I move—

Although the authorisation of this unauthorised expenditure is ordinarily a purely formal matter I think in the present case it calls for some comment. We are dealing today with unauthorised expenditure in which there is in addition the extraordinary conduct of one of the accounting officers of the Union who failed to file his accounts within the time required by the Auditor-General to enable him to include those accounts in his annual report to Parliament. I maintain it would be a serious omission on the part of this House to allow such an instance to pass by without comment of a suitable kind. I understand, Sir, that this is one of the rare occasions, if not the only occasion, upon which an accounting officer has been guilty of so grave a dereliction of duty as has occurred in this case. The evidence that was given by the accounting officer failed entirely to satisfy me as a member of the Public Accounts Committee that there a shred of justification for his omission. Indeed I think it will be seen from the text of the Select Committee’s evidence that I had occasion to ask the accounting officer if he did not think the time had arrived for his resignation to be tendered, and I am still of that opinion. I maintain that in the case of an official whose bad pre-eminence is such that he is the one accounting officer in the history of the Union who has been guilty of such a fault, the need for his resignation should be brought home to him and he should long since have resigned. As soon as this occurred his resignation should have been placed in the hands of the Minister and he should have vacated his office. I maintain there is no worse default that an accounting officer could be guilty of, because by that default he robs Parliament of the knowledge whether his accounts are in order or not. The Auditor-General is unable to tell us whether accounts which reached him too late reflect a true and correct spending of the money voted by this House, or whether they do not; and the committee have said in their report the failure of the department is a most serious one, and emphasised that such a position should never be permitted to arise again. I am sorry I was unfortunately absent when this report assumed its final form, but I demur to the use of colourless language of this sort aimed, X suppose, at letting down lightly an official whose default was past pardoning. It was not the department at all we ought to blame but we ought to blame the accounting officer, the man who by his indifference towards his duty failed to radiate from the top downwards. We cannot expect efficiency from the office boy upwards unless that efficiency is the predominant feature of the head of the department himself. In this case the Committee have not exactly used the whitewash brush to cover up his default but we have come very close to doing so, and I totally dissent from that sort of treatment for such a grave offence as failure to render accounts in time for the Auditor-General to make his comments on them.

I did not intend to take part in the discussion, but after what the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) has stated, after the speech he has made, I think it is my duty to say a few words on the subject. In my opinion, the hon. member for Pinetown has gone out of his way to attack an official who is not here to defend himself. I regard it as deplorable that the hon. member should have attacked an official in this way, and especially that he should have intimated, although he himself did not attend all the proceedings of the Select Committee, that that official should really hand in his resignation. I think that is an exceptionally serious charge that was made by the hon. member for Pinetown, and I hope that on further consideration he will abandon this attack, and I think myself that an apology is due to the official. I had the privilege of attending all the proceedings in connection with the handling of this matter, which affects Vote 29, Social Welfare. I tried to judge the whole matter with an open mind, and while I do not wish for a moment to gloss over the neglect over the presenting of proper statements, and while I agree with the hon. member for Pinetown that when this is not done Parliament is deprived of its opportunity to keep a vigilant eye on the accounts. I still would like to allude to the circumstances. Parliament must, of course, receive information from the Auditor-General, and if he is not in the position to discharge his duties, Parliament loses the necessary contact with the departmental accounts, and thereby Parliament is denied one of its foremost duties. But there is nevertheless always this aspect, in fairness to the person concerned you must make mention of the circumstances.

In the first place, we are dealing with a Department which has really only had a very limited life, and in the course of its development it has been gradually overloaded from year to year with more and more work, so that within a brief period its expenditure mounted to considerably more than £2 million. Its activities multiplied, and when this happens care must be taken in the first place that the official who is placed at the head of the Department has the requisite staff at his disposal. It was the outstanding grievance of this Department that actually for a whole year complaints about insufficient provision of the necessary accounting staff were not accorded any attention. In spite of verbal requests, and later of written requests to the Public Service Commission that this matter should be investigated, actually for the whole year no attention was devoted to the subject. Now I wish to state that if responsibility rests anywhere in connection with this matter, it rests in the first place not on the official who was given an impossible task to perform, but on the Public Service Commission. I do not want to follow the example of the hon. member by now attacking the Public Service Commission, but I think all the same that when the appeal was made to the Public Service Commission to institute an enquiry in regard to the staff of the Department, it should have been regarded as a serious appeal. Bearing in mind the short life of the Department and the tremendous duties that were entrusted to this official from time to time, he was placed in an impossible position, and the serious defect in regard to staff should have received attention.

Then there is another point. Correspondence is available in which reference is made to staff requirements in this specific Department. In the second place, and I do not say it as an excuse, but in mitigation of the position, at the commencement of the year, when the estimate had to be presented to Parliament, it was realised by the Department that, in view of possible expansion and the uncertainty regarding what the demands would be in respect of this particular work, it was very difficult to submit to the Treasury what funds would be necessary for the feeding of native children in the various provinces. Only one province undertook it itself, and the Department had to undertake it on behalf of the other provinces. In view of the uncertainty of what was necessary, the Department estimated a round figure, and to our surprise it is noted that if the original application had been approved there would have been no deficit; the actual expenditure would have been covered. The Treasury, in its wisdom, decided otherwise, and reduced the amount. Again, I do not wish to accuse the Minister of Finance. He, as guardian of the nation’s finances, must take into consideration what he regards as reasonable. But in the first place it was just this Minister who desired to institute the service, and consequently I mention that if the original estimate was approved by the Treasury it would not have been necessary to ask for additional funds. But as a result of the shortage of staff and the numerous matters that had to be handled by the Department, we witnessed the unpleasant spectacle of an attack by the hon. member for Pinetown on an official who was unable to defend himself. We all feel that the first duty of the Department must be to have its accounts in such a state that the official who has to function for us in keeping a watchful eye on our accounts in the interests of economy and accuracy will be able to carry out his duty. Here, however, we had to deal with a distinctly special case, and that being so, the observations of the hon. member were most improper and unjustified. The hon. member now intimates that he is not in agreement with the recommendations of the Select Committee. He himself was not always present at the proceedings, and if he had been present he would probably not have made such an accusation.

I regret that the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) has used such strong language in the House today in regard to this matter. He has used what I might almost term extravagant language in regard to an experienced, distinguished and very loyal public servant. And I, as ministerial head of the Department of Social Welfare, cannot allow these remarks to pass without giving the House, very shortly, the facts in their true perspective. What are the charges that have been made against the head of the Department of Social Welfare? They are twofold: (a) That the head of the Department of Social Welfare failed accurately to estimate the amount to be spent during the year 1944-’45 on school feeding services; and (b) that the head of the Department of Social Welfare failed timeously to submit his final appropriation accounts to the Auditor-General. The facts are that when the head of the Department—a man of great experience and a man who during the war years undertook a large number of additional duties at the request of the Government, despite the many shortages of staff and despite all the difficulties inherent in his Department—when this gentleman was budgeting for 1944-45 he asked for an amount of £1,000,000 for school feeding. That was his estimate. As one knows, departments are likely to over-estimate in the interests of the department, while the Treasury is prone to under-estimate. The Treasury cut down the £1,000,000 to £700,000; in actual fact we spent £960,000, so the original estimate was not far wrong. That overspending led to the difficulties which followed. At the end of December, 1944, the head of the Department was approached by the accountant, whose duty it was to inform him whether there was likely to be any overspending on any vote, and he was told there was still an amount of £500,000 on hand for school feeding, and it did not appear likely that that amount would be overspent. As a matter of fact, it did appear from correspondence in the hands of the accountant, which was not made known to the head of the Department, that it might have been suspected a warning was necessary at this stage. The Department of Social Welfare did not embark on school feeding itself, it did it through agencies, and it had to pay subsidies to these agencies. It was dependent on the estimates and reports from these agencies as to the amount likely to be spent. Admittedly, in the light of the correspondence in the hands of the accountant’s section at the end of 1944, it might have been thought necessary to go slow and to approach the Treasury for further amounts, but no such evidence was put in the hands of the head of the Department. It is clearly the duty of the accountant to keep an accounting officer informed. The accountant has certain duties under the Treasury regulations. I quote from Section 51 of the Financial Regulations—

So far—and that is accepted in the evidence before the Select Committee—from the head of the Department having been warned that the vote was likely to be overspent, he was told at the end of December, 1944, that there was still an amount of over £500,000 in hand. Despite that—and this also appears in the evidence—at a subsequent stage he sent one of his accountants to interview the provincial administrations to ascertain what the actual amount was likely to be. In the result the vote was overspent, and in June, 1945, the accountant submitted a first appropriation account which, however, even at this stage, did not disclose that the amount was overspent. The appropriation account he submitted to the accounting officer at this stage showed there was likely to be a surplus of £30,000 on the total vote. Even at that stage the accounting officer had not been informed the vote was likely to be overspent. That account was submitted, and as a result of queries submitted by the Auditor-General it became clear the vote had been overspent. That was past and done. Nothing could be done in respect of that matter. The only remedy was the remedy adopted now, to come to Parliament and ask for a Bill to be passed dealing with the unauthorised expenditure.

Surely the Minister is overlooking the accounting officer’s failure to submit his accounts.

I am coming to that now. The second charge is that he failed timeously to submit his accounts. In respect of this particular charge it is interesting to note that the Select Committee has no finding to make in respect of the head of the Department. The Select Committee in its finding feels that the head of the Department might have considered, in view of the fact that he had originally budgeted for £1,000,000 that they were likely to overspend, but it makes no charge against the head of the Department for failure timeously to submit the accounts. It is the hon. member alone who has made these very serious charges against the head of the Department. He said that this was unprecedented and so serious that the head of the Department should have resigned. Let me tell my hon. friend at once that had the head of the Department attempted anything so foolish as to render his resignation, I certainly would have refused it.

Do you not think it is a most unusual occurrence?

Yes, it is unusual and unfortunate, but that is no ground for unwarrantably and unjustifiably putting the blame personally on the head of the Department. The head of the Department and I are perfectly prepared to accept official responsibility for this failure to submit accounts. We administer the Department, but the hon. gentleman has attempted to put a personal responsibility on the head of the Department, and my submission is that it has been proved conclusively that there is no such personal responsibility resting upon him. On 12th October, 1945, the Auditor-General wrote asking for the final accounts to be expedited. On 30th October—this is all borne out by the evidence—the head of the Department replied, saying that he was urging his Department to deal with the matter as expeditiously as possible, but pointed out that part of the difficulty was due to a shortage of staff. I may say that earlier in the year the head of the Department had asked that the Public Service Commission should overhaul the accounts branch, but every branch of the public service is short staffed, and it was only this year that the Public Service Commission was able to inspect this branch, and ordered an additional eleven units to be appointed to the accounts branch, which is an indication of the difficulties under which the accounts branch was working. At the end of October, and early in November, the head of the Department consulted his accountancy officials and was informed that they were on top of the work, and he left on an official tour and did not come back to his official duties in Pretoria until 19th December, the date when the Auditor-General approached him and said that the accounts had not yet been submitted. During his absence the fact that the Auditor-General had written a further letter was not disclosed to him, or to his Under-Secretary. If there is any personal blame, that blame is not on the head of the Department, but on other officials. I think it is only fair that I should say this, as I very deeply regret that a gentleman with so distinguished a record in the public service should be pilloried in public.

As Minister of Finance I would like to say that I welcome the fact that the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) has raised this matter here. There has been an administrative failure, and it is well, from the point of view of the control of the public service, that such a matter should be brought to the notice of Parliament. I believe that the fact that it has been brought to notice in this way, will assist Parliament and the Treasury in maintaining proper control over the Departments. But having said that, I want to go on to say that I certainly cannot associate myself with the strictures which the hon. member for Pinetown has directed to the accounting officer of the Department of Social Welfare. There has been an administrative failure. There is no question of dishonesty or misappropriation of funds involved, but it is correct that certain things which should have been done were not done. There are reasons which can be advanced in extenuation. It is undoubtedly a fact that this Department was carrying a very heavy burden, and that the head of the Department in particular was carrying a very heavy burden. The Select Committee has investigated this matter very fairly and fully. I was glad to hear the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) as a member of that Select Committee speaking as he did. I think the Select Committee has done substantial justice in the matter, and I believe that it can quite well be left there. I do not think it is necessary for us in any way to associate ourselves with what the hon. member for Pinetown has said. Substantial justice has been done. I think the course of events will give us the assurance that an incident like this will not take place again. In respect of the staff position in this particular Department, the Public Service Commission has taken action as recommended by the Select Committee. I hope that the House will be prepared to leave the matter there. It has been, I repeat, a good thing to raise the matter, but I believe that substantial justice has been done, and I do not think that anything more should be said by way of criticism or attack on an official who, during the course of his term in the public service, and not least as Secretary for Social Welfare, a post to which I myself appointed him, has rendered very great services to the State.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill now.

House in Committee:

Clauses, Schedule and Title of the Bill, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, it is unnecessary for me to emphasise the importance of this Bill. That is appreciated on every side of this House, and all over the country. But it would be clearly undesirable to over-emphasise the importance of this Bill. There is a movement abroad to exploit the international implications of this Bill, to magnify its consequences from that point of view, and I am afraid that an attempt is being made to frighten and stampede the public of this country in regard to this measure [Applause]. I am the last person to minimise the importance from an international point of view of this Bill, but essentially it is an internal measure. Essentially it is an attempt to provide social peace and the good ordering of our society here in South Africa, and we are not going to be frightened by any movement, any propaganda, which may be intended to frighten the people of this country.

Hear, hear.

The Bill has been represented as being an insult to India, as a challenge to Asia, almost as a challenge to world opinion. It is nothing of the kind. It deals with an internal question which affects the peace and the good order of our society in South Africa. It is essentially, whatever might be the implications in other directions, a domestic question for us to solve, and if we were not to tackle this question, which has drifted for many years, and it is allowed to drift further, we may drift on the rocks. We may then come to a stage where this question will become a first class international issue, and the intention now is to prevent it from becoming such. We have examples in other countries of similar situations having been allowed to drift until only force and vast suffering could settle them. We had the case of the Germans in Sudetenland. We had the case of German communities in Hungary and Russia, who finally now have to be repatriated to their countries of origin at vast expense and at the cost of enormous suffering. We want to prevent that, and to establish an order of things here in South Africa under which the various communities in our society can live peacefully and quietly together, and this can only be done in some such way as we are attempting to perform it by means of this Bill. My point is that South Africa is responsible for its own society, for its own internal peace and good order, and no efforts from abroad, no efforts from anywhere to secure foreign interference, and to exercise pressure on our plans for solving this question will deter us or have any effect. This matter arises out of a great historical mistake that was made in South Africa many years ago.

We are now, at long last, attempting to limit the mischief of that mistake, and we in this House, in dealing with this very difficult and important question, must view it in that historical perspective. This is an old question, and we are the innocent victims today who have to deal with it today, and deal with it in the spirit of justice and fair play all round. The introduction of indentured Indian labour into Natal in 1860 to solve the labour troubles of the sugar planters there has had consequences which none foresaw. We are the later generations of innocent victims, both Indian and European, who have to deal with this question, and we shall both have to make our contribution. It will not be solved in a one sided way. Both European and Indian will have to make their contribution in solving this question. This Bill is intended to formulate the contribution which each will have to make in dealing with the question.

I have spoken of the historical perspective of this Bill. I may remind the House of another aspect. Forty years and more after this mistake in Natal, a similar mistake was made in the Transvaal in the introduction, of Chinese labour in order to solve the labour problems on the gold mines. If that attempt had succeeded the future of South Africa might have become hopelessly compromised. The situation may well have deteriorated beyond repair. The whole trend and orientation of South Africa might have been altered. Instead of being a European community looking to our western culture, we might have established an Asiatic orientation and the whole future of South Africa might have taken a different course. I think it is not least the merit of the late General Botha—and I assisted him—that with his great efforts this attempt was nipped in the bud, and South Africa was saved from a situation even more menacing than the introduction of Indian labour into Natal forty-five years earlier. I remember the good service of Colonel Creswell on that occasion, but above all I remember the attitude of the British people themselves. The British people took up the cudgels on this question. Hon. members will remember that historic general election in England at the end of 1905, which gave quietus to this attempt to introduce Chinese labour into the Transvaal. The British people felt that it was a case where they had to interfere, and to interfere very positively, and the result was that this additional menace to our South African society never came to fruition. Mr. Speaker, today an appeal on humanitarian grounds is made to the British public, an appeal which goes very deep and very far, and I would ask my English friends in Natal, in this country and abroad, in Britain, to remember this historical perspective of the whole question, and I would ask them not to be stampeded on general humanitarian grounds, but to remember the real fundamental issues at stake, and once more to do what they did forty years ago, and keep the position of our Western civilisation safe here in South Africa. That is all we intend in this Bill— fair play and justice to our Indian fellow citizens, but we do not want to change the structure of South African society and to have conditions here which may in the end jeopardise the structure on which we have built. Neither European nor African culture would be assisted or fostered by such a development. We do stand here also for human rights. We are determined to discharge our humanitarian duties in a fair way to all sections of our community, and to the Indians also, but we maintain that we must preserve the European orientation of our society, and not switch over to the Asiatic. That is the fundamental issue in this Bill; that is what we intend in this Bill. If we fail, if we do not pass this Bill now, I am afraid the failure may well affect the future of South Africa. I make the most earnest appeal to hon. members to be helpful in putting this Bill through as soon as possible. The Bill itself, although it is long, although it looks involved and complicated, is a simple one. It rests on a few simple principles and has a simple structure. It deals with the land question, in Natal mostly, and with the political status of the Indians in Natal and the Transvaal. In both these respects, both in the land clauses of this Bill and the political clauses, we are not breaking new ground. We are following a well-known South African principle, we are following practices and principles which have been adopted by us, which have been approved here in Parliament, practically unanimously and which we regard as essential to the structure of our complex society in South Africa. Fundamentally the principle of separate land tenure and residence, and of separate political representation for Indians are the same here in this Bill as in the case of the natives, and the native legislation which is already in force in this country. Although there may be variation in details, fundamentally the structure which we intend to establish here for the Indian community is very much the same and rests on the same principles as that which we have already laid down in connection with our native population. I want hon. members to bear that in mind. In the difficulties which surround this question and all the complexities which have to be met and seem almost insoluble, we have finally gravitated towards the old solution which was found for the native question, and which I submit, can really be applied to our Indian population also. I do not see how they can consider that as an insult to them, rather is their objection an implied insult to the native population in this country. No insult in intended, and no new principles are laid down. We are simply applying old well tried principles to the case of the Indians.

The Bill consists of two chapters. The first chapter deals with the land question, the second with the question of political rights. I wish to make it quite clear that in the view of the Government these two provisions, the land clauses and the political clauses, are inseparable. The scheme is one whole and it would not be possible, and the Government could never agree, to one part being passed and the other being dropped. We insist that this Bill shall be passed as a whole and if it is not passed as a whole, it falls away. No other course is possible. As I have said, both sections of our population, European and Indian, must make their contribution to the solution of this question. The Indians came here innocently. We are the innocent sufferers from mistakes made generations back. If there is to be a fair solution, both sides must do their best to help in the solution, and make some sacrifices in order to establish a fair basis for the future. It is the solution we have adopted in the case of natives, and it is a solution which is proposed here. We took away land rights, we limited land rights, but we thought it absolutely necessary in that connection to give a political status to our natives, and not to treat them as a disfranchised minority. In the same way here we are taking away rights, we are taking away rights from Indians in Natal, and just as we did in the case of the native population, we should give them in all fairness a political status, a voice in’ the affairs of this country, a platform on which they can speak for themselves and protect their own interests. I say the two parts of this Bill are inseparable. It is almost a matter of course. I think it is necessary to emphasise it in this Bill. I know there is a strong feeling in favour of the land clauses of this Bill, but it cannot be allowed that these clauses of the Bill should be passed, that this part of the Bill should become law, without the other part also being put on the Statute Book.

Before I come to the clauses of this Bill, let me deal briefly with the old history of this matter. I have referred to the coming of the indentured Indians to Natal in 1860. It did not take a long time before doubts and misgivings began to arise in Natal. Whilst the sugar planters no doubt were satisfied with the labour they got, the rest of the civil population in Natal were getting more and more disturbed over the consequences and conditions. Problems grew up from the very early stages of this new departure from Crown policy. In 1885, at the same time as legislation against Indian land holding was passed in the Transvaal, a commission was appointed in Natal to go into these difficulties which had arisen. I mention this merely to show how early difficulties were felt, and the population of Natal were becoming restive because of the policy which had been adopted. Shortly after Union, in 1911, partly owing to the insistence of the new Government of the Union, and partly owing to the action of the Indian Government themselves, the indentures were stopped, and since then we have had no indentured labour, but the difficulties and consequences of what had gone before were continuing to be felt and to increase. One commission after the other was appointed in order to probe into these questions and problems. Hon. members will remember the Lange Commission which sat here in 1921 and collected very valuable evidence on all these problems, and as a result of that commission the first Class Areas Bill was introduced into the Union Parliament during 1923. In 1924 the South African Party Government was defeated, and their successors, the Nationalist-Labour Government, once more had to take more or less the same course and introduce another Bill very much like the Bill of 1923. At this stage, I may say, it was felt unanimously by every section of the European population that the position was becoming unendurable, and that some solution had to be found, and where one party had made the proposals, another party apparently opposed to them on almost every ground of policy had to adopt practically the same course.

At this stage, when the second Class Areas Bill was introduced by the new Government, the Government of India came forward with a proposal. They said they had a proposal to make for solving this question. They had proposals to submit, and they asked for a round table conference in South Africa at which their proposals could be discussed. Well, we know what the proposal was. It was a proposal for the repatriation of Indians from Natal, and if that was accepted, it would be the best solution if it were possible even today, but it did appear the way out of the vast trouble in 1927. The Cape Town Conference was held and this proposal was thrashed out there and was accepted. It had good support, and the first year the repatriation of Indians with financial assistance from this Government was a success, and then reports came back from India from those who had returned to their motherland that their conditions there were far worse than here and that they were far happier in South Africa, with the result that this effort at repatriation came to practically a dead stop, and nothing further could be done. Thereupon the Indian Government asked for another conference, the Conference of 1932, in order to explore other means of settling South African Indians outside South Africa. The attempt was made once more to thrash out this question, and investigations were made in America and in Asia in regard to settling South African Indians elsewhere and for their expatriation from South Africa, but nothing came of this effort, and the result is the question remained just where it was. The difficulties increased. A new commission was appointed, the Broome Commission, once more to go over the whole ground and see what could be done, and we know more or less the history of the Broome Commission. It made a number of reports, it made three reports. The first report was not unsatisfactory, but the second report, made in 1943, was of so alarming a character that Parliament thought fit at once to take action and, as hon. members will remember, the so-called Pegging Act was passed in 1943 to call a halt, to put a stop to what was going on in Natal. It appeared that on a very large and rapidly increasing scale properties were being bought up in the heart of Durban by Indians, and the fear that Durban might lose its character and become an Indian town became so intense that the Government and Parliament felt bound to take action, and the Pegging Act was passed.

We are today at the point where this Pegging Act itself is going to expire, at the end of this month, and if that Pegging Act were to expire, and the further purchase of property were allowed, you might have chaos on a larger scale than ever before in South Africa, and the position has therefore become one of great urgency, and there is a great necessity to pass legislation which will take the place of the Pegging Act and not only stop the difficulties with which that Act was intended to deal but to settle the Indian question on a more or less permanent basis for the future. In spite of the passage of the Pegging Act the Broome Commission went on with its enquiries, to see on what lines a permanent solution of the question could be obtained. The Pegging Act was looked upon as an interim measure, a temporary measure, to stop the evil which had grown up, but a permanent solution had still to be found, and that commission went on with its enquiries. It went on until quite recently, and the final result has been quite unsatisfactory. No solution has been found. We are therefore at this stage in a position where we haye ourselves to evolve a solution of this question. The various enquiries that have been made, the various attempts at solving this problem, have all failed, and we have now to start de novo and find out what is the best solution, and the Government, after very careful enquiry, has prepared the Bill which lies before members of this House.

From the Broome Commission there emerged two recommendations I want to deal with; the one was that Indians should be enfranchised, that they should get political rights and that they should be on the common roll with the European population, but that the particular franchise given them should be a loaded one. That proposal was what was commonly called the common loaded franchise. The Indians would be part of the general electorate of the country, they would vote in the same constituencies, they would have the same members of Parliament, but they would have a loading of their franchise. It would be a higher franchise and very much higher qualifications would be demanded than in the case of the Europeans. That was their first proposal, with which I shall deal presently. Their second proposal was for holding a round table conference once more, finally. These are practically the only two suggestions of any note which have emerged from the Broome Commission.

There is another historical matter to which I want to refer very briefly, and it is this. Whilst the Broome Commission was continuing with its enquiries and its attempts to find a solution, the suggestion was made to me, mostly from Indian representatives, that another way of reaching a rapid solution could be found. There was very grave objection on the Indian side to the continuance of the Pegging Act. We had to prolong it once or twice, and the feeling was very strong among Indians that every effort should be made to bring the Pegging Act to a termination as soon as possible; and a suggestion was made to me that a solution might be found on the lines of separate residential areas in Natal, a sorting out of the population, so there would not be this mixture in occupation and residence of the two sections of the population which had led to all this friction. It was represented to me at that time that along these lines of separate residential areas a solution might be found of the trouble in Natal and a solution that might guide our course for some considerable time. I thought it worth while exploring this solution, and in the Pretoria Agreement of 1944 an attempt was made to formulate this proposal in proper form and to submit it to the Provincial Council. The idea was that the Provincial Council in Natal should deal with this question as mostly an Indian question and should have power to establish different areas for the European and Indian communities, and that this higgledy-piggledy residence of people together in the same areas, which had led to all the friction, should be put a stop to. In these negotiations the Indians insisted on one point, and it was this: that whereas they were not averse to this separation of living quarters, they were averse to what they called compulsory segregation, that is that they should by law and by compulsion be forced to live in areas set aside entirely for non-Europeans. What they wanted was free areas, that free areas might be set aside where they and others, Europeans and others, might abide and live together. They did not want Indian locations. They did not want separate areas for themselves alone which they thought would be too much like racial segregation and to which they had the strongest objection. They did not object to separate areas being set aside provided these areas were free areas, uncontrolled areas, wherein Indians along with others could reside. That was a point on which they were strong. Another point on which they had very strong feelings and insisted most strongly was that the purchase and ownership of land should not be interfered with, that it should not be restricted, and indeed should not be dealt with at all.

Was it that in addition to separate areas they should also have neutral areas?

These are neutral areas. The neutral areas would be separate areas where Indians and others should abide and live. They were very strong on these areas, not merely Indian areas but free areas and that they should have the right to abide in these particular areas anywhere in Natal. The agreement was made that this matter should be put before the Provincial Council, and the Provincial Council when it came to deal with this scheme agreed in principle to the Indian proposal but insisted that it should apply also to ownership and purchase of land, that if there was to be a restriction in regard to residence there should also be a restriction of ownership. The Indians have insisted there should be no bar, no restriction on them owning land anywhere in Natal. But the Provincial Council would not accept that and introduced additional clauses which also applied a restriction on the ownership of land. In this way the Pretoria Agreement could not be carried out. There were other legal difficulties which resulted from the restricted jurisdiction of the Provincial Council in these matters, and the Pretoria Agreement fell through, and we had to start de novo. I mention this matter of free areas here because it seemed to me something very much like a part of our native legislation. Hon. members will remember that our native land legislation proceeded on these lines, that whereas there were scheduled areas set aside entirely for natives, there were also what were called released areas, areas which were not so set aside, in which Europeans and natives could continue to go and live together. The Indian idea seemed to me to approximate very much to the idea of released areas which we have already adopted for the native population, and the solution we have found here makes use of this motion of free areas to be set aside. I will come to that just now.

I just want to impress on the House this fact, that all through these difficulties every attempt was being made by the Government to find a solution of these troubles. It must not be thought this Bill now before the House is a bolt from the blue, that this measure has not been thought over and enquired into from every aspect. All through these years, and even in the war years, when we were pressed with very grave and difficult questions the Government kept in touch with the Indian population and kept in touch with the European population there. Conference after conference was called. There was not a section of the community which was not consulted and every effort was made to explore the position and find a solution, and it is only as a result of all these efforts that were made during those years of trouble that we come now to this solution which we have before us.

I want to deal very briefly with these three questions to which I have referred, the two questions recommended by the Broome Commission—the loaded common franchise and the round table conference— and this question of Indian ownership and free areas, because they are all three important for this Bill.

Let me begin with the round table suggestion as a way out. The suggestion there is that we should once more, as in the case of the Cape Town Agreement, call in representatives from the Indian Government for a round table conference and explore the solution. To me that does not seem a feasible way out for many reasons. For one thing it is too late now. We are at a point where the Pegging Act expires this month. There is no time any more for lengthy explorations through a round table procedure. Nor does it seem to me that such a round table conference will come to any solution. It is not like the case of 1927 where the Indian Government came forward with a definite proposal of repatriation or finding some other place where South African Indians would go to. There is no definite suggestion at all there. It is solely a suggestion for a round table conference where we shall try to find a solution. To my mind the likelihood of such a conference being a success is most remote, and we shall only spend a great deal of time over this question and in the end reach no solution, and after such a failure of the round table conference the position will be worse than it is today. Another difficulty about the round table conference at this stage is that any solution come to which the European population do not like will be looked upon as coming from Indian inspiration. The difficulties against any such solution would be increased, the opposition would become greater, and looking at this matter as one which is urgent and calls for a practical solution, it seems to me the holding of a round table conference between the South African and the Indian Governments is a council of despair. It must lead to failure. It will only involve loss of time, and in the end the position will be worse than today. But there is stronger ground. There is the ground of principle; and it is this. This is essentially a domestic question for South Africa. It is a question of our own internal affairs. These Indians, the vast bulk of them, more than 80 per cent. of them, are South African citizens. They insist on it, they are South Africans. And how can we, under such circumstances where the people concerned, Europeans and Indians alike are South Africans, where the whole situation is domestic, a South African internal situation, how can we call a conference with another government to help us in finding a solution? It seems to me we would be departing from a clear ground of principle which is the only one we can stand on. Once we depart from that sure ground of principle, where we do not assert our own authority in our own home on matters of a domestic character it seems to me we are lost. You do not know what is going to happen. Our Indian citizens will have to make up their minds whether they are South Africans or whether they are Indians, whether they are citizens of South Africa or whether they are citizens of India, in calling in the intervention of another government to assist them. But as things are today, with Europeans and Indians both citizens of this country, trying to find some way of living together in this country, it seems to me it would be a clear departure from fixed principles on sure foundations if we were to invoke the assistance of another government to help us. The Indians have pointed to the Cape Town conference, and the Cape Town Agreement, as a precedent against the attitude I have taken up. My reply to that has been this, that in the first place the Indian Government came to the Cape Town conference with a proposal they had to make. They had a solution they wanted to discuss. And no one would debar a proposal of that kind. If we have any difficulty and some other friendly government wants to make a suggestion along which they think the difficulty can be removed we are only too willing to listen to them.

In the case of the Cape Town conference the Indian Government had some definite proposal to make which they wanted to discuss, a proposal which was accepted and which worked for some time. There was another difference in the case of the Cape Town conference. In those days India was not represented here. The Indian Government was entirely unrepresented here. There was no Indian Agent, there was no High Commissioner. There was nothing. And there was really no way for the Indian Government to talk to us and consult with us except perhaps through the intermediation of the British Government. Today the position is entirely different. India, since the Cape Town Agreement, has had an Agent-General here, and it is represented today by a High Commissioner. If the Indian Government wishes to say anything to us it has its right, as is the right of any other government, and it can do so through its diplomatic representatives here, and a round table conference is entirely uncalled for under those circumstances. The Indian Government can put before us through its diplomatic representative whatever proposals it likes in regard to this question or any question, and so long as our domestic jurisdiction is not violated we are prepared to listen to such proposals. Today they can do it, and a round table conference is quite uncalled for.

The other matter I wish to refer to is the question of the loaded franchise. We cannot find a solution by way of the round table conference. Can we find a solution by way of the common loaded franchise which the Indian Government favours, which the Broome Commission has recommended and which the Indians very strongly insist on? The Indian people in South Africa do not want to be treated as a separate entity. They want as South African citizens to be treated on the same basis and in the same way as the rest of our people. Theý want the same political system, the same constituencies. In view of the Indian numbers in Natal, they are prepared to have a loaded franchise, that is, to have a higher franchise qualification fixed for them than for Europeans, but they do not want a separate system. That proposal has been most definitely rejected by the people of Natal. They will not look at it, and along those lines a solution is not possible. Even if it were feasible, even if it were desirable, it is not possible, the people there will not have it. But there are other objections to it. The people of Natal say: Look at our numbers, even if we have a loaded franchise what is our future? Look at the population figures; how can we endure the menace of the future and of what may happen when we know the franchise may be changed from time to time? There may be a loaded franchise now, but will that remain for ever? And they will not look at this question of a common franchise with the Europeans.

Will the communal franchise remain for ever?

I am just putting the practical objections there were against the Indian proposal of the loaded franchise, and I said as far as Natal is concerned it is no solution at all, because the European people there simply will not accept it, and to my mind it is a matter of principle.

I think we have decided, I think South Africa has decided once and for all, that our complex society will be dealt with on separate lines. We have done it in the case of the natives, and we are going to do it in the case of the Indians. Any other system, I think, will lead to endless friction. You will never get it through Parliament in this country, you are simply attempting an impossible solution. It will not be accepted by the people of South Africa, apart even from the people of Natal. That is the system which has been accepted with regard to the natives, and if we have to live in peace here together in South Africa it will have to be the accepted policy in the case of the Indians. No, the loaded franchise will not do. But there is another argument in this case which in my opinion is very strong. The Indians say this separate political system for them is an insult, and they will not accept it. But it is the Indian system. It is the law in India. India is working today under a constitution framed for India which recognises separate communities. There is a separate system working in India. The whole social system is one of segregation in India. I am not arguing whether it may or may not be a mistake, but I am quite entitled to argue from the actual situation in India today. The Indian Parliament has not a common franchise, but a community franchise. The electorate is divided into communities. The numbers of members are apportioned separately, and the electorates vote like that. And I think it does not lie in the mouth of Indians to say a separate system, a communal system in South Africa, will be an insult to them. It is not an insult to India. It is not an insult to our natives here that we have such a system. Why should it be an insult to them? To my mind I think that largely disposes of the objection they have made against this proposal. We cannot look for a solution to a common loaded franchise. It is not practical politics in this country, and it is not necessary either. It is unwise. It does not fit in with our South African scheme of things. So both those recommendations of the Broome Commission, also supported by the Indians and the Indian Government, have to drop, and we have to proceed on lines of our own.

Let me say a few words on this question of property. The Indians have insisted, and still insist most strongly, there should be no restriction on their right of buying and acquiring and getting an ownership of land anywhere in Natal. They are prepared to compromise on the question of residence. They are prepared to have separate residential areas to which they will be restricted, but they will not accept a restriction in regard to ownership. I thought at first a solution on those lines might be explored. That is what underlay the Pretoria Agreement, that we should leave the question of ownership as too difficult, that we should leave it alone for the moment and simply deal with this question of living together in mixed areas, which had led to very much friction and which would lead to more friction. But the Provincial Council in Natal said they would have nothing of such a solution, that if there were to be separate residential areas, if there were to be a restriction on residence in Natal, there should be a restriction of ownership, and that Indians should not be allowed to buy land wherever they liked. And I must say there is a good deal to be said for the European point of view in Natal. Looking to this question as a long-range problem, and seeing what the effects would be if Indian ownership were unlimited, and Indians were unrestricted in buying land, but were only restricted in residence, I can see that in the long run it must break down. If a person may own land there, but cannot live there, it is essentially an untenable position, a position which in the long run will not be justified and will break down. And knowing the methods that are in vogue in South Africa for circumventing laws, it seems to me that it would be quite easy to circumvent a law like that. Take the ordinary case. Our law provides and will continue to provide that a European resident can have his servants with him. We have that now, and cannot prevent it. One can conceive of a case where an Indian buys land, and is the owner of the land, but cannot live there himself; only a white lessee can live there. The Indian gets a dummy white. We know the system. It is well known in the Transvaal. He gets a dummy white who brings his servants there, Indians, and in the end the provision against residence falls away unless the question of ownership is also dealt with. It became clear to me, after giving the subject all possible consideration, that we want something that will work, something that is not a mere expedient, and if we want that we shall have to be pretty thorough in dealing with this question, and we shall have to deal not only with the residents, but also with ownership, with the result that in this Bill we dear with both. We restrict residence and we restrict ownership, and they are both restricted to these free areas. In Natal, outside of these free areas, it is not free to an Indian in future either to get occupation or residence, or to buy land. That is restricted to these, what in the Native Acts are called released areas. It is restricted to these free areas where he or anyone else can buy land and reside. That is the provision made in this Bill. We have not got reserves as we have in the case of the natives, but we have the free areas provided for in the native legislation, areas in which Indians and others can live. The rest is barred to the Indians, and is left for the European population only. Let me just add that the system which I have sketched applies to the future. We do not touch the status quo. That would be an impossibility and lead to problems which are quite insoluble, and only time can solve it. But we are calling a halt to this evil of mixed residence and ownership. We stopped that system and say that for the future Indians shall not buy land and shall not reside or acquire leases except in these free, uncontrolled or released areas.

What about your exemption clauses?

These are the exempted areas. Now let me deal with this question. In regard to the status quo, we leave that alone. We do not touch vested rights. With regard to the future, this setting aside of exempted areas takes place. I will return to this point in a moment, but Jet me just say that part of the work in connection with these free areas has already been done, and in the schedule of this Bill hon. members will find, both in Durban and round about Durban, these free areas laid down in the schedule. The schedule also includes a free area in Pietermaritzburg where a measure of agreement has been obtained, and in regard to Glencoe and Port Shepstone, where there has been complete agreement, and there is no opposition. In regard to Durban we rely on the evidence which has been gathered by the Broome Commission—they went fairly fully into these matters—and the evidence which was gathered by the Post-war Works Commission under Mr. Mitchell, who is now the administrator. That Commission has gone pretty fully into the areas surrounding Durban, and the Bill follows the result of their work, that of the Broome Commission and that of the Post-war Works Commission. The schedule follows these recommendations, which are incorporated in the Bill. We have, therefore, four separate areas in Natal included in this schedule, the area in and around Durban, the area in Pietermaritzburg, and the other areas at Glencoe and Port Shepstone. But of course the Bill applies to the whole of Natal. The restrictions must apply right throughout Natal, not only to the urban areas but also to the rural areas, and it will be necessary to go through the work which has not yet been done by either of these Commissions, and that work will have to be done, and for that purpose a board is constituted in this Bill, a mixed board consisting of two Europeans, two Indians and a European chairman, which will continue with this work and settle further areas which have to be demarcated as free or exempted areas in Natal. In this respect the Bill differs from the structure of the Native Acts. When we dealt with the native legislation we have a complete picture before us. All the areas had been gone into by the Beaumont Commission and could be included in the Bill. But in the case of the present Bill, by reason of the urgency of our legislation, we could not wait for all this research and demarcation to be completed. We put into the Bill the work which has already been done in regard to Durban and the other places mentioned, but the rest of Natal still has to be surveyed by the board.

Has the board full powers?

The board has full powers to make recommendations to the Government. Just as the Broome Commission this board will investigate on the spot questions as to the reservation of areas, and limits, and the inclusion of what into the areas. They will make recommendations to the Government, and the Government will act thereon.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we are thus, in effect, getting as close to the recommendations of the Native Acts as we possibly can. If we had had time to complete all the investigations and to demarcate all these areas, and to have put them into the schedule to the Bill, we would have done so, but we did not have time; nor have we time now, and therefore, because of the urgency of the occasion we have stereotyped what has been done, and we leave it to this board to complete the investigation in future.

There is one other matter which this board will have to deal with. It will be necessary to consider particular cases where transfer of property or transfer of residence may be permitted outside of these released areas, and that work will continue to be done by this board. Hitherto this work has been done merely by the Minister of the Interior. Under the Pegging Act it was similarly the fiat of the Minister of the Interior which was final in questions of transfer or residence or ownership. The Minister of the Interior had a free hand in Natal. Under this Bill, the Minister simply becomes the final authority to decide, but he is advised by this board in regard to any changes which may be made outside of the scheduled areas. That will have to be done. The position, then, is this, that in Natal in future there will be under this Bill, when it becomes law, in regard to the future determination of areas, a separation of areas. Natal will be left to white residents and white ownership. Certain areas will be marked out as free or exempted areas, where Indians may buy and live in future; and not Indians alone, but also whites and natives. They are free areas, free to all. You will therefore have these free or released areas, just as you have them today under the native legislation. But the rest of the country cannot be penetrated. We shall therefore prevent this penetration which has been going on, and which has instilled this fear in Natal, and created the crisis with which we had to deal in the Pegging Act. In this way, we think that we will get nearest to a reasonable solution of this land question. The Indians will have a fair scope still. In the scheduled areas set aside for open occupation and purchase they will have a good chance of prospering.

Will the urban areas be included in the free areas?

Urban and rural areas are treated alike. Everywhere in future there will be separate free areas where Indians, natives, or Europeans can buy and live together.

There are no separate areas for Indians?

No, we did not adopt the principle of having separate areas where only Indians can live, because they have the most violent objection to that form of segregation. We mark out in Natal certain areas where Indians can buy and live in future, but not they alone. They object to living alone. I think this system is quite workable and it is accepted in Natal as the solution of this problem of penetration which has inspired them with so much fear. I am sure that it will leave a good scope to the Indian population to expand and to develop and that justice will be done to them substantially whilst this fear of penetration which has obsessed Natal will be removed, and that we will have our Indians living peacefully in Natal in separate areas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have finished with the land clauses of the Bill so far as they concern the Province of Natal. I only want to add one word to what I said, and it is this. It is an appeal to Natal members to accept the schedule. Naturally in a matter like the schedule which deals with the free areas set aside where Indians together with others may reside and purchase, many small details may be included which may lead to differences of opinion and to opposition. We had the same situation when we dealt with the schedules to the Native Bills in 1936. There is an infinity of matter on which people may differ and interests may clash. I would appeal to hon. members from Natal to accept those schedules. They are framed on close investigation by the Broome Commission, by what I call the Mitchell Commission, and on all relative evidence, and I do not think we can improve on them, I do not think we can get anything better. Two of those areas are approved by both Indians and Europeans. The other two may not be in the same category, but we have acted on the best available evidence, and if the Bill is to get through we must accept those schedules as I hope they will be accepted.

Now I come to the political rights and status which it is proposed to confer on Indians under this Bill. The main question I have argued, and the Government has settled, that is there shall be for Indians a separate franchise, a separate electoral roll and separate constituencies. This separate system follows the native model. All therefore that remains is to demarcate the necessary constituencies, the electoral areas under the Bill. The Government has decided that three constituencies should be given to the Indian community in Natal and in the Transvaal, and that the electors in these two provinces shall be considered together and shall be divided into three equal constituencies. The Indians in the two provinces are lumped together. In the Transvaal the Indians form too small a community to be an electorate by themselves. As members know, the Indian population of Natal is approximately 220,000 or 230,000, and in the Transvaal it is only something like 25,000, and they will therefore see the disparity is very great, and when we come, not to population but to people entitled to vote, to electors, the numbers will be very much smaller still, and the Transvaal will not have by any means sufficient voters to form a constituency. They have to be lumped with Natal and the Indians in the two provinces will be equally divided into three constituencies under this Bill. These will return the representatives of the Indians in the House of Assembly.

In the Senate a different scheme is arranged, and there it is again proposed to follow the model of the South Africa Act. The three constituencies for the Assembly will be lumped together as one constituency and will return one Senator. The second Senator will be nominated by the Government on the lines of the South Africa Act, for his knowledge and experience of Indian matters.

Will these representatives be Europeans?

I am coming to that. That will be the representation in the House of Assembly and in the Senate, three elected members in this House, one elected member for the Senate and one nominated Senator.

Now we come to the Provincial Council. The Transvaal being too small for an electorate it drops out and cannot get a member of the Provincial Council. If we did give one the number of electors will be so small compared with a European constituency in the Transvaal that it would be a ridiculous matter, the difference would be too glaring, and would be sufficient for very serious criticism. A Transvaal urban constituency consists of something like nine to ten thousand voters and the Indians in the Transvaal scarcely number a couple of thousand, so the difference would be so great that a separate constituency for the Indians cannot be justified, and we are left with Natal, where it is proposed to give two elected representatives in the Provincial Council for Natal. Two constituencies will be arranged in that way. These members so elected, members of this House and of the other House to be so elected or appointed, will follow the scheme of the South Africa Act. In the South Africa Act a colour bar is drawn for Parliament and only Europeans, as members know, can be members either of this House or of the Senate. That is the scheme in the South Africa Act, and if that is followed, we are not making any change there.

We follow the South Africa Act once more with regard to the Provincial Council in Natal. There is no colour bar as regards representatives in the Provincial Council, and if we had to restrict the Indian representation in the Province of Natal to Europeans we would have to change the South Africa Act and introduce a new colour bar, which we are not doing. We are leaving the situation exactly as it is in the South Africa Act.

How can you say it?

Yes, I am simply stating the case as it exists under the South Africa Act and as it is law today. We apply the same system that is inaugurated there: Europeans for Parliament, no colour bar drawn for the provinces, and as a matter of fact we know a provincial councillor in the Cape….

What about Natal?

There is nothing at all to prevent them. Dr. Abdurahman was a member of the Provincial Council.

So was Mr. Reagon.

Does the Prime Minister mean to say that up to now, quite apart from this present Bill, a native could have been a member of the Natal Provincial Council?

Yes, if he was a voter he could be a member. Now, that is the position in the South Africa Act, the position as it existed hitherto, and as we follow it here. The position of these Indian representatives in Parliament will be exactly the same as that of the native representatives, i.e., they have the same rights and privileges subject to certain reservations. For example, an Indian member of Parliament will not be able to vote for a Senator. The Indian Provincial Councillors in Natal will not be able to vote for a Senator. These are th reservations made in the South Africa Act and there is no change. The scheme remains the same. The position therefore is quite simple. In regard to the electoral arrangements, we constitute these new constituencies both for the Senate and the Assembly, and also for the Provincial Council in Natal, and we follow the scheme as laid down in the South Africa Act. It is quite a simple and straightforward position once the decision is taken, to give political representation, and about that there should be no question at all. We ought to do something. The European population, in view of the presence of the Indians in Natal, should make concessions. Both sections should make their contribution, and I think it is just and fair that this step should be taken, otherwise we will simply be taking away rights, and giving nothing in return, and leaving the Indian community as an unrepresented section of our community. I do not think that that will be justified. I think the time is overdue for making this change. Probably the change should have been made at the time the native Bills were passed, but it was not done then, ten years ago. The time is now ripe to do it, and now that we are dealing with the Indian question on a broad and comprehensive basis, I think that step should be taken.

I now pass on to the clauses, the provisions of this Bill affecting the Transvaal especially. They are somewhat intricate and technical, and I think that they should be dealt with in committee, and not in the second reading. They enter into a number of questions. There is, for example, the position of Indians under the Gold Law on the gold areas in the Transvaal. That has been a very difficult and intricate matter. Changes were made in the Gold Law from time to time. Finally, some years ago, the Feetham Commission was appointed to straighten out the tangles that arose. Some of these tangles have been removed, but some still remain, and we are left with the balance of the Feetham Commission’s difficulties. Beyond that we have a number of what may be called evasions. The laws dealing with land tenure in the Transvaal have been continually evaded, and we have had the Murray Commission—and I believe other commissions too, but more specifically the Murray Commission—which went into these cases, and made certain recommendations, and the clauses in the Bill in so far as they affect the Transvaal, are intended to carry out the recommendations of the Murray Commission. These clauses deal with forms of evasion such as white dummies who are used to evade the law. We have to deal with companies. A combination of companies was formed in order to deal with this land question, and to evade the law. This was very cleverly and successfully done. The Murray Commission has dealt with these cases, and made certain recommendations which are embodied in the Bill. There is the question of the controlling interest. That is dealt with here, and similar things that have arisen through attempts to evade the law. These attempts will in future be defeated and the original intention of our legislation carried out if these clauses are accepted. The original Act applying to the Transvaal, as hon. members know, was Act 3 of 1885, which forbade Indians from holding, occupying or owning land in the Transvaal, except in areas pointed out by the Government. Now, that is a matter which also requires elucidation, and in some respects amplification to straighten out the difficulties, and this Bill deals with that also. I hope we will deal with it successfully. I do not think that I need go into particulars because no doubt these matters will be dealt with more effectively in the committee stage.

I just want to say one word about purchases of land by Indians in the Cape Province. Complaints have been made to the Government recently from various quarters that the door having been closed to indiscriminate purchasers in the Transvaal and in Natal, there are very clear indications of attempts being made in the Cape to penetrate here and buy land. I just want to utter a warning note to our Indian friends in the Cape to be careful about this. The Indians precipitated the crisis which led to the Pegging Act. But for the large-scale penetration into Durban during the war, our troubles might have been much lighter, and milder. But these purchases, these acts of penetration, led to the Pegging Act which in turn has led to this Act. So one thing leads to another, and at every stage our burdens increase. I would just warn my Indian friends not to provoke undue irritation of the position at the Cape.

That is a pious hope.

No, it is a warning. These are not pious hopes. We have warned before and you have seen what the results have been when the warnings were not heeded.

Why not stop Europeans from selling to Indians?

How can we? I do not think we will overload this Bill with the problems of the Cape. The problems in the Cape are not too serious, and on the whole the position here is satisfactory. Let sleeping dogs lie. Our Indian community here have been unprovocative to a degree. In the Cape the Indians have really set an example to the Indians in the rest of the Union. That being so, I think we would be making a great mistake if we attempted to overload this Bill with a fresh problem.

The Indians from Natal will buy ground in the Cape.

That is exactly what I am warning against. If they do, fires will be lighted here also. There will be the same fear here, and some future Government may find itself in the same undesirable position in which I am today. I am just uttering these warnings here, and I hope they will be heeded.

Mr. Speaker, I have stated that the Bill is urgent, and the urgency is due to the expiry, almost immediately, of the Pegging Act. I would appeal to hon. members to speed up the passage of this Bill. The Government hopes that it will be unnecessary to send this Bill to a Select Committee. We can thrash out such difficulties as we have about it here in the House. If this Bill goes to a Select Committee it will take time, and it may not even pass. It certainly will not pass within the time at our disposal, and I therefore would appeal to hon. members to assist the Government in a very difficult problem which concerns South Africa very vitally and to put this Bill on the Statute Book, and thereafter let us see how best to deal with the problems which will arise. I think it affords an opportunity for making a new start. From the point of view of some it may appear to be harsh. From the point of view of many others we may appear to be giving more political rights to Indians than we should. I say that on the whole it lays down a broad basis on which better relations can be built up in future, and I make my appeal to all sides of the House to be helpful, and place this Bill on the Statute Book, and thereafter build on it as a basis for the future. So much for this Bill. In spite of present Indian opposition to this Bill I have no doubt that the time will come, and it may come pretty soon, when Indians in Natal will recognise the solid advantages to be derived from this measure.

Hear, hear.

Ever since the eighties of the last century the position of Indians in Natal has been surrounded with misunderstanding, friction, and antagonism, until it has become almost intolerable. Whatever rights the Indians in Natal enjoyed, were enjoyed under protest, and they have never had any sense of security. The time has come to let the Indian know exactly where he stands. This Bill seeks to establish a sound foundation on which the future may be securely built. There need be no friction between the various sections of the community in future. But the passing of this Bill does not mean that all mistakes will be obliterated, and that all the needs of the Indian community will be met. The Government must see to it that the Indian gets a square deal in every direction, even beyond the field covered by this Bill. His crying needs today are housing, health, employment and education. It must be left to Government policy to see that these needs are met as far as possible. After the Cape Town Agreement of 1927 the office of the Commissioner for Immigration and Asiatic Affairs was established. In connection with the uplift clauses held before the Indian community the idea was adopted that this office would act as a liaison between the Indians and the several Government Departments. Unfortunately that never came to fruition. The post of Commissioner of Asiatic Affairs was created, but no machinery was ever brought into operation whereby the Indians could get a square deal in all respects. It is the intention of the Government now to secure that this office is properly organised in order that the needs of the Indians may be carefully watched and duly attended to by the authorities concerned, central, provincial or local. There is much that must in fairness be done, and it is incumbent on the Government to see that the several authorities charged with their respective functions do what is necessary for the welfare of the Indian people throughout the country. If the provincial and local authorities do not measure up to their responsibilities, it may be necessary for the central government to consider legislation or to take any other action. This is a matter for the future, after it has been seen how all concerned react. The Government has particularly in mind the establishment of an advisory committee, not the board envisaged in this Bill, but a committee consisting of interested voluntary workers on which Indians and Europeans will be represented and which will advise the Government on all matters pertaining to the welfare of the Indians, through the Commissioner for Indian Affairs. Such a committee would enquire into the avenues of employment, etc., and co-operate with the central, local and provincial government in matters affecting housing, social welfare and other amenities. Education, health and social services would be amongst the major issues, and generally it would advise the Government on any matter dealing with Indians. In this regard it is not the intention to deprive the Indians of any rights or privileges enjoyed by them today. They will still have the right of access to any Department or Minister as at present, but it cannot be seen in what other way the interests of the Indians can best be served. It is very necessary for the Government to know at all times what the actual position is. There must be someone whose job it is to see that the policy of the Government is carried out. It is principally for this reason that it has been decided to have this body falling under the Minister of the Interior. For all these years the real issues have been obscured by this one major issue of the relations between the Indian and the rest of the population of the Union, bound up with the question of land tenure in Natal and the Transvaal, so much so that the real practical needs of the Indians were neglected. The time has arrived to liquidate this big outstanding account and to settle once and for all this question of where Indians can live permanently and not be the playball of various interests and politics, but where their foundations for future happiness may be laid. The Indians must have adequate and fair opportunies, especially in regard to these four main requirements of housing, health, employment and education.

The Prime Minister in his speech this morning began by pointing out that this Bill he is introducing is of the very greatest importance. I do not think there is anyone who will dispute that. He also stated that he thinks the country in general has been deeply impressed by it. He followed up by saying that on the other hand the importance of this measure must not be over-estimated, and must not be over-stressed. The reply I want to give to that is that it is very difficult to emphasise too greatly or to estimate too highly its importance. It is very difficult to overestimate it. My opinion is, and I think there will be many in this House on both sides who will agree with me, that if we consider the importance of this Bill, its implications and its far-reaching, sweeping nature, that in the ten years that have elapsed since 1936, when we adopted the Bill in connection with the demarcation of areas for natives and their representation in Parliament, no more important or more far-reaching Bill has come before this House. But what I wish to point out further is this, that in connection with the treatment of the subject and the manner in which it has been presented and carried through this House, we have every reason to be dissatisfied. Not only members on this side of the House and on the other side of the House, but I think the country as a whole has every reason for dissatisfaction. In the first place, it is the intention that this measure, which is of so far-reaching a character, should be put through this House in a week’s time, less than a week, and it is the intention of the Prime Minister also to drive it through the Other Place in a single week. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has earned for himself the reputation in the course of years, especially in respect of legislation affecting the non-European population, of generally following delaying tactics. This is never the time to tackle the matter or to tackle it as radically as is proposed. You must postpone it, and things will solve themselves, and the trend of events in the course of years will themselves show how they must be solved. Consequently, take your time. He has earned the reputation of using an expression which no other statesman in South Africa has employed so frequently or brought into effect so frequently, “Let things develop.” In South Africa this has really become proverbial in its use in reference to the Prime Minister. But now the Prime Minister has come completely into conflict with these tactics and his policy of the past, and he wishes to bring an important matter such as this, with its far-reaching implications, before the House and to drive it through the Assembly in all stages and through the Senate in all stages in a single week. And how much time have we this week? On this first day on which it has been presented here there will be, with the exception of the leaders of the various parties and groups in this House, very few members who will be able to take part in the debate. Tuesday and Friday are private members’ days, and they cannot be devoted to this subject, except for a short period. Consequently, this subject must be settled, and driven through all the stages in this House, today, Wednesday and Thursday. I say that we have every reason to be dissatisfied in respect of the manner in which the Government is dealing with a measure of such a drastic nature. But we have also reason to be dissatisfied in reference to another point, namely, the indecision that the Prime Minister and his Government evinced in connection with the subject over a considerable period right to the end. Through the Speech from the Throne the Prime Minister let it be known that he was bringing up legislation of this nature. Shortly afterwards he made a statement in this House in connection with it. In reply to a question that I put to him not so long ago, he stated what would really be the contents of this Bill, and how far it would go. But since that time—it is only a short while ago—he has changed front on an extremely important point. He stated in this House that there would be representation of Indians in the provincial councils of both Natal and the Transvaal. Not that I do not agree with him not including the Transvaal now. I agree with that, but this circumstance indicates how the Government was groping around in reference to this matter, and adopting an indecisive attitude to the very last. How much time have they had? Two Pegging Acts were adopted in the course of recent years. In 1939, that is seven years ago, a Pegging Act was passed in connection with the Transvaal, and in 1943 there was another in connection with Natal. Both were temporary measures. Why were they of a temporary character? Because the Government said: We want to solve this problem both in the Transvaal and Natal; these are big problems, we want to devote our attention to the subject and we shall come before Parliament with legislation of a permanent character. They had seven years in the case of the Transvaal and three years in the case of Natal. But right to the end the Government floundered round so that the country asked what the Government was really going to propose. I think we have reason to be dissatisfied with that floundering and indecision of the Government in connection with so important a matter. There is yet another subject on which we have reason to be dissatisfied, and that is that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister does not intend, and apparently did not intend to refer this Bill, which is of so important and sweeping a character, to a Select Committee. Bills have already been introduced into this House which did not possess one-twentieth of the importance of this radical measure, but the Government came and agreed, or themselves proposed, that before the second reading of the Bills was taken they should be referred to a Select Committee of this House. This Bill, I say, putting it at the lowest is twenty times as important as the Bills to which I have referred. It contains a new principle of a far-reaching nature; the franchise is now given, the individual franchise, to non-Europeans in the northern provinces. This has never previously happened and I think it is a matter which touches the foundations of white South Africa. It touches an agreement that was entered into, a compromise that was arranged, between two conflicting standpoints and principles, when the Union was accomplished. Now the Prime Minister comes and for the first time he proposes in this Bill that the franchise shall be given to nonEuropeans in the northern provinces, with the exception of course of the Free State.

In Natal the natives can get the vote.

An opening has been left for the natives to be franchised, but how many are there? The Governor-General had the right to allow the franchise to non-Europeans or natives in Natal, but this has long since become a dead letter. The number who have thus been admitted to the franchise is so small as not to be worth mentioning.

On a separate roll.

That makes no difference. In practice the franchise does not exist for natives in Natal. It affects the point the Prime Minister has mentioned here, that he is not altering the position under the South Africa Act when he proposes that two Indians can be elected as members of the Provincial Council in Natal. He stated that Indians could have been elected in the past. But hitherto the Indians in Natal have not had the franchise, and if Indians had been elected for the Provincial Council then the European voters would have elected them. No European voters would have elected Indians to sit in the Provincial Council of Natal. It is only Inidans who have the franchise who would have done that, but the Indians had not the franchise. This is a reason for disatisfaction—that the Government has not referred to a Select Committee of the House an important Bill such as this, as one would have expected they would, where the various representatives of the various parties in the House could consult one another on the subject. He is pushing it through as a Government measure without the House having the opportunity to discuss it thoroughly through a Select Committee. This Bill is entirely comparable with the Bills that were first presented to the House in 1936, and later to the Joint Sitting of both Houses of Parliament. Those Bills were also comprised of two parts, as the Prime Minister has already mentioned here. The one was a delimitation of areas just as is happening today in connection with the Indians. The other related to the representation of natives in the Assembly and in the Senate. But how was that matter in connection with the natives dealt with? Before the Joint Sitting of both Houses of Parliament in 1936 a Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament was appointed. That Joint Select Committee did not only sit as long as it was possible to do so during the Session of Parliament, but it also utilised the recess, and they did not do it in one year, but the Select Committee devoted for several years its best attention and all its powers to it. This is the way in which a similar matter was approached and dealt with ten years ago. Now the Prime Minister comes and without having a Select Committee of this House, he seeks to drive this Bill through the Assembly and through the Senate in a few days. But what I wish to add is that I consider there is every reason to expect that in connection with this important and far-reaching and very drastic measure it would be so tackled, it would be so treated in this House and outside this House to keep it above the pressure of party politics. I myself nine years ago, as Minister of the Interior, had to deal with this Indian problem. The difficulty at that time was not so great and so urgent as now, but the question was there and I shall read from the statement how I took up the matter, a statement that I made in 1932 in this House, and this is the spirit in which not only I indivdually but also the Government to which I belonged took up this subject and tried to solve it. It is a statement I made on 5th April, 1932. It was made after a conference had been held with representatives of the Government of India to consider whether the Cape Town Agreement that had been entered into five years previously had worked or not, whether it should be continued or not, and whether anything else should be done to make it operative again, because, as the Prime Minister has said, for a few years it went well and large numbers of Indians were repatriated, but after that the matter virtually became moribund. I then made the following statement in this House—

As the responsible Minister at that time I invited the Prime Minister, who was then Leader of the Opposition, to take part in the conference or to send representatives to the delegation that the Union Government had appointed to meet the deputation from India. The Prime Minister appointed the late Sir Patrick Duncan and Mr. Heaton Nicholls, who represented the Opposition there—

I say this is the way in which at that time we dealt with the matter and I think it is the right way to deal with it. I am glad to be able to say that even today I look back with thankfulness to the time when that matter was dealt with and when I proposed nothing that had not been laid before the Select Committee of the House, or on which the other side of the House at that time was not consulted. The result was that all the decisions of the House at that time in connection with the Indian question, and there was a whole series of them, were taken with the approval and the concurrence of the House—there were two or three exceptions—with the approval and concurrence of all the members of the House. Therefore I repeat that we have every reason to be dissatisfied that the Government has chosen an entirely different way to deal with this matter.

In reference to the attitude of the Indians I wish to identify myself completely with what the Prime Minister has stated, that the Indians must decide once and for all whether they wish to form a part of the permanent population in South Africa, or whether they are a foreign element here who have their national home in another country, and that they accordingly have the right to feel that in matters affecting them they may make an appeal not to the Government of this country but to make an appeal against the policy of this country to an external government. This is a matter that the Indians must decide in the first instance. If they decide, as is apparently now the case, because they are making an appeal to governments overseas, and if the report published yesterday morning is correct, they are prepared not only to make an appeal to the U.N.O. but to the individual governments of Russia, France and China— I maintain that if this is their attitude then they are not entitled to the consideration in this country that every section of the permanent population has from the Government. If this is their attitude then we cannot do otherwise than regard them as a foreign element in the country. Then we must also regard them as a responsible speaker in the Legislative Assembly in India described them, as Indian citizens. Not only is it necessary that the Indians themselves should come to a final decision on this question and act accordingly, but it is also a matter on which we should have clarity. Let me say at once that my viewpoint was, when I had to deal with the matter as Minister of the Interior, that I should take up the attitude which at that time was correct, namely that a portion of the Indian population in South Africa belonged to the permanent population because they were born here. But another section was not in that position. They were born in India. They always had their children educated in India and then they returned to our country. They also maintained their connection with India, and it was also said they felt more at home there than here. For that reason the repatriation scheme was an effort we made to return to India those Indians who actually, on their own admission, were aliens in this country. That was the viewpoint. But after this repatriation scheme was exhausted it appeared, and I think it is today the case, that probably 85 per cent. to 90 per cent. of the Indians in South Africa have been bom in South Africa. In India they are aliens. Consequently I take up the attitude that they form portion of the permanent population of South Africa. This gives us a right —a right to demand that they shall not seek assistance from another government overseas in reference to legislation that is introduced here and that affects their interests. It is our right to demand that this shall not occur. We do not permit it in the case of other sections of the population, and we cannot permit it in their case. On the other hand this imposes an obligation on us. If they form part of the permanent population the bounden duty rests on us to treat them as a permanent part of the population and to solve this question on a basis that is just. That is the standpoint I take up. I can only say that if our standpoint is right. I do not say that there should not be a representative of India—the Agent-General— in South Africa. He can be here, but then he should be here not for the interests of those Indians who reside here as inhabitants of this country. He has nothing to do with them. Their interests are a domestic matter, and it is a matter for our Government, and he has nothing to do with it. He should be here for general matters affecting the interests of India, just like the ambassador of any other country. He cannot take up an exceptional position here.

I come now to the Bill itself. As the Minister has said, this Bill consists of two parts. The first part of the Bill wishes to bring about separation in the possession of land and of occupation in Natal. It is necessary, as the Prime Minister has explained, as a result of the penetration that has taken place on such a large scale and at such a tempo, that the white population in Natal—and the Prime Minister is absolutely right in thinking this—regards this as a menace to their position. Let me say at once that apart perhaps from some details I now wish to discuss we agree with that part of the Bill. Thus we are going to support that section of the Bill. We live in South Africa in a country where there are various races, races which in many respects differ widely from one another not only in regard to their level of civilisation but also in other respects. There is only one way—I cannot see any other—in which these various races in South Africa can live together in peace, without there being friction and incessant friction, without the one section or the one race contemplating the other as a danger to it and to the country, and the one way is that we should have colour bars in the country. Without colour bars in the country we cannot have that condition of peace and that feeling of security here. But with those colour bars in this country we must, as I have already said in connection with the permanent parts of the population, so conduct ourselves that they will be treated justly and have a future in the country. What other course can be struck to accomplish that purpose? Has anyone yet presented any other effective policy in regard to this matter? Yes, the Minister of Finance, a colleague of the Prime Minister, announced his policy on the eve of the introduction of this Bill. In Johannesburg on the occasion of a graduation ceremony he gave an address in which he expounded his policy very clearly on this subject. He regarded colour bars as just a disclosure of prejudice on the part of those who instituted them. They were the breeding ground of the prejudice that existed. If that prejudice, as the Minister of Finance described it, and if those colour bars which have been instituted as a result of it, are removed in South Africa then nothing must be left of them. You cannot do away with some and allow others to remain. If this happens then there is only one outcome of the matter, and that is the downfall of the white race in South Africa. There are no two opinions on that. The Minister of Finance on a previous occasion —I remember it and perhaps other hon. members recall it as well—said to us: Yes, but there is one exception, there must be social dividing walls, there must be social separation. For the rest in every respect there must be equality of treatment, but it is right that socially we should not mix as Europeans do with Europeans, and the Minister of Finance said it was a question of training and education; the white population must be trained to maintain the dividing line. To that I say that you cannot have any social separation in this country or in any country and maintain it without there being separation in other spheres. Without separation in other spheres you cannot maintain social separation in the country. Look at Cape Town. Here you have equality in almost every sphere. There is nothing to divide the one from the other. What happens in regard to social separation under such conditions? I will say nothing further about that. Just look around in Cape Town and then you will see a signpost for the whole of South Africa, a warning of the logical application of the way the Minister of Finance has indicated. If we follow that road logically then we come to the outlook and the attitude of Dr. Philip, van der Kemp and Reid, who lived in the days before the Voortrekkers. If the doctrine or the attitude of the Minister of Finance is carried out consistently and applied then I say not many years will elapse before a great part of South Africa will follow the road of which we have a warning here in Cape Town; it may take a longer or shorter period, but eventually South Africa will have no other future than that of a third rate South American half-caste population. It has no other future.

I come now to the second half of the Bill, the political representation of the Indians in the Assembly and the Senate. In reference to this matter the Prime Minister has stated that the two parts of the Bill are inter-dependent and cannot be separated, or he does not intend to separate them. Why does he do this? He does this with an eye on the attitude of the Indians. He is attempting to secure their co-operation to give them something as a substitute in order to satisfy them. He has an eye on India and perhaps on the British Government with a view to appeasing them. That is why he is doing this. But has he succeeded? Is the British Government satisfied; is India satisfied, and are the Indians in our own country satisfied, either with one part of the Bill or with the other part of it? If it was his intention to shape the Bill in this way so that it would secure satisfaction and co-operation then I say that from the start it has hopelessly miscarried. [Time limit extended]. It has already failed hopelessly, but for this failure he has made the white race here in South Africa pay the price through this Bill. The first question that we wish to put in connection with political representation is this, and we must regard the matter in the light of the reply to it: How does this representation that the Prime Minister wishes to give the Indians affect the colour problem as a whole? In South Africa we have not to deal only with the Indian problem. We have to deal with the colour problem to the fullest extent—natives, Indians, coloureds. How is the colour problem, as a whole, affected by this measure if we put it through? There can be only one answer to that, and it is that if this Bill should ever prove a solution to the Indian problem it at the same time creates in the broader sphere of the colour problem as a whole greater problems and greater dangers than even this Indian problem, even without this Bill today. I shall tell you how: Those three sections of the colour problem are, as I have stated, an inter-dependent whole. If you break down the dividing wall at one place it is ever so much harder to protect it at another place. It is like a dam. If you break the wall at one place the whole wall is affected and the whole dam is affected. It is the same with this problem. It was unfortunately left as an unsolved problem in 1910 with the accomplishment of Union, and because the question was then left half open, or not solved at all, you had for the first 36 years after that a continuous nibbling at this Bill. It was taken in hand fragmentarily and subsequently it had to be tackled again and no progress was made; while the position became worse and worse. Now I say: Push through this Bill which is a fragmentary solution of the colour problem in general, solve the problem in this way and look at the reactions which of course will follow immediately. The Indian population, to whom three members in the Assembly are given—we shall leave the Senate for the moment—number 250,000 in all the provinces. The Indians in the Cape enjoy the franchise and consequently they do not fall under this. In the northern provinces there are still fewer. The 250.000 get three members here in the Assembly. I say, what is the reaction to that? Have you forgotten that a large number of coloured people live today in the northern provinces?

It is a very small number.

There are coloured people in such numbers that they constitute a problem in certain areas. The Minister of Lands came along only a short time ago with settlements for coloured people in a part of Natal. He wants to have the right to establish such settlements for coloured people everywhere in the northern provinces. I should say that they would be immediately entitled to ask: “If 250,000 Indians have three representatives in Parliament, though the Indians are the most recent arrivals in South Africa—it is a new element in the population here—why should the coloured people in the northern provinces remain unrepresented?”

Because there is hardly a single one.

What nonsense.

They have not the franchise there. They have not the parliamentary franchise, and immediately there arises what you have hitherto had in only a small degree, namely a new and serious problem. But more than that. Here you have the native population. They are represented here in Parliament by three members. If the Indians with a total of 250,000 altogether in the country get three representatives in the Assembly what do you imagine will be the thought that will arise naturally in the minds of the native population? They number eight million, and these eight million who form part of the permanent population of the country must thus be placed on an equal footing with the Indians, who only number 250,000, and who also receive three representatives. Thus you at once create a feeling of injustice amongst the members of the native population, and they will demand that they should have not three but 30 representatives if they are to be placed on an equal footing with the Indians. This is also going to complicate the whole question of South-West Africa. South-West Africa, it is hoped, is going to be incorporated in the Union. There, too, it is also a question of the franchise. What representation will be given to them here in Parliament? And the problem is: Can you exclude the coloured population there—and it is a large coloured population—from the franchise when you are giving the franchise to 250,000 Indians to whom you have given three seats in Parliament? You see what serious consequences, what new and greater problems than we have had hitherto will arise as a result of this measure. In other words, give that representation in the Assembly to the 250,000 Indians, and then I say this country will have a halter round its neck and it will not easily get rid of it, especially if that idea of the Minister of Finance takes root which regards as prejudice, and something to be abolished, that herrenvolk feeling, that feeling of superiority on the part of the Europeans. How can you after that refuse the new demands that are made? As regards Natal, I can only say that I will not go into that. Natal is represented here, and Natal can speak for itself. I cart only say that the principle that is introduced there is a new principle in practice. It is not a question of theory, it is a question of practice. It will simply not remain at that. If the Indians have the franchise for the Assembly and for the Senate, and they have the franchise for the Provincial Council of Natal, can you, with any justice, deny them the municipal franchise? You cannot do that. You cannot possibly do that, and therefore it will also have its further applications in that connection, and if you cannot apply it there you will simply cause greater difficulties than the difficulties which will be eliminated by this Bill.

Just one other point, and it is this: The way in which this representation is given— I am still confining myself to the Assembly —creates a tremendous change in the character of our Parliament as representatives of the people. It creates a tremendous change in the character of our Parliament, especially if we take it with the change that is brought about by the introduction of the native legislation in 1936. Let us reflect for a moment what the position will be if this Bill is adopted. In this Assembly there will be sitting a bloc of six non-European representatives. I say it is a bloc. I do not say that they will always, as might be expected, vote together. It is a bloc; but I am also referring to the fact that these six representatives are on an entirely different basis to the other members who are sitting in Parliament. Under what arrangement do they sit here? They sit here solely to represent race interests. We do not sit in Parliament and we are not elected on the basis of race. We are elected, no matter to what party we may belong, to represent the general interests of the country. We are sitting here because we hold certain views, on which we differ amongst ourselves, on national problems in general. We represent our constituencies, the voters who have sent us here. But we represent South Africa as a whole, all of us. But that is not the case with those who represent the natives, and it will not be the case with the representatives of the Indians, and as this is so—you recognise it is the case when Parliament dissolves all our seats fall vacant with the exception of those of the native representatives and the representatives of the Indians; these do not become vacant; they remain—and now with a bloc of six, and especially as the parties in this House always stand more or less at equal strength, what is going to happen then? You will be calling in the representatives of the non-European population in South Africa to be the arbiters as between European and European. You call them in to umpire between European and European in this House, and in order to do this you place them in an exceptionally privileged position. We cannot retain our seats when Parliament dissolves. We have to go to the country and submit to the judgment of the nation, but those six are not subjected to the judgment of the people or the verdict of their constituents. They sit tight there in their seats for five years. They have no responsibility on general national questions to the people as a whole. In other words, this position may arise; there is a big problem over which there is a difference of opinion in Parliament; the Government decides to go to the country on that question; it has not a big enough majority, or it suffers defeat by a few votes, and it decides to place the matter before the country and ask the people to give an answer, and the people give an answer either that the Government should stay or that the Government should fall. The people give their answer but the majority is not too big. Then that answer given by the people, that decision of the nation in this great and serious and pressing national problem is stifled subsequently by that bloc of six in Parliament. I say that is an utterly impossible position that is being created in this way, and accordingly I move the following amendment—

You will make this a plank in your platforms at the next elections.

Are you afraid of that?

What I ask for here is an extension of the Pegging Act. Why do I do this? Why do I say “amended according to the demands of existing circumstances”? This is precisely because the Pegging Act is of such a character that the platteland in the Transvaal is not yet protected enough; consequently you are extending it and it will have to be amended in accordance with what is demanded by circumstances in the two years that lie ahead. This is so far as Natal is concerned. The Prime Minister here emphasised, what I myself wish to do as well, that in the meanwhile a situation has grown up in the Cape which threatens to develop into a position more or less the same as you have in other provinces, because you have no Pegging Act. There is Vryburg, for example. Vryburg is pouring out endless complaints that Indian capital is being allowed to buy up land and houses there. You have the position in Cape Town as explained by the Prime Minister. That may arise at other places. In those circumstances it will be necessary, should you extend the Pegging Act, that it should be amended in some respects over those two years in order to safeguard the position. What I suggest here is that the matter should be referred for consideration to a joint committee of both Houses, just as was done previously, whereby you would be according an opportunity to all parties to furnish their contributions towards reaching a solution. The native problem was dealt with in this way. I refer to the arrangement that has been made in connection with native representation. I should like us now just to look at the colour problem in its entirety in South Africa squarely in the face. The longer you postpone it the more serious will the position become. Let us once and for all put an end to this nibbling at the problem and to that fear that exists and that feeling of disquiet which is incessantly assailing the peace and security of South Africa. South Africa and the various sections of the people will then have peace and security, and South Africa will have peace.

I formally second the amendment.

I would like to move a further amendment as follows—

The question of Indian penetration into predominantly European areas, of Asiatic ownership or occupation of property, and the representation of these people in this Parliament are, I submit, matters not party political, but matters on a much wider basis. These problems are of national concern, and may even become international and almost or quite world-wide in their scope. On the other hand, and presenting a very marked contrast, the contents of the Bill now before us are a party matter. The Bill is purely a scheme of action made, or partly made, some people would say less than halfmade—by the United Party. They are solely responsible for its present form, and if the Bill is passed unduly quickly, or in other ways blunders are made, that Party and no other must carry all the consequences. But we wish to help the Government, and more particularly to help South Africa, in this matter. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister said this morning that everybody must make a contribution. Well, there are many who have not had the opportunity of doing anything of the kind. The sole contribution made to this Bill was made by the present Government of this country. Surely the people of South Africa are also entitled to make a contribution, if they wish to do so, and it is my belief that this is their desire. At a meeting of my constituents in Natal from which I have just come that is one of the chief points they made. They are also willing to go a long way to help South Africa, and all sections of the residents of South Africa, but they fail to see why this Bill should be rushed through in the manner that is being adopted by the Government. My people believe that careful, wise and sustained consideration is necessary in this regard. They do not understand why the Bill was not presented earlier, to give us, who are members of this Parliament, an opportunity to make suggestions, and to give us the needful time to consult the people whom we represent, and to secure their views and advice. They wish very much to help the Government out of a nation-wide difficulty, and so far as my people in Durban North are concerned, I am certain they are willing to go a long way so to do; but they feel that they have not been given a say in a matter which affects them very closely indeed. My proposition will enable them to have a rightful degree of participation. It will put a fundamental wrong right. Moreover, I submit that it is dangerous to hurry. I have just come back from Natal, and on arrival from Durban today there was thrust into my hands what is obviously an important memorandum from the South African Indian Congress. I have just had time to note that there are 25 paragraphs in that petition, and that is all I know of the matter. At the meeting that I attended last Thursday night the hall was packed. It is capable of seating 250 people. I estimate there were 300 people inside the hall, and some stood outside. They were thoroughly representative, as far as I could tell, of the constituency. They wish to help the Government towards a just solution, as I have said, but they are going to address a petition to the Government all the same, because they consider that this Bill is in many respects wrong and unworkable. If the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will give the country a little time, and is prepared to listen to the reasonable representations of those concerned, the Bill can be made very much better and more satisfactory to the people at large. My people are prepared to be just and reasonable. I have here an important telegram—

Is that the general opinion in Durban?

It is the general opinion in Durban so far as I know. Of course, I did not meet each and every person in Durban, but I am giving the House the results of the one meeting I did attend, and the opinion of the very big number of people who attended that meeting. I suggest that it is dangerous to hurry, that the Government will get more done by going more slowly. Of course, the Prime Minister is now entitled to ask me how it can be done, if in any way. I am quite prepared to say how it can be accomplished. It is not really necessary to hurry; it is easy enough to tell us that the Pegging Act expires on the 31st of this month. That is so, but if these matters that I raise are important, there are three distinct ways of dealing with the situation. The Government has kept, not entirely to the satisfaction of the citizens of this country, their War Emergency powers. The Cabinet has not scrupled to use these, in other connections, since hostilities ended. I submit that the Government can use those powers in this instance. What I suggest is this, that in order that nobody should later be able to grumble that he did not know this and that he did not know that, and that this, that, or the other was not explained to him, or claim that these or those existing rights were overridden, that the Pegging Act should be extended at this stage for one or two or three months, or as long as it is necessary, even for a year if need be, either by resolution of this House, or by the Government’s Emergency powers, or by a Bill which we can pass in this House in a few moments if we are agreed as to the necessity for it. I say, contrary to the widespread assertion that the Bill before us must of necessity be passed within the next few days, that all existing safeguards under the “Pegging Act” can quite easily be extended, and sufficient time granted to allow individual injustices to be rectified, and this new Bill now under discussion to be enormously improved before it is passed into law.

What do the Durban newspapers say?

At this moment I cannot be worried about statements by the Durban newspapers, or even what “Arthur Barlow’s Weekly” will say in the future. I am trying to speak honestly and to help my country. If it so happens that I am losing somebody or other’s esteem or support, that is relatively immaterial to me, and surely completely immaterial to the hon. member. I am sacrificing my seat; that is immaterial. I am saying as clearly as I can what my people believe, so far as I understand them, and I do not know in what way the matter will be assisted by the constant interruptions of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow).

I am just trying to agree with you.

If the hon. member suggests that I am not telling the truth, perhaps he will tell me exactly what his reasons are when it is his turn to make a speech. He knows this is not an easy matter on which to speak, and frequent interruption does not seem to me to come well from an hon. gentleman better versed in affairs and a much more practised controversialist than I am. I believe that the European people throughout this country are willing to offer their contributions towards the solution of this problem, and Durban North residents definitely do ask, through me, that drastic far-reaching decisions shall not be made with unnecessary haste, and without thorough consultation. Sir, I submit the point to you and leave it there. It seems to me that if people are consulted they are much more satisfied with any arrangement that is made than if they are not consulted. If they have had a hand in the arrangements they are more easily satisfied. But even if you do a good thing to many people, without their permission, they may be dissatisfied for ever! If our citizens are taken into confidence, and allowed to help, they will support the proposed legislation, they will run the race and stay the course, even it if costs them a good bit before it is through. It is something like a man who buys a horse. If he buys his own pony, he may not buy a good one, but he will be satisfied with it! If a mount is thrust upon him by others, he will criticise all the days of his life! I say that since there is a way out, and since as far as I can see no one will lose anything, by extending the life and authority of the Pegging Act, I ask that that should be done, and I ask it on behalf of many sections of this nation. I want very briefly to go into the question of the need for further consideration, and to illustrate my request for a Select Committee by reference to the Bill itself. Most of the buying and selling, most of the penetration, and most of the trouble generally which has been caused by Indians, has been caused not by the mass of the indentured Indians and their descendants, but by very few Indians, probably not more than three or four hundred in all, the wealthy Indians. I suggest that the very need for this Bill has been caused by an extremely small minority of Asiatics, and I further suggest that this Bill advertently or inadvertently is framed in the interests of this small minority, rather than of the great majority, because this Bill requires that before a man votes, before he is put on the communal roll, he must have an educational qualification of at least the Std. VI certificate. This is not all. In addition to being literate, he must have an income of at least £10 a month, or certain fixed property to the value of £250. I submit startling figures to you. I submit that there are very few Indians who have passed the Std. VI tests, and who have the other qualifications as well; and I suggest that if investigation is made, it will be found that there are not many more than 3,000 Indians in the Union who can satisfy these combined intellectual and financial tests. When we have taken all these, there are still 247,000 Indians who are in exactly the same position as they were before. From that point of view, is not a certain amount of delay reasonable? Surely that point was overlooked by the framers of this Bill. Surely there can be no deliberate intention of doing away with any hope of having representation for practically the whole lot of them, 247,000 out of 250,000. It is possible that many of them do not greatly care whether they get the vote or not. But who knows? Has the Government tried to find out whether the 247,000 will be satisfied? I do not know whether they will be content. I could not ascertain that within the short time at my disposal in Natal. Surely a Select Committee should go into that matter, hear evidence, and call for papers? Was ’there ever greater need?

I also wish to refer very briefly to a few of the sections of the Bill. The first is section 7. I allege no ill will on the part of anyone with regard to this, but I simply refer to the haste in which this legislation has at long last been drafted. I do not know why it should not have been worked upon for the past three years. I do not understand why I had to go to Durban last Monday without having seen a word of the Bill, and now have to attempt to make some sort of speech about it on my return within a week, with only a typed copy in my possession. I do not see why more time could not have been taken for the preparation of this Bill. I repeat that I do not charge any ill will towards anyone in the matter, but ignorance and hurry are written on many pages of the Bill. Clauses have been framed crudely and wrongly, and in several cases the results will be different from what the Government apparently expects. For example, let me refer to sub-section (2) of section 7—

Now, the supposition of those who drafted this Bill is that the licensing laws of Natal are sufficient to control the position envisaged here and in the following sub-section. Well, they are not, and under this paragraph, together with sub-section (3) which states—

A new situation may arise. In Natal, the law does not allow refusal of a licence merely on the ground of an applicant’s race. That will I think be conceded as correct by all. Accordingly the nett result arrived at on these two sub-sections is this, that one of the most famous stores in the chief commercial centre of Durban can hereafter be acquired by an Indian, who can reside in an upper or lower portion of these premises; and ultimately the whole aspect of Durban’s historic West Street can be changed. I am sure that the framers of the draft Bill did not intend that. Surely they would like time in which to put the matter right.

Have you not misread the latter clause?

I have the definite assurance of the legal adviser of the corporation and City of Durban that that will be its effect. He may be wrong, in which case I am wrong also, and that point may be discarded; but in no circumstances can the following one be set aside. I refer to section 9 (2) and (3). Sub-section (2) says—

That is perfectly clear. And sub-section (3) states—

The effect of this is that without any reference whatever to existing rights of individuals, the Government aims at gaining power to act summarily in the future, and extend Asiatic holdings at will. Without consulting the local owners of property in the country, people who are already giving a great deal for the sake of achieving peace, without any reference to courts of law and everyday justice, without a warrant from the nation, without any word to Parliament, the Minister will be enabled to make additional free areas when and where he chooses. My people, on the contrary, felt that if it became necessary to increase the scheduled areas, and further to inflict losses—because it does inflict losses on the Europeans who are resident there already—at the very least in each case it should be brought before Parliament and decided by us, and not by the Minister or the Secretary of a Department, or an official junior to both of them in some Government office. The present effect of these sub-sections is that no one in Durban North who has an anti-Asiatic clause in his title deeds is safe. This Bill’s extending tentacles can overreach each and every one of them. Before this happens, the people of Durban North wish Parliament to consider the matter, and not to leave such decisions to be made behind closed doors by any Government department. Just one other point with regard to sub-section (4) which states—

Now in plain English that means that if you have a property of any value whatever, in one of the red or pink areas, as the public call the scheduled districts, willy-nilly the antiAsiatic clause lapses when this Bill becomes law. If you own property in any place which later on is decreed to be a scheduled area, even if you happen to be one of a group of twenty people in that immediate neighbourhood who have all taken the precaution to insert this clause, it will in every case and automatically become null and void. Those of us who have really studied this particular matter advise strongly against this arrangement, and say that circumstances should decide the position. It may be that one has a property in a scheduled area which might be a sort of island in a sea of coloured properties. Because of its surroundings, though it is fortified with an anti-Asiatic clause, it could not possibly be sold to a European. Because of the clause, it could not be sold to an Indian either. In such a case it is ridiculous to retain the clause. But there is another aspect of the matter. Property might be owned on the borders of but outside a scheduled area. Just across the road there might be a block of properties, in a newly declared open area, which are covered by an anti-Asiatic clause, which under the sub-section as at present framed must be nullified. This could not take place without prejudice to the dwelling house “across the way”. In that case it would be wiser and more fair to retain the Asiatic clause, and keep both sides of that road in one category. It is very difficult to lay down a rule which will cause a minimum of inconvenience and expense, and a maximum of advantage. My constituents know that it cannot be done in a hurry. That is probably why they agreed with my suggestion to them that perhaps it might be possible to have this Bill referred to a Select Committee, thus securing the extra time which is necessary to turn out a Bill which is much more acceptable to all. Before I sit down I must mention one statement which was made by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister this morning which interested me very much, and for the moment considerably reassured me. He said, if I understood him correctly, that existing rights would not be disturbed. If that is the statement he made, then he is not a hundred per cent. certain of where his proposed boundary lines are running. His statement is not true so far as the area west of the Umgeni Bridge in my constituency is concerned. The chief request my people make of the Prime Minister is this, that the line supposedly dividing the European township of Durban North from the open or scheduled area of Riverside, which they are convinced has been drawn in error, may be rectified. Had ordinary care been exercised, the obvious mistakes which have been made here could not have occurred. They have occurred, but it is not too late to adjust matters, provided the Government will follow the course of “give and take” which they urge so strenuously upon others. Everyone knows that these are difficult times. Everyone realises that these are times when it is necessary to give some consideration to other peoples’ ideas, even though at first sight they may not appear of high value. Probably it is a result of the war. Quite certain it is that the public’s patience is not endless. My ideas may seem to be very stupid compared with those of the hon. member for Hospital; but I have the right to express them, and my constituents feel that they are entitled to be heard through me. They know quite well that times are difficult, and are prepared to give as well as take. But I do not think anybody is wise who asks that all the giving shall be on one side and all the receiving on the other. Such request is, however, frequently made. Why should not all give equally, or at least in equal proportion to their means? Why should a few individuals suffer unduly, and others not at all? That is what my people are asking, and they want an answer. “Existing rights we do not disturb.” Enough instances have been advanced, I think, to prove that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister was mistaken in making this claim, and that in fact, if this Bill becomes law without substantial alteration, it will bear unevenly and unjustly upon many innocent individuals. That is why I have pleasure in moving that it be referred to a Select Committee before the second reading.

I second the amendment.

I think the hon. member for Durban (North) (the Rev. Miles-Cadman) has unsuccessfully drawn several red herrings across the track. He has referred to certain ambiguity in the clauses of the Bill, but they can be rectified when it comes to the Committee Stage. I am quite aware that the hon. member is probably not of the same opinion as members of the Government on this question, and of the Party to which I belong. Sir, I view this measure with mixed feelings. On the one hand the Bill provides what Natal has been clamouring for for 92 years, but on the other hand, it introduces rights for the Indians, which we did not anticipate. I mention the period of 92 years, because in 1854 a Durban citizen, van Prehn, raised his voice and requested the government, the Crown Colony Government of the day, to set aside areas for the Asiatics who were gradually coming into Durban. The people of Natal right throughout the period of 92 years have clamoured for this protection from various governments, and this is the first genuine attempt to rectify the position in which we find ourselves. With regard to the zoning which this Bill provides, from the plan we have seen, I think on the whole that it is very fair, but rather generous towards the Indians. I, however, realise the delicate position in which the Prime Minister finds himself on this thorny subject, and I realise that he has to give way on certain points. But with regard to the granting of the franchise, or rather the granting of representation in our provincial councils, I look upon that as the thin end of the wedge.

Hear, hear.

Right throughout the whole period, from the time the Indians started to come into Natal 92 years ago, before the indentured Indians came, we have seen one thin end of the wedge after another, and each time it expands and expands, until today we find ourselves in this difficult position. For that reason I feel that I cannot support the suggestion that the Indians should have representation in our provincial councils. I am deeply thankful to the Prime Minister for having the courage, in the.se difficult times, to bring in this very contentious measure to protect South Africa from being dominated by an alien race. In all sincerity I thank the Prime Minister for what he has done.

There is one criticism I should like to make in regard to these exempted areas, namely, that with regard to the whole borough of Durban, there are certain red spots which to my mind are quite unnecessarily inserted. I refer, for example, to the proposed new sports ground for Indians. That is in a purely European area. There are no other Indians anywhere near that, and I think whoever drew up these plans should not create new red spots. I call them red spots because on the plan these exempted areas are marked in red. I think it is unfortunate that these new red spots should be established at this time. A new sports ground for Indians should be in the exempted areas where Indians will reside in future. Then there is another red spot which might have been eliminated, namely, Riverside, which is in the area of the hon. member for Durban North. I think that might be eliminated, and perhaps the Advisory Board will take that into consideration in due course and let it revert to Europeans.

Then there is a condition in the Bill which envisages that this Advisory Board will, as years go by, suggest extensions of these exempted areas. I cannot see the force of putting a provision of that kind in the Bill. It sounds paradoxical to me. These areas are being formed so that Indians will know that they can expand as much as they like within these areas, but not beyond them. I think the Indians ought to be made to understand that if they will go on over-populating as they are doing, they must overcrowd their own areas, and not expect further extensions into the European areas. With regard to the Advisory Board, I am very doubtful as to the wisdom of having Indians on this Board. I realise the difficulties with which the Prime Minister is faced, but I see grave difficulty arising out of the fact that Indians can be members of this Board. I think the Europeans in this country are considered the dominant race, and let us continue to be the dominant race as long as we can. Why give away important positions on the Board to Indians, whom the Bill puts into exempted areas?

Now, I want to speak on another subject. It is generally the impression throughout Natal, and I must admit that I have had that impression also, that the late Natal Government was responsible for freeing the indentured Indians from their contract to return to India. But I have been looking up past Acts, and I find that that is not the case. Up to 1914, four years after the Act of Union came into force, the Natal Act as passed in 1895 still held good, and under that Act every indentured Indian who did not re-indenture for labour on the fields or elsewhere was subject to a licence fee of £3. That Act was never repealed until 1914, when it was repealed by the Union Government, and not by the Natal Government. I think this is a very important point. In 1895 the Natal Government had passed law No. 17 of 1895, clause (6) of which reads—

The reason I bring that forward is that, as hon. members know, although Natal is blamed in many respects for the situation that has arisen, it is not altogether to blame, and the Act freeing these indentured Indians was passed by Union Government in 1914.

I have been referring to the question of indentured Indians, but we have another class of Indians in Natal known as the trading class. Those are the people who came into Natal from the East Coast of Africa, ex-slave dealers. When slavery was abolished the ships of the Royal Navy drove these dhows ashore and these slave dealers were at a loss what to do with themselves. Some were driven ashore at Madagascar and other places, and they heard of a place called Durban, and as soon as possible they took ship and arrived at Durban. These are the people who are creating most of the trouble. I make bold to say if we had only the indentured Indians to deal with we would not have such a great problem. But it is largely caused by these people, some of whom entered the country illegally. Some of these ex-slave dealers landed in Lourenco Marques and marched across the border through the bush to get into South Africa. I am not speaking without my book because I had a personal friend who was 16 years the Union Government’s representative at Komatipoort. He was not only the customs officer but the immigration officer, and had to keep his eye on people coming through by train and entering the Union. He found these Asiatics were entering the Union by walking through the bush across the border. He promised any native who would bring in any of these Indians £1 a head, and he told me they brought in many Indians found walking through the bush, and he gave them a sovereign in each case. Of course that did not deter them. They were sent back to Lourenco Marques, and I suppose in a week’s time they would find some other method of entering South Africa. But I want to make that point. Many of the people causing all this trouble are not indentured Indians or descendants of indentured Indians, but many of them entered this country illegally.

My chief complaint against the Indian is he is not a good citizen. The Indians do not live up to European standards, nor do they circulate their money in the same way that we do. Furthermore, when a war occurs and we find ourselves with our backs to the wall, the British Empire and the Allied Nations, what do the Durban Indian do? They printed seditious propaganda against the British Government. I recollect having a pamphlet sent to me printed in Durban. It was called “What India Wants” and it was full of sedition. Amongst other things, it referred to Mr. Amery, then Secretary of State for India, as a fifth columnist. What did these Indians do when we had our backs to the wall with our sons away fighting? They took advantage of the delicate situation in India and flocked in and bought up property in Durban, and this caused the passing of the Pegging Act. I might here say they did not pay for these properties with their own money. The money was lent to them by building societies which were not Durban building societies; their headquarters were in the Transvaal. Building societies operating in Durban passed a resolution that they would not lend money to Asiatics purchasing property in European areas. These Transvaal building societies came down and did a roaring business.

What are the names of these building societies?

I do not remember the names of the offending building societies. What I am saying I know to be a fact. It is on record. The City Council of Durban investigated the matter and published the names. But I cannot carry all these names in my mind.

I want to refer to another subject, and that is the gallantry of the Indian regiments who fought in this war and other wars. No one will deny the Indian regiments put up a very good show and deservedly earned a number of V.C’s. But what I do take exception to is that Indians in South Africa are making capital out of the fact that certain Indian soldiers earned V.C’s in the war. I consider it quite unjustifiable to make capital out of such a subject. We all admit the gallantry of these Indian soldiers, but to make capital out of it does not go down with me in the slightest degree; and if comparisons are made on a population basis with the number of V.C’s earned by South Africans we are streets ahead of the Indians. But I do not want to make capital out of the gallantry of our sons. Still, when we hear South African Indians talking of the gallantry of Indian regiments and the V.C’s they earn, we ask ourselves: What have the South African Indians done for the war effort? They have done absolutely nothing beyond profiteering and accumulating money and encroaching upon European localities when our sons were away fighting. When it came to enlisting or raising war funds they contributed nothing to the war effort.

The first law of nature is self-preservation, and that is what I contend we in Natal have been fighting for all these years. It is a case of self-preservation against the Asiatic invasion. I have nothing against Indians as Indians, but, as I said, they are not good citizens. And furthermore I consider it is my duty and the duty of every hon. member to protect our sons and daughters from encroachment, penetration and aggression by Indians. I feel if I did not take up the attitude I have taken up I would be failing in my duty towards the sons and daughters in South Africa and my own sons and their descendants. I ask this question: Have our forefathers, both British and Dutch, shed their blood and pioneered South Africa simply for an alien race to overrun it? India is over-populated, it has a population of 400 million and it continues over-populating. India cannot feed and maintain her own citizens, and there is a conspiracy to make Africa a hunting ground for India’s surplus population. In order to support my contention I ask leave to read an extract from a paper, “The Voice of India,” which shows what the intentions of the Indians are. I am not responsible for the grammar. The article reads—

That exposes the whole conspiracy. They want this section of the coast of Africa as an outlet for India’s surplus population.

I do not say this, Bill is going to be an everlasting remedy for all our ills, but at least it is a step in the right direction, and I hope, generally speaking, the Bill will receive the support of the House. In Durban we have eight municipal wards and each ward has its association of citizens who take an interest in public affairs. When this Asiatic problem became very acute, a few years ago, these eight associations formed a combined ward committeé, especially to deal with the Asiatic question. There were two representatives from each ward, and the special duty of this committee of 16 was to watch this question and they have taken great interest in it. A few days ago, after they had seen the terms of the Bill before the House, they had a meeting, and I received this telegram from them—

That is the considered opinion of the Combined Wards of Durban, who made a special study of this question. I stand on that. I think that fairly represents the opinion of the people of Natal and of Durban and of my constituents, and I stand by that telegram. I hope that this measure will go through, and that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will not be side-tracked by suggestions of having Select Committees, such as mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, but that he will put it over. We have been clamouring for this for 92 years, as our records show, and I do hope that the Bill will go on the Statute Book. I reserve, however, the right to make certain suggestions when it comes to the Committee stage.

I do not intend to enter into details during this weighty discussion. The two former speakers entered into details in connection with the Bill, but I do not intend doing it at this stage. We can do that in the Committee stage. It is not even my intention to count how many V.C.’s the Indians earned during the war, nor to make a comparison between the army of India and that of South Africa. But I think that one of the first requirements essential to the discussion of such a weighty subject as that which we have before us today—a Bill the provisions of which may involve not only national but international developments —I say that the first consideration, in my opinion, is that we as legislators of the country should definitely realise the delicate nature of the legislation. That aspect of the matter, I think, has been thoroughly stressed by the Hon. the Prime Minister. He pointed cut that mainly as a result of misunderstandings and lack of knowledge, to which I shall refer later, we are practically standing alone in South Africa today. In the second place it is absolutely essential that we should attempt seriously to approach this matter objectively, and that we should show our readiness to bridge the gulf existing between the two extreme views in connection with this matter. It is a very important requirement that we who hold extreme views about this matter should be willing to attempt to bridge the existing gulf. Another and perhaps very important requirement in this connection is that we should ban from our minds and inner thoughts any possible idea of political party gan. It is a matter of such serious national importance that in my opinion we should be committing a great injustice towards the nation if we were to come here today to attempt to express our views in such a manner as to try to gain a seat by doing that. Our deliberations and discussions as well as our conclusions and our decisions, will, as we have already heard, and as we can all realise, have far-reaching results; they will not only determine our policy in connection with the Asiatics in South Africa, but in the first place they will influence the rest of the world, where the Prime Minister in the near future shall have to justify our course of action. In the second place it will also insure the continuance and maintenance of the European and Western civilisation in Southern Africa, or lay the foundation for its eventual extinction. For this reason it is absolutely essential that we should regard this matter definitely, and not with an eye to any party political gain. South Africa, in my opinion—and we all know it—is as regards Southern Africa the representative of the Western civilisation. India bears the imprint of oriental civilisation. The two are separated from each other by a gap as far as the south pole is from the north pole. The languages differ, the cultures differ; their outlook is different and the religions are different. Our whole form of life differs. Our philosophy of life is different in essentials. Our whole being differs. Therefore one can say that the two civilisations and philosophies can never combine and mingle. I say that whatever our Indian population may do, whether they declare themselves to be South Africans or not, they will not change, but until the day of their death, they will keep their eyes directed to the East. Therefore the two civilisations cannot mix with each other, as little as oil and water can mix. The Western civilisation may be good or it may be bad. The Eastern civilisation may be better than the Western civilisation, but we in South Africa, the European section of our population, prefer it to any other culture, because we have sacrificed our blood for it. This is the light in which I regard the Asiatic problem, and if we analyse it we find that our attitude is not based on racial hatred or racial prejudice. It is founded on protection and maintenance of our own civilisation for which we have sacrificed much and had much at stake. I think that if it is realised that our whole struggle today is based not on racial hatred or racial prejudice, but that it is founded in a very strong realisation of what our own national life involves, it will be recognised that that is the greatest line of thought for us to follow, the maintenance of our own civilisation and our own self-preservation.

I know that we have been accused by other countries of being intolerant. This accusation may be justified, or it may have no foundation. But in my opinion our accusers fail mostly in this that they do not understand, realise or appreciate the peculiar and unique position in which we in South Africa find ourselves. We are the representatives of European civilisation on a black continent. I repeat the words used by our Prime Minister at the Imperial Conference in 1917: “We are a European civilisation on a black continent.” The black hordes of Africa constitute the greatest danger to the European race, the greatest danger for the continued existence of European civilisation. It is because of this fear and for no other reason that we act; and again I use the words of the Prime Minister at this same Imperial Conference, that our treatment of the coloured races sometimes apparently—and he lays stress on the word “apparently”—but not actually seems to be intolerant. That is another very important factor and principle in our national life which must be appreciated. For this reason it is perhaps advisable—a front-bencher may perhaps not be able to do it because he occupies a responsible position, and we backbenchers can say a little more than those who occupy responsible positions—to some extent to deal with the racial policy of our chief critics, to put ourselves on an equal basis with them, and perhaps in that to find justification for our own policy; not that by so doing I wish to prove, if our policy is just as wrong as theirs, that two wrongs make one right. But I deal with our critics essentially to find justification for our policy of self-preservation, and to point out that theory is not alway able to be put into practice. I want to refer to our chief critics, and to point out what the policy was which they adopted towards aboriginal races. I will exclude our friend Joe Stalin. I shall deal with the friends of South Africa, countries like England and America. Just recently we have had criticism also from Australia, and we have been criticised by India. I shall very briefly refer to the native and coloured policies of these Pacific countries, to put us on an equal basis with them, if that is possible.

We find that certain influential sections in Britain, within and without Parliament, do their best to influence South Africa in its attempt to solve the Asiatic problem by means of its own methods. I do not want to weary the House with an exposition of England’s conflicting policy in connection with Asiatic problems, but with your kind permission I should like to refer to one or two points, namely, in the first place that the large majority of the British nation—and I speak here also from personal experience— have no idea of the whole problem, and in the second place that the British Government after the Anglo-Boer war refused to give the Asiatic population of the Transvaal those rights which in theory before that unfortunate episode in our history they not only supported, but considered important enough to be a reason for declaring war. Why did they refuse then, so that Gandhi had to exclaim that it was “a cruel irony of fate”? I will return to that. We find that when Zululand was still a Crown Colony England refused to allow any Asiatics to possess ground there or to trade. Even today we still find that no Asiatic is allowed in Zululand and that he cannot trade there. But we further find that many of our critics, even in South Africa, but also in England, those persons who demand that South Africa should give privileges to the Asiatics, refuse to apply those same principles in India. I do not mention these facts in order to criticise the British Government or the British nation in their actions. That is not my intention. I mention it only in order to point out the great difference between theory and practice. When one compares the theory and the practice, one finds that they are two separate things. But let us leave England, as far as that is concerned. Let us examine the position in America, the so-called pillar of democracy, the most democratic land in the world, so-called. What is America’s policy towards the coloured races. I just want to mention a few things which happened in America within the last few months. We could expect that a country which criticises us would follow impeccable and clear policies itself, or that when the Indian community directs an appeal to America, it will be appealing to a country which follows a clean policy. But we find continual uprisings and actions against negroes in America. Recently there were clashes with Mexicans in Los Angeles, and there were risings against negroes in Detroit, Beaumont and Mobile, and there were clashes in Newark and at Dayton. We find that there was rough handling of negroes on trains and buses right throughout America, we find maltreatment and the stoning of negroes who wish to enter new districts, we find that the negro was manhandled in Mississippi, because he did not want to sell his farm to a European, we find that in the slums of the great cities 55,000 to 90,000 negroes per square mile are being housed without sanitary facilities; we find, for example, that strikes took place in various parts of America, especially in Philadelphia, because employers dared give work to coloureds or negroes; we find that the Congress of America still steadily refuses to abolish the lynching, the public hanging of negroes without any legal trial; we find that there is segregation in all the churches in America. So intense is the racial prejudice in America, that when a young negro girl was recently asked in America what punishment Hitler should receive, her reply was: “Make him black and make him live in America.”

We come to Australia. Just recently Australia has also begun to criticise South Africa. It often appears to be that Australia is very conveniently forgetting its own past and what its policy was in connection with the aboriginal races. We still have our coloured people. What happened to those of Australia? In 1888 we find a good example of what happened in Australia. Then the British Government wanted to import Chinese into Australia, and their spokesman against this importation was a man by the name of Lord Carrington who spoke on behalf of the Australians. Listen to his plea—

Sir Henry Parkes expressed himself even more forcibly, and I think he more or less gave voice to what we also feel in the matter—

And finally I want to remind Australia of the fact that they passed legislation through their Legislative Councils forbidding Asiatics from entering Australia. I mention these matters in order to indicate that whatever the ruling circumstances in or the criticism of other countries may be, South Africa in my opinion has the fullest right to be definite in its intention to tackle its own problems in its own manner in order to try to solve them. It is our holy duty and right as a sovereign independent state to solve our own internal problems, by our own methods, and it is also the dominant principle of international law and of the Conference of San Francisco that each state should be allowed to tackle and solve its own internal problems.

And what about India? The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister referred briefly to it this morning. He pointed out that in India the same principles embodied in this Bill, such as the principle of communal representation and of segregation, are today in force. Is it not true that in India even today we still have 60,000,000 Untouchables? These are the people who want to dictate to us what we should do, but who are unwilling to grant rights and privileges to their own people. No, we agree with what the Prime Minister stated, that South Africa is a soverign independent state, and in our weakness we will deal with our own matters as best we can. These Asiatics whom we have today have been coming into this country since 1860, and I want to tell you not what I personally think, but what Gandhi himself stated in connection with these people who came here—

They were people who there had no rights or privileges at all, people who were driven away and oppressed in their own country, and who came here today where they live happily. Gandhi goes further and states—

Another prominent writer states—

That is also what they said about the 1820 settlers.

I am speaking about Indians. But now we hear the accusation which I have heard on various occasions in Cape Town, also from responsible people, that the people of Natal, the inhabitants of Natal, are guilty of the presence of these people there and in South Africa. Sir, I think it is my duty to point out that that accusation is not just towards the people of Natal. As early as 1855 when Natal was still portion of the Cape Colony, Sir George Grey formed a plan of importing Asiatic labourers and coolies, but you will remember that in 1856 Natal received a separate legislative body, separated from the Cape, and that at the first election in 1857, which election was held on the question as to whether Asiatic labourers would be imported or not, two of the candidates who stood for election and who adopted the point of view that it would be best to import such Asiatics, fell out and were not elected. In the following year under pressure from overseas, from the British Government, the Lieutenant-Governor introduced legislation into the Natal Legislative Council for the importation of such labourers, and it was rejected by nine votes to four. The four were nominated members of the government. The elected members voted against the matter unanimously. But in the meantime there was another tragedy in the form of lack of labour for the sugar plantations. The people of Natal pleaded with the British Government to provide native labour for them, but the British Government replied that the natives were there “to become independent cotton growers”. They were to become cotton planters, and could not be employed as labourers. The Government of Natal went further and pleaded that the British Government should please send them white boys from England. That was also refused, and only when ruin stared them in the face, the Natal population took the step of agreeing that Asiatics should be imported. It is therefore not just to lay all the blame in connection with the matter on the shoulders of the Natalians. In the second place I may point out to the hon. House that in 1910 Natal joined the Union and by the Act of Union, the Union accepted responsibility for the Asiatics’ and Natal’s problems.

In 1859 there was not a single Asiatic in Natal, but as a result of this decision to import Asiatics, there were 6,000 in 1860, and 44 years later, in 1904, we find that there were 118,000, an increase of 112,000 in 44 years In 1921, i.e. 17 years later, there were 165,000; in 1934, again 13 years later, there were 198,000, and in 1936, 220,000, while in 1945 their numbers had grown to 250,000.

What was the fertility of our Asiatic ‘population? The European population had a fertility rate of 25.1 per thousand, and the Asiatic was 38.2 per thousand. We saw, I think it was last week, that their birth rate last month was more than that of the rest of the population in Durban taken together. We saw that one of every three children in the schools in Natal is an Asiatic. Do you realise what will happen before long about the Standard 6 qualification? As long as the Asiatics believe in polygamy he will increase in numbers much more and faster, and one of these days there will be not 250,000, but the figure will run into millions if we do not look out. I know, of course, that his death rate is still great. I am aware of that, but while our Government quite correctly is adopting a progressive health policy that death rate will become lower and lower, which means that the increase in proportion to the European population will steadily rise. We realise and frankly confess that we are afraid of the economic danger, the social danger and the political danger, and we are fighting for self-preservation. Let us be honest with each other. That is what we are fighting for. I know that the Indian has economic and moral rights and claims, but it is a fight for self-preservation which Utrecht were ceded to Natal and when the old Act of 1885 of the Republic would have lapsed, thus enabling the Indians to obtain land in those areas of Utrecht, Vryheid and Wakkerstroom, the Leader of the Opposition intervened and introduced legislation in this House which was passed by the House, to the effect that notwithstanding the fact that those areas had been ceded to Natal, the provisions of the Act of 1885 would still be operative, and that the Indians would not be able to buy land in those areas. The hon. member for Vryheid, therefore, owes the satisfactory state of affairs which exists in Vryheid to the Re-United Nationalist Party.

Please stop talking about party matters and deal with the legislation.

Did you not praise the Prime Minister?

Yes.

Why then cannot the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) praise the Leader of the Opposition?

I want to come back to the speech which the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister made this morning. The Prime Minister stated that the present is the opportune moment to put legislation of this kind through the House. Let me just repeat what the Leader of the Opposition said this morning with so much emphasis: Why must this legislation be hurried through both Houses of Parliament within a week?

No, there is some misunderstanding.

Why must this legislation be rushed through within a week, while another measure of a similar character, namely the Bill in connection with native representation, took up ten years? It took this Parliament and the people of South Africa ten years before coming to a final decision in this matter. That legislation was postponed year after year until eventually a Select Committee was appointed in connection with this Act. What is the reason for the undue haste displayed by the Prime Minister in rushing this legislation helter-skelter through the House?

He has to go home.

The Prime Minister himself stated that this is one of the most far-reaching Bills which has ever come before Parliament, far-reaching because in this legislation he gives the franchise to Indians in the Transvaal and in Natal who have never had the vote previously. In other words, the franchise for non-Europeans is now being extended to the Transvaal and Natal. We on this side are in favour of the preservation of the European civilisation and we must therefore do everything in our power to prevent this legislation from being passed. It is the Prime Minister’s policy to give the Indians the franchise to the extent proposed in this legislation, but that is not all. This is only the beginning. Let me remind the Prime Minister what the policy of his own Party is. Let me read it to the House once again. The policy of the Prime Minister’s Party is this: Dealing with the extension of the franchise to the non-European population the Secretary of the United Party, Mr. O. A. Oosthuizen, says the following— [translation]

Naturally the Indians and the coloured people—

It is very clear therefore that this Bill is simply the thin end of the wedge which is being driven in, and there we have the policy which is going to be adopted by the Prime Minister and his Party, namely, to amend the law within a year or within a few years in such a way that greater political rights will be given to the non-Europeans in South Africa. But the hon. member for Vryheid went on to say: “Yes, but the Prime Minister, when he goes to the Imperial Conference, would like to show the world that we in South Africa are tolerant.” Let me say that I think the Afrikaner nation cannot be accused of not having practised the utmost tolerance throughout its whole history as from the time of the Voortrekkers. The native tribes which are subject to European rule in South Africa have progressed to a greater extent than in any other country in the world. The Asiatic race came into this country and has expanded in this country. We cannot therefore be accused of not being tolerant in South Africa. But there is a difference between tolerance and self-preservation. The European population in South Africa has to fight today for its own self-preservation. When we bear in mind the fact that there are 8,000,000 natives in South Africa and almost 1,000,000 coloureds and a quarter of a million Indians, we ask ourselves what is going to be the outcome if those people are gradually given the franchise in accordance with the policy of the United Party. It will mean that the entire white population in South Africa will be wiped out, and it will mean that in the future we shall have a non-European state in South Africa. But the question of the Indian is not a new question. I would just like to know why the Prime Minister is departing from the policy which was laid down by the British Government itself. The Prime Minister knows very well that it was stated in 1881 at the Convention after the Anglo-Boer War that every British subject would have free access to South Africa and enjoy free trade, etc. He would therefore be regarded as a subject of the British Government. That question was raised in certain negotiations which took place between the old Transvaal Republic and the British Government, and they repeated the attitude which was adopted at that time by the British Government, namely that they would not allow the Indian to obtain citizenship, that they would not allow the Indian to buy land in any place in the Transvaal. May I just quote what was laid down in the Convention of 1881 so as to refresh the memory of the Prime Minister—

All persons, other than natives, conforming themselves to the laws of the South African Republic—

1. (a) will have full liberty with their families to enter, travel or reside in any part of the South African Republic;
2. (b) will be entitled to hire or possess houses, manufactories, warehouses, shops and premises;
3. (c) may carry on their commerce either in person, or by any agents whom they may think fit to employ.
4. (d) will not be subject in respect of their person, or property or in respect of their commerce or industries to any taxes, whether general or local, other than those which are or may be imposed on citizens of the said Republic.

I quote this because I want to show that in those days the British Government itself realised the injustice of allowing the Transvaal to be flooded with Indians, and they allowed the Transvaal to introduce legislation in that connection—

Here Lord Derby indicated that he would be prepared if the Transvaal Government introduced legislation, to amend the Convention in that direction. In 1885 the Transvaal Republic introduced legislation which provided that the right of ownership would not be allowed to Indians and that they could trade only in certain specified places. That change was brought about and it was sent to the British Government and the British Government approved of that alteration. Since that was a good thing in those days, why are we going to tamper with this matter at this stage before a solution has been sought in connection with the whole nonEuropean problem? Why is the Prime Minister introducing this legislation now? Apparently he wants to make a great name for himself overseas by being able to say at the Imperial Conference: “This is what I did for the Indians in South Africa although it was in conflict with the policy which the British Government itself laid down in those days”. I hope therefore that the Prime Minister will not proceed with this legislation. This morning the Prime Minister made an appeal to this House. He said: “Be sensible now and act as you did forty years ago in connection with the Chinese labour question in South Africa”. What happened at that time? Just as was the case after this war, there was a shortage of labour at that time. The natives were with the British Commandos and at that time they refused to work. There was a shortage of non-European labour and it was felt that the mines should be developed and that the farmers must have labour. There was a strong feeling therefore that a solution must be found, even if it was a temporary solution. Chinese labourers were imported into this country but it was decided in the Transvaal at our congress—and I as well as the Prime Minister subscribed to it—that the Chinese were to leave this country as soon as their contracts expired. I am very pleased that they left the country at that time, otherwise we would probably have had a further problem in South Africa. I fully agree therefore with the advice which the Prime Minister gave the House this morning, namely, that we should now act as we acted forty years ago in connection with the Chinese labour question. Why do we not adopt the same policy as far as the Indians are concerned? After all, they are very dissatisfied. They are now appealing to their friends, as the hon. member for Vryheid said. They are appealing to England, America, Australia and China. But the hon. member forgot to say that they are also appealing to Russia. He forgot to say that, because the position is that they are also appealing to Russia, indicating their dissatisfaction with the conditions in South Africa. I think we ought to act on that advice of the Prime Minister. We sent the Chinese out of this country on the expiry of their service contracts, and since the Indians do not want to regard themselves as South African subjects, since they are appealing to England, since they are appealing to Australia and India and Russia and China and America, we ought to say to them: “If South Africa, from your point of view, is such an undesirable country and if you are so oppressed in South Africa, we are prepared to vote money in order to send every Indian in South Africa back to his fatherland”.

How will you be able to do that?

We will send you along too.

I think that would be the best solution. The Indians are dissatisfied today with the conditions in South Africa, but if they are dissatisfied why do they not return to their own country? After all, India is a big country. We are told that the Indian in South Africa develops an inferiority complex because, as the Minister of Finance stated the other day, the European in South Africa suffers from a superiority complex and because he looks down on the Indian. Let me say that I too have been in India, and the Minister of Finance has also been in India, and he knows what the position is there. In India one sees worse conditions of slavery than anywhere else in the world. India is a country of the greatest extremes. On the one hand one finds luxury and riches and on the other hand one finds poverty, starvation and misery. I repeat that if South Africa is not good enough for the Indians, let them return to their own country. What is the position in India? The princes and the Maharajahs possess everything and the working classes in India live on the smell of an oil rag, a little rice and a little curry. They are worse off than the kaffir in South Africa. After all, the kaffir in South Africa has his own hut and he has a blanket which he can wrap around himself but in India, in Delhi and the various big cities of India, I saw Indians who have not even got a place where they can sleep. They sleep on the pavements and in the streets of those big cities without a blanket and without a pillow, and not even a stump of wood which some natives in this country use as a pillow. That is the position and yet those people have the audacity to accuse South Africa of not treating their subjects well, of differentiating between the subjects of India and the subjects of South Africa. We are fully entitled to do it, and I repeat that if they are not satisfied we are prepared to bear the expense of sending every one of them out of South Africa, as was done in 1929 under the Nationalist Government. It is a pity that we did not go to the length of repatriating every Indian at that time; if we had done that, we would probably have been rid of the problem with which we are now faced.

May I just refer to another matter? The hon. Leader of the Opposition has already pointed out the unfairness of giving 225,000 Indians three representatives in this House under this legislation while eight million natives have three representatives only. I am opposed to both. I am opposed to giving the natives representation in this House, but in its wisdom Parliament has given them representation, and I hope the Prime Minister will agree to the amendment which has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition in which we ask that the whole question of the Indians, the natives and the coloured people be thoroughly investigated again, with a view to seeing whether we cannot arrive at a permanent solution and so arrange this matter that South Africa will be retained for the Europeans in South Africa. I say, without hesitation and without fear of contradiction, that if the franchise is eventually given to the eight million natives and the quarter of a million or more Indians in this country, and to the coloured people, it will be appreciated what the position of the European in South Africa is going to be. The European must therefore do everything in his power to ensure that South Africa remains a European country and that South Africa is kept a European country, and we can only do that when the political power or the political machinery remains in the hands of the European population of South Africa. If we allow that machinery gradually to fall into the hands of the non-European population of South Africa, it will eventually result in the nonEuropean population being the dominant race in South Africa. We have contested this issue for years; this struggle has been waged for more than a hundred years by the European race in South Africa. We can go back to the battle of Slagtersnek, where Bezuidenhout was captured because he refused to surrender to a non-European. The Great Trek was the result of the policy of equality which was adopted in the Cape Colony, and we have fought this issue throughout all these years. For some time the Prime Minister helped us. In 1899 and 1902 the Prime Minister stood with us in this struggle, but gradually the Prime Minister deviated from the policy of South Africa for the European population of South Africa, and in the course of time the Prime Minister adopted the policy of Rhodes—the policy of equal rights for all civilised people, irrespective of colour. That is the policy which is being adopted by the Prime Minister today. He did not adhere to the policy of the Voortrekkers; he did not adhere to the policy of the European population in South Africa. I notice in this “Despatch”—unfortunately I shall not have time to read these things to the House, but since I see the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock) here—I just want to say that I notice that when the negotiations began after the war of 1881, Mr. Becket of Pretoria and 62 others signed a petition. And what did they say in this petition? They stated that there could only be two races in the world, the one being the. European race and the other the non-European race, and they went on to say that if the interpretation of the British Government was that the non-Europeans should have the same rights as the Europeans in South Africa, there would always be trouble, and at that time negotiations were entered into with the British Government. Mr. Becket was an English-speaking person who had worked up a big business in the Transvaal and who was doing very well. He was an Englishman, and not a Boer. He was of English descent, and he established a business in Pretoria. He had this petition signed, and he submitted it to the Transvaal Parliament, so that we could ask the British Government to alter the position. Unfortunately, I cannot find the relevant passage at the moment. I shall ask another member to read to the House the petition which was submitted by Mr. Becket at that time. I want to express the hope, since the European population has waged this struggle for more than a hundred years to keep South Africa a European country, and since we treated and are still treating the other races in South Africa fairly, that the Prime Minister will realise that it is unfair to grant these Asiatics rights which they did not have even in their own country, and I make an appeal to him not to be in such a hurry. I do not know what the reason is for the undue haste on the part of the Prime Minister in seeking to force this legislation through the House at this stage. The people in the country are not even properly acquainted with the terms of this Bill. The whole European population is in a state of unrest. The Prime Minister says we are frightening the people.

No.

The Prime Minister says there are people in the country who are frightening the public in connection with this legislation. We are not frightening the people, but we are warning them that this constitutes a threat to European South Africa. I want to tell the Prime Minister that as far as I personally am concerned, I shall go from platform to platform and tell the people the true facts. It is of no avail for hon. members on the other side to speak against this Bill unless they are prepared to vote against it. I shall personally visit their constituencies, and I shall make it very clear to the people what risk the European population runs as a result of this legislation and the policy of the South African Party. It is very clear that they are not going to stop at this. They will continue to give the Asiatics more and more rights.

There is no longer a South African Party.

Are you ashamed now to be an S.A.P.?

No, I am merely saying that there is no longer such a party. The hon. member over there helped to kill it.

One can understand why the hon. member is becoming afraid to be called a South African Party supporter.

But you are no longer Nationalists; you are re-United Nationalists.

We have never been ashamed to be known as the Nationalist Party. It is a very great honour to us, but if that hon. member is beginning to feel ashamed of being called a S.A.P., I pity him. But I leave it to his voters to deal with him as far as that question is concerned. I have not gone into the details of this Bill. The Prime Minister went into the details, and the Leader of the Opposition also discussed the details. I have confined my remarks to the broad principles. When we come to the Committee stage we shall move the necessary amendments to improve the Bill, but I hope that before that time arrives the Prime Minister will again reflect upon this matter. He knows what dissatisfaction there is in his own party in regard to certain sections of this Bill. The Prime Minister frightened them with India’s population of 400 million, however, and that is why they are supporting the Bill in this House. The Prime Minister informed the House that since we now have the United Nations Organisation, we need not fear that India will interfere with the domestic matters of this country. But at the same time the Prime Minister threatens his own supporters with this great nation, if we do not give the Indians in South Africa what they want. I say that this legislation is so far-reaching that I hope that the Prime Minister will follow the good example of the late Gen. Hertzog when he gave the nation an opportunity to express its views on legislation of this nature. We know what steps he took in connection with the native legislation. We are dealing here with legislation which departs from the principles which we have always followed in this country, and the Prime Minister ought not simply to force this legislation through the House with his majority. It is unjust, and the people will not thank him for it. I therefore want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister, not only on behalf of this party, but on behalf of the whole Afrikaner nation, on behalf of the European population of South Africa, because I know there are many members on the other side who share my views on this question, and who are just as afraid as this side that the European race in South Africa will go down if we rush legislation of this type through the House without having considered it properly and without fully considering what the consequences may be. Since the Indians are not prepared to accept this legislation, the Prime Minister now has the best of opportunities to arrange this matter properly. The Indians have made an appeal to India and to other countries, and since they are dissatisfied it would be quite in order for the Prime Minister to say to them: “Since you are dissatisfied I am going to institute further investigations with a view to seeing what further solution can be found for the whole colour problem in South Africa, not only as far as the Indians and the coloured people are concerned, but the natives as well.” One of the main objections is this: In 1936, when the native legislation was introduced, there was a proper delimitation of the areas to be granted to the natives, whereas it is now being left to the discretion of a commission, to the discretion of the Minister of the day, to decide to what extent land will be given to the Indians. The position is entirely different. Why not first have this question investigated so that this House may know precisely what parts of South Africa will be made available for the Indians? Once that has been done, the Government can come forward with a proper scheme. Today we do not know who the members of the commission are going to be. If the Minister of the Interior is going to have the final say in this matter, we know what we can expect of him. He wanted the Indians to be given the vote in the municipalities, for the provincial councils, etc., and since that is the case it stands to reason that it will be a matter of indifference to him where the Indians are given land. That is the position of the Minister of the Interior. We have had an agitation for years in connection with this question, and we know what the attitude of the Minister of the Interior is. Unless we ensure now that this legislation is passed in an acceptable form, liberalism will triumph in South Africa in the future. We cannot state the case too strongly. By means of this legislation, the Government is in process of allowing European South Africa to commit suicide, and I do not want to be co-responsible for the suicide of European South Africa. The Prime Minister makes himself guilty of complicity in the suicide of the European population in South Africa. He is doing that with the support of the members behind him—those people who say in the Lobby that they are opposed to these things, that they are opposed to the policy of the Government, but who refuse to do anything in this House to prevent that policy from being carried out. They remind me of the two classes of people we had in the Boer War. The one class fought and the other class sat around the camp fires at night and sang: “The Lord is mighty in battle”. South Africa is now engaged in a battle. There are certain people who are waging the struggle and there are others who are boasting. But instead of fighting they sit here and sing: “The Lord is mighty in battle”. Things are allowed to take their course. I say it is a very unfortunate position for South Africa that we have people in the Cabinet, as well as members on the other side, who are imbued with the spirit of blindly following the Prime Minister when he adopts a particular course. They do not try to give expression to their own convictions. No, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition was perfectly correct when he clearly stated this afternoon that this matter could have been solved without party politics, that it could have been solved without these unduly hasty steps on the part of the Government. This matter could have been tackled in a different way, and we might have been able to find a permanent solution. This is not a permanent solution. It is merely a temporary measure which is designed to alleviate the problem, and by means of certain provisions in this legislation the Prime Minister will plunge European South Africa into misery. I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister to accept the amendment of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. Let him accept our amendment to have this matter further investigated. If he wants to extend the Pegging Act, we shall support him, but let there first of all be a proper investigation as far as the political rights are concerned; let there be a proper delimitation of the areas which the Prime Minister proposes to give to the Asiatics and the areas which will be reserved for the Europeans and the other races. In ten or fifteen years’ time there will not be a single European in those open areas which are set aside for the Asiatics. It will have been handed over to the Asiatics. I want to deal with what was said by the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp), namely that this legislation should also be made applicable to the Cape as far as land is concerned. As far as the Transvaal is concerned we feel that we are giving too many rights to the Asiatics, because 25,000 of them, including the very young and the very old, are given one member. That is too much. It means that we are going to have yet another group in Parliament. The members representing the natives will be grateful to the Prime Minister for doing this. They never vote against the Government; they always vote for the policy of the Government. [Time limit.]

I should very much like to support the amendment of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. There is no doubt about its being a sound and judicious course for South Africa today, and if the Prime Minister really wants to perform a good service to South Africa, if he really wants to give us an example of statesmanlike policy of the highest order, he will immediately accept this amendment of the Leader of the Opposition. There are especially three reasons why he should do so which I want to deal with. It does not help to do wishful thinking and not to look facts in the face. The sooner we look those facts in the face the better it will be for South Africa. The first reason is that however we may argue, South Africa as regards its great racial problem is standing at the cross-roads again today. We must face that fact. If we want to do a good service to South Africa, we must do what the Leader of the Opposition suggested. We are standing at the cross-roads. The whole situation as regards the racial problem in this country is in a state of tremendous flux. In the second place we must recognise that as regards the policy followed in past years in connection with the racial problem, and especially during the war years, the policy emanating from members opposite can be described in only one way, namely by saying that it brought about a Babylonian chaos. It is utterly essential that we should tackle this matter judiciously. Furthermore, it is this fact, that as regards the nonEuropeans we are on the eve of a new era. We cannot deny the fact that the nonEuropeans, as regards their whole standpoint and ideas in connection with the relationship between Europeans and non-Europeans and their own position in South Africa in recent years, especially in the last eight to ten years have had a complete revolution in ideas. Today the non-European community adopts a point of view which creates deep concern on the part of everyone. We are on the eve of a tremendous change in the attitude of that section of the population towards the European population, and these are facts we have to face. Not only that, but amongst the European community there is today a phenomenon which creates fear in the heart of anyone when thinking about the future. We find that phenomenon in connection with the relationship between European and non-European. We find that attitude adopted which we have never had in the past. Philosophies are disseminated which nobody dared disseminate ten years ago, but they are being preached today. I do not wish to enter into details about these philosophies. I just want to point to the fact that a member of the Cabinet like the Minister of the Interior did not hesitate in recent times to hold out to Indians the prospect that they are entitled to representation in South Africa, in all the councils of the land, municipal councils, provincial councils, and also in Parliament. Then there is the attitude adopted by the Deputy-Prime Minister, the liberal point of view as regards the non-European section of the population. I wish to refer to the speech made by him a few days ago at the University of the Witwatersrand. By means of that speech he did South Africa a great disservice. He provided a propaganda instrument to be used by the non-Europeans, or else he changed an existing instrument into a more effective propaganda instrument. He made use of the propaganda measure which the Jewish community placed in the hands of the Allies to be used against Germany, viz. the idea of the herrenvolk. The Minister of Finance used that in describing the relationship of Europeans to non-Europeans. The native newspapers have already grasped at it as a propaganda instrument, and now the Deputy-Prime Minister has strengthened their hands in using that instrument. The non-European community can now use that propaganda instrument on a much larger scale. I therefore say that a large portion of the European population today preach ideas which make us shudder, and it is time that a very clear point of view should be stated by the State and that definite leadership should be given as regards the relationship between the races.

There is a third fact which we must face very clearly, and that is that the whole world is entering into a new era in connection with this matter of the relationship between European and non-European a different era from that of the past. The conception of the colonial period or of the colonial empire has already come to an end to a large degree. The principle of guardianship was in power. Everywhere the great countries are now announcing that that period has also come to an end, and that they are now entering into an era of partnership between the colonial communities and the former colonising countries. We cannot deny the fact that this will have an effect also on South Africa, and the sooner South Africa clearly states its attitude in connection with these problems before the Bar of the world, the better it will be. And the best opportunity is created for us in South Africa in connection with legislation of this nature which comes before Parliament. If the Prime Minister wants to do South Africa a favour, he should do what the Leader of the Opposition suggested. But not only that. The other important reason stressed by the Leader of the Opposition is the effect this legislation will have on the other non-European communities. We cannot deny the fact that these communities are fairly closely inter-related. It is especially through the actions of the Indian community that that position has been created. It is their aim and object to form all the non-European communities into one unit, and it is their ideal that these non-European communities should form a whole under the leadership of the Indians. The Indian population will then be the leaders of the non-European communities in the country. We have the phenomenon that where privileges are given to the Indian community, such as for example that Indians could enter the bars of Europeans and also their dining rooms, it had the effect upon the other non-European races of creating dissatisfaction to a fairly large extent. They came to us and asked: Why cannot we receive those privileges when the Indians have them? Tremendous dissatisfaction is caused by this sort of thing. For that reason it is essential that this question of the approach to our racial problem must be tackled in a very judicious manner, because it is a very delicate and sensitive problem. It is essential that we should investigate very closely the implications of the legislation now before us, as affecting the other sections of the non-European population. Our ultimate aim should be to create conditions in South Africa which will afford most happiness in the relationships between European and nonEuropean communities. That should be our aim, and we can only achieve that when we can give the non-European communities the greatest possible measure of satisfaction, and when they feel that justice is being done between the various non-European communities inter se, and when the one community feels that the other community is being favoured, we are only creating greater dissatisfaction and the possibilities of clashes in future. I am convinced that this legislation in future will be the cause of an increase in clashes in the racial sphere in South Africa. It will be one of the things which will contribute to greater racial clashes in the country.

In the first place, I should like to pause briefly at the history of the problem in the past; then, in the second place, I wish to express a few thoughts about the problem itself; and in the third place, I briefly wish to say a few words about conditions in those countries which are pointing the moral at South Africa in connection with this matter, especially India. In the first place, I pause for a moment to deal with the history of the problem in our country. I do that in the first place to point out that these Indians came to South Africa not as pioneers to make sacrifices on behalf of South Africa, but because they could not make a living in their own country. In the second place, I do so to show by reference to the history of this problem, that the Indian population by its course of action in South Africa during the whole period they have been here have shown that they have no true love for South Africa as their fatherland. I challenge any person in this House to deny that. I say that the actions of the Indian population were of such a nature that they exhibited no love for South Africa. On the contrary, the course of history has proved with what contempt they treated South Africa. They sought their salvation not in South Africa, but from any other Power. They have even tried to seek redress from Russia. In the first instance, immigration from India took place from India in 1834. That was to Mauritius. In 1838 there was also immigration from India to Trinidad, British Guiana, and later to South Africa. With what object? A reactionary historian like Joshi tells us in his book, “The Tyranny of Colour”: “It was purely and solely an economic mission of Indian countrymen in search of a means of living.” It was purely an attempt to seek an existence in South Africa. That was the motive. It is the motive of the parasite. For that reason we had this unpleasant position during the whole history of the Indians in South Africa, especially in the economic sphere. The Indians in South Africa continually kept a watchful eye on opportunities to prey on the other sections of the population, both the European and non-European sections. They continually sat and watched an opportunity where they could prey and rob, and today we find that a feeling has arisen between the native population and the Indian population which is everything but pleasant, but which in the circumstances does not surprise us. In parts of Natal, like, for example, Pietermaritzburg, organised bands of natives were formed to protect the natives against the Indians. They took steps to protect the native women against the Indians. That is a phenomenon to which we dare not close our eyes. To carry on with the historical background, in 1847 the first sugar plantations were laid in Natal. They immediately started to look for cheap labour. In the first instance, they demanded native labour in Natal. In that demand they were unsuccessful. They then tried to import native labour from the Portuguese territory. That was a failure. Eventually a handful of coolies and Malays arrived, and it was such a blessing to them that they immediately started to agitate for the importation of cheap Chinese labour. Fortunately, the Colonial Secretary refused to give his permission, and they then started to agitate for the importation of Indian coolies from India. India was only too willing to do it, and the result was that in 1859 Act No. 14, which gave the Natal Government the power to admit Indian immigrants, was passed. In November, 1860, the first batch of Indians arrived in Natal under service contracts. Let me put the position very clearly as far as the established population of Natal was concerned. They were not satisfied with this, and in order to satisfy them the assurance was given that since the Indians were admitted on a service contract of five years, they would be returned to India after five years or upon the expiry of their contracts. The established population of Natal was satisfied with that assurance. But at that time the Imperial interests played a role in South Africa, and that is the main reason why we are today saddled with this problem. If it had not been for the role which the Imperial interests played in connection with this matter, we would not have been saddled with this problem today. From 1860 up to 1866, a little more than 5,000 coolies entered this country under contract. During the period 1866 to 1874, no further coolies were admitted, but as from 1874 they again started to import Indians. At that time the assurance was also given that they would be repatriated, but subsequently we had to deal to a great extent with the sugar magnates who do not care what becomes of South Africa, just as the gold, mining magnates do not care a scrap what happens to South Africa in the future. The sugar magnates co-operated with the Imperial interests. In order to satisfy the people in Natal, they held out the promise to the people that Natal would change into an El Dorado, which would arise Phoenix-like from the sugar-cane fields of Natal. In that way the people of Natal were satisfied, and an Act was passed under which the Indians were given the privilege of electing whether they chose to return or not, and if they chose not to return they could establish themselves permanently in Natal and buy land with the money they were to get for their return passage. This suited the sugar magnates, because it meant that their profits would be much greater. But that is not all. At the same time the British Government issued an important statement in 1875 to the following effect—

Under Act No. 2 of 1870 they were granted the privilege of living in Natal permanently, and the statement of the British Government in 1875 was the first milestone in the permanent establishment of the Indians in South Africa. That saved the Indian community and made it possible for them to live in South Africa permanently. The sugar magnates in co-operation with the Imperial interests accomplished this. The people of Natal immediately became perturbed and that unrest assumed such proportions that in 1880, scarcely twenty years after the first Indians had been imported, the people were resorting to organised action and a strong agitation was organised against the establishment of Indians in Natal. The position became So serious that in 1886 the Natal Government was compelled to appoint a commission to investigate the whole matter. The people of Natal were dissatisfied. Unfortunately in appointing a commission the people were again put off with fair words. The people of Natal were up in arms but the Imperial interests weighed more heavily. We now have three classes of Indians in Natal, namely, those who were under contract, secondly those who were under contract and who decided to remain in this country and those who came to Natal of their own volition. But of all the Indians the reactionary writer, Josshi, in his book, “The Tyranny of Colour,” says—

That could not be said of the Indians in their own fatherland. The people of Natal were becoming perturbed. In 1893 Natal was given self-government, and what happened? The people of Natal immediately tackled this matter and during the same year it was decided to pass an Act with reference to Indians who had decided to remain in Natal. They were fined the sum of £25 if they remained in Natal. This proves clearly that they did not want the Indians in Natal. But unfortunately the tax was reduced by Downing Street to £3 per annum and to a great extent it was rendered useless. But they went even further. In 1896 the franchise of the Indians was practically entirely abolished in practice. It can be described in no other language, Josshi says the following on page 56 of his book—

But little did the writer know that this would be only, a temporary measure and that in. 1946 a Bill would come before the Parliament of South Africa which makes it possible for the Indians to have a vote in the affairs of the country and which creates the possibility of equality in South Africa. One cannot get away from these hard facts. But in those days there was strenuous opposition in Natal. Things became so bad that in 1898 there was bloodshed in the streets of Durban because a number of Indians wanted to land. But it was found necessary to declare war against the Republics, and the struggle in Natal was abandoned for the sake of the cause. What was the position in the Transvaal? The same position obtained there in respect of the Indians, and in 1885 the Transvaal Government was compelled to pass legislation, Act No. 3 of 1885, and that was done at the insistence of the people. Why? Because Indians entered the Transvaal and did there what they do everywhere else. They entered as guests but scarcely had they entered the house when they made it clear that they were no longer guests, but that they were demanding the same rights as, those enjoyed by the host. The Indians had scarcely arrived in the Transvaal when they assumed unto themselves all the rights which the European inhabitants in the Transvaal enjoyed, and when the Transvaal acted in connection with this matter, the Indians invoked the provisions of section 14 of the London Convention of 1884 which gave every subject of the British Empire the right to live in the territory of the Republic. If it had not been for Majuba, the British Government would have acted even at that stage. But the Act of 1885 was taken no further because Downing Street started to bare its fangs in connection with this matter and the Republican Government of the Transvaal was compelled to stay within bounds and did not have an opportunity to proceed with the matter. I am convinced that if it had not been for section 14 of the London Convention of 1884, and the attitude adopted by Downing Street, the Transvaal would probably have set an example to the Free State which subsequently passed a law in 1890 and saw to it that not a single Indian would remain in the Free State. A little later the Transvaal went so far as to adopt a firm policy of separatism in respect of the Indians. There were bazaars where they had to live and they were allocated areas where they could trade, and in certain areas they were prevented from trading. There was even a court case in regard to this matter and the Transvaal Government won. The Indians raised a hullabaloo about this, but that did not help them in any way. It was decided in 1897 to apply Act No. 3 of 1885 strictly and to give effect to its provisions, and in 1898 it was decided to pass a law in which it was laid down, also as far as Indians were concerned, that no European would be allowed to enter into marriage with a non-European. In 1899 the President went so far as to cause a definite delimitation to take place and a proclamation was promulgated in this connection, and Indians were not even allowed to walk on the same sidewalks as Europeans. All non-Europeans had to keep themselves apart, including Asiatics. Right throughout the Transvaal adopted a very clear attitude in connection with this matter. Subsequently the war came and the Transvaal was forced to be silent. When the war broke out there were approximately 15,000 or 17,000 Indians in the Transvaal, but practically every one of them fled when the war broke out. That is a characteristic of the Indians. There were a few who sided with the British. And it is another characteristic that scarcely had the war come to an end when the Indians sent a deputation to England, on 27th February, 1902, asking for rights for the Indians in the Transvaal because they had fought against the Boers. They asked for rights which no one had ever dreamt of giving them. This reveals the Eastern mentality which avails itself of every possible opportunity to make a hullabaloo to promote its case.

At 6.40 p.m., the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on 31st January, 1946, and the debate adjourned; to be resumed on 26th March.