I move—

I think 16th April would be a suitable date as from which to give precedence to Government business. The House has had a fair opportunity during the past few months to discuss private motions, and the number of private motions have been reduced to such an extent that it does not seem necessary to make further provision for such discussions after 16th April, and it is proposed therefore to give precedence to Government business as from 16th April.

We do not propose to oppose this. It is the usual practice for the Prime Minister to tell us on this occasion which business it is proposed to proceed with during the sitting. I take it that all the business on the Order Paper will be proceeded with. If that is not the case, we shall be glad if the Prime Minister will tell us what the position is. But what we would also like to know is whether any other important legislation, apart from minor informal matters, will still be introduced before the end of the sitting. I think we are entitled to ask the Prime Minister for this information.

I want to put in a plea not for a longer session, no one wants a longer session, but I want a more effective session than we are likely to have if the omens are correct. It looks to me as though on a grand scale the work of this session will be to consider a very large and indigestible number of Acts. But as regards the cases of the very large number of persons who are suffering and who are bound to suffer through the circumstances of the time we are going to have no opportunity of even mentioning these cases. I have today, and I have had for some considerable time on the Order Paper, a motion for the rescue of a farmer who is being ruined by the railways. His case was brought before the court, and an independent and fearless judge said: If I were assessing the damage done in this case I should say the amount of his loss is £1,200.

The hon. member must not go too deeply into that question.

I understand I must not go too deeply into these matters. I am only showing the kind of case that is brushed aside, that gets no mercy of any kind. I have been to two Ministers to ask whether cases could be put up as an unopposed motion so that they could be investigated by the committees, but a hard refusal was given. I am only showing what is the position of the ordinary member who is zealous of the interests of the suffering people who appeal to him. He is in outer darkness under this sort of thing. The whole of the Government time is monopolised and we receive no consideration and no mercy.

With regard to the matter raised by my hon. friend the member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick), I understand the case he refers to has been continually discussed here and in the department concerned, so I do not think his claim is quite justified.

*The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) asked about Government work for the rest of the Sitting. The Bills and motions on the agenda will be proceeded with in accordance with the Government’s plans. Then there are several other matters of interest which will come up, for example Marketing legislation and legislation in connection with soil erosion. In this connection as well the Government intends introducing legislation and to proceed with it. Then there is the Miners’ Phthisis Bill. The rest of the legislation which will come up will be chiefly of a financial nature, war pensions and the usual financial legislation which comes up in the second half of the Sitting. It is a little early to furnish a complete list. I hope it will be possible a little later, but this is the most important legislation we have in view, apart from that which appears on the agenda already.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

In introducing this motion I would like to point out at the outset that the Minister under whom this motion now comes has been holding the portfolio of Mines only for a short time, and during the period that he has been in office I am not aware that he has at any time disclosed or stated his policy in this connection. Accordingly, I would like at the outset to extend a most hearty invitation to the Minister to pay a visit to the alluvial diggings of the country, at a time which suits him, in order to enable the Minister to satisfy himself as to the conditions existing on the alluvial diggings, to see for himself what the circumstances are, and what assistance should be given in those circumstances.

If one reads this motion carefully, it becomes clear immediately that the motion can be divided into four parts. In the first place, the motion asks for more payable diamondiferous ground to be made available to the alluvial diggers. Secondly, the motion asks that, if necessary, private property should be expropriated in order to make payable diamondiferous ground available to the alluvial diggers. Thirdly, the motion asks that the export duty of 10 per cent. on alluvial diamonds should be abolished; and, fourthly, the motion asks that a subsidy should be granted to alluvial diggers in respect of the wages they have to pay their labourers. The first question that could quite rightly be put is how many alluvial diggers there are at present, because only then will we be able to judge whether it will be justifiable to make new or more land available for alluvial diggings. I tried to obtain the figures, and, according to the figures furnished to me by the Department of Mines, the number of diggers’ certificates issued as at 31st December, 1945, was 3,326. When we hear of the number of 3,326 certificates the impression may possibly be created that this is only an insignifcant number but I would like to point out that on the whole the diggers have large families, and if we assume that each digger has a family of four, then it comes to a number of persons directly dependent for a living on the alluvial diggings of no fewer than 13,500 people. It will be generally agreed, therefore, I think, that so large a number of people are definitely entitled to demand consideration from the Government.

In view of the request in the first instance, that more payable diamondiferous ground should be made available, the question may at once be put as to whether there is not sufficient diamondiferous ground available to the alluvial diggers at present. In order to dispose of this question effectively, I want to refer to a speech made in the House on 22nd May, 1944, by the former Minister of Mines. On that occasion the former Minister of Mines used the following words—

With those words the Minister clearly indicated that the position and the lot of the alluvial diggers were such that it caused him as Minister of Mines concern over the circumstances in which those people existed. On a subsequent occasion the same Minister made a further statement in connection with the conditions on the alluvial diggings. On 29th May, 1945, that is during last session, he expressed himself as follows—

In other words, he admitted himself that the land was limited, and that steps should be taken to improve the position for the alluvial diggers by proclaiming more land. It is no use proclaiming land and allowing the alluvial diggers to go there unless there is clear evidence that the land is payable diamondiferous ground, because otherwise it simply means that these people are enticed away from where they are. It is a typical characteristic of the digger that wherever new land is proclaimed, he rushes there in the hope of doing better for himself there than he is doing for himself at the moment. Subsequent to that statement of the Minister of Mines, I do not know of any new payable diamondiferous ground made available to the diggers, at any rate not in the Cape Province. I am under the impression, Mr. Speaker, that in the other provinces new ground was made available, but in the Cape Province, with the probable exception of Doringlaagte, no new ground was made available, and let me say this here that the reports in connection with Doringlaagte are definitely not encouraging, because the latest information in connection with Doringlaagte is that the large majority of the diggers who went there have already left that part again because the ground is not payable diamondiferous ground. Since it is clear that there is at present available a limited extent of diamondiferous ground, I would like to ask the Minister whether it is not a fact, and whether he is aware, that other land which had previously been proclaimed as diggings has been deproclaimed, and, if so, for what reasons? I would particularly like to draw the Minister’s attention to the farms Rooikoppies and Ward’s Hope. My information is that those farms have either been deproclaimed or else conditions there are such that it is practically impossible for the diggers to continue with their work. And then there is also the other farm, Lauravilie. It would appear that the former Minister of Mines made a promise in connection with Lauravilie that he would see to it that a pump installation would be erected with the purpose of supplying the diggers at Lauraville with water— and according to my information there is a lot of diamondiferous ground there—to enable them to work their claims there properly and effectively. Then I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister the farms Good Hope and Bad Hope. These are also farms which according to my information were included under the promise that assistance would be given with the erection of pumps for the supply of water to enable the diggers to carry on their operations in a proper and profitable manner.

Another aspect of the matter which I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister in connection with the diggings in the issue of certificates. When new ground is proclaimed there is a condition that a digger cannot peg a claim unless he furnishes proof that he had actually carried on digging for six months previously, that is, six months before the proclamation in connection with the new area was issued. I want therefore to point out to the Minister that as it is a well-known fact that the extent of payable diamondiferous ground is limited, it amounts to this that some diggers have ceased digging for the sole reason that they have not been able to meet the expenses involved. Consequently they discontinue their digging for a time in the hope that new ground will be made available and that they would then be able to obtain new ground and to continue with their digging. In view of this condition, if they want to be considered for the new ground they simply must continue with their digging. They are simply compelled to continue working, notwithstanding the fact that they are aware that they cannot make a proper living from it. In other words, if they continue with their digging they have to do so at a definite loss. For that reason I would like to make an earnest appeal to the Minister that he should seriously consider in the case of applications from persons who were in possession of diggers’ certificates but who for some or other reason allowed them to lapse—in some cases the certificates lapsed owing to circumstances beyond their control, and in other cases they discontinued their digging and they were consequently not allowed to peg claims when new ground was proclaimed—that in respect of these people—I am referring particularly to people who were previously in possession of certificates but who for some or other reason allowed them to lapse—that the Minister should in those cases consider favourably the issuing of diggers’ certificates to people who in the past had diggers’ certificates.

Then I would also like to bring to the attention of the Minister the fact that in the past the diggers have taken care of themselves. They had a diggers’ committee who could act as the mouthpiece of the diggers and who could present their interests. That committee was in a position to look after the interests of the diggers. For some or other reason the diggers’ committees have ceased to exist, and I now want to appeal to the Minister to take into favourable consideration the question of reviving the diggers’ committee in order that he may be given advice by people in whom the diggers have placed their confidence, persons elected by the diggers to look after and to plead the interests of the diggers. I think it can safely be admitted that the conditions of the diggers are not favourable, and since their conditions are not favourable and since it is also a fact that the former Minister of Mines on one occasion stated himself that he would like to see the number of diggers diminishing, until eventually there would be no more diggers at all, it surely is desirable to make other provision to enable the progeny of the diggers to make a decent living. I would therefore very earnestly ask the Minister to take into favourable consideration the question of establishing proper training or industrial schools in the areas where there are alluvial diggings to enable the children of the diggers to receive proper vocational training. It may be argued that there are proper industrial schools in other centres where such training may be received, but I do want to bring to the attention of the Minister the fact that the circumstances of the majority of the diggers are of such a nature that they cannot afford to send their children to another place to receive a proper vocational training there. I would therefore earnestly urge the Minister to take into serious consideration this particular aspect, the provision of facilities for vocational training and particularly for the diggers’ children in the area of the alluvial diggings, and to carry it into effect.

Now, coming to the second part of the motion, namely, the expropriation of payable diamondiferous ground in order to make it available for diggings, I would like to point out that the motion specially provides that only if it is found necessary, if it is found absolutely necessary, that private property should be expropriated, should such action be taken. There is a reason for this part of the motion being included. It is a well known fact that big and wealthy companies have stepped in where prospecting had taken place and where the prospecting had shown very clearly that the ground was rich in diamonds, and bought up the land and closed it immediately in order that no production could take place. If this is done for some or other reason with the object of promoting some or other interests, then I could understand it, but I can give the House the assurance that there are quite a number of cases where such land was purchased by companies and closed with the sole object of preventing alluvial diggers from going there and digging there and so bringing more alluvial diamonds into the market. That is why I am asking that it should be clearly understood that when this drastic step of expropriating land is taken, it should only be takén in cases where it is absolutely necessary to make provision for the alluvial diggers to enable them to make a proper living during their lifetime.

The third part of the motion, namely, the abolition of the export duty of 10 per cent., is also important. I want to point out that as far as the diggers are concerned, when a digger finds a diamond, he has to pay an export duty of 10 per cent. on the value irrespective of the cost involved in finding the diamond. It is a well known fact today that there are other industries which under the industrial legislation are in the position that they are able to debit their working costs against their income, but no provision whatsoever is made for the alluvial diggers to enable them to do the same in respect of this tax. It is also a known fact that in many cases in which alluvial diggers were successful in finding the diamond, they had to sell the diamond at a loss taking into account the working costs. I do not think any right-thinking person can regard that as fair and reasonable and I accordingly wish to request the Minister to give his serious consideration also to this aspect of the matter and to see to it that relief is granted to the alluvial diggers in this respect. If we take into consideration that the alluvial diggers are not a community who are continually running to the Government and asking for assistance, I think that they are a community which should receive sympathetic treatment from the Government. The diggers ask for only three things. The first is that payable diamondiferous ground should be made available. The digger would then be prepared to earn his daily bread by the sweat of his brow. He is willing to work hard. He asks for no assistance in that respect or at any rate he has not done so in the past. Secondly, the digger asks only that there should be a price for his product which is paying and, thirdly, the digger asks for proper labour to enable him to carry on his work properly. If the diggers’ requests are met in such a way that he need not pay without his working expenses being taken into account then I think it is not an unreasonable request to the Minister or to this House.

With regard to the fourth part of my motion, namely that the digger should receive a subsidy in respect of the wages he has to pay his labourers. I am not asking here for the introduction of a new principle. It is a well-known fact that on a previous occasion the Government felt it incumbent upon itself to contribute a subsidy in respect of the wages of labourers. I am thinking of the last Session of 1945 when provision was made for the gold mining industry by the Government by giving financial assistance to enable the gold mining industry to pay a proper wage to their workers. All that I ask in this instance is that the diggers should be treated on the same basis as the gold mining industry. I want to express the hope that the Minister will take into serious consideration these points I have brought to his attention and I hope that the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to the digger community. As a community they have made a large contribution in the past through their industry, their diligence, to the State coffers. I asked for figures and just want to point out that as far as the digger community is concerned, they contributed to the Treasury during the five years from 1941 to 1945 in the form of export duty on alluvial diamonds an amount of £826,973.

Only in respect of alluvial diamonds?

Yes, that is in respect of alluvial diggings only. I just want to express the hope once more that the Minister will give serious attention to this matter and that he will avail himself of this opportunity of stating a clear policy with regard to his attitude towards alluvial diggings.

Where I rise to second this motion of the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker), I I want to make use of the opportunity of congratulating the Minister of Mines, who is still new to his post, on his appointment. I understand that it was said by members of the United Party when the new Minister was appointed that we would now have a very good Minister of Mines. I was at the alluvial diggings when certain remarks were passed about the former Minister of Mines. If it is a fact that our present Minister of Mines is very sympathetically disposed towards mining activities, if he is more sympathetic than the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard) was towards the alluvial diggers, then I hope that he will act accordingly. As far as our former Minister of Mines is concerned, I must say that although I differed from him in certain respects, he proved all the same to have a certain amount of sympathy towards the alluvial diggers. When he was appointed as Minister of Mines, he made a tour and visited all the alluvial diggers and gathered first-hand information in connection with the diggers. At my request he also piloted legislation through the House which was of great benefit to the diggers. He went further and opened up certain grounds for the alluvial diggers. I say that the Minister undoubtedly proved to possess tangible sympathy towards the diggers, and that he himself wanted to do something to ease their position. Let us express the hope, where according to certain of my hon. friends we have a better Minister of Mines, that he will go further and show more sympathy towards the diggers and that he will ensure that more is done in the interests of the alluvial diggers in the country. The motion has been fairly clearly drawn up by the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker). In the first place, we ask that ground of a more paying nature should be given to alluvial diggers. There is a farm called “Goede Vooruitsig” in the Transvaal, where today there is quite a large amount of diamondiferous ground, but then there are other parts of the country such as the Cape Province where the ground has become very barren, and where there is no paying ground. We know that much of the ground which is still there today belongs to large companies, or rather the mineral rights belong to large companies. We feel that where those grounds can be used to better advantage for the country in general and for our alluvial diggers, it is wrong that the grounds should be closed. I want to revert to the farm “Goede Vooruitsig”. We know that the mineral rights on that farm belonged to a certain company. That farm was prospected, and it was found to produce a very small quantity of diamonds. I received certain information to the effect that something must definitely have gone wrong in the prospecting of that farm. I approached the former Minister of Mines in connection with the proclamation of that farm as a digging, and he said that the yield of the farm was so small that is was impossible to open it up, but eventually, due to pressure on my part, the former Minister of Mines opened up that farm, and today it is certainly one of the richest farms which have yet been opened up in this country, excluding Namaqualand’s diggings. In what way that farm was prospected, I do not know, but nevertheless it shows how things are wangled and how paying ground is kept unopened. I feel convinced that were it not for the firm attitude and steadfastness of the former Minister of Mines, the farm “Goedvooruitzicht” would not have been opened up, and today that farm yields an average of £25,000 per month. It is certainly of great benefit to the State that those diamonds should be extracted. If that farm had not been opened up, those thousands of pounds would have remained buried there, and today many of us are benefiting by that farm, not only the State, but many of our farmers, who, as a result of the droughts and other difficulties, went there to dig. I know of returned soldiers who are today making a good living there, and who are even making good money. I know of one who has already made close on £4,000. You will remember that I pointed out in the past that you could make a great success of alluvial diggings if you really showed thenecessary sympathy. As regards that ground, I believe that we can make a great successof it if the necessary sympathy is shown.The question has been put on various occa-sions: But where is the paying ground? Allthe grounds have already become barren. Iam going to mention a few farms which Iam convinced are diamondiferous. You have, for instance, Pypklip in the constituency ofLichtenburg, which also belongs to a com-pany. I believe that if that farm were wellprospected, it would also be found that itcould be made a paying proposition. Then, in the Cape Province, you have the farmKlipfontein. This is also a farm belongingto a company. It is also supposed that thefarm has paying diamondiferous ground.Now I come to the question: What, then, isthe reason why the farms are bought up byrich companies and kept closed? The reasonis this: The alluvial diamond is a muchbetter quality diamond than the mine dia-mond. You also find good diamonds in themines, but as a rule the alluvial diamondsare much better than the mine diamonds.The more alluvial diamonds you produce andplace on the world market, the smaller isthe demand for the mine diamond. For thatreason large companies and mine ownerspurchase the mineral rights on farms wherethere are signs that they have diamondifer-ous ground. I think it is wrong thatdiamondiferous ground should be closeddown at the expense of the State and of thealluvial diggers. We are asking in themotion that the Government should in thisrespect take action where it is found thatdiamondiferous farms are kept closed simplyin order to allow certain companies to selltheir mine diamonds. It is wrong, and ifnegotiations are entered into with thosecompanies and they refuse to open up thosefarms, and those farms are not used forfood producing purposes, then the Stateought to step in and say: This farm is lyinghere useless; we are going to expropriateit and establish an alluvial digging here. Asthe hon. member for Kimberley (District) said, it will be nothing new. We havealready put through various measures inthis House; for instance, where necessary wehave expropriated land for housing. We arenow putting through legislation to reservecertain land for a nature reserve. I haveonly to quote the Dongola Bill which wehave opposed so much in this House. Therewe are taking drastic measures to acquireland for a purpose which I can only describeas a means of placing baboons and apesthere. We ask here that steps should betaken to expropriate ground where thatground can be worked to great benefit bythe State and the nation in general. Thus itis nothing new.

As regards the 10 per cent. export tax, weall know that there is a direct export tax of 10 per cent. on alluvial diamonds. Thereis no other section of the nation which payssuch direct taxation as the alluvial diggers.Today if you go and buy diamonds, you havealways to take into consideration the factthat 10 per cent. has to be deducted. If theMinister does not see his way clear to abolishing the taxation entirely, then I want to askhim whether a subsidy cannot be given tothe diggers. An amount of over £6,000,000has been deposited in the Treasury by alluvial diggers. Cannot a portion thereof be.taken in order to give a subsidy to the diggers?

What is the reason fortheir differentiating between the gold minesand the alluvial diggings?

My hon. friend asks why a difference is made between the mines andthe alluvial diggers. The Minister will cer-tainly be able to give us the reasons. Theyear before last a subsidy of £1,850,000 waspaid to the gold mines. We feel that thealluvial diggers should also be given some-thing. The argument has been advancedin this House that that money which is paidto the mines by way of a subsidy comes fromthe mines. Then I say emphatically thatan amount of over £6,000,000 has alreadybeen deposited in the Treasury by the dig-gers. Cannot some of that money be givento them? I think the alluvial diggers arequite entitled to a reply to that questionwhich has been put here. We know that thebig objection to our alluvial diggings todayis that they are the gathering places of allthe poor people, that they are the black spotson the map of the country, that the peoplelive there in very pitiful circumstances. Asone who since 1912 has been in very closecontact with the alluvial diggers and one whohas been there most of the time, I wouldrather live in those alluvial diggings thanin the slum quarters of our towns. Theyare the black spots on the map of this country. I have already said so in the past. The black spots are not our alluvial diggings.Often the people live there in corrugatediron buildings, but they work in the open airand they live decently. The digging com-munity is today a very decent community.On the diggings you find the best backboneof the Afrikaner nation. Why? Those peoplewant to keep their heads above water ontheir own and they do not want to be aburden on the State and ask for favours.You find some of these people saying: Iwant to earn my own living, but give methose three things which the hon. memberfor Kimberley (District) has put so clearlyhere; give me paying ground; give melabourers and give me a decent price for thediamonds I produce; then I can be indepen-dent and then I can make a big contributionto the Treasury. In the past I have pleaded here for the needs of our digging community. I pointed out that the Government should open up more ground for the diggers because I anticipated a very high rise in the price of diamonds. I also referred to the Namaqualand State diggings. I said at the time that I anticipated a big rise in the price of diamonds, and I asked what the Government was doing to produce more diamonds or to make available more diamondiferous grounds. The State itself has diggings, but unfortunately the State has a contract which prevents it from placing as many diamonds on the market as it would like to. The other day I put a question to the Minister in connection with the item of approximately £6,000 when the second Part Appropriation was under discussion. I asked what the reason was for the increase in that amount. The Minister told me that the object in view was to produce more diamonds, as the demand for diamonds was so great today. Two years ago I predicted that there would be a rise in the price of diamonds, and I asked the House to amend that contract in such a way ’that the Union Government would be able to place more diamonds on the market. There are times when the price of diamonds is high. Then again there are times when the demand is less and when the prices are low. Here the Government is allowing a very good opportunity to slip by by being bound down by that contract under which the Union Government is only allowed to sell 15 per cent. of the diamonds which could be sold. I want to express the hope in passing that the new Minister of Mines will go into this matter and ensure that the State is able to place a larger quantity of diamonds on the market now that the diamond industry is flourishing. I think I have mentioned the important points which it was necessary to emphasise in connection with this motion. I hope and trust that the Minister of Mines will carry into effect that idea which is endorsed by many of his supporters, and I also want to ask him to visit the alluvial diggers. I think that he will then gain first-hand knowledge and that he will have another outlook on matters as far as our alluvial diggers are concerned.

Now I want to say a few words in connection with the restrictions connected with the issue of certificates. What is the reason for the strict procedure adopted in the issue of certificates to diggers? I want to make it very well understood that I am not pleading for certificates to be issued to persons who have never before had certificates. But there are people who have lost their certificates in an unfortunate manner. Some of the people have come to me and said: “Mr. Ludick, I have just come from the mining office. My certificate lapsed two days ago, and they refuse to renew it.” If the certificase lapses one day before, the certificate holder cannot obtain another certificate. I do not think it is right. I think there ought to be a certain extension of time. If you have a licence, then they always tell you that you have seven days’ grace before it lapses, but if you do not renew your certificate immediately, then it lapses and you cannot obtain a certificate again. Is this the way to treat a man who makes his living out of the diggings? I think it is wrong, and I think the Minister and his Department will agree with me that there ought to be an extension of time granted as regards the renewal of certificates. I would suggest that an extension of time of one month should be given. If a person fails to renew his certificate within a month, then it is another question. Exceptions are made. If a soldier has been away from the country and he fails to renew his certificate on due date, then a new certificate is granted to him, but the person who has remained behind does not enjoy that privilege.

Then there is another matter which I would like to touch upon. I am coming back again to the farm “Goede Vooruitsig”. The farm belongs to five or six owners. The mineral rights belong to a certain company. The farm belonging to those farmers is now being worked. Much of their land is naturally being destroyed. The farmers themselves would like to dig while their farm is being worked. Is there not a possibility of a certificate being issued to the owners of the farm to enable them to dig on their own farm? It must surely be heartbreaking to see people making hundreds of thousands of pounds on your own farm and you are not entitled to dig there yourself. Ī hope that in that respect provision will also be made. We have just experienced a drought, and there are some farmers who would also like to dig, but they cannot obtain certificates. Can these people not be helped? Even if they could only be furnished with a temporary certificate, is it not possible to help them in this way so that they will also be able to dig be it merely temporarily? I think we have now brought the most important points to the attention of the House I want to express the hope that those Government supporters, who also sympathise with the alluvial diggers, will support this motion, and that the hon. Minister will see his way clear to accepting the motion.

I have listened carefully to this debate, and I think the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) and his seconder can be complimented in this respect, that they have presented the case moderately. I would like to compliment them on the way they presented the case. I should like first of all to correct a figure given by the hon. member for Kimberley (District). He quoted 3,362 persons as being diggers today, people who own diggers’ certificates. That is not the correct figure, because many people who today own diggers’ certificates do not make use of their certificates but merely renew them yearly in case they want to make use of them later. Nor is the figure he gave of the population on the diggings, 13,500, correct. On the diggings today there are 1,209 claim holders; a claim holder is a man actively engaged in digging. The total population of the diggings, including 2,167 children and 1,093 women, is 4,730 and not 13,500. I have listened with great care to the speeches because I know the diggings. I represented those areas for nine years, and the diggers were amongst my best supporters and friends, and when I left they were still my friends. I have a great respect for the digger and if I can do anything for him I certainly will. We must remember that digging, like many other things in the world, is a gamble, the lucky man gets rich while the unlucky man remains poor. In regard to these areas the hon. members on the other side have spoken about, many millions of pounds’ worth of diamonds have been taken out in the past 60 years. I admit much of the ground has been worked out, but the diggers are also fewer in number. At one time many thousands of diggers were working on these fields and in one year the diggers took out almost £6,000,000 worth of diamonds, when the world demand was not much more than £6,000,000, and Lichtenburg was producing it. That is why people are sometimes reluctant to open up new properties for alluvial diggings. When there is a war or even rumours of war, the first thing that is affected is the price of diamonds, and if there were no control diamonds might have become as cheap as marbles. It is necessary sometimes to keep areas closed so that there may be effective control. If there is one thing in the world that requires control then it is the control, not so much of the output, but the sale of diamonds. Today it is different; there is a big demand. Yet the unlucky digger will remain unlucky. The diggers are dwindling in numbers for several reasons. During the war many diggers left the diggings to sign on; they have seen the world, they do not wish to return to the diggings. They have been helped by the Government, and they are seeking pastures new. A digger does not dig because he likes digging, or by choice. It is a precarious way of making a living, and he mostly lives from hand to mouth. Most of them are poor.

But the hon. member for Kimberley (District) is seeking to alleviate the distress of the diggers, and there I am with him. I do not agree with his methods. He and his seconder talked about wealthy companies and suggested expropriation. I presume they want to expropriate land belonging to the wealthy companies. I do not agree with expropriation in any form, and I believe if they were in power a Nationalist Government would not look at their proposition. Ask the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) or the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) if they agree with expropriation; they will turn it down I am sure. Even a Nationalist Government would not consider it. I am not in favour of expropriation but I am in favour of negotiation. We have done fairly well in regard to negotiation. In this country when you expropriate a man’s rifle you are doing a dangerous thing; if you expropriate his water rights it is even more dangerous, and when you expropriate his “kaart en transport” (title deeds) it is a very dangerous thing, and I do not believe any government in the country would consider expropriation. To my mind expropriation is out of the question. There is no doubt in my mind that this ground my hon. friends opposite are talking about belongs to the big mining companies and not to their friends and the mining companies, whether they are gold mining companies or diamond mining companies are all fair game to the Opposition. They have mentioned certain farms which belong to the big mining companies. These farms were Secured many years ago, but as hon. members will remember, there were times when there was no demand for diamonds. The world demand had fallen away, and if they had not bought up these farms, and if diamonds had been allowed to be produced everywhere, the diamond market would have gone to pot. A central control is necessary because the diamond is such a fluctuating article that you do not know where you are from year to year.

Let me say I am sorry the hon. members across the floor did not give the diamond mining companies even a little credit. Through control the digger is always assured of a good price for anything he finds, and his operations are never curtailed in any way. He gets all the benefits of control, but does not suffer any of the disadvantages, and he knows it. He has the protection that has been created through so much work, and wisdom on the part of the diamond companies. There is no brake whatsoever put on the production of his diamonds, so that the digger benefits sometimes while the mines are standing closed and the people are put off, and have to suffer hardships. While all that is happening the digger continues unmolested. That is the advantage he has and the digger will admit it, but I am sorry that hon. members opposite do not see this. It seems to me that there is a dead set against these companies. I know these diggers who are agitating. They have got hold of the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker). They are wanting certain farms and he has fallen for them. Let me give an example of a farm they cannot get, and over which there was much agitation. Some years ago they wanted a farm “Nooitgedacht,” near Barkly, which was diamondiferous. These few agitators drive about in big motor cars. They are the well-to-do diggers. They said they wanted “Nooitgedacht.” They insisted upon it, but the Ancient Monuments Commission has a lien on “Nooitgedacht.” I do not exaggerate when I say that the most famous glaciated rock series in the world is found on that farm. Some years ago the World Association of scientists visited this country. There were Russians and Americans and all nationalities, and they all said that these were the finest specimens in the world. How dare one tamper with this farm. If the diggers come there they would turn the place upside down. It is impossible in the interests of the country and of world science to allow diggers to go on to that property. Moreover, I knew the owner of “Nooitgedacht.” He wanted to sell the farm. He was a mining engineer by profession and he told me that he had been digging there for seventeen years, but could not make it pay, although it was in his interests to make it pay, because if he had found diamonds there he would have been able to sell the farm for many times its original price, but he could not find diamonds in payable quantities. Yet the diggers insisted. There is an instance of where the digger was unreasonable. Would the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) have handed such a property over for digging purposes? I say that the diamond companies have helped the digger in bad times through their policy of control. But there is never a good word for the diamond companies. Last year they paid £3 million in taxation. Their wage bill alone is over £1 million per annum. In taxation they pay 8s. 6d. in the £, plus 10 per cent. export tax which amounts to the tidy sum of £415,000 per annum. They are trying to develop at the same time. There has never been a government in this country which has taxed the diamond companies as heavily as this Government. They are trying to develop in the interests of the country. They want to restart Premier Mine, for which much money is needed—£1,000,000. They are going to spend £½ million to restart Jagersfontein; but out of Pandora’s box this year not a penny has come to relieve the heavy taxation on the mines. It is difficult to bear heavy taxation and at the same time to develop. Now the diggers want more ground. That is not unreasonable, but I say: Do not take a man’s ground away from him, do not expropriate, rather negotiate. I want to say that negotiations have been very successful. If I say it, probably hon. members opposite will not attach so much importance to it; therefore I want to read to them what the digger himself says. I am reading here from the “Diamond News,” a paper which has been in existence for some years, and which gives the best news about the diamond diggings. This issue is dated January, 1946, and reads as follows—

That is what the digger says about the diggings. I say again that a poor man can be given rich ground, but will still remain poor if he is unlucky. The hon. member spoke just now about certain properties which were given to the diggers. Properties were in fact given to the diggers. “Doornlaagte” was given to the diggers. Various other farms at different times were given to the diggers, but they were not always successful propositions. “Doornlaagte” was not a success, and this is what a digger says about it—

Who finances the diggers?

That does not concern this argument at all. But I can tell you. Mostly it is the storekeeper. But here you have the instance of “Doornlaagte”, which was craved after by the diggers and was given to them. It was unsuccessful. They find nothing on these unsuccessful undertakings, and have to go back the poorer to where they came from. It is not always good for them to go from place to place. There is another property here, “Goedvooruitzicht”. This is what appears in the “Diamond News” about this farm, an article written by a digger—

I also want to say that on the Cape diggings represented by the hon. member for Kimberley (District) only a fortnight ago a stone was found, weighing 54 carats, for which the lucky owner received £10,000. So much depends upon luck. He goes on to say—

This is what a digger says, and yet my hon. friend from Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick) comes here with his tales of woe. I cannot see that these diggers can have anything better. They have a property which will last them a lifetime.

The diggers from the Cape cannot go to the Transvaal. You know that.

I will come to the Cape. I was referring to “Goedvooruitzicht”. There has never been a better property than this. In regard to the Cape diggers I say: Do not expropriate, but let us negotiate. On the Cape diggings there is much ground that has not been touched. Millions of pounds have been taken out of that area, but vast areas have not been touched, simply because it is far ‘from the river and the diggers cannot get water. The Government has now begun to experiment on bringing water to the digger. These areas may be as rich as any of the old areas, and they are big areas. Instead of sending the digger from pillar to post and proclaiming farms like “Doornlaagte” it is better to keep them there to develop these areas which may be very rich, because they are adjacent to the old rich areas. This is what another digger says about the Cape diggings—

The man who wrote this is a digger who knows what he is talking about. He says further—

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

When the House adjourned, I was saying it would be far better if the diggers negotiated as they have been doing and if they put this idea of expropriation out of their minds altogether. I quoted the property in the Western Transvaal for Goedvooruitzicht, which the diggers themselves say is equivalent to Grasfontein, and that is saying a lot. In regard to the diggers in the Cape, who are short of ground and who have been given other farms and have been unsuccessful on those farms, I think that by bringing water to the diggers in the present districts where there is a lot of maiden ground still untouched during all these years on account of being waterless, we shall succeed far better. I want to read to the House what another digger says about this scheme of bringing water to the digger in the waterless areas. He writes—

All these areas are still untapped. He continues—

Those are the opinions of the diggers, and that is the solution I offer.

Now I want to come to the second part of this motion, and that is abolishing the 10 per cent. export tax. This tax was put on many years ago in the days of Mr. F. S. Malan when he was Minister of Mines in 1916. We were dissatisfied about it then. It was said in those days he had already raised £6 million through this 10 per cent. export duty, and therewith he was going to establish a diamond cutting industry. We asked, after some years had expired: Where is the industry? In those days we had a good case, but today we have not. It is foolish now to suggest that the 10 per cent. tax should come off diamonds when the diamond cutting industry is flourishing. But who exactly pays the 10 per cent.? Diamond buyers often have much sympathy with diggers, and it frequently happens when a digger is down on his luck a buyer will say: I will pay the 10 per cent.; or, I will pay half, and you pay the other half. I just mention that in passing, but let us accept the fact that the digger pays the 10 per cent., yet it will be foolish to take it off today. Last year the mines paid in 10 per cent. tax the sum of £415,000, while the diggers on the Cape diggings paid between £20,000 and £25,000. The Transvaal diggers paid about £40,000. But today we have a flourishing diamond cutting industry, and this 10 per cent. duty safeguards that industry to a great extent. It really amounts to 12 per cent.; the people overseas who buy our diamonds pay 10 per cent. plus an additional 2 per cent. for freight and insurance. During the war it was very much higher. But we have today this safeguard to the diamond cutting industry. It is a new industry and it is a flourishing industry. Today we have 81 diamond cutters in the industry, and there are 45 factories. There are 202 apprentices employed, all young South Africans. As the law stands today, for every journeyman cutter you must have an apprentice, and later it will probably work out that for every journeyman cutter there will have to be four apprentices. You will see how this diamond cutting industry can flourish, and why should it not flourish in this country? It is indigenous to the country, the diamonds are produced here. Why should they be cut in Amsterdam or America or Palestine? This is the place where a big, flourishing industry should exist. But we have members opposite who want to break it down.

We never said anything to that effect.

No, of course you did not say anything to that effect, not in word, but in deed. You probably did not realise that if we drop this tax, it would have that effect, that it would virtually mean the breaking down of a very flourishing industry which has only just started. Do you know that this country last year cut diamonds to the value of £4,777,000? It is a flourishing industry employing only South African boys, and yet you want to break it down. The boys employed in the industry — I saw some of them only last week—those who are journeymen are earning nearly—and it is almost incredible— as much as a Cabinet Minister, more than £200 a month. But here these hon. members opposite want to break down the industry. They want to seal our doom. We have been endeavouring to establish this industry for years and we certainly do not want to drive it away to Amsterdam or America or Palestine. A part of it will go there, but we are also entitled to this industry which is paying South African boys good wages. In Palestine the diamond cutting industry only started a year before the war, and they already have 34 factories cutting diamonds, and there are 4,000 people employed in diamond cutting and paying lower wages than we in this country. Surely they can see its danger. Where is your patriotism? The last thing we want to do is to kill the diamond cutting industry by taking off this 10 per cent. I have now dealt with the proposition and suggested what should be done, also with the 10 per cent. export duty. I have stated that it should not come off, in order to protect our own industry, and I think we shall leave the matter at that.

Finally I want to say that this motion which has been moved today, and the agitation behind it by the big diggers who go about in motor cars and smoke fat cigars has been seen before. Before the Nationalist Party came into power in 1924 this same sort of thing went on. History repeats itself. Then the big diggers also wanted impossible things, and said: Wait until the new government comes into power and we will get what we want. When the new government did get into power those same agitators could not get to Cape Town quickly enough to interview the Minister of Mines. There was a different story. The new Minister said: “No, we are in power now, and we are responsible people. These rash promises might have been made, but we cannot fulfil them.” And they went away empty-handed. History repeats itself. I think hon. members opposite have come here with a pretty bad case, and they should leave things to us. Our suggestions will be to the best advantage of these people. I am concerned not about the agitator, but the poor struggling digger.

I am sure the House has listened with sympathy to the speech of the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) and his seconder, and I am sure that it has listened to them with that sympathy with which the House always listens to pleas on behalf of any section of the population who have any grievance for which redress is sought or who are in need of assistance. I share in that sympathy and so does the Government, but I hope that the sympathy will not lead hon. members to support this motion, because I do not think that the reasons advanced or the proposals made are of a nature which this House could approve of. Before I come to the actual motion of the hon. member, the terms of this motion and his definite proposals, perhaps I might just say a word on one or two points raised by him and by the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick) which do not deal strictly with the terms of the motion.

The hon. member for Kimberley (District) enquired about the question of deproclaimed farms. There the position is that once a farm has been proclaimed and as long as it is being worked and diamonds are found on it, it remains available for digging; but when it becomes barren or appears to be so, either from the fact that no diamonds have been discovered, or because the diggers are abandoning it, having decided that it is of no use to continue to work there, then, after the Mining Commission has examined the position carefully, and considered all the factors of the case, it may be put up to me to deproclaim the farm. But I can assure hon. members that as long as there is a reasonable prospect of diamonds in payable quantities being discovered, or of that proclaimed land being required by the professional digger for working, those farms are not deproclaimed. The hon. member pointed out that I had not yet personally had an opportunity of visiting the diggings. That is perfectly true, but it is an omission which I hope to remedy as soon as I find time to do so. The next point referred to by the hon. member was the question of supplying water. The hon. member for Kimberley (City) (Mr. Humphreys) has pointed out that the Government is in fact taking steps where it is practicable to do so to bring water to the existing diggings, either existing diggings which have not got water, or diggings which would be exploited if water could be provided, and two of the farms referred to, namely “Good Hope” and “Bad Hope”, are having water brought to them at present.

Then the hon. member for Lichtenburg referred to the question of the limitation of certificates, but that is part of Government policy. The attempt to reduce the number of professional diggers and to confine it to those who are actually professional diggers is part of Government policy. For that reason we are very strict on the question of the issue of certificates to diggers. The hon. member for Lichtenburg in that connection raised the question of the owners of the farm “Goedvooruitzicht”. In that case the owners did apply for diggers’ certificates, but they did not comply with the other requirements. The primary requirement is that a man should be a bona fide digger in order to obtain a certificate. They did not comply with that, and moreover that farm was thrown open primarily in the interests of the professional diggers themselves, and as the hon. member for Lichtenburg will agree, there has not been enough ground there to satisfy the demand of the actual professional diggers who would like to have claims there, and so not only did we confine the issue of licences there to professional diggers, but we further circumscribed it by limiting it to people who had been diggers not later than 1934 and who had actually operated as diggers during the previous twelve months. That was done only for the reason of helping the permanent professional digger for whom I understand the hon. member for Kimberley (District) is principally pleading today. He also raised the question of diggers’ committees. The plain fact is that we had these committees and they have been abolished. They did not function as we expected, and did not prove to be made use of by the diggers themselves. It is on the advice of the commissioners, and also the local authorities, that we have discontinued these committees on the ground mainly and firstly that they did not fulfil any useful purpose, and secondly that there did not seem to be any particular demand for them on the part of the diggers themselves. The diggers certainly did not make adequate use of them when they had them.

Lastly he raised the question of training schools for children on the diggings. Well, taking the difficulties we have at present in the way of building schools and providing staff for them. I am afraid that there is no immediate prospect of our being able to create special schools for what is after all a comparatively small number of people who are very scattered. There are only two thousand children on the diggings at present, half of whom presumably are girls, and they are scattered throughout the diggings of the Cape and the Transvaal, and I think it is obvious that it would not be a practicable proposition to establish training schools for children scattered as they are. I am afraid they will have to use the existing facilities. After all the educational system both in the Cape and the Transvaal does provide a system of hostels designed to cater for the very class of children who are living in scattered areas, and who have not the proper educational facilities close at hand but must of necessity go to some larger centre where facilities exist. The hon. member for Lichtenburg asked whether we could not put more diamonds on the market. At present I wish we could. The diamond market today is buoyant beyond any expectations we had in the past. The demand for diamonds is much greater than we can fulfil. We are taking steps to expand what might be called the permanent sources of diamond production. As the hon. member for Kimberley (City) has said, Jagersfontein and Premier Mine are being re-opened, but when it comes to expanding the alluvial diggings one has to remember that there is a limited area of that land available, and for reasons I shall deal with more fully a little plater on, I do not think it will be advisable to enlarge those areas at present. The hon. member also asked about the limitation on the time for renewing certificates. I do not quite know what he means. He said that it was hard for a man who was one day late in his application to have his licence cancelled. Surely he is aware that at present there is 30 days’ grace allowed over and above the time of the expiry of a certificate, so unless he is asking for a few more days to be added to the 30 days, I do not know what he means, but if he does mean that, he is asking for the impossible. There must be a definite date when a certificate expires, and a normal person would take steps to renew it before it expires. There may be cases where a man for some reason may be a day or two late, and for that reason he is allowed the 30 days’ grace, but I do not think that the hon. member should suggest that further time should be allowed. I think these were the main points raised, and I come back now to the motion itself.

The hon. member proposed that we should make more land available for the professional diggers, and that if necessary we should expropriate land on which payable diamonds have been found, that we should abolish the 10 per cent. export tax, and pay a wage subsidy for the labour employed on the diggings. I think the House will agree with me that the hon. member does not err on the side of modesty in the demands he makes. He is suggesting that in order to assist the diggers we should reverse Government policy in at least three important directions, directions which would all involve legislation of some kind. As I have said, I am quite sure the House sympathises entirely with the spirit in which the hon. member has introduced his motion, and that the House is in full accord with him in desiring to do what is possible to make the life of the professional digger more secure. But at the same time it is necessary to preserve a sense of proportion in this matter. What is this community for which the hon. member is pleading? The hon. member for Kimberley (District) was wrong in his estimate that there were something like 13,500 Europeans, men, women and children, at present on the diamond diggings. The figure of 4,000 odd Europeans which was given by the hon. member for Kimberley (City), is in effect the correct one. So it is a small community and a very scattered one; and not only is it a small community, but it is a dwindling one. And if the Government policy which has been pursued for some years now is continued at some future or other time that community may disappear altogether. Since 1941 the issue of certificates has been restricted with the very object of bringing about a gradual reduction in the number of certificated diggers, with two main purposes, firstly to prevent a fresh influx of diggers, and secondly in order to preserve as far as possible what available ground there is to the bona fide diggers who are there today. I think that the reasons for that policy are obvious, and have been generally accepted by the country and by this House. In the first place diamond digging is a hazardous occupation, and in most cases not a very lucrative calling. It is a relic of the old days when the diggers pioneered the country, and helped to discover and to develop the diamond fields.

The good old days.

Very good old days, but gone forever. To that extent I concede that the country undoubtedly has an obligation towards the professional diamond digger who for many years has played a part in establishing the diamond industry in this country, but nevertheless it is an unstable occupation. It is one which is necessarily very often carried on under primitive conditions. Whatever we may do it is not possible to create the social conditions which we would like our people to live under, and I do not think that anyone can say that the conditions of diamond diggings as a whole are such as we would like to create in order to rear a sound generation. Lastly the diamond market is very uncertain. At present it is very good indeed, and it may continue for some years. It is true, as the hon. member for Kimberley (City) said, that the existence of the diamond industry as a whole, of the diamond companies, and the diamond cutting companies, acts as a cushion between the market and the diggers, but nevertheless, it is not a certain occupation. So whilst we are fully agreed that the bona fide professional digger who has lived his life on the diggings and whose only calling it is can hardly be expected now to learn any other trade or profession and that he must be helped as far as possible, we do not wish to build up a future generation of diamond diggers. Human nature being what it is the lure of making money quickly will always tempt people. Every good strike that we have, such as on “Goedvooruitzicht”, every drought that we have, always bring with them a fresh influx, a rush of applications for diamond digging certificates. That rush comes on the one hand from people who hear that So-and-so has struck it lucky, and on the other hand it comes from people who are facing a very difficult and hard time on their farms because of the drought, and go to the diggings on the off chance of making a little quick money, both very human inclinations, and which as a fellow human I do not condemn, but at the same time I feel that they are not ones which we can afford to encourage. It is much better for us to do what we can to assist the farmer through the bad times so that he can remain on the land and take advantage of improved conditions later, than to encourage him to abandon the land and give him a digger’s certificate enabling him to embark upon a career which at its best is an extremely hazardous one, and one which is not conducive to the welfare of his wife and children. For these reasons I cannot accept the resolution of the hon. member, because his resolution as it reads, and if we were to carry out the terms thereof, in effect seeks to increase the digging population; and obviously if we throw open considerable areas of fresh ground for the purpose of digging, there will be a great rush of applications for certificates, and if the ground is opened up, and not fully occupied, by existing diggers, the pressure to allow other people to go there would become one which any Minister of Mines would find it difficult to resist.

Furthermore the hon. member suggests that we should subsidise the industry, and pay for measures which he suggests would make it more productive. All these things are directly contrary to Government policy, which is to discourage increase in numbers of diggers on the one hand, while doing all it can to assist the existing diggers on the other hand. Therefore I am afraid that I cannot accept the hon. member’s motion. His proposals taken seriatim are in the first place that he desires land being made available and, if necessary, expropriated, which is in direct contradiction with the intentions of the Precious Stones Act of 1927. In section 26 of that Act, before proclaiming any land as an alluvial digging, it is necessary to have reasonable grounds for supposing that precious stones exist in favourable quantities. That is necessary or requisite for proclaiming any ground. But the Act makes no provision for calling upon the owner of land to prospect or to allow others to prospect on his land if he fails to do it himself, or if he does not either prospect himself or allow others to do it, there is no provision for compelling him to grant prospecting rights to other people, and much less is there any power given to expropriate his land in that case. The whole tenor of the Act is restrictive. Land which is not pros pected cannot be proclaimed without the owner’s consent. Prospecting may be restricted or prohibited altogether on any land, and the production or output of any owner or collection of owners may also be limited or curtailed or prohibited altogether. Reasons for all this are those referred to by the hon. member for Kimberley (City), and especially the fact that gem diamonds are a luxury. They have a very fluctuating market and have no certainty of a profitable sale. They are not like gold which can be sold in any quantity at a fixed price. In other words, the prosperity of the whole of the diamond trade, including the alluvial diggers depends on the control of production and of sales. What would happen if we were to throw large areas of ground open? It would make the control of diamonds more difficult on the one hand, and it would tend to use up at a faster rate than we should allow the existing grounds which exist for the present professional diggers; and I am not prepared, nor is the Government prepared, to do anything calculated to encourage a larger professional digging population in the Union. As far as the existing diggers are concerned, who are the main concern of the hon. member for Kimberley (District) the Government has acted. Realising that there was a shortage of ground, my predecessor, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard) approached De Beers and asked them to allow a number of their farms in the Lichtenburg, Klerksdorp and Barkly West districts to be prospected, with a view to proclaiming these farms, if payable, for the benefit of existing diggers. That is of course different from the procedure of forcing a private owner to make his land available, and quite different from expropriation. One has to remember that diamond digging causes more destruction and ruin to the surface of the soil than any other form of mining, and at a time like this when the preservation of our soil and its reclamation is a primary consideration, we want to be very careful how we allow large sections of the country to be despoiled in the search for precious stones. In those cases De Beers agreed to do so, with the result that two farms were proclaimed last year. There was “Doornlaagte” which has not yet proved any good results. The hon. member for Kimberley (City) in quoting from his paper, expressed more pessimistic views than I have yet heard. There have been diamonds found, but it has been disappointing. Then there is “Goedvooruitzicht” which has been a very successful undertaking. Then there was “Bosmansfontein” in the Bloemhof district. That is still being prospected, and has not been reported on yet. Then there is “Zoutpansfontein” in the Kimberley area which is unpayable. During the past year there have been two other farms, Government farms, proclaimed, one in the Barkly West area and one in the Wolmaransstad district. So in the last two years the Government has been instrumental in having 6,000 morgen of land made available to the professional diggers. Considering that all that land had to be prospected and reported upon, I think that is a fair amount of ground to have given to the existing diggers in the two years. There is a ban on prospecting for precious stones on Crown land and on private land in Namaqualand. The prohibition on private land in Namaqualand is not absolute, and may be lifted by the Government under certain conditions, but I do not think anyone would suggest that it is possible to envisage the development of a digging population in Namaqualand. Conditions there are quite unsuitable, and it is not conceivable that we should throw open land in Namaqualand for diamond diggers to live there. So that, within the limits of its powers, and we are limited in our powers to the provisions of the Precious Stones Act, the Government is endeavouring to make land available to existing diggers without resorting to the practice recommended by my democratic friend, the hon. member for Kimberley (District), of expropriating any land we may wish to lay our hands on for the benefit of the diamond digging population. Then we come to his proposal for lifting the 10 per cent. export tax on diamonds. I understood him to say that the sum of £800,000 had been paid in export tax by the alluvial diamonds in the last four or five years. Did I understand him correctly?

Yes.

If he said that I beg to correct him. The figure he quoted is the revenue from the export tax for all diamonds produced in the country, not for alluvial diamonds, or even for alluvial diamonds including State diamonds, let alone the comparatively small quantity of diamonds on the alluvial fields. That is the export tax on the total export of rough diamonds from the Union, including all the mine diamonds.

What is the amount for alluvial diamonds?

That is a very difficult figure to determine and I shall refer to it in a moment, because the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick) rather suggested, so I gather, that we might remove the export tax on the proclaimed public alluvial diggings, and leave the rest where it was; but that would be impossible. I do not think anybody knows how many of the diamonds found in the public alluvial diggings are exported in a rough state and how many are cut in the country. A very large proportion of them are sold to the local diamond cutters and cut and polished here, and, therefore, not subject to any duty at all. But the fact is this tax has been in force since 1916, a matter of 30 years, so it is not an innovation, and during that time the Government has collected and the taxpayer has benefited to the tune of something like £13,000,000. The last figure I have, 1943-’44, is that the sum of £416,000 was paid in export tax on rough diamonds, and the State is asked to forfeit the whole of that revenue in order to assist a very small handful of people in one part of the Union. No, Sir, if the professional diggers are to be assisted financially in one way or other, I suggest this would be a most uneconomic and extravagant way of doing it, and it is not a feasible proposition. It would not assist the digger if it was taken off. Moreover, as the hon. member for Kimberley (City) (Mr. Humphreys) has pointed out, we have established the diamond cutting industry from which this country will greatly benefit. Had it not been for that tax the industry could scarcely have existed. During the bad times this 10 per cent. just made all the difference and kept the industry alive. As the hon. member for Kimberley (City) pointed out, during the war that industry has expanded. We have done all we can to build it up into a purely South African industry. Before the war nearly all the cutters were foreigners, but during the war we have established a system whereby South Africans have learnt the trade, and many more South African apprentices are being trained now. There are over 200 of them at the present moment, and I do not think we should do anything which would be detrimental to that industry and which we hope will be a permanent industry, because it depends not only on the alluvial diggings but on the whole of the diamond production of the country. As long as the Union produces gem diamonds so long will we be able to cut, polish and export a portion of our production. The diamonds cut in our factories in the Union last year amounted to something like 92,248 carats with a value of over £4,780,000. That is for 1945. That is a very considerable sum of money, and it is a very considerable industry. So the effect of the suggestion to remove the 10 per cent. export tax would, on the present basis, be to cost the Treasury between £300,000 and £400,000 a year. It would gravely effect what we hope will be a flourishing diamond industry in the Union, and it would not, I believe, be of much benefit to the diggers themselves. The position today is that the alluvial diamond digger is getting extremely good prices for his stones. Today he is getting roughly three times the price he got in 1934, and, provided there are diamonds, and provided he can find them, I do not think the diamond digger has very much to complain about as far as the market is concerned at the present moment.

Lastly, the hon. member asked for a wage subsidy for the labour on the diamond diggings. The only argument he advanced was in regard to the return to the gold mines of the gold realisation charge for a period of 18 months. That cannot be regarded as a wage subsidy; and, anyway, the gold realisation charge was abolished some little time ago, and since that time nothing has taken its place as far as a subsidy is concerned. It is not true to say mine labour is being subsidised. The hon. member really made no case for the Government embarking upon what would be a revolutionary policy of subsidising labour working for private industries. Why confine it to the diamond diggings? What about the farmers living very close to the diggings? Would it be very long before other sections of the population came along and said: You are subsidising labour to the diamond digger, what about us? In fact that is what happened this afternoon. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) based his case on a subsidy paid for native labour on the gold mines, and he said because this subsidy was paid out on the gold mines the diamond digger was justified in asking for it.

But you are taking the income from the diamonds to subsidise labour on the gold mines.

If the hon. member had listened he would have known I have been explaining for the last five minutes we have not been subsidising labour on the gold mines. On that point, too, I find myself in disagreement with the hon. member for Kimberley (District).

To sum up: The Government is opposed to the encouragement of diamond digging as an occupation. I think the hon. member for Kimberley (District) is probably in agreement with me on that point. We are opposed to the expansion of diamond digging as an occupation in the Union. On the other hand we recognise fully the claims of the existing professional diggers, and we will endeavour, as we have done in the past, as we have done in the last couple of years, to assist them to earn a living under conditions as good as one can make for them. We will endeavour to see that as much diamondiferous ground, as is available, will be available to them when they require it in order to keep them going. We will endeavour to improve conditions to the best of our ability. We will endeavour to provide water where the provision of water will make existing areas possible to work; and generally, we will treat sympathetically any claims which are made from any direction, by hon. members or anybody else, for means of improving the conditions of diggers, and where we can reasonably meet them we shall endeavour to do it.

I think that is as far as I can go today, and I hope the House will be satisfied that the Government is sympathetic to the needs of the diamond diggers, that we are doing all we can to assist them, and that we are not called upon to take the steps asked for by the hon. member for Kimberley (District).

We have just had two speeches from the other side, one from a representative of the big mining magnates of Kimberley and the other from the mouthpiece of the Government. What we got from the other side, for the greater part, were promises from the Minister to this effect: “I will endeavour to do it; I have sympathy”. He has sympathy and he will endeavour to do this, that or the other, but I did not hear that we would get anything definite in connection with this matter. It is a question of side-tracking and giving nothing. We made a request to him in connection with the extension of the certificates and we drew a blank. We asked him what the position was in connection with schools at the diggings, and there again we drew a blank. We asked that less stringent conditions should be imposed in the granting of certificates and again we drew a blank. The price of diamonds has risen considerably and land which previously was not payable has now become payable, but we received no reply. I hope that the Minister’s visit will, in fact, materialise and if he comes he should not go to Kimberley district only, but he should also go to Christiana and Bloemhof where the diggings were in full operation previously but where they are now simply lying idle. It would seem that the Government’s whole policy is that the alluvial diggings must be allowed to come to an end. The Minister used the word “disappear”.

I did not say that.

That is the idea of the Minister and also of the hon. member for Kimberley (City) (Mr. Humphreys), that the alluvial diggings must come to an end, because in that event they will not compete with the big diamond mines. The hon. member for Kimberley (City) stated that the mines of Kimberley, Jagersfontein and the Premier Mine have again opened and that there must be control otherwise diamonds will later become as cheap as marbles. That must be done for the sake of the big mining magnates, and they have no sympathy for the poor diggers who have struggled for years. The Minister stated that digging is a great gamble. To a certain extent I agree with him. It is a gamble, but as the Minister of Finance stated the other day, everything is a gamble, even marriage, and farming is also a gamble. We cannot adopt the attitude that because digging is a gamble the alluvial diggings must gradually disappear. In the Christiana constituency we have some of the richest and some of the best farmers who started as poor diggers. They worked hard and every time they found a diamond, they put it back into the land. Some of the best inhabitants of those areas started as poor diggers. That industry has now practically come to a standstill. There are no longer big diggings in the Western Transvaal and no initiative is displayed by the Government with a view to helping these people to develop the land further. There is a great deal of land which was previously closed because it did not pay, but with the present high price of diamonds that land has again become payable and in that respect the Government ought to give some assistance and to display some initiative in order to allow these people to develop the land in question. One farm after the other has been deproclaimed. I have in mind a large number of farms such as Klipfontein, Swartlaagte and others which were deproclaimed. At one time there were diggings on those farms but when the prices became poor digging was no longer a payable proposition. But prices are high at the present time and the Government ought to allow returned soldiers who are on pension and others to dig for diamonds in their spare time.

The Minister went on to say that the Government was not disposed to subsidise the wages of the diggers. What commodity is there today which, for all practical purposes, is not being subsidised? Butter, cheese, meat and every commodity is being subsidised. The mines are being subsidised in respect of native wages. Australia is subsidising labour and that is the reason why Australia is producing on such a large scale. Why cannot we subsidise these poor people who have struggled through all these years and in that way assist them. They are an asset to the country. They are working very hard on the diggings. It is true that the Government does a certain amount of welfare work there, but is there any industry where it does not happen that people go down and become impoverished? As far as the question of a subsidy is concerned there is not much to be said for the Government’s argument.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Kimberley (City). He spoke here as the representative of the Mines of Kimberley. He would not like to see the big farms which are in the hands of De Beers thrown open to the diggers. We know that if that is done it will lead to considerable competition and quite possibly it will also affect the price of diamonds. But why should the high prices benefit the mining magnates only; why cannot the diggers reap some advantage from these high prices? In the vicinity of Kimberley there are farms which are diamondiferous and which can be proclaimed. The Minister’s argument is that the land is dug up and that the whole area is made unsightly. In Christiana the procedure was that a digger was not allowed to leave his claim until such time as he had levelled the ground. Moreover, the soil has then been loosened up and there we have a means of preventing the veld from being made unsightly. There is therefore no force in that point made by the Minister. The Minister and the hon. member for Kimberley (City) spoke in a somewhat derogatory manner about the decreasing numbers of diggers. They stated that the number had now been reduced to a third. Perhaps the truth lies midway. However, I do not want to go into that now. I want to put up the plea, however, that it should be made possible for people to get new certificates and that the Government should not impose conditions which are so stringent as to preclude anyone else from getting a certificate. There was a time when these certificates were issued on a fairly big scale and a large quantity of diamonds came on to the market. Now it would seem that the object is to do away with the diggings. It is the policy of the Government to eliminate the alluvial diggings in the interests of the big mining magnates. The hon. member for Kimberley (City) also stated that he was opposed to the expropriation of land and that there should rather be negotiation. I can well understand why he adopts that attitude. In the case of expropriation it is a case of enforcing the provisions of the law and it can be applied to any person. In the case of negotiations there is no law governing the matter, and the big capitalists know that they will succeed in withholding their land. I can appreciate, therefore, why the hon. member adopts that attitude.

Then I come to the diamond cutting works. It would seem that the hon. member and the Minister have the erroneous idea that the diamond cutting works should be maintained merely by means of the 10 per cent. export duty which is paid by the producers of diamonds. I wonder whether there is a parallel in this country where one industry alone has to support another industry. Do we expect the wool farmers only to support the wool industry?

That is the case.

As far as I understood the position, the country as a whole is interested in the industry and is called upon to support the industry. It is true that the wool farmers help, but it does not rest on their shoulders only to build up the wool industry. The same applies to other industries. The diamond cutting works should not be kept going by the 10 per cent. duty only, nor is the 10 per cent. export duty being used for that purpose only. A portion of it goes into the Treasury which is controlled by the Minister of Finance. The principle is wrong. Everything should not come from the diggings. The whole country should see to it that the diamond cutting works are maintained. It is a national asset. Why then should it be supported by the diggings only? The hon. member for Kimberley (City) stated that 1944 was “the vintage year for diamonds.” He pointed out that the market was flourishing. Why cannot the poor diggers share the benefit of the flourishing market by enabling them to go in for digging on a more extensive scale? We notice that in Lichtenburg land has been proclaimed. According to reports many diamonds are being found in that area, and the prices are so good that there are no poor diggers amongst those people. There are many people who have been diggers for many years and who have always promoted this cause. Why should they now be forced out of this industry? Here we have an actual case where the party on this side of the House stands for the idea of national development, while the other side stands for the Imperialistic and capitalistic idea that the big mines and the big financial magnates must be helped and that the poor people who started years ago and who endured hardships all these years must now be forced out of this industry. As the Minister stated, “they must gradually disappear.” Where are the shareholders of the big mines, and to whom are the dividends paid? These dividends are not being paid only to people in this country. A great portion of it goes overseas, but the profits of the diggers remain in our own country, and if we encourage these people they will help to develop the country. I wonder how many members have ever been at alluvial diggings. I should like the Minister at some future date to go and see how the ground is sifted. It is interesting to see how the digger pins his hopes on discovering a diamond, and what his reactions are when he does strike a diamond. It would be a very good thing if the Minister were to take part in it so that he may know what feelings they experience. There is an old saying “Once a digger always a digger”. Once they have been to the diggings and they have struck diamonds, they are very much like people who have visited the racecourse a few times—they always come back to see their horse win. These people have once and for all been brought up on these lines; it is in their blood, and they want to carry on with it. We must sympathise with them. We must help them so that they will not become a burden to the State, because they can be an asset. Some of them have reached an old age, but they still finance the work which is under their supervision. The ex-Minister of Mines was very unsympathetic towards the alluvial diggings. I can testify that from personal experience. We made representations to him in connection with the diggings at Bloemhof and we could not get anything out of him. What we could get was assistance to get the people away when these farms were deproclaimed. But we never ’ got real sympathy from the Minister. We trust that the present Minister will not be imbued with that spirit. When he comes to Christiana we will point out to him places where the people believe that there is still land which can be profitably developed. During the course of this week I handed over to his Department a letter from a certain Viljoen. He writes to say that it is dry, that he has not sown any mealies but that his cattle are in a reasonable condition, and he asks whether he cannot be given a certificate to go and dig. There are places all over where these people can dig for diamonds. This man will not be impoverished as a result of this. I do not know what the result is going to be, but I do not expect much from the Minister —perhaps a little sympathy, but no actual results. I do not want to say more in regard to this matter. I welcome the motion of the hon. member for Kimberley. (District) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker). I am pleased that he introduced it and I hope that as a result of the speeches which have been made here some measure of relief will be granted as well as assistance to the handful of people who are still digging in that area. In my constituency there are quite a few people who are still digging, and they would be very pleased to know that they will be given further land in the near future to enable them to continue their digging operations.

I should like to associate myself with a few aspects of this motion, not all its aspects, but particularly that portion which deals with the provision of land and the possible abolition of the 10 per cent. duty. It is generally stated — and as a matter of fact it was also explained by the Minister — that the policy which is being adopted today is calculated to make the alluvial diggings disappear gradually, and to get the diggers away from the diggings and to place them in better employment. No one has any objection to that. I do not think there is anyone who has any objection to it.

Provided they can make a decent living elsewhere.

No one would have any objection if, for example, the State were to remove all the diggers from the alluvial diggings and place them on farms, for example, where they can make a living or if the State were to place them in good positions. But we also realise that it cannot be done at once. It will take many years. It may take another ten or tweny or thirty years before we can dispense with these diggers. In the meantime they have to live and they have to take care of their families, and, as quite correctly mentioned this morning by the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker), the diggers’ community is a fairly large community to whom the Government cannot turn a deaf ear and whose interests it must fully take into account. In the first instance this motion asks that diamondiferous land be made available for the diggers in order to enable them to make a decent living. The objection is not so much the one that was mentioned by the Minister, namely, that land cannot be deproclaimed expeditiously, but the objection is that land is not being proclaimed expeditiously. That is the trouble. The objection is, as a matter of fact, that farms, after having been proclaimed and after having been worked out, are not deproclaimed again. In other words, the diggers have nowhere to go to; a certain piece of land is proclaimed for them; they flock to it and notwithstanding the fact that it has been completely worked out they have to remain there. It is also generally known that when a farm is proclaimed as an alluvial digging, it is not the whole farm that is diamondiferous. Usually it is only a small portion of the farm which is diamondiferous and often it is only a very small portion of the farm that is diamondiferous, and it is worked out fairly soon. I say therefore that the difficulty is that that farm should be deproclaimed sooner and another farm should then be proclaimed at an early date in order to enable the diggers to make a living. I can well understand why the hon. member for Kimberley (District) adds in his motion that land should be proclaimed even if it involves expropriation. That would, of course, be the last resort.

That is correct.

No one wants to do that. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) said a much better method would be to negotiate. We fully agree with that. We support the policy of negotiation, but there are so many methods in vogue today which are designed to keep diamondiferous land out of the hands of the diggers, that it is in many cases essential; it is necessary in some cases to expropriate the land eventually. There is no alternative. Expropriation must be resorted to if in that way land can be made available for the diggers. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) pointed out quite correctly this morning that where it is felt that a farm is diamondiferous—and I could mention an example in my district—I would almost say that in nine cases out of ten that farm is bought by some company or other and prospecting is prohibited on the farm in question with the result that that diamondiferous land is lost to the diggers. There are other methods, for example, where the farm is prospected but the true yield or the richness of the deposit is never revealed, and then there are farms which have already been prospected so that nothing remains for the diggers. These are all methods which are adopted to keep the land out of the hands of the diggers, and that is why it is necessary, in the absence of any other method, to expropriate the land as a last resort and to give it to the diggers in that way so that they can make a living on it.

As far as the 10 per cent. duty is concerned, I think this is an extremely unfair and unjust duty. I do not think there is any other community in our country which is called upon to pay such a direct tax as in the case of the diggers. One might almost say that the poorest section in our community is called upon to pay this unfair direct tax. It may be argued that we should not export diamonds, that we should rather encourage our own industries in this country and that we should keep our diamonds and cut them here. That is all very well, but until such time as we can do that, it is necessary to export our diamonds and in the meantime the digger is called upon to pay this direct export duty, and, moreover, as was pointed out quite correctly this morning, he is not allowed to deduct any portion of his expenses or his production costs, because he is required to pay 10 per cent. on the full value of the diamond. I am therefore in full agreement with the hon. member.

Now I come to another question, and this is where I differ from the hon. member for Kimberley (District) namely in connection with the issue of diggers’ certificates. He asked the Minister this morning that diggers’ certificates should be issued to all people who previously had diggers’ certificates. I think that is entirely wrong. It is entirely wrong and I do not agree with it. We know what the position was in earlier years in connection with the diggings. I can recall very clearly how people flocked from all quarters of the country years ago when the big diggings were proclaimed in Lichtenburg. Well-to-do farmers, rich business men and companies flocked to Lichtenburg and there was even an influx of people from overseas. Today the State controls the issue of certificates as a sort of hold over the diggings, and if the State were to issue certificates to all persons who previously had certificates, we would have a repetition of the same thing and very little would remain for the real professional digger. There would again be an influx from all quarters; there would be an influx of fortune-hunters and big companies. They would work out the proclaimed land within a short space of time and when the land has been worked out the professional digger will be in the same position and the State will not be able to proclaim another digging for him. No, I think if the hon. member for Kimberley (District) thinks this matter over carefully he will realise that it would definitely be wrong to issue diggers’ certificates to every person who had a certificate previously. But as the law stands today the Minister has the power to issue certificates in special or exceptional cases. The law still gives him the power to issue a certificate when in his opinion it is justified and in this respect I want to endorse what was said this morning by the hon. member for Kimberley (District) in regard to the owners of proclaimed land. The Goede Vooruitsig diggings fall in my constituency and I am also acquainted with the circumstances there. The mineral rights on the farm belong to De Beers Company but the surface area of the farm belongs to five different farmers, who made their living on the surface of the land, and not below the surface. The mineral rights belong to De Beers Company and, as the Hon. Minister stated, the previous Minister of Mines negotiated with De Beers Company with a view to having this farm prospected. That was done and eventually the farm was proclaimed for the diggers, and we are very grateful for it. But this is my difficulty. We all realise that a farmer is a person who has to make his living on the surface of the land. He is not so much interested in what lies below the surface. For that reason he is not so much interested in the mineral rights. These five owners have no say over the mineral rights. The De Beers Company prospected this farm. Subsequently the farm was proclaimed and the diggers are now operating there. As the Minister quite correctly stated, the diggers are ruining the farm, from an agricultural point of view. The unfortunate part of the matter is that these five owners of the farm have no diggers’ certificates, nor can they get diggers’ certificates. In other words, they are getting almost nothing out of the diggings and, as the Minister said, they are not entitled to any share of the proceeds. But in all fairness we must surely realise that a great portion of the capital possessed by these people, namely, the value of the farm, is now being ruined and they are getting no compensation for it. I should have thought —and in fact I approached the Minister in that connection—that he would issue diggers’ certificates to those people and, if necessary, so amend the legislation that it will become possible for those five owners to take part in the digging operations on their farm so as to compensate them to a certain extent for the loss they are suffering in that their farm is being dug up by the diggers. I think this is really a very reasonable request. Even if they were not allowed to become professional diggers in the future certificates could be issued to them on condition that they only take part in the digging operations on their own farm and subject to the condition that when the farm is worked out at some future date they will no longer be professional diggers. That could be done if, in fact, there is any danger of encouraging the people to become professional diggers. I think this is really a very reasonable request. I am convinced that there is no one in this House who regards it as anything but a reasonable request. Then just one further point. If there had been more co-ordination and more co-operation between the various State Departments, our Government could have contributed a great deal to making life more attractive for the diggers in these remote parts. The diggers often live miles and miles from the nearest town, as is the case in fact at Goede Vooruitsig. I think they are approximately 30 or 40 miles from Lichtenburg which is their nearest town. They experience all sorts of difficulties there, particularly in connection with the passes of their non-European labourers and in drawing up their monthly returns. I have been told that they have to take all their labourers into Lichtenburg to have their passes renewed by the police, in spite of the fact that the police visit that area on patrol every week. If there had been more co-ordination between these Departments surely it could have been arranged by this time for the police to do this work for the diggers while they are in that neighbourhood. Many of those people are poor. They have no transport facilities, and they have to hire a lorry when they want to go into town. They have to put their labourers on the lorry and take them into town 30 or 40 miles away. I hope that the Minister of Mines and the Minister of Justice will consult each other in this matter to see whether they cannot meet the diggers in that respect.

After the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) scored his victory…

Which made you sick.

No, the last thing that will make me sick is a Nationalist victory. I say that after the hon. member for Kimberley (District) had gained that victory one naturally thought that he would endeavour to place the diamond industry on a sound basis and to make all his constituents rich people. Well during an election one does not mind very much what sort of promises one makes.

Is that what you do?

I think the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick) is a prominent expert in that sphere. I really think the whole Nationalist Party are experts in that line. They realise now, of course, that things do not go so smoothly here in the Assembly as outside, and this Parliament can almost be described as a place where lies are straightened out. On the platteland they roar like lions but when they come into the House they are quickly tamed, and I hope the hon. member for Kimberley (District) has also been absolutely tamed this afternoon and that he will not roar so dreadfully in company with the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) at the following election on the platteland, nor roar together with Mr. Mussolini van Wyk like a lion or a leopard. That is one aspect of the matter. I hope the hon. member will now be more careful with his promises.

What promises did he make?

The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg is the last fellow or the last hon. member who should interrupt one. I am convinced that should I tell the House of his conduct during the election he would be so ashamed that like a little pup he would trot out of the House with his tail between his legs.

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

I was dealing with the matter, but the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg would die if he could not interrupt one. The first thing that struck me very forcibly in connection with the discussion on this motion was the very strong plea that was made by hon. members in the Opposition for expropriation. It is also mentioned here in the motion that if ground is not thrown open by the big companies or by private individuals the Government should expropriate and proclaim.

You cannot read.

But the hon. member who proposed this motion forgot that his party the other evening could not use words strong enough to condemn the Minister of Lands on account of there being a possibility of expropriation being resorted to in the Dongola area. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) said that the lands of private citizens would be expropriated as a result of the Minister’s raid. That is terribly strong language to use. Can one then use an argument today if it suits you and then use the opposite argument the next day if that suits you? I do not think that my hon. friends have given the necessary consideration to this aspect. They did not think far enough ahead this morning when they adduced the argument that land belonging to companies should be expropriated. They come now with a plea that the Government should expropriate the lands belonging to companies or private persons, or whoever it may be. The other night they fought expropriation and now they advocate expropriation. This borders on that doctrine that they combat so fiercely, namely the doctrine of communism. I should like to know since when they have made this change of front. Truth to tell it is not a matter for surprise to us that such a change of front should occur amongst those members. One sees it so often in this House as far as the members of the Opposition are concerned. I can mention dozens of cases where they have changed front from day to day. In fact one does not know whether one can venture to quote their speeches on the platform, because tomorrow they will twist and say just the opposite. We have this other instance today. If they had kept to their former standpoint then the people in the country would have said: Look, there you have a good set of people, they do not want expropriation, they respect the rights of private individuals. If they kept to that standpoint they could perhaps have earned much greater respect for the Opposition, but before the sun went down they changed their front. Heaven only knows when the day will arrive that they will take up a certain standpoint and stick to it. The voters of South Africa will have to wait a long time before they can be certain what the standpoint of the Opposition is in reference to any matter. They do not know where they stand as regards the Nationalist Party. I associate myself with what has been stated here by the hon. member for Kimberley (District) that if diamondiferous ground can be thrown open as the result of negotiation it is quite in order, but when he goes on to say that the State must go in for expropriation it is another matter. I am certain that the hon. member for Kimberley (District) would not accept our expropriating his land and apportioning it to other members of the House. If that is so how can he pursue the argument that if need be the State should expropriate the land of private citizens against their will?

The hon. member strongly advocated further ground being thrown open for the diggers. I am not annoyed with the hon. member, as he has a mining community in his district and is trying in this way to keep them going. It is one of the unpleasant things about public life, especially in a democratic country, that you must take account of the wishes of your constituents. It is obvious that the hon. member, like any other hon. member, must necessarily advocate the wishes of his voters and look after them. But what we have to take into consideration is this: Is it justifiable to endeavour to uphold popular opinion knowing that in the long run that popular opinion is going to have a detrimental effect on the very people who hold it? Today we have diamond diggings in various parts of the country, and from the speeches of several members I think I am right in saying that when the father is a digger the sons also become diggers. Well, the alluvial diggings will not last for ever. Suppose we open one diamondiferous area after another and no restrictions are applied. What is going to happen? The time must arrive sooner or later when a young Afrikanerdom will have no economic prospects in life, and I think that is dangerous. In fact in that respect I believe the Government’s policy is best. Their policy is not to turn the people out of the diggings unless they can derive an adequate subsistence elsewhere. But, they say: We do not regard the diggings as providing a healthy living and therefore we must gradually close them down; for that reason no further certificates will be issued. That also accounts for the policy that no more ground will be thrown open. I had the honour, and to me it was a very fine experience, to visit a couple of the diggings. I hear that the hon. member for Kimberley (District) spoke this morning about big diggers. There are diggers who can afford to purchase machinery, but one also sees persons who live in most deplorable and poverty-stricken circumstances. Regarded from the angle of social welfare it is a blot on the State that we allow people to live under these conditions. Must we then pass on these conditions? Must we permit these conditions to be continued for ever and ever? I think we are doing the right thing by the diggers themselves in encouraging them to follow other occupations, or to open up businesses or to go in for farming. With the revival of the diamond market people frequently come to us for advice. They may have permanent billets which provide them with a good living, but with an eye on the spurt in the diamond market they feel that they should return to the diggings. Some of these people make quite a decent living. They are all actuated by the gambling spirit and again they wish to gamble. Personally I have strongly dissuaded people from throwing up their permanent jobs and seeking again to make an unsafe and insecure existence on the diggings. I think we should almost go further than just stopping the throwing open of new ground, and not renewing the licences and certificates which lapse. We might even go so far as to encourage the diggers to give it up, and leave it to the State to provide another means of livelihood for them.

How are you going to manage that?

What do you suggest?

There are several methods. I see the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) is getting ready to interrupt me again. Sitting as he does with his head forward on the seat, he reminds me of a pumpkin. There are many methods. Some diggers were in the past good farmers and made a good living out of farming. One method is to give them a further opportunity to resume farming. Others again were in the past engaged in industry. They may perhaps be inexperienced; but today have we not a number of inexperienced people in our industries, and have they not become skilled, people who today have a good independent livelihood? Why cannot we do this? Should we encourage these people to remain on the alluvial diggings, merely to make voting cattle of them, so that they can look after the seats of hon. members like the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick) and the hon. member for Kimberley (District). We must not make voting cattle of these people. I think there comes a time in the life of a member of Parliament or in the life of a Provincial Council member, or in the life of a town councillor, when he must be firm enough to advise his people in their own interests and not merely, with an eye on the next election, create the impression that he is a good chap.

I suggest that to the two methods being applied today there must be added a third, that more active methods must be followed. A system of repatriation should be instituted. You should not just drive them off the alluvial diggings but you should help them when they go away to get a good livelihood elsewhere.

Attention should also be devoted to the children of the diggers. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) sees the danger that I see, namely that the digger’s child will become a digger as well and that the young lad and the young girl will be dragged into that miserable environment. The hon. member for Kimberley (District)—I think some of us have had the same idea — feels that provision should be made for those children. I would mention this as a third method of rehabilitation, or as a means to get rid of the diggings. I would only say at this stage that I believe it is the policy of the Government to close down the alluvial diggings. If that is so then let us inform these people. I have found that amongst the diggers there is still a large amount of uncertainty in regard to the real intentions concerning them and their future. I think this is our policy, and we should not hide it but say frankly that the intention is that alluvial diggings should be discontinued. I think there is a fourth and very important method. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) touched on it, but he will forgive me when I say that I think he advocated it from the wrong angle. He wishes to have occupational training for the children of diggers either on the diggings themselves or in the vicinity of the diggings. I think the hon. member will agree with me that as the diggings are so impermanent and of such a temporary character it is impossible to erect schools on them for occupational training.

What is wrong with Kimberley?

Take an area like Lichtenburg or other alluvial diggings, they are a considerable distance from Kimberley. I would rather see, by means of the hostel system, more facilities provided for educational training in towns where there are technical colleges. Let us provide the necessary housing accommodation to enable these lads and girls to be trained. I admit it is difficult, almost impossible in fact, for the children of diggers to be admitted to the Witwatersrand Technical College for instance. You must really be on the spot to secure admission. But the facilities can be extended by providing housing for the children of diggers. The universities make provision for hostels but technical schools and trade schools do not. This is a big omission in respect of which provision should be made. At the moment most of the children attending classes at the Witwatersrand Technical College live with their parents or families or friends. We must enable the children of the diggers to be put in a position to become important citizens of the State, and to provide substantial contributions to the national income of the country and its economic life. So they should not be forgotten. But on the other hand it does not help matters to make use of this position in order to argue the case. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) may achieve more if he takes the matter up with the Department concerned. He laughs when one gives him advice. There are women’s associations like the A.C.V.V. who do excellent work in permanently rescuing the children and making good citizens of them. We appreciate the work. Another point is in regard to licences that lapse. The hon. member wishes that when licences lapse they should again be allotted when more ground is thrown open. Along those lines we shall never get rid of the diggings and the digging class. I should, however, like to touch on another aspect, and that is the position of returned soldiers who have lost their licences on account of them having lapsed while they have been away on active service. Personally I should not like to see these people return to the diggings, but there are two things that place them in a difficult position. In order to receive assistance from the Government under the demobilisation scheme it has virtually been required of a person that he should return to his pre-war occupation. When assistance is asked for and the applicant does not follow his pre-war occupation he cannot get any further, and it is very difficult to obtain assistance for him. But what can a man do if he was a prospector before the war? I have had to deal with such cases and in respect of one specially hard case I had a hard tussle with the Minister’s predecessor. That man lost his licence through circumstances beyond his control. I must say, however, that since then the policy has been altered and he has been told he may have his licence. I should prefer him to have other work but as soon as you approach Demobilisation to obtain assistance for a returned soldier the first requirement is that he should return to his pre-war employment. How on earth can you return to the diggings if you cannot obtain a prospecting licence? There was this case that I had of a returned soldier who is a prospector. He is now well advanced in years and has no other way of making a living. He does not wish to make a living at the diggings but in order to prospect he must have a digger’s certificate. In such an instance I consider the certificate should be renewed. We must provide for exceptions. I can understand hon. members advocating the throwing open of further diamond fields in view of the importance of the industry, but I think they should also take into consideration, as the Minister indicated, that it is not an industry that rests on a sound foundation.

At 4.10 p.m., the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 31st January, 1946, and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 29th March.

The House thereupon proceeded to the consideration of Government business.

When the House adjourned yesterday I was indicating that the people of the Transvaal very clearly gave the Indian community to understand, even more clearly than the population of Natal, that they were not welcome citizens in the Transvaal. I referred to Act No. 3 of 1885 which states in so many words that the Indians cannot get the rights of citizenship in the Transvaal. I want to quote what was said by another person, one who certainly cannot be accused of goodwill towards the Transvaal, namely Lord Milner. He stated—

More explicit language cannot be used to describe the position which obtained in the Transvaal at that time. In 1907 the Transvaal was given self-government and within a period of two years no less than five statutes were placed on the Statute Book in connection with this whole matter. Of those statutes the Gold Mining Act of 1908 was perhaps the most important. We now come to the Cape. In 1906 the Cape was compelled to enact a law which provided that Indians could only settle in the Cape if they possessed certain educational qualifications. This Act has now become an anachronism. With the establishment of Union the position was very clear, especially in the northern provinces of Natal, the Free State and the Transvaal. They very clearly gave the Indian population as well as the whole world to understand that they were prepared to allow the Indians to make a living in South Africa, but in that event they must not expect to be recognised as citizens of the country and that they must not demand the privilege of owning fixed property and that type of thing. That is the attitude that was adopted. Today the attitude is adopted that 80 per cent. of the Indians in South Africa were born in this country and that on that ground they must be given all the rights of citizenship. Well, if my neighbour happens to be in my house and the position arises that his wife has to give birth to a child in my house I surely cannot be held to be the father. That is what is happening in South Africa today in the case of the Indians. In spite of the fact that the people of South Africa have declared from time to time that the Indian population cannot become citizens of South Africa, and in spite of the fact that they enjoyed the favour of living in South Africa and of making a living in this country, the Indians, on the ground of birthrights, are demanding that the rights of citizenship be granted to them. When one looks at the historical background, they have not got this right. From 1904 particularly up to 1914 the Indian population of South Africa waged a life and death struggle for their rights in South Africa, more strongly than many people may realise. They were fortunate as the result of two circumstances. In the first place they received guidance from a person like Gandhi, who understood the art, particularly because he knew the soul of the Easterner, in organising them in a way such as no other person could have organised them, but they were also fortunate during this period in having at the head of the Europeans a person like the present Prime Minister. I say that they waged a life and death struggle and that struggle was won by Gandhi. Today even the Indian population admits that in the struggle which ensued against the Prime Minister Gandhi was the victor. The people of South Africa were the losers in this struggle. We then entered a period in which the great imperial interests played a most subtle role in connection with the Indian problem, and unfortunately the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, a person who holds the imperialistic view, the holistic view, lent his ears to a large extent to this type of subtle activity. In 1914 England stood on the eve of a war. The Indians had to be kept calm, and I make the definite assertion that at that time Gandhi was victorious because the Prime Minister held these imperialistic views. It is for that reason that it was necessary to pour cold water on the whole matter, and that is why the Indians were victorious. The price that South Africa had to pay for the war of Britain was the fact that the Indians were victorious.

Now you are again dragging in politics.

The Smuts-Gandhi agreement was regarded by every person who had made a study of this matter as the Magna Charta of the Indians in South Africa. I just want to read to the House what Gandhi himself said in regard to this matter in his farewell speech to South Africa—

That is what Gandhi said in regard to this matter. But the fruits of this Smuts-Gandhi agreement can best be seen in the light of the words of the Prime Minister himself when he replied to an address that was presented to him in Durban in 1919 by the Indian community. He stated—

That is the political attitude which crystalised out of the whole struggle between Gandhi and Gen. Smuts. And even a writer like Josshi was extremely pleased with the agreement. Unfortunately the limited time at my disposal prevents me from going into the history of the whole matter. But let me deal for a moment with the Cape Town Agreement which was one of the most important agreements. No Indian had a good word for the Cape Town Agreement. I cannot go into it but I just want to quote the words used by Sastri at Ladysmith—

That is what Sastri said, and even as late as 1944 Maurice Webb, a student of Indian matters, wrote in “Race Relations”—

The Smuts-Gandhi Agreement was tantamount to this that for the first time permanence was given, even though tacitly, to the idea that the Indians form an integral portion of the people of South Africa. Therein lay the merits of the Smuts-Gandhi agreement, from the point of view of the Indians. Many people will say that the entire victory seems to be only superficial. Someone pointed out quite correctly that it was not so much a victory of matter as one of spirit. That is what it was to the Indians. The Cape Town Agreement won back what was lost through the Smuts-Gandhi agreement. A new position came into existence and it was admitted throughout the whole country that the Indians were only temporary inhabitants of South Africa, not citizens of South Africa, and not an integral portion of the people of South Africa. Therein especially lies the merit of the Cape Town Agreement. [Time limit.]

I move—

I object.

I am sorry to cut short the speech of the hon. member, but he will understand that it has nothing to do with me. I have to put before the House now the views which I hold upon this very important Bill. The importance of this measure needs no stressing from me, because I think it has been widely expressed in every quarter, not only of this House, but of the country, and it is a measure which has been on the stocks now, not for months but for years, and the problems which are connected with it have been debated and considered in the Press and on platforms again, again and again. Now, having said that, we have to consider the two amendments, in the first instance, which have been proposed to this measure. The measure being of this importance, it is urged that there is no reason for any haste and that therefore there should be delay. At first sight perhaps that is a practical proposition. I have however considered it and have come to the conclusion that acceptable as it may be on the surface, there is no substance in it. Let us first consider the amendment proposed by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. He has put, if I may say so with respect, a very curiously worded amendment, at least in the English translation given to me, before the House. He has moved that the House should decline to adopt the second reading of this Bill until the assurance has been given by the Prime Minister…

“Unless”, not “until”.

I do not think that “unless” alters the substance very much. The amendment is to the effect that unless the Prime Minister gives the assurance that he will take the necessary steps to get a joint committee of the two Houses to consider the coloured problem in all its aspects, the House declines to accept the second reading. Do I understand that if the Prime Minister were to give such an assurance, he and his party would adopt the second reading of this Bill? The fact that it is worded in such a way indicates to me that it was drafted not with a view to its serious acceptance, and as a serious contribution towards the solution of this problem, but merely as a matter of defeating it without giving reasons which might be embarrassing to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. I am strengthened in that view when considering the speech of the hon. member to which I listened, and which I have taken the precaution of reading again. When I went through that I concluded that one looks in vain for any constructive proposition which can be brought forward to the consideration of this problem. If the Hon. Leader of the Opposition and his party had a really constructive proposition to advance before the country to assist in the solution of this very intricate problem of the Indian community in our midst, I am confident that the House and the Government would listen with the greatest interest and all the respect that such a proposition deserves, but I have found nothing. I find no indication of any contribution in his speech or in his amendment which would assist the solution of this problem. To my mind that is sufficient to dispose of that amendment. There is another amendment by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Rev. Miles-Cadman) who has in a very simple, and if I may say so, a very effective speech asked that there should be the dismissal of this Bill to a Select Committee in order to give an opportunity to the public at large and to those who are specially affected by the provisions of this measure to consider the full ambit of its implications. I have had some considerable experience of Select Committees, as most members of this House have had, and I think they will agree with me that the value of a Select Committee is undoubted in certain circumstances, but is not the appropriate machinery in itself. Where the problem to be considered requires the accumulation of a great deal of evidence which is not readily forthcoming, a Select Committee is very valuable. Where again there are alternative propositions to be considered, and there are arguments pro and con of these alternatives, it is a matter which can very usefully be referred to a Select Committee.

Was that the case when the Native Bills were sent to a Select Committee?

That does not matter. It is not relevant to my argument for the moment. I say that in certain circumstances reference to a Select Committee is very valuable, but I know of nothing in the speech of the hon. member for Durban (North) which indicates that the Labour Party have any contribution to make towards the solution of this problem. I have not heard anything on the platform, in or out of the House, public or private or through the Press about any contribution they have, and therefore I am confident that reference to a Select Committee at present would only be a waste of time. If there is one thing which is more clear than any other, it is this, that action is being taken in this matter all too late. The Prime Minister referred to the matter having been before the country for years. The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt) more correctly stated that it had existed for almost a century. It is common knowledge to every member that in their political lifetime this matter of Indian penetration and Indian representation is one which has been debated ad lib. Therefore I say these pleas for delays are, in my opinion, badly advanced. I believe the country demands action on this matter and that action shall be taken swiftly. Only today I have been told that the Municipal Associations of Natal have unanimously come to that conclusion. I think that must dispose, as far as I am concerned, of both these amendments.

I proceed to consider this Bill. The Bill must be considered on its merits with regard to the object it has in view. What is the object? The Prime Minister, in one phrase he used, I think indicated the object he had in view. It was to preserve the structure of South African society. I do not think he did claim this Bill went so far as to secure that, but he indicated in his opinion that was the ultimate aim. I accept that in toto, and I accept that as being the desideratum of this legislation and administration, that we should preserve to the best of our ability the structure of South African society. When we consider this Bill in all its bearings as a contribution to that in respect of the Indian question I am afraid we get very small results. There is nothing of permanence really in this Bill, except the principle of the extension of the franchise to the Indian community. That may be permanent and it may have consequences, but for the rest the contribution is of a temporary and of a partial character. It really is an improvement, from my point of view, upon the principles of the Pegging Act. The Pegging Act was a Bill of a very partial character applied to Durban but not to the rest of the country. The present Bill applies the principle of separation, of separate action, towards the Indian community and the white community in South Africa, which the Prime Minister has claimed for it. So far as it does that I suggest this measure demands sober and reasonable support, and I afford it such. There is no permanent solution of this question, a solution to absorb and to integrate with the absorption of the Indian community into our white community, or the total disappearance by repatriation of the whole of that Indian community. I regard, for the present time at any rate, both those alternatives as being beyond the range of practical politics, as being impossible, and therefore we are reduced to this that the Prime Minister is recognised as taking action of a temporary and of a partial character, and that he has adopted in that respect the only course which I think is open to this House, and that is the adoption pf a system of zoning in respect of the question of occupation and the question of ownership. I hope it will be made clear there are two different things here. In so far as it decides the question I am a hearty supporter of this portion of the Bill, but I do it with certain reservations which I mention now very shortly without proposing to go into them, because I think these can be dealt with better in the Committee stage.

I mention first of all the establishment of this board, this all-important board which, amongst other things, has to recommend permits and recommend the setting apart of fresh exempted areas and upon whose recommendation the government of the day can act. ’That is of such a far-reaching character that I do not think any such recommendations should be made applicable to the country without the public having an opportunity through publicity to have a voice in it, and without Parliament having the determining voice. I hope the Prime Minister will accept the amendment which would have that effect, that that setting apart of any fresh exempted area under this Bill should be undertaken only with the consent and approval of Parliament, or by resolution of both Houses, or by some measure of that kind. For my part I doubt very much the desirability of appointing this board at all. I am not going to base my criticism on the grounds mentioned by the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt) but I do it on these grounds. I deprecate the continued delegation of very important powers to these independent commissions.

Hear, hear.

I think that a matter of such critical importance, affecting private rights to the n’th degree, that the government of the day should itself accept the responsibility, and I believe a Department of State under a responsible Minister can do the work of setting apart the areas to be exempted and that it can do it better than the board it is proposed to set up. Therefore I reserve the right to advance amendments upon those lines.

Then there is the permit system. The system of granting exemption from the general policy in this Act by way of permit in the hands of the Minister responsible is taken over practically holus-bolus from the Pegging Act. I am told, and believe, that the experience of the working of the Pegging Act has not been altogether satisfactory and that permits have been given—perhaps they have been withheld — under circumstances which perhaps the majority of this House, or portion of this House, would not have approved, although the Minister in exercising his discretion may form a contrary opinion. I would like some restriction on that introduced which will make it more certain that the principles of the Bill are to be applied really and in effect and are not to be side-slipped by a general application of exemptions under the permit system.

I want shortly to mention a third point, which is that of occupation. The great merit of this Bill over the Pegging Act and the proposals which were made subsequent to the Pegging Act is that ownership of property, as well as residence, comes within the zoning system and is limited by the provisions for zoning the Bill contains. But when we come to occupation there is a complete departure from this. As I read the Bill now it may be quite possible for either race to occupy business premises, if the business is subject to licence, either in an exempted area or outside an exempted area; and if I am right in my interpretation that is an infraction of zoning, of the separate system, and of separation to which the Prime Minister has invited our assent and approval. I think that in Committee that will need very close examination.

Finally I would say with regard to my criticism on the first part of the Bill I draw attention to the zoning of the areas which are already coloured pink in the plans which have been distributed. Here I think the hon. member for Durban (North) (Rev. Miles-Cadman) was on the strongest part of his ground when he said the effect of these maps was not clearly known, that there was a great deal of ignorance on it, and there was a general demand that before it became effective everybody should be informed what exactly was being done with his property. I think that claim a very sound one, and the proper cure for that is not to send the Bill to a Select Committee—that I think is a clumsy way of doing it—but to delay it so as to enable people to understand what is to be done with their property and how it will be effected under the provisions of the Bill. I hope the Government will recognise that. It seems to me that might be met by an appropriate measure of delay between the second reading of the Bill and the Committee stage, or perhaps in the Committee stage, when there should be an opportunity for all those affected to be consulted. Therefore I do not think, although this portion of the Bill is open to criticism of that character, that is sufficient reason for sending the Bill to a Select Committee. I support, therefore, that portion of the Bill.

Now we come to the second portion, and that is the franchise question. Here I must say I found myself unable to accept the proposals of this Bill. They are very far-reaching indeed. We are proposing here for the first time to recognise the Indian community qua community, and to give that community representation in both Houses of Parliament for the first time, and to do it by way not merely of the communal vote—I am not referring to that—but by way of a special number of representatives, three in number as far as this House is concerned. The continued representation of racial groups by a special franchise of this character is, I think, an invasion of our constitutional system of government. It is an invasion of the ordinary workings of Parliament, and is calculated to have a detrimental effect on our Parliamentary constitution. You get these separate groups concentrating their attention on the racial demands of their constituents, and the inevitable consequence is they lose a sense of proportion in presenting these particular demands vis-a-vis the greater demands of the country at large. That is surely something which is detrimental to parliamentary government, and indeed, if I may use a much misused word, to democratic government. It seems to me that this—and I hope I shall not be thought to be abusive—is in the nature of something from the constitution of a corporate State, and it operates right against parliamentary government such as we have understood it. If I understand the claims of the Indian community aright, and some of the passages from their propaganda were read in this House yesterday to prove it, the Indian community is deliberately out to form a bloc not only of its own race, but of the native race and of all colours for the purpose of imposing its will on the white population. A measure of this kind is calculated to accentuate that movement, to increase the power and influence of these racial groups, not to allay racial friction, but to give fresh opportunities for the exercise of passions which, I am afraid, will be only too readily accepted and acted upon. Why do this? Our franchise system is complicated enough already in all conscience; the coloured vote does not extend over the whole Union; the representative institutions for the Bantu people are of a very chaotic character. I fail to understand any justification for the giving of three representatives in the House of Assembly to the limited number of the Indian population which this Bill proposes to give. I go further and ask: Why is the Prime Minister doing it; why is the Prime Minister taking action of this kind, of such a far-reaching character and which—I am assuming for the moment it is as I suggested detrimental to our parliamentary system—the answer is clear and outstanding. He is doing it in an attempt to give a quid pro quo for the opportunities that are being limited to the Indian community in the land portion of the Bill. It is as a quid pro quo, and I do not think the Prime Minister will attempt to Justify it on any other grounds. Has the “quid” been accepted by the Indian population? They have rejected it absolutely and with scorn. What is the good of offering a “quid” when it is described by Mr. Sastri as “hellish”? Mr. Sastri is reported to have used that word in regard to this proposal. I have in my hand a telegram which reached me just before I came into the House, and which I propose to read out to show how this quid pro quo is being regarded by the Indian community. This telegram is addressed to me and sent from the United Indian Organisation. It runs as follows—

[Laughter.] I am not going to share in the gibe at their new ally. But I will concentrate on this. I say it, is a complete repudiation of the effort of the Prime Minister to give them something which might be set off as a quid pro quo for the other part of the Bill. What is the good of invading our parliamentary institution in this way when the whole of this is repudiated with scorn and denounced in language of the strongest possible character? I cannot understand it, If this offer was really being welcomed by the Indian community and accepted with both hands, if they said to the Prime Minister: You really have done something to show a generous approach to this difficult problem, and we accept it, we even accept it for the time being with gratitude, we will use it and work up to it; I could understand that. But I cannot understand the Prime Minister, in view of their complete and scornful repudiation of this part of the Bill by those it is intended to benefit, still persisting in this.

What does the offer refer to in the telegram?

The offer is the offer of the franchise. I hope the Prime Minister, even at this stage, will recognise that and will consent to separate the Bill into two parts, that he will consent to go on with the land portion of the Bill, and in conse quence of the reception the franchise offer has obtained from the Indian community that he will say: We will deal with that as a separate measure. I hope he may do so. If he sees his way to do that, I think the House will accept almost unanimously the substance of the first portion of the Bill, and we can approach the other part de novo for the purpose of seeing whether we cannot achieve something without the invasion of our parliamentary institutions.

What do you suggest?

The hon. member presses me on what I suggest. I suggest with regard to this what I suggested with regard to the native representation when that measure came before the Joint Committee of the two Houses some few years ago, and there are some hon. members in the House who served on that Committee with me who will remember that in conjunction with Mr. Heaton Nicholls I drafted a Bill in which we proposed to give representation in the Senate and to set up in the Senate a Grand Committee which would have given a great deal of self-government in native affairs to the native population, and I still believe that was a sound approach to that question. At the time the late Gen. Hertzog and Mr. Havenga accepted that, and it was carried by a majority in the Joint Committee of both Houses. But as some of the first fruits of fusion that Bill was scrapped, and we had the Natives Representation Bill, which is now law, in its place. Therefore my reply to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) is, as I said, I would propose to the Indian community representation in the Senate. I do not think that their representation can be given in the House of Assembly without a danger to the social structure of South African society to which the Prime Minister has referred.

Representation by Indians?

I would not mind that at all myself.

How would they be elected?

I am not going to work out the Bill now for you. I cannot understand why the Prime Minister should press this at the present time. It has been suggested that as he is going overseas to the Prime Minister’s Conference, and later to the meetings of the United Nations, he would desire to show that we in South Africa took a broad and generous and just view of our obligations to all sections of the population. I have no doubt he will do so, and that he will do so with effect. But I put it to him in this way. I do not think he will strengthen his position at either of these tribunals by saying: I have offered a form of franchise which is described by those who are getting it as “hellish” and which has been rejected with scorn. I do not think that will enhance the prestige of South Africa or make the way of the Prime Minister any easier.

You are not helping him.

I do not know whether I am helping him or not. I am expressing what I believe, and I believe that in this very important question that is the prime consideration we should observe. I am wondering whether those who are going to vote for this franchise which is proposed to consider whether the proposal is going to stand at the position the Bill leaves it at, or whether they regard this as a first step to a further position. I hope we shall hear the Deputy-Prime Minister on this. I, with others, read his speech at the university the other day with considerable interest, and I can only draw the inference, as I do, if he is going to accept this Bill, as I presume he is accepting it, it is as a step in a direction of the future unity of representation for all colours in this country by the adoption of a uniform system. If I am right in that I can only say it is more important that ever we should pause at the present stage since we recognise that the Deputy-Prime Minister is the successor-designate of the United Party to the Rt. Hon. gentleman now in that important position.

In all that I have said I trust that no one will suggest that I, at any rate, am offering any insult to India. Anything approaching an insult to the 101 races of India or the Indian community in South Africa cannot be further than it is from my thoughts and my wishes. I have the deepest respect for the many Indians that I have been brought into contact with, and I recognise their virtues; I recognise their rights. But, Mr. Speaker, we cannot close our eyes to this fact that in that portion of South Africa where they dwell they do form an element which cannot be assimilated into our own community, and we therefore should pause before we deliberately introduce them into our parliamentary system and put them in a position in which they shall have the power, as they have indicated they have the will, to frustrate and hinder our action until they win full completion of their aims and objects and desires. I yield to one one in my tribute of high regard and respect to the contribution India, as a whole, made to the war effort. But we cannot close our eyes to this. While they turned out 2,000,000 men who rendered magnificent service, second to none, in the field, they also turned out an army of Quislings to defeat our aims and objects and slaughter their own kinsmen. I cannot close my eyes to the fact that the expressions of opinion that have fallen from the Indian community here, including the telegrams which I have just read, are couched in terms which go very near being an insult to the white population.

I just wish to say this in conclusion. Firstly, I have no objections at all to representations being made on behalf of the Indian community here by the Government of India. I am not one of those who regard that as undue interference in our domestic affairs. I think we are too squeamish in considering our domestic affairs. Why should not we, within the family, exchange views about the domestic affairs of others without insult, without interference, all with good humour and all with potential value to the different communities? So far from resenting any representations made by the Government of India I would meet them in argument with goodwill and with respect. But finally I have this to say: The Indian community have threatened to appeal further than the Indian Government. They threatened to appeal to U.N.O. and in a veiled way they referred to threats of force being applied by the powërs behind them. I have already stated in a speech which I made in this House when the U.N.O. Charter was discussed, that I believe we have to face up to the position that U.N.O., which we have now joined will in future make representations and very likely interfere in matters which we consider to be domestic affairs only. I believe that they will do so, and I do not think that they can refrain from doing so with regard to any nation where a domestic matter is likely to give rise to a war. Therefore, I think we have to face the position that an appeal to U.N.O. may very likely be made, and may very likely be backed by more than one country, probably in complete ignorance of our conditions here, and on limited information. But I just want to warn the Indian community of this: If they make an appeal of that kind, it is possible that there may be results very different from those they desire. U.N.O. and its predecessor, the League of Nations, were concerned in the wholesale removal of large communities. There is an example of the removal of the whole of the population around Smyrna and its return to Greece, people who have lived there for centuries. There are further vast movements of population taking place under U.N.O. in Central Europe at present, and it may be — this is no prophecy or threat on my part but I just want them to think about it — that when they make this appeal to U.N.O. they should remember that the result of that appeal might very well be that it is determined that the removal of the whole Indian population from South Africa would be better than having another world war.

I think it will not be a matter of surprise to the House that my approach to the Bill before us is not quite that of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard). It is true that I am in the position of having to oppose the franchise clauses of the Bill as well as the land tenure clauses. But it is true that I cannot find in this Bill, in either of its sections, an acceptable measure. The reason for this attitude of mine is not primarily that the people for whom this measure is designed have themselves found it to be completely unacceptable. That would not necessarily condemn the Bill. It need not necessarily mean that the Bill is bad in itself, although I do feel that in a society which claims to work on the democratic principle of government by consent, it would be ’ wise and natural to hesitate to impose upon any section of the community a framework which it admittedly resents. But my real reason for opposing the Bill is that I do not believe that in its present form it can achieve the objectives for which it has been designed. I do not believe that it can establish a system under which the various racial groups in this country can come to live together in peace and harmony in a progressive society; and that, I believe, is the intention with which this Bill was introduced by the Prime Minister. He told us yesterday that he desired in this Bill to establish a position where people can live peaceably together. Now this Bill, as the Prime Minister himself stated, has been framed on the pattern of a system already familiar to us in South Africa; the model which has been taken for this measure is that already adopted in our native legislation. He told us that we are following “well-known South African models and principles adopted in the past which have been approved of by Parliament almost unanimously and which we look upon as the essential structure of our complex society.” Now it is because this Bill is framed on the model of the legislation which governs the lives of our native population, that I am absolutely convinced that it cannot achieve the objectives which have been here declared as its goal. Hon. members will remember—and none of them I think more clearly than the Prime Minister himself—that the arguments with which the legislation which was put on the Statute Book in 1936 for pegging the native population was presented to this House was that with effective separation of the European and African populations which was involved in territorial segregation, the fear which at present makes impossible any peaceful relations between Europeans and Africans in this country would be allayed; that with the allaying of that fear we could embark upon a progressive development of the African population to a point at which their lives would be a joy to themselves and an asset to the country. I want to say that in my experience of this legislation, it has not worked out in that way. I think I should not challenge contradiction when I state that in spite of the principle of segregation which has been very rigidly applied in regard to the native population, today Europeans and Africans in this country are more deeply divided than they have ever been before; that the fear complex dominates both our individual and group relationships as never before in the past; that racial prejudices are more deeply embodied in our national life and thoughts than they were ever before in the past history of this country. Today our African and European populations are regarding one another not in a spirit of growing friendliness but in a spirit of growing animosity, which is one of the gravest problems for the future. As far as the progress of the people is concerned, I am not going to deny that there has been a certain improvement in certain areas of the African field, that today amongst a great many of the African population there is a higher standard of living in the sense of a more varied standard of living than we knew twenty years ago; but that owes nothing at all to the final pegging down of the Africans on the principle of territorial segregation. It is the natural result of the progressive industrialisation of this country, which I submit has been constantly hampered and obstructed by this very legislation. Without this legislation there is not the slightest doubt that the economic standard and the social conditions of the Africans would have been far better than they are at present. This legislation has obstructed every natural adjustment to the process of industrialisation in this country. It has left the African dammed up in areas all too limited for his natural expansion as a rural population, and in the very process of doing that has destroyed his bargaining power as well as his capacity to adapt himself to the new demands of society. This made it impossible for him to attain economic standards which would have removed the menace today of the steadily deteriorating native population whose low purchasing power is a threat to our commercial and industrial expansion. I have said that I am absolutely certain that the application of the land tenure sections of this Bill to the Indian population are going to have the very same results. I am satisfied in my own mind that the approach to these land tenure sections of this Bill has been from the angle of the property-owning urban population whose proximity is objectionable to the Europeans in Natal. The fact has been completely lost sight of that this is only a fraction of the Indian population, that the great proportion of the Indian population, like the native population, is a rural population whose progress depends on access to land and whose access to land involves also the retention of a useful and healthy balance in this country between the rural and the urban populations. It will not be to the advantage of South Africa if by limiting the access to land of the Indians in Natal, we force more of the Indian peasants in Natal into the cities, which is in effect what has been happening. I have seen for myself the way in which industrial expansion in a city like Durban has been pushing out the small market gardeners who ought to be one of the greatest assets of this country, and forcing them back into Durban as cheap labour. That, I may say, is a process which will be greatly aggravated by the provisions of this Bill which are to prevent the extension of Indian settlement in rural areas as well as in the urban areas of Natal. I want to add this further point, that another direction in which segregation reacted very detrimentally to the native population, and will do so again in the case of the Indian population, is that in limiting the land rights of the people, it has driven up the market value of the’ land open to them so that development along rural lines has been impossible to the lower income levels. The Government itself knows the way in which the price of land available for native purchase has shot up, not only against the native, buy also against the Government where it proposes to buy for the native. The same thing will happen in the case of the Indian, without any policy of assistance by the Government, for one conspicuous gap in this Bill is that it makes no provision for the protection of the poor Indian; it has no social plans for the uplift of the mass of Indian people. I only want to remind the hon. the Prime Minister again that the possibility of achieving peace between Europeans and non-Europeans by this type of legislation is illusory. It is already one of the greatest reflections on the South African community that after the 1913 Land Act, which limited the property rights of natives was passed, it took well over 20 years before it was possible to get the European South Africans to agree as to where natives might be allowed to buy land; and today still, every time the Government attempts to purchase an area to be released for native settlement, it has to face the opposition of every European who has even the remotest interest in the area. The development of a similar position has already been foreshadowed in connection with this Bill. I was interested to note that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) spoke in the best traditions of Europeans in this regard. He is prepared to accept the restrictive clauses of this Bill, but has urged the Prime Minister not to go ahead with the schedule, but to give us a little time to consider where we are really going to have these areas open for Asiatic occupation, and he has urged him to be very careful about additions to these areas in future. Now in these provisions of this Bill alone lie the seeds of friction and trouble and the seeds of growing animosity between Europeans and Indians, compared with which the present position may be regarded as a dream.

On the matter of the franchise, I am also opposed to the Bill, and for some of the same reasons that actuated the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). I agree with a great deal of what he has said in that regard, deprecating of course the suggestion of the hon. member that we have not used our position as we should have done. I only want to remind the hon. member that if we have stressed from these benches—overstressed, he thinks—the needs of the native population, we have done our best to approach the native problem from the national point of view, and we have done our best to relate it at every turn with the demands of the rest of the country. He says we have made extravagant demands. I do not agree; and I do not mind prophesying that this House will with difficulty find other representatives for this type of communal representation who will be as moderate in their demands as we have been. We have tried to approach a national problem from a national angle. I am satisfied with the argument that this type of representation is extremely dangerous, but I do not think it is dangerous for the same reason that the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) thinks it is dangerous. I do not think his approach to this position is a realistic one. I do not see a chance of three of us together with three Indian representatives holding the balance of power in this House for a very long time. But I do foresee a continual deepening of the racial differences which I think it should be our business to prevent. This type of representation inevitably divides the racial groups of this country, and will go on dividing them more and more deeply as far as I can see for the simple reason that, apart from the fact that it does separate the community into groups, the power which it gives the representation is only a power of opposition. There is no power to carry any policy in this House, and that sort of continual opposition must lead to a spirit of frustration, and irresponsibility in the long run. That, if I may say so, is the explanation for some of the more irresponsible demands of the official Opposition —they have been in opposition too long now. In this regard I feel that there is everything to be said for reconsidering very carefully this type of representation. Here, of course, I part company from the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). And I have to say here that I think he did the Prime Minister less than justice in his analysis of the motives which led the Prime Minister to suggest this kind of representation. It is true that the Prime Minister has said that we cannot take away rights without giving something in return, but on other occasions, in connection with his proposals in regard to this Bill, he has made it quite clear that he considers that in a society committed to the principles to which our society is committed, it is not reasonable or sound or just or wise to go on refusing any form of representation to any of the groups in this country; that we are committed by the principles to which we subscribe to apply to others the rights we claim for ourselves. Therefore I think he has put forward this modified form of franchise to meet what he believes are the realties of the situation. But here I agree with the hon. member for Piketberg that it is not the type of franchise which will satisfy anyone, and I hope sincerely that the Prime Minister will be persuaded to substitute for it, if he does not go on with the present Bill, or that he will substitute for it in the new Bill which I hope he will be induced to consider, the establishment of the franchise which was recommended by the Broome Commission. In South Africa we should have the courage to break new ground.

We are doing that now.

No, we are not. That is the whole point. The Prime Minister yesterday stated that we are adopting the established pattern in South Africa. I shall say something about that later. But I sincerely hope that he will reconsider the situation and bring in the type of franchise recommended by the Broome Commission. I think South Africa needs, and ought to be induced to accept a bold policy based on sound principles, providing the only straight path to the type of goal to which we can honestly subscribe. Now as I have said, I would of necessity in any case have had to oppose the principles of this Bill, because I do believe that we cannot get the results we want and need from the Bill, that we cannot get peace. I believe we can only get war by this type of legislation. But even if that had not been the case I would have been forced to oppose it because of the Prime Minister’s statement in the presentation of his case yesterday, a statement which I must say startled me most profoundly, and disturbed me more than I have been disturbed for a long time in a country which gives people who ’share my point of view much to be startled about. I know the Prime Minister is facing an extremely difficult position, and that there is pressure put upon him which makes it absolutely imperative that he shall deal in some way with the tension which has arisen between the Europeans and the Indians in South Africa. I know also that he has had extraordinarily little assistance from any of the groups whose interests are involved, that he has had a very difficult position to meet under great pressure. But if the Prime Minister had told us yesterday that in these circumstances he has been able to think of nothing better at the moment than this particular type of framework which has already been adopted by our society, that he did not like it—which we have very good reasons to believe—but that he saw nothing else to substitute for it, I might have been very much less anxious than I was at his suggestion that this type of organisation which I believe he and many others accepted only as a last resort at the time when it was imposed on the native population and really believed that it would reasonably soon have to be modified, was to become the stable pattern of South African life in regard to all our racial minorities. That is the implication I read into his speech and which also the Press read into his speech, as can be gathered from the leading article in the “Cape Times” this morning under the heading “Balkanising the Union.” That, I think, is the impression in the mind of everyone as to the implications of the speech, which suggested that we were here extending a pattern which “had been approved of in Parliament practically unanimously, and which we look upon as the essential structure of our complex society,” and which, he suggested, was a pattern which we were committed to maintain. “I think,” he said, “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 too. Any other system will not give any sure progress in this country. Any other system will lead to endless confusion.” I cannot help feeling that the Prime Minister did not seriously mean these words. I have myself listened to him saying that the pattern established with regard to our native population had failed; and last year he told this House that this was a dynamic society in which we could not finally solve these problems, but that we would have to alter the conditions under which our natives at present live, declarations which led us to believe what we consider is the truth about South Africa, that more and more our racial groups must be integrated into the economic life of the country, and made to play a part in the nation which we must build up in South Africa or die, a nation which will not be homogeneous, because we are not a homogeneous people, but which will be a heterogeneous organisation into which every section will fit, with security for its own development, and respect for its own capacity to serve the community, and protection for the fundamental freedoms to which we were committed by the Prime Minister’s own words in the United Nations Charter. For all these reasons I cannot support the Bill. I am hoping that the pressure that has been brought to bear in the House for the reconsideration of the measure will lead the Prime Minister to refer this Bill to someone, either a Select Committee of this House, or a joint committee of both Houses. We have a problem to face and we must face it; and here I wish to say in reply to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) who will probably accuse me, with others, of having no practical proposition to put before a Select Committee, that we have not been consulted. We have had no direct opportunity to consider the position. It would, of course, be perfectly reasonable for the Prime Minister to reply that this is a national problem in which we should have had an interest. That is perfectly true, and I do not attempt to shirk my responsibilities in that regard; but I would remind the Prime Minister and the House that there has been a distinct tendency to deal with this problem as a Natal problem, a tendency to seek a solution in discussions between the provincial and central authorities, the European population in Natal and the Indians. The result has been that we who are already heavily burdened with other problems have tended to leave the matter there. But now, since that has failed—and the negotiations have been going on continuously; the complete failure is quite recent—that we might at least beg without excusing our failure in the past that we now be given an opportunity to assist in this matter. Here I may say that I entirely agree with the contention that this is an internal problem for South Africa. That does not mean that I do not think the Indians have any right to appeal to anyone outside to consider their case. I do not propose to argue that issue; I am only going to say that I believe the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister is a great enough man with wide enough human experience to realise that when communities, like individuals, have their backs to the wall, and when they see their rights being taken away without any legitimate means of opposition, they are likely to resort to methods to defend themselves which might not commend themselves to everyone—not that I feel that the dangers which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard) tends to see in the situation are as great as he thinks. I have sufficient confidence in the United Nations Organisation to feel that any decision taken in this matter is only going to be taken after the most careful thought and that it will only be implemented with the consent of all parties. But I do feel that there is an obligation upon us to consider the situation, and to find some solution that we honestly think will have a chance of working. We have a variety of problems in South Africa with which nobody has a precedent to help us. We have to think these out for ourselves; and we have applied all too little thought and far too much emotion to them in the past. I suggest now that we put our shoulders to the wheel, that we make up our minds to use our brains in South Africa instead of our feelings, and that we do our best to discover some formula under which we can really govern this country by consent and not by the bludgeon, that we shall do our best to discover some formula under which we can safeguard the rights of our minorities, and in doing so save our souls. If we can do that, I know that no one will be happier than the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. I realise that he feels deeply the passing of any legislation which is in effect going to curb and restrict the fundamental human rights for which he stands.

What do you propose?

What I propose is that this Bill go to a Select Committee or a joint Committee of both Houses. I am not moving an amendment in that direction, because it is not my business to move that, but what I am going to do is to make our own position in these discussions plain. I am going to move—

You should move that in India.

I am not concerned with India. India is not my problem; South Africa is my problem, and I am surprised that the hon. member makes that, sort of proposition to me or to anyone else in this House. This is what I am moving. It will be clear to the House that this is only a declaration of policy intended to declare our conception of the right approach in this matter. We had hoped that this Bill would go to a Select Committee or to a joint Committee of both Houses, and that then we and others might be given the opportunity to apply ourselves to a policy which would square with these principles and which yet would cut at the roots of the fears which are driving the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to introduce this Bill. I have no specific proposition to put forward—except one for which I stand and for which I have had no support in the past. I am persuaded that we shall not be able to deal with this problem unless and until we cease to deal with it as a Natal problem, and begin to regard it as a national problem. I would stand for the opening of the provincial boundaries, and on that basis I would be prepared to work out a solution.

Oh, no.

Well, we are asked what sacrifices we are prepared to make. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister said that sacrifices have to be made on both sides. My contention has been all along that in every bit of colour legislation of this kind that we have had, the sacrifice has always been on one side only.

I do not think the natives of the Transkei would like that.

The Transkei is quite a different proposition.

That is a native reserve.

We have made the position quite plain in regard to native reserves, that is that we regard them as areas of land settlement for natives. You do not allow any invasion of European land settlement areas. But hon. members’ attitude to my suggestion shows how much hope we have of arriving at any reasonable solution. At any rate, I am making my suggestion; and I am still prepared to urge the Prime Minister to put this matter back for consideration, to see how many other people beside myself are prepared to make a reasonable sort of sacrifice without which we cannot solve this problem. I can do no more than that. I only know that unless we break some new ground, find some new way of meeting the situation with which this Bill is concerned that will safeguard the rights of both sections of the community, as I have said before, this is not the beginning of peace; this is the beginning of endless trouble.

I second this amendment. I have listened with the greatest attention to the opening speech of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and with a considerable amount of sympathy because I felt that the Prime Minister in bringing forward this Bill is doing so at the behest of the colourconscious members of Parliament, especially those from Natal, and in relation to which he felt that to take the line of least resistance and to retain the premiership was a wiser course than to follow the dictates of his own convictions. Eventually he took the line of least resistance in order to maintain the unity of his party. I make that statement with all due respect and with a feeling that the Prime Minister of his own will would never have introduced this Bill into the House.

One thing emerges clearly from the Prime Minister’s opening speech and that is—to use his own words—“that he is following the position enshrined in the native Bills.” In my opinion the 1936 Bills were the result of the greatest betrayal by the European of the rights of the native people that has ever been witnessed in the political history of South Africa.

Order, order. The hon. member must not reflect upon legislation passed by this House.

I refer to the policy, not to the legislation itself.

On a point of order, I understood the hon. member not to be reflecting on the measure itself but on some comment which had lead to it.

I understood the hon. member to say that that legislation was one of the biggest betrayals, which is certainly a reflection on the Statute itself.

I understood him to be referring in that respect to certain actions which the hon. member had in his own mind, not to the measure which the House adopted.

I must ask the hon. member to observe the rule of the House which precludes any member from reflecting on any statute except for the repeal of that statute.

I will never do that, Sir. At the same time I think it would be reasonable for us in dealing with this matter to refer particularly to the 1936 Bills. It is reasonable to consider those Bills as having been conceived on the basis that one part could not be adopted without the other, and eventually as a result of the unholy coalition of the South African Party with the Nationalist cum Labour parties the franchise rights of the native people were taken away, and what did they get in its place, or rather, what were they promised in its place? They were promised an extent of land in addition to that already held by them and representation in this House by three representatives and by four members in the Other Place. It may well be asked of me how the results of this experiment have justified it. It is as clear as daylight—and in fact the Prime Minister himself admitted it from time to time—that the policy of segregation, which was the basis of these Bills, has failed.

If that be the case, what then is the justification for such measures as the Urban Areas Act, and how do we expect the Indian people to react to a representation which is “enshrined in the native Bills.” In point of fact, the land provisions, after ten years, have not been fulfilled, and to judge by the outcry whenever it is suggested that an inch of land which is held by Europeans should be acquired for native occupation, an outcry to which the Government listens— depending on the votes of the criers—I doubt whether those provisions will ever come to fruition. Whenever an attempt is made to acquire land for native settlement, the European people cry out that they won’t have this land taken away, and as the situation in the country is such that the Government to a large measure is dependent on the votes of these people, the result is that the land is not acquired.

Then finally you have as an example the efforts of the native representatives in this House during the past eight years. So far from keeping native affairs out of the political arena we have focused attention upon them as indeed we must, and in consequence we have been the butt of the colour prejudice, which unfortunately is so obviously a feature of the proceedings of this House, and I wish to point out that these comments which are made by the members of the Opposition or which may be made by members of other parties, come from Europeans, and to the native mind they are the European views, and one of the results of these adverse comments on our action in this House has been very strongly to exacerbate the feeling between white and black—the very thing which it was designed to obviate. Can this result be blamed upon us? Have we in fact conducted ourselves in such a way as to merit the censure of members that we conducted ourselves in such a way as to merit condemnation? Have we conducted ourselves in such a way as to merit the introduction of a motion that the native representatives be removed from this House? That, Sir, is the sort of thing that is happening and that must inevitably give rise to the thought in the mind of the native people that the European does not really care what happens to the native. If our conduct in this House merits criticism, what does the House expect of people who represent eight million souls who are otherwise voiceless? If our representations have been listened to by people outside this Chamber, then we have, in fact, achieved our purpose. What would hon. members do in similar circumstances; what are we to do in the circumstances in which we are placed? Speaking after eight years’ experience, I say with complete conviction that the representation of the native people as a means of obtaining any concession of real importance from Parliament is almost, if not entirely, useless. The physical strain is tremendous, and the results, as they are known to me, are negligible. Can it be wondered that the Indian people, knowing the real value of this form of static representation, regard it as virtually no representation at all? Now the representation of natives does not present insuperable difficulties in the way of finding people prepared to undertake such representation. It must not be forgotten that for a period of 70 years the native people in the Cape exercised franchise rights on the ordinary roll, and I make the statement without fear of contradiction that they exercised that right in a most responsible manner; and although allegations have been made against them that they have been guilty of bribery, I say that those allegations have for the greater part been irresponsible and have not been proved. Although general criticism may be levelled against them, are those criticisms more correct than similar accusations against Europeans? Although I say it myself, they have always shown discrimination of a high order, and if I may say so, at least as far as my colleagues are concerned, they have chosen wisely and well. I submit that we, as representatives of the native people, have endeavoured to conduct ourselves according to the best traditions of this House. If we have failed, then I say it is through no fault of our own, and it is due to the position in which we find ourselves. But, Sir, what of the future? Will the natives, when they find that a policy of sweet reasonableness does not pay dividends, return members who are so mindful of their public duty and position? Who will then represent the natives in this House?

But, Sir, what is going to be the position of the Indian representatives? Are there people in Natal who are prepared to sacrifice themselves on the altar of colour prejudice in order to fill so unpopular a position? And if people of the correct cultured outlook do not do so, what kind of person will be found to represent the Indians in this House? I can assure the House that unless greater consideration is given not only by the Ministers, but by the members of this House to the needs of the African people, the natives will say: What is the use of three members in the House who adopt the policy of reasonableness? We want someone who will get up and fight the Government right and left. There are hundreds of people—I will say thousands of people—who have a real sympathy for the African people. They are not negrophilists, but they have a sense of justice that they should do what they can in the interests of the native people. The Prime Minister used the word “enshrined” when referring to the native legislation of 1936. I can think of no word less appropriate. This House has “settled” the native question, and is in process of “settling” the Indian problem. I have no doubt that ere long the political parties will be engaged in “settling” the coloured problem on the lines “enshrined” in the native and Indian settlements. What will then happen? We will have built up within the walls of this House three dams—dams that will engender hatred in the hearts of the people, dams which when they burst their banks will, I fear, engulf us.

One cannot help looking at, this matter from the international point of view. If we ourselves do not treat the Indian people as South Africans, can we blame them if in fact they appeal to India? We blame them because, being South African-born, they appeal to India, but to whom must they appeal? Are we not creating a Sudetenland in South Africa for which in years to come we may pay dearly? Apparently there is some objection because the Indians appeal to India, but as far as I remember the appointment of a High Commissioner for India in this country was the result of the Cape Town Agreement. So I do not think the Indian people have done anything wrong in appealing in the last resort to the Indian Government.

May I say that I and many others read with great interest the weighty words of the Minister of Finance spoken recently on the Witwatersrand. They were words which struck me as words of clear wisdom, sentiments which one rarely hears expressed on colour matters in this country. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Finance whether he is going to sacrifice this noble sentiment on the altar of expedience and on the ground of “the realities” help to place this Bill upon the Statute Book? What is that but appeasement in its worst form, bowing to the mass that is always wrong? Very often people in a democratic government in a country which is not democratic are placed in this position that they have to do as most of the people demand, and I would remind hon. members that that is not always right. I have appealed not only today but on other occasions to the Prime Minister. I say that we cannot appease the colour prejudice in this country forever. If we do so we shall inevitably face a situation of great difficulty, not today or tomorrow, but in years to come. India is on the verge of receiving Dominion status. I understand that she will have the right to secede from the British Empire and that she will have the right to associate herself with other powers. I think it will be implicitly understood that they will be allowed to associate themselves with Russia and China and other powers. What is the position going to be if we as European people exacerbate the feelings between the Europeans and the Indian people, if we drive them into this dam that I have referred to, and if in time to come we have to stand against the forces of the East with our backs to the wall. That is a situation that you cannot overlook; that you cannot forget. What is the reason for the success of the United States of America? The citizens of the United States consist of people drawn from all parts of the world. There are millions of Germans living in the United States. There are millions of Japanese and Italians living there, but I venture to say that in this war the American army contained thousands of Germans, Japanese and Italians and that they actually fought for the Allies during the course of this war. That comes from the fact that in America every attempt was made to Americanise the peoplé who go to America and they are made to feel at home there. I am fully aware that I will be reminded of the position in a portion of the Southern States. There the relationship between the Europeans and the Negroes is worse possibly than it is in this country between Europeans and non-Europeans. I would recommend members to read the book which was recently published in America by Hodding Carter, entitled “The Winds of Fear,” in which that subject is dealt with. The Southern States are still wallowing in the pigsties of race prejudice and economically and politically they are paying for it.

Can you compare the American conditions with the condition this country in view of the dominance of the white race there?

Why not? We have the power to increase the European population, but we do not do it. We have here a handful of Europeans numbering 2,000,000 as against 8,000,000 Africans and a quarter of a million Indians and a million coloureds. Can you order them here, there and everywhere? I say that in the Southern States of America the relationship between the Europeans and the Negroes is worse than the relationship in this country between Europeans and non-Europeans, but they are suffering for that policy in every possible wav. We must not follow their example. I would say in conclusion that I do not desire in any shape or form to increase the tremendous burden which rests on the shoulders of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. We realise his extraordinarily difficult position. We realise the difficulty he has to face in this Parliament. But I say that the shame lies upon those who in my opinion have forced the pace, but his admission that this Bill is built on the pattern enshrined in the native Bills of 1936, the basis of which he admits has failed, require us to register our unswerving opposition to a course which will in our view endanger the future of South Africa; and it is therefore impossible for me and my colleagues to support the Bill before the House and with the greatest of regret we must of necessity vote against it.

I have listened with considerable interest to the speeches of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) and of the hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming). I, Sir, had the honour of representing the natives whom the hon. member for Transkei now represents, for many years, and also a section of those now represented by the hon. member for Cape Eastern. I may say that I sat there where the hon. member for Transkei is sitting today for ten years at least, and the system that prevailed then in the Cape Province of allowing natives to vote with Europeans was, to my mind, unsatisfactory. I myself felt, as the hon. member now feels, that I was looked at askance whenever I spoke in the native interests, very often by members in this House, and I think I am in a better position perhaps than the hon. members on those benches to compare the present position with the position which existed in the past, and I can say without any hesitation that I think the native interests are better represented today and that they are more fairly represented by the three hon. members sitting over there than ever I could with the assistance of half a dozen other members who had the native vote in their constituencies. I say that the position is considerably better today. And I believe that on the whole the natives in this country realise that their interests are better protected today. We in this country today are in a position different from that of any other part of the world. We are a very small white minority. We have to carry on under the banner of democracy and we have to try to follow the precept and the principles that have been carried on in other democratic States in the world, but here we are unfortunate in that we have a very large, heterogeneous, uneducated, uncivilised population of 8,000,000, and we have to realise that if we give them equal democratic rights under present conditions they would simply swamp us. Mr. Speaker, when I first came into politics, some thirty years ago, the qualifications for a native voter were that he must be in receipt of a wage of £50 per annum and/or own property valued at £75. In those days there were a comparatively small number of natives who qualified because £50 was a large salary. But today I think it would be correct if I say that 80 per cent. of the natives in Cape Town would qualify under those restrictions. I think you will find that position would pertain right through the country. If you give them the same democratic rights they then had you would find a very large number of native voters on the roll and they would swamp many European constituencies. I ask hon. members who represent the natives what would be the result then? There would be 60,000 native voters here in the Cape Peninsula. The position would be one extremely difficult to face. As we know today, owing to the agitation of the Communist Party, the feelings between Europeans and natives are strained. I do not think that is due to any legislation we passed in this House. We have to realise we must do justice to the native, and I do not believe that amongst the natives in the backveld there is much communism among the masses. The seeds of communism are sown in the towns. In the country areas the natives do not know what communism means. It is spreading to a certain extent, and that is due to the fact that no anti-propaganda is being carried out. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) has spoken at considerable length, but I fail to find in her remarks any concrete suggestion that might help us as a white community, as the ruling community, to solve what is probably one of the most difficult questions we have to face. She suggested opening the provincial doors and allowing them free entry into all the provinces in this country. Sixty years ago in the late eighties we found that Indians were coming into the Transkei. Fortunately we had far-sighted statesmen in the Cape in those days, and a proclamation was immediately issued prohibiting Indians from coming into the Transkei. I wish Natal had had the far-sightedness of our old Cape politicians. The result is we have today in the territories natives who are law-abiding and who on the whole are very contented, and they love their land. Whenever I have addressed the natives there I have had to deal with’ a section whom Gen. Hertzog used to call the intelligentsia, the older members of the tribe. When they come forward and argue that there should be no colour bar and no racial differentiation, that there should be equality all round, I agree with them every time. At that they at once prick up their ears. Then I point out to them that I am privileged to go into the bar and if there is equality their young men would all be allowed to go into the bar too, that they could go and buy liquor. I point out that would be one result of doing away with the colour bar. Then I explain the position in regard to the land. If they want equality and no differentiation, European and Indian alike must be allowed free entrance in native areas and free right to acquire land from natives to whom title must be granted. Immediately the old men exclaim: “Yeka, we do not want any change.” Does the hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) or the hon. member for Cape Eastern suggest that the doors of these native areas should be opened? If they want absolute equality then we must do that and we must open the doors of the native reserves. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard) will recollect that for several years we discussed those native Bills in a very representative committee and on several occasions we nearly came to a deadlock. We could not agree. But Gen. Hertzog stood out and said: There is only one other alternative—give everybody equal rights and let them fight it out, let the white civilisation, if it can, maintain itself; but if we do this the future of this country will be doomed. That is why I supported separation. I do not like the term “segregation”. I maintain today the broad lines of that solution we arrived at then was satisfactory both in regard to the land question and on the political side. My hon. friend here who has just spoken has said the Government failed to carry out its obligations in regard to the purchase of land. I grant that. In the two years after we started on this we spent nearly £4 million in the purchase of land. Then war broke out, and most members of the staff had left, and it was quite useless purchasing land we could not administer; we have not the staff even today to administer it. The result has been that for five or six years the question of more land for the natives has been held in abeyance. But, fortunately, the Minister of Finance recognised the pledges we gave in regard to land, and that they must be carried out. Only last week I went to the Free State, to Thaba ’Nchu and met a deputation of farmers, and I was agreeably surprised at the reception we had. The farmers have quite made up their minds to carry out Gen. Hertzog’s promise to the natives that they should have more land. They said they recognised that was the pledge given by Gen. Hertzog, and they had no objection to the Native Trust acquiring more land. I think that is broadly speaking, the attitude Europeans will take up when the time comes. Owing to the war having intervened, the purchase of this land had to be suspended, but the pledge given to the natives must be carried out.

What is the position in regard to the Indians? Three months ago we had to go to Natal to carry out an inspection of a native reserve at Umlazi. There I met a very respectable lot of natives. In fact, we had the finest native meeting I have been to. These were respectable men and men of intelligence. They asked that they should be given title to their ground, but they made one reservation. They said: Do not give us clean title, we want protected title. I asked for the reason why they did not want clean title, and they replied: We do not want to be allowed to sell our land to anybody who comes along; and they were referring then to Indian penetration. They said: We know perfectly well if we do get clean title we will lose all our land. I want to approach this matter from the native point of view, and that is where I disagree with the native representatives. They are there for the purpose of representing native interests; sometimes they say they are there from a national point of view, but we saw what happened last year in the passing of the Pegging Act, when the native representatives called for a division, and only they in the whole House voted against that measure. I fail to see why these hon. members cannot look after native interests while bearing in mind that the national interests have also to be considered. Here, unquestionably, we have the penetration of Indians into the native reserves. Indians have bought up a large section of the land that we rightly should have bought for the natives. When we visited Natal to purchase land some years ago, the farmers said: We are quite willing to sell the land, but the Land Board values it at £4 an acre, whereas we can sell it to the Indians at £10. So here you have the penetration not only into white areas, but into native areas also.

As I said before, I approach it from the native point of view, and I think it is absolutely necessary in the interests of the natives that that kind of penetration by Indians should be stopped. I think it is the duty of the Government to carry out the undertakings made when we promised to acquire certain land for the natives, and the sooner the Government does that the better, while the more strongly we protect that land against penetration of that kind the better it will be in the interests of the native population of this country. I am not against the Indians as such, but I have been to Natal, I have travelled through it. I feel essentially we have to protect Zululand and those native areas in the north as we had to protect them in the Cape Province. We owe this as a duty towards the natives. They are not trained financiers, they are not trained business men, they are unfortunately uneducated and uncivilised. It is our solemn duty in this House to protect not only ourselves, but the natives as well. So I take up my standpoint in support of this Bill. I look at it from that aspect, and I think if the native representatives would look at it from that aspect they would be doing their constituents a greater service than they are by their present attitude

The Indians cannot buy land in the native areas.

When rhe farmers were asked to sell their land adjoining Trust land to the Native Trust, they said they could get £10 for the land from the Indians. The Indians have bought all along there. And today, only a few years ago, they attempted to get back into the Transkei, and I know they are getting into the Cape Province. I am very glad the Prime Minister uttered that word of warning yesterday, and I hope he and the officials responsible will watch the position carefully.

Do you think the warning will stop them?

I do hope we will take the most stringent steps to see that conditions that exist there are not extended to the Cape Province. I make a final appeal to the Government to see the native interests are safeguarded. Once the land is acquired and the natives know that they will be able to carry out their professions and trades in those areas I have no hesitation in saying that if the dams the hon. member referred to spill over the natives will be 100 per cent. with the white man. If there should be an invasion and the East should try to swamp us I believe the natives would stand behind us to a man, and for that reason I hope the Government will place the natives on a satisfactory basis. I do not see how the Prime Minister could bring forward any other solution at this stage. We realise these are experiments. Even the native legislation was an experiment. The world is developing. But I feel it is only along these lines, by methods of trial and error, that we can solve these questions. The Indians are suggesting that this type of legislation is an insult to them. They have never tasted democracy in their own country and they have never experienced democracy in this country, and they should be trained to democracy gradually. I think it is their duty to exercise the same vigilance and the same sense of responsibility in returning members to this House as the natives have done in returning my three friends sitting over there.

I wish to put my standpoint as a Freestater. Though we are fortunate at the moment — and when I use the word fortunate I mean I am grateful to the wise statesmanship of our former Free State Republic — not to be saddled with the difficulties and dangers of an Indian community with which other parts of the country are handicapped, though we have not to deal with the serious problem that other provinces are now struggling with, I as a Freestater stand for the position that I am being asked to signify my approval to these measures that are proposed by the Government, a Bill that is comprised of two parts, one of which contains a highly important principle. Also in regard to the first part it appears to me as an undigested thing. Notwithstanding that I come from the Free State I am asked as a national representative to give my approval to this measure. I cannot do it. I cannot do it for reasons I shall mention later. What is the motive behind this action of the Prime Minister; what is it that has impelled the Government and driven it to present a measure of this nature? It is nothing else than the intolerable position that has been created by the penetration of Indians, in Natal in particular, and also in parts of Transvaal. This is the incentive behind this legislation — the penetration of the Indians in European residential areas, and the purchase of land amongst Europeans, especially in Natal, but also in the Transvaal. Now the Prime Minister comes and says to this House that he intends to deprive the Indian community in Natal and also in the Transvaal of certain rights. He says, we are taking away certain rights from the Indians, and he asks us to give something in return. His words were—

May I ask the Prime Minister what are those so-called rights that, under this Bill, are being taken away from the Indian community? The first part of the Bill which has reference to land tenure virtually does not go any further than the Pegging Act. It does occur here and there in a small degree, but it is so insignificant as to amount to nothing. It is almost just the Pegging Act that is brought up here. I ask, has the Indian community as such come to this country in such a way that they have earned any rights which we today can mention as rights which we intend to deprive them of, so that we shall have to give them something else in their place? Is it not the case that the Indians came here as labourers for the rich sugar planters in Natal; did they not come here with that definite object and in that capacity; were they not received in the country as such? What is more, through all these years have they not hitherto been regarded as an alien element who came to this country with a specific object? We have rightly regarded them as such, because they do not form part of the permanent population of the country. They do not assimilate with other sections of the community, not even with the nonEuropean sections. They came here entirely with the object of benefiting themselves, and when they assimilate with any section of the population, when an Indian marries a white woman it is done merely to enrich himself and to evade the law. They have not assimilated with the people; they have regarded themselves as an element that stands apart, and I look on them as an alien element in the country. They came to this country, and through the laxity of former governments, provincial or otherwise, it was permitted that they should systematically reinforce themselves as a community, until eventually the position has been created that the Prime Minister has sketched for us, that eventually we have become the innocent victims of this blunder in our history. I say again we have not yet heard from the Prime Minister what these so-called rights are. The Prime Minister did not tell us what rights they can lay claim to, rights which are to be taken away from them under this legislation. In Natal especially where the water has come up to the lips of the European community the position under this Bill remains virtually where it was previously. Very little relief is given to the necessities of the citizens of Natal under the proposed legislation that is at present before the House. Take the position in connection with penetration in the city of Durban. There we have, and I repeat it is the result of our laxity in the past, the position that the Indians have bought land in the city of Durban, in the best residential areas, while they have bought places of business in a street like West Street. They have penetrated into other parts of the town and bought properties where they can carry on business. They have penetrated into the European quarters of Durban where today they are living amongst Europeans. We have not yet all become colour blind. The European inhabitants of Natal have that self-respect, they wish to preserve and maintain their own race and their own nation, and therefore they are protesting at these people coming in amongst them to live, and at them doing what they wish in the business quarters of Durban and in other places. We have the same position in Maritzburg. We have the same unfortunate position in Ladysmith and other towns where there is such a bad state of affairs that not a single vacant corner stand can be bought that is not already in the possession of Indians. I repeat that there is no longer a single vacant corner stand in those smaller villages which has not been purchased as business sites by the Indians, even though they may not be using them at present. This is the position in Natal, and though members on the other side may employ different language, in their hearts they say what we on this side of the House state that the people in Natal have driven them to take certain steps to try to relieve the position that has arisen in some parts of the country. But now when we look at this legislation we find that the position is allowed to continue, and therefore I again have the right to ask what are the so-called rights that have been taken from the Indian community in Natal and also in other parts of the country, in respect of which the Prime Minister asks us to make a contribution and to pay a heavy price that I, as a Freestater, am not prepared to pay. Will this Bill relieve the position? Think of the rich Indians who own property in the heart of Durban; will it be sold to the Europeans; does this Bill make provision for them having to do that? The Prime Minister has told us that we are following the same course in solving this question that we followed in regard to the natives. But in connection with the natives we decided that where there is a black spot in a white area those natives are bought out, and where there is a white spot in a native area those Europeans are also bought out. Are the black spots in Durban and elsewhere, that have been swamped by the Indians purchasing properties amongst the Europeans, also to disappear? And will separate quarters be set aside for the Indians where they can go and live and work out their own salvation and pursue their own business? No, this Bill does not make any such provision. It leaves the position precisely where it is at present, and then some of our friends have the shamelessness to maintain that this measure brings segregation into effect as far as residential areas are concerned. It is making a mockery of the word “segregation” to say that. These Indians will not sell these properties to Europeans. When an Indian dies the property will be bequeathed to his child and to his grandchildren, and so on to the furthest generation. They will remain there as a “rock of offence” to the Europeans to force out the Europeans and to wipe them out as far as they are able. The hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) is apparently satisfied about nothing further being done in connection with this, and at this vote being given to the Indians. I think it is particularly the members in Natal who have taken action and moved the Government, although reluctantly, to reach the stage of trying to do something to pacify these people. But I want to say to these members that they have not obtained anything for their province and for the Europeans in particular. You are going to give to Natal a heritage, because by this legislation you will be paying a very heavy price; you are giving the vote to the Indians, and on the other hand you get a segregation which is a mockery. There is not one member in this House who did not receive the telegram that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard) read out here. The Indians said straight out to us: Why do you quarrel about the franchise? We do not want it, we make you a present of it, because we do hot want it.

Why not?

With that in mind the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) said we should not take the step of giving the franchise to the Indians. There he is in agreement with us. He speaks here as a Natalian.

He is not a Natalian.

In any case he represents Pietermaritzburg, and so far as I know Pietermaritzburg is the capital of Natal He speaks here on behalf of Natal and on behalf of the Dominion Party which, with one exception, is comprised of members from Natal. The standpoint of that hon. member ought to be a warning to the Prime Minister that even the community in Natal that gives him the strongest support for his policy in other respects makes a stubborn stand here. That hon. member has rejected the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition, and then he said that in regard to the first part of the Bill he was for it half-and-half. He will vote for it provided he can get his way in regard to certain amendments or improvements, as he regards them, in the Committee stage. In regard to the other parts of the Bill, he agrees entirely with the Leader of the Opposition and with this side of the House. Consequently, as far as nine-tenths of the Bill is concerned, he is at one with this side of the House. Unless he obtains those alterations he stands on exactly the same footing and cherishes the same standpoint as this side of the House cherishes in connection with the Bill. It is not a reproachful argument that the Leader of the Dominion Party employed. He spoke on behalf of the oppressed in Natal, who were left in the lurch by hon. members on the other side. There is the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Friend), who has just come in. He also left them in the lurch. The Leader of the Dominion Party has become the mouthpiece, because the yes-men have left Natal in the lurch. To me the most serious thing is still the first part of the Bill, namely, the so-called demarcation of areas in accordance with the plans that were given to us. Certain areas are mentioned in the Bill, and other areas still to be demarcated under the slack leadership of the Minister of the Interim by a Board that will be appointed. I say “the slack Minister of the Interior” because he allowed the whole matter to develop and did nothing. As Minister of the Interior he was the champion for the Indian franchise, and he has now secured it through the Prime Minister. They now want to have demarcation, but it is not segregation. Does the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister know that some of the plots or some of the areas in this Bill, which also appear in the plan, or at least one, are situated in Durban itself, where a large white community is living at the moment? What grieves me deeply at this moment, and what ought to grieve the Prime Minister as an Afrikaansspeaking Boer general, is the fact that it is Afrikaans-speaking people of the working class who found for themselves there under the most difficult circumstances a haven and little homes and they will now fall in the Indian area, and must perish there. The hon. member for Vryburg (Dr. Steenkamp) who is also a “Boereseun” but in particular the Prime Minister, ought to concern themselves in regard to these Afrikaans-speaking people. Is it too far-fetched to speak of segregation when you have that position in Durban? These are demarcated areas where Indians, natives and other non-Europeans will be able to live with Europeans. Will this not lead to endless miscegenation in those areas? Necessarily, as we know the Indians, with their sly methods and corrupt ways — I have the right to say this because the Prime Minister stated yesterday that they were enabled to evade the laws in a very sly way — in a sly way they will dominate and squeeze out the others. This is not the segregation that the Nationalist Party stands for, this is not separation we are getting here, it is not tantamount to the people being separated. You are rather aggravating the position and the nett result will be a half-caste breed in these areas, instead of a solution. We cannot take seriously the pleas members who represent Natal deliver on platforms. If they regard the matter in the light that we do they ought to raise their voices even if they lose their seats. They may not place their seat above the existence of their own race, or of white civilisation in our country. We ought to be big enough, notwithstanding the party system, to rebel if a measure clashes with our convictions, and this ought to be the standpoint of a member of Parliament who comes here to serve his people and not to benefit himself. I also thought that before the Prime Minister closed his career — he cannot remain at the helm for ever — he could erect a monument for himself by giving heed to the call of the Europeans for race purity and race security. The European population must be on their guard for the future, and they must be protected by tackling the colour problem as a whole on the basis of separation and segregation in every sphere, as the Leader of the Opposition has asked in his amendment. Is the Prime Minister in no way serious about this? Does he not consider, seeing he is still at the head of the nation, the black menace in our country as the biggest menace to the existence of the white civilisation? If I humbly compare myself with him, and I and others see the danger can he not see it? He sees it just as well as I do. I appeal to him not to allow himself to be led by his little lieutenant, the Minister of Finance, who has become colour-blind and who does not know the soul of the Boer like the Prime Minister. Let him take action so that he will go honoured to his grave and so that on his tombstone will be written the words: “The saviour of the European civilisation from destruction.” I make an appeal to the Prime Minister to save us. He has now the opportunity and the power, and he may not neglect his duty to create security. I want to make an appeal to every member to prevent our being swallowed up in a black flood. The Leader of the Opposition pleaded for the permanent safeguarding of the European population. The Prime Minister did not breathe a word about the other nonEuropean sections in the country. He is making an experiment for the nth time. He is only occupied with only one measure. May I, in all humility say, that he is trifling with the interests and with the existence of the white population. Can we trifle by placing the continuance of our European civilisation at stake by a dangerous experiment? I cannot support the first part of the Bill, knowing what the effect of this measure will be. When you analyse it you cannot characterise it as other than a “mixed grill.” We must pay a heavy price for it. The Indians have helped themselves to the full in Natal. The position is as bad as it can be. The waters have reached the lips of the Europeans in Natal.

At 6.40 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 31st January, 1946, and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 27th March.