I had intended to speak on this clause last night but had no opportunity of doing so. I want to deal with the question of the Board that is proposed to be appointed. We have already had experience of a Board entrusted with similar duties, and I think we are entitled to draw sound inferences from the way in which the Board appointed under the Pegging Act failed in its duties, and by comparison to suggest that more care must be taken in the choice of similar Boards in future. I want to indicate that the duties of the Board appointed under the Pegging Act were to advise upon the issue of permits, and there was an agreement between the Board and the Durban City Council that upon the issue of permits notification was to be sent to the Council so that they could report as to whether they viewed the proposed transaction favourably or not. Actually there was very serious neglect on the part of the Board to carry out that duty, and that neglect is commented upon in a statement by the estates manager, who pointed out that over a comparatively short period 104 property transfers took place of which the Council had no record of the issue of any permits; 104 transactions were allowed to pass without the Council being notified even that it was proposed to consider any such transactions, so that the Board in these cases—whether its neglect or failure was wilful or not, I am not in the position to say—did not do its duty, and it is monstrous that a public Board charged with a duty of that kind should have failed on 104 occasions to notify the City Council of proposed transactions between Indians and Europeans in respect of land. Then we come to the question of the area that has been allowed to be acquired by Indians, and official figures of the Durban City Council show that during the operation of the Pegging Act the area of land in Indian ownership crept up to 33 per cent. of the property in the borough. That is the sort of test that we can put to the credit or discredit of the Board, that under the regime the private ownership of land in the possession of Indians increased to one-third of the total area of Durban. In addition to that I want to indicate what has happened during the period of the Pegging Act in respect of fresh acquisitions of land by Indians from Europeans, under the very nose of this Board and under the nose of the Minister of the Interior. The Pegging Act came into force in March, 1943. In urban areas alone in 1943 the proportion of land bought by Indians represented the value of £659,374, compared with the value of £73,685 which Europeans purchased. Therefore the Indians outstripped the European purchase by hundreds of thousands of pounds. In the following year, 1944, the figures are almost as bad. The European only succeeded in buying from Indians £82,055 worth of property, but Indians bought from Europeans property to the value of £365,514, again outstripping by hundreds of thousands of pounds the value of the land bought by Europeans. If anything were needed to justify one in saying that one cannot trust the Boards, these figures are the very thing. They show that so far from our being entitled to trust these boards, we should be completely disillusioned and on our guard against them. The European population of Natal ought to realise that these boards are out to encompass their ruin, and let me say that that holds good for the farming areas as well. In the farming area, in 1943, the greater portion of the ground was not under the operation of the Pegging Act. Europeans bought only £6,185 worth of land from Indians; Indians bought from Europeans in the country farms amounting to £45,721 in value. In 1944 the position was much worse. Europeans only bought to the value of £3,305, which is probably the value of one farm, but Indians bought from Europeans £57,265 worth of farm property. That shows that the farmer, a peace-loving and quiet man, who does not wish to be embroiled in any trouble, has been living in a fool’s paradise and does not realise that his heritage is gradually being taken away from him with collusion and the connivance of the officials who had the figures and did nothing to draw attention to the Indian penetration going on. The Pegging Act stood almost for a complete discontinuance of transactions in Durban, yet at the very height of the operation of the Pegging Act these purchases mentioned by me were going on under the noses of the board and of the Minister. Outside the operation of the Pegging Act the Indians bought £57,000 worth of farms last year compared with £3,000 bought by Europeans, and in the Durban area, under the Pegging Act, £365,000 worth of town property was bought by Indians as compared with £82,000 worth bought by Europeans. [Interjection.] The hon. member says “sold by Europeans”. When a certain number of Europeans, identified with Indian trade, have sold ground to Indians in an area it becomes hopeless for the other people in that vicinity to resist any longer. It becomes quite impossible for anyone to stay there and to resist the Indian penetration that has set in and which will submerge the whole of that locality.

Europeans started the flood.

The hon. member said that Europeans started the flood. Europeans are not all 100 per cent. of the right type. There are many of them that are more than half Asiatic in their outlook, and they are the persons who first make a break in the united front and who largely are guilty of the penetration and responsible for it. [Time limit.]

I shall be brief. I just want to ask the Prime Minister whether he has considered the suggestion that I made last night that the board should consist of 5 members with alternates.

I also want to ask the Prime Minister whether he has given consideration to the suggestion I made last night that the period of office of the board should be restricted to 3 years instead of 5.

I have given careful consideration to both these additions but regret to say that I have had to turn them down. I will not go into particulars but I do not think that either of them is feasible.

I was dealing with the volume of transactions which took place and showing the penetrations which took place in certain areas. Let me mention that it has been ascertained that in 1945 Indians bought 585 properties in the Cape Province valued at £734,000. That shows that the penetration is going to menace Cape property owners and that the warnings issued about this are not founded on idle rumours. There you have the figures, and doubtless hon. members can be taken to see some of these properties which have recently passed into the possession of the leading Indians in Natal. They would then realise that I do not idly say that this danger exists. I regret that Natal is being subjected to an amendment of such an absurd nature as that introduced by the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure). Why should he be allowed to poke his nose into affairs that do not concern him?

Order, order. The hon. member cannot discuss that clause now. It has already been adopted by the Committee.

I am merely saying that Cape members of the United Party should not move such foolish and sabotaging amendments.

The hon. member must not reflect on the proceedings of the Committee.

Now, I was going to refer to the type of person who ought to be disqualified under this clause from being a member of this Board. After long experience I hold that members of the Public Service should be specifically disqualified from being members of the Board. Members of the municipal services should also be disqualified, and I maintain that members of Parliament, members of both Houses, members of town councils, and members of provincial councils should also be disqualified. Let me give an example of a man who in his time has been a member of Parliament, and a member of a town council and a member of the provincial council, and whose overdue dairy account for milk can be shown to have been paid by an Indian firm. Outstanding for many months and handed over to a collector to enforce payment, this account was finally paid by a wealthy Indian firm on behalf of the man concerned. There is the possibility of such a man being encumbered with debts to Indians, and that is a complete disqualification, in my opinion, to his being appointed to a Board of this kind. I maintain that the association of a member of Parliament and members of town councils in close relationship with Indians unfits them and disqualifies them from proper service on a Board of this kind. I recently instanced the case of a leading Durban legal firm having the names of their members printed on the letterhead of probably one of the wealthiest Indian firms in Durban as directors of that firm. I consider that to be reprehensible. Anyone would despair of receiving completely impartial treatment from Europeans who are associated in that way with Indians and who might be appointed by the Minister as members of that Board. I do most strongly object to the haphazard choice of Board members which the Minister can indulge in, and every right-minded man who wants to see the machinery of this Bill put above reproach will do the same. I am not going to move an amendment, but I am indicating what amendments should be moved to ensure the right people being appointed to the Board. I know that any amendment moved by me will be regarded as inimical to the interests of Indians, and therefore will not be accepted, and I realise that this Bill as framed is going to benefit only the Indians. The benefits to the European section are wholly illusory. They do not exist, and as far as the people of Natal are concerned they will only realise when this fully comes into operation how sadly they have been deluded over the real effects of the Bill. The wide powers possessed by the Minister’s Board have already proved to have been most detrimental to the interests of the European even under the so-called Pegging Act. When this Bill replaces the Pegging Act we shall find that will be the time for brisk business in the purchase of properties by Indians. There is nothing in the world to prevent it. There is everything to promote it and encourage it. And if the Minister will at this stage show his insistence on preventing undesirables from becoming members of this Board he would be taking a wise step. But I despair of that, and I shall save myself the trouble of moving the amendments that are necessary. I have indicated what they are, and I hope that the Minister even at this eleventh hour may agree to impose in this clause conditions which will make it impossible for undesirables to be appointed upon the Board. I wish to move the deletion of the clause altogether.

The hon. member can vote against it. He cannot move the deletion of the clause.

I prefer to move the deletion.

It Would be out of order for the hon. member to move it.

Do you rule me out of order?

No, I do not rule the hon. member out of order.

If I have the right to move it, I move it now.

The hon. member has not got that right.

Then you rule against me?

Yes.

So I have not the right to move the deletion of any clause; that is news to me.

May I point out that the clause is the question before the Committee and an hon. member can simply vote against the clause if he wants it omitted.

I have always been under the impression that I have the right to move the deletion, and I do so.

No, the hon. member has not got the right.

Why not move the deletion of sub-section (1)? That is what you want.

I do that. I am also going to move the deletion of all the other sub-sections. [Laughter.] I move—

The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) moves the deletion of sub-section (1) …

With your permission I would like to speak to my motion.

No, the hon. member cannot speak again. He has already spoken and there has been no intervening speech.

I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he is prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick).

The deletion of subsection (1) will achieve the purpose I have in view; if that is carried the Board itself goes west, which is the best thing that can happen. Sub-section (1) embodies the appointment of this objectionable Board, and I have indicated the objections to be of a very far-reaching character. I am aware, too, a very large number of people in the province of Natal share the objections I have expressed here today. They realise that the appointment of this Board will introduce an era of trouble for the landowners in Natal such as they have never experienced in their lifetime. Many of these people have, to my own knowledge, gone on the open veld when they first took over their farms. They have earned their farms by a system of purchase from the Government under guarantees that they could develop these areas without any restriction. Now there supervenes a menace such as was never contemplated when they entered into the agreement to purchase from the Government. I am speaking merely of the stage when they took over these farms from this Government. The origin of their presence there today goes further back than that. They went there and blazed the trail of civilisation. They established civilisation in those areas, and today those areas represent the homes of happy people. What we are engaged on today, though we may not realise it, is the destruction of the homes of these men and women. We have taken upon ourselves the right to trample underfoot the last will and testament of their forefathers who left them the lands they live on; and we now take to ourselves the right to say a Board on which two Indians may sit can grant a permit for the transaction to take place, or it can advise the Minister to grant a permit for that area to be turned into an exempted area where the Indians may have a free run and where they may persuade anybody to sell. Every cry that has been raised for the protection of the farming community has been in vain. We are confronted with the imminent threat of these lands passing into the hands of the Indians, and the farming community being dismembered and broken up by the methods permitted in every clause of this Bill. I regret this very much, and I hope there will be a sufficient number to vote in favour of my amendment.

Question put: That all the words from the commencement of the clause down to and including “of” in line 31, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—77:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

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.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

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.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

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.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—51:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Cilliers, H. J.

Conradie, J. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

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.

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, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van den Berg, M. 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.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Marwick negatived.

Amendment proposed by the Prime Minister put and agreed to.

Question put: That the words “of whom two may be Asiatics” in lines 32 and 33, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—80:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, H. J.

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.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

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.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

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.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—48:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

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.

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.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

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.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Potgieter dropped.

Question put: That sub-section (2), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—73:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

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.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

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.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson. R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—54:

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.

Cilliers, H. J.

Conradie, J. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

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.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Neate, C.

Nel. M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Sullivan, J. R.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Christie dropped.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Derbyshire put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—78:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

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.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

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.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Moll. A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

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.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—49:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

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.

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. F.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

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.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

On clause 11,

Last night the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) drew the attention of the Prime Minister to the danger of having a Board with such a quorum, and he foreshadowed the great danger there may be in having only three as a quorum. We would very much appreciate it if the Prime Minister will let us know what objection he has to the suggestion put forward by the hon. member.

I do not apprehend it as such danger at all. I do not think it is ever likely to arise, and I therefore think that we may pass the clause as it stands.

This clause is full of danger because of the inevitability of having a board that is wedded with the interest of the Indians. In that case the right to deal with any matter with a quorum of three is a very dangerous one. I think the quorum should be five, and I wish to move an amendment to that effect. I move—

May I point out that I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member. The principle has already been agreed to in clause 10 that the board shall not be more than 5, but may have less than 5 members, and if this amendment is accepted it will mean that it must consist of five. I therefore rule the amendment out of order.

Then I wish to move—

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 12.

I move the amendments standing in my name. These amendments have already been discussed and I need not elucidate them further. I move—

1. (2) Before advising the Minister as to any matter referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d) of sub-section (1), the board shall publish in a newspaper circulating in the district in which the land concerned is situated, at least once in each of two consecutive weeks, a notice setting forth the matter which is being investigated and inviting all persons who have an interest therein to lodge with the board at an address specified in the notice and within a period so specified (which shall be not less than ten days after the last publication of the notice) any representations in writing which they may wish to make in connection with such matter.
2. (3) If the Minister so directs, the board shall comply with the provisions of subsection (2) also in regard to any matter referred to in paragraph (e) of sub-section (1).

In the absence of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard) I wish to move the amendment standing in his name on page 451 in the Votes and Proceedings—

It is suggested that the second need not apply, or should apply; it is alternative. I think the intention of the amendment is to insist that this report shall be in writing. There has undoubtedly in the past been a great deal of slackness in the issuing of permits. The amendment proposed by the hon. member is designed to insist on reports being in writing, and if that is acceded to, we shall probably avoid transactions taking place without the authorities concerned being aware of what is going on, and the amendment is aimed at insisting upon documentary records being made in writing by the board.

I accept the first amendment, but I regret that I cannot accept the second one.

I want to point out that the Prime Minister’s amendment does not insist on the advertisement being inserted before the Board has come to a decision. I wonder whether the Prime Minister will make that plain.

No, it must be before; not less than 10 days.

First amendment proposed by Mr. Marwick put and agreed to, and second amendment proposed by Mr. Marwick put and negatived.

Amendments proposed by the Prime Minister put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On clause 14,

On the motion of the Prime Minister, an amendment was made in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English version.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On clause 17,

On the motion of the Prime Minister, an amendment was made in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English version.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On clause 19,

I would appreciate it very much if the Prime Minister would take the House into his confidence somewhat xis far as this clause is concerned, and tell us what his policy really is in respect of the Transvaal as far as areas are concerned where Indians can purchase land and where they can occupy, quite apart from permits which can be issued in accordance with clause 5 governing occupation. The position in Natal is now clear. In Natal you have exempted areas where an Indian can purchase land. In the Transvaal the Bill does not make provision for such exempted areas. On the contrary, under the Transvaal legislation specific areas must be proclaimed, and they cannot be proclaimed unless Parliament proclaims those areas. Thus in the Transvaal at the moment the position is that if areas are not specified where Indians can live and where they can purchase—take, for example, Nylstroom, where Indians reside in a certain section—this Bill will protect their occupation there, but they cannot extend any further unless they can obtain a permit. Supposing that at the moment there are 200 Indians in Nylstroom. They live in certain areas where they can reside, but after 10 years there may perhaps be 400 Indians. What happens then? If steps are not taken now to assign separate areas to them, it will mean that the Board will have to issue them with permits to penetrate among the Europeans everywhere. That is why I ask what is the policy of the Government as far as the Transvaal is concerned? To prevent permits being issued on a large scale to Indians to penetrate among the Europeans everywhere, is the policy of the Government to assign areas to them by virtue of existing legislation? Take, for example, the provisions of article 19 (5) of Act No. 3 of 1885. They read as follows—

I would like to have clarity on this point, for otherwise you will have chaos in the Transvaal, and you will have a Minister who will issue permits to Indians right and left to penetrate further among the Europeans. The second point upon which I would like clarity is this: Under the Transvaal legislation, even under the 1905 and 1936 legislation, the prospect of Indian townships was undoubtedly held out, as it is here. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he will tell the House whether it is also his policy to proclaim areas on the platteland in agricultural districts, where Indians can either live or purchase? Then I would like to know whether it is the policy of the Government only to proclaim areas for Indians in town areas—municipalities, town councils, etc.; and while asking the Prime Minister to enlighten us on this point, at the same time I want to urge him very strongly that the Government should not adopt the policy of allowing Indian penetration as far as farms are concerned, and of proclaiming areas in agricultural districts where Indians can purchase land.

That would be completely contrary to Act No. 3 of 1885.

That is my point. The Prime Minister must not forget that the provision of Act No. 3 of 1885 governing streets, wards, etc., is now being repealed, and now the word “areas” is inserted; thus it is no longer contrary to that provision.

I am speaking of the principle.

This legislation no longer mentions streets and wards, but areas. Thus the Government can also proclaim agricultural areas under this Bill, and it is on that point that I would like clarity and certainty from the Prime Minister.

The policy is perfectly clear. We are keeping to the spirit of the old provision of Act No. 3 of 1885, and, as the Committee knows, under Act No. 3 of 1885, in all cases wards and areas were not assigned which could have been assigned. What we are going to do is this: The Government’s policy is to keep to the old principle and where in connection with towns and villages it appears necessary to allocate separate areas, in that case it can be done in accordance with the provision as laid down here.

Town areas?

I am speaking of town areas. The extension of such areas on the platteland to farms is quite out of the question. This was never intended under the old Act of 1885. And there is not the slightest intention now of bringing about such an extension. We are keeping to the spirit of the old provision, and the allocation of such areas will take place in connection with municipalities and local authorities, in connection with our towns and villages. That is the policy. I think that it is right, and we are keeping to the spirit of the old Act of 1885. I move the following amendment—

I want to ask the Minister of the Interior a question and it is not just to aggravate him. I want a statement as far as the Witwatersrand is concerned. The one point on which the public of the Reef are very much interested is in regard to all the land under the Feetham Commission, land that has been divided and allocated on the recommendation of the Feetham Commission. My question to the Minister is this: If a certain stand or a number of stands are surrounded by Indians and the owner of those premises wishes to sell out to that community who predominate in that area, would it be possible for such an individual, with the consent of the local government, to obtain an exemption in order to get out of that area if he so desires? If the hon. Minister makes a statement to that effect it will do a world of good.

Is the hon. member speaking about proclaimed ground?

Yes.

Then the hon. member cannot discuss that under this clause.

Cannot the hon. Minister m&ke a statement?

I cannot allow it.

Tolerate me a few seconds. We are dealing with a Bill that is going to create separate areas. What I want to know is whether the spirit of this Bill, as far as concerns the creation of separate areas either for Europeans or Indians, can also operate in regard to land covered by the Gold Law.

Order, order. The hon. member could have raised that on the second reading, and the hon. member will have an opportunity of raising it at a later stage of this Bill, but under this clause he cannot do so.

Will you prevent the Minister if he wants to make such a statement?

Yes, I will.

I will not propose the amendment appearing in my name, for the scope thereof is covered by the Prime Minister’s amendment to clause 19.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 28,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 31,

I want to move the amendment standing in my name on page 492—

I should like to give the reason for my amendment to the House. Evidently exclusion of Syrians from the definition Asiatic is based on a decision given in the Appellate Division at Bloemfontein in May, 1913, in the case of Gandur, a Syrian living in Johannesburg who desired to have two plots transferred to him and registered by the Registrar of the Rand Townships. In the Supreme Court it was held that the Transvaal Law, No. 3 of 1885, laid down that members of the “inboorlingrassen van Azië” —“Arabs, Malays and Mohammedan subjects of the Turkish Empire,” cannot be holders of fixed property. The Supreme Court held that “inboorlingrassen” should be confined to natives of Asia and that Syrians were capable of holding property in the Transvaal. On the second reading I read an extract to the House which conclusively proved that the inhabitants of Syria were a mixture of Arabs, Kurds, Druses, that they had a Semitic countenance but were mainly Mohammedans. In this case Mr. Esselen, K.C., for the appellant said—

Mr. Lucas said—

Mr. Justice Innes said—

Mr. Justice Solomon said—

I take these extracts from the case to show that in 1913 the term “Syrian” was applied in the Appeal Court to a member of the so-called Assyrian race and that he was being described as white and a Christian. These people were the relics of a very powerful church at one time in the East, and they lived somewhere on the borders of Iraq, Iran and Soviet Russia, up in the mountainous districts, and up to 1914 they were in the Turkish Empire. They were overrun when Turkey entered the war, and they were dispersed and decimated. After the peace the League of Nations took these people, or the remnants of them, and settled them a little further east; but, on that failing, they determined to bring them back to Syria. Though there is nothing that says they are white, they are described as Christian, and it seems to me that in this definition of Asiatic the Bill says in this regard that the Syrians are considered as white and Christian, and for that reason they are exempted from the term “Asiatic” and included in the term “European”. That is what it amounts to. Whereas, possibly and probably, in the case of the so-called Syrian whose case was decided—it was the last case that appeared in the court—the judgment that he was white and a Christian and typical of all the Syrians, probably was a bad error. This man was an Assyrian and not a Syrian. That is my reading of the whole thing, and for that reason I move that the words printed in my amendment be omitted.

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

I have moved my amendment to include Syrians amongst Asiatics, and I submit that in view of what I have told the Committee it is very definite that the inclusion of Syrians in the same category as Jews and Europeans rested entirely upon two points, the fact that they were white and the fact that they were Christians. But what I want to submit is this, that a large number of Syrians are working as traders in the Transvaal and Natal, and if we are going to allow these people to act in the same waý as Europeans in buying and selling both in white and in exempted area, we are opening the gate to a very dangerous position. I have hesitated as to whether I should put my amendment in this form to include Syrians or whether I should allow Syrians to remain in the definition and add if they are white and Christians, but I came to the conclusion that the Minister would not care to include a religious point in this Bill, and therefore I decided upon the present form of the amendment. I do not think I can say much more to emphasise the point except that Syrians belong to a very ancient church which spread even as far as Sumatra, and there were at one time twenty-five bishops who owed allegiance to the head of that church, and that they were in Syria, in Asia, for centuries, and it was only the war of 1914 which scattered them as a result of which the League of Nations put them in Syria under the protection of the French Government. I contend that Syrians, as Syrians, should not be excluded from the term Asiatics. [Time limit.]

I hope the Prime Minister will accept this amendment. If we want to make this Bill effective it will be necessary to close every possible loophole for evasion, and we know that in the past the Indians in order to evade the law married Malay women and put property in the names of their wives, because Malays were excluded. Here is a definite loophole. I can foresee that many Indians would like to make use of the protection given to Syrians in order to evade the law. I think that my hon. friend has presented a very good case, and I hope the Prime Minister will accept this amendment.

I am sorry that I cannot accept this amendment. The hon. member proposes that Syrians be included in the general class of Asiatics, but our law, Our Statute Book, has excluded them for many years from the category of Asiatics.

Prior to 1913?

When was the first exclusion?

I think it was in 1919.

No, it was in 1932.

I have the Act of 1932 before me. But I believe it goes further back. The Act of 1932 says that Asiatics shall not include any member of the Jewish or Syrian races. Therefore, for a long number of years now that exclusion of Syrians from the class of Asiatics has been observed by our legislation.

Is a Syrian the same as an Assyrian?

Surely not. My hon. friend is a man of international repute and he should know.

I am only asking a question. What is the difference?

An Assyrian is really a Kurd or one of the tribes inhabiting Iraq, which consists of Kurds, Assyrians, etc., the people to whom Father Abraham belonged.

These people living in South Africa, what are they called? Assyrians or Syrians?

They are Syrians. Assyrians are dealt with as Asiatics, but the Syrians who live in Asia Minor and in Syria, on the shores of the Mediterranean, are considered to be Europeans.

Is it not the other way about?

No. I am surprised that my hon. friend is so at sea as regards their ethnology.

The average Syrian is an Arab.

No. That is the position. My hon. friend wants to exclude these people. They are not Asiatics but white people. In UNO, at San Francisco, I sat surrounded by Syrians, and they are almost as white as I am. Do not let us be drawn into this matter while dealing with Indians and Asiatics. It has been our law for many years and I cannot accept this amendment. We shall just open a new avenue of attack on this country and make a fresh batch of enemies if we adopt the proposal of my hon. friend.

May I draw the attention of the Prime Minister to clause 5 which says that persons belonging to one of the native races of Asia including the so-called Arabs and Mahommedan subjects of the Turkish Empire, cannot be owners of property?

What are you reading from?

The case of Gandur versus the Rand Townships Registrar.

That belongs to antiquity. What is the date of that case?

9th May, 1913.

Good heavens! That is before the flood. There have been two floods over the world since then.

May I stress the words “and Mahommedan subjects of the Turkish Empire”. Up to 1914 they were subjects of the Turkish Empire.

Were they Mahommedan subjects?

Yes. The test was that a man should be white and Christian, and not coloured and Mahommedan. It is on this ground that I put this matter forward for consideration, and I trust that between how and the report stage the Prime Minister will give serious consideration to it.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 32 put and negatived.

On new clause to follow clause 31,

I have an amendment which has already been debated or referred to very extensively in the House, the clause which deals with the northern districts of Natal, the old districts of the Transvaal, which are dealt with under the Transvaal Law of Act 3 of 1885. I do not think I need elaborate the matter further. It has been fully discussed already, and I just move—

32. The following section is hereby substituted for section fourteen of the Asiatics in the Northern Districts of Natal Act, 1927:

Agreed to.

On new clause to follow clause 36,

Just before we come to clause 37, I want to move an amendment which is not on the Order Paper. It is quite simple, but important, and I shall explain what it is about. I do not want us to repeat the mistake that was made in the law of 1919 which has been continually referred to. In the Transvaal Law of 1919 dealing with landholding we stabilised the position as it was then, the Indian position of land as it was in the Transvaal in 1919.

Protecting vested interests.

Yes. By an unfortunate oversight, we did not provide for registration of the position as it was then as regards Indian holdings in the Transvaal. We omitted to make that provision, with the result that in the year after 1919 that law, which was a good one, was not carried out, and it was not clear what were Indian holdings, what were vested interests, because no register was made of Indian holdings, and it was only in 1936 that the law was amended and a register instituted. That was 17 years later, and in the meantime there had been a great deal of transgression of the law, and it had become possible only because of the difficulty of proving the position, and it was stabilised in 1919. Now we are stabilising the position once more. We are saying that as from a fixed date a character is given to property, and property now held by an Asiatic will have its Asiatic character and will be considered as such in future. If it is not so held, then it is European, and will be so regarded in future. The legal position as regards landholding and occupation is stabilised as from the fixed date, but again we are repeating the omission of 1919, and we are not providing for a registration of the position as it is today, and the amendment which I am going to propose is this: in 1936 the omission of 1919 was repaired and a register instituted, and what I am going to move now is an amendment such as contained in the law of 1936, in which once more we are going to institute a register of holdings as they are at this fixed date. That register will settle the character of landholding and occupation, and in future that will be evidence. If we do not do it now, then, after 10 or 20 years, when you have to prove whether a property had an Indian or a European character in 1946, there will be no such evidence. If we provide for a register now, we will have evidence to establish the position in future, and there will be no doubt about the character of the holding or of the occupation, whether it is Indian or European. I am merely moving now an amendment corresponding to that which was made in 1936. I shall read it to hon. members. It read as follows—

37. Section fourteen of the Transvaal Asiatic Land Tenure Amendment Act, 1936, is hereby amended—

1. (a) by the addition at the end of subsection (1) of the following paragraph:
   1. “(e) a description of all land and premises in the provinces of Natal and Transvaal in respect of which the provisions of section four or five of the Asiatic Land Tenure and Indian Representation Act, 1946, apply, and which were, at the fixed date referred to in the said sections lawfully occupied by an Asiatic in terms of the said Act.”; and
2. (b) by the addition at the end thereof of the following sub-sections:
   1. “(4) If after a date to be fixed by the said Minister by notice in the ‘Gazette’, it appears from any register compiled under paragraph (e) of sub-section (1), that any land or premises in the province of Natal or Transvaal were at the fixed date referred to in section four or five of the Asiatic Land Tenure and Indian Representation Act, 1946, lawfully occupied by an Asiatic in terms of the said Act, that land or those premises, as the case may be, shall for the purposes of the said Act, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have been so occupied at the said date.
   2. (5) After the date so fixed under sub-section (4), any such land or premises not described in any such register shall, for the purposes of the said Act, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have been lawfully occupied by a European in terms of the said Act, at the fixed date referred to in section four or five of the said Act.”.

So what comes into this register will preserve its Indian character. What is not in the register will preserve its European character. That will be proof in future years that that was the character of the property at the fixed date. The provision now is made that this system shall have the same effect that the old register in the Act of 1936 had in that case, and it will be evidence in the future of what was the position at the fixed date; that is in 1946. I am sorry that by an omission this quite necessary bit of machinery was overlooked, and we were simply repeating a mistake we made in 1919 and had to repair it in 1936. We are repairing it by this section and establishing a register of Indian properties in the Transvaal and Natal, and it will be evidence in the future.

Up to what date?

The fixed date. That will be the evidence in perpetuity of what the original character of the property was, so there cannot be a dispute whether a property had an Indian character or colour in 1946 or not.

We cannot find fault with an amendment like this which makes provision for the introduction of a register. But my difficulty in this connection is—we have only just received the amendment and it is difficult to consider its full significance immediately—that it is an amendment to article 14 of Act No. 30 of 1936, and consequently it is not clear what machinery will be used to have the properties registered. It is provided here that the Minister must furnish a register, but that is not sufficient. As far as I can see, article 14 of the Act of 1936 makes no provision for how registration must take place. May I put it like this to the Prime Minister? Who must have the property registered, and say that a lease has not been registered; what will the position be? If a property is registered, or if a lease is registered, then it is easy, for the official can go to the Deeds Office. But there can be verbal leases, or leases for a short period which are not registered, and how is the official who is responsible for the registration going to obtain particulars? The Indian will have the registration done in his own interests, but will the registration official register such a lease merely because an Indian says he has a lease? No provision is made in the amendment stipulating what requirements have to be complied with. It is also not done in article 14 of Act No. 30 of 1936. One does not know exactly how the amendment will work. Must the owner receive notification, or what is the position? I will be glad if the Prime Minister can furnish this information.

We are dealing with the factual position. We know what properties are occupied at the fixed date.

My point is that you do not know.

It will be the duty of the Minister concerned to compile a return through his Department of all the occupation existing at the fixed date. It is the factual position which must be determined, and it will be done. Such a register will be operative in the future.

Will they also collect information from the person to whom ’ the land belongs, and not only from the person who says that he does not occupy the land?

That speaks for itself. The officials responsible for this matter will have to ensure that, where an Indian occupies land, he occupies it legally, and it will be registered. I do not believe that there will be any difficulty. We have a similar register under the Act of 1936, and this register can be compiled in the same way to serve as presumptive evidence in the future. We are now determining the character or colour of the property. The Department will be responsible for ensuring that cases of right of ownership or occupation are properly examined before registration takes place. If it is desired to consider this article more closely, then I am prepared to allow it to stand over. Unfortunately I could not place this amendment on the agenda, and I am prepared to allow it to stand over.

An Indian may perhaps register occupation on a property, and only five years later do I discover that he has done so.

I understand my hon. friend’s point very well. The register must reflect the legal position as it exists today. It must be accurate, and I think this will also be the case. If members desire a little opportunity of studying the amendment, I will be prepared to let it stand over.

I shall be glad if the Prime Minister and his advisers will also give attention to this point.

There must at least be publication and consideration of objections.

I move—

Agreed to.

On new clause to follow the heading “Chapter II; Representation of Indians”.

I wish to move—

1. 39.
   1. (1) The proclamation mentioned in section fifty-six shall not be issued before the Minister has ascertained by means of a referendum submitted to all the voters registered to vote for the election of Members of the House of Assembly and the Provincial Council in the Province of Natal that a majority of such voters are in favour of the principle of the representation of Asiatics in the said Province in Parliament and in the Provincial Council of Natal.
   2. (2) The Minister shall take all such steps as may be necessary for the holding of such referendum as soon as may be after the commencement of this Chapter.

The origin of this amendment is a meeting of voters that was held in the constituency of Umlazi and attended by approximately equal numbers of voters of the Pinetown and Umlazi electoral divisions, and at that meeting a resolution was passed stating that such electors had in no way been consulted in reference to the representation of Asiatics in Parliament, which was a new feature of our parliamentary system. It has not existed under Union before. The meeting resolved that they should ask for what they termed a poll of the Natal electors on this subject, and it seems to me this is a reasonable request that is brought forward by a number of electors who feel very strongly on this question of Indian penetration and the ease with which under the new Bill it will be possible for the Indians to be represented in every deliberative body in the country and to have a much more considerable voice than the aboriginal inhabitants of South Africa. In obedience to the request of those of the electors who are in my constituency I move that this amendment be now considered.

I am not able to put the proposed new clause as in proposing that a referendum should be held before Chapter II comes into operation it introduced a new and important principle not contemplated by the House at the second reading of the Bill and could consequently only be moved on an instruction from the House on motion after notice.

Shall I be in order in moving an instruction when the report stage takes place?

The hon. member can only give notice in the House after the Speaker has called for notices of motion, after prayers.

You have not replied to my question.

On Clause 40,

I wish to propose an amendment to this clause and it is based on the difference which exists as far as the franchise is concerned between the Indians in the Transvaal and those in Natal. You will remember, Mr. Chairman, that the Hon. Minister of Finance intimated that it is wrong to say that the franchise was refused to the Indians in Natal. His argument is apparently that because the provision regarding the franchise did not exclude the Indians in Natal from the outset, they could have obtained it, and that it was tantamount to a promise to the Indians when they arrived here in 1860 that they would ultimately obtain the franchise. I will not discuss whether that assertion is right or wrong except to read to the Minister of Finance the opinion of the Broome Commission on this point. The commission discusses the whole question of the position of the Indians who originally came in, and it quite rightly says that there was nothing legal to say that they did not have the franchise. But in paragraph 54 of its report, the commission gives a clear exposition of what the circumstances were, and it then comes to the following conclusion [ Translation. ]—

I will leave it there. Supposing now that the Minister of Finance is correct, and that in reality there was nothing in any case which prevented the first Indians in Natal from obtaining the franchise, then my point is that the position in the Transvaal is quite different. Since the arrival of the first Indian there, there has been a definite prohibition in the Constitution of 1858 as far as the franchise is concerned—he is definitely excluded from the franchise. Thus the Indians in the Transvaal cannot even advance the excuse of the Minister of Finance which he advanced for the Indians in Natal. As regards the position of the Indians in Natal, and those in the Transvaal, there is this statutory difference, and to make it applicable I propose the following amendment—

You will see that in terms of clause 40 the Prime Minister is giving the franchise to the Indians in Natal and in the Transvaal. Both classes of Indians will vote for representatives in the Senate and for representatives in the House of Assembly, but only the Indians in Natal will be able to vote for representatives in the Natal Provincial Council. At the moment, as far as the Provincial Council of the Transvaal is concerned, there will be nobody who will represent the Indians in the Transvaal’s Provincial Council, but I want to draw the attention of Transvaal members to the fact that the only reason why there is no provision at the moment for Indian representation in the Provincial Council of the Transvaal is because they are so few in number. The Prime Minister made this very clear.

Yes, that is correct.

In other words, one must then take it that if those Indians increase in number, the logical consequence will be— for they are excluded not on a point of principle, but in view of the fact that there are too few of them—that this Government will not be able to withhold from them the right which the Indians in Natal are now receiving. The only thing which is holding back the Indians in the Transvaal at the moment is the smallness of their numbers, but if their numbers increase and they increase so as to justify separate representation for Indians in the Transvaal Provincial Council, then in terms of this Bill as it stands now Indians will also have their representatives in the Transvaal Provincial Council. It is to prevent that position entirely that I say here that we must make the logical difference between the Indians in Natal and the Indians in the Transvaal. In the first portion of the Bill there are quite a few cases where a difference is made between Natal and the Transvaal. I am only asking that that difference should also be extended to this sphere, and there we have the moral and historical justification for it in that the Indian in the Transvaal never had the prospect or the promise of the franchise. Now you are going to give a small group of voters the right to vote together with the Natal Indians, for representatives here in the House of Assembly and also in the Senate. I am asking now that we should limit the right to vote for representatives in the House of Assembly and in the Senate to Indians in Natal. Let us exclude the Transvaal. Let the Transvaal be treated as a matter of principle, free from Natal. After all, a difference is made in other respects, and let us say now that the Indians in Natal can have this right, but not the Indians in the Transvaal. In other words, the three Indian representatives to be elected for the House of Assembly will be chosen by the Indians in Natal, and the Indians in the Transvaal will have no voice therein, and the same will apply with relation to the two representatives in the Senate; and if this is accepted, there is no danger that later on Indian representatives will get into the Transvaal Provincial Council, for then it is not only a question of numbers which excludes them. I think it is very clear that it is essential. I may still perhaps have an opportunity at a later date of saying something about the position of the northern districts of Natal. You know that, according to the definition of the term “Natal”, the northern districts of Natal are not included as far as the first chapter is concerned, and when we say that the Indians in Natal will have the franchise it must be the same definition for “Natal” which is applicable in the first portion, for as it reads now it is not automatically applicable to the second portion. I see that there is a great difference here between the English and the Afrikaans version. The English version says in paragraph 1—

While the Afrikaans version says—

No “chapter”.

No, that is not what the Bill says. I think it ought to be “chapter”. In any case, in my copy it says “wet”.

It is surely a mistake; it must be “chapter”.

Clause 1?

Yes, it must be “chapter”.

In any case, the English version says “chapter”, and I took it to be “chapter”. But when in Chapter II we speak of Natal, it must have the same interpretation which is given for the purposes of Chapter I. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I feel I cannot allow this clause to pass without raising my voice in protest as a representative of Natal. This is a complete innovation, and there is no mandate whatsoever from the people of Natal for the inclusion of representation by Indians on the Provincial Council. It is undoubtedly the thin end of the wedge if this clause goes through in its present form, and Indians are given representation on the Provincial Council. We have seen in the years that have gone by how the thin end starts and gradually expands, and it will eventually result in the swamping of the Europeans in Natal. I do not suppose it will stop at giving representation to Indians. We have something like 200,000 Indians in Natal, and over a million natives. What are the natives going to say? Are they going to be pleased by the fact that the Indians are given the vote, and if the Indians are given the vote, on what grounds can we refuse it to the natives? It means that the Europeans in Natal are going to be completely swamped. Then another feature is that the provincial councils have to legislate for the city councils, and it is fairly obvious that if the provincial councils has Indian representatives, in due course the towns will also have Indian representatives, and where is it going to end? We cannot foresee what the result of this is going to be. I take the strongest exception, as I said on the occasion of my second reading speech, to an innovation of this sort without any mandate from the people of the Province of Natal.

What do the Natal municipalities say?

Even Mr. Sastri said on this question of Indian franchise: “The question of Indian franchise is not practical politics; it cannot take place in our time,” and yet we have this Bill introduced proposing to give representation to Indians on the Provincial Council without any mandate from the people whatsoever. Now, if we want an expression of public opinion from Natal on this step, we have had it from the Combined Wards Association. As I have explained before, the Combined Wards Association was formed to deal with the Asiatic question, and when this measure was introduced by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, I had a wire from the Combined Wards Association stating that whereas they agreed with the intention of this Bill, they were decidedly against giving the franchise to the Indians in the Provincial Council.

What did the Natal Parliament say in 1896?

I don’t know. They certainly did not want to give the franchise to the Indians. I do not know what the hon. member is referring to, but as he is always making frivolous observations it really does not matter. I am sorry the Prime Minister was not here when I made my first remarks, and I say again that one cannot realise what this is going to lead to. It will lead to the swamping of the European in Natal as far as the Provincial Council and as far as municipalities are concerned, and if the representation is given to the Indians in the Provincial Council, what grounds can we have for refusing it to the natives? As I have said, we have an Indian population in Natal of 200,000, or perhaps a little more, and the native population is over one million, and nobody can say what can happen in the future if this House agrees to Indian representation on the Provincial Council. I do not know why it has been introduced, and I do not believe the Indians themselves have asked for it, and we are expected to vote for this step without any mandate whatsoever from the people of Natal, and as a representative of Natal I most emphatically protest against this section of the clause which proposes to give representation to the Indians in the Provincial Council.

We now come to the most important clause of the whole Bill, and it is one of the greatest political tragedies that the Prime Minister, who was one of the founders of the Union of South Africa, must start breaking down at this stage one of the old constitutional corner-stones of a heritage of the old Transvaal Republic. As one of the founders of the Union of South Africa, he knows better than anyone else in this House what the position was at that time. The four provinces accepted unification on certain conditions, and one of these conditions was that in the Transvaal Europeans only would have the franchise. Today we come along in this clause and we insert a provision which completely violates those conditions and breaks down the understanding under which the province of the Transvaal agreed to unification with the other provinces. The agreement of that time is now being infringed. The statesmen of the old republic, together with the Prime Minister, thought that that position would be maintained, but today it is being weakened without even the consent of that province, because the Prime Minister cannot and will surely not try to pretend that the population of the Transvaal has given its consent to the extension of the franchise to the Indians. The Prime Minister now comes along and tells us that one of these constitutional heritages of the Transvaal Republic has to be thrown overboard; it must be done away with—at whose request? At no one’s request. The Indians do not want it, and I maintain that if we should have a referendum in the Transvaal, the European population by an overwhelming majority would decide that we do not want the Indians in the Transvaal to have the franchise; we do not want to allow that. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) drew the attention of the Transvaal members to the fact just now, and I also want to point out to hon. members the danger threatening the Free State. If we do away with the constitutional heritage of the Transvaal Republic, cannot the same thing happen with regard to the Free State? Will it not happen one of these days or perhaps in the distant future in the case of the Free State, that the old Free State Law of 1890 will be treated in the same way as this Transvaal Act which we are now repealing? What will remain then? I maintain that this is an absolute violation; it is a breach of faith towards all of those who at the time agreed to unification on that basis, because now we want to change the constitution of South Africa completely by extending the franchise to the Indians in the Transvaal Province. I think it is time now that I told the Prime Minister in this House what feelings were expressed at a meeting in my constituency. It is my duty to communicate it to the House. This meeting in Krugersdorp adopted the following resolution without a single dissentient vote.

How many people were present?

The resolution was as follows—

That is not all. Hon. members know what repercussions it has had in different parts of the country. The Prime Minister is well acquainted therewith. The Prime Minister knows what the views are of the people in the province of Natal. He is aware of the fact that the Transvaal is opposed to the extension of the franchise to the Indians. I am asking the Prime Minister, therefore, with all the sincerity I can, not to proceed with this part of the Bill. The so-called philanthropists and liberalists and the people with a broad outlook are always ready to tell us that we should do justice to the minorities. But there is one mistake which a section of the Europeans in this country makes: we are too prone to force our standards, our attitude towards life, our views and ideas about governments down the throats of people who do not want them, down the throats of people who have never had them and who do not desire them. We are too fond of believing that our views of life should be forced down the throats of other people. Here you want to give the franchise to people who have never yet asked for it, who come from a country where democracy is totally unknown, people who are governed in a totally different manner, and now to say to them: we live in this manner, and we are going to force this way of living down your throats and you must do this and that. What will be the result if we give the franchise to the Indian. The result is going to be that we will get the position in this House at times where matters will be made impossible for the House of Assembly and for the Government. And the House must not think that there are no members in the United Party who are not totally opposed to the extension of the franchise to the Indians. I have here in my possession a document from a person who is highly thought of inside the United Party, a document issued by him in connection with these problems, and this person holds the same views expressed here by me. It is no other than Mr. Richard Barley. He drafted this document on this question and as a prominent member of the United Party he warns the United Party. He is opposed to this tendency in this pamphlet. As a prominent United Party man he warns the United Party against the tendency and he tells them: We can say what we like but the old Boer standpoint was the best. He was referring to the old Boer standpoint of the Orange Free State which fortunately is still being upheld there and which existed in the Transvaal when unification was brought about but which we now want to abolish. He says that one can argue as much as you like but—

He advocates this standpoint most strongly and I want to advocate it as strongly. Now I ask the Prime Minister, before he breaks down these old cornerstones which have become one can almost say hallowed, to pause and to ask himself whether he is now breaking down without even consulting them, the constitutional position which existed in the Transvaal which believed, in good faith, that the Union would continue on the same basis, whether he is doing that simply because he feels that he has a party at his command which is compelled to vote for it? [Time limit.]

It is perhaps a good thing to make it quite clear that we on this side will vote against the Indians in Natal or the Transvaal being granted the franchise. The amendment of the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) is merely intended, in case Government members attach any value to the reasons given by the Prime Minister for granting the franchise to Asiatics, at any rate to exclude the Transvaal to which those reasons do not apply at all and so to do the second best thing and to exclude the Transvaal. But it must be clear that we are voting against the granting of the franchise to Indians in Natal as well as in the Transvaal. I just want to move an amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges)—

The purpose of this amendment is to exclude the northern districts of Natal, together with the Transvaal, if the Government members do want to grant the franchise in Natal. As regards the proposal to grant the franchise to the Indians in Natal and in the Transvaal, our standpoint is against any granting of the franchise in the first place, because we are inexorably opposed to the non-European races from the northern provinces being represented here in the House of Assembly. We maintain that the power should be concentrated in the hands of the Europeans. And I may just say here that if the Prime Minister submitted this matter to a free vote, he would never get it passed by this House. There are English-speaking members in the United Party who after their experience of the native representatives in this House, said to me last year: “Strydom, what must we do to get rid of the native representatives in the House?”

There is even a motion to that effect on the agenda.

I am not referring to the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans) now, but to English-speaking members on the opposite side who make no secret of the fact that they are not only opposed to the granting of the franchise to the Indians in Natal but also in favour of the native representatives disappearing from the House of Assembly. Now what are the Prime Minister’s reasons? The hon. member for Fauresmith has already shown what the standpoint of the Prime Minister was. It is the standpoint of the Minister of Finance and also of the Prime Minister that the Indians are being deprived of certain rights in Natal and therefore they should be given a quid pro quo. The Indians have been without the franchise in Natal ever since 1896. Now the Prime Minister comes and tells us that he is acting in accordance with the principles of the Union constitution because, says he, in Natal the Indians have the franchise and they can even send a represetative to the Provincial Council. I said in the second reading debate that it did not behove him to use such an argument here because he knows very well that they were deprived of the franchise by the Natal Act and that only by way of exception an Indian in Natal can have the franchise. How strictly the Act has been applied is proved by the fact that at the present moment there is only one lonely Indian soul in Natal who has the franchise. To come along on the strength of that and to say that you are acting in accordance with our constitution in granting the franchise to the Indians in Natal, simply means that you are making fun of this House and the country. But what about the Transvaal? I want to ask my colleagues of the Transvaal: Of what right are Indians of the Transvaal deprived from a moral point of view by this Bill that they should be compensated in the form of the franchise? Of what right are they deprived? From the very first days of the existence of the Transvaal republic, it was laid down that only Europeans will have the franchise. The Indians never had it there. As far as property rights are concerned, the Indians only obtained rights of ownership by evading the laws of the country. As a result of that they managed to get hold of property in the Transvaal. That they took up residence amongst the Europeans is also due to the fact that the Indian with the assistance of England evaded the laws of the Transvaal. What we are doing today or what we hope will be achieved by this Bill with regard to restrictions in the Transvaal is in accordance with the spirit of the Transvaal legislation since 1885, so that from a moral point of view we are not depriving the Indians of the Transvaal of anything, and there is no reason why they should receive any compensation in the Transvaal. I cannot understand how people who say that they stand for a white South Africa can even vote for the Indian franchise in Natal. It is beyond my comprehension how representatives from the Transvaal and, moreover, people who say that they stand for the maintenance of the authority of the white man, can vote for this Bill. But as far as it affects the Transvaal I want to put this aspect of the matter: Will it stop at this? The Minister of Finance said that he accepted this as a first instalment. He is right. I want to tell the supporters of the Prime Minister that as far as that is concerned, the Minister of Finance does not stand alone. He has the support of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said that he was not at present giving representation to the Indians in the Provincial Council of the Transvaal owing to their numerical strength not being large enough. In other words, if the Indians in the Transvaal increased, then the second instalment will come. The Prime Minister has now sacrificed the whole principle by this statement. He does not see any reason why the Indians should not also have representation in the Provincial Council of the Transvaal, but at the moment their numerical strength is not large enough yet. Later, therefore, if this clause is passed, the Indians in the Transvaal will have to get the franchise, and today we only have the first instalment. The second and third instalments must necessarily follow. Let me tell the Prime Minister in his own words or in a parody on his own words: “Step by step the policy of the Prime Minister will lead the European population to its grave.” The hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Friend) smiles. He can get up and tell me for what reason the franchise is being given to the Indians in the Transvaal. They are intruders from outside. They did not come here because the Europeans brought them to the Transvaal, but they intruded, and right from the beginning they were unwelcome guests in the Transvaal. If the franchise is given to the unwelcome guests, there being only 25,000 Indians in the Transvaal, on what grounds will the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance be able to refuse if the Indians in a year or more come along and ask for representation in the Provincial Council, because their numbers would then have increased. There would be no grounds for refusing, and if the franchise is granted to 25,000 Indians, what justification will there be for withholding the franchise from 100,000 other non-Europeans in the northern provinces? The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) recently tried to throw a smokescreen by saying that there were very few coloured persons in the Transvaal.

That was Gen. Hertzog’s policy.

Whether it was Gen. Hertzog’s policy or not has nothing to do with the matter. It is not our policy. It is not the policy of my leader. If hon. members on the opposite side want to put the blame on the late Gen. Hertzog for having proposed such a Bill at one time, they might as well say that the policy of the present Prime Minister is that all natives and Cape coloured persons should have the franchise on an equal basis with the Europeans, and that even the native women in the Cape should be given the franchise, because that was his policy at one time. Just as one cannot say today that the policy of the Prime Minister is to give the franchise to native women and coloured women, so one cannot say that the policy of the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) is to give the franchise to the coloured people in the northern provinces simply because at one time that was Gen. Hertzog’s idea.

I want to show the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) what the analogy of his argument is. I merely want to remind him that he supported the Government which prided itself upon the application of democratic principles as regards the European franchise. I want to remind him that he springs from a race, as I do, that prides itself on the fact that where there is a coloured person who springs from one of the original European races, he shall be regarded for all purposes, and particularly for the purpose of a franchise, as a European. The application of that principle with regard to the colonisation of the Dutch colonies in the Netherlands Empire has been fundamentally applied, and we need go no further than to say that never in the application of coloured prejudice has there been any prepudice to a coloured person holding even the highest possible office of State under the Netherlands Government. I merely want to remind him of a certain Van der Stel, who came to this country and occupied the highest position of State as a coloured man.

What has that got to do with the Indians?

I merely want to follow the hon. member as to whether it will be right, if applied to this country with regard to Indians, it should also be applied to coloured.

All right, sing away.

I shall deal with Indians. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg) and also the member for Waterberg said the same thing. What right have these Indians to come from a country where they have no democratic rights whatever, and where they never had the right to exercise a civilian franchise, to ask for it in this country where we are democratic? The hon. member said that we in South Africa are a democratic people and that we are prepared to grant democratic citizens’ privileges and franchise in this country, but because we are prepared to do that we justify our democratic constitution by denying these fundamental democratic rights to people who do not enjoy them in their land of origin.

And who do not really want them.

I really want to reply to the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt). That hon. member told us that for 92 years we had the Indians and denied them the fundamental rights of citizenship.

He did not say that.

The application of his argument was to that effect.

Do not put words into his mouth.

I will put arguments into his mouth. I want to remind him of the application of his argument. Does the hon. member deny that democratic rights were denied to the Indians in Natal?

Of course.

The hon. member does not know what he says. The hon. member knows that a law was passed in Natal in 1892, whereby a certain phraseology was introduced into the Natal Parliament for the sole purpose of denying the franchise to the Indians. There were Indians in Natal with full franchise and right of citizenship, but a law was introduced which used all the subtlety of the English language in order to deny to the Indians their democratic rights of exercising the privileges of citizenship and of voting, on the very arguments that the hon. members for Waterberg and Krugersdorp now use.

No Indians who had the franchise were deprived of it.

Read your law.

Read the Brougham report.

We are denying the franchise to the Indians by this law. You deny them the franchise by virtue of the fact that we are democratic, but were not prepared to extend it to people who came from a country where they did not have it. But they have it now.

Where? In India?

Those who can qualify have it.

Why should there not be qualifications here?

Are hon. members prepared to grant the franchise on the Common Roll if it applies to only 10 per cent. of the Indians?

I am quite prepared to let India do to us just what we are doing to the Indians.

The hon. member is begging the question. An ordinance was passed disenfranchising Indians who were on the roll.

No Indian was disfranchised.

Thousands were debarred from coming on to the roll; and these democrats are prepared to justify that. So long as they are prepared to use the arguments they do use, for heaven’s sake do not let us pride ourselves on being a democratic State. Let me say in conclusion there is no wider conception of the democratic principle than is given to the European section of our people in South Africa.

The hon. member who has just sat down was very concerned about our Dutch ancestors and about the traditions of Simon van der Stel and the Hollanders who came here. We have laid down our own policy here in South Africa. It was laid down not by our ancestors from Holland but by our own Voortrekkers and our own forefathers who were the builders of South Africa, namely, that there should be a proper separation between European and non-European. As a result of this policy which was laid down by the Voortrekkers, and which was also largely followed by the English settlers in 1820, we have the position in South Africa that we have remained a white country. If we had not followed that policy, where would South Africa have been today? It would have been a second Mexico, a second Honduras or a second Guatemala. Regarding the provision that Indians will be given representation in Parliament, that is nothing but a “sop”. The Prime Minister is not giving it only to the Indians but also to his colleague, the Minister of Finance. I am convinced that in spite of the shortcomings which have appeared to exist in the so-called segregation part of the Bill, if this second part of the Bill had not been included, then even the Minister of Finance with his elastic conscience could not have swallowed it. What is given here to the Indians is what is called a “sop”, but it is one which they do not want themselves. They are throwing it back into the face of the Prime Minister. Even before this proposal had been published a conference of Indians was held here in Cape Town and at this conference it was said—

The Indians themselves do not want it and they are throwing it back into the face of the Prime Minister and now he comes along and asks the House to pass legislation to give to the Indians something they do not want and also to lay down a principle here creating a new position which will have a far reaching effect upon the structure of our Parliament. We have had experience of that kind of representation, namely the native representatives over there. It did not take long before it was evident that these native representatives were sitting here not only to represent the natives but as the self-appointed representatives of all the coloured sections in the country. Now the Prime Minister comes along and he asks us to allow more of these people into this House in order that a larger block of people will be formed who sit here not as representatives of the natives or of the Indians, but of all the coloured sections in the country.

Why not?

Why not! It is bad enough having them here. It is still worse to have an extension of the principle here which has proved to be a bad principle and a bad experiment. We are continually hearing of coloured conferences being held, especially under the auspices of the communists, at which it is said and advocated that a coloured political front should be established. I am telling the Prime Minister that through this proposal of his he is contributing to this idea of the formation here in South Africa of a coloured political front under communist leadership. We have had the experience that one of the representatives of the natives in this House, the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) agreed some time ago to become a director of the communist paper, The Guardian, and it was only after we had pointed out in a Nationalist paper that he had become a director of a communist paper such as The Guardian that he suddenly resigned from the Board of Directors. He wrote a letter….

I think the hon. member is now getting too far away from the clause.

In all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I am showing how we are getting a coloured front under communist guidance. I am pointing out that one of these race representatives in this House has already shown his communistic tendencies and I will still show how the Indian representatives will reveal the same tendencies when they come to this House. He then wrote a letter to The Guardian to the effect that he had resigned because, after having made enquiries, he had found that the political affiliations of The Guardian made it necessary for him to resign. The editress of The Guardian added this footnote to his letter—

We are going to have the same thing here. It is a well-known fact that the Indian Congress of Natal—and now I come to the point on account of which I put it to you that I was in order—is under communistic guidance and is dominated by Communism. Any member from Natal will tell you that. We can accept it as a fact that if the Indians get this representation and they send three representatives to this House, we will have three communistic representatives here and I can tell already who one of them will be. That is the danger I see and which we on this side of the House see. It is still more than that. It is not only the extension of a bad principle, but it is the thin end of the wedge. We have to do here with the thin end of the wedge, because further demands will be made in the first place by the natives in the country. They will point out that they number 8 million and they get three members, whereas the Indians who number only 250,000 also get three members. But we will also get demands from the coloured people and natives in the Transvaal, Natal and the Free State. We will get a further extension also with regard to the representation of the Indians in the public bodies of Natal and the Transvaal. It is a wrong principle. We have had the experience with the three native representatives, and we have seen where it leads to. We have seen that the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) admitted that she suggested at the Indian conference in Cape Town—

I put the question to her at the second reading whether she meant by that the “backing” of the Government of India and she admitted that she did mean that …

That was one of the things.

It is in Hansard. I looked it up. She admitted that she meant by that the “backing” of the Government of India. I say once again that the fact that one of the three native representatives has the presumption at a conference of Indians to suggest that they should call in the assistance of an overseas government, shows how bad this principle is which the Prime Minister today wants to extend to the Indians. We are going to fight this principle; we are going to fight this proposal. We are opposed to it because it is not in the interests of South Africa; it is not in the interests of the white race; and it is not in the interests of the maintenance of the white civilisation in our country.

I do not think that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister appreciates the feeling that exists in Natal that the franchise for Indians is being forced on the European community of Natal against their will. That is the position. It was expressed at a meeting held only a fortnight ago at Scottburgh. I was at a delegate meeting from practically every local authority along the South Coast and from inland, from the local authorities themselves, as well as representatives of the South Coast Voters’ Association. This delegate meeting was converted into a general meeting so that everyone might have an opportunity of voting, and the one thing emphasised there by old and young—and there were several young ex-soldiers there— was that Natal had not been consulted and that they wished to be consulted.

The first resolution submitted was that everything should be deferred until the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has visited Natal and heard what they had to say to him, but as it was coupled with a desire that I should throw out the Bill I had to show them how impossible it was and that it lay in the hands of the Prime Minister whether he should consult Natal; and the resolution was not passed.

May I remind the hon. member that the principle of this clause has already been accepted at the second reading and the hon. member must confine himself to the details of the clause.

It is my intention to move the deletion of the words from (b) to the end of the section. We have already permitted the representation of Indians in the Senate, but that can be done by nomination in the same way as the native representatives who are nominated to the Senate by the Government. That could be accomplished without any new Bill at all. That confines Indian representation to Europeans. When it comes to the provision in this Bill for the eligibility of Indians to be elected to the Provincial Council of Natal, then I say that a crowning indignity is being heaped on the head of Natal which will be resented by everyone in Natal without exception. It has been stated that Natal’ has been consulted through the Natal Municipal Association. When this was raised one of the members of the executive started to read the resolution which was passed after the Prime Minister had taken that executive into his confidence, and this member of the executive was immediately tackled by other members of the executive as to whether this had occurred at a special meeting. He said: No, that it was the ordinary meeting of the executive. He was asked: Was the matter on the agenda for the meeting? He replied: No, it was not, and several members of the executive representing other authorities had not attended for reasons of economy. They had no idea that this sort of thing was to be broached or that such a resolution was to be passed, and it was entirely repudiated by these members. They maintain they had not been consulted.

I have already ruled the question of a referendum cannot be discussed.

I am not talking about a referendum.

No, but the hon. member is talking about consultations. The hon. member must come back to the details of the clause.

The details of the clause are that two members shall be elected to the Senate, three to the House of Assembly and two to the Provincial Council of Natal. It is very evident from the wording of the clause that originally it was intended this representation should be in the Provincial Council of the Transvaal as well, but it was common knowledge—at least, I heard it—that the members of the United Party in the Transvaal and the members of the Provincial Council came to the Prime Minister and said: This is not going to happen. They were powerful enough in numbers to impress the Prime Minister. In Natal we are limited by the size of our European population, and we have only 16 members in Parliament, and some 25 members in the Provincial Council, so we have not the same influence on the Prime Minister as those 50-odd members of the House of Assembly, a large part of them from the Transvaal. Why should Natal be singled out for this representation in its Provincial Council, and why should the Indian be made eligible to sit in the Provincial Council when that is expressly cut out in the Transvaal? It is quite evident that the desire of the Prime Minister to have this Bill put on the Statute Book has been imposed on the members of his own party, and so far as the Cape and the Free State and the Transvaal are concerned, they can look on at the bonfire and enjoy the flames. We in Natal have to be burned up. We are the bonfire, we suffer the indignity. We are the people who should be considered and are not being considered, and God help those members of Natal upon whom the will of the Prime Minister has, I think unwillingly, been imposed in their case. Surely they cannot be in favour of this representation both in the Provincial Council and in Parliament when the Transvaal is excluded. I hope that Natal will also be excluded from the operation of the clause, and I move my amendment as follows—

The acceptance of this clause 40 brings South Africa to one of the most important occurrences in the history of South Africa. It is truly one of the great decisions in the history of the European race of South Africa, in the life of the whole nation of South Africa, in the history of the entire relationship between European and non-European in South Africa. Particularly with regard to the relations between Europeans and non-Europeans in South Africa, the acceptance of this clause will be one of the most dangerous occurrences in the history of South Africa. I cannot help feeling that the lights are beginning to dim over South Africa; that is why it is the attitude of this side of the House that we reject this clause in its entirety. We want nothing to do with it. We do not want the Indians in the Transvaal to have the franchise, and in the same way we do not want the franchise for the Indians in Natal, nor do we want it for the Indians in the whole of South Africa, because we realise the implications which are going to flow from this Bill. When we look at the implications, we make the definite assertion that on this 11th day of April, 1946, we are in the process of selling South Africa’s birthright for a plate of lentil soup.

Order, order. The hon. member is now making a second reading speech. The hon. member is discussing the principles of the Bill which have already been accepted at the second reading. The hon. member must confine himself to the details of the clause.

I am merely pointing out the implications of the clause. I say it is the attitude of this side of the House that we reject it in its entirety, and our reason is that during the past few hundred years South Africa has been guided by one definite policy, the policy of separatism, the policy of a Christian guardianship. I say that South Africa has been guided by that policy, and as the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg) correctly pointed out, in the past three hundred years South Africa has accomplished what no other country in the world has accomplished. If ever there has been a policy which has justified itself before the tribunal of history, and which has even justified itself according to the highest form of ethics, if, is this very policy. By means of clause 40 we are rejecting that policy, and South Africa is being led out of that period of bright daylight over the threshold into a period of darkness. I say that this is a very dangerous step in regard to which we are deeply perturbed. I do not want to say much in regard to this subject. I just want to repeat what we have said, that we reject this clause in its entirety in the name of the people of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the unwillingness of the Government to accept responsibility for making provision for franchise on a common roll, even with maximum safeguards to preserve European trusteeship, still further entrenches political artificiality in South Africa. We are then compelled to discuss the question of communal franchise and to examine its effects upon South Africa. It is desirable in my mind, and here I am fortified by Press statements made from time to time by responsible political statesmen in the country, that it is desirable in South Africa that the position of the Government, rather than being based upon a racial position, should be a position based upon economic factors which lead to healthy political circumstances in the country. These communal franchises tend to promote unhealthy politics in the country, and racialism tends towards artificiality in politics.

Order. May I remind the hon. member that there is nothing about communal franchise in this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak on this particular clause in relation to what follows it, and I intend to propose an amendment to the clause which will be followed by consequential amendments, and in order to provide a basis for the suggestion for the amendment I propose to move, it is necessary for me to examine the economic foundations upon which representation is to be based, and my submission is, Mr. Chairman, that we can only have a healthy political relationship if that representation is based upon economic factors, rather than upon racial factors.

I think it would be better if the hon. member moved his amendment first, and then spoke on the clause.

Very well, I will do that. I move—

The consequential amendment which would necessarily follow is that two senators would be nominated and two would be elected.

Order, order. May I point out to the hon. member that that does not raise the question of the communal franchise.

No, but on it rests the whole basis of political representation, the desirability of having representation on a healthy basis, representation based upon economic factors rather than purely upon racial factors.

Order. That is something the hon. member could have discussed at the second reading.

The point that I am coming to is the distinction, the difference, that exists in the Transvaal as compared with the position in Natal, the racial composition of the Indian community in the Transvaal as compared with the Indians who live and reside in Natal.

Order. I think it will be more proper if the hon. member raises that matter on the next clause. I think it is more relevant to the next clause than to this one.

I am only dealing with the question in relation to the election of senators. I cannot even raise a question in regard to the election of members of the Assembly, because the Bill provides for representation in the Assembly for the Transvaal Province and two representatives for Indians in Natal. The point I want to come to is that in the Transvaal the economic basis of the Indians is quite different from the economic basis of the Indians in Natal. With few exceptions, the Indian community there are of a trading class. There are a few exceptions, there are a few in the tailoring trade, but in the main the Indians in the Transvaal belong to the merchant and trading class. In Natal the circumstances are entirely different. By far the greater majority of the Indians in Natal are not of a merchant class, but are workers engaged either in sedentary occupation, engaged as employees in commerce, or are engaged in industrial occupation in factories and the like. Consequently, if we are to have healthy politics in South Africa, the basis of political representation should be on the basis of the economic existence of the people who are being represented, and if Indians are to be represented in the Senate, then my submission is that the details of this Bill should provide in such a way that there will be healthy political representation, and my amendment requires that there should be two elected senators, one for the Province of the Transvaal, for the reasons I have outlined, and another distinct representative for Natal, where the economic foundation of the Indian community is quite different and quite distinct from that in the Transvaal. We hear quite frequently members of the House, and people outside, pleading for the poorer Indians, and the fact that the poorer Indians and their interests are not sufficiently represented in South Africa. There are differences of opinion in the political organisations which exist for the Indian community, and particularly in the present Indian political organisation, the South African Indian Congress. The attitude and conception of members of this Congress are quite different in the Transvaal to what they are in Natal, and in Natal quite recently there has been a distinct change in the leadership of the Indian Congress, based on the distinct differences of outlook that there are amongst the Indians in Natal as compared with those in the Transvaal, and the reason for it is, purely and simply, that the mass of the Indians in Natal are occupied as workers, they are completely proletarianised, and as such are quite distinct from the Indian community in the Transvaal. For that reason and with the object of having healthy representation if Indians are to be represented in the Senate, it is advisable that there should be a demarcation between the Transvaal and Natal. There should be a separate senator for the Transvaal and a separate senator for Natal. When this Bill was being discussed, before it was actually presented to the House, it was generally said that the Bill was to give similar representation to the Indians as is enjoyed by the natives. The Government spokesman, through the Press, strongly urged the acceptance of this Bill on the ground that it was giving to the Indians similar franchise as has been given to the natives. Now, if that argument is to hold good, then the representation should be made the same as is given to the native. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, perhaps the most extraordinary thing about this clause 40—and I think it may be of some comfort to the Prime Minister—is the manner in which it has been received by the people of South Africa. There has hardly been a single meeting of protest throughout the Union, as far as one can find out by reading the newspapers.

The newspapers suppress news and refuse to tell you about the meeting of 1,000 students in Pretoria.

The hon. member has not given me an opportunity to speak. I have gone out of my way—and of course it has been difficult—to try and find out how many meetings there were. With the exception of a meeting, worked up by the Nationalist Party, of the students in Pretoria, and the meeting which was held by my hon. friend in Krugersdorp, with a very small audience, I can find nothing to show that any meeting has been held in South Africa to protest against this particular clause. There was a good deal of shouting from the other side, and by the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) and they spoke of the “mense daarbuite”, but the “mense daarbuite” have been very very quiet. [Interjection.] That hon. member, when I interrupt him, appeals to the Chairman. I am not appealing to the Chairman. I am saying that that is so. If he wants to interrupt me he can do so, I can interrupt as well as anybody. I believe South Africa has accepted the principle that the Indians should have the franchise in this country.

You are wrong.

I may be wrong, but I challenge the hon. member to tell me how many meetings have been held in his constituency. Has a meeting been held in the constituency of the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz). I ask any of my hon. friends over there if any meetings have been held in their constituencies. No country rises more quickly on the question of colour than South Africa, but the country has been quiet and peaceful over this clause. My friends in the Dominion Party say that there are people in Natal against it, but the Natal associations have adopted this Bill, and what is more, the Leader of the Dominion Party voted for the whole principle of the Bill, which included clause 40.

No.

Oh, yes. Now, I do not want to speak at any length. I know the Prime Minister must be getting tired of hearing speeches. But I want to say this. General Hertzog laid down the principle of giving franchise to the coloureds, but he did not live long enough. If he had, the coloured people of the Transvaal would have got their vote. The principle he wanted on the Statute Book was that of a general franchise on an educational basis, and if the changes had not come in South Africa that would have happened. It will happen in any case, but there are so few coloured people in the Transvaal nobody is worrying about them. It will come in the course of time. In the course of time the coloured people will have the vote. The natives has the vote in the Transvaal today. He can vote for the Senate and for members of Parliament. It came through the Nationalist Party. I think it is a very good idea indeed.

They cannot vote for Parliament; they vote for the Senate.

The Senate is Parliament, but some hon. members do not seem to realise that. My point is this: I would like to see Indians represented by Indians, and I agree with the hon. member for Beaufort West that if a white represents the Indians, you may get an unfair representation in this House. I believe it would have been a good thing in South Africa—although I have the greatest respect for the three members who represent the natives — if the natives had represented natives, and Indians represent Indians. With the feelings of Indians today for India, and the feelings of India for South Africa—they are very anti-British—it is quite possible that if Indians represented Indians they would sit on the Nationalist benches. They are republicans and anti-British. If the people of the Transvaal are so against this particular clause, why is it that at the election which was held yesterday, where the Labour Party spoke against this clause for all they were worth they were at the bottom of the poll and the United Party won the day? It cannot be said the Provincial Council elections do not express political opinion. They do. A Provincial Council election today is based on general national politics. Here we had an election yesterday and the United Party came out with flying colours.

With flying colours? Your majority dropped from 3,000 to 700, and yet you call it flying colours.

You are satisfied with very little.

If this Bill has shown one thing it has showed that the Labour Party is hopelessly divided. They have nine different policies for the Bill and the member at the back there has the tenth.

I hope hon. members on the other side have duly noted that the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) says that the representatives of the Indians in this House must be Indians and not Europeans. Let us assume that hon. members leave the House to have tea or coffee; would they be prepared to share a table with the Indians? Or have they really become completely colour blind on the other side, and do they not care what becomes of the European civilisation? In any event, if this clause 40 is passed and if the Indian is given the franchise, we shall be giving him a weapon to demand more and more rights. Have hon. members considered what the position is going to be if the party no longer has a big majority? We will then have the three native representatives and three Indian representatives, a bloc of six, and they will be able to rule this House as they please; and if they have the balance of power they will promote the rights of the Indians by using their vote in this House. Hon. members on the other side must realise what they are doing if they accept this clause. The hon. member for Hospital went on to say that the public outside is altogether quiet. I want to give him the assurance that they are so shocked that they do not even want to discuss this matter, because they do not expect it of this House. The House itself, the other side of the House, is so divided on this matter that if hon. members were given a free vote, only a small minority would vote for this Bill.

The hon. member may not discuss the principles of this Bill, but must confine himself to the details of this clause.

We shall now have three more representatives of the non-Europeans in this House. The non-European bloc is becoming stronger. We have seen in the past what trouble we have had with the native representatives.

What trouble?

We know what influence they have exercised on the platte-land with the result that the natives are demanding more rights than ever before. I recently met a deputation at which the leader of the Baralongs was present, and on that occasion they demanded more and more land on the strength of their franchise. They say it is the duty of the Government to give them more land. They are demanding it. It is no longer regarded as a concession from the European population. The same thing will happen in the case of the Indians. Because of their vote, they will demand more and more rights in the Transvaal and Natal, and they will make more and more demands even in this House, and finally they will demand the right to flock into the Free State, which has been free of Indian penetration up to the present. I hope hon. members will use their common sense, and that they will not vote for this clause.

I do not think it is worth while replying to the arguments of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow). As usual, he made an attack on someone and then ran away; but his colleagues who are in the House can convey to him what I have to say. He said that the world outside and the Afrikaners want to give the franchise to the Indians, and he referred to my constituency. In that regard I want to issue an open challenge to him to hold a meeting in my constituency on this matter. He can organise a meeting in my constituency, and I shall remain here. He will come away from the meeting disgraced and ashamed, and he will never dare to show his face there again. When the Rt. Hon. the. Prime Minister spoke during the second reading debate he stated, inter alia, that there were many other problems in this country, and that this matter which is contained in the second part of the Bill is not extremely urgent. He said: “Let us leave these matters to future generations. They are not so urgent. There are many other difficult problems which have to be solved.” That was the Prime Minister’s reason for allowing things to develop. He wants to leave everything to be dealt with by future generations. But we must see to it that these matters do not develop in such a way that future generations will be faced with the difficulties with which we are faced today. We as representatives of the people must realise our responsibilities; we must realise that we are not here in our own interests, but to pass measures for the future which lies ahead; and we cannot deal with these urgent problems in an indifferent way and leave them to be dealt with by posterity.

The hon. member must come back to the details of the clause.

I am doing so. Hon. members on the other side are now going to vote for this clause. One of the members on the other side had the courage to speak, namely, the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen). He shields behind democracy, and because we are a democratic people we cannot refuse, according to him, to give democratic rights to the Asiatics. I think the Prime Minister will agree that most countries in the world are not yet agreed as to the meaning of the word “democracy,” and the members on his own side do not know what it is. Is it democracy when on the other side you have a number of hon. members who are in the position which was described to me by one of the hon. members in these terms: “From the time I walk up the steps of the Houses of Parliament democracy is dead in our party because we have to bow and scrape.”

I must again ask the hon. member to deal with the clause. We cannot have a second reading debate all over again.

I just want to outline the motives which prompt hon. members on that side.

The hon. member is entitled to deal with the details of the representation, but only with the details.

If you will permit me, I should like to quote from a pamphlet which indicates what the policy of the United Party is with reference to this matter.

Not if it relates to the principle of representation. The hon. member may only deal with the details of representation, as contemplated in this clause.

It affects the principle very closely indeed. I hope you will allow me to quote it.

I cannot allow it.

I have not yet read it.

But the hon. member said beforehand that it affects the principle of granting the franchise. The principle has already been accepted.

This clause makes provision for the representation of Indians in this House and in the Senate. I want to associate myself with what has been said by hon. members, and point out the danger contained in this clause. If we accept this clause, it means in the first place that in giving representation here and in the Senate, as well as in the Provincial Council of Natal, the principle of separatism in South Africa is being destroyed. We shall then no longer have the right to refuse the franchise to any coloured race in the north. In the second place I want to know what right we have in this House to give the Indians the franchise and to refuse to give it with regard to the Provincial Council of the Transvaal. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister stated that it was only being refused at the moment on account of the small numbers of Indians. But once we have reached this stage, what is there to prevent the representation of Asiatics in local authorities? Nothing. We want to ask the Prime Minister what South Africa is heading for. In this House we have three native representatives, and we know what propaganda is made amongst the coloured races. We are now going to have another three representatives of the Indians in this House, and a great deal more harm is going to be done. I think it is time the Prime Minister realises the danger to our country in giving representation to different races. As my hon. friend here said a moment ago, “The lights will be extinguished over South Africa.” For that reason I ask the Prime Minister in all seriousness to prevent this policy from developing further. We cannot say that we can allow things to develop and then leave it to posterity to find a solution. The Prime Minister has come close to the end of his career. If he is still concerned about the welfare of future generations, let him accept these amendments which embody a sound policy for the future.

In moving in the direction which would make it possible for separate representations in the Senate for the Transvaal and Natal Indians, I want to make it clear that I am not moving for an increase in the representation in the belief that the increased representation would be of any greater advantage to the Indians as a whole. Nothing can alter the fact that the basis of representation is phony, because for every elected member the Government would nominate a senator who could neutralise the effect of the elected senator, and for that reason, if for no other, that type of representation remains phony. But what is advisable—and this is what I am submitting—that it should be made possible to make the representation as near as possible to the realities in South Africa, and for this reason I submitted the amendment which I put forward. Now, there is an additional reason why we should make possible, or as near as possible, representation which is based upon realities, and in this respect I want to deal with the arguments raised by the Prime Minister. He first of all said that the basis of representation is classified because that is what happens in India, but two blacks do not make a white, and two wrongs do not make a right. It is hardly a justification to say that this type of representation should be adopted becausce they have it in India. The features of communal franchise in India is the very sort of thing that we should seek to avoid in this country. A franchise based on communal franchise will develop religious differences in South Africa. The religious differences which pertain in India have up to the present moment been fairly absent here. There has been no evidence of clashes amongst, the Indian community based on religious differences, but the communal representation which now throws all the Indians together, to dissociate them from the very economic group to which they belong must inevitably in the course of time foster religious differences within the Indian community, because religious grouping largely conforms to economic class grouping. There is another reason why this is dangerous. The Prime Minister said that we are giving the Indians the same type of representation as the natives. It is true that they are being given something very similar to that type of representation. Now, whatever justification there may be for putting the Africans on a communal basis, the same reasons cannot possibly apply to the Indian community. The Africans in this country are almost completely proletarianised. The very fact that they are denied land and property rights makes almost the whole of the African community a proletarianised community. There is relatively no bourgeois class amongst them. So on the basis of their economic interest they can with some justification be represented on a communal basis, but the position with Indians is quite different. The Indians have property rights and there is a capitalist class within the community and also a distinct working class, and the economic interest of the capitalist class is not identical with the interest of the working class, even though they be of the same race or religion, and for that reason we are consciously promoting artificiality in politics in South Africa, something which to my mind should be deplored. There is no reason why they should not have an additional number of representatives, particularly when the number of representatives in the Senate is offset by nominated Senators by the Government, and in that respect I would like to call the attention of the House to a statement which was issued by the Durban Joint Board in which they were almost cynical regarding the representation of the Indian community. They accepted the fact that on a communal basis there was some representation, but there was a high water mark, and they were limited in representation, and knowing that limitation existed they said it was a matter of indifference to them how many Indians were put on the roll if they had communal franchise. They were not the least bit concerned in the knowledge they were hemmed in and bound by certain limits beyond which they could not pass and they take the view the Prime Minister would not be acceding anything if he accepted the amendment which I have submitted, and I believe it would be a desirable conscientious act on our part to stick as far as possible within the framework of this Bill, to political representation which is related to economic reality rather than to racial or religious divisions.

When one looks at this clause, one involuntarily asks oneself what influenced the Prime Minister in deciding on these numbers as the number of representatives of the Indians on the various bodies? There can be no doubt that the Prime Minister decided on these numbers as a solution of the Indian problem, but as far as I can understand from the telegrams sent to members of Parliament, the Indians are absolutely dissatisfied with the representation which the Prime Minister proposes to give them in this clause. Members of the Nationalist Party are absolutely opposed to giving representation to the Indians. Members on the other side tell us in private conversation that they share our views on this matter. No one regards this proposal as a solution. Why then does the Prime Minister want to put it through the House? One of the members of Johannesburg said that the Prime Minister was very keen to do this so that he could show at the overseas conference what he had done for the Indians. If that is the case, there is all the more reason why we should oppose it. The reason why I personally am against the numbers mentioned in this clause is the experience we have had of the representatives of the natives in this House. Can it be said that the fact that the natives sent three representatives to this House has solved the native problem? I make bold to say that in sending those three representatives to the House, the position has been made worse. The Prime Minister now comes along with precisely the same proposal to give three representatives to the Indians. When one looks at the newspapers and the new problems which have developed because of the presence of the representatives of the natives in this House, the Prime Minister must admit that it is not going to contribute to a solution of the Indian problem to give them three representatives in the House of Assembly. I think our experience of the three native representatives has convinced us that we made a mistake in the past. The Prime Minister stated that we must not make the same mistakes that we made in the past. The Prime Minister has been dealing with this Bill for a long time, and I suppose by this time he must be tired, but I should like to hear the Prime Minister’s honest opinion. What, in his opinion, is going to be the result of this if he remains in power for a long time; or in the event of a change of Government, is this proposal going to make the position easier for us in the future? I think the Prime Minister must agree that it is not going to make the position easier for us, and since that is the case, why is the Prime Minister proceeding with this measure? It will not facilitate the position in the House. It will not facilitate the position in the country. Twenty-five years ago the non-Europeans were allocated three rows of seats at the back of the trams. There was only a third-class coach on the train for them. Today we are faced with difficulties on the trains which the Minister of Transport says he cannot solve. Everywhere we find problems with which the European has to contend, problems that did not exist previously.

The hon. member is now straying too far from the motion.

Here the Prime Minister is starting with three members in the House of Assembly, two in the Senate and two in the Provincial Council. I mention this example to show how these things begin on a small scale and then assume greater and greater proportions. The position is becoming all the more serious, and we want to ask the Prime Minister therefore not to set the ball rolling. The other steps that were started on a small scale were also taken in the name of justice and democracy, and today the position is more serious than it has ever been previously. I hold very strong views on the colour question. Once we start making concessions, we have to go further step by step, and the position of the’ European in South Africa becomes impossible. I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister: Why is he giving the franchise to the Indians in the Transvaal and Natal? Surely he has seen that the people do not want it. The Prime Minister also wanted to give the Indians representation in the Provincial Council of the Transvaal. He withdrew that because he saw that the people did not want it. It must now be clear to the Prime Minister that the Nationalist Party, the Dominion Party, the Labour Party and even the S.A. Party do not want the franchise for the Indians. There is not a European who approves of the principle underlying this clause. I want to ask the Prime Minister to withdraw this clause even at this stage for the sake of our country and nation.

I rise to emphasise what has been said by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom). We on this side are definitely opposed to the franchise being given to the Indians in South Africa. We are definitely opposed to the franchise being given to the Indians in Natal—that country which is soaked in the blood of the Voortrekkers. I am sorry that the Prime Minister has deviated so far from the traditions of our forefathers that he is now giving the franchise to the Indians in Natal. He said: “Yes, but we have to pay the penalty for the sins of our fathers.” They brought the Indians to Natal and it is necessary, therefore, to give the franchise to the Indians. I want to point out that that is not a sin which can be laid at the door of Natal. The Natal Government protested from time to time against the importation of Indians. They did not want to give the franchise to the Indians in Natal, but the Imperial Government interfered on every occasion. But the Prime Minister is going so far as to give the franchise to the Indians in the Transvaal. He cannot accuse the Transvalers of having sinned as far as this matter is concerned.

The hon. member cannot discuss the principle; he may only deal with the details of the clause.

That is precisely what I am doing. Surely it is necessary for me to refer to and to go into the matters which are relevant to this clause. If I am not allowed to do so I shall not be able to speak on this clause at all. As far as the Transvaal is concerned we cannot be reproached that we in any way gave our approval to the importation of Indians and to the franchise being given to them, because we find that in the very early days, as early as 1858, the Voortrekkers in the Transvaal passed their Constitutional Act for the Transvaal Republic, and in section 9 of that Act it is stated—

That indicates how strong the feelings were in the Transvaal. When this Act was passed there were no Indians in the Transvaal. By 1885 there were Indians, and the Transvaal Republic then passed the Act of 1885. In Section 1 of that Act the term “Asiatic” is defined, and it is defined as follows—

And it is further laid down—

In other words, from the very early days the Transvaal insisted that the franchise should not be granted to the Indians. It was further laid down in the same Act that they could not become the owners of fixed property in the Republic. The South African Republic was not prepared in any circumstances to depart from the policy of maintaining European civilisation, and I am extremely sorry that the Prime Minister has deviated so far from the tradition of our forefathers that he now proposes to give the franchise to the Indians. I am sorry that the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) is not here. He stated that no protest meetings have been held in the Transvaal. It is true that no protest meetings have been held. It is not our object to make a hullabaloo, but that protest will be recorded when the first general election is held; and not one of the Transvaal members on the other side will then return to the House. That will be the way in which the Transvaal and the country will lodge their protest in connection with that challenge on the part of the hon. member for Hospital. He went on to refer to what he described as the brilliant victory of the United Party in the election on the Witwatersrand. What sort of victory was that? In the previous election they had a majority of 1,300. At the Provincial election their candidate was elected unopposed and the majority has now fallen to 700. In spite of that the hon. member refers to it as being a wonderful accomplishment. If we are to regard that as progress, the Prime Minister may as well write “finis” to his chances on the ether side.

As someone representing a Transvaal constituency, I would certainly be failing in my duty if I did not voice my strong protest against this clause. The Indians are now to be given representation in this House, and they are to be given direct representation in the Provincial Council of Natal. We must not lose sight of the fact that this will apply only to a section of the Indians. In the Cape Province the Indians vote together with the Europeans. In that way they are given strong representation in Parliament. There are various members in this House who have Indian voters in their constitutences. We have seen in the past what difficulties are caused by the representatives of the natives, and also the direction in which they are working. Together with the three members representing the Indians, there will be six members in this House representing the coloured races and they will form a bloc. Apart from those six members, there are another eight or ten members on the other side who allow themselves to be influenced by the coloureds and who will also stand by the coloureds. We know what their attitude is. We listened a moment ago to the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) and we know what his attitude is. Then we have the member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge); we also know what his attitude is. There are various members on the other side who hold the same views and who will vote with the six members representing the nonEuropeans. The result will be that we shall have a strong bloc in this House. I cannot but protest against this. We in the Transvaal are not happy about this position. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) stated that no protest meetings have been held but the voters have chosen their representatives in Parliament and they have a certain amount of confidence in them. If a meeting were to be held in my constituency in regard to this matter, I do not believe that the members of the United Party, the S.A.P.s, as my hon. friend on this side says, would vote for this clause. I believe that this is the thin end of the wedge. I believe that here we are taking a step with which posterity will be bitterly dissatisfied. I associate myself with the other members who have voiced their strong objection to this clause. It is a step in the wrong direction.

I am sorry the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) is not in his place. It is typical of the hon. member to make an unjustifiable attack and then to find it convenient to adjourn for tea. That is always happening, the hon. member for Hospital makes an attack and then runs off. An hon. member complained that the press was not giving the publicity they should to this debate and the hon. member for Hospital interjected that it was receiving ample publicity. That is characteristic of the press control favoured by such members as the hon. member for Hospital. They advise the newspapers what it is necessary to publish and the papers will not publish the other side of the story. It was also stated that the hon. member for Maritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard) was quite in agreement with the provisions of this section, which makes provision for representation in the House of Assembly. That is what the hon. member who has just come in, stated.

I said he voted for the general principle of the Bill.

The hon. member distinctly stated that the hon. member for Maritzburg (District) was in favour of this section. He said: “Therefore, my reply to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) is, as I say, I would not oppose Indian representation in the Senate.…”

By an Asiatic.

He goes on: “I do not think that representation could be given in the House of Assembly.” The hon. member for Hospital said representation by Indians. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) said: “I would not mind that at all myself in the Senate.”

Do you agree?

What is the difference?

One would like, when the hon. member for Hospital makes these accusations, that he would kindly see that there is some semblance of accuracy in his remarks, because it is definitely misleading.

Do you agree with Indians in the Senate?

When the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) makes it perfectly clear that it is dangerous for the future of South Africa that there should be Indian representation in the House of Assembly, I hope the hon. member for Hospital, if I am allowed to say so, will not twist the words of that hon. member. He advocated many years ago that Indians should have representation in the Senate.

I should like to say a word before you put the amendment. Here we have a clause making provision for the representation of Indians in Natal and the Transvaal by two Senators in the Senate, and by three members in the Assembly, and by two members in the Provincial Council of Natal. Here we have a matter of supreme importance, a matter affecting the provinces of Natal and the Transvaal. Sitting over there are hon. members representing the Transvaal and the hon. members from Natal, and one would have expected them to have an opinion on this important matter. It does affect the question of the representation of Indians of the Transvaal and Natal in the Senate and in the Assembly, and the representation of the Indians of Natal in the Provincial Council. They do not say a word about that. Have they then no views on the subject? Not that we attach too much importance to their opinion—but still, one expected they would voice their opinion. Sitting over there is the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie). He seems to be reading. Has he an opinion on this matter?

You seem to be talking.

Does he not mind? Does it not concern those members that we are now relinquishing a principle that was laid down in the province of the Transvaal in the days of the Voortrekkers? I speak now more as a “Kolonialer”, as the Transvalers call us.

As a “Kapie”?

But that hon. member is certainly not a typical Transvaler. If the hon. member for Rustenburg is a typical Transvaler, then I can only say that I as a Colonial am sorry for the Transvaal

He is a citizen of Papbroek-land.

Now I want to put this further question. Have their voters no opinion on this matter? Why do they not speak on behalf of their constituents on one of the most important matters affecting the Transvaal province? We must come to the conviction, sad but true, that the muzzle has been placed on every one of those members. There sits the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo). Has he no opinion on this matter?

They are zipped.

No, they are sitting there with their mouths full of teeth, but they do not say a word.

I have a better opinion than you.

Oh, yes; then why does the hon. member not voice his opinion? The hon. member says he has a better opinion than I have.

You are only playing up for another post in Europe.

Let the hon. member for Pretoria (District) stand up and voice that better opinion of his. Let us hear what it is. Let the hon. member for Rustenburg stand up and voice his opinion. Have they no opinion, or does it not matter to them? No, it is a sad sight. [Laughter.] The Prime Minister laughs. The Prime Minister may well laugh, because he has placed the muzzle on them.

It is not sad for me, but it is sad for you.

Hon. members have seen the drawing of the three monkeys. One sits with his hand in front of his mouth, another sits with his hands placed against his ears, and the third sits with his hands covering his eyes. They see nothing, they hear nothing, and they say nothing. This depicts the strong and powerful United Party. There they sit muzzled, and the Prime Minister laughs at them. Look how he laughs at them! They are muzzled and masked like those monkeys. This is the position of the Transvaal members in connection with this matter.

Mr. Chairman, if these are some of the arguments to which I have to reply…

A very negative one.

I cannot deal with all the points raised here. We have had what is probably the longest debate in Parliament on the second reading within my memory. Sixty-six members spoke, covering all the points of principle which have been raised this afternoon. They have gone from one point to the other. No new point has been raised here at all. We have simply had a confession of faith and of defeat.

Faith on this side and no faith on yours.

No, conviction. [Laughter.] In any case, Mr. Chairman, if I had to reply to these arguments you would rule me out of order. We are simply repeating what has been discussed, repeating the points raised, the principles argued, at the second reading, and I do not think it is necessary for me to refer to any of these matters of principle which have been raised here in the debate.

I would just say a last word to our friends from the Transvaal. I am not entirely indifferent to the Transvaal. Though I do not represent a Transvaal constituency, I am an Afrikaner, and the interests of the Transvaal are also my interests as an Afrikaner, but I would just say this to those hon. members. [Interruptions.] I may tell that hon. member that I was born in the Transvaal, in the Transvaal Republic.

I know about that.

All right. I do not believe in retailing idle gossip here. I only want to say this. If this amendment that I have proposed is not accepted, a dark shadow will hang over the Transvaal and tomorrow or the next day or within a measurable period representation will be given in the Transvaal Provincial Council to the Indians.

Hear, hear.

The hon. member says “hear, hear.” Does he speak for his party? Will the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) also say “hear, hear”? Will the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Maré) also say “hear, hear”? Will the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. H. J. Bekker) say “hear, hear” to getting Indians into the Transvaal Provincial Council?

I did not say “hear, hear.”

I am now addressing people who still realise that we have a white South Africa that we consider it is worth while preserving for posterity. This dark shadow is threatening and will remain over the Transvaal unless this amendment is adopted, because this amendment goes to the root of the position as far as the right of the Indians in the Transvaal to the franchise is concerned. They have never had that right. From the first day they entered the Transvaal they realised that under Section 9 of the constitution of the Transvaal that it was impossible for them to get the franchise. They have not had the franchise there from 1885 to the present day. Now we are going to let them in. Not in the Provincial Council of the Transvaal to start with, oh dear no, it is nicely glossed over, the pill is sugared. They will vote with the Indians of Natal for representatives in the Assembly and in the Senate, but the Provincial Council of the Transvaal as the Bill stands is excluded. But the Prime Minister has admitted today that although the Indians are excluded from the Transvaal Provincial Council it is on account of the small number of Indians there, not the principle, and if you accept the principle that the Indian in the Transvaal may vote for representatives in the Assembly and in the Senate then he will vote for representatives in the Provincial Council if his numbers are large enough. And if he votes for the Provincial Council he will vote for an Indian in the Provincial Council, and if hon. members on the other side wish to banish that cloud that hangs like a dark shadow over the Transvaal there is only one way, and that is to vote for the amendment we have proposed. If they are prepared to throw Natal to the wolves, if they are prepared to say: “This does not affect us, the Indians can get the franchise there,” in heaven’s name try to keep clean what is still clean, and that is the Transvaal.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) has stated in the course of this debate that no protests of any kind have emanated from the public since this Bill came under discussion. Does the hon. member wish to assert that the Prime Minister did not tell him about the telegram that he received from Pretoria? Does he wish to intimate that the Prime Minister kept him in ignorance of that telegram?

Where is the telegram?

If the hon. member does not know, it is obvious how ignorant the outside public are in regard to the Bill. If the hon. member does not know, how are the public to realise what is taking place under this Bill? One knows that members on the other side of the House did not know what the Bill contained until such time as it came into Committee; only then did they realise for the first time the implications of the clauses. The hon. member for Hospital now wishes to intimate that the general public must be aware of the provisions of this Bill. I maintain the public do not know, and if the public did know you would have had protests from one end of the country to the other. But the public are being kept in the dark. The Prime Minister has no doubt already observed that the barest minimum of the arguments and the significance of the various clauses, as discussed here in the House, have been reflected in the Press, and you know that the English Press have devoted themselves specially to putting blinkers on the eyes of their readers. The day that the province of Natal knows about these clauses with which we are now occupied, they will join hands with the Transvaal and make their protest in this House. The public will not be grateful when they realise the full implications of this Bill, and when you hurl a reproach at them today that they are holding no protest meetings, I say it is because they do not realise the implications of the Bill.

Why have you not explained them to the public?

My leader has stated clearly that the question of demarcation is one thing, but the question of representation to the Indian is a horse of quite a different colour. There were leading articles which made it quite clear that on the question of demarcation, if it was carried out on a reasonable basis, would enjoy the support of the whole country, but that the question of the franchise being granted to the Indians was a horse of quite another colour. It is our bounden duty, seeing that violence is being done to a constitutional principle bequeathed to us by the Transvaal Republic, to advise the public of the implications of this Bill, but the Prime Minister is resorting to this blitz debate to pilot the Bill through the House without delay and before the people realise what the Bill really contains.

If there was still free land in South Africa we should again have the position that we had in the Cape Province in 1836 and there would be another great trek to the north, and the reason for that new trek to the north would be not an Owen Phillips but the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance would be the cause of that trek. I shall come presently to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow). I have something to say affecting him, but let us be honest in this House, let us be honest with the people. The discussion in Committee of the first chapter of this Bill has shown that absolutely nothing has been taken away from the Indian in South Africa and I support the amendment of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) to the full. If we have not taken anything away from the Indian then we owe him nothing, and why should we give him the franchise in South Africa? Why should we give him something he never had before? In 1899 we fought a war against Britain. That war was fought, as the British will tell you, because we would not give the uitlander the franchise. Here we are again dealing with uitlanders. The Prime Minister at that time was one of the people’s leaders, and after Bloemfontein and Pretoria were occupied by the enemy of those days he launched another campaign and thousands of Boers were shot. If that was his principle in those days why did he not yield then so that the lives of these people might be spared? Here is another reason why we should not give the vote to the Indians. So far as I know there will be between 7,000 and 10,000 Asiatics who will get the vote. We as the European population are only entitled to one member in this House for every 10,000 voters, but we give the Asiatic one member to every 3,000 voters, and if we carry on in this way, if we lay down that they must have a Standard VI certificate and an income of £120 a year how long will it be before we instead of having three Indian representatives in the House will have fifteen or twenty. We have come to the cross-roads in the history of South Africa. Do we intend to preserve European civilisation in South Africa for the future, or do we intend as a prominent member of the United Party has said, to establish a Dago republic? We must take these things into consideration. We must take into consideration what posterity will say in this connection. We have here, unfortunately in my own party as well, but mainly on the other side, idealists who really have changed now into “Indialists”. The hon. member for Hospital said a good deal here about the nine policies of the Labour Party and if he was in the party there would be fifteen policies instead of nine. Let me say a few words about the policy of the Progressive Party in connection with the matter.

The hon. member must return to the clause.

For years we have had native Senators in Parliament to look after their interests. This has not yet happened in respect of Indians, and if subclause (a) is applied to give the Indians two Senators to watch their interests we have no objection. But I personally as a descendant of those people who tamed this country am definitely opposed to giving the franchise to a clique of Indian capitalists, seeing so much blood has been shed to tame the country, and that in this the Indians had no part. I agree with the programme of principles of the Progressive Party as far as the Indians are concerned. With that I agree. I think it is a good solution they offer, although it may cost a good deal, but South Africa will have to pay for the benefit it derived from the sugar planters …

The hon. member must return to the clause.

I wish to support the amendment by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) to delete sections (d) and (c). The deletion of these sub-sections would leave the representation in Natal very largely as it has been and as it was decided upon in the Act of Union, and it seems to me that that intention was verified at the time by consultation with the electors and that they agreed to this basis of representation. We are now in the course of arranging representation for the Indians on altogether insufficient information. There is no doubt that the very basis of the terms upon which they are to be qualified to vote excludes most of the Indians resident in Natal. Only a very small proportion will ever come up to this standard of franchise qualification, and this Bill seems to me to minister exclusively to the wealthy classes, and there is no doubt that this Bill aims at benefiting only one class of Indian, the wealthy trader and well-educated Indian. The position in India is very different. There the franchise is on a communal basis even to the illiterate. Otherwise millions of people would be unrepresented. One of the best informed writers on the subject, Mr. A. Mayhew, who was for many years director of public instruction in the central provinces and who was in the Indian Education Service, has written about the question of illiteracy and he says that in India not more than 8 per cent. of the people are literate.

Order. May I point out the question of qualification of Indian voters is dealt with in clause 42 and it will be better for the hon. member to raise that question then.

I merely intend to show that the amendment of the hon. member is well founded in view of the circumstances with which this section deals. I do not wish to detain the House on the question of the different method of representation that is going to be introduced here from that which prevails in India, but if I cannot refer to the real inner meaning of these things I shall content myself with a perfunctory treatment of the matter. I merely wish to show that the proposal of the hon. member is one which deals with the essential unfitness of the people concerned to enjoy so exclusive a franchise that actually they are not the only people affected. The proposal of the hon. member would do away with the election of the three members to the House of Assembly and the two members to the Natal Provincial Council, and to that proposal I agree. We have had no evidence as to the actual wishes of the people concerned. We have had reference in the Broome Commission report to the question of franchise, although that was not one of the terms of reference of the Commission. It is a mystery to understand how it is possible for such conditions to be introduced in regard to the matter of representation, under which people living under the laws of the Transvaal are allowed to vote for the Provincial Council in Natal. That raises a very awkward position. If Natal were to have some say in the affairs of the Transvaal the electors there would quite rightly object and we strongly object to the destinies or affairs of Natal being influenced by the Provincial electors of the Transvaal, and I suppose that to some extent the members of the Assembly who may be elected by Indian voters will also be dependent greatly on the vote from the Transvaal. [Time limit.]

Question put: That the words “Provinces of Natal and Transvaal” in line 61, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—81:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

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.

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.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

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.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

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.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—49:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Cilliers, H. J.

Conradie, J. H.

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.

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, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van den Berg, M. 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.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendments proposed by Dr. Dönges and Mr. J. G. Strydom dropped.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Wanless put and negatived.

Question put: That paragraphs (b) and (c), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—80:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Cilliers, S. A.

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.

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.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

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.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—49:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. v. G.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brink. W. D.

Cilliers, H. J.

Conradie, J. H.

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.

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, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van den Berg, M. 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.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Neate negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—78:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Cilliers, S. A.

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.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

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.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

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.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—49:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. v. G.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Cilliers, H. J.

Conradie, J. H.

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.

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, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van den Berg, M. 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.

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 41,

After the rejection of my amendment to Clause 40 I feel that this is not the right place to carry the fight further. We shall join issue in another place with the Transvaal members.

Clause put and agreed to.

On clause 42,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

Provided that in the case of any such Indian who has made such application within a period of twelve months after the commencement of this Chapter, the reference in paragraph (b) to the sixth standard shall be deemed to be a reference to the fourth standard.

I should like to know from the Prime Minister the effect of replacing the sixth standard by the fourth standard under this amendment.

The qualification at the first elections are lowered from £120, £10 a month, to £84, £7 a month. It is considered that the qualification as originally put into the Bill was on the high side, and it is not necessary to have it so high.

I take it the object of this is to increase the number of voters at the first election?

Yes.

And does the fourth standard, as the standard of qualification, pertain to after the first election, or does it revert to the sixth standard and the higher qualification?

Yes, it does; it is only at the first election it is lowered.

Before we approve the clause we should like to know something more about the qualifications. They do not agree with the qualifications we laid down for other sections, and seeing that the House has accepted that the franchise should be given to the Indian I want to ask whether this is the sort of franchise on which the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) has prided himself so much this afternoon. Is this the democracy that he so extolled this afternoon? If we give the franchise to the Indians I prefer that the so-called underdog should also get it, and not only the more privileged class. I wonder what the reaction of that hon. member will be. Am I to understand from him that he means that democracy is only the privilege of the rich Indians, or will he also stand up and plead that the franchise should be given to every Indian and not only to a certain section of privileged Indians, because how many Indians have passed Standard VI?

And it is proposed now to lower it to Standard IV.

Now we come to the land tenure qualifications.

These also have been reduced.

I would only mention that if the House once accepts that the Indians should have the franchise they must all get it and not only the privileged Indians. Let those liberal members now stand up and then we will hear whether they were the mouthpieces of true democracy or only the mouthpieces of a clique of privileged Indians.

Question put: That the words “one hundred and twenty in line 13, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—46:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. v. G.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Cilliers, H. J.

Conradie, J. H.

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.

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.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

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—77:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Cilliers, S. A.

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.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

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.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

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.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Question accordingly negatived and the words omitted.

Mr. Chairman, the proviso that I have moved at the end of sub-section (1) contains the words “for a period of six months”. Now in section 50 to which we will come in due course, there is an amendment of mine to postpone the first elections, not for six months, but for 12 months, because it might not be possible to arrange for the election so early, and I therefore in clause 50 will move that the first elections be held after twelve months, and to make the two agree, I wish to substitute twelve for six here as well.

The substitution of the words proposed by the Prime Minister, put and agreed to.

The remaining amendment proposed by the Prime Minister put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 45,

There is an amendment in my name on page 473 of the Order Paper and I shall move it now—

Provided that such Senator shall not be competent to take part in the discussion on or to vote on any motion affecting the right to vote or any other matter in connection with the electoral laws.

It is nothing new to place restrictions on the voting power or the right to vote that may be exercised in the Senate. The Constitution lays it down that Senators can only vote on certain subjects. They may not vote in connection with certain financial measures, for instance. Thus it is an accepted principle as far as the Senate is concerned that the right to vote may be restricted to certain subjects. What we now wish to do is this: We say that the voting power must be restricted but there must be a vote on the extension or the contraction of the right to vote. It is a dangerous principle to allow people who represent only one section of the population to vote on a motion, for instance, that their right to vote should be extended. Should a motion come before the Senate which states that the voting powers in the Senate should be extended or that the franchise of the individual should be extended those representatives sitting there together with the other representatives will have an equal vote. Their votes would be of the same value. The ordinary Senator represents every section of the community. The Indian’s representation is limited to a small section of the community. It is thus from the very nature of the matter not right to give them the same voting power as the other Senators who represent the whole population. Consequently from the nature of the subject it is entirely right that a limitation should be imposed.

In regard to voting power should anyone stand up in the Senate and move that the franchise should be extended to all Indians over 21 without any qualifications then these Senators who represent the Indians can make use of their right to vote as far as that matter is concerned, and we do not say that should such a motion arise affecting the franchise of Indians those Senators should not have the right to vote. Later we shall have an intolerable position if the Prime Minister persists with the Bill as it stands. When we come to another clause which deals with the Assembly I shall again go into the matter, but as far as the Senate is concerned it seems to me we are going further and further. One of these days there will be an extension; one of these days it will be said that the Asiatics have penetrated so much in the Cape Province that they should also have representation here, and eventually we will land in an unenviable position, and I cannot imagine when it comes to a motion in the Senate of extending the franchise that these Senators will then vote against it. In every case they will vote in favour of it. Another difficulty is this, that these people will come there as agitators for an extension of the franchise. You cannot expect anything else. They are not in agreement with the restriction that is imposed there on the voting power, and consequently from the outset they will be agitators for the extension of the franchise, and when such a proposal is made they will have the full right in the same way as other Senators to vote for it, and I say this is a reasonable provision that when questions come up such as the extension or the abridgement of the franchise that they should not in that caes have the right to vote.

I am unable to accept the amendment. It would be wrong to have two sorts of Senators. I see no reason why I should accept it.

We have two sorts now.

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name—

Provided that such Senator shall not be competent to take part in the discussion on or to vote on any motion directly or indirectly involving a declaration of war or dealing with the external relations of the Union.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) has already pointed out that limitations are at present imposed on the voting power of Senators, even those representing Europeans. It is thus no new principle we are pleading for. We ask that when Senators are elected by Indians the restrictions should be imposed on them that they may not vote on a matter of war or on matters affecting our external policy. What is the work of the Senate? The Senate is instituted to review the work of this House. With the extension of the coloured vote there are already Senators who do not; represent Europeans and who have already a vote in connection with these matters. It is now proposed to have further Senators elected to represent the Indians. A declaration of war is one of the gravest matters any Parliament could be occupied with. If this Parliament decides on the question of whether war must be declared or not, or when either in this House or in the Senate a serious difference exists amongst Europeans, for example, on the question of a declaration of war we shall have the position that in the Senate we shall be building up a power that may have the deciding voice in making the decision. Wha is more, we are building up a balance of power for the non-European representatives who will function as arbiters in serious matters as beween European and non-European. But what is perhaps more serious at the present moment is that Senators representing Indians will have a vote on matters affecting our foreign policy. We know that the large proportion of Europeans in our country have very fixed convictions in connection with the* colour problem. In the confusion following on the great World War there are possibly foreign nations who object to the policy South Africa has in connection with these matters. We know that our foreign policy so far as it affects the Indians is a very delicate matter and when the Senators are elected and they do sit in the Senate and have a say in connection with foreign policy, they can be a source of danger in our country. When they have the vote it can be clearly a source of danger because within the Senate they can form a group of agitators to oppose our foreign policy in connection with this matter, and once they have the vote it will be difficult to take it away from them. Consequently we are urging the Prime Minister not to give these people a vote in connection with a declaration of war, or in connection with matters affecting our foreign policy. When war must be declared a vote in connection with that should be given to the citizens of this country. In connection with the Indians we are in a peculiar position. They are indeed citizens in the sense that many of them have been born here, but their treatment shows us that they do not identify themselves with us in this House. They are always looking to their political affinity with a foreign country, and for that reason we feel it is very dangerous should they have a vote on serious matters affecting our foreign policy. They will be a source of agitation and create many difficulties for us in the future. We have had experience of these things.

I should like to add something to what I have previously stated. The Prime Minister said that there could not be various sorts of Senators, but the position of the Senators sitting in the Senate today differs. Certain Senators are elected by members of the Provincial Council and members of Parliament from the respective provinces.

I said there could not be two sorts of Senators.

Some of them sit for ten years.

Their powers are the same.

The remainder must resign when the time comes, though the others sit there for ten years, and this indeed happens. Apart from that there are certain things on which Senators may note vote.

The Prime Minister says that he does not wish to discriminate in regard to their powers, but the manner in which they represent people differs in many respects. I cannot understand why the Prime Minister will not give in on this point. Those Senators representing the Indians will not represent the people as a whole but only a small section of the community, and that being the case a distinction can be drawn in regard to the franchise qualifications.

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name—

I hope that the Prime Minister will give serious consideration to the matter. The Senators come here for a specific object, to represent a certain section of the public, and now you will have the position that in certain respects they will have the balance of power in the Senate, that you will be dependent on their support when it comes to a motion of no confidence in the Government, and in order to win their support the Government will be subject to methods of extortion by them and they will say to the Government: Well, we will support you and see to it that the motion of no confidence is not adopted but we shall want this or that. We shall want more representation in the Senate, we shall want more rights for non-Europeans. This is a factor we must take into account in this House. These people come here to represent a section of our community, they come here with a specific object they are not here in Parliament to deal with the larger and wider issues before the country, but they are here for an express purpose, and I consider it will be in the interests of the country if the power of these Senators is limited in regard to the decision about the fall of the Government. When the Government announces that they regard a certain motion as a motion of no confidence they would then automatically refrain from taking part in the discussions and in the divisions. I say with all seriousness that these Senators may otherwise adopt an attitude of extortion that may eventually lead to the Indian community putting forward more and more demands. I hope that the Prime Minister will not leave this loophole open.

The Prime Minister has stated he does not want a new type of Senator. May I draw his attention to the fact that here we are not dealing with the aboriginal inhabitants of the country. The natives have representation in the Senate but they are aboriginal inhabitants. Even if they are of a different colour they are South African. But here we are dealing with an alien race. The Right Hon. the Prime Minister will notice that the Bill defines an Indian as “a member of a race or tribe whose national home is in India or Ceylon”. Consequently we are dealing here not with aboriginals of this country but with a foreign race, and bearing in mind that we are dealing with a foreign race there are good reasons and grounds for the amendments that have been put. Take the amendment of the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché). He asks that the Indian representatives who, as I have pointed out, are an alien race in our country, should not vote on any occasion in connection with a declaration of war or in regard to the Union’s external relations. May I point out to the Prime Minister that in connection with this matter it has already been openly stated in the newspapers—I do not say it will happen—but there is a report that in the Indian Parliament the possibility was held out of India declaring war on South Africa. Perhaps it is improbable but the possibility has been mentioned in the Indian Parliament. Here we will now have Senators sitting as representatives of a race derived from India and it is obvious that the interests of Indians and of India will count first with them seeing that they represent Indians. But then we come to something which is not a possibility but a reality. The hon. member for Smithfield asks that they should not have the right to vote on matters affecting our external relations. At the moment there are external difficulties which have arisen between us and India. India has broken off trade relations with South Africa. There also exists the possibility, and I think in the circumstances India ought to do so, that India’s High Commissioner will leave South Africa. In other words, that India should break off relations with South Africa. If ever there was a reasonable proposal it is this, that those people who will sit in the Senate as representatives of the Indians should not be able to vote should such a matter come up for discussion in the Senate. Let us be realistic in the matter. I know that the Prime Minister does not like to accept an amendment, but he has, of course, a broad outlook on affairs, and he must realise that when it comes to war or peace, and threats on the part of India, and as trade relations have already been broken off by India, the representatives of people who are not aboriginal inhabitants of South Africa ought not to have the right to vote on such external relations. I hope that the Prime Minister will at any rate accept this amendment.

I think every impartial person who listened to the Prime Minister’s reply to the amendments which have been moved on this side, and who listened to the arguments advanced by this side of the House, must come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister has a very poor case. Let us take the reasons advanced by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw), for example. All the Prime Minister has said up to the present in regard to the amendments is that he does not want to have two types of Senators in the Senate. That reply is typical of the Prime Minister’s attitude throughout in connection with this legislation. He is making nothing but a party matter of this legislation. He has forbidden members on the other side to speak. Why are they not allowed to speak? Because there are members on that side who agree with us. Moreover, when this Bill was being prepared the Prime Minister ignored this side. He consulted every party except the party to which I have the honour to belong. Why? Because the Prime Minister wants to make a party matter out of this, notwithstanding the fact that it affects every section of the population, and particularly that section that we represent, and to which the Prime Minister himself belongs. I think the Prime Minister has shown that he wants to act autocratically and not like a democrat. I want to ask the Prime Minister to give us good reasons why he does not want to accept these amendments.

My reasons were good enough.

Does the Prime Minister believe that his reply was really a reply? It was no reply at all. The Prime Minister forced his supporters in the party caucus to agree with him, and although the second reading has now been accepted and we are trying to propose amendments on the merits of the matter, in order to improve the Bill, the only reply we get from the Prime Minister is that he does not want to have two types of senators. As it is, there is a difference in the method in which senators are elected. The Prime Minister may feel that it is a small difference, and we may feel that it is a big difference; but that is the Prime Minister’s only reason. I do not think he is treating this side of the House fairly, and it is not fair towards the country. We have made every effort to help as much as we can, but the manner in which the Prime Minister replies to our amendments is unreasonable. Does the Prime Minister want to suggest for a moment that not one of the amendments which emanated from this side of the House was worthy of consideration?

At 6.40 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on 31st January, 1946, he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 12th April.