern provinces in this legislation; also to urge for provision in the proposed legislation under which further Asiatic penetration will immediately be prevented with retrospective effect in regard to similar transactions that are pending.

This is the resolution that was adopted at a great public meeting in Vryburg. I assume this is one of the first resolutions of this nature, but I can imagine that in the near future a number of similar resolutions will be received by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister from various towns in the Cape. The people will come to him and complain to him about their distress. It seems to me that they will in an increasing measure complain to him about their plight, and that they will have to get another Government to pull the chestnuts out of the fire. Members on thé opposite side from other towns who apparently are going to vote against this amendment will hear from their towns. They will hear from them here and they will also hear from them when they return home.

I do not think so.

That hon. member will find that out. There is just one more point. The view was expressed that we should wait until the matter was more serious. In this connection I would refer to the report of the Broome Commission to show how suddenly the matter has developed in Natal. Look at that part of Durban where we have had the greatest penetration, and then we will see why the Commission drew attention to the fact that the matter had developed terribly. We can put the matter in this way, that seeing certain restrictions were imposed in Natal and the Transvaal there will be a flow of capital to the Cape Province and purchases will be on a larger scale and more rapid. These people are out to buy land. It is a preconceived plan, organised action. You cannot tell this House that these people have just bought land casually. This action of the Indians in Natal, Transvaal and elsewhere has been organised in recent years. It is their object to acquire as much land as they can. According to the Broome Commission this matter has developed with surprising rapidity. In their report, which is in the possession of this House, they have marked off in blocks how the Asiatics’ purchases have increased. Before 1927 the number of properties they owned in Durban was represented by one block. On the plan there is a black block, and that represents a certain number of properties. Between 1927 and 1940 it increased by 20 blocks. The Commission points out that between 1940 and 1943 the purchases in Durban increased with surprising speed. In those three years the number of blocks increased from 20 to 54. In other words, the position suddenly became acute. In these circumstances it is dangerous to say that one must wait until something also happens here. By the time Parliament assembles next year the Indians may perhaps have purchased on a large scale, and things can move very quickly. It is not right to tell the House we must wait. What surprises me is that the Prime Minister said that a future government must tackle this matter. In other words, there is nothing to expect from him. It makes one despair to hear that from the hon. member. I assume that he will not hold that position much longer, but something must be done, and why be so downhearted then as to say that a future government will have to do this? What the Prime Minister certainly can accept is that when the next government takes office, and one hopes they will come soon, and the people will see to that, the next government will accomplish this. But our point is that this is something that must be done immediately.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—40:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Brink, W. D.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stallard, C. F.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Noes—81:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit. A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Suter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Motion accordingly negatived.

I move—

Agreed to.

House in Committee:

Clause 1 of the Bill put.

I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 4th April.