Unless notice of objection to the Report is given at the next sitting of the House, the Report will be considered as adopted.

When the House adjourned last night I was just explaining that as far as the Indian community in Natal was concerned, this measure was practically of no use because they have already entrenched themselves there. They have already looked for their advantage and found it, and they are already entrenched. As far as that is concerned this measure which the hon. the Prime Minister is now bringing forward is of no avail. But another aspect of the matter is this. Now that the Indians have helped themselves in Natal and have entrenched themselves there, an excellent opportunity has been afforded for the same position to be created here in the Cape Province exactly as it has been created in Natal. The soil here lies fallow and nothing on earth, if legislation is not passed, will stop particularly the wealthy Indians who are now in a favourable position in Natal, from coming to the Cape Province and doing the same things here that they have done in Natal and particularly in Durban. The same dangers which are threatening in Natal now after all these years will also be created here in the Cape Province. Why cannot the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that a few years ago in 1939 and in 1943 it was necessary to apply the Pegging Act in order to prevent such a position from being created, why, I say, cannot the Prime Minister do it now? I put this question to him directly. The Prime Minister says that he personally uttered a warning which may possibly deter the Indian community from trying to do the things here in the Cape Province which they did in Natal. May I say to the Prime Minister with due deference that no law on earth which may have been passed in the past, not even his Pegging Act and all his warnings to the Indians, have prevented the Indians from doing what they have done. One will simply be faced with the same position in the future that the Government after a number of years will throw up its hands in despair and say: “We have made an historic mistake.” In the past we have made historic mistakes and in the same way this action will be described as an historic mistake. Mistakes have been made in other parts of the country. They are already referring to such a mistake in connection with the coloured community. The Government party is already throwing up its hands in despair as far as that problem is concerned. They will simply say that unfortunately an historic mistake had been made which could easily have been prevented and it was not necessary to have allowed the Cape Province also to become a victim in the same way as Natal and the Transvaal. That is a serious aspect which we should fully take into consideration. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister held a pistol to our heads in introducing the Bill and said that the Bill consisted of two parts, the one dealing with land tenure of Indians and the other with the franchise, and he threatened us and said that if the one part was not agreed to, the other part could not be passed either. The two parts must be passed together. He combined the two and we have to accept both or nothing. That is his attitude. We on this side of the House could still possibly find something good in the first part of the Bill, however inadequate it may be, but we are squarely opposed to the second part, and because the Prime Minister has come along and held the pistol to our heads I say quite frankly to him, and I am talking on behalf of this side of the House and of white Afrikanerdom, that in that case we do not want to have anything to do with either part of the Bill and we are rejecting it totally.

It is easy to talk like that when one goes through the Free State.

It was not so easy to keep our province pure, but I want to tell the hon. member for Rustenburg that with his aid what has happened in Natal could easily still be prevented from happening in the Transvaal. But he sits here and he does not lift a finger to try to stop this development. His children, the Afrikanerdom, posterity will settle accounts with him because he had not safeguarded their future. If he has any children they will still one day put their foot on his grave and say that when their father had the opportunity he did not make use of that opportunity. The hon. member talks of the Free State. Thank heaven that the Free State has been saved the misery which has been caused to the other provinces. But a situation is in the process of development, and things are being done which are bringing these dangers closer to the provinces which have so far escaped the misery. There is a movement to extend the franchise to the coloured people also in the north. There has already been a knock at the door of the Free State. In due course there will also be a movement to allow the Indians to roam freely all over the country, including the Free State. The danger is there. We see here that the danger is increasing since the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will perhaps one day be succeeded by the Minister of Finance, a person with a totally different view of our colour problems. Last year when he was overseas, the Minister of Finance made a speech in London in October to the Empire Parliamentary Association, and there once again he preached the principle that all human beings are the same, irrespective of race or colour. He talked there about the coloured question in South Africa. I do not have the time to go into that. Other speakers will see to it that he hears more of this speech this afternoon. The Minister of Finance will perhaps be the successor to the Prime Minister, and since we are continually hearing of the extension of the franchise to the north, we are wary of the dangers which are threatening us. We want to keep our Free State clean and pure, and we will ward off these dangers. Hon. members on the opposite side realise fully the dangers which are threatening their existence and that of their progeny, but they do not want to do anything about it. The person who has to succeed the Prime Minister is a person with a totally different outlook on the matter, quite contrary to the outlook of any good South African. Why do we not want to grant any representation to the Indians? Because we would then have another bloc of three here in addition to the bloc of three native representatives which we already have here. They would not confine themselves merely to looking after the interests which they are representing here, but they would concern themselves with all other matters and would want to be the arbitrators in disputes between Europeans in this House over questions affecting Europeans only. That is a dangerous position, and I would like to tell the hon. the Prime Minister in all seriousness that if he pushes through this Bill with his steamroller majority against the wishes of the people, then he should at least place restrictions on the three representatives of the Indian community in this House in order that they may concern themselves only with matters affecting the community which they will represent here. To mention one instance, as far as the question of entering into a war or not is concerned, they should not be allowed to vote. As far as a motion of confidence or no confidence in the Government is concerned, they should not vote. They are not elected to do that, and I am saying in anticipation that steps should be taken to ensure that the rights of these people are restricted. We are dealing with dangerous legislation which now has to be rushed through the House. As I have said, there is a movement to extend the franchise of coloured people to the north, and it is now the proper time for white South Africa, and I appeal to them, to face the whole question squarely. Let me tell you this, that the Free State is prepared for battle, the white man in the Free State is ready for battle. I represent a border district on the Natal border, where the first Indians will be met who will swarm over the Drakensberg in a black cloud if the gates are thrown open, but I tell you that we will stand at the ready with machine-guns to avert the danger. If we have to perish, let us then perish fighting as an honourable people. I want to make an appeal to all the members of this House, white men as they are sitting here, who ought all of them to have the interests of white South Africa at heart, to face this danger squarely. There is a dark cloud of destruction which is rolling on towards us. Can you not see it? It is a dark cloud which is throwing a shadow over the white race. It reminds one of the calm before a storm when the birds seek shelter amongst the leaves of the trees. That is the time which has come. It is the calm before the thunderstorm which will break over white South Africa. You laugh in your stupidity and your folly, if you do not see it. I appeal to the entire white South Africa: Rise in all your strength and fight and win, and avert the downfall of white South Africa.

There is one thing I want to congratulate the Prime Minister upon most heartily, and that is his express determination to allow no outside interference in the solution of this problem. I wholeheartedly endorse that, most emphatically so. This is a matter of supreme importance, it is true, to South Africa, and the fact that a large number of the people concerned namely the Indians, rushing about all over the world, first going to India, then to Great Britain, and now I understand to U.N.O. leads me to believe that they do not regard themselves as citizens of South Africa, but rather as a section on their own who consider only their own interests, and in fact they have said so, without any regard to the rest of the community in South Africa. Hon. members of this House have to approach this matter with a thorough sense of the responsibility that devolves upon our shoulders. We have as far as possible to envisage the likely developments, ramifications and repercussions of our action upon the whole community and that being so, it behoves us most carefully to examine the proposition that has been put before us by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. Now, in my absence my party in its wisdom moved an amendment. It is unfortunate, of course, under the rules of the House that amendments moved on Bills must be of a similar character, whoever may move them. They inevitably and invariably mean and carry with them the deletion of the original proposition for the purpose of substituting something else. In this case the alternatives have been by no means varied. My party, following the usual Parliamentary practice, has moved the deletion of the words “that the Bill be now read a second time,” their object being, along the lines that I have already indicated, that the most close scrutiny, examination and thoughtfulness, should be applied to the solution of this Indian problem. In other words they have asked for a Select Committee, as indeed the Nationalist Party has also asked for a Select Committee, and also the native representatives, but all out of different motives. The Nationalist Party has one motive, we have another, and the native representatives still another. It may be that in some directions and on some point we agree with each other. On the other hand we may not, but the outstanding fact is this that everyone of these parties is keen—and I believe I can say so with some certitude, that hon. members opposite on the Government benches also have qualms — that in order to deal with this all-important problem, all-important from the point of view of South Africa, the matter should have the most careful consideration prior to being put into legislative form. Now, my party moved that in my absence, and I want to state emphatically that I most thoroughly and heartily endorse the attitude adopted by them in this matter. In other words I am supporting as strongly as I possibly can the reference of this matter to a Select Committee.

How long will it take?

Rather tell me for how many years this problem has been before us.

For 92 years.

My hon. friend is a nonagenarian in these matters, and also in his outlook, I am afraid, on many points. However, we leave such trivialities aside. As I say, this is too serious a problem for us to chivvy each other across the floor of the House. We should bend all our energies together with a view to the future of South Africa. Now, on the merits of the Bill I am wholeheartedly endorsing the reference of it to a Select Committee. It may be argued, as the hon. member interjected a few moments ago, like we hear so many interjections from the scullery maids there: How long will it take? How long has it already taken? But is that a reason, or rather an excuse, for hurried legislation which may not ultimately solve the problem? I propose to show how, in my judgment it will not solve the problem. I want to deal now with the merits of the Bill. This Bill is in two parts. The hon. the Prime Minister was almost verbatim reported in the Press, and I have had the pleasure of reading his speech, although cold print does not do full justice to the eloquence of the hon. Prime Minister.

Do you like it hot?

Yes, I like it hot, almost from the horse’s mouth, you might say. Now, the Prime Minister puts this Bill before Parliament with two associated principles. One being the establishment of a zoning system for Indians in South Africa.

In Natal.

Order, order.

Thank you, Sir. I have so many guides, philosophers and friends in this House that I sometimes become confused, but your clear-cut direction puts me right. In the end it is South Africa, because people ought to look ahead. I have asked the House to view this from the point of view of South Africa, for what you do for the Transvaal and Natal today will be insisted upon by the other provinces tomorrow. Let us face that issue fairly and squarely, and do not condone any action that you may contemplate on the basis of its applying only to Transvaal and Natal. That is why I have deliberately stated that we are dealing with legislation that will apply ultimately to all South Africa. At all events, one part of the Bill provides for the zoning of Indian territory in Natal and the Transvaal. My party is wholeheartedly in favour of that zoning, whilst at the same time reserving to ourselves the right to alter as far as may be and as far as we can the details of that zoning. Whilst we agree with the principle of zoning, we are not necessarily in agreement with the actual zoning envisaged in the Bill and enshrined in the Bill, another potent reason why we should have the matter discussed in the calm atmosphere of the deliberations in the Committee Room upstairs. If I only cite this example of the benefit to be derived from referring the matter to a Select Committee, I claim that I have made out a case for the examination of the Bill in the Select Committee, where all interests involved or likely to be involved, all those whom the ramifications of this measure may affect or interfere with, will have an opportunity of putting their points of view before the Committee; and that Committee in its wisdom can weigh up the pros and cons and come to a decision after having obtained knowledge on all sides. That is as far as the zoning is concerned But here I want to say most deliberately, with a due sense of responsibility, that we do not agree with the franchise proposals which are associated with the first portion of the Bill.

I regret very much indeed that the Prime Minister has seen fit to make the one portion contingent upon the other. I am very sorry about that. It does not give hon. members a fair chance of expressing their views, or voting on this matter in the manner in which they should be able to do so. I am not saying that in order to get cheap applause. I am examining this question as fairly and squarely as I possibly can, being a South African anxious to see that the future of South Africa is absolutely secure, and that the white race shall not suffer. Again I say that I regret that the Prime Minister made that a condition, that he cannot have the one without the other. We on these benches are wholeheartedly in favour of the principle of zoning, or in other words to prevent further penetration by Indians, except in demarcated areas and under control. I think that will meet with approval of members on all sides of the House.

Where is your Mr. Sullivan, and what does he say about it?

My Mr. Sullivan says exactly what I say about it and that is a very cheap gibe, almost as cheap as the interjections sometimes heard from the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow). The hon. Minister will see how every member of my party views this question if he will only be patient. We will not allow ourselves to be squashed by what the Press commentators or by what the hon. Minister who interjected say in regard to the individual members of my party. Besides, all these remarks are wrong. Well, my party opposes the franchise proposals of the Prime Minister for various reasons. I have not had the privilege of listening to the whole of the debate, but I understand that hon. members on the Opposition side are in favour of zoning and against the franchise. I think my hon. friends the native representatives are also against the franchise proposals. I say that for various reasons parties in this House, whether really in opposition or only nominally so in some cases, are opposed to the franchise proposals of the Prime Minister. I am not going to say they are wrong. Certainly I am not going to say we are wrong. That goes without saying. It is one of those self-evident facts. But for various reasons a very large proportion indeed of members of this House are opposed to the franchise proposals. Hon. members may belong to whatever party they like, they can please themselves as to what they do, and as to what United Party members do in their caucus meetings, that is their business, just as my own caucus meetings are my business. Now if, as I claim, I have made out a case for meticulous examination of the question on which we are all agreed in principle, namely, zoning, how much the more have I made out a case for the examination, the very closest of examinations of the franchise proposals of the Prime Minister? Apropos of the interjection a little while ago, “How long is this going to take?”, I say this, that, anxious as I am to get this matter concluded—and I take second place to none in that desire—yet I say the matter is so all-important to the future interests of the people of South Africa that, even if does take a little longer, we can take the necessary measures for stop-gap legislation in the meantime.

That is the effect of our amendment.

All right. I hope my friend’s anxiety to be associated with me is not taken very seriously. But we think alike on that matter. It is strange how opposites meet, although it is the case that if you go far enough East, you will get to the West.

That is what you have done.

This is not a matter to be taken light-heartedly. It is not a matter on which to score debating points. It is not a matter on which to say: Oh you did so-and-so on such-and-such an occasion. This is a matter for calm, cool, serious deliberation and decision on the part of every member in this House. No one should allow himself to be dragooned into adopting a particular attitude. I say in all seriousness that as there is such a large body of opinion in favour of considering more carefully these franchise proposals, and indeed the details of the zoning schedules, I do hope sincerely the right hon. gentleman will find it in his mind to allow such an examination.

Let us examine a little in detail the franchise proposals. As for the details of the franchise my hon. friends here object to the communal franchise. I am afraid they are a little inconsistent because they sit here as native representatives by virtue of the communal franchise. I am looking forward to the next time they confront their electorate—not mine—to see how they deal with that subject.

[Inaudible.]

I accept that at once. But this is the point I want to make. If this House or any member in this House hugs the fond delusion to his breast that by giving this communal and indirect representation they have seen the last of the franchise demands by the Indians, they are living in a fool’s paradise. Then what on earth is the use of doing it? Those of us who have had wide experience of the Indians as a race know we have to sub-divide them in this way: It is only the rich highly-placed Indian who is demanding all these things, not the mass of the Indians. The working class know nothing about it, but they are being used by these interested parties who are flying all over the world—to India, Great Britain and U.N.O. [Interruption.] I quite agree, but I am one of those who does not believe in cutting his own throat to show his affection for the other fellow. You have to understand what the Indian is. He is not too particular how he achieves his object. The rich influential and highly privileged Indians use all sorts of devices to attain their object; and it is not so much the franchise as what they can use Parliament for, and that is in their own individual class interests.

Does it matter?

It matters everything, because by the exercise of these devious methods of theirs they are successful in many instances, and in the end they will achieve complete control of this House.

Oh.

You may “oh” as much as you like, but the fact remains; and I want to bring up another point. Have the handful of Indian merchants, a great proportion of them born in the country, demonstrated that they claim South African citizenship above all things? They certainly have not, and whatever claim there may be for natives to have direct representation in this House, it certainly does not apply to the Indians in the peculiar circumstances of their association with us.

If you are so certain, why do you want time to consider the matter?

That is a typical Goldbergian interjection, without any doubt. The renegade is always hottest in his attack on his old friends. This only applies to the Transvaal and Natal. It does not apply to the Cape. It will have to.

It will some day.

The necessity for it is now, because since this debate started we have had numerous instances of the intrusion of Indians in the Cape, such as the Natalians have been objecting so strongly to in respect of their area.

Where is your proof?

If my hon. friends want proof let them vote for the select committee and we will produce it. I will only mention one instance, one outstanding example. One Indian has already bought in the centre of Johannesburg a plot of land on which it is proposed to erect a building at a cost— building and plot together—of £2,000,000. I will guarantee every member of this House has had some example at one time or another of the devious methods they employ, and of the manner in which they try somehow to get into every financial activity.

That is why the Bill should go through now.

That is not a reason why it should go through now. My hon. friend represents a constituency that enables him to know that the morality of the country is involved. No one knows that better than the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie).

He knows nothing.

Yes, he knows this. The hon. member knows what I am referring to. European capitalists are to blame in this, too. Yes, I am hitting all round the wicket. Afrikaner girls employed by the tobacco factory there and also by your farmers’ co-operative society are paid so low a wage and, as is natural with every girl, they desire to look nice and pretty and they go to the Indians because the Europeans will not give them credit. They go to the Indian stores and they are given credit far beyond their opportunity for repayment, and what happens? Suddenly the squeeze is put on and — “We will forgive you your debt provided you come out with us for the evening.”

No, no. You must withdraw that.

You should not bring in Afrikaner women.

I am saying what the Indians say. I am not saying what the women do. And I think my hon. friend is not fair to me to make that suggestion. As I say it is only an example of the devious methods they employ, and I want to remove from South Africa any possibility of that sort of thing.

You are insulting Afrikaner women.

I resent this twisting of my words. I appeal to hon. members’ sense of decency. Have I done that?

Yes.

That is a lie. [Interruptions.] I was saying what the Indians say, not what the girls do. Have it your own way, but it is very unfair, and it is twisting what I said. The fact remains you cannot examine the position sufficiently in the course of the debate on the second reading, over a few days. You cannot examine it sufficiently in the Committee stage. We in the Labour Party are in favour of the property provisions and we in the Labour Party are opposed to the franchise proposals of the Prime Minister, and in consequence I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment of the hon. member.

I welcome this Bill wholeheartedly, not that I think it is a perfect Bill; but I think it is the only Bill that will have the support of the people of Natal and also of the people of South Africa.

You cannot speak for your own constituency, so how can you speak for South Africa?

I will vote for the Bill as it stands. I have the full support of my constituents, who have made representations to me. I am sorry the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has got so hot in speaking on this particular Bill. He agrees to the first part of it with regard to the demarcation of the land, but he objects to the franchise proposals. He has not, however told us one word of the lines along which his thoughts are travelling. He has not even told us why he objects to the franchise proposals, we have no idea why he objects to them. All he says is that this is such an important matter that the best way to consider it is through the means of a Select Committee. I do not think the hon. member realises what will happen if we agree to a Select Committee. Does he know that the Pegging Act comes to an end at the end of this month?

We will have to extend it. That is my point.

I do not think the hon. members opposite realise what the Pegging Act is. If you extend the Pegging Act it will only apply to Durban and not to other parts of the country. We shall have the same position as we have now. We shall have the same debate and the same objections. The Pegging Act does not protect us in other parts of the country. We will come to the country. It does not even touch the question of protecting our farms; we have no protection; they are outside the Pegging Act. If we, as suggested by the official Opposition, leave things for the next two years we will give the Indians the opportunity of entrenching themselves in these European areas, and when that happens this Bill will not be of much use for the future. It has been said by one of our members that he knows that Natal is already lost, that nothing we can do can prevent Natal from becoming an Indian province. That may have been so, but for this Bill. I contend this Bill is the only thing that will help us and that will safeguard European rights in Natal in the future, because it does protect us. The Natal representatives and the people of Natal greatly value the land clauses of this Bill far and above anything else in the Bill. Our land and our homes mean more to us than I can say in this House. We take great pride and love our land and homes, and if this Bill will protect them, as it does, then I say the Bill will do a great service to Natal and the people of Natal and, I will go so far as to say, to the people of South Africa. The idea of all the Natal people is that the great feature of the Bill is the land clauses. Once we lose our land Natal is gone, it will become an Indian province, but as long as we can protect the land in Natal there is a great future for Europeans there. We do not want anything to be done to delay the passing of the Bill. A Select Committee cannot give us more information than we have. We have been considering and discussing this matter for years and years. We have had commissions of all sorts and the whole position and all the information with regard to the Indian problem is known to everybody in this House. Why cannot we deal with it in this House at once, and in the Committee stage improve the Bill, if it is possible to do so; but why waste time by referring it to a Select Committee, which will not, I am quite sure, improve the Bill, but may make it a weaker Bill?

This problem can never be solved by the extreme views of members on that side of the House, or of members of the Labour Party, or of the native representatives. I claim that we on this side of the House do not hold those extreme views. We realise in recognition of the benefits we shall get under the land sections of this Bill we are prepared to make concessions to the Indian people with regard to their franchise rights. I do not think many people realise what we are taking from the Indians. Up to the present the Indians, with the exception during the Pegging Act, have had all the full rights of Europeans in Natal except the franchise. They could buy land, they could do anything the European could do. Under this Bill we are taking those rights away from them, and as far as the European areas are concerned we feel we shall be safe under this Bill for the future. In respect of those areas in which the Indians will have to live and make a future for themselves we do not debar Europeans from buying land and Jiving there. That is done at the special request of the Indians themselves, but I hope no Europeans will live in those areas and buy land there. We should regard them as purely Indian areas.

This is the thin end of the wedge.

No, it is not the thin end of the wedge, but if any European wishes to live there the Bill does not deny him the right. It is sufficient for the Europeans in this country to know they will and can develop in the European areas and those other areas will be left entirely for Indian development as they have asked for.

Why do you not make provision for separate areas in the Act?

We do that; we are giving them a great deal more than that. We are undertaking to give them many advantages. They will get education, health services and all the amenities the Europeans enjoy; they will get them in those areas. If they accept the position there is, I believe, a future for these Indians in these open areas. We who are supporting this Bill have been criticised by people who should know better on the ground that we have adopted our present attitude in regard to the Bill as the result of colour prejudice. It is not colour prejudice, I maintain. It is purely instinct. Instinct is something we have from the laws of nature and the laws of nature are the laws of the Almighty. The first law of nature is the preservation of your race or of your species, and the second law is that your species and your race should be kept pure and not mixed. You call it colour prejudice, I call it instinct. It is the natural instinct of every human being, and indeed of every animal. In nature animals do not mix, they develop an individuality of their own. If we resist the laws of nature we will be doing a disservice to this country. I also feel that when the churches and the clergy take part in this propaganda against the Bill they are not improving the position but they are doing a great disservice to South Africa. I also agree with the hon. member for Benoni and others who have spoken in regard to this being an internal South African matter. I would also like to thank the Prime Minister for his statement on that point. No pressure from outside would, he said, deter the Government from the course they have set in passing this Bill. I am quite sure every section of the people will support the Government in that attitude to the very hilt. I appeal to hon. members opposite: Do not let us be sidetracked by bringing in other issues. Let us deal with this purely as an Indian Bill. We in Natal know what has happened there and what may happen in other parts of the Union. Do not let us introduce the native question or the colour question, but let us confine it to the Indian question. In the passing of this Bill we in Natal are satisfied our future will have been safeguarded and that Europeans will not only have a future there but a great future, because we will be able to develop within our own areas, with our own people, and with the culture and the ideals we stand for. We in Natal have a great love for our land and for our homes, and will make great sacrifices to safeguard and protect them.

That is why you are selling them to the Indians.

An interjection of that sort makes a laughing stock of this House. I am trying to speak seriously, but an interjection of that sort throws ridicule on the House. While this Bill has not been passed to prevent it, the Indians have the right to buy, and if there are Europeans who are willing to sell you cannot stop the Europeans from selling the land to Indians because it is under the law of the land. If some do not sell, somebody else would; and it is only by these means of control you can stop that sort of thing in the future.

With regard to the franchise, I feel the Government is adopting the right course. You can only do this by communal representation as proposed in this Bill. The Leader of the Dominion Party has proposed that the representation should be confined to the Senate. While I have no objection to that I am quite certain it would not be acceptable to the Indians.

The Indians will not accept this Bill.

I believe the Indians will accept this wholeheartedly. As has been said by others, the opposition to this Bill comes only from a small section of the Indians, and the majority of them will accept it wholeheartedly, and they will be thankful when the Bill is passed. The majority of them are not traders, they are people who work on the land.

They will not have the franchise qualifications.

The majority of the Indians will have the qualifications. In Natal you see splendid Indian schools all over the country where they get the best education. I have been to performances in my own town where the Indians have presented performances in which all performers were matriculated students; and they have told me that every year the Indian university in Natal turns out over 1,000 matriculated students. Nor are they all the sons of rich traders, they come from the Indian working classes, too. If this Bill is passed I am quite sure this agitation will die down and Indians will accept the position and settle down, and be glad to be recognised as citizens of this country. And the sooner we get to that position the better. There will be peace in the country. They will know where their rights are and they will respect ours. For that reason I am going not only to support this Bill but I shall vote for it as it is printed today, unless there is some improvement that can be made in Committee. But as I see it at present, after discussing with those who have the best knowledge, I do not believe this Bill can be improved. It is all that you want, and I am quite sure that the Prime Minister when he goes overseas can feel that he has the support of this country.

Overseas they are not taking any notice of him.

Overseas they will recognise that this is a question for us to settle ourselves, and I do not believe that this matter will be raised before U.N.O., as is being threatened at the present time. Why raise all these bogeys? Let us deal with our own domestic matters as best we can and let us pass this Bill, and I believe that the Indian question will be settled for the future. That is all I wish to say and I hope that hon. members will not delay the passage of this Bill any longer than is necessary.

The way in which the hon. member who has just been seated handled this question makes it perfectly clear to me that he has not made a study of this Bill, and in the second place I do not believe that the hon. member is very interested in what goes on around him. The hon. member rose and said that the Indian masses would be satisfied with this Bill. Does the hon. member really mean to imply that he is not aware of the fact that the great mass of Indians are against this Bill, and that they have in fact rejected it?

That is not so.

Does the hon. member not know that yesterday between 6,000 and 8,000 Indians assembled in Johannesburg, where they resolved to have nothing to do with this Bill?

That does not mean a thing.

Does the hon. member know that one of the Indian leaders who presided there yesterday actually insulted the Indian community by saying to them: I did not expect you to pray, but to revolt and act. And all this is aimed at this Bill. Does the hon. member want to tell me that he does not know that a deputation even came here this week from Vryburg to address the Government in connection with Indian penetration there? They do not want the Bill as such. But the restriction imposed on Indians in Natal is driving them out, and they are investing their money in other parts of the country. I will not dwell on this aspect any longer. The other objection of the hon. member is that if the Bill is not accepted now, the Indians will enjoy the right for at least another two years of penetrating freely as they choose. Why? If the amendment of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is accepted, it is unnecessary that the Indians should have the right for another two years. The hon. member will admit that this legislation offers no solution. As regards the speeches made by the native representatives in this House, chiefly that of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) and that of the hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming), I will make no comment thereon except to say this: I hope that their speeches will now make the Prime Minister realise into what chaos he will plunge South Africa and also this House if, when this Bill goes through, he allows yet three more isolationists to come and sit here, who will spread the same propaganda and the same poison which was propagated here yesterday.

Who put those three members there?

You did.

My friends on the other side put them there. The Hon. Leader of the Dominion Party read a telegram here yesterday which he received from the Indian community. I think that after the last portion of his speech he can expect this telegram this afternoon: “Please do not unnecessarily quarrel amongst yourselves. No Indian is interested in your benevolent offer of communal franchise. For once we wholeheartedly support Col. Stallard.”

Where does it come from?

We congratulate you on your new ally.

That goes to show the intelligence of the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) and the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock). I did not say that this telegram actually arrived. I said that after his speech of yesterday afternoon, he ought to receive such a telegram today from the Indian community. In his speech yesterday, the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister adopted certain viewpoints with which we on this side of the House cannot identify ourselves. On the contrary, I can see no justification for the viewpoint adopted by the Prime Minister, and to say the least of it, the Prime Minister was very unconvincing yesterday in his speech. The putting through of this Bill is a law of Medes and Persians; there is no time now for a Select Committee or for investigation. On the contrary, the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) showed perfectly clearly in his speech that it is a party measure and that his party is prepared to proceed with the matter, but not, as he himself said, in the way that my hon. Leader set to work at the time in connection with this question. We on this side of the House admit that the Indian question is a burning question. But it has not only been a burning question since yesterday. It is a problem which has existed for years now, and since the introduction of the Pegging Act this question has become very real. Why has an attempt not been made during all these years to find a solution on a national basis? Why not consult all parties on this question who are very interested in it? And if since the Speech from the Throne the Prime Minister had made use of such a step, we would have made much more progress in this matter. Thus there is absolutely no excuse as far as this question is concerned. The first portion of the Bill envisages segregation. And in this connection I want to say to the Prime Minister that we on this side of the House always stand for segregation; it is our policy.

But not that sort of segregation.

But we speak of segregation in the right sense of the word; we do not want half measures.

We do not want a mixed affair.

As my hon. friend says, we do not want a mixed affair here. The Prime Minister endeavoured to explain that he wanted to solve the Indian question on the basis of segregation. I want to ask the Prime Minister this question: Where is the segregation in this Bill? Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5, and more particularly Articles/ 4 and 5, do most decidedly make provision for a restriction on the occupation of land in Natal and the Transvaal. That we are completely in agreement with. But then the Prime Minister comes along with Article 8, and by the provisions contained in that article he immediately nullifies all the good intentions of Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5. This clause deals chiefly with the permit system. And now I want to put this question to everyone with common sense in this House: By entrusting a question like this to our present Minister of the Interior, what is going to happen? I am convinced in my soul that he will not refuse one single permit. He is the man who years ago began this question in Natal. Unasked he offered the Indians the franchise and following closely at his heels was the Minister of Finance. I say that while provision is now being made to obtain permits to buy in those areas, of which those former articles make mention, you will agree with me that there is no question of segregation. And then comes Article 9 (2) and this makes the position still worse. Areas are now being created where not only Asiatics but also Europeans may purchase land. Here again we have a mix-up. The hon. member for Drakensberg said that if a European wanted to go and live there, let him do so; that is his affair. That is not the way we as responsible people should tackle the problem.

Responsible people!

That sort of interjection, as my hon. friend has said, will fit very well into a certain newspaper which is known as “Arthur Barlow’s Weekly”, but not here in the House where we are dealing with serious questions. I say that Articles 8 and 9 make it perfectly clear to us that there is no question of segregation in this Bill.

And now we come to another matter. Let us take the Transvaal Gold Act of 1908. Under Articles 130 and 131 provision is made that no Asiatic or coloured person may live in proclaimed areas, except in separate areas, areas which are set aside for that purpose. These articles were later amended as a result of the report of the Feetham Commission, by which the possession of land by Asiatics—illegal possession—was virtually legalised. We want to know from the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister what is going to happen there? It makes me think of another case, of an area in Johannesburg into which Asiatics were not allowed to penetrate. Penetration took place and a prosecution resulted. But on the very first prosecution of an Indian instructions were given by the Minister of Justice to stop the prosecution. There was penetration on a large scale; that is the position. We want to know what the position is in connection with a matter which was raised by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). If this morning we want to advance the argument to the nation that we must accept this Bill because it will bring about segregation, then I say that we are throwing dust in the eyes of the people. The hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Acutt) rose yesterday and he wanted to assist the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. He said—

Where is that protection? He said—

I did not think that a responsible person, a representative of Natal, who knows what the problems are in Natal, would say that. But after having offered the Prime Minister that help, he changed front and said—

And by saying that he nullifies all his previous arguments. The other viewpoint adopted by the Prime Minister was that we are now taking away so much from the Indian and that we must give them something. The Prime Minister said—

Inter alia, the Prime Minister said—

I admit that it must be a question of give and take, but in this Bill adequate provision is made for the Indian community as regards land ownership. Why then extend the franchise to the Indians? No, I say the Prime Minister wants everything to come from the side of the Europeans and nothing from the Indians. Yesterday the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister had another supporter, that one-time Nationalist who sits against the wall on the other side, the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp), and he rose and praised the Prime Minister for not allowing himself to be influenced from abroad and for looking after our domestic affairs himself. I want to indicate in passing the pressure which has been exerted from abroad all these years, and I want to point out that the provision made here by the Prime Minister is what Gandhi asked for in Madras as long ago as 1896. The hon. member for Vryheid says that he admits that these two civilisations cannot become reconciled and he feels inclined sometimes not to vote for the measure, but why does he advocate it? I have his words here. He said—

He has nothing in common with his fellow Afrikaner in South Africa. Is that perhaps the motive the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has in view in forcing this Bill through the House in such haste? The hon. member for Vryheid told us briefly yesterday what Gandhi said in connection with the Indians who came to South Africa. I will just read a few lines. Gandhi said this on 26th October, 1896, in Madras —

We hear that it is the white man’s fault that they are in South Africa. I will read further—

That applies to all immigrants.

I do not say that it does not apply to all immigrants; I say that Gandhi said this with relation to the Indian immigrants. But I want to say this with relation to interference from outside. About a dozen proofs could be furnished out of Gandhi’s speech, but I will only quote one—

That is the year 1894—

Who said that?

I have just said that it appeared in the London “Times” of the 27th June, 1894. Then Gandhi went on to say—

That is precisely what the Prime Minister is doing today.

And they are still not satisfied.

They are still not satisfied. All sides envisage building up a united nation in South Africa comprising the two big European races, and if this is the case, it is surely perfectly logical — it is self-evident that the white man in South Africa should decide the future of his own country and the ultimate destination of our own nation. In that regard there can be no difference of opinion among us, chiefly and more particularly in relation to the ultimate destination of an independent white South Africa. But whereas the Government is today taking a leap in the dark, I do not think it out of place to utter a word of warning to my Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking friends who in the majority of cases feel just as I do about this question, and it is this. They must realise what the implications of this Bill are going to be when it is first applied in practice. Where it is precisely the white race who must decide the ultimate destination and lot of our nation, it would be fatal today for the Government to come to the House with its Parliamentary majority and to extend the vote to a non-European race in South Africa, whom it is not only impossible to assimilate with the people of South Africa, but who have an entirely foreign and opposite outlook on the interests of the country and on the nation’s problems as we see them here today. I say it would be fatal. We cannot allow it. I believe that where the white man is determined to ensure the ultimate destination of the white man, we must also ensure that legislation and legislative power remains in the hands of the white man, and in no other hands. I say that if this legislation goes through and if the vote is extended in this way to that race, it will mean the thin end of the wedge. This Bill offers no solution. The Indians have rejected it. I want to say in passing that the Prime Minister’s speech did not even cause a stir among the general public. His own nation do not want the Bill. Why then does he go on with it? In this Bill he offers no solution, but the Prime Minister is committing his country, South Africa, very deeply. This is what is going to happen. The interference is not only limited to that which I have already mentioned. The Indian is not entitled to demand citizenship in this country. Here we have a Sapa report which was sent yesterday. The Indians are not only turning today to England, America and India; they are also appealing to China and Russia, and they are going to protest to the U.N.O. The Prime Minister said that this was a domestic affair. If that is the case, what right has any outside power to interfere in the domestic affairs of South Africa? If the Indian is running around everywhere asking for help, and while they call themselves subjects of India and not subjects of South Africa, how can they expect us to grant them citizenship? We cannot do it. What will be the result of this Bill? Today the Prime Minister is going so far as to extend the vote for the first time to the Indians in Natal and the Transvaal, as well as in the Provincial Council of Natal. And now I want to ask the Prime Minister who has first claim in that respect, the coloureds or the Indians? We cannot get away from it; if this legislation goes through the House, it will at once give rise to the coloureds in the Transvaal saying: “If a foreign race, an unassimilable race with a foreign outlook on our country’s interests, can obtain representation in Parliament, and while the Cape natives can obtain representation and the Cape Coloureds enjoy the vote, why can the vote not be extended to the coloureds in the Transvaal and Natal?” And what about the native population there? Does the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister realise the implications of this matter? Here in the Cape Province you have a quarter of a million natives and they have three representatives in Parliament. Will the native population in Natal and in the Transvaal not be dissatisfied if you give the vote to the Indian and not to them? I say the Prime Minister is allowing a state of affairs to develop in South Africa which will result in conflicts in the future, and before the measure goes through the House, we want to ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister not to force this question through. It is against the will of the people, and I am convinced that it is against the will of his own people, when you converse with them in the lobby.

They are not dissatisfied.

I am not discussing people who come from Hospital Hill.

He hums like a wasp.

I say it is a great pity that the Prime Minister should introduce legislation of this nature at this juncture, at a time when there is agitation afoot in the country and when all the coloured races want to stand together to demand their rights and to exert pressure.

You force them together.

I have here in my hand a copy of a report of 3rd November, 1945, which appeared in one of the Afrikaans newspapers in Johannesburg. Here we see that Europeans, Indians and natives were assembled together at a meeting to demand these rights.

What paper is it?

It is “Die Vaderland” of 3rd November, 1945. We see this [translation]—

And further—

That is what you say.

If that hon. member had said it, then I could take it from whence it comes.’ The report goes on to say—

Here we have even an Indian who took part in the demand for rights—

That is what is happening today, and now I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he does not regard it as fatal to allow this propaganda to be carried on at this juncture in the history of the country, Whatever kind of vote the Prime Minister gives to the Indians, they are only going to use it as a springboard for further political propaganda and for the achievement of absolutely equal rights in South Africa. They are not satisfied with this measure.

Now I want to come to the Minister of Finance. The week-end before last, when I happened to be on the Rand, he’ made a speech at the University (on graduation day). There again the Minister of Finance labelled us a “herrenvolk” because we fight for segregation in this country. He has become colour-blind, and today you are seeing the repercussions. At this meeting in Johannesburg to which I referred yesterday evening, the following took place; I will read the newspaper report [translation]—

I say that the Minister of Finance in his colour-blindness has once again made a speech which will result in these coloured races further propagating their pernicious propaganda in South Africa. I say heaven preserve us if he—as far as I know he has been pointed out as the successor to the Prime Minister—should one day occupy the place of the Prime Minister.

He is a first-class man.

He will be first-class in pleading for the disappearance of the colour bar. I admit that he will be the best one to bring about the disappearance of the colour bar. What then is the solution? Let us get together and reason over this question. Why act in haste? Accept the amendment of my honoured Leader. Let us deal calmly with the matter in the conference room. You can solve the question if you do not tackle the coloured problem in bits and pieces. Then you create chaos. That is why my honoured Leader asks: Come and let us tackle the question on a broad basis. Let the problem of coloureds, natives and Asiatics be considered in the conference chamber, and let us find the best solution for the future. What is the difference between this amendment and that of the Labourites? We also ask for a Select Committee, just as they do, but we ask that the whole coloured problem should be tackled and solved on a broad basis, and therein we see the only way to the salvation of South Africa. If there are members on the other side who want to prove the opposite and want to allow the coloured problem to develop as it is doing now and to extend the vote, and thereby save the country, then I say that it cannot be done.

It is the only plan.

The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister said that he could not give Indians representation in the Province of the Transvaal on the Provincial Council, for their numbers are too small. But what then will be the position in a few years when there are enough? During last month the birth rate in Durban of Indians was three times as high as that of Europeans. You find the position everywhere. What is the Prime Minister going to do then? How are you going to preserve white civilisation then?

We will manage it.

Yes, if all of us sat in the hospital where the hon. member comes from. It is the thin end of the wedge. That is why I say that when viewing this matter, it looks as though the decisive hour has arrived, but we must not allow our children to be able to reproach us one day when they look back on us and ask: What did you do when the decisive hour struck for the nation? Once again we make a final appeal to the Prime Minister to abandon this measure, and to face the dangers which threaten by accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Piketberg.

Probably this is one of the most difficult subjects that the House has ever been called upon to debate for many years, and the tragedy of it all is that at the time of Union when we had the best brains then available to deal with the problems before us, this the most difficult problem at all, was not dealt with and settled at the time. We have had a legacy since then which has caused us constant trouble. Those of us who know the Transvaal realise what difficulties there were in those early days when the Prime Minister had to deal with this problem, and we saw the steady and illegal encroachment which was going on then, and we realised that sooner or later this problem would have to be tackled in order to safeguard the interests of the Europeans of South Africa. But that does not mean that we have to be unfair or unjust to those other interests that have come in here. These people are here at the invitation of the Europeans. They have been used by Europeans, and if today there are difficulties about property and trading, they have been caused mainly by the Europeans themselves who sold their properties, and when I see the difficulties and complaints about trading stores in this country, I also ask myself who is responsible for having maintained and built up those Indian stores, and the reply is that it is mainly the European people. We therefore have been largely responsible for the creation of this trouble and the difficulties that exist, and we have the right, I think,, to ask the European population today to make some contribution and to try and find some solution, even if it is only a partial solution, of the problem. It is perfectly true as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (Col. Stallard) stated that the Indians have turned down this proposal. They will turn down any proposal unless we submit fully to their demands, which would amount to complete political, social and economic rights which must eventually turn this country into a black one. The position is quite impossible and they know it. I say that the proposals put forward by the Prime Minister do make a step forward and give them something which after all they have been clamouring for in the past, an opportunity of expressing their views in this House. In listening to this debate and to the criticism that has been directed at the Prime Minister and the various suggestions made, there is one very significant fact which appears, that with all the skill, all the knowledge and ability of members opposite, the only proposal put before the House is to refer this matter to a joint committee or a select committee, in an attempt to find some other solution for the problem.

A permanent solution for the whole problem.

I may surely ask my hon. friends opposite: Why, from the studies they have made of this problem—and this is an old problem—have they not been able to come forward with some broad outline for a solution to the problem? After all, this is a partial solution which has been proposed by the Government.

Why not make it a wider solution?

You may disagree with it, but it is not enough to say that it must be sent to a select committee in the hope of finding a solution. I say that from the studies members opposite have made of the subject, they should be capable of giving us some concrete solution.

Why did you not make the same demand in regard to the native legislation of 1936?

The native legislation was also before the House. But I wish to deal with the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). The terms of that legislation were dealt with at a joint conference. I do not wish to go back on this problem, because in point of fact the solution had been at different times suggested by the various parties in the House. But in this present problem we have the broad basis of the Bill. I put this to members opposite: Your amendment will be turned down. In fact, I hope it will be. What I ask is this: Do you then propose to vote against this Bill after that?

Yes.

Yes.

You will vote against the Bill, against the property sections, as well as against the franchise sections.

If the one is bound up with the other we must do so.

Hon. members are not prepared, apart from the question of what they may want to do under Part I, to give the franchise to Indians in principle.

We are not prepared to be blackmailed.

Then why not say so straight out in the amendment, that you object to the principle of the Bill, instead of bringing up a camouflaged amendment?

We want a Bill to be passed with all the information and wisdom that it is possible to obtain, pooling all our efforts.

If you have any wisdom.

I do not want to enter into a debate on the relative merits of our knowledge, but I think we should keep this matter out of party politics, and should have some constructive proposal.

We made them. That is our amendment.

Was any party consulted before the Bill was brought before the House.

The people of this country have been consulted for many years, not in the sense of being asked direct questions. Such things are not done.

I want to deal with some of the remarks made in that most unfortunate speech we heard yesterday from the hon. member for Cape Eastern. There is one thing I think members of this House have a very great responsibility for. In this particular matter the words of members go far afield beyond this House, and especially the words of the native representatives are studied most carefully. What did they say? Yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Cape Eastern, waving her usual admonitory finger at members of the House, and pointing out our lack of knowledge, wisdom and of principle, stated that we have never treated the native people properly, or even the coloured people, and in fact she made a definite statement that after the native laws of 1936 the position of the native people today is worse than it was ten years ago.

You must be careful of what you say.

I listened very carefully to the speech, and the impression left on the mind of everyone was that she said that the position of the native as regards his standard of living generally may be better, but economically and socially it was worse.

You did not listen very carefully or else you were not in a very receptive state of mind.

I will read what the hon. member said:

What does that mean? Does it mean that they are worse off now than they were then?

That is not what I meant.

The Prime Minister said that.

That definitely is not true. I say that during the last ten years a very great deal has been done for the natives in this country. I say that as a result of the native Bills the trust was created. The hon. member made no allowances for the war period of the last six years.

I do.

She condemned the Government for the lack of progress made. But she made no mention at all of the money spent, the increased money spent, on native education, an increase from £600,000 to £2,600,000, and of the money spent on land purchases for natives; there was no mention at all of the different areas acquired by the Native Trust. But it has gone out to the world that we in this country have treated our natives worse as a result of the legislation passed, and that is one of the reasons also why she objected to the passing of this Indian legislation, because they would be treated worse afterwards.

You are very confused.

I may be confused, but I think that is how it was interpreted by all hon. members in the House. Her argument as to why this Bill should not be passed was based on the assumption that the native people were worse off now than they were before legislation was passed. I say that is unfair and untrue. I say the people of this country have done a great deal for the uplift of the native people of this country. I do not give way to anyone in my regard for the interest of the natives and coloured people, But I say that speeches like that on a most critical occasion do not do anything at all to help the solution of the problem.

And then you want more native representatives!

What is the solution of the native representatives? Their solution is far from confining this trouble to Natal; she welcomes the throwing open of the boundaries and the flooding of the country with Indian traders.

I did not say that.

In answer to a question by the hon. member for Hospital Hill (Mr. Barlow) that is what the hon. member for Cape Eastern said, that she was prepared to throw open the boundaries.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of explanation…

Is the hon. member prepared to give way?

Yes.

Just for the satisfaction of the House I would like to remind them that the hon. member questioned me and asked “What about the Transkei?” and I replied that we had always made our position clear in regard to the Transkei, and that we regarded it as an area of land settlement with the protection of all land settlement areas.

I still say that what she said will intensify the position with regard to the Indians. There is one thing which is rather extraordinary, that whatever measures are proposed in this House by a certain section of the community, when any proposal is made for limiting certain rights or restricting Indian encroachment, a certain section always considers it to be an insult to India. I have had occasion quite recently to come across cases where Indians themselves have definitely broken agreements that have been made.

What agreements were those?

Property agreements in the Transvaal. I can give instances where within the last week or two attempts were made by European women married to Indians under the Mahommedan law to try to get property registered and to transfer property, and you only have to go into the matter to see how every possible attempt is made by certain sections there to avoid the property restrictions laid down in the Transvaal.

It is the Europeans who did it.

I agree, but I have already dealt with the European side of it and admitted that they are to blame, and I would have liked to see the Government take strong measures against them, but that does not alter the fact that the Indians also broke the agreements. And I say that today a definite step is being taken by the Government to try to solve this matter at any rate temporarily, and to bring it to some finality. Now it is quite impossible for this House to say what future generations will do. The trouble has been that the past generations would never face up to this problem, and therefore it has increased and become more complex. The steps which the Prime Minister proposes to take now will at least peg the position for the time being, and will give the people of this country an opportunity to realise what they should do, and it will bring home, too, as the hon. member stated yesterday, as the Indian representatives act in this House, and according to the sense of responsibility they show, so it will help in future perhaps to give them wider responsibilities. But I want to ask this: Do hon. members, when they ask us to treat this question as if these people are just the same as ourselves, one race, one colour, with the same ideals and standard of life, take into account the opinions of the rest of the population? No matter how much individual members may be advanced in their thoughts and ideas, we know perfectly well that the bulk of the people in this country will not submit to the representatives in this House of Indians or other sections of the nonEuropean population.

We have never claimed that.

It is not what you claim, but the whole tenor of sending this Bill to a Select Committee is what? It is to take away the communal franchise and to introduce a loaded franchise. To me, if there is an insult in a communal franchise, there is also an insult in a loaded franchise. Hon. members may differ, but I venture to say that you are having discrimination against a section of the people

We want less discrimination and you want more.

I do not want more. We know perfectly well that if you put this proposition up in the Transvaal, where feeling is very strong, you can never hope to advance quickly, but must go slowly along the path of solving this problem. I want to say again that any proposals put forward for sending this Bill to the Select Committee are merely intended to shelve the problem. The proposal to send it to the Select Committee made by the Leader of the Opposition, the Committee to report in two years, would bring it to the eve of the general election, which means that it could not possibly be considered by Parliament for another two years, and so it could not come before the House for another four years. I say that to ask the Government to hold the Bill up for another four years will lead to chaos and animosity not only here, but also outside.

Are you not having it now?

It will be a continuous process.

I say this, that when the Prime Minister goes overseas and explains exactly what has been done, I venture to say that there will be a change of view and of opinion on the part of the people over there.

What have they got to do with it?

I just want to show how little our problems are understood. Take the remark made by the leader of the Indian people in London, who suggested to the Prime Minister that a break should be made in order that a repatriation scheme could be introduced, and that those who wished to return to India could do so. They do not realise that there was such a scheme. If there is one weakness in this Bill it is this: I will ask the Prime Minister to consider, either in this Bill or another Bill, to reintroduce the question of repatriation.

You want some of the English repatriated. How can you repatriate Union nationals?

You know what happens in Europe.

That repatriation scheme is still open today.

What is this Indian petition presented to the House ? The Indians do not themselves consider that they are citizens of this country. In their petition to India to help them, they appeal that they should be helped because they have no rights. I want the Government to do everything they can to press forward the repatriation scheme, and to let the world know that far from hindering repatriation, we would gladly welcome it. But we know from experience that far from it being their desire to return to India, they wish to remain here. They are raising a cry in other parts of the world, in Britain and in India. Well, many of them should feel that they themselves are the cause of the trouble here, and that those who caused the trouble—which is not the vast majority of them—should be told to leave here.

The hon. member said that in connection with this problem we have to perform an operation, and the sooner it is all over the better. That is exactly where we differ from the hon. member and from the opposite side of the House. Our contention is that in regard to such an important problem one should first of all deliberate most carefully and make sure that the right steps are being taken. That is the reason why the Leader of the Opposition proposed that the matter should first be referred to a Select Committee which could determine what would be the best operation, as the hon. member has put it, with regard to this problem.

Time and again in the history of this House we reach moments when weighty decisions have to be taken which may have far-reaching results for our country and our people. We have once again reached one of those moments because we are dealing here with South Africa’s most important problem, namely, the race problem. As distinct from most other countries, we have in South Africa to contend with great racial problems. We do not have a homogeneous population in this country. We have a mixed population, and this mixture results in a lack of solidarity, and with a view to greater unity it is in the interests of our country that steps should be taken to confine the mixture of our population to a minimum. I had hoped that in dealing with the Indian question we would have made use of this opportunity to try and reduce the mixture of populations.

The main distinction in respect of our race relations in South Africa is the division between European and non-European. On both sides of this division, however, there are divisions and groups, and one had hoped that when this question was tackled an effort would be made to confine the subdivision on both these sides to a minimum. I regard it as being in the interests of the country that in dealing with the racial problem, our object should be to make the racial division one between European and non-European only by taking steps to make both groups as homogeneous as possible. There are people who will go still further and who would not even acknowledge this division between European and non-European and who preach the doctrine of absolute equality which will result in a large homogeneous population in South Africa, even although that population would then be a mongrel population such as we find in many South American States. This liberal group, as they are being called in South Africa in recent times, is becoming rather vociferous lately, particularly because they draw strength from the new Bolshevistic holism which is shedding its influence from Russia. This theory that in our country no difference should be made between colours but that we should have a homogeneous population, has clashed with the conception of the older generation here in the southern part of our country. Quite early in our history our ancestors here in the south upheld the idea that a separate European nation should be established here. This conception was carried to the north by the Voortrekkers who established this idea in our history with their blood and with great sacrifice. There was a time in our history, therefore, when there was a difference of opinion about this idea amongst the Europeans, but today I think that we can assume that well-nigh ninety or more out of every hundred European persons in our country endorse this view. There was a time in our history, however, when a very large section of our population, especially the later arrivals, did not regard South Africa as a place where they must find a home for a white race, not as a place where a separate European civilisation should be built up, but they regarded South Africa merely as a territory to be exploited for its profits and riches, and when that has been done, to be deserted if they so desired. It is owing to this conception that we have had the doctrine of equality here in the Cape Province, which resulted, for instance, in political equality of European and non-European. The same conception resulted in the permitted entry into the Transvaal of the Indians and later of the Chinese. Fortunately that period is now behind us. Today we can say that it is assumed well-nigh generally by the European section of the population that there should be a division between European and nonEuropean. Having assumed then that we should have on the one hand a European race with a Western European character and on the other hand a non-European group with a Bantu character, that is in my opinion the only division in South Africa which should prevail here. All other groups should orientate themselves or be removed to the one or other side.

It is with a view to this conception of having two groups in South Africa, that we should determine our immigration policy in South Africa. For that reason, for instance, we could not associate ourselves with any idea that the non-European group in South Africa should be supplemented. We have enough non-Europeans here. I wish, therefore, to utter a warning and to bring the fact to the attention of the Government that we are not being sufficiently cautious today. We are permitting natives from outside our borders to enter the Union of South Africa. The cry that owing to a shortage of labour people from outside the Union should be brought to the mines and other sources of employment is the same cry which was raised in Natal at the time, and we are making the same mistake which was made in Natal when the Indians were imported to work on the sugar plantations. We should adopt an immigration policy which will put a total stop to any more non-Europeans being permitted to enter the Union.

Does that also apply to farm labour?

Yes, that also applies to farm labour. I am willing to have a stop put to any non-European immigrant from outside our borders coming to the Union. I think that if we do not do that, we will be making the same mistake which Natal made with the immigration of Indians, and I hope that the Government will give its attention and take steps in that direction. As far as European immigration is concerned, I hope that we will bear in mind that no immigrants should be allowed who would weaken the homogeneity of the European population. It is for that reason that we on this side of the House so strongly advocate that only persons who would strengthen and not weaken our Western European culture and character should be allowed to enter South Africa. We want only those two groups, a white group with a Western European character on the one hand, and on the other hand I feel that there should be only a non-European group with a Bantu character. Under this division you will notice that I can see no place in South Africa for the Oriental. It is for that reason that I can under no circumstances support this Bill, because it recognises, protects and establishes a further racial and cultural group in our political and economic life. We should not have taken any steps in that direction, but, on the contrary, we should have tried to reduce the heterogeneity of our population instead of strengthening and consequently perpetuating it. That is my first great objection to this Bill.

The second objection is against the manner in which this legislation has been introduced by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was asked that he should not make this matter a Government measure. He should have regarded if, as an important national problem which should have received serious consideration from all sides of this House on a non-party basis. In the past, when important problems in South Africa were tackled, they were set about in a different manner. At the time of Union, a National Convention was held, and after lengthy deliberations, the South Africa Act was drafted. When the Native Bills were introduced, we had a Select Committee which sat for years to discuss the native problem with all its complications, and to deliberate thereon, and it was only after many years that the legislation was introduced by the Government. Instead of the Government pursuing that course in this instance, the Prime Minister comes along in a hurry and introduces a Government measure, and he issues the ultimatum that he wants it to be agreed to in the form he has proposed it. I do not think that this manner of doing if is designed to ensure a solution of this problem along the best lines.

My third objection against this measure of the Government is that it presents no solution of the problem whatsoever. On the contrary, it aggravates the problem. What we would have liked to see was that the Prime Minister should have listened to the voice of the people of South Africa. It seems to me as if the Prime Minister did not lend an ear to the wishes of the people of the Union, but he lent an ear to voices overseas. He is in a hurry because he has to proceed overseas shortly, and if he succeeds in having this legislation passed he wants to present this legislation in the assembly halls of the nations overseas as evidence that South Africa has taken measures to grant political rights to the coloured races. If the Prime Minister had given a hearing to his own people, I am convinced that he would have received a different message, and would have come along with a better solution of the Indian problem.

I now want to be so bold as to present my views with regard to a solution of this problem, and I think it is the same viewpoint and solution which would come from the European population today if the people of South Africa had been given the opportunity of expressing their views. It is that this problem can only be solved along the lines of the repatriation or removal of the Indians, and along no other lines. Now it will be said that such an attempt was made in 1926 and that it was not a success. My contention is that we are living in a totally different period today. In 1926 the people of South Africa were not as conscious of the gravity of the problem and were not prepared yet to make sufficient sacrifices in order to solve this problem. Whilst the people then thought in terms of thousands or tens of thousands, they would today be prepared to spend millions if the right solution of the problem could be achieved. I contend that only by means of removal, not only of the repatriation of Indians who came here from India, but of all Indians from South Africa can this problem be solved. It can be done on a friendly basis with India, provided that we on our side are prepared to make the largest possible concessions and sacrifices in that connection. We see today that all over the world attempts are being made to solve racial and minority problems and the heterogeneity of populations in various states by means of migration of racial groups. Why should we not make a similar attempt? As far as our own European population is concerned, we have proved that we could solve the problem as far as our own Europeans were concerned in Other territories along those lines. We took steps to have the Boers from Angola transferred back to the Union. We took steps to have the people who migrated to the Argentine transferred back to South Africa. Why cannot we also make an attempt to transfer the Indians back to India or to some other part of the world where they will be happy? It is a problem which in our country has not the same dimensions as in the countries of Europe. There they are transferring seven or eight millions of people because they are forming a minority group in a state. While we in South Africa do not see our way clear to remove a quarter million people. I think that only along those lines can this problem be truly solved. I do not think that it is already too late, but in due course it may become too late to solve this question along these lines. For that reason I want to make an earnest appeal to the Prime Minister not to set aside this solution. It has been said that the Indians want to appeal to U.N.O. If we cannot, by the way of friendly agreement with the Indians in our country and with India, solve the question along these lines, I see no danger in such a matter being laid before U.N.O. U.N.O. is helping to solve these problems in other countries and it may assist us to solve the problem in South Africa where the problem is still of such small dimensions and because the people of South Africa are willing to make sacrifices in that respect. It is necessary that this problem should once and for all be solved in the right and proper manner because as I have already said, it has an internal as well as an external aspect. As far as the internal aspect is concerned, we are not prepared to make room in our population for the Oriental. But there is another reason why we should solve this matter and that is because India is the nearest large power to South Africa. There we have a country of 400 million people which in due course will become independent. It will not always remain a colony of England. It is in the interests of South Africa to see to it that India does not become its enemy but that we should secure as much goodwill towards South Africa as possible. If we could then solve this problem amicably by removal and repatriation it would be in the interests of South Africa, because apart from other considerations, India will be a country to which we could export a lot of our products and from which we could import quite a lot. Purely from the materialistic point of view, it would be to our advantage to have this problem solved properly, but then we should not delay. The native problem was always postponed. In this case it is necessary to tackle the problem in due time and energetically and to do everything which is necessary. The road of procrastination and compromise leads only to trouble and will not ensure any satisfactory solution. If we do not do that, the result will not only be that we would not reach an agreement with India but that there will always be strife between us. We have already had signs of it; but there are also other dangers. We have already seen that there are Indian statesmen who have imperialistic tendencies. I do not know whether friends in this House remember what Gandhi said in this connection. Gandhi is the greatest Indian nationalist. At the time when Sir Stafford Cripps went to India during the war to try to solve the Indian problem in India, Gandhi practically presented England with an ultimatum. He said: The white man must get out of India and out of Africa. He did not mention only India. The leader of the Indian people, who is regarded as an Indian nationalist, even at that time cherished the imperialistic motive for India because he already thought in terms of Africa being a possible territory for the expansion of India. If he says that the white man should get out of India, he implies that the white man should be removed from India. Why cannot we then propose that the Indians should be removed from South Africa especially as we are prepared to do it in a not unreasonable manner, but to compensate them and to give them opportunity of making a start elsewhere. If Gandhi says that the white man should get out of India, then we have the right to say that every possible step should be taken to get the Indians out of South Africa. We have noticed recently that prominent Indian leaders in India have taken a threatening attitude towards South Africa as far as the Indian problem is concerned. Some of them said that they wished that India could declare war on South Africa. It was only last week that Dr. Khare, the Commonwealth Relations member of the Indian Government said the following in Nagpuhr in connection with the legislation now before the House—

For that reason I feel that we should try to remove this conflict between us and India, and as I have said, it may become too late for that. I think that if we could obtain the opinion of the Europeans in South Africa particularly, then the feeling will be that this question should be solved along the lines I have indicated. And we need not be afraid of submitting that solution to U.N.O. For these reasons we feel on this side of the House that this Bill should not just be agreed to by this House in two twos. It is an important problem and we should consider all aspects and all possibilities in order to find the very best solution. This proposed solution is not acceptable. We should not let this opportunity pass of finding the right solution because if we do so I fear that we will do inestimable harm to South Africa. I wish therefore to warn the Prime Minister that if he follows the course he has now taken, he will not receive the gratitude of posterity in South Africa, but only its reproach. Because at a time when he was faced with this great problem, when he could have acted judiciously and done the right thing, he did not do so but through hasty action and other considerations he chose the wrong course, the course which from now on will prove to be the wrong course for us, a course which leads to our downfall. I want to express the hope that the Prime Minister will not proceed with his Bill and will not insist that this solution of his is the right one and the only solution, but that he will also consider other courses in order to see whether there is not a better and lasting solution of the problem.

We have had the first alternative suggestion to this Bill presented to this House by the last speaker. The alternative suggestion he proposes is that we should try to get the Indians sent over to India or to some other suitable place in the world. May I point out to the hon. member we have been trying that method since 1927.

Hear, hear.

… and the position has not improved, it has actually become worse. The Bill we have before us is a definite proposal of how we should now attack this problem. On Monday we listened to a large number of speeches on the history of the Indian question in South Africa. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister outlined the proposals of this Bill, and he also outlined the problems we have to face. He, together with others, has given us a historical survey of the Indian question in South Africa from its beginning up to the present time. Now he says we will have to face the future and decide what we intend to do.

I should like to deal with some of the points that have been raised in the debate so far. The hon. Leader of the Opposition, as well as the Deputy-Leader, has referred to the “onbillike posisie dat ag miljoen van ons naturelle net drie verteenwoordigers het en ons nou besluit dat ’n kwart miljoen Indiërs ook drie verteenwoordigers sal hê.”

Jy is ’n bietjie verkeerd. You are making the wrong deduction.

I am not.

Yes, I will tell you just now.

He said they would say that would be unreasonable.

He referred to it and so did the Deputy-Leader. He said in reply it was unreasonable. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, is it any more unreasonable than that we should have two million whites with 150 members? I cannot see that argument carries us anywhere.

It does not carry us anywhere, but nobody used, that argument.

It was used here.

Get Hansard and read it.

I think we do agree— and even the Indians agree—that the policy of our country should be controlled by the white population of South Africa, and we will be forced to have arbitrary figures. That argument, therefore, we can wash out.

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) advanced the argument that because the South African Indian was annoyed and had appealed to India, there was now every excuse for the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to drop this legislation and adopt the Opposition’s amendment. I would point out to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad that most of the Indians we have in our country today are South African born Indians, and they are therefore our subjects, and they are therefore our responsibility. To the Indians here I would also say, as they are South African born subjects, I would advise them to appeal to the South African Government for any help they wish to get, and not to go to overseas governments. They are not subjects of overseas governments, but they are our subjects here, and it is to us they have to look. The Prime Minister also rejected the suggestion of a round table conference with India. That, I think, was perfectly correct. This is a South African problem, and should be solved by South Africa. It is a domestic problem of our country, and we should attend to it ourselves. The majority of South African Indians willingly accept separate residential areas, as they do not wish to live cheek by jowl with the Europeans. Not long ago I spoke to a prominent Indian, one of the members of the Congress, who said: “We go even further. I as a Moslem would not live next to a Hindu. We prefer to live with those who have the same social station and religion that we have.” In the Pretoria Agreement they said that that had always been their principle and they adopted it. The only objection the Indian has today is that he does not want it to be made the law, while in actual practice he wants it. But what difference does it make? If that is what they want it cannot make any difference that they should now be told by law that certain areas are reserved for Europeans. The Indians for generations in India have believed in separation, in different religious sects living together, and they have carried that out. I cannot see why we should listen to this small minority of Indians in South Africa which is today trying to tell us that residential segregation is an insult to them. They know perfectly well that it is not an insult. I want to refer to one remark by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). She told us that industries have under the Pegging Act pushed market gardeners out so as to be able to get cheap labour.

She said this Bill might do it.

I clearly understood her to say that it has already happened, that that is the way industries get cheap industrial labour. But the Pegging Act did not apply outside Durban. It did not apply to the farms. The hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Strauss) says that the present Bill gives us no more than the Pegging Act. I do not think I misunderstood the hon. member there.

Yes, you did.

May I just read out a copy of the resolution that has been handed to the Prime Minister by the president of the Natal Municipal Association—

What right have they to speak for the Indians.

The hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Strauss) said that we were not getting anything beyond what we already have. This association says that we are getting something we did not have.

You are also giving away a lot.

There are many people who do not live in Natal and do not know our problem and who tell us what to do but that means nothing at all. I will refer a little later to what our farmers have to say about it, but just let me read a telegram which has been read before in this House, and which was referred to by the member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz)—

Read the second one.

I have just been handed this one by the hon. member for Johannesburg West (Mr. Tighy)—

The first telegram stated that the United Indian Organisation completely supports the Nationalist Party here.

Do you honestly believe that?

I will now read portion of the petition which all members of Parliament have received from the South African Indian Conference.

Then why bother to read it.

I want to read it to show the relationship between this telegram and this petition—

Can you not understand when you read both these documents….

Which telegram, the first or the second?

The first. And when you read those with the amendment of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition where he says that we should postpone this matter for two years, extending this Pegging Act which does not apply to the farms of Natal but only to Durban and which cannot apply to farmers….

Why not, you can extend it.

Of course you can extend it.

Order Order.

And does not apply to the whole Province, that the Indians say: Extend the Pegging Act; leave us free to buy as many farms as we like; we support Dr. Malan. That is their reason for supporting it. Give them two more years, and let them buy as much as they like. Postpone it. Discuss it. Have Select Committees. Have a joint meeting of the House. Argue amongst yourselves for the next two years and the Indian will be free to buy land in the meantime.

I really did not think you were as stupid as all that.

What has worried the people of Natal who are most concerned is that Indians have been buying more and more land from Europeans, and in this respect the Bill will save us. One man said to me: “The time will come when the Europeans will have the vote and the Indians will have all the land and that is what we have to prevent today.

But now you want to give them both.

The Pegging Act applies to Durban but not to the rest of the Province, and our farmers are very perturbed at the amount of land being sold to Indians today. Rich Indians buy the land but do not farm. The following is an extract from a letter about Zanzibar that I recently received—

What European wants to go to Zanzibar? Have you ever been there.

The same problem applies in East Africa and the question is how to protect the African from the Indian.

There are no Africans in Zanzibar.

I welcome the provisions of the Bill which protect the land both in Natal and in the Transvaal and which will ensure to future generations their portion of the farming and other land. In that connection I want to quote figures I have quoted before in this House. These figures were taken out by D.G.S. in consultation with the Census Department. In January, 1944, it was estimated that the number of Europeans in Natal was 229,000 and the number of Indians 204.200. Under 16 years of age there were 68,000 Europeans and 104,700 Indians. Over 16 there were 161,000 Europeans and 99,500 Indians. It is not necessary then to protect the land for future European generations? And this Bill gives us that protection. It gives us much more than the Pegging Act has given us. It gives us what we are asking for. We are asking for protection but we are taking away some rights, and we must be prepared also to pay a price for it.

And do you get value for your money.

Everyone in Natal will say that they get value. The big problem is to save the land. Although I firmly believe that this is a domestic matter and that no other Government should be allowed to interfere, I also say that no Government, if it wishes to exist, can afford to get completely out of step with world opinion. We have to watch our step as regards world opinion. World opinion allows us to protect ourselves, but it also insists on justice to those under our rule. That is one of the reasons also why we are prepared to give the franchise to Indians. The world demands fair play for our subject people. We can show that we are giving them fair play. We give them an opportunity through their representatives to put their views before the highest court of the land. That is something which even though today the Indians do not want it, they have no right to deny to their future generations. It is something they should cherish. We know we are paying fair value for what we get. They do not consider it to be fair value at the moment, but the day will come when they will realise that we had a Government which did the right thing, and which did not take their rights from them without giving them just payment. We as legislators have a great responsibility. We believe that the best and wisest form of government is government of the people by the people and that if we could give every section of our people representation, we should be getting nearer to the ideal state. It is recognised that South Africa is the testing laboratory of the world as regards the colour question. In Africa today we have 155 million people, and we have 4 million whites altogether on the continent. In South Africa we have about 2½ million whites and 8 million natives, apart from the other coloured races. It is to us in Southern Africa that the world is looking. We are carrying out a great experiment and the world wants to see the results. It may be that today we are not only establishing policy for South Africa but also world policy, because we are tackling one of the most difficult problems, a problem which has been stated to be completely unsolvable. I do not say this is a complete solution, but it is a step in the right direction, and as long as one takes steps in the right direction, eventually one must reach the goal. When, as in our case, the policy lies in the hands of Europeans, there is a special obligation placed on us Europeans to see that all sections of the community have justice meted out to them. It is more than an obligation. It is actually self-preservation, and I am thankful to the Prime Minister for having had the courage to lead us here and not to go on postponing this problem forever, but for putting something concrete before us. He is the only man who has ever yet done that for us and therefore we are prepared to stand by him. He is carrying on courageously, and we will support him. This Bill has been criticised but we must look at the ultimate result. We must build up a harmonious relationship between all sections of the community, and our subject peoples will then give us their respect and will become if they are not so already — some of them are not so — loyal South Africans. If we fail to pass this Bill this year, the responsibility for the position in which we will find ourselves by merely postponing it will rest on the members of Parliament who served in this House in the year 1946. I commend this Bill to the House, and sincerely hope that it will be accepted, although it is open to us to make alterations in the Committee stage, and if we can improve it, let us do so, but let us pass something definite now. With regard to the working of this Bill, its success will depend on the way it is administered, and I hope that we shall be very careful in appointing the boards, that we shall have men on the boards who have studied the problem and know it. We want men of the highest character serving on our boards, and we want to be able to correct any mistakes that may be made. If an area has been declared wrongly, we want to be able to correct these mistakes.

How will you correct it after Indians have settled in that area?

If Indians live in a free area and a man wants to, say, open an industry there, and they are prepared to sell land to him, what is wrong in doing that? If in addition he wants areas nearby for his European employees to live there, they might meet him. I believe that everyone should have his own house. These are the sort of things which we have to be able to correct.

If the Prime Minister area and a man wants, say, to open an earnest effort to show why this Bill should go to a Select Committee before it is further dealt with. Far be it from any of us on any side of the House to come forward with refractory or perverse proposals when the Government is dealing with such a serious problem to our country. In any event I am very pleased to say that I was pleasantly surprised by practically all the speeches to which I listened in this debate. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister stated in the course of his speech that he felt that someone had the right to ask for a Select Committee. For that reason he stated in advance that he hoped that it would not be necessary to refer this measure to a Select Committee. Now I want to ask him with all due deference to listen to the following reasons: We are dealing here with a Bill which embodies an altogether new principle, a principle which has been unknown hitherto in connection with the relationship between the Indian community and European South Africa. It is an entirely new principle, and when we accept a new principle in this House I should like the Government and the Prime Minister to be able to say that public opinion in South Africa endorses their view, that the population which is charged with the duty of governing the country approves of this legislation before it is moved in this House. The question may be asked what evidence there is? I say that when addressing the House this is not the place to produce evidence. Here we express our opinion; we do not produce evidence here. When the House requires any evidence the House appoints a Select Committee, and I say that a measure such as this should be based on facts, and the very first fact which must be taken into account is to what extent the people of South Africa are in agreement with this measure, to what extent public opinion supports this idea. There is no evidence that there is any measure of support in the country for this measure. For the moment I am confining my remarks to that section of the Bill which deals with the franchise, not the question of delimitation. The question of delimitation is a matter with which I shall deal later. I say that there is not the slightest justification to say that the people of South Africa accept this measure. Then there is another argument which I want to mention. Telegrams are freely quoted in this House, and the House is not in a position to know whether these telegrams are genuine or not. This House does not know by whom these telegrams were inspired. But when you have a Select Committee the Select Committee can go into the matter and determine whether these telegrams in question actually interpret the view of the Indian community. The Select Committee can thoroughly go into the question to what extent the European population support this measure, and there is no evidence in that connection. In accepting this new principle there is another question that we ought to ask ourselves, namely, to what extent this measure conforms to the objects and aims of democracy. One of the underlying motives of this Bill is to give so-called democratic rights to the Indians in this country. We cannot get away from that. In what form are we giving democratic rights to the Indians? What right have we to describe as democratic rights these rights that we are giving to a section of the population when we know full well that we are giving these rights to a small group of enriched Indians? How can we say that we are giving representation to the Indian population as such? We are going to give representation only to a certain number of privileged Indians. That point should be thoroughly investigated by a Select Committee. We cannot act only on loose telegrams which are quoted in this House. We do not know what value we can attach to those telegrams. We do not know who inspired these telegrams. The third point I want to make is whether this is not going to give representation merely to a handful of enriched Indians. It is my opinion—and I think in this respect I shall have the support of the whole House—that the people to whom we are giving this representation, namely, this handful of privileged Indians, were not imported into South Africa, rightly or wrongly, to work in the sugar plantations. But these are Indians who came here at their own risk because South Africa was an El Dorado for business people; and if it is alleged that these people who are flourishing in this country today did not come here at their own risk, then I say that those privileged people are the last people in South Africa who have any right to be dissatisfied, because if originally they were not amongst those poor Indians who were imported into this country, then they came from a country where they were poor and where they worked under conditions of slavery, and they have enriched themselves in this country. I say that those people have no right at all to level the reproach at this Government that they have not been fairly treated, because where did they accumulate the wealth they have today? They enriched themselves in this country. These are matters which can be thrashed out before a Select Committee. In this House we can only express our opinion; we cannot produce evidence here, and for that reason this matter should go to a Select Committee. In the fourth place I want to know to what extent this measure represents a departure from the previous policy and what it means for the future. To what extent are we departing completely from the recognised policy which was laid down in the past? To what extent are we departing not only from the policy which was laid down in the past, but to what extent are we coming into direct conflict with the policy which was laid down by this Government and which was recognised by the Indian Government? This is another matter which ought to be thrashed out thoroughly before a Select Committee. We must remember that this is a policy which applies to a section of the population and which has the support of another country with whom we do not want to be on terms of enmity. We must ask ourselves, therefore, what justification there is for entirely departing from that recognised policy. I have already stated that this is not the place to produce evidence to prove our contention; we can only express our opinion, but I am in a position to give this information to the House, with which the Prime Minister is familiar, but to which I am obliged to draw his attention. I refer to the fact that it has never been recognised in the past that the Indian community forms a permanent part of the people of South Africa. I just want to support that with the information at my disposal and then I want to leave it to the House to judge what value the House can attach to it. I am reading from the memorandum which was submitted to the Prime Minister recently by the City Council of Durban, in October, 1945. There we find that it is alleged by the City Council—and it is a historical fact—

Not the Transvaal—

Now we come to this important passage—

This is the official document in which it is stated that the Indian community is not regarded as a permanent part of the population of the Union. I now come to the letter of the Minister of the Interior to which reference is made here—

Perhaps that is one of the Government’s reasons, but he goes on to say—

What was the reply of the Indian community at that time to this attitude on the part of the Government? What was the attitude of India herself at that time? What was their opinion? Let us see what was the attitude of all the parties concerned. Let me again quote from the memorandum of the Durban City Council—

Speaking for India and for the Indian community he said—

That is the Indian Government—

That is the South African Government—

When I came to my fourth point I said that we were entirely departing from the recognised and accepted policy laid down in the past. Let us take it that the Prime Minister agrees that the repatriation scheme failed. Let us accept that. In that case, I say that when introducing a new policy which is in direct conflict with the policy laid down in the past, it is definitely not refractoriness on our part on this side of the House when we ask that in adopting a new policy it should be based entirely on facts, and that we should get those facts both from the Europeans in this country and the Indian community as well as from the natives; in other words, that the population of South Africa as a whole should say what their opinion is about giving the Indian the franchise on this basis. But apart from the accepted policy, in conflict with which we are now acting, can we justify this measure by saying that it is being taken in pursuance of the spirit of the agreements which have been entered into from time to time? Are we still acting in the spirit of the agreement of 1927; are we still acting in the spirit of the agreement of 1932? Again I am merely giving my opinion, but I feel that it should be left to a Select Committee to determine whether we are not acting in direct conflict with the spirit of previous agreements. I cannot produce any data in this House; this is not the place for it, but this is a matter which should be examined by a Select Committee.

Now we come to another matter which should be thoroughly investigated by the Government, in respect of which every member in this House and the people outside and the country as a whole will eagerly support the Government, i.e., if the Government will undertake to find out who the Indians are who are protesting so vehemently against segregation, who maintain that South Africa has been treating them so badly and is still treating them badly? Who are those people? Are they the masses who have obtained better conditions in this country than the conditions under which they lived in the country from which they came? Is it the handful of rich people who are employing all the agitators in the world to make a hullabaloo here and to oppose this measure? Then the question also arises what role India herself is playing in this agitation. The Government ought to ascertain those facts, because we are being told that we will be taken to UNO to be put on trial. I do not think anyone in the world will be more pleased than I if that happens, and no one will have a better case than the Government of South Africa, because I imagine that if the Government of South Africa compares the conditions of the masses in India with the conditions of the Indians in South Africa, the Union Government ought to emerge from that trial as brilliant victors, and for that reason the Government ought to ascertain who those agitators are. It was said here today by an hon. member that the Indians would not be satisfied if they were given representation in this House. We know that. We know how they have carried on in the past. If we give them three representatives in this House they will demand in the near future that they are entitled to more, and as soon as we give them more representatives they will complain that they are being oppressed, that we are discriminating against them, and they will demand that they, too, should have the right to have a member in the Cabinet, and as soon as they have a member in the Cabinet they will ask why an Indian cannot be Prime Minister of this country. We are dealing here with insatiable demands. Then I come back to the seventh reason that I mentioned in passing, and that is what role India herself is playing in this agitation. The Government can ascertain by means of a Select Committee and through the presence of the Agent-General in South Africa to what extent this agitation has been set afoot overseas. We cannot do it in this House, but before a Select Committee we can determine to what extent the agitation in this country is being inspired overseas, and by which movement it is being inspired. We ought to know all those facts when we seek to lay down a new policy.

Then we come to another reason. In such a Select’ Committee it can be ascertained immediately on what grounds the Government is prepared to give political rights to the Indian in the Transvaal, which the Government is not prepared to give to the coloured person, and the Select Committee can then ascertain what repercussions it will have on the 40,000 coloured persons in the Transvaal, and what repercussions it will have on the majority of the natives of the Transvaal who at least belong to this country, when the franchise is given to the Indians without their having asked for it and although it is denied to the coloured persons. Those facts can only be cleared up by a Select Committee which could obtain all the relevant facts in that connection. In this House we can only state our opinions. The Government has a golden opportunity to prepare its case in advance. If we are reported to the United Nations we will at least have all the facts. The Select Committee could go into this matter properly and make a comparison between the social and political rights of the Indians in this country and the rights of the Indians in India. I say that such a comparison could then be made. Although I am not a member of the Government party today, I nevertheless remain responsible for and to a certain extent proud of this country that I represent, and when it comes to the question of war, it is my bounden duty to support my country without question, and when there is a possibility of my country and my Government being put on trial before the tribunal of the nations, I should like to see that our case is properly prepared so that we may be protected from accusations which are false and so that we shall be in a position to justify our case in the eyes of the world. We cannot do that unless we appoint a Select Committee. We cannot do it in this House. We can only do it if we appoint a Select Committee to ascertain all these facts. I can assure the Government that no one would be more anxious than such a Select Committee to get all the relevant information in the interests of the people of South Africa, and in the interests of the Government, so that the Government will be able to go to the United Nations with a clean record and say: “These are the conditions under which the Indians in South Africa are living; this is the position of the Indians who, it is alleged, are being oppressed, and these are the conditions in India. This is the complete picture.” I definitely reject the tendency on the part of some people in this country to make the world believe from time to time that the Union Government is the greatest oppressor of the native population or the Indian population. On the contrary— and no one can accuse me of saying this in order to white-wash any party—I think that as far as the treatment of the nonEuropean races is concerned, we compare favourably with any part of the world, especially when it comes to the general conditions amongst the lower classes.

Now we come to a very important point, and I should like the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to give his serious attention to this matter. This measure is going to have far-reaching consequences for European South Africa, for the coloured population and for the native population. If I understood the Prime Minister correctly the other day when he spoke, he described it as a faux pas or a mistake to have imported Indians into this country in order to supply the labour market. Since we are departing from the policy laid down in the past, since we are now going to take the step of giving the Indians further rights of citizenship, without their having asked for it, rights of citizenship for which, I may say quite frankly, I am not prepared to vote at this stage because I am definitely opposed to the granting of the franchise to the Indians, especially for the reason that scarcely had the Government announced that it was going to introduce this Bill or an enormous agitation was set afoot. In these circumstances I say that no one can accuse us if we bluntly refuse to give the Indians any measure of control in Parliament until such time as they satisfy and convince the country that they no longer regard themselves as an appendix of India but that they regard themselves as part of the population of this country, and since they expressed the opinion only a short while ago that they do not want to remain here permanently, I am opposed to this legislation as far as the granting of the franchise to the Indians is concerned. Now I want to put the following question to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister can see very far into the future, but it seems to me that sometimes I can see just a little further; of course, it depends where we stand. I want to ask him to reconsider this matter very carefully before granting the franchise to the Indians as proposed in this Bill. When the people of South Africa indicate their willingness and when they express the opinion before a Select Committee that the Indians should be given a measure of say in this country, the Government will then have a good case to give the franchise to the Indians, but until such time as the opinion of the population as a whole has been obtained, this is a dangerous step, and the time may come when we shall regret the fact that this House decided to give the franchise to the Indians. If this measure goes through, we shall have a bloc of six members in this House representing the Indians and the natives. When that day comes the natives may just as well forget about representation, because this bloc of six that we shall have here will to all intents and purposes be Indian representation, because this small section of Indians who are demanding these rights know how to make their influence felt and they will endeavour to bring compulsion to bear on the other representatives in this House who are not chosen direct by the people. Indirect representation is subject to the greatest danger, and very often I feel sorry for the three members who represent the natives in this House. It is one of the most dangerous forms of representation imaginable. The only trustworthy democratic representation is by the man or woman who is chosen direct by the people. I think the House is more than ever convinced of the fact that this form of representation does not pay. This is not representation. It is dangerous and I visualise that the time may arrive when this bloc of six in the House may be under the influence of another country. No matter how one argues that bloc will not be under South African influence. It will always be under Indian influence. It may be the deciding factor in this House and it may bring the Government to a fall at the will of India and not at the will of South Africa. This is a very dangerous thing. Now we come to the question of delimitation. I think the provisions in this Bill with regard to delimitation will give entire satisfaction to the country, provided the delimitation takes place in a reasonable way. But I am under the impression that the Prime Minister stated on a previous occasion that the established rights are not to be interfered with. My constituency is one of those which throughout these years has suffered under this problem. In my constituency there is an area in the heart of the town into which all sections have penetrated, and if this Bill is passed that position will remain unaltered. I think the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will discover, if he appoints a Select Committee, that it is the wish of the people in the urban areas as well as in the platteland areas — and this is the most reasonable solution in the minds of all reasonable people — that we must have an unassailable policy of segregation and not the policy that we have at present, namely, that there will still be open and mixed areas where there will be a repetition of the existing evils. In other words, the solution which the Prime Minister hopes to provide by means of this legislation will be no solution. On the Witwatersrand, and particularly in my constituency, the problem will remain just as acute as it has been in the past, and if there is one area in South Africa which has the right to talk, it is that area. Do you know what the town council of my constituency did? The Minister of the Interior is familiar with the state of affairs in my constituency. He congratulated us. My town council set aside a block of land where they proposed to give every facility to the Indians to establish a modern town, and do you know what their reply was? They consistently refused. In other words, as the city council correctly points out in this document, in Durban too, there is not the slightest sign of willingness to co-operate in order to solve this problem in a gentlemanly way. There is no such thing. Perhaps that is the reason why the Prime Minister feels that he ought to take the whole matter into his own hands and do what his conscience dictates. I do not doubt for a moment that the Prime Minister feels that he is doing the right thing. But in dealing with such an involved and serious matter, I feel that the Prime Minister is unduly hasty, that he proposes to push this measure through the House in a short space of time so that the whole country will be astounded and wonder what happened, and within a short space of time we may discover that we will have cause deeply to regret this step which is being taken here. I want to put this question to the Prime Minister in all seriousness, and I think his own party supporters in the platteland will agree with me when I say that before giving the Indians these citizenship rights he should take time to consider this matter further. No one can accuse the Prime Minister that he is unfair if he extends and improves the present measures so that he may have a full opportunity to place this whole question on a sound footing, with a view to attaining his objective. But surely the Prime Minister will feel at once that here he is going to create a new political situation, the foundation of which is extremely dangerous, and which contains the germs of a class struggle. You will have a continual struggle; the Indians will always blame us, and the natives will always query the rights of the Indians. There will always be a struggle in regard to their respective rights, and I should like to know whether the Prime Minister has given his attention to this aspect, that in giving this representation to the natives and in giving this representation to the Indians he will practically call into being in this country a council of nationalities. The only country, as far as I know, where such a council exists is Russia. Are all the other races not going to ask for the same thing at some future date? The natives will later say: “We are divided into various races; some of us are Basutos; some of us are Xosas, and we also want a council of nationalities.” We are adopting a dangerous policy here.

The Jews will also ask for it.

I do not want the Prime Minister to think for a single moment that I want to delay the passage of this Bill, but I would prefer to see this Bill delayed for a few days or for a few weeks so that we can lay a sound foundation. Here we are accepting something which we may regret in the future, and if more time is devoted to it and more data collected, and if the opinion of the nation as a whole is obtained to a greater extent, you will have much more satisfaction in the long run than you will have if you rush this matter through the House.

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

The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg) is unfortunately not in his place, but I think I can congratulate the hon. member on the speech he made here today.

He will be glad to hear that.

It is perhaps more than anyone can say of any speech made by the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll). We think we can congratulate the hon. member for Krugersdorp on the stand he has taken in connection with this Bill. Apart from the fact that there are many points of difference between us and the Labour Party on several questions in South Africa, the hon. member for Krugersdorp has today taken a line which corresponds more with the policy of this party than it does with the policy of the Left Wing of the Labour Party. If this is a new manifestation of an intelligent approach to matters, even by a section of the Labour Party, it is something that we in South Africa can welcome; but if one looks at the Labour Party which until recently has been the ally of the party opposite, and which perhaps remains still largely under the influence of their co-operation with that party over the course of six years, no one can assume that they will be prejudiced in favour of the standpoint we on this side adopt. One can more readily deduce that the standpoint they would take up would be an objective standpoint, merely to decide this issue on its merits. It is very refreshing to see that persons who are in a position to pass an objective judgment are, without exception, dissatisfied with this legislation, and their attitude in connection with it is the same as that which has been announced from this side…

The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson), who was the last speaker on the other side, frequently got worked up and heated, and the more heated he became the further did he wander from the realities of the case. I do not want to deal with his whole speech, but there are two points in his speech on which he became especially warm, and where he was all at sea. He tried to build up a sound argument on a false premise. He said that the Leader of the Opposition had stated that if three representatives are given to 250,000 Indians, we could work out for ourselves how many members 8,500,000 natives should have. This is precisely what the Leader of the Opposition did not say. What he really said is this: If we give three seats in the Assembly to 250,000 Indians, then the eight million natives, 24 times the number of Indians, will demand that they are entitled to much greater representation in this House than they have already. On this false premise, representing the words of the Leader of the Opposition as he did, he tried to build up an argument. I do not need to go further into that argument, because it breaks down on account of the premise having been wrong. On the second point, he became still more excited. He suggested the reason why the Indians sent that telegram in which they said that they agreed with the Nationalist Party that the Bill should be rejected. The reason was supposed to be that the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition is that he wishes to extend the Pegging Act for two years, so that a Joint Select Committee could investigate the matter further in order to obtain a better solution of the problem. His argument was that this is exactly what the Indians want, because under the limited powers of the Pegging Act they will find it possible to acquire an enormous quantity of the platteland of Natal

That is quite correct.

Yes, but that is not what the Leader of the Opposition said, nor is it what he proposed. He saw that difficulty, and if the hon. member for Newcastle reads our amendment he will see that it is stated there that the Pegging Act should undergo the necessary alteration in order to ensure that in the interim the position in Natal will not deteriorate. Those were the two principal points in the speech of the hon. member for Newcastle. Both are based on a misconception of what this side has stated and proposed I do not wish to go further into his speech. These are the two main things he said, and they are both wrong.

The proposal that has been made by this side is that we must be given two years in South Africa to try to solve the coloured question in its wider aspects. The remark was repeatedly made from the opposite side that we should hurry, that we must get this Bill through, and why should this legislation be delayed, What does it amount to in the history of South Africa whether this legislation should go through within 14 days or after two years? Two years is a drop in the ocean in the history of South Africa, but what is more important is that when we are searching for a solution of the thorniest subject in the country, it is necessary that we should set to work in a judicious manner and not rush through legislation that should really be given our attention over a period of years. The colour question is the most important problem with which we have to deal. We cannot dispose of this problem piecemeal in a hurried and superficial manner. We must give an opportunity to all sides of the House, to every interest in the country and every opinion in the country to pass a proper judgment on it, and in that way solve the problem in a way that will assure the future of European civilisation in South Africa. This is not a problem with which you can trifle. There are two policies which South Africa can adopt in the future. There is the policy we adopted in the past—the dominance of western civilisation that we wish to safeguard. There is the other policy which implies the watering down of this western civilisation. There may be people who wish to adopt the other policy, the watering down of western civilisation as we know it in this country. We have to choose between these two policies. There may be people who wish to see the country progressing in accordance with western civilisation. There may be others who wish to see it diluted by another element, so that it will develop in another direction. I stand for the maintenance of the western civilisation in South Africa as we know it. The majority of us stand for that, and we shall do our best to safeguard that western civilisation in South Africa. When I say that we stand for the maintenance of western civilisation I do not mean for a single moment that in maintaining it we should do any injustice to the other elements in South Africa. What we stand for is that we must keep South Africa in the future on the course it has followed in the past, and that we must be certain that European civilisation in South Africa will be maintained in future.

I return for a moment to the question of a postponement for two years. We have had experience of something similar in the past. In connection with the native laws we had the Select Committee and the committee which was comprised of members of both Houses. That committee sat for several years. When it commenced with its work there were tremendously divergent opinions as to the solution, but after the committee worked more and more on the Bills they began to understand each other’s opinions about them, and eventually we had legislation on which, with the exception of certain details, there was a large measure of unanimity. The proposals that the Joint Committee of both Houses presented to Parliament were unanimous. I mention this to show that here where there was a much wider difference of opinion than in connection with the present subject it was possible in that way to obtain a common opinion and a large measure of unanimity. If it was possible to do this in connection with the native legislation I am convinced that if we come together at a round table we shall achieve a much greater measure of unanimity than we obtained in connection with the native legislation.

We have this position that many members on the other side have been virtually forced to support this Bill. Some of them are doing it in silence while others stand up and try to justify their attitude. They are really apologising for their attitude, but I am convinced that many of the members on the other side hold precisely the same opinion on this legislation as we do. There are members on the other side who have risen and said they would vote for the Bill not because they like it but because in the circumstances it is the only thing they can do.

That is not so.

That was the attitude of the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp), that was the attitude of the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson). There are many members on the other side who feel exactly as we do.

You are dreaming.

This is a serious problem and the hon. member can well leave it to serious people. I am perfectly convinced that if we follow this course we shall find that such a committee dealing with this Bill would eventually be enabled to present unanimous proposals to this House, proposals which will be well thought out and which will not be superficial and hurried legislation, but legislation which will deal with this problem, not as a minor problem that can stand on its own but as part of the larger colour problem in the country.

Why cannot it be done now?

That hon. member will not be able to do anything after two years nor after twenty years. I am speaking of people who will be able to do something in two years. It is wrong to bring such a serious matter so suddenly before the House and to push it through within a few weeks. It is wrong to do it as a result of the seriousness and extent of the problem, and it is wrong because it is a problem which does not stand alone but which will have repercussions on other problems in the country. Consequently sufficient time must be given for its consideration.

There is a further criticism I would address to the Prime Minister. This is not a new problem, it is an old problem. Why has the Prime Minister waited until now to introduce it — practically until a crisis had arisen? This is the complaint we have against the Prime Minister. It is always necessary to have a crisis for him to function. If we look back into history we find time and again when problems begin to develop he does not tackle them while there is time to do so easily but he waits until there is a crisis, for a time in which to make an emotional approach to the subject when people cannot treat it in a calm and logical way, and in that time of crisis he suddenly takes action. We only need to refer to the strike of 1922. I do not wish to go into details. We knew that that strike was brewing and the Minister did nothing. He allowed it to develop to a crisis, and when the crisis was there he took action, and drastic action. The same thing occurred with the difficulties at Bulhoek. The same occurred with the Bondelswart difficulties. The same occurred with the strike we had the other day on the Witwatersrand. In all these instances it was his policy that things should take their course; he observes in which direction they are going and he takes no steps before a crisis arrives. This is not our policy, nor is it the right policy. We must not wait until a problem has reached a crisis. We must solve it before the feelings of the people begin to run high and before an emotional approach makes the solution more difficult. What we are doing here is not solving the problem in a calm and reasoned manner, but we are endeavouring to reach a permanent solution during a period of crisis. The Prime Minister has made peace several times in South Africa and in the rest of the world, and he knows that an emotional time of crisis is the worst time to try to reach a solution of a problem. He will recall how he refused to sign the Treaty of Versailles because he thought it was bad to draw up a treaty of a permanent character during a period of emotional crisis. Here we have the same thing in South Africa. In comparision it is a smaller matter but to us it is a very important matter. An emotional time of crisis is not the time to look for a permanent solution of the problem. It cannot be approached then in a calm manner; we cannot obtain a reasoned solution of the difficulty. What are the consequences of this hurried measure we have before us? When one looks at it you find that there is hardly anyone who is satisfied with the Bill. This side is not satisfied and the overwhelming majority of members on the other side are not satisfied.

How do you know that?

They are not satisfied. The hon. member for Drakensberg has told us that the Bill must be altered. This is clear proof that he is not satisfied with it. He hopes the Bill will be improved. The native representatives are not satisfied; the Indians are not satisfied, and no one is satisfied. This is a baby that the Prime Minister has placed on the doorstep, and no one is satisfied with it. Perhaps they are not satisfied with it because they are dissatisfied with the father. In connection with the section covering the property provisions Natal is supposed to be satisfied. No one can tell me that Natal wants Indians to sit in their Provincial Council. This is the price that they would have to pay, but they do not want it. We know the crisis that arose in the Prime Minister’s own party over the question of Indians in the Provincial Council in the Transvaal. Later the concession was made that they would have representation not by Indians but by Europeans in this Parliament. Cape Town is definitely not satisfied with the Bill, because it will have repercussions which will within a short period lead to a crisis in Cape Town. This Bill should satisfy the Indians in Natal and the Transvaal. That is the object of the Bill. Can the Prime Minister tell me that he has succeeded in that? I have before me a report of meetings held yesterday in Pretoria and in Johannesburg, and if half of what is stated here is the truth the Indians as a whole are dissatisfied. But in connection with one meeting there is a point which I take strong exception to. It is the point that certain of our religious denominations in South Africa are meddling with this problem with which they have nothing to do, a problem which is very difficult to solve in South Africa and in connection with which they have not been asked to intervene. I shall read from a report in this meeting as published in the Cape Times—

Hear, hear.

You must remember that here they are taking exception to the “herrenvolk” attitude of the Prime Minister himself. The report continues—

I do not want to stand up here and argue against the Anglican Church….

Leave that to the Minister of Lands.

…. But all the same, I want to say this, that I very much regret that a church with a status of the Anglican Church should meddle with this very delicate problem we are called on to solve here in South Africa, and that the meddling of the Anglican Church is not meddling that will contribute to making a solution of this problem any easier; they are mixing up with a set of agitators who are trying to make the matter difficult for the future.

Political parsons, Andrew.

Now I shall go on to say what was stated by some of the Indians—

At the beginning of my speech I said that this was a very important problem, and that we should endeavour to solve it, and when we criticise amongst ourselves we should not do it in a flippant manner. I am sorry that there are certain sections on the other side who apparently do not realise at all the seriousness of the problem, but who sit here and jabber like a bunch of schoolchildren on a picnic. We have come here to take up this matter seriously, and if they cannot do it let them take their frivolity to a place where it is more appropriate. We are now dealing with the Indians who take up that attitude, that uncompromising attitude. It is a question that affects the Indian population very seriously, and when you try to look for a solution and try to look for it objectively, you have at least the right to expect that these people for whom we are introducing this legislation in the Assembly will approach this matter and deal with it objectively, but when you note this attitude of absolutely no compromise taken up by the leaders of the Indian population, when you listen to the threats they hurl at white South Africa, then you ask yourself whether it is worth while giving these people representation in the Assembly. Is it right to give these people representation in the Natal Provincial Council and to give the Transvaal and Natal Indians representation? It is the class of people who say these things who are going to sit in the Natal Provincial Council. Are they going to approach matters there from an objective standpoint? Are they going to attempt there to make this legislation easier for the future, or are they going to use the Provincial Council only as a place to disseminate propaganda and to spread this sort of propaganda? Now we are going to have three Indian representatives in the Assembly. Many unflattering things have been said by people who know the Indians well; many unflattering things have been said about the Indian community in South Africa. If half of those things are true, I am convinced that the people who will represent the Indians in Parliament will not really be a great credit to this Assembly. I look now at the representatives of the natives in this House. We often differ from them; we differ a great deal from them; we differ from them almost as much as the Minister of Native Affairs differs from them. But we have great respect for them as individuals. But we know the class of people that like the Indians, and that associate with the Indians in their business and financial affairs, and I fear that the people we shall have in this Assembly will be white editions of this Rev. Sigamoney and these people who made these statements at the meetings in Johannesburg, and that they will never come here to try to make this legislation work better; they will not come here to smooth the relations between Indians and Europeans, but they will come here as agitators filled’ with the ideas of the Rev. Sigamoney and others who appeared with him on that platform in Johannesburg. We want to solve this question; we all want to solve it; we want to establish a better relationship between the Indians and the Europeans. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger), who sits there, said in her speech that she could not say that the relationship between European and native has improved by the fact that there are three representatives of the natives in the Assembly.

Do you believe that?

I want to endorse that. The relationship between European and native has not thereby improved. What right then have we to assume that the relationship between European and Indian will improve by giving the Indian representation in the House? Will things not take the same course, and as apparently we shall have to deal with people who are of a different type to the native representatives in this House I predict that the relationship between the Europeans and Indians will greatly deteriorate and that the conduct of the Indian representatives in the Assembly will not improve the relationship in the future, but that it will make our future relationship between European and Indian much more difficult than what it has been in the past.

Now I want to return to the point that the hon. member for Newcastle misunderstood at the commencement, and I would just say this. We are going to give the Indians in the Transvaal and in Natal representation here in the Assembly. There are at the moment 28,700 in the Transvaal. Let me just say what the figures are; they are the latest figures in the Year Book for 1941. It has been corrected until 1941, but not until 1946. We have the right to assume, if the growth has been the same as in the past that the figure is now probably over 30,000. But I am basing my arguments on the figure for 1941. We are now going to give representation in the Assembly to 28,700 Asiatics in the Transvaal. There are 56,000 coloured people in the Transvaal, and those 56,000 coloured people, just twice the number of Indians in the Transvaal, are going to demand that they too should have representation in this House, and their claim is going to be a stronger one than that of the Indians, because the Indian is a man who came comparatively recently to South Africa, and in few instances have they been in South Africa for more than one or two generations, while these coloured people have lived in South Africa for centuries. This is their only country, and they are going to say that if the 28,000 new immigrants in the Transvaal are going to have representation in the Assembly they, with their 56,000, have much more right to representation in the Assembly.

What is your reply to that?

I would only say that for me it would be very easy to oppose the grant of the franchise to the coloureds in the Transvaal because I am opposed to the franchise being granted to the Indians in the Transvaal. But it is going to be very difficult for members on the other side of the House who have advocated that 28,000 Indians in the Transvaal should have representation. It will be very difficult for them to refuse to grant representation to the 56,000 coloureds in the Transvaal. But it is not only the Transvaal where this new claim is going to arise. It will arise in the Free State and in Natal. At the moment the position in Natal is that they have about 21,000 coloureds, and these 21,000 coloureds in Natal are going to claim that they are also entitled to ask for representation in the Assembly if representation is given in the Assembly to 28,000 Indians in the Transvaal.

But they have it.

Rubbish.

In the Free State you have the position that there are approximately 18,000 coloureds and in Natal and the Free State together there are 39,000 coloureds. Those 39,000 coloureds in Natal and in the Free State together are not going to accept that representation can be given in Parliament to a smaller number in the Transvaal without them also having representation. The position is that as you are giving representation in this House to 28,000 Indians in the Transvaal there are in the three northern provinces 94,000 coloureds to whom you are not giving representation, and I ask any man who is advocating that those 28,000 Indians in the Transvaal should be given representation in the Assembly how he can refuse the claim of the 94,000 coloureds in the northern provinces. I should not like to be in the shoes of hon. members on the other side of the House.

In conclusion I wish to refer to one other aspect of this problem, namely, the repercussions that are going to occur in the Cape Province. We cannot close our eyes to it. One of the greatest objections that the Natalians have, that everyone has to the Indian problem, is the way in which the Indians purchase land and business sites and houses in Natal. The principal object of this Bill is to stop that unrestricted purchase by Indians in the northern provinces. There we have unanimity. It is one of the objectives of this Bill. But there is an enormous amount of capital in the hands of Indians in South Africa and as soon as you start damming up the usual channels in which that capital flows, that capital must flow in another direction, and the only direction in which that Indian capital can flow for investment will be in the Cape Province, where they can buy land without restriction. Do you know what the position is? Do you know that in the Cape Province a prohibited immigrant who is an Indian can own land, and when land is bought by an Indian in the Cape Province no enquiry is even made whether he is permitted to live in the Cape Province. He may not have the right to live in the Cape Province, but he may own land and businesses in the Cape Province, and we have tangible evidence that that Indian capital from the north that will now be dammed is already beginning to flow to the Cape Province, and it is flowing very quickly in the Cape Province. I can only give these figures to the House. I compare 1943 with 1945 and my figures are taken from the Deeds Office in Cape Town, and they relate to the part covered by the Cape Deeds Office. In 1943 there was an average of 30 purchases by Indians in that area monthly. In 1945 the figure had risen to 48 per month. In other words, in 1943 land was bought by 360 Indians in this Area and in 1945 by 585 Indians, and the value of the land bought by Indians in the area of Cape Town, according to the Deeds Office, was in 1945 very close on three quarters of a million pounds. Of the 585 properties bought by Indians in the Cape Province 336 were bought from Europeans. You can say it is wrong that Europeans should do this, but that is not the point. The point is that it is being done, and the point is that that flow of capital that is blocked in the North has to flow in another channel, and the channel is here in the Cape Province. As my time is now up I would just say in conclusion that we are creating a problem in the Cape Province without solving the problem in the North, and one of these days another crisis will come and it will perhaps be the first occasion on which the Prime Minister will take action, and then it may be too late to solve that crisis in the Cape Province.

I do not wish to add to the difficulties, and they are great, which confront the Prime Minister in connection with this measure, but I think it would be wrong not to state that I and some other members of this House, as well as many supporters of the Government outside the House, view this measure with distaste, and will swallow it with reluctance. Even at this eleventh hour I would have preferred a further attempt along the lines recommended by the Broome Commission to try, by means of a round table conference, to reach some arrangement by which we could have agreed separation instead of imposed separation, and I would have preferred the suggestion made by the Broome Commission in favour of a common roll with a loaded franchise, to which the Indians agreed, adopted rather than the communal franchise now suggested in this Bill. In this House we have had only two political amendments. I am not at present referring to the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). We have had an amendment from the Labour Party asking for a Select Committee. With what object? A Select Committee to ascertain facts. Be we know the facts. The issue before the House and the country is not a question of the extent of the segregation to be carried out. The issue is not a question of discovering details as to whether the communal or the common roll will be better. That we all know. The issue before the House are on matters of principle upon which members either agree or disagree, and therefore, as regards the Labour Party’s amendment, they are proposing a Select Committee which will merely delay the Bill. The Labour Party is in favour of segregation. In fact, judging by some of the statements made, I think they would even go further than the Government has gone, but as far as the franchise is concerned, they have not told us yet, in spite of many requests, whether they favour the communal franchise, the common roll, or no franchise at all for the Indians, and I think in fairness to the House and the country, they should, before the debate comes to a conclusion, make clear their view.

Then we have another amendment from the Nationalist Party, and whilst I would be inclined to agree with the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Sauer) that a delay of one or two years is not very serious, my serious objection to that amendment is that they seek to import into this problem another problem. In their suggestion for a joint committee of both Houses, they seek to import the question of the whole coloured population. That is not before the House, and as far as I am concerned we know that any attempt to alter the status of the coloured people would be entirely contrary to the policy which in the past was advocated by the Nationalist Party, and particularly by the late Gen. Hertzog, who always objected to treating the coloured people on a basis of segregation, or on a basis of communal franchise. It is also an issue on which the Prime Minister and the S.A. Party have been very clear. In this connection I hope, and I am sure, that the House and the country will not go back in the direction of further retrogressive measures, but will go forward and rather review the idea of communal franchise in favour of a common roll, because I believe that in the long run, if you have a communal franchise for the non-Europeans, natives, Indians and coloureds, you will gradually have a state of affairs in this House in which the representatives of these groups, instead of becoming accustomed to looking at things from the national point of view and co-operating with the white population, will be forced into a position of being concerned purely with the sectional and racial interests of the groups they represent, and ultimately we may find ourselves in the position—and it has already arisen outside this House—of these groups combining to fight the white people in this country.

Does that mean that you are in favour of a common franchise?

Therefore, I believe that we would be much safer on the basis of a common roll, provided it is adequately loaded as the Broome Commission recommended, and as agreed to by the Indian Congress.

On the point of the coloured population, I would like to refer, before going on to other matters, to a quotation that appeared in the “Cape Times”, and let me say at once that the “Cape Times” has assumed in connection with this matter a very progressive and liberal line of thought. They were obliged to do exactly what some of us are obliged to do. They view the measure with distaste, but ultimately have to swallow it because, with the present feeling in the country, they cannot see that anything else can be ’done. In the “Cape Times” they quoted the following statement of the hon. the Prime Ministers’ speech in which he said—

Order, order.

You cannot quote a newspaper.

The article stated—

Order, order. The hon. member cannot read any commentary on speeches made in this House.

I express my own view, but I agree with others. And when the Prime Minister replies to this debate I hope he will make clear what his point of view is on the subject of the coloured population, and that what has been attributed to him is not his real intention. I would have preferred to see even at this late hour a round table conference where the question could be discussed and a last minute effort made to arrive at a settlement on the basis of agreed separation and not on the basis of imposed separation. And I would like to see the franchise dealt with on the basis of a common roll, loaded as has been recommended, and as it is loaded in this Bill. I would go further and say that whilst some hon. members have suggested that we should first deal with the land question and leave the franchise alone, I would have liked to see a reversal of the position, first dealing with the franchise, so that we can show the Indians and people overseas our honesty and that the Indians could feel that they have a share in the government of this country, which would make things much easier as regards a settlement of the land question.

Hear, hear.

It may be that we might have had to extend the Pegging Act for a year. I do not think it would have taken very long. In that regard I see no difficulty at all, after we have drifted in this connection for so many years, since the 1860’s—and there I agree with the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) who suggested a two years’ delay—I do not believe that a twelve months’ delay would make the position so much worse, whereas on the other hand we can improve the position and certainly improve the country’s reputation outside the Union. Certain objections are raised. One of them I have touched upon, the question of the time limit. Another objection raised is that after all this is purely a domestic matter for South Africa, and that therefore there can be no question of any round table conference with India in connection with the matter, or allowing anyone else to interfere. I want to say in that regard that while I entirely agree that this is an internal matter and agree that in the U.N.O. Charter, in section 7 of the first chapter, provision is made for non-interference in our domestic affairs, at the same time I think that the Prime Minister more than anyone else will agree that the period of isolation has come to an end. Just as disease has no boundary, so equally any economic and political policy adopted in a particular country which may have repercussions and affect other countries outside also has no boundary, and therefore as far as we are concerned it would be a great advantage to try to deal with the matter in such a way as not to create repercussions outside the Union, and I think that if we did that it would be a big advantage. I hold the point of view that after all, whilst we are making certain concessions in connection with the matter, those outside South Africa who do not always recognise the difficulties with which we are confronted should be made to recognise the complicated structure of our society and try to understand our position. Here again I believe that we would have a greater opportunity of securing that understanding by having such a round table conference than by merely saying that we are having nothing to do with them.

The third argument that is frequently used—the Prime Minister used it, although I think not with the same emphasis with which he used other arguments—is that the poverty in India is so much greater than the poverty amongst the Indians in South Africa, that the caste system exists in India and that the communal franchise exists there. That is perfectly true, but the Indian population in South Africa has made great economic advances. They are in a much better position economically than are the people in India. But let us remember that if they have made these economic advances, they have not only advanced themselves but also South Africa, and have contributed to the development of the country, thus increasing our national income. Let us remember that if the caste system exists in India, that is no reason whatever why we in South Africa who stand for a policy of progress should at this late hour come along and use that as an excuse for not progressing. Further, let us remember this that if the communal franchise exists in India, that is no reason whatever, especially in the light of what I have said before, why we in South Africa should apply that system to the Indian population, instead of adopting a more progressive policy. In any case I think we have to remember this, that the Indian Congress has been moving in the direction of doing away with the caste system, that Mr. Gandhi, Mr. Nehru and other leaders have been fighting to abolish the caste system, and as far as the communal franchise is concerned the very fact that the Moslems under the leadership of Mr. Jinnah are fighting to the death against any arrangement that might be made with the British Government and demanding Pakistan, shows how the Indian Congress and the overwhelming majority of Indians today have gone away from the caste system and the communal system.

I come to the question of the loaded franchise, and there again I want to put a point to the Prime Minister which I hope may be dealt with in the Committee stage. When the recommendation was made by the Broome Commission in favour of a loaded franchise it was on the assumption of a common roll being established, and that loaded franchise had as its intention the securing of the white population in Natal against being swamped, and so you would have had a local franchise which would only apply to a handful of Indian people in Natal. But if we are going away from the common roll and substituting the communal franchise with three representatives, the fear of swamping the white people does not apply, and under those circumstances I would ask the Prime Minister to consider whether, when the matter comes before the Committee, something may be done to liberalise the franchise so that it should not be a franchise only for the wealthy classes but also apply to the poorer Indian people and the middle class Indian people.

Would that be fair to the natives?

We are discussing the Indians now. Obviously if three representatives are to be given to 250,000 Indians and only three representatives for eight million natives, that too is unfair, but we have to go as far as public opinion will allow us. That being the case I do hope when this matter comes to the Committee stage some consideration will be given to liberalise the franchise as far as the Indians are concerned.

Then I come to the land question. I was told by my friend here that there is no possibility of getting any agreement. I agree there have been difficulties in the past. Agreement was arrived at, thanks to the efforts of the Leader of the Opposition, who brought in Bills which were much more reactionary than the present measure, the Class Areas Bill and the Areas Reserve Bill. He abandoned those Bills and arranged a round table conference, and an agreement was arrived at. It is perfectly true that agreement has broken down, but it shows an agreement was possible. I take another case, the case of the Pretoria Agreement, which was a very creditable act on the part of the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior, who were responsible for securing that agreement. The Pretoria Agreement sought to apply the principle of agreed separation instead of compulsory separation, and that agreement was arrived at with the representatives of the Indian community. It did not work because of a limited number — I do not think many — of vociferous people in Natal, the Joint Ward Associations. One does not know how many there were, but because of their vociferousness they forced the Prime Minister and the Government to abandon that agreement. I maintain if we adopt the attitude of not being influenced by a noisy minority, and if we try to get an agreement even at this late hour, we may reach agreement in connection with this matter. In the absence of such an attempt I must admit that the land provisions in this Bill, and I say this with all sincerity, in spite of the fact that I disagree with the principle of segregation, makes a great advance. I compare it with the Class Areas Bill and the Areas Reserve Bill, and I say it is an advance. When I look at the exempted areas and the provisions under which Indians will be represented on the Joint Board — and they should appreciate that as something of value — and when I see the provision that further areas may be exempted as need arises and that under Clause 8 provision is made that joint boards may recommend to the Minister the exemption of further areas, and provides that permits for acquiring property and for occupation may be granted in areas outside the exempted areas, I say it is a great advance and improvement on the existing position. Under these circumstances I feel that this is a measure which it would be wrong to reject because at any rate it is going some way to improve the position. But I want to say very frankly there is another reason why I am prepared to vote for this Bill — apart from my personal loyalty to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister; and I think if any hon. gentleman deserves loyalty not only from members of this side of the House but from members generally in the House, when he puts his hand to an important measure of this description, which must be distasteful to him, it is the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister — I am prepared to vote for this Bill because in my view nothing whatever is permanent, we are in a changing world. What is the position today may not be the position tomorrow, and I look at this measure as a stop gap, as something that may lead to further progressive action in this country until we may break down the prejudice that exists at the moment and ultimately eliminate it, and lead South Africa along the path which may lead to a united nation.

I want to approach this problem, Mr. Speaker, in the light of certain basic principles, and the first principle which I wish to enunciate, and with which I feel sure the Prime Minister will agree, is that South Africa has the right to determine the composition of its own population by means of restriction on immigration in the first instance. That is a basic principle which I feel sure the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will accept. It is a principle which was accepted at the Imperial War Conference in 1918, and it was reaffirmed at the Imperial Conference in 1921. I do not say that that gives it any authority; but what I do say is it is an inherent right of every self-respecting nation to have this right to determine what is going to be the composition of its population. The second principle I want to put before this House is that the granting of the franchise to any member of the population in this country is a purely domestic matter, a matter on which South Africa must be the sole judge, in the light of its population policy, in the light of its western civilisation mission, in the light of its moral obligations and its practical difficulties. I think that, too, is a proposition to which the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will accede. I do not want to put any authority before him, except that again it is a matter which is accepted generally, and I will only quote one authority in respect of it, apart from the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister himself, and that is a statement by the Duke of Devonshire, who was at the time Secretary of State for the Colonies. At the 1923 Imperial Conference he said—

On the same occasion the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister submitted a memorandum on behalf of South Africa in which that proposition was also accepted. Again I say it is a matter of honour to every self-respecting country to have that as an axiomatic right, as an inherent right. I am sure that the one respect in which at any rate there is unanimous approval of the Prime Minister’s attitude in regard to this Bill is in the attitude he has taken up with regard to interference from outside quarters. I am glad he has taken that stand, that South Africa will brook no interference in a matter that is purely a domestic concern, and that no amount of appeals to any Power outside South Africa will intimidate South Africa, will stampede her, will coerce her, into an attitude she is not prepared to accept of her own free will In that respect I think we can agree, and I am only sorry that it is the only important point upon which we can agree with the Prime Minister.

I pause here to say I am dealing more particularly with the franchise provisions, because we do agree with the principle of segregation as far as it is embodied in the first part of this Bill. We do not think the Bill is sufficiently far-sighted in this respect. It is not damming up all the possible outlets which in the past have caused the trouble in Natal. We think it ought to go further, and not only provide for what has been the cause of trouble in the past, but that it should also try to prevent the recurrence of that trouble in future in other parts of South Africa, and particularly the Cape Province. But I am more particularly concerned, in the remarks I am making, with the question of the franchise.

The third basic principle I put before this House is that the maintenance of western civilisation here and of a white South Africa is an important and over-riding consideration in the approach to a problem of this kind. That, I think, is the fundamental principle, and if anybody is not in agreement with that principle I cannot ask him to accept the argument which I am developing here, because it is the basis, the very foundation of that argument that we in South Africa, not on this side alone, but on the other side as well, have it as our mission to see that western civilisation is maintained in South Africa, and that South Africa remains a white South Africa. Those are three basic principles. There are also certain propositions. I do not say they are in the nature of principles, but I am asking this House to accept them, and the first of these proposition—I would almost say they are admitted facts but let me put them in the form of propositions—the first is that the granting of the franchise to Indians, with all its implications, would sound the death-knell of western civilisation in South Africa; and by “with all its implications” I mean with all one must naturally expect the present form of franchise to develop into in the future. When I say this I am thinking particularly of the form of franchise which has been here advocated by the hon. member who has just sat down, the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). I have said it is almost an admitted fact, but I should perhaps just remind the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister of his own views with regard to this proposition. On the occasion of the 1923 Imperial Conference, when this point was specifically raised, the Prime Minister expressed himself in the following words in regard to the claim made by the Indian representatives at the Imperial Conference that the franchise should be extended to Indians in South Africa—

He is expressing the position in regard to the native population—

Hear, hear.

I take it the gentleman who said that does not agree with the third basic principle I enunciated; to him it is a matter of indifference whether South Africa remains a white South Africa or whether western civilisation is maintained here or not.

It was one of your own men.

The Prime Minister went on—

And then he referred to the plea which had been made by the Indian representation that so far as India was concerned it was a question of dignity. The Prime Minister said—

And he ended by saying—

I say I do not think the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will disagree with the proposition I have laid down that the granting of the franchise, with all its implications, would sound the death-knell of western civilisation and of white South Africa. If he said this, if those were his views — unless he has recanted his views—and I take it, after all, they are matters of principle and not matters of opinion which you can shed as you shed your daily suit of clothes, I take it if they are matters of principle they are as cogent today as they were then.

Did he refer to the common franchise?

I will deal with that point later. The second proposition I am putting is this, and I think again I can invite the concurrence of members on the other side to that proposition, that there is no guarantee whatsoever that the half-way house on the franchise road will be its terminus. There is no guarantee whatsoever that what is today the half-way house on the road, of which the natural terminus is full franchise to the Indians, can be maintained. You cannot do it. It will inevitably have to run its full course to the terminus, and it is the terminus of which the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister was speaking here. If there is any doubt in the mind of any person in this country whether you will be able to peg the position as far as the franchise is concerned to what this. Bill gives, you would have only to listen to what the hon. member for Troyeville said to see that, within the bosom of the Prime Minister’s own party, there will be an agitation, and there will be continuous agitation, to proceed further along that road, and to change the communal franchise into the common franchise. And if that is done—and that is why I said deliberately if the franchise is given “with all its implications”—it must sound the death-knell of western civilisation in South Africa. The third proposition I want to put to the House is this, that the grant of the franchise to the Indians, in whatever form it is given, must have a profound effect on the general question of the franchise of nonEuropeans. Again I think the Prime Minister will agree with me. I have only to refer to the remarks I quoted here in which he himself pointed out to the Indians that the Indian franchise question is not a self-contained and an independent question, but it is an interlinked problem. It is interlinked with the other problem of the franchise not only of the natives but also of the coloured people.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to put the fourth proposition, and that is, as far as South Africa is concerned there is no pledge or undertaking given by South Africa which is broken by not giving to the Indians the franchise either in this form or in any other form. There is no undertaking to which any member of this House can point, no undertaking by South Africa which held out the promise or the prospect of the franchise when the Indians came to this country. I say, Mr. Speaker, if one surveys the history of the Indian in South Africa there is one outstanding fact, and that is that there never was any idea on the part of this Government in the Union, or in Natal, or in any other province, there was never any question that Indians should become a permanent part, that they should be permanently incorporated into the social and political and national life of this country; and that is a fact that has been admitted all along the line. When the original indentured Indians came out for a short time they came out without any government supervision, but soon it became a matter of an agreement between the two governments, the Natal Government and the Government of India, and they came out under supervision and for a fixed number of years, and the basic idea was they were to be returned to the country of their origin…

They were induced to stay here.

They were induced to stay here by the excellent conditions they enjoyed in Natal, which were far better than any conditions they had ever enjoyed in India or ever would enjoy there. I say they were given this free right and they could at any time have demanded a free passage back home. At no stage were they induced to come here on the assumption they would become a permanent part of this country. Even those who came here not as indentured labour but as non-indentured labour had as their main purpose, the purpose of the majority of them, as expressed by one of the Indians themselves, the Rev. Pitt Bonarjee, who is honorary organising secretary of the British India Commonwealth League—

What made them remain here is the advantages they had received in South Africa over what they had enjoyed in India. What made them remain here was the knowledge that what they had in South Africa was infinitely better than what awaited them if they returned to India. That was the position; and the Rev. Andrews told them—after the repatriation arrangement of 1926 — he advised the Indians in this country not to make use of these provisions to be repatriated but to remain here because they had a much better time in South Africa than they would have in India. That was originally recognised by both governments. The Indians were to be a non-perament part of the Union population. That is a policy which has been reiterated for years — by official utterances, by legislative tendencies, and in other ways. One need only refer to Act No. 8 of 1896 of Natal, where the further enrolment of Indians on the voters’ roll was put a stop to, and there was a later ordinance in which the same was done in regard to the municipal franchise. There were the immigration laws. All these show very clearly that at a very early stage South Africa had expressed the wish that it should never have, as a permanent part of its population, the Asiatic in its midst. I say those who came here knew, or they ought to have known clearly the conditions under which they were received and under which they would be allowed to remain here. There was never any undertaking or any pledge given to them that they would be permanently incorporated, but the whole idea was of a temporary sojourn in this country for a specific purpose, and when that was over they could return. If they did remain here it was to make a sufficient competence to return to India and live there happily. If those conditions of which they knew, or ought to have known, were irksome, no one coerced them into coming here. They came of their own free will, and they tacitly agreed to accept those conditions by coming here and by remaining here. In the words of the old legal expression they “came to the nuisance” and they cannot complain now of that “nuisance.” Neither were they kept here against their will. On the contrary, right through, from the very beginning almost, they had the right to demand a free passage back to India. They had the right to demand that. So there is no question that they were kept here against their will; and if conditions here were a “nuisance” to them, they had it in their power to put a distance between them and this “nuisance” if they wished. But the fact is that they did not do so. Now I go a little further and come to the Cape Town Agreement of 1927. The whole object of that agreement was to get as many Indians as possible repatriated. There was no undertaking whatever on the part of the Government. There was a clear admission in this agreement by both governments of the temporariness of the sojourn of Indians in this country. I can just quote one passage from a speech by the then Minister of the Interior in which he deals with this question. Dr. Malan, in a letter to the Potchefstroom Chamber of Commerce, published on 12th April, 1927, said—

The Cape Town Agreement itself, in clause (3), states specifically that the object was to have repatriation as much as possible to India or to other parts of the world. I want to draw attention to these words. Even in the original 1926 agreement paragraph (3) stated—

That still recognises the temporariness of their stay in South Africa. Then I come to the 1932 agreement, also between the two Governments, where they go further and say—

They say the possibilities of the repatriation scheme are exhausted. The repatriation scheme had not taken away more than 15,000 Indians, and it was exhausted—

That is a recognition that they are not a permanent part of our nation, a recognition of the fact by both the two Governments, when these Governments solemnly agree that they will co-operate for the purpose of removing Indians from South Africa, either to India or to other parts of the world. Here you have a clear recognition of the fact that the whole idea underlying the stay of the Indians here was that it should be a temporary arrangement, and it was never contemplated that they would be incorporated into the social and national life of the country. But I go further. In 1932, in the same year, in a speech at Kimberley, the leader of the delegation from India (Sir Fazli Hussein) said—

Hear, hear.

That is the Indian Government admitting, through their representative, the very point that at no time was there any contemplation on either side that Indians should form a permanent part of the population of the Union; and that was said as late as 1932. I do not think I need go further. I think that right along the line, from the earliest history of the matter until the latest admission in 1932 by India’s accredited representative, we have the fact that Indians were never recognised as a permanent part of the population of South Africa. And if that is so I ask them on what basis they can come here to demand the franchise? They came here as wayfarers and sojourners. They were to return to India, but remained What right have they now, and what moral duty is there on South Africa, to give them rights which are only the rights of the permanent population?

Do you refer only to non-South African-born Indians?

No. This colonisation scheme was not a scheme only for Indians born outside South Africa. This admission was not made only in regard to such Indians.

What did the agreement say about those who were to remain, the uplift clauses?

The whole idea and the point I am making is that there is an admission, not that some Indians should not permanently settle here, but it says that both Governments had agreed that none of the people shall permanently settle here. It is quite true that if some of them chose to remain here, there is no undertaking that they would ’ ever be given the franchise. What there is is an undertaking that they would be given reasonable facilities in education, etc.

And would not lag behind any other section of the population.

Not with reference to political rights. There is no doubt about that. I defy the Minister to point out to me that there was any promise in the agreement that they should be given equal political rights with the Europeans in this country. I go further and say that it is quite clear from the interpretation of that agreement, as expressed by the Minister of the Interior, that there was no obligation upon the Union and no promises whatsoever. The hands of the Union Government were entirely free to legislate in whatever way they wished to.

In regard to segregation, firstly I want to say that it is a policy which applies both ways. Segregation or separation is never a one-way street. It need not therefore involve judgments of inferiority or superiority, although necessarily it must imply a recognition of difference: but that is all, and I think it is clear. The way it was put here is that it was really the European section who will be segregated now. Do we feel that to be a stigma on us? I have no objection to it. But in its very essence segregation cuts both ways. It cuts both ways, and therefore I fail to see that there is any insult to the Indians I go further and say that if there are objections to segregation, the last people who should object to it are the Indians themselves. I quote one of them, the Rev. Pitt Bonarjee, to show how essentially segregation is an Indian principle, acknowledged and practised throughout India. He says this, at page 32 of his pamphlet—

That is why I asked the hon. member for Cape Eastern to move her amendment, proposing to abolish segregation, in India and not in South Africa. He continues—

There is no question of inferiority of the one and superiority of the other except in the case of the outcasts—

They have also told us that they would voluntarily segregate themselves in this country, but we have waited in vain for many years for the implementation of that promise.

Those are not the facts.

Stick to your natives. You are not an Indian representative.

Perhaps it is just intelligent anticipation on the part of the hon. member. I say, as the hon. the Prime Minister said, that it is a matter of the very existence of South Africa. Self-preservation of our civilisation is the object, and that selfpreservation I submit is a moral injunction. We are pledged to the maintenance of western civilisation in South Africa, of a white South Africa. That is the sacred trust of which the ultimate beneficiaries are our unborn descendants. The defence of that sacred trust has become to most South Africans a moral commandment. The heritage we have received from our forefathers is not one which we are free to squander away by shortsighted opportunism or by moral cowardice. In preserving our own— and let me say here at once that we demand nothing for ourselves in South Africa which we are not prepared to concede to Indians in India—we need not and must not be unjust or unfair to others. But I believe that there is a way, if only we would bend our energies to finding it. And that is the object of this amendment, not to be hasty now, not on the twentieth day of the twelfth month of the last year of the Pegging Act to throw this Bill before the House and expect to have it passed within twenty-three days. That is not the way to settle mighty problems. If there has been delay, it is not on this side. If we propose any further delay, it is because we think it is right that South Africa should pause before taking this vital step and introduce this new principle which is fraught with such grave dangers for the future of white civilisation in South Africa. I think, and I want to commend it to the attention of the Prime Minister, that the possibilities of the solution envisaged by the 1932 agreement have not been sufficiently explored. South Africa made a tentative move, a preliminary effort, and there the matter has rested ever since. In terms of the 1932 agreement there was to be co-operation between the Indian and South African Governments to find a place to which Indians from South Africa and India could be sent. In fact there was never any joint effort. In this report by the Indian Colonisation Commission, the Young Commission, it was said by the Minister of Finance that they had decided to have this preliminary investigation by South Africa alone, purely as a preliminary step to the joint tackling of the problem, and that they had done this with the concurrence of the Indian Government. This provisional committee made certain recommendations, but nothing further was heard of it. I suggest, as the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) has said, that along that way something could be done. One faces the pistol which the Prime Minister is holding at our heads today, saying that we must accept both parts of the Bill, or none. I am not prepared to have a pistol held at my head, nor are any of us on this side so prepared. We are prepared, if the Prime Minister is bent on having these two parts linked together to vote against the Bill. But at the same time, in terms of our amendment, we say that we shall ask you to extend the Pegging Act and to extend it in accordance with present day conditions. No, I think that the experience of mass removals of minorities by voluntary co-operation during the past ten or twenty years has taught us that that is a practicable and equitable means of solving minority problems. Why cannot we attempt a solution along those lines? Why must we be stampeded into taking action the full implications of which, in this land of racial groups, we cannot foretell? We have tarried so long in dealing with these racial problems, that a little further delay, a little more time, provided we do not fritter it away in inactivity, is justified by the momentous nature of the decision which the Prime Minister wishes us to make. Therefore I say: Let us have a little more time to pool our ideas, to see what can be done. Let me put this to the Prime Minister, that this far-reaching concession which he is offering today to the Indians has been flung back in his face with contumely. They have not accepted it. This minority group did not hesitate to invoke the aid of its country of origin and of other foreign countries to which neither they nor we are bound by any ties of blood or kinship. The Indian government has been stampeded into unfriendly action and South Africa’s fair name has been defamed by her would-be nationals. Lawlessness on a grand scale has been threatened. It is clear that the Prime Minister’s concessions, far-reaching as they are, have not placated the other side. It is equally clear that they have estranged many of his own side. Would it not have been more statesmanlike to consult your own ranks, to speak with the united voice of European South Africa and to raise this issue above party? Instead of having done that the Prime Minister has only alienated his European friends without placating his Indian opponents. It is clear that the minority group will not be placated unless and until its exorbitant demands are met in full, if not today, then tomorrow. To meet such demands must inevitably spell the doom of European civilisation in South Africa and undo the great experiment begun on these southern shores almost three hundred years ago. [Time limit.]

Tonight all eyes are turned to the East, whether we look only as far as the Indian Ocean and the African coast line, or whether our gaze carries us as far as India itself. We could wish some wise man from the East could come and persuade the Government to accept the resolution of the Labour Party to refer this matter to a Select Committee. It is not every Indian in South Africa who is asking for the franchise; it is not every Indian who will receive the franchise by this legislation. There are millions of Indians in India who have never enjoyed the franchise, and who have never been so well clothed, and who have never dreamt about the franchise, and why should we grant to Indians in South Africa privileges that are not extended to them in their own country? Is it our idea to make a second Zanzibar of this country without a struggle? In India itself there are millions of Indians who do not possess the privileges Indians in South Africa enjoy. Millions of Indians in India do not live in their own land in the way our Indians in South Africa live, and why should they be treated better here than they are treated in their own country? Give them the franchise, whatever the form it may take, and you will be giving them an anchorage in South Africa. Who of us can predict how far the Indians will yet penetrate in our country? The impertinence of the telegrams that we received from the Indians — we do not know precisely where they came from because although President Street is mentioned on the telegrams they contain no address — is in itself a justification for a Select Committee in connection with this matter. We appeal to the Prime Minister and to members opposite to give us that Select Committee so that we may have a thorough investigation and analysis of the situation and then arrive at a decision. Subsequently we can, if necessary, proceed further and reach an agreement in this House. Are we going to surrender the European civilisation which we have bought at so heavy a price in South Africa just because a few affluent Indians in South Africa are pressing for the franchise; are we going to surrender our white civilisation to placate foreign countries? Personally I am not prepared to do it. The responsibility for such a surrender of South Africa will recoil on this Parliament after the members of 1946 have ceased to sit in this House. We make an appeal to the Prime Minister. I would point out that the hon. member for Heidelberg (Mr. H. J. L. van Niekerk) has in his constituency the village of Balfour. It was an enterprising platteland village years, ago, but today it is nothing else than an Indian camp. Today not a single European can make his living there. It is all to be ascribed to the way in which the Indian has gained a footing in our country. He is acquiring the trade, and if he now gains the franchise he is going to address himself to seizing our lands. Is this what we have so long fought for in the past; is this what Englishmen and Afrikaners have made sacrifices for in the past? Is this the way to treat those who have come to the southern point of Africa to establish a civilisation here? No, we are not entitled to do this, and I again ask the Prime Minister to accept this amendment of the Labour Party. It is an amendment which will give an opportunity to the whole country to express its opinion on the matter and to indicate how far they are to succumb to the propaganda and the pressure that the Indians are now exerting.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable care to the speech of the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) this evening. And listening to that speech I was convinced of one thing. And that is that however moderate the tone of approach of some hon. members opposite to this problem, however suave their manner in these racial matters, their failing is the same—it is fundamental—it is that they always want to hark back to the dim and distant past. The hon. member discussed at great length the circumstances under which the Indian community came to Natal, and he told us, in order to found the submission which he asked this House to accept, that in the years gone by we were and that therefore today we are still entitled to look upon the Indian community as sojourners in our midst and as forming no part of the permanent population of this country. If that were so, were we entitled to allow them to entrench themselves in this country, to purchase land, to build homes, to establish businesses, to seek employment and to do everything which men do in a land which they regard as their country and as their permanent home? Were we morally entitled to look upon them as people merely spending a few years in this country as birds of passage and at the same time to allow them to act in that way? Then the hon. gentleman referred to the Cape Town Agreement, and very conveniently dealt with that aspect of the Agreement which was an attempt to repatriate as many as would go. But he was very careful to make no reference to the fact that we asked the Indians who were unwilling to go and who were desirous of remaining, to remain, but to adopt a western standard of civilisation. We asked them to do that so as the more readily to become integrated into the national life. And then there was the uplift clause, under which we undertook a solemn obligation to help them attain such standards. Was that the attitude of a Government towards a people who were to be here temporarily? For many years the Indian community, this community living here te inporarily we are now told, has clamoured for the franchise as a fuller recognition of themselves as part of the permanent community. Let me make one further observation about the speech of the hon. member. I was more than astonished to hear a learned counsel quoting from some leaflet or some pamphlet and asking the House to accept that as conclusive evidence of the facts alleged by him. That is all very well for some of his colleagues, but it is indefensible at the hands of the hon. gentleman. At a recent meeting in Durban, the Nationalist Leader for Natal, Dr. Jansen, dealt with the Indian problem. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) tonight, without saying so, quoted what Dr. Jansen said at that meeting. Dr. Jansen said that he would say nothing disparaging of the Indian or his nation, and that he would not suggest that there was any question of superiority or inferiority involved in the Indian question. That is an attitude which I would commend strongly to members on the opposite benches, as much as I would commend it to the somewhat intemperate leader of the Labour Party. If this Bill makes its way to the Statute Book I shall not look upon it as an occasion for triumphant joy.’ I feel about this Bill, about this proposed step, much as many of us felt about the end of the war. It was the end of a phase. It was the end of a very intense and bitter struggle, a struggle which we had hoped might have been avoided, but which was forced upon us by circumstance. We realised that arising out of this conflict there would be great and many problems to face, and that the war would have been fought and won in vain if in relation to these problems we did not measure up to our responsibility. That is how I feel about this Bill. I ask myself whether there is a problem and whether this is an honest attempt to deal with the problem, or whether there is another way. I ask myself how likely are we to succeed. It would be folly, I think, either to ignore or indeed to minimise the ’fact that there is in South Africa, putting it at its mildest, an antipathy towards the Indian. I do not excuse it. I bitterly regret it. It would have been easy to give way to that prejudice; it would have been easy to have put upon the Statute Book a Bill reflecting those prejudices. It would have been as easy to do that as it would have been to approach the problem in a spirit of doctrinaire liberalism as if there were no problem at all. And I cannot resist the feeling that the Indians here, and perhaps even more so the Indians abroad, aware of this feeling throughout these years, have allowed themselves to assume that this legislation is in fact a giving way to the prejudice which exists, that the Government has given way to the demand for oppressive legislation. I say again that that would have been an easy way out. But it would not have required months and months of patient investigation and consideration by the Prime Minister if this were in fact a reflection of the feeling to which I have referred. On the contrary, I believe that this Bill is an attempt, at any rate, to lift this problem out of the realm of’ prejudice. What does it seek to do? The hon. member for Fauresmith enunciated the principle involved. I enunciate it in a very different form. This Bill is an attempt to reconcile a growing consciousness throughout the world of the need for a more enlightened attitude towards the non-European sections of any community, a need for reconciling that with an appreciation that there is a difference, without any implications of superiority or inferiority, between the culture and the outlook and the way of life of the Indian and the European. And the keynote of this Bill is to give recognition to that essential difference, and as between the two to preserve for South Africa the essential features of the European way of life, but with this proviso, that we should not deny to the Indian the fullest opportunity of living a full life according to his lights. It is said that that attitude is an insult to the Indian community. Is it an insult for the Europeans of South Africa to say without rancour that there is this difference and that it is desirable not only to recognise it, but to give effect to that difference, provided effect is given to it merely to the extent that it is necessary to preserve the European structure of South African society. I ask whether this is an insult, and yet it is not an insult for Mr. Jinnah, the President of the Moslem League in India, to say that the Moslems and the Hindus are two separate nations, and to insist for that reason on “Pakistan”, so that the Moslems shall not be dominated by the Hindus. Just as I believe that when Mr. Jinnah says that that no reflection is intended bn his Indian colleagues, so there is no reflection and no insult intended in the distinction drawn here. Surely in the matter of insult the question of intention is the determining factor. But more than that, the distinction and its corollary have been conceded by responsible Indian opinion. In 1912 that very distinguished Indian, Mr. Gokhale, said this in relation to South Africa—

And the third Broome Commission in 1945 was repeatedly assured that that point of view was fully accepted by the leaders of the Natal Indian Congress. Moreover, when the previous Broome Commissions investigated the question of penetration, the case for the Indian was not that penetration created no problem, that to have objected to penetration would have been ethically indefensible; their case was that in point of fact no penetration was taking place, and that to the minor extent that it was due to causes beyond their control, such as lack of housing and other amenities. If the principle was then conceded that penetration could rightly be objected to, what by implication was further conceded? Surely the recognition that a degree of separation was essential to that end. And if that was implicit in the attitude of the Indian leaders before the various Broome Commissions, it was however reluctantly conceded explicit in the Pretoria Agreement. It has been asked whether this is an internal problem or whether it is an international problem. I believe that if we apply the proper standards and the proper tests, the distinction in a large measure falls away. Clearly it is a domestic problem. The decision must be ours, but the verdict will be that of world opinion. With the reservation then that the full implications of the situation here may not be appreciated beyond our borders, I say that our decision must in consequence be one which can stand up to the challenge of world opinion. If it were otherwise we should be conceding the wholly untenable proposition that we were free in dealing with a domestic problem to apply a lower moral standard than if the problem were dealt with otherwise. It is also said that the problem has international implications. I appreciate that if that meant that because we shall be judged by world opinion, we must be wholly just. I can understand that, but if that consideration is pressed further then surely it means that if we consider the problem as a domestic problem we should naturally be influenced by considerations that are material, but if we allowed the problem to be considered as an international problem, we should be invited to allow considerations which are not material to influence our decision in the hope that we may be diverted from taking the course which we propose. No, Sir, responsibility is ours, and we have to face up to it. I could have wished that before we were called upon to deal with any land tenure rights of the Indian community that they had enjoyed representation in this House. That would have been more logical. But since that is not the case I regard myself as shouldering a greater responsibility than if I were solely the spokesman of the enfranchised European. It is a matter of regret to me that the Pretoria Agreement was not found acceptable to European opinion. But the fact of the matter is that it was not. The charge has been levelled against the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that he failed to implement an undertaking in respect of the Pretoria Agreement. I ask whether the Indian leaders who themselves raise the cry of democracy suggest that the Prime Minister should have assumed dictatorial powers to ensure that the Natal Provincial Council promulgated an ordinance embodying the Pretoria Agreement against its will. Surely what is sauce for the goose must be sauce for Gandhi. This Bill goes further admittedly than the Pretoria Agreement, and I regret very much that the circumstances of the day are such that it has been found necessary to go beyond the terms of that agreement. But because it does, does that in any way justify the fears of the Indian community; does it found a cause for the grievances which they have raised? I do not consider it worth while to deal with the suggestion that the Indian community will be reduced to a state of helotry. I know of no helots enjoying free trading rights determined solely by the ordinary laws of the land. I know of no helots free to engage in professional life in open competition with Europeans. I know of no helots encouraged to form trade unions so that their standard of labour might be improved thereby. I do not know of any helots encouraged to go in for technical education and education on a general footing. What kind of a helotry is it that leaves untouched practically entirely the economic life of the Indian community? So much also then for the cry of economic strangulation. If it had meant economic strangulation in any sense I would not be a party to this Bill. The Asiatic community is bound up in the fabric of our national economy, and you cannot separate into water-tight compartments the economy of the European and that of the Asiatic. Far from the proposed legislation being an insult I for my part am impressed with the fact that the Government has taken particular pains to avoid in this Bill anything which might savour of a stigma or reflection on the Indian community, and that it has not gone beyond recognising the principle which I enunciated earlier and which I say again has been conceded by responsible Indian opinion. No, if this legislation is viewed against a background of complete equality for the Indian in all directions which has never obtained in South Africa, it is clearly discriminatory and repressive. But if it is viewed against the background of an unenfranchised section of the community struggling for a settled and established status within the fabric of our society instead of being the constant butt of reactionary politicians and facing rapidly deteriorating Indo-European relationships, I say against that background it is an honest attempt to grapple and to deal with the problem.

I come now to the second part of the Bill. The Labour Party through its leader, this afternoon, allied itself with those who have suggested that this Bill might be postponed. I then put to the hon. gentleman what I though was a pertinent question. He did not reply so I repeat it this evening. If the hon. gentleman had said that he was not quite satisfied in which form the franchise should be given to the Indians then I could have understood his plea. But the hon. gentleman made it plain that he was as opposed as anybody could be — and he said it rather viciously — to the conferment of the franchise in any form and at any time on the Asiatic community. That being the case, I asked him what then was the necessity for time to reflect and consider. It has been suggested by my erstwhile leader that we ought not to confer the franchise on the Asiatic because the Asiatic himself has rejected it. I say that it would be preferable; it would have been most welcome if the Indian community had accepted the franchise in the form in which it was offered to them rather than reject it. But if it has been rejected that does not determine the matter. We are not now entering into a bilateral agreement between two parties in which event the first and the sole consideration would have been an agreement between the parties as to the terms of their contract. We are discharging an obligation as legislators and it seems to me to be wholly illogical to say to the Indian community: “We believe that you are entitled for your sake and for ours to the franchise; we propose to confer that right upon you but if you say that you will reject it we will withhold that right from you.” It makes our task all the more difficult if there is a want of co-operation, but our responsibility remains the same, and that is to do what is right in all the circumstances. It has been said, also by the hon. Leader of the Dominion Party that in any event this franchise is a quid pro quo. I believe that in some respects it is, and I can see no reason to quarrel with that. The whole burden of the Asiatics’ cry throughout the years has been in relation to any projected legislation, that it would involve a stigma. The Asiatics’ attitude has been: “You will reduce us to the status of second-class citizens.” We have said to him: “We appreciate your fear; we appreciate your anxiety; we have no intention of so stigmatising you, and in order that there should be no ground for assuming such a reflection, we will actually raise you in status; we will by comparison with your present status raise it by conferring upon you the franchise.” I say that in that respect it can be regarded as a quid pro quo. And what of it? I take a very strong view that there is an unchallengeable moral right, quite apart from the provisions as to Land Tenure, to the conferring upon the Asiatic the franchise—and I am going to say in a moment that I share also the discomfiture as to the communal franchise— but I say that we have an unanswerable obligation to confer the franchise on the Indians. If I need any reinforcement for that view, may I remind the House that in 1938, within a matter of three months of the general election, a number of Parliamentary representatives were interviewed by the Durban Press on precisely this question of representation for the Indian. Four members of the Dominion Party, of which I was then one, committed themselves categorically to the principle of the franchise for the Asiatic. One of them went the length of saying that the Indian community could not hope for more than the franchise on the communal basis, because the Government of the dav was not a liberal Government. Well, it fell strangely upon my ears in the light of that knowledge, knowing that these views were at that time unchallenged by anyone in the Dominion Party, to have heard yesterday that they were at variance with the views of the party’s leader. I have no doubt about this question, but, as I said earlier, I am far from happy about the form in which we propose to give the Indians the franchise. I shall content myself by saying that my reasons are those enunciated by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger), and that they do not need amplification. On this question of the franchise, I had assumed at one time that the effect of the loading proposition would be to enfranchise the wealthier class of Indian at the expense of the artisan, and apparently that is the view taken by the hon. member for Troyeville, who is under the impression that is the effect of the Bill. But the effect will be quite the reverse. The effect will be quite the reverse; by virtue of the educational standard required, the middle classes and the middle-aged will not enjoy the franchise under the provisions of this Bill, and the franchisement benefits will go almost exclusively to the young, rising generation who, whether they be artisans or professional men, and I say this without reflection, are not the conservative element to which the middle classes and the middle-aged belong. The reason for that is this, that the middle classes were only able to enjoy educational facilities up to Std. IV, and the requirement in this Bill is Std. VI. I want to throw out a suggestion which I know is contrary to accepted precepts in matters of this kind, but in order to meet the situation I make the suggestion that for a limited period this class of person, the responsible element in the Indian community who will have a weighty determining influence on the type of representative who will find his way into this House, should not be required to have passed Std. VI, but that for a limited period we should lower the standard to Std. IV, having it embodied in the Bill that at the expiry of that period the standard automatically becomes raised to Std. VI. I do hope, however, that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will be persuaded to give further consideration to the form of franchise.

I cannot avoid one final observation on this question. Citizenship such as enfranchisement confers involves reciprocal obligations. We shall have to face very great responsibilities towards the Indian community. We shall have to make up our minds now that we have to meet the problem of removing that fear of domination. We shall have to make up our minds to regard the Indian community in this country as an integral factor in the body politic and in the national life of South Africa. That is our responsibility. I say in turn that the Indian bears a responsibility, too Citizenship must be earned, and in the conferment of this right we hope, as we are entitled to expect, that the Indian will play his part and make his contribution to the common weal and make this, in fact, a land of promise. I hope he will.

The Prime Minister when he introduced this Bill referred to the advent of the Indians in Natal, and he stated it was the fault of our ancestors that the Indians were allowed in, and now seventy or eighty years later we must set right the consequences of having admitted them. I have no hesitation in saying that after listening to all the speakers tonight it is clear that we are occupied with legislation that in 70 or 80 years’ time posterity will condemn us for. We are engaged on legislation that will mean the disappearance of European civilisation from the scene, if we go on with it, consequently we feel that if ever there was a Bill that should be kept above the level of party politics, that should be tackled on the basis of a national problem, it is this Bill, and the course is indicated in the amendment of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, namely, that the whole colour problem should be dealt with in its broad aspect. Let us just take the free areas where the Indians can purchase land. Here it is not a question of demarcated separation where the Indian only can be a landowner. Here you have the position that Europeans may also become landowners in those areas. Who are the Europeans who will become landowners there or who will live there? It is the poorer section of the community, it is the people who have low incomes, who are employed on wages which will not enable them to vacate land there when it drops in value and then buy land in areas where the Asiatics may not purchase. The result of these higgledy-piggledy living quarters for Indians and Europeans will be the creation of another coloured community. I can assure the Prime Minister that he would have had the wholehearted support of this House for the first part of this Bill if he proposed complete separation there and if he had set aside an area where the Indians could be complete owners, as is the case in these free areas. I go further. As I understand the Bill, the Indians who own properties in European areas will retain these properties.

That is right.

It is true that they may not sell it to other Indians, but I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the Indian can bequeath it to his children.

Of course he can.

He may not sell it, but he may bequeath it to his child, and that will mean that the Indians who are property owners today in the European areas will remain there always. Indians will always remain there if the owners can bequeath the property to those who follow after them. But the Indian problem is not an isolated problem as far as the colour problem in South Africa is concerned. It is only a subdivision of the whole colour problem in South Africa. The hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) stated yesterday by way of interjection that there are no coloured people in the Transvaal. Is he another Rip van Winkle who is fast asleep? He only wakes up now and then to make an interjection. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has already pointed out that in 1941 there were 56,000 coloured people in the Transvaal, 20,000 in Natal and 17,000 in the Free State, altogether 94,000 in the northern provinces, and these coloured people in the Transvaal are today more entitled to representation than the 30,000 Indians in the Transvaal. This coloured community belongs to the permanent population of South Africa. These are not immigrants, these are not a race that can make an appeal to the Government of another country like the Indians are doing today. What is the position in the Cape Province? We say that the Indian problem is a problem for the whole country. In the Cape Province, unfortunately, we have no statistics in regard to Indians, because the Indians are distributed among the coloured races. But what do we find? According to the year book, there are 750,000 coloureds in the Cape Province. And what is the position of the coloured people? I have figures here showing the number of schoolchildren in the Cape Province. In 1944 there were 157,323 white children sitting on the school benches, and in 1945, a year later, the number was 157,483, an increase of 160 white schoolchildren. But look at the figures for the coloured children. There were 142,900 coloured schoolchildren in the Cape Province in 1944, while in 1945 the figure was 152,837, an increase of 9,937 compared with an increase of 160 in the number of European children. As far as native children are concerned, there were 222,572 children at school in 1944, and in 1945 the number was 239,120, an increase of 16,548. In addition to that, as far as European children are concerned, practically all of them attend school, while in the case of the coloureds only about 75 per cent. are found on the school benches, and another 50,000 are running around in the Cape Province. As far as the native children go, the 239,000 represent about 48 per cent. of the total number of children of schoolgoing age. But let us go further and look at the increase that has taken place in the last ten years. In 1935 the total number of European children in the schools was 154,000, and in 1945, ten years later, it was 157,323, or an increase of only 3,000 children in a period of ten years. But as far as the coloured and native schoolchildren grouped together are concerned, in 1935 there were 268,000 at school, and in 1945 382,000, an increase of 114,000 in the Cape Province. That shows how great the non-European problem is. I do not think anyone will deny that it is the most serious problem with which we are faced. No intelligent European, whether he is English-speaking or Afrikaansspeaking, will say that we can tackle this great problem piecemeal. You must tackle the problem as a whole. It is a problem that stares us in the face as a European civilisation, and the question that arises in my mind is whether it is possible that the European civilisation should be so blind to the dangers that are threatening our future. Is it not possible for us to place this problem above party politics? We sometimes hear cheers from the other side when we mention a problem that should be kept out of the party arena, but hon. members on the other side are bound to vote against their convictions. I go further, and I say that if the Prime Minister allowed his party to vote as they wished, the Bill would not go through the House. That is how they feel about it. The Prime Minister comes here and makes a party question of South Africa’s thorniest problem. I do not think anyone will deny that the non-Euorpean problem is the biggest problem we must tackle and solve. Is it too late to ask the Prime Minister now at the last moment to withdraw the Bill and to accept the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition? Is it too late to lift this matter out of the party arena, and to make of it a national question that we may solve along national lines by coming together and investigating in the best way how the problem should be approached? The Prime Minister is getting on in years. One of these days he will stand aside. I would ask him tonight whether he does not think that this may be one of his last public actions, one of the last Bills that he will bring before Parliament, and does he not reflect that this is probably one of the biggest disasters it is possible to bring to the people? Should he not consider that he may still look back on this measure and reproach himself for having in his old age introduced legislation that has brought disaster to our European civilisation, legislation that will have made this a black man’s country, because this Bill is the thin end of the wedge? However the Prime Minister may argue, this is the thin end of the wedge. They will not be satisfied with this Bill, but there will be an agitation; and now that the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) has pointed out in his speech that the Indians have no right here that there was never any idea that they should be part of the permanent population, the Prime Minister ought at once to withdraw his Bill.

I have listened very attentively to this debate and it takes my mind back to ten years ago when this House was discussing the Native Bills. Very much the same arguments were used and very much the same attitude was taken up by the Leader of the Opposition on that occasion. There is, however, to my mind a great difference between this Bill and the Native Bills, inasmuch as the Native Bills proposed to take away from the natives certain political rights they possessed, whereas this Bill seeks to give the Indians in Natal and the Transvaal for the first time, some political representation; it seeks to give them a franchise, and for that reason I support this Bill wholeheartedly. I do so also because I realise that the question of the Indian problem in Natal must be settled. It cannot be allowed to drift any longer; and I feel the longer it is allowed to drift and the more time that is wasted in discussing this problem the more difficult it will be to find a solution.

I accuse the Nationalist Party and other members of the Opposition of running away from this measure. They have done what they have always sought to do in the past and avoided their duty to South Africa at the crucial time. Their claim that the whole matter should be referred to a Select Committee for consideration is to my mind purely a means of delaying the action we desire to take, and which it is absolutely necessary for us to take; because they have no solution to put forward and they do not intend to bring forward a solution. For years the fundamental policy of their party has been: No franchise rights whatever to natives or Indians; therefore it needs no Select Committee to tell us what they want. I feel that the Indian in Natal has the right to expect some quid pro quo, some recompense in respect of certain privileges we are now denying him. To my mind this is the only quid pro quo we can give them, which will be of any benefit. It is true it does not go to the extent they might like to have it, and I also feel the Broome Commission was correct in saying the Indians should be granted a position on the common roll with a loaded franchise, but I realise there is no possibility of getting such a franchise through this House as it is constituted today. All through this debate we have seen the opposition there is to any form of franchise at all. But it is inevitable if we are to justify the action we propose to take to show that we are trying to give these people a square deal and some form of representation to which they are entitled. I say that the Opposition Party are not facing up to the realities of the position, and I base that argument on this point, that they wish the matter to be deferred for a period of two years. They say: Extend the Pegging Act for two years, and during that time let us have round table conferences and Select Committees and consider what is best to be done. But I do not believe in their hearts they believe such a solution would be found. Such a delay would, I feel, be conducive to more agitation, more striving on the part of those opposed to the measure, and it would make it more difficult to bring about a solution.

Read the amendment.

I have read the amendment, and it does not impress me a little bit, especially that part which tries to bring in the coloured population. There you have the old policy of the Nationalist Party, bringing the coloured population into every problem of importance in this country.

I might say as far as the coloured people are concerned, and as far as the statement goes that was made by the Prime Minister a few days ago, I am entirely satisfied in my own mind that the Prime Minister is not departing one iota from the statement he made on many occasions, that the political rights of the coloured people of the Cape will not be interfered with in any way whatever. The coloured community is anxious about this Bill because they feel perhaps the time might come when they, too, might be put on a communal roll, and they will be reassured when they know that this Government does not intend anything of that kind whatever. I am quite satisfied regarding that. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) said that the way in which in this Bill we provided communal rights of franchise to the Indians with three representatives in this House was the halfway house to common franchise rights for them. He may be right. He may be wrong. If he is right and the Indian community agree with that view why do they make this agitation, why do they not accept it is a step forward towards the gaining of full political recognition in South Africa? We know that the Indian wants nothing else than full democratic rights, political, social and economic. So do the coloured people and the natives. To my mind it is a perfectly natural instinct, an instinct which will naturally develop as they get educated. The more educated they become the more insistent the demand will be. Whether we can accede to it is something which the future alone will show. But we have to realise that if South Africa is to progress to the fullest extent, if we are to develop to the heights to which we aim, these people must be uplifted, they have to be recognised as citizens of South Africa, and they must not be kept in the gutter, because if we are trying to keep them down we shall eventually go down with them. The Indians should try to realise that by giving them this communal representation in the form proposed in the Bill we are not insulting them, far from it. In proportion to their numbers, in comparison with the natives, they are getting a far larger proportion of representation than they are entitled to.

They say they do not want it.

They may say that, but I am sure in time they will come to appreciate it when they get it. I believe the agitation has been created by the wealthier type of Indian who does not want his present rights restricted. They are the ones who agitate. But the poor Indian is not concerned, and he will be satisfied, I am sure, in the long run with the measure before us. I do not say it is perfect, far from it, because no compromise of this nature can be perfect.

You accept the principle of segregation?

No, it is not segregation. If you like to say that the Europeans are segregated I will agree with that, but I do not agree the Indians are segregated under this measure. The Indians will have certain free areas and the Europeans will have access to them, too, if they wish to go there.

That is our point, it is not segregation.

They are not being taken from any area in which they are at present residing. The Indians are getting as fair treatment as we can give them under the existing circumstances. If we had a greater measure of unity amongst our members in this House in regard to the political future of the Indians perhaps we could give them something better. Yet in this House we have a certain section who feel we are being too liberal, and to come to a compromise and to get a Bill through Parliament I feel the Prime Minister has done the only thing possible in bringing up the Bill in its present form, and I am prepared to accept it accordingly to the fullest extent.

Finally I want to say this. It is really an appeal I wish to make to the members on the Opposition benches. I wish them to try in future when a measure comes before this House dealing with any particular section, not to try to drag in all sections of the non-European population. I could spend a lifetime quoting from Hansard speeches made in the past by the hon. Leader of the Opposition and members on the other side. He, at one time, had quite a different outlook in regard to the coloured people than he has today, and he was prepared to give the franchise to the coloured women.

No, no.

That is nonsense.

You cannot prove that.

I am quoting from Hansard.

That is not Hansard in your hand.

This is the Hansard for the Joint Sitting of both Houses of Parliament in connection with the Native Bills in 1936. I shall quote from page 82. It is what Dr. Malan said on an occasion when he was addressing the Cape Malays in the City Hall at Cape Town.

Hansard of the City Hall?

Hansard of the Joint Sitting in 1936. It relates to an incident when Dr. Malan, then Minister of the Interior, said to the Cape Malays—

A little further on he assured them that they—

Then the hon. Leader of the Opposition at that time wrote a letter to the editor of the A.P.O. magazine, and extracts were quoted from it during this Joint Sitting, on 19th February, 1936, and reported in this Hansard as follows—

Whose speech are you reading from Hansard?

This is from a letter written by Dr. Malan. The hon. member may try to laugh it away, but the facts are there nevertheless. I should like also to read a small paragraph from a speech made by the late Gen. Hertzog at that time, but as the hour is late I shall leave that to a future occasion while the Bill is still before the House.

It being 10.55 p.m., the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 28th March.

I beg to give notice of objection to the adoption of the third report of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders so as to afford members of the staff an opportunity to make known their objections in regard to remuneration and pension rights as affected by the recommendations made in their report.

As notice of objection to the adoption of the third report of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, presented to this House yesterday, has been given by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick), it now becomes necessary for a date to be fixed for the consideration of the report.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, like many other members I view this Bill with somewhat mixed feelings. It is no doubt inevitable, having regard to the nature of the subject dealt with and having regard to the conditions of the country, that this Bill should be in the nature of a compromise. I accept the Bill as a compromise. That does not mean that I like everything in the Bill. But it does mean that it is only as a whole without any omissions or additions or alterations as suggested by the various Opposition groups that I can approve of this Bill and vote for it.

I think, Mr. Speaker, the point from which one should start in approaching this Bill is the 1927 agreement between the Government of the Union and the Government of India. There are two points I want to make in regard to that agreement. The first is that that agreement was the result of a round table conference. No less a person than the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) on that occasion tolerated the interference of the Government of India in our domestic affairs. Let me say at once I do not say that by way of criticism.

It is not true.

The hon. member entered into discussions.…

Read again the correspondence that took place between me and the Government of India.

The hon. member entered into discussions with the Government of India. Surely you cannot get away from that.

What?

The hon. member entered into discussions with the Government of India in regard to our domestic affairs.

In regard to repatriation, that was a different matter.

I am not criticising him on that ground. He had good reasons for doing so. But those reasons which he had for discussing our domestic affairs with the Government of India are not without their bearing on the present situation. We today criticise the Government of India for, as we describe it, putting an oar in our domestic affairs. We attack the Indians in South Africa for looking outside South Africa for help in regard to these matters, but we forget, Mr. Speaker, that most of those local Indians or their ancestors came to South Africa because of an intergovernmental arrangement. They came because we or our predecessors wanted them to come. They came because it was in the interests of the white man that they should come. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) last night tried to indicate that they merely came on a temporary basis. If that were so why did the government that brought them here not take steps to send them away again? If they came here on a temporary basis why were they not sent back after the period of their indenture?

The Prime Minister said it was a mistake by the government of that time.

Never mind if it was a mistake. What is of importance is it was done and it is not the first time that the sins of the fathers have been visited on the children to the second and third generation. Whether it is a mistake or not, it was done, and they came here because of governmental pressure from South Africa on an unwilling government in India. They were not sent back by the government that brought them here.

What were the terms of the indenture? They came on a three years’ indenture. After three years the labourer was required to re-indenture for a fourth year or, if he liked, for two additional years. Thereafter he was free to live and work in Natal as he willed, and then after a further five years he had the right either to a free return passage— he was not sent back—or the equivalent of its cost in Crown land. Quite clearly from the very outset in those days, the Indian was welcomed as a permanent settler in the Colony of Natal and as a contributor to the prosperity of that colony. I say again that that arrangement was come to between governments. It was a South African Government that pressed it upon an Indian Government. That Indian Government resisted it; it resisted it time and again. It was overborne by governmental pressure from this end; and ultimately the importation of indentured Indians into Natal ended only in 1911 and ended only because the Government of India stopped it. And that being so, the Government of India has surely continued to bear some measure of responsibility in regard to these people and the descendants of these people whom it was pressed to allow to come to South Africa. The hon. member for Piketberg could not resist that in 1926. That being so I do not see how we can blame the Government of India for seeking to discharge that responsibility as long as we withhold from our local Indians the opportunity of stating their own case here in Parliament through their own representatives. We cannot blame the local Indians for, as we put it, running to Mother India, unless we recognise them as South African citizens with rights of citizenship. It is not for us to lecture them and tell them they must choose whether they want to be regarded as South Africans or Indians. The first move is with us. The first move is for us to recognise them as South African citizens and to give them the means of exercising their citizenship, and that first move is what we are taking in this Bill.

The second point to which I want to come back in that 1927 agreement is this. The hon. member for Fauresmith said last night that that agreement contemplated the reduction by emigration of the Indian population of South Africa. Yes, it certainly did. But he went on to imply that that agreement regarded the whole of the Indian population of South Africa as purely temporary. The hon. member for Fauresmith did not quote from the agreement. In that agreement the Union Government declared its firm belief, and adhered to the principle, that—

And it also recorded its acceptance of the view that in the provision of education and facilities—

I say that again for the benefit of the hon. member for Fauresmith, this is what the hon. member for Piketberg put his signature to—

That is the obligation we in South Africa took on ourselves. Once again I do not criticise the hon. member for Piketberg for being responsible for our assuming that obligation. I believe he was right in agreeing to that. But the point I want to make is this: The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, in the last part of his speech, in effect admitted that we had fallen considerably short in our efforts to carry out that upliftment obligation. That is what the last part of his speech meant. In effect, in that last part of his speech he pledged South Africa to make a new attempt in that direction. I believe that a very important reason for our failure is that the Indian community has, except in the Cape, been voteless and voiceless, and I believe the political representation of the Indian community is an essential condition of the effective implementation of our undertakings in regard to the upliftment of the Indians which my friend over there assumed on our behalf.

I think I can now give the reasons why I support this Bill. I am as anxious as any hon. member of this House that we should be able to treat the Indian question as a domestic question, that we should remove it from the sphere of India’s direct interests, but I believe that it is only by giving the local Indians political rights that we can in fact do so. I am no less anxious that we should carry out our uplift obligations in letter and in spirit. The experience of the last 20 years has shown us that the concession of political rights is indispensable if we are to do so, and it is because this Bill concedes political rights that I regard it as one of the most important Bills that has come before this Parliament, and that I am prepared to support it. Hitherto our history on the political side in our dealings with the Indian people in South Africa, and in Natal in particular, has been one of the whittling away of their rights. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) last night, in that specious address which he delivered here, said that they were not promised political rights when they came here. Of course they were not. Because, under the constitution of Natal, they got them naturally, automatically. There was no need to promise them; the constitution was there. That is the kind of specious remark we get from that hon. gentleman. There was a time when they enjoyed those rights in Natal on an equal basis with Europeans, but the process hitherto has been one of ’whittling away. First of all the parliamentary franchise was attacked. Then the municipal franchise was attacked. In this Bill we reverse that process of whittling away. We start giving back the rights that have been taken away.

Did you say “start”?

Yes, more has to come. Municipal rights have to come.

Do you want to give them the common franchise?

I am coming to that later. In this Bill we concede to them the right of representation in Parliament. We give them the right of representation in the Natal Provincial Council by their own people. There are some hon. members who do not like the fact that the Indians will be able to sit as members of the Provincial Council. They can do so today. To prevent them from doing so would have meant introducing a new colour bar into our constitution. It is unthinkable that we should have agreed to that.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I welcome this Bill because it stops the process of depriving the Indian community of rights, because it starts the process of restoring to them the rights that were taken away from them. That does not mean that Ī am entirely happy about the terms in which these rights have been given. The basis of representation in this Bill is the communal franchise. Hon. members, or some of them I take it, have not forgotten that when the Natives Representation Bill was before Parliament in 1936, I as a matter of principle opposed the communal franchise. I criticised it strongly. I still regard it as open to criticism for the reason I gave then, and which I am not going to enumerate now. I do not like the communal franchise proposal in this Bill, but I made my fight on that issue in 1936. To some extent the decision then taken compromises the position today. I see no chance of fighting that issue successfully today. I therefore accept the provisions of the Bill in this regard, but I accept it as a second best. I would rather have a communal franchise for the Indians than no franchise at all.

As a second best, or as the first instalment?

As a second best. I hope the Indian community will come to see the matter in that light. I hope that they will come to appreciate the recognition of their citizenship which this Bill gives as a very important step forward indeed.

Perhaps it is necessary at this stage, to avoid possible misunderstanding, that I should say a word about the position in regard to the coloured community. The fact that I accept the proposal of communal franchise in this Bill must certainly not be taken to mean that I would accept that principle in relation to the coloured community, for a very simple reason. I fought the proposal of a communal franchise in regard to the natives because it was bound up with taking away from them their rights under the common roll. In this Bill we are not taking away any political rights from the Indians. We are giving them something they have not got. I am against taking away any rights from the coloured community, the rights they have on the common roll. There is another point in the political part of this Bill about which I am not entirely happy. The Broome Commission report implied that the communal franchise should carry with it the right of Indians to be represented in Parliament by their own people. It may be remembered when in 1909 Onze Jan criticised the first report of the National Convention one of the points he took was that in the light of the long parliamentary experience of the Cape Parliament colour restriction in respect of parliamentary representation was unnecessary, and the Afrikaner Bond supported him. I have therefore fairly good backing for my dislike for the colour bar in relation to parliamentary representation. But, Mr. Speaker, despite the protest of Onze Jan and others at that time that particular colour bar was inserted in the Act of Union and is still there. It is not easy to get away at this stage from what might be described as part of the compact of Union. For my part I do not believe that it can remain there for all time. For my part I do not believe that it should remain there for all time. The hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Acutt) depored the proposal to allow Indians to sit in the Provincial Council as the thin end of the wedge. He feared that it might lead to their sitting in this House. I am not afraid of that. I take my stand for the ultimate removal of that colour bar from our constitution. I put that quite clearly. If my hon. friends want to use it to make political capital against me they are free to do so. So far their attempts to undermine my position by misrepresentation of my attitude in these matters have yielded them very poor results.

I am therefore not entirely happy about certain aspects of the franchise proposals in this Bill. But I do not consider it practicable to go further than we are going at present. It is that qualified franchise or nothing and I consider it so important that the process of the deprivation of political rights should be reversed, that there should be a recognition of the citizenship of the Indian inhabitants of South Africa, that I would be loth to do anything to jeopardise a Bill which contains provisions which would have that effect. And the very strength of the opposition that has come to these proposals from the opposite benches strengthens my belief that I am right.

Now I come to the first part of the Bill, the part that deals with property. That has to be considered against the background of the complex European-Asiatic relations existing in Natal today. It is a different situation today, especially in Durban, and it is a situation which is deteriorating steadily. Of course, it is customary to put the blame for that on the Indian. It is the wicked Indian who is always doing the penetration. But there is another side of that which should be stated. A good deal of the blame attaches to the European community of Natal and not least to the Durban City Council. Out of my own experience as Minister of Public Health, as Minister of Education, I could say a good deal in support of that statement. But I shall content myself with quoting remarks of two of my colleagues. The hon. Minister for Social Welfare, then the Minister of the Interior, in 1943 said—

And the present Minister of the Interior said—

But the precise assessment of blame for the situation is of relatively minor importance. What is of first-class importance is that there is a rapidly deteriorating situation today, and that is important from two points of view. It is important, if I may use the word in this sense, positively, in the sense that if that situation continues it may lead to serious consequences. It is of importance also negatively, because while you have that situation there I am afraid that we shall not get very far with our policy of uplifting the Indians. We have seen that quite clearly in regard to Indian housing. The first part of this Bill represents an attempt to deal with that situation. It is a drastic attempt, but we should regard it broadly, as the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) did last night. If we do so, and if this Bill does in fact make possible an effective and vigorous policy of upliftment in terms of our undertakings, the attempt which we make in this Bill may yet come to be regarded as having been justified by results.

What are the uplift clauses except the franchise clauses?

The Prime Minister has made his statement on that point.

Are there any other provisions?

Not specifically in this Bill.

Then why do you say so?

Because it is so. I say that unless you improve the present position it will be difficult for us to carry out the undertakings assumed on our behalf by the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan).

The thing which I mainly regret about the first part of this Bill, is that it has not been possible to found it on a basis of consent. I have always felt that consent is the appropriate basis for dealing with this question of restricting juxtaposition between Asiatic and European. The tragedy is that we came so very near to getting consent for such a policy.

Let us have another attempt.

Just let me continue. When I say that we came near getting consent I refer, of course, to the Pretoria Agreement. That showed that the policy of residential separation by means of the setting aside of free areas, as is done in this Bill, could be based on consent, in regard to residential separation. But the Pretoria Agreement failed. It failed in the first instance because of a display of mass intolerance in Durban which is one of the least creditable aspects of our South African history. That was followed by hysterical outbursts in India, and it led in due course to the displacement of the moderate elements from their position of control in the councils of the Natal Indian Congress. Because of these things, not only did the Pretoria Agreement fail, but the possibility of further negotiations in the spirit of the Pretoria Agreement became impossible. That possibility disappeared. I repeat that but for these things I believe that something very like this Bill might have been arrived at by negotiation and agreement. In the Pretoria Agreement the Indian representatives were prepared to accept what I think was the main point, the question of residential separation. I think it should have been possible but for the circumstances I have mentioned for them also to have been prepared to concede the further point of separation in regard to ownership, which after all only affects a small property-owning element amongst the Indians, in consideration of franchise concessions on the lines of this Bill, which would have been of value and importance to the mass of the community as a whole. But I repeat that such further negotiations have become impossible. The Government was faced with that situation, that because of these facts there was no hope of getting agreement, and we had to go forward. I would also repeat that on balance I cannot see how there should be much greater objection to this Bill taken as a whole from the point of view of the Indians, than there would have been to a Bill based on the Pretoria Agreement which they were prepared to accept. If they describe this Bill as a “ghetto Bill” then I think that with as much justification legislation based on the Pretoria Agreement could have been described by those who did not like it as a “ghetto ordinance.” In view of that I do not think that this Bill merits the violence of the opposition it has aroused in that quarter. But in any case if this Bill does make possible the effective policy of upliftment, it will justify itself, and I sincerely hope it will.

That brings me to the last point I wish to make. This Bill, as I have said, is of first-class importance, and it will no doubt be passed, but of no less importance in regard to this Bill is the spirit in which it will be passed. From that point of view it puts those of us who are supporting it to a test, each one of us individually. Whenever we in this House deal with matters which affect the unrepresented elements in our population, we are in a position of trusteeship, we stand condemned if we approach these matters only from our point of view as Europeans. If we vote for this Bill simply as a measure of safeguarding European property and other interests, if it is in that sense we are concerned with saving European civilisation, in the sense implied by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) who spoke of the maintenance of the domination of European civilisation, if that is in our mind, if we act under the dictates of the tyranny of prejudice and fear, we shall not save our white civilisation in South Africa. We in fact then abandon these principles which make European civilisation worth while. It is only to the extent that we can see in this Bill a means also to the upliftment of the at present still unrepresented Indian community, that we are justified in supporting it, and unless we are determined in all sincerity to follow up the enactment of this legislation in the spirit of the last part of the Prime Minister’s speech, I fear that we shall in the years to come have more reason to regret than to rejoice in the passing of this measure.

The Hon. Minister who has just been seated told us that he is not entirely happy as far as this Bill is concerned. Let me say at once that I cannot understand him. If there is one person in this House who ought to feel happy about this Bill, then it is he, for he has gained a glorious victory. He has got his own way in his party and the Afrikaners on the other side, who adopt the same attitude in connection with this question as we do on this side, have suffered a defeat. There are people on the other side who a little while ago declared to their voters that the Indian would only obtain the franchise over their dead bodies. They have now hoisted the white flag and the Minister of Finance has gained a glorious victory. If they allow his viewpoint to triumph still further, they will ultimately see the realisation of the prospects he has sketched for us today. I wrote his words down like this—

This is only the beginning. He went on—

As was evident throughout his speech, he is inexorably opposed to there being a dividing line between European and non-European in South Africa.

Keep to what I said.

He expressed this idea as being his goal—

He maintains that not only should there be no colour bars in this country, but that all existing colour bars should be abolished; then he will be happy.

As far as Parliamentary representation is concerned.

I will come to that. Before reviewing the speech of the Minister of Finance any further, I want to revert to a few misrepresentations which he made. In the first place he tried to create the impression that the Indians in South Africa are entitled to call on the Government of India to interfere in this affair in South Africa. Furthermore, he himself expressed the opinion that the Indians in South Africa have the right, not only to call on the Indian Government for help, but that they are also entitled to call on other countries to help them here in South Africa. Apart from the fact that the viewpoint of the Minister of Finance is diametrically opposed to that of the Prime Minister, I want to point out that he endeavoured to justify his viewpoint by asserting that the present Leader of the Opposition, in the years 1926-’27, allowed the Government of India to interfere in our internal affairs and that he accepted assistance from the Government of India. It is not true that he acknowledged the right of the Government of India to interfere in the matter. All that happened was that he accepted the assistance of the Government of India to see whether it was not possible to get rid of the Indians in South Africa by repatriating them to India or by sending them to another place. But in the second place the Nationalist Party Government of those days and the present Leader of the Opposition were very firm in their viewpoint that we would not brook any infringement of our right as far as the legislation of this country was concerned, that we had the right to accept any legislation in connection with the Indians which might be deemed necessary by the Government of South Africa, and that the Government of India would not have any say in connection therewith. To come now and say that this side of the House had already abandoned that principle is simply and obviously untrue.

It is “specious.”

Yes, the Minister of Finance said that the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) made a statement which was “specious.” He himself was undoubtedly doing it in this case.

The Minister of Finance adopted the viewpoint that the Indians are in Natal and that they came to South Africa at the request of the European race, and that for that reason we have no right to adopt the attitude that they do not comprise a portion of the permanent population of South Africa. It is very strange that the Minister of Finance did not breathe one word about the Indians in the Transvaal. He avoided that carefully. He did not tell this House or the nation who was responsible for the Indians settling in the Transvaal. He is not unacquainted with history. He knows that the old Transvaal Republic wanted to do exactly the some as the Free State, namely to keep the Indians out of the Transvaal under Act No. 3 of 1885, and he also knows that the Imperial Government usurped powers under the Convention of London which it was never intended to have, and with the threat of war forced the Transvaal Republic to grant rights to Indians in the Transvaal, a state of affairs which the Government of the Transvaal tried to put an end to with the Act of 1885.

Now I just want to say to the Minister of Finance that however much one respects his honest convictions — just as one wishes to respect the honest convictions of any person — I think that I am speaking not only on behalf of this side of the House, but also on behalf of members on the other side, and I am convinced that I am expressing the views of the vast majority of white South Africa, English-speaking as well as Afrikaansspeaking — however much we may perhaps respect his viewpoint in this connection because we want to respect the honest convictions of every person — I want to say to him that all this eloquence, all this rhetoric, and all the humanitarian principles which he mentioned, which in the majority of cases are merely platitudes, will not counter-balance the great law of nature, the law of self-preservation; they do not counterbalance that; they do not counter-balance the ideal which is cherished in South Africa that we want to build up and preserve a white nation in South Africa. I am convinced that his viewpoint will eventually be rejected by the white population; for the ideal has taken root in South Africa, and to such an extent that today already we can be assured that there are thousands and thousands of English-speaking people who except this ideal just as we do, and who also look forward longingly to the removal of anything which endangers this ideal of ours. I will come to the battle which was waged in the party ranks on the other side, but at this juncture I must refer to the speech made by the Minister of Finance at the Witwatersrand University. In that speech he rejected the idea of a “Herrenvolk.” and now I want to ask the Minister of Finance directly why he used the expression “Herrenvolk”? In South Africa we have always spoken of the white man as being the master in South Africa. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) said that the white man must form the dominating race; and why did the Minister of Finance use this strange term? The white man has been the master up to now, and I want to say to the Minister of Finance that the white man will shed his last drop of blood to remain the master in South Africa. The Minister of Finance can be opposed to this idea that the white man must remain the master. I want to put this pertinent question to him, for I want members in this House to know what the policy of the Minister of Finance is going to be in the future. Is he opposed to the white man remaining the master in South Africa? Is he prepared to reply to this question?

Now he is silent.

Is he prepared to take it upon himself to endorse our maxim that the white man must be the master in South Africa?

On that basis there can be no lasting relationship between the races.

The Minister of Finance says that there can then be no lasting relationship between the races. He adopts the viewpoint that the white man should not be the master in the country. He stands for a policy of absolute equality in South Africa.

That is a distortion.

I am now only dealing with people who can use their intelligence logically. Any person whn can use his intelligence logically must realise that if the white race is not to be master in South Africa, there must then be equality. There is no happy medium. There must either be equality or the one must rule the other. If the white man’s rule in South Africa must come to an end—and it is clear that the Minister of Finance desires it— then I want members on the other side of the House and every white man in South Africa to review the future which awaits South Africa.

We must view this whole question against the background of the position which has always prevailed in South Africa, and what is it? Here we have a little more than two million white people against a little over eight million non-Éuropeans—I am speaking in round figures. The non-Europeans multiply quicker than the white people. This is proved by the vital statistics. The non-Europeans multiply quicker than the white people, and as this is the case everyone must realise the difficult position the white man finds himself in in South Africa if he wants to remain master in the country. The non-European population adopt the same viewpoint as the Minister of Finance. They stand for absolutely equal rights. This legislation will not satisfy them. It will not satisfy the coloureds, it will not satisfy the natives, and it will not satisfy the Indians. The non-European population of South Africa stands inexorably for equal rights. And what about the European population? The European population is divided mainly into two groups. There is the first group who adopt the viewpoint that we want to remain a white nation, and that we want to remain the master in South Africa. Then there is the other group, and in that group the Minister of Finance stands out as one of the leaders. I want to come to the Prime Minister, but at the moment I am more concerned with ’ the Minister of Finance. They are a group who are indifferent to this matter. It makes no difference to them whether South Africa remains white or not; it is they who are continually agitating for equal rights, and, like the Minister of Finance, for the abolition of all colour bars. Up till now the white man has remained the master in South Africa—why? In the first place, because he was civilised and had at his disposal the means of civilisation, while the millions of non-Europeans were uncivilised. In those circumstances it was very easy for the white man to remain the master. In the second place, the white man has been the master up till now because he has kept the power to govern South Africa in his hands. In this way this minority of Europeans has been in a position to hold its own in South Africa. But if he allows that power to govern the country to go out of his hands, if by yielding to the non-Europeans we give them the vote, then in view of their numerical strength, it goes without saying that the non-Europeans will eventually gain the power to govern the country; then the white race will be swamped and destroyed. It cannot be otherwise. There are people on the other side who have come to the same conclusion. Apart from the inexorable logic that if eight million people obtain the same franchise as two million, they must ultimately be the masters, if there are perhaps still members on the other side who are in doubt, I will call on the Prime Minister as my witness. I want to refer to the declaration to which the hon. member for Fauresmith referred yesterday evening, namely, the declaration of the Prime Minister at the Imperial Conference of 1923. The question of franchise for the ’ Indians was discussed there, and, inter alia, the Prime Minister said this—

This assertion that the Indians in South Africa do not want the vote at all if they do not obtain it on an equal basis with the Europeans was discussed there by the Prime Minister, and he said that if they adopted that viewpoint then they were right. Today they are adopting that viewpoint! Now I come to that portion of his speech in which he adumbrated what I termed a maxim just now—

It is the viewpoint of the Minister of Finance that we must give the vote to all, and if we do so, then the only conclusion to which we can come is that to which the Prime Minister came in 1923, that ultimately we will have the position that the power to govern the country will go over from the Europeans to the non-Europeans. We have maintained this viewpoint of ours that the power to govern the country must remain in the hands of the Europeans, and we say that if we allow that power to pass out of our hands as far as the franchise is concerned, then European civilisation in South Africa is doomed. The whole question and the history thereof must be viewed in the light of these two philosophies of life in South Africa to which I have referred. The one is that the white man must be the master and must retain the power of government in his hands, and the other is the view of life of liberalism, as it is now called, that you must have equality, also as regards the franchise.

How do we, as two parties, stand in respect of this question, I just want to take a peep into history. In the old Cape Colony we had a government who gave the franchise to Europeans and non-Europeans on an equal footing. The Afrikaners, the Voortrekkers, left the Cape Colony inter alia as a result of the fact that there was no dividing line between European and non-European. When they arrived in the northern parts of the country and established the republics in the Free State, Natal and the Transvaal, they incorporated that philosophy of life of the Afrikaner into the constitutions of those republics, and that is why they made provision for the white man, and the white man alone, to have the vote. Thus there we had a clear division between the two philosophies of life. Then came Unification in 1910. As far as the franchise was concerned, the viewpoint of the northern provinces at first prevailed in the south. In the course of years the Nationalist Party underwent progressive development, always nearer to the philosophy of the Afrikaner, namely, that the white man should have the political power in South Africa in his hands. And so we find that in the years 1918 to 1929 the Nationalist Party always declared that the vote of the native was a danger to the white man, and that, as regards the franchise, there must be a dividing line. The present Prime Minister was opposed to that viewpoint and all through the years he was in favour of the development of the native franchise on an equal footing with that of the white man. Ultimately he had to give in, but he did not give in out of conviction. He ultimately gave in because it was the price he had to pay for Fusion. It was not that he changed of conviction, but merely because he had to pay the price that way. General Hertzog forced it from him when Fusion was brought about. As the Nationalist Party we progressed in that direction, and realised eventually that the coloured vote had also to be separated from that of the white man. It is now the firm policy of this party. Gradually we shook off the liberalistic policy which we inherited from the days before the coming of self-government in South Africa.

What now is the history of the party on the other side in this connection? I am viewing the matter purely objectively. I do not want to criticise. If their viewpoint was right, or if it is their honest conviction, then I am prepared to respect their conviction, however much I may differ from it. We heard the viewpoint of the Minister of Finance this morning, and it is unnecessary to enlarge upon it. But what was the viewpoint of the Prime Minister? There was a time before 1910 when he was a member of the Transvaal Administrative Government when he accepted the viewpoint that the white man should be the master in South Africa, a viewpoint which is endorsed by this side. But from 1910 onwards the Prime Minister changed his views. I want to remind him of the year 1911 when he came to this House with a Bill to consolidate the marriage laws of the various provinces of the Union. According to the marriage laws of the Transvaal and the Free State, a marriage could not take place between a European and a non-European. The present Prime Minister was then Minister of the Interior, and in 1911 he came to this House with a consolidating Bill, and in that Bill he incorporated a provision which rendered null and void the provisions of the Transvaal, which prohibited marriages between Europeans and non-Europeans by not making provision for facilities to allow those marriages to take place. The result would have been that mixed marriages could have taken place throughout South Africa, just as could have happened in the old Cape Colony and later in the Cape Province. As early as that we saw how the Prime Minister had departed from his original viewpoint and was moving over to the liberalistic viewpoint. I want to make further reference to his viewpoint at the Imperial Conference. There was discussion at the Imperial Conference on the Indian franchise and he strongly objected to the franchise being given to the Indians, but his objection was not based on the question of colour. He had no feeling against colour. Listen to what he said on that occasion—

That was his viewpoint. The objection to the Indian franchise was not a question of colour. The big objection was not colour, but to the Prime Minister it was merely an economic question. The white man was afraid of the competition of the Indians, and that is why the Prime Minister would not give them the franchise at that stage— not because he had any objection to the fact that the non-Europeans should obtain the franchise as such. I will go further. I come to the years 1922-’24. We know that Natal was continually passing ordinances in connection with municipal franchise so that the non-Europeans would not be in a position to vote at municipal elections. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, who was the Prime Minister in those days, together with his government vetoed those ordinances every time so that they could not reach Natal’s Statute Book. His viewpoint was that the Indians in Natal should retain the vote together with the white man, and his government vetoed that ordinance every time. Today I want to say to Natal and to those hon. members in this House who represent Natal that they have to thank the Nationalist Party for the fact that Natal is not saddled with the municipal vote for the Indians, and especially the hon. Leader of the Opposition who sits here today, for in 1924 when the Nationalist Party came into power and when again in 1926 the Natalians passed that ordinance, the Nationalist Party Government of those days gave their approval to that ordinance.

You should then have placed them on the common roll.

I am dealing with the fact that the Government of those days vetoed that ordinance time and time again and that the Natalians were only saved by the intervention of this side of the House when they gained power.

And now I come to the present legislation. I say that this present legislation is nothing else but the thin end of the wedge. I want to quote the Prime Minister’s words again—

I say here is the thin end of the wedge. And now I come to the Bill, first of all as regards Natal. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Finance used the same sophistry here today as they have used in the past. They are trying to explain away the fact that they are now allowing the Indian representation in the Natal Provincial Council by asserting that the Indian has always had the right to become a member of the Natal Provincial Council. On what do they base their assertion? The Natal Ordinance, as far as I know, lays down that to become a member you must be qualified to be registered as a voter. On those grounds the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance say that the native, the coloured and the Asiatic can become members of the Provincial Council of Natal. I want to say frankly that never in my life have I listened to such a fallacy. At first the native in Natal enjoyed full franchise together with the white man. I think it was taken away in 1883. The Indian’s vote was taken away in 1896. But a provision was introduced to the effect that the Government could give the vote to a deserving non-European. And do you know what the net result was? And now you will see why I say that this argument of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance is the greatest sophistry to which I have ever listened in this House, but it is more than a sophistry; it is the most ludicrous statement I have ever heard in this House. I went out of my way to find out what the result of that provision was in Natal. I would like hon. members to remember that the viewpoint on the other side is that this legislation is not a concession in this respect, because they say the native and the Indian have the right in Natal to go to the Provincial Council. I found out what the result of this provision was, and do you know how many natives have the vote in Natal today? Does the Minister of Finance know how many natives have the vote in Natal?

One.

One kaffir in Natal has the vote, and he says that kaffir has the right to send somebody to the Provincial Council. I also want to ask hon. members whether they know how many Indians in Natal have the vote today. One. There is only one Indian in Natal who has the vote. But the Minister of Finance and the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister say the Indians in Natal have the right to send somebody to the Provincial Council.

It is the principle.

I will just say that one perhaps expects such arguments from other members, but not from the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister; it is not worthy of their intellects to try and create that impression in the country. But I will proceed. I say this Bill is the thin end of the wedge. We are asked in this Bill to give the Indian representation in Parliament. Then I ask, as the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has already done, on what grounds the Government—not us— but on what grounds the Government can refuse to give the coloureds in the northern provinces representation in Parliament if they give representation to the Indians in the Transvaal? On what grounds? The Indian is a stranger from abroad who has been in this country for a relatively short space of time; the coloured is an inherent part of South Africa’s population. We are naturally opposed to representation in Parliament being given to the coloureds in the Transvaal, but I say on what grounds can the Government refuse to give representation to the coloureds in the three northern provinces? On what grounds can the Government refuse to give the vote to the coloureds in the three northern provinces in view of the fact that in the Transvaal there are almost three or four times as many coloureds as there are Asiatics in the Transvaal?

That was Hertzog’s policy.

Nonsense.

I will go further. It is not only the coloured. If the Indians are to have three representatives here in Parliament, how can the Government refuse to give representation in this House to natives of the Transvaal who number a few million? On what grounds can it satisfy them? I say again, on what grounds can the Government refuse representation to the coloureds in the northern provinces while that group of foreign Asiatics in Natal obtain representation in Parliament? But I will go further. It is the policy of the Government, and it is the policy of our side, ultimately to incorporate Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanaland in the Union, and once you have incorporated those areas in the Union, on the basis of what is now being done under this legislation, that side of the House, if they rule the country, will be compelled as a logical consequence of what they are doing now to give representation to the kaffirs of Bechuanaland. They will be compelled to give representation in Parliament to the natives of Swaziland and they will be compelled to give representation to the kaffirs of Basutoland, and eventually you will be in the position that you will have a bloc in this Parliament of perhaps eighteen or twenty votes, representatives of the non-Europeans, who will hold the balance in their hands. I want to ask hon. members on the other side to give their serious attention to this matter. What will be the position of the white man in South Africa if the Minister of Finance gets his way, if his liberalistic view of life if given effect to, and if there are ultimately eighteen or more non-European representatives in this House who will have the balance in their hands? What will be the position of the white man in South Africa? Any party in this House which may be in power will, in order to maintain its position, have to dance to the tune of that bloc of eighteen or twenty from one day to the next. Virtually they will be the rulers of South Africa. I say that to carry out such a policy is nothing else but an attempt to kill the white man in South Africa. It is nothing but suicide. I can understand that the legislation carries the approval of people who have no feeling for colour, people who are indifferent to whether South Africa remains a white man’s country, people who are indifferent to the question whether the white man will remain master in this country, people like the Minister of Finance with his liberalistic attitude and people like the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister who unfortunately hold those views. I say I can understand their adopting such a viewpoint, but I cannot understand how any other man on that side of the House, who accepts our viewpoint that the white man must remain white, can vote for such a Bill. I want to address this warning to my fellow-Afrikaners and English-speaking friends on the other side of the House that they are today taking the first step which will lead to the death of European South Africa. If this legislation is passed it will be the most dangerous legislation which has ever been placed on the Statute Book, because it will now open the door to that development which the Minister of Finance painted for us in his imagination, that development which will eventually lead to the wiping out of all barriers, at least as far as the political situation is concerned.

You are referring to the Parliamentary position?

Yes, the Parliamentary position. Once we have a bloc of eighteen or twenty in this House we shall never be able to prevent it. What the Prime Minister predicted will then occur, and I just want to read it to the House once again—

That is inevitable.

But the Leader of the Opposition wanted to do it.

You do not know what you are talking about.

We are often asked what we suggest as far as this position is concerned. Apart from our amendment which I wholeheartedly support, there is the view that was expressed here by my hon. friend, the member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux), and it is this. In view of what has taken place in recent years, i.e., the mass migration of minorities to their own countries, I say that before we sacrifice this nation to the liberalistic policy of the Prime Minister and the liberalistic policy of the Minister of Finance, before we irretrievably sacrifice the European to this liberalistic policy, we ought to do everything in our power even if it costs a few hundred million pounds, to see whether the Indian Government will not take back its people. It is clear that we cannot use force to repatriate the Indians from-South Africa, but it can be accomplished by entering into an agreement with the Indian Government or by entering into an agreement with India and England that the Indians be repatriated to some other part of the British Commonwealth. We must not say it is impossible. We should first try to enter into such an arrangement before saying it is impossible. We should first do everything in our power before irretrievably sacrificing the European population in South Africa to this liberalistic policy which is going to make a non-European country of European South Africa. Our policy is that the native representatives must disappear from the legislative machinery of the European. I just want to say that as far as the coloured community is concerned, we accepted the policy that the coloured persons of the Cape Province may be represented here, but as far as the Indians and the natives are concerned, my own opinion is that we should not give representation to the various races in our legislative body. The European must be the master here. I feel that the non-Europeans should be given an opportunity to bring their needs to the notice of the Government from time to time, and I want to suggest therefore that there should be called into being for each of these non-European groups a council through which they can place their views before the Government from time to time. I do not want the native groups to be thrown together. The various tribes should be kept apart, each retaining his own tribal connection. Each tribe should be given a separate council through which they can place their views before the Government from time to time. We could have such a council for the Indians in Natal; we could have such a council for the natives in the Transkei; we could have such a council for the natives in Zululand; we could have a similar council for the natives in Swaziland; and we ought to have a council of this kind for the natives in Basutoland and a separate council for the natives in Bechuanaland, and similarly we could have a separate council for the natives of the Free State, and we might have one or two councils for the various native tribes of the Transvaal. In that event we will not throw the native tribes together, thus causing them to become an entity. I want to emphasise that point; they must be kept apart on a tribal basis. The present Native Representatives’ Council is a monstrosity. It is a monstrosity because there the natives representing the various tribes are thrown together, and it only gives them a platform, under the incitement of communistic agitators, to insist on what the Minister of Finance wants, and that is eventual equality with the European.

What about the present representatives of the natives?

Our attitude is that they must disappear. The Prime Minister will remember that when legislation was introduced in this House at the time, the hon. Leader of the Opposition moved an amendment to the effect that Bill No. 1 be proceeded with, but not Bill No. 2 Bill No. 1 would not have given them representation in this House. The Prime Minister will remember the history of that legislation.

As far as the Bill itself is concerned, I have many serious objections, and I am sorry the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) is not here at the moment.

He fled.

Let me first say this: One section of the Bill, it is true, does bring about certain improvements, that is to say, that section which deals with residential areas, and which does not deal with political rights, but it does not go far enough at all. Let us first take Natal. I am now dealing with clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5— clause 4 as far as Natal is concerned and clause 5 as far as the Transvaal is concerned. These clauses deal with the restrictions on the occupation of certain land. I have serious objections to this clause. I am not referring at the moment to the fixed areas, but to the provisions of clauses 4 and 5. Let us first deal with Natal. No European may occupy any land or any premises if it was not lawfully occupied at a fixed date by a person who is not an Asiatic. That means that Indians who reside in European residential areas at present will remain there for ever, because they cannot be bought out by Europeans. In other words, by means of this clause the Prime Minister is perpetuating the evil that Europeans will live amongst the Asiatics for ever, because in Natal and in the Transvaal where Indians live in European residential areas amongst the Europeans, this Bill provides that only an Asiatic may buy land which is occupied by an Asiatic. I say that should have been altered. This Bill would have been much better if the Prime Minister had inserted a provision to the effect that where Indians live amongst Europeans, they shall not be allowed to sell to any person other than a European in that area. If that provision had been inserted we could eventually have excluded the Indian from European residential areas, and if it had been laid down that in the neutral or exempted areas a European may sell to an Indian only, we would eventually have had Indians only in that area and in the European residential area we would eventually have had Europeans only. In that case this Bill would have been much better, and its weakness lies in the fact that this provision has not been inserted.

I come now to clause 8 which is a very dangerous clause. Without Parliament having any say the Government can simply issue certificates of exemption under clause 8 and allow any Indian to take up residence in any European area. This is extremely dangerous. One can imagine what would happen if the present Minister of the Interior or the Minister of Finance were to have the final say, in view of their attitude and in view of their pronouncements in this House. They would issue permits indiscriminately to Indians, permitting them to live amongst Europeans. This is a power which should not be given to the Government; this is a power which’ should rest with Parliament, as is the case in the Transvaal. The Transvaal must decide before an area can be set aside for Indians. I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Vryheid. He tried to save his soul and to console his conscience by a statement that under this Bill the northern parts of Natal are just as safe as they were previously. Is that true?

Safer.

The northern parts of Natal fall under Act No. 3 of 1885 of the Transvaal. In terms of that Act an Indian may not buy land in the northern parts of Natal. In terms of the Act in question he is not allowed to buy land in those parts, and what is this Bill doing? It repeals that provision and makes the northern parts of Natal subject to clause 9 of this Bill which gives the Government the right to declare exempted areas where Indians may live, including the northern parts of Natal.

What about Act 33 of 1927?

It is the Act of 1927 which made the northern parts of Natal subject to the provisions of Act 3 of 1885, which prohibited any Indians from buying land in those parts, and that prohibition which applied to Indians is now being lifted in this Bill. Section 14 of Act No. 33 of 1927 is now being repealed.

Act No. 33 of 1927 lays it down.

The only thing that the Act of 1927 does is to lay down that Indians entering those parts have to obtain a permit, but if the Government, without consulting Parliament, were to decide tomorrow to proclaim one or two areas in Northern Natal, Indians could buy land in those areas; in other words, in the northern parts of Natal as well which have been protected up to the present. Up to the present the northern parts of Natal have been protected by the Act of 1885. That protection has now been sacrificed to the liberalistic policy of the Minister of Finance and of the Prime Minister; and the hon. member for Vryheid may rest assured that the Minister of Finance will become his leader in the not too distant future. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will have to retire in the not too distant future and once the Minister of Finance becomes the leader of his party, then with the assistance of the Minister of the Interior, areas will very soon be proclaimed in the northern parts of Natal as well where Indians will be permitted to buy land, and the hon. member for Vryheid will have to give an account to his voters in Vryheid and in the northern parts of Natal. [Time limit.]

I move—

Agreed to.

I thank the House for the concession but I do not wish to proceed.

I have experienced a feeling of disappointment at the contribution made by the Minister of Finance towards this very important debate. It seems to me as though he is determined to continue harking back to the incident of the Cape Town Agreement entered into in 1927 with the Government of India, which was proverbial for the fact that the Government of India subsequently did nothing to implement any of its obligations thereunder. They were expected to assist the repatriates when they returned to India by the establishment of some land settlement schemes that would have absorbed them, but nothing of the kind was done, and as Mr. Heaton Nicholls said in a speech made in the House on 8th May, 1939—

Mr. Nicholls prefaced this comment by a statement that when our Minister of the Interior announced the terms of the Cape Town Agreement in this House in 1927 he said that some land settlement schemes would be developed in India, when the repatriates got there, and at any rate the assumption was that they would be looked after, and would be absorbed back into the body politic of India.

I challenge the Minister of Finance to tell this House of any tangible contribution made by the Government of India towards the fulfilment of any of the obligations specified.

We are constantly being reminded by one Minister after another of the wickedness of the Municipality of Durban in failing to carry out their side of the agreement. I have on previous occasions indicated the patient and consistent part played by the Municipality of Durban in its endeavours to provide housing facilities for the Indians who were to be assisted by that agreement but whose organised movement for non-co-operation defeated the efforts of the Durban City Council. But the true version of this controversy will be obscured if Ministers themselves engage in a hostile and partisan campaign against the Municipal Council of Durban. I want to get away from that for a moment to say my approach to the matter today is in a spirit of co-operation and a wish to assist the Prime Minister in the obviously difficult task with which he is burdened at the present moment. I well remember a tribute that was paid to his unique skill in matters of this kind by an hon. gentleman to whom he referred the other day. Col. the Hon. F. H. P. Creswell, whilst he was a member of this House, was with me a fellow-member of a Select Committee of considerable complexity over which the Prime Minister presided, and he said—

I believe that. I realise there are very few men who have had the wonderful experience which he has enjoyed in the years of his life, and who is as well able as he to deal impersonally and without heat with all the questions that envelop this very difficult problem of the Indians in South Africa. Let me quote at this stage the first motion introduced into the Union Parliament for the allocation of separate areas, rural and urban, in one or more provinces of the Union for occupation by Asiatics. The motion was in the following terms—

It was a proposal I had the honour of moving in this House in 1921, but I have always made it clear that the proposal itself was the handiwork of the late Mr. Graham Mackeurton, K.C., and it aimed at the allocation in the provinces of the Union affected of suitable and separate areas for the Indian population of South Africa under conditions which would enable them and would give them the necessary freedom to develop according to their own needs and standards. That proposal was brought forward in four successive years, 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924. It was followed immediately in 1925 by the introduction of the Class Areas Bill by the then South African Party Government. The South African Party Government went out of power, and the incoming Nationalist Government very largely took over the provisions of the original Bill in 1926. A long period has intervened, during which conference after conference has taken place. There was first of all a Select Committee on the Bill of 1926 on which I served. This was followed by a’ visit to India, suggested by the Indian Government, of a parliamentary delegation from South Africa, and I was one of those who went on that mission. I returned very much impressed by the difference in economic conditions of the lower classes — the depressed classes of India, in comparison with the positions held by Indians of like class in this country. There is no doubt that my impression was confirmed subsequently by the admissions made by the Indian delegates who attended the second Round Table Conference in Cape Town in 1932 that the economic conditions in India were such as to make it impossible to re-absorb the repatriates from South Africa. In plain English, they were being brought back to conditions of a much lower level in India than were available to them in South Africa—lower wages and worse health conditions prevailed in India, and it was impossible for them to accept those conditions. That was the distinct impression conveyed to me too by my observations in the course of a very informative visit to India, in which we met all the leading Indians in the course of a month’s lightning tour of the entire country. We did everything possible to make a comprehensive and thorough study of the conditions affecting the Indians there. We have been reproached because the agreement was entered into as the result of a round table conference in Cape Town in 1927. I want to recall to this House one of the last speeches made in the House by the then member for Zululand, Mr. Heaton Nichols, on this very question. He was in a position to know everything that took place in regard to the non-success of that particular agreement. It was by no means a matter that depended upon the attitude of the Durban City Council. The people who were much more to blame were the Government of India themselves. Their own delegates who five years later, in 1932, came back to South Africa for the second conference frankly confessed in so far as India was concerned the agreement had been a total failure, that nothing satisfactory could eventuate from that agreement—to quote Mr. Nicholls, “It was as dead as a door nail”—and they were on the point themselves of renouncing the agreement and the conference itself almost broke down. In Mr. Nicholls’ speech on 8th May, 1939, he indicated that the agreement itself aimed at two things. The first was that it imposed upon the Indian Government the duty of adopting measures to promote favourable conditions for repatriation to India so as to assist in bringing about a diminution in the Indian population, and the second obligation was one placed upon the Union Government to proceed with a measure of uplift for the Indians that were remaining or would remain afterwards. Now, Mr. Nicholls gives his information regarding the conditions under which the repatriates were allowed to languish in the slums of Calcutta and Madras by the Indian authorities themselves. He then said that at the 1932 round table conference it was agreed that the repatriation scheme had failed utterly, and the renewal of the agreement was in doubt. There was a feeling at the time that the conference might break down, in which case the agent-general would disappear, and South Africa would revert to its policy of class segregation. Fearing that this might happen, members of the Indian delegation suggested that a way out could be found by reverting to the idea of colonisation in countries other than India, provision for which had been made in the 1927 Agreement. Mr. Nicholls relates what took place in regard to that agreement, and it is perfectly clear that there again the Indian Government failed to contribute anything to the success of that further suggestion that a colonisation scheme should be explored. No representative of the Indian Government was appointed to co-operate with the Union representatives who were appointed to investigate that matter. Mr. Nicholls and, I believe, Mr. J. Young were the two members of the commission who put in a considerable amount of work in investigating that matter. But without the assistance or the co-operation of the Government of India it became an impossible task, and the result was a finding by the Commission which could not be considered to bring the matter any further forward. Mr. Nicholls pointed out that the Cape Town Agreement had not been actually denounced, and the spokesman of the Indians have constantly accused the Union Government and the Durban City Council of having failed to carry out the “uplift” clauses of the Agreement, though the failure of the repatriation scheme, on which the efficacy of the Agreement depended was entirely due to the conditions in India. The position today is that we are engaged in considering the legislation that is proposed by the Prime Minister, and I want to deal very briefly with some of the criticisms that are made.

We heard recently that criticism was passed upon this measure by the Bishop of Pretoria at a meeting attended, I believe, by a large number of Indians. There have been other criticisms made in some cases by distinguished members of the Church, and in other cases by lesser lights, but in all these circumstances, the doctrine propounded is that this is an illiberal measure supported only by the illiberal and the ignorant. I want immediately to contrast with that kind of criticism the views of two distinguished members of the House of Lords, who after long service as Governors in this country, and with considerable experience of the Indian question, expressed a view that completely repudiates and gives the lie to the idea that this doctrine of separation emanates from the illiberal and the ignorant. I want to quote the statement of the late Lord Selborne, the Governor of the Transvaal at that time, made on the 29th October, 1906, in a dispatch recommending an Ordinance for the King’s assent. He said—

Then in the House of Lords in 1921 there was the following striking statement from Lord Milner. He said—

Those were the words of distinguished statesmen who had both applied themselves to the study of this difficult and complicated question of the residence of Indians in South Africa. Then we have the minor critics, no longer the dignitaries of the Church, who do not hesitate to describe the views of those of us who have over a long course of years adhered to the policy of racial separation as the only solution of this difficult problem, and they describe us as people of “racial wickedness.” That is the sort of thing that is hurled at one from time to time through the press. Dealing with one of these critics not long ago I pointed out that he overlooked the fact that the pioneers of segregation in any known part of the world are the Indians themselves. I drew attention to the opinion expressed by Mr. C. F. Andrews, a devoted friend of the Indian people, and an outstanding authority on the origin of their customs, who stated in a pamphlet reprinted from the columns of the “Daily News” then known as the “Natal Advertiser” that the caste system established in India between 1700 B.C. and 1000 B.C. had never changed its character during all these thousands of years. The central structure of caste, Mr. Andrews stated, is the prohibition of intermarriage, supported by the prohibition of social intercourse and the prohibition of domicile in the same area. Now, I have always maintained that these are surely salutary methods to be adopted by South Africans in their relations with Indians. I have lived for many years, a life-time, in fairly close observation of this matter. Indians have lived in the magisterial district in which I was born for a long time. I have never had any quarrel with Indians. I least of all could be accused of having been a party to the introduction for selfish ends of Indians to this country. I have never employed an Indian or in any way encouraged the indenture system amongst them. I have held completely aloof from anything of the kind, and yet throughout all these years I have treated them with the respect they deserve, and have never on any occasion had any sort of difficulty with them. At the same time that does not minimise my realisation of the fact that it is impossible for South Africa to succeed in the adjustment of its population problems if we are to live intermingled with the Indians for the rest’ of the time. I am entirely in favour of the principle of separation, but I want to point out some of the very real defects of this Bill, and to show upon what dangerous ground our feet are being set by the provisions of the Bill itself.

In regard to separation there is no doubt that the dangers of the present Bill very largely centre in the clause which lays down that the area known as the exempted area is to be free for sale or purchase to persons of all races. That virtually means that none but the Indians will buy in that area, and that the possibilities of the danger of an Indian monopoly spreading to the whole of the rural areas of the Union is very great indeed. I have no faith whatever in the provision that is made in this Bill for the handling of the matter. We are at the mercy of Ministers of the Crown, at a time when Ministers of the Crown have been the most autocratic persons imaginable in this world.

Hear, hear.

We have scarcely finished with the orgy of over-weeningness on the part of Ministers which perhaps may have been inseparable from the war period when we are now being asked to trust a Minister of the Crown to act with restraint and with complete consultation of all interests involved in regard to our landed property — the dearest possession of any South Africa—while we know perfectly well that the whole of his instinct will pre-dispose him to throw open these areas regardless of consequences. And who are his advisers? The advisers who are to stand at his elbow are a very motley lot indeed.

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

When we adjourned for the luncheon interval I was dealing with the position of the Advisory Land Tenure Board which it is proposed under this Bill should guide the Minister in granting permits, also in the releasing of new areas to Indian purchasers, and in fact on a very large number of far-reaching responsibilities in terms of this Bill. When I referred to this Board as a motley lot I was referring to their composition—two of them may be Indians seeking to penetrate into a new area—and I was referring generally to their unfitness for the tremendous responsibility imposed on them. Let me take the defensible position of the landowner who under existing conditions in the Union has various rights as a landowner. Among other rights he has riparian rights if his land is in a position riparian to a stream, and those rights may not be taken away from him except by Act of Parliament. But what do we propose here? We propose that a board collected from heaven knows where shall be called up to advise the Minister as to whether a whole district of farms should be proclaimed as an additional exempted area. There is nothing to stop the Minister from taking the advice of that body of men and, by a stroke of the pen, proclaiming our farms, farms which in some cases have been inherited through two or three generations — and from that time onward they will be earmarked as an Indian area, The fiction that this is an exempted area is merely a fiction designed to give the impression that all comers may purchase there, and that it may in God’s good time be a European area just as much as it may become an Indian area. That is not true, because I have never met a white man who is willing to buy in an exempted area the future of which will be indubitably that of an Indian area. It is like asking him to ride in an unreserved tram. He says: “That tram is marked unreserved but it is meant for Indians and monopolised by them”. In the same way if you declare an area which has hitherto belonged to a European community to be an exempted area it is obvious you are changing its destiny from that of a European area to that of a non-European area. No amount of argument will convince anybody that it is to the benefit of the white community, and that imminent danger is one which the whole of South Africa is going to face. It is a danger that is a general one, and it is a danger that will cut people to the very heart. No man who cares at all for the destiny of his children or of his country is going to submit to that meekly. If we are going to submit to that we will submit to it with the greatest outcry and pray for the day when the decision will be reversed and our own property will be restored to us in safety for the future. There is nothing to prevent the Minister from endangering the most precious possession of every South African. The Minister shakes his head, as though nothing on this earth would induce him to do it. But the Minister knows very well he is going to appoint a board in which there will be fore-ordained a majority in favour of such a course of action and by the end of the present century we shall have 20,000,000 of Indians within a day’s motoring of South Africa. And with these people provided with enormous capital — already the Aga Khan is financially interested in East African land purchase— there is no doubt that the inroads upon South Africa, the most desirable spot on earth, will be tremendous. Our resources are being completely surrendered to the power of the Indian. Our plans are futile in face of what is arrayed against us. I maintain that if this legislation is forced through the House owing to the circumstances that the Prime Minister has to go away and if nobody is allowed to appear before a Select Committee to show its dangers, the least that can be done is to put a clause into the Bill that there shall be no further extension of an exempted area anywhere in South Africa without a special Act of Parliament being passed for that purpose. Then the methods by which we may easily be ruined will have to be stayed, temporarily at least, by the passing of an Act of Parliament before any further untold damage can be inflicted on us. As I said at the outset, I have no faith whatever in the plans that are connoted in this Bill. The Minister of the Interior is to appoint a body of men whose only qualification is that they are not to be insolvent, or persons indebted as described in the Farmers’ Assistance Act, or mentally disordered, or convicted criminals. They are not to be insolvent. They are not to have misbehaved themselves. They are not to be a number of things. These are surely negative qualifications. But all this leaves room for a number of things in between. They may be indebted to the Indians to their very eyebrows. There is nothing to say they shall not be in the debt and power of the Indians or directors of an Indian firm, and I am ashamed to say it is not an uncommon thing in our country to find that. Recently I discovered from a printed letterhead of one of the wealthiest Indian adventurers in Durban that three partners of one of the best-known legal firms in Durban were named on the letterhead as directors of the Indian firm. Now, in every circumstance I can think of, it is undesirable that professional men of standing should lend their names in this manner. They cannot be operating in the service of Indians or in their pay as directors without in some way subordinating their views to those of the Indians whose interests they serve. I maintain that the only safe thing to do about any advisory persons—and the fewer you have the better; the less chance you have of things going wrong—is to limit them as far as possible in number. If you have one man who cannot be bought—I do not know of one—one man whose integrity and high-mindedness are so well known as to be a commonplace in South Africa, you would be doing much better to appoint him alone than by having a long list of gentlemen of whom you only ask they must not be insolvents, lunatics or criminals, and must not misbehave or do a few other things to which mankind is liable. My view is that there will have to be far more care taken about the possibility of our losing our land than there is at present. I plead with the Prime Minister not to allow the remonstrances which we make against the dangers of this Bill to pass unheeded. I plead with him, even if a Select Committee were not feasible —and I do not believe that to be the case— to see that in any case these things shall be decided either by a committee selected from various members of this House, an informal committee if you like, or by a Select Committee duly selected under the rules of this House, whose deliberations shall be directed to the most urgent and grave things portended in this Bill, inter aha, the danger of the release of any further areas, unless ordained by Act of Parliament. That is the gravest danger to which we are subjected by this Bill. Then there are a number of other matters which must be provided for. [Time limit extended.] I do not wish to be too long. I only want to refer briefly to certain circumstances in relation to this Bill which are of great importance. In January of this year figures published in the Press disclosed that since 1942 the Indians in Durban bought property in European areas valued at £4,230,220. These properties are actually in predominantly European areas in Durban, or in surrounding areas which were added to the old borough of Durban in recent years. A large proportion of the loans raised by the Indians to enable them to acquire these properties has come from Johannesburg building societies, or, to be more correct, from a certain Johannesburg building society. I maintain that actions of that sort on behalf of Johannesburg building societies should be limited by law. There is no justification for their issuing loans to people for a purpose which is now compelling the Government to act in the interests of European ownership in this country. It seems to me that if we are to facilitate further purchases by a system of placing exempted areas at the disposal of organisations of that sort, we are thereby quickening rather than slowing the tempo of purchases on behalf of Indians, and we must expect that there will be a redoubling of efforts to buy European land on behalf of Indians. We have had ground to complain of the lenience which the present Minister of the Interior showed under the Pegging Act in allowing fresh acquisitions. The Prime Minister will remember that four members of Parliament were asked by the Durban Wards Association to send a telegram of remonstrance to the Prime Minister in December, 1945, asking that some effort should be made to curtail the large number of property transfers taking place in spite of the Pegging Act. Our whole outlook to this question was that the Pegging Act was intended to call a halt to the purchase of land, instead of which the frequency of exemptions was becoming so great as to make the Pegging Act itself a subject of derision. There is no doubt in my mind that in regard to all these matters tightening up rather than the introduction of the present loose system suggested in the Act is desirable. We should certainly be more careful about allowing advice to be tendered by a similar sort of board which advised the Minister in the case of the Pegging Act, whether that was provided for by law or was merely a voluntary board. I am opposed to these boards. They are an over-rated pest. I think they can do untold harm, against the honest owner who today is trusting in the Government to see that his future interest in this country is not going to be gambled away by such methods as are proposed in the Act. I hope the Prime Minister whose interest in South Africa is very strong indeed is going to step in and prevent the dangers with which this Bill is fraught. There is no doubt that we the defenceless electors are going to suffer. This Bill is one which exposes the whole of South Africa to danger. I want to mention that on our part we have not only drawn attention to the need for separate ownership of land in this country, but I personally have moved in this House for the removal of the provincial barriers — I do not apply that to the Free State because there is no Indian population there — but in regard to the other provinces, it seems to me that the inter-change of the Indian population might relieve the situation greatly. That was first proposed in 1911 but was not agreed to by the then Minister of the Interior and in 1927 when I proposed the amendment in this House, I was supported by Mr. Patrick Duncan who said that it was one of the logical consequences of Union; union meant that the Provinces were to become one country, and it was one of the logical consequences of the Union, but whether the hon. member would get sufficient support was another matter. From that point of view, I maintain that it was an act of justice that should have been adopted. We have done everything we possibly could. We have been told that we were animated by not a single decent motive, and regarded as illiberal, reactionary and cruel in our outlook on this question. The contrary is the case. Our whole record and our attitude in this matter has shown that we want to be fair and reasonable, and the proposals I have submitted in this House have all been animated by a desire to bring about a settlement that would be mutually satisfactory to both sides.

I want to say at the outset that I appreciate this measure as a sincere attempt by the Prime Minister and the Government to meet a most difficult racial situation in the country. This Bill has made it abundantly clear to us that some of the measures in this Bill are very much ahead of public opinion in the country.

And always will be.

And it requires courage on the part of a statesman to legislate much ahead of public opinion. Hon. members will realise the full significance of that. I think that the best speeches that have been contributed have been those that have put party aims and objectives in the background. Not least amongst those speeches was the speech, the enheartening and hopeful speech of the Minister of Finance this morning. The record of this country, of successive governments in this country, and that is of all the parties in this country, in connection with the Indian question is not a record of which we can be proud. It is true that the present Government in 1940 endeavoured by non-statutory methods to arrive at some agreement. I am referring to the Lawrence Committee, a committee consisting of representatives of the Indians and of members of the Durban City Council. That committee was a sincere and honest attempt to arrive at a settlement by negotiation; but it failed. Then this Parliament resorted to the restrictive legislation of 1943, the Pegging Act. That Act indeed had one outstanding virtue, namely, that it was designed to be a temporary measure. There was then no declared intention on the part of the Government that the Pegging Act was to be followed by this more comprehensive and restrictive measure before the House now. In fact the opposite was the case; or at the time of the passing of the Pegging Act the Government undertook to appoint a judicial commission to go into all aspects, social, political and economic, of the Indian question. For some reason unknown to me the Government delayed for a whole year in appointing that commission; and then, one month after the commission had been appointed, the Government intervened, and entered into the ill-fated and notorious Pretoria Agreement. That agreement doomed the Broome Commission. It destroyed all hope of settlement by negotiation. The Pretoria Agreement resulted in inflaming racial feeling throughout Natal, and not as the Minister of Finance said this morning, merely in Durban. Then the Government handed the matter over to the Natal Provincial Council which appointed a Select Committee. The report of that Committee resulted in an ordinance which is the basis of the measure we are now considering. This measure then is the country’s reaction to the resurgence of racial emotions in Natal, and also to the strained relations now existing between India and South Africa. By destroying the Broome Commission, and by abandoning the method of negotiation, the Government cannot escape a good deal of blame for the present difficult situation. Had the right people been allowed to handle this question in Natal, people of independent status, such as Mr. Justice Broome; had politics in Natal, United Party politics, been guided differently by the Minister of the Interior and the Administrator of Natal, who apparently were more concerned with the welfare of their party than with the proper settlement of the question then agitating Natal, I am confident that a settlement by negotiation would have been achieved. The Broome Commission reported in 1945. In its report it made a final plea to the Government for a negotiated agreement; it recommended a round table conference between representatives of South Africa and of India. It went further; and suggested a franchise very different from that laid down in this Bill. The Government rejected both the recommendation and the suggestion. That is proof, that in the handling of this delicate racial question vacillation and weakness have led to the discord in South Africa and the tension with the Government of India.

I now want to consider the Bill briefly. Here I find myself in very close alignment with the Minister of Finance. The Bill is designed in the first instance to lay down separate areas for Asiatics on the one hand and Europeans on the other. Secondly, it is designed to set up machinery to control investment outside the so-called exempted or free areas. Now, that policy need not mean segregation in the sense that the Europeans of Natal want to consign the Indians to slums or ghettos. It can mean that, and it will mean that, unless the separatism laid down in this Bill is accompanied by separate and equal amenities for both races. In the areas for Indian occupation housing, for example, must not be less favourable than in the areas which the Europeans propose to keep for themselves. Neither must health services, education and social services be less. If that is not done then this measure will work out as the Indians believe. It will mean segregation without uplift; slums, not decent homes; disease, not health promotion; illiteracy instead of a liberal education. Our experience in the City of Durban—and here I want to pay a tribute to the way the Durban City Council has all along endeavoured to be of real material assistance in arriving at a solution to this difficulty—does not give us confidence that this measure, if it is enacted, will result in a policy of upliftment being carried out. This measure makes no specific provision as to how that policy of upliftment is to be implemented. That, I maintain, is a cardinal defect of the Bill. I doubt whether the Durban City Council on its own authority and with its present powers and within the present system of financial relations will be able to overcome racial prejudices, and the machinations of vested interests, to make a real success of this policy of uplift. An overruling authority is necessary to carry that out. Here again I criticise the Bill in that it makes no provision, either direct or implied, for such powers. It will be colossal folly if the country is led to believe that this Bill is going to solve the Indian question. It cannot do so, it will not even prevent the present position from deteriorating, unless we in Natal are prepared, through our Provincial Council, and by virtue of the powers we have taken unto ourselves by certain ordinances, that is by means of our own provincial health board and provincial housing board, to solve this racial conflict by a policy based fundamentally on providing housing, health facilities, education and social services. We recall the Cape Town Agreement in this connection, an agreement made twenty years ago. It is with shame that we ought to admit that the upliftment following on that agreement in its application to the Indian people has been only negligible. Now this measure is going to be a very costly one. Those of us who listened to the outline of the social programme to which the Prime Minister has committed the Government, realise that it will be a very costly measure indeed. I believe that the comprehensive policy of upliftment as envisaged bv the Prime Minister will be much beyond the financial capacity of the Provincial Council of Natal, and of the local authorities in Natal. The re-housing alone will run into many millions. In the City of Durban in order to carry out its long-range constructional programme for housing which has been approved an additional burden of not less than £500,000 a year will be thrown on the Durban taxpayer. Is the Government going to help the City Council to enable the broad policy of the Prime Minister to be carried out? I do not hesitate to appeal to the Government to set down in this Bill, clearly, some specific financial arrangement between the Government and the local authorities whereby provision for a bold upliftment policy can be put on a permanent basis. If that is not done, then I say deliberately that this measure is going to be a sentence to slavery of the Indian people and a mockery of democracy. Most of us who are honest with ourselves on this question will admit that in its essential principles this Bill contradicts the democratic ethics as laid down in the United Nations Charter. Our only justification for introducing such a measure as this, is that in view of the ethnic structure of the Union, it has become expedient to pass this measure in the hope that a resolute policy of upliftment will be followed; secondly, that this measure will give our people a sense of relief from the perennial recriminations between the Indian people and Europeans. It is in effect a drastic solution; and when we remember that this House, and this country, have allowed the social canker of racial antipathy to develop to the present dangerous degree, then we must face up to the necessity of removing that evil. Let us therefore do so in the hope that thereafter the South African body politic will be built up by a deliberate and planned programme of constructive humanitarianism.

I want to make some reference now to the franchise. The Indian case is sometimes based on the fact that they once enjoyed the franchise in Natal, and that by an old Natal law that franchise was taken away from them. It is true that they once did enjoy the franchise; and so did the Natal natives; but that franchise was never expressly conferred on the Indians. Their case for the franchise rests on other and stronger grounds than that. They have raised their standard of living. They have improved their standard of education. They pay taxes, in all’ forms, on the same basis as the Europeans. They are in the main South Africans, worthy South Africans citizens: They have therefore a legitimate claim to relief from the anomaly that they are not represented in the local Government or in the provincial government of the Parliament of this country. Their present position cannot possibly be justified on ethical grounds. But this is a practical question. The practical question we are now considering is this: Whether it is possible to grant to them some form of franchise that is not going to endanger the supremacy of western civilisation in this country.

What is the case that has been nut for European supremacy? When Natal was first established the standard of western civilisation was established there from the beginning. That must be maintained. The Government of South Africa must continue to conform to western ideology and tradition. It is claimed that these can never be subjects of negotiation. That position is unquestionable. I believe that the representatives of the Indian community will concede that position; they have done so. In the light of that what form of franchise does this Bill provide for the Indian people? It means that the Indians are not going to be enfranchised on the basis of adult suffrage because of the fear of Indian preponderance in Natal.

I want to give the House some figures which will, I believe, put in true perspective the actual pressure of population both on the total Union population, and in particular on the European population by the presence of the Indian people. I am quoting from the report of the Board of Trade and Industries of last year. I take the period 1921 to 1941. That report shows that during that period, the Indian population increased from 165,700 to 238,400. From 1911 to 1941 the Asiatic population shows an increase of 56 per cent. The European population over the same period showed an increase of approximately 64 per cent. But those figures are not so significant as some other figures in the report. I take the five years ending 1941; and I take the annual rate of increase of population. The annual rate of increase of the European population over those years was 1.81; of the native, 1.91; and of the mixed and other races, 1.87. The race showing the lowest annual rate is the Asiatic population. Its rate was 1.65. Going back to 1911 for the ten years ending 1921, the Asiatic annual rate of increase was ’ only .86, only half during that period of the European rate; and for the period, 1911 to 1941, the average rate of increase of the Asiatic population was 1.47, as against just on 2 per cent. for the total population of all races of the Union. In connection with those figures, we must remember we are dealing with a section of our people representing only 2½ per cent of our total population. When we realise that this increase of the different races has been relative over the years, I maintain that the fear which has been engendered by the possibility of our being swamped by the Indian people is considerably exaggerated. The first alternative to adult suffrage is the community vote, the communal franchise, similar to that by which we elect our native representatives. The Broome Commission doubted whether that franchise could be applicable to the Indians, partly because, they maintained, they were not so backward as the Bantu; partly because they were not thoroughly satisfied that the communal franchise in Kenya had altogether been successful; and again because they stated the Indians would reject it. They quite rightly doubted the wisdom of forcing on the Indians something they do not want.

The second alternative to the adult suffrage is the vote on the common roll with such stringent qualifications as would always ensure a European electoral majority. That was the recommendation of the Broome Commission. This measure accepts the community franchise. That is going to mean in Natal, notwithstanding what the Minister of Finance said this morning in connection with representation, direct representation on the Natal Provincial Council; and, as a logical consequence of that, direct representation on the Durban City Council and local bodies. The people of Natal are not happy about that prospect. In the northern provinces of the Union the Bill will give a communal vote to the Indian people, but not to the coloured people. That cannot be justified on grounds of equity. Again, in the Transvaal the vote is not accompanied by representation on the Provincial Council. If in Natal, why not in the Transvaal? Further, in the northern provinces it establishes a franchise very different from that enjoyed by the coloured people of the Cape. That only adds another anomaly to the South African political structure. The community vote, in my view, will create, if this Bill is passed, a political racial bloc, that is an Indian bloc, both in Parliament and in the province of Natal; and, in view of the separation laid, down in this Bill, it will inevitably also create an economic bloc in Natal. I submit to this House that a measure of this kind cannot possibly improve our racial relations. If we could only agree as a House on the franchise which we should grant, it would be only just that we should place the Indian people on the common roll, similar to our method of placing the coloured people on the common roll.

Is that the policy of your party?

That, I know, would be premature. In Natal the people would not accept it. But the community franchise, in my view, is an unwanted, retrogressive, reactionary proposal; and I shall have great difficulty in supporting it as laid down.

Are you speaking for your party?

We hope, as a party, to be able to get from the Government very considerable amendments to the franchise. We live in a country trying to get unity out of diversity. I greatly regret that by this method, by means of the communal franchise, we are going to demarcate and crystallise our political life on racial lines. I am disturbed at the statement by the Prime Minister in his speech in which he declared that South Africa had decided to deal with our complex society on separate racial lines, as we are doing in the case of the natives. Almost any other system, he said, would lead to endless confusion. If this’ Bill is going to implement that policy of the Prime Minister, it is going to introduce an entirely new, and I believe dangerous, principle into our social life. I sincerely trust that the Prime Minister will see his way clear to elucidate his attitude in regard to this wide application of segregation to all races in the Union. In view of the separatism in this Bill, a separatism which most Europeans will accept; in view also of the franchise which a minority of the Europeans will accept, and practically all the Indians are against, it seems a most reasonable request to the Prime Minister that this measure should be referred to a Select Committee at which Indians and Europeans could present their cases; at which the Bill could be put on truly national lines, and at which its anomalies could be removed. Before I conclude, I do not want to leave the House in doubt where I stand. [Laughter.]

It will take a lot of explaining.

We are pressing for a Select Committee. If the Government does not yield on that, we intend, as a party, to press for changes during the Committee stage. When we come to the vote on the second reading we shall have no alternative in view of the international position, in view of the many merits in this measure, but to support the second reading.

I regret the hon. member did not answer the question put by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) as to whether he spoke for his party. He said that when it came to the Committee stage he would speak for the party. Is he speaking for the party on the general principles of the Bill?

I said I would vote for the second reading of the Bill.

The hon. Leader of the Labour Party took up quite a different line but he does not know what he said. He only made two points. One was that the Indians were putting up a £2,000,000 building in Johannesburg, and the other was that the Indians were seducing Afrikaner girls in Rustenburg.

No, that is Barlow all over.

The hon. member will hear a good deal about it before I am finished. In the first place the building is not a £2,000,000 building; it will cost £50,000 and it is to be used as an hotel for the Indians. I do not think my hon. friend will have any objection to that. As to the other part of his speech I will leave it to the voters of Roodepoort.

I will come back for a moment to the hon. member for Waterberg. The House has heard a speech, perhaps one of the most remarkable ever made in this House, by the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance. It was one of the most courageous speeches ever made in this House, and it was time that speech was made in South Africa. But the Rt. Hon. member said nothing which he has not said a hundred times before. During the last ten years our friends opposite have been going round the country calling him a “kafferboetie.”

Why did you say then it was a courageous speech, if he said it so often in the past?

It was because he said it on this particular Bill. It is a courageous speech. I do not think any member on the other side of the House would be courageous enough to talk according to his convictions.

It is a reckless speech.

Hon. members have been going round the country for years and saying the United Party are pro-black, pro-Indian and pro-colour. They can go round again and I will let them have a little more problack, pro-Indian and pro-colour.

Are you now speaking for the United Party?

Definitely not. [Laughter.] I may tell my hon. friend I went to my leader and he allowed me to give my opinion on the Bill. I do not think there is any member on the other side who would be allowed to do that, even if he absolutely implored his Whips. But this is a free and democratic party. They can print what I say as they printed, at Caledon, my name as leader of the party saying I wanted to do away with the colour bar. What was the result? The people of Caledon agreed with me. [Laughter.] The fundamental issue of the Bill is that we must preserve the right orientation of our society and not switch over to the Asiatic quarter and stand here for human rights. That is what the Prime Minister told the country. I entirely agree with my friends on the other side; this is a bad Bill. When my hon. friend the Prime Minister ‘40 years ago clashed with Gandhi and he said the very same thing then, that we stand here for human rights—I was a young reporter at the time, not so young perhaps—what did Gandhi say in reply? He said: Can human rights be satisfied until full civic rights have been conceded to the resident Indian population of this country? And if at that time the Transvaal Government had acceded to Gandhi we would not have had so many Indians in the Transvaal as we have, and we would have settled the Indian problem. The history of this country shows that the more you legislate against the black man coming into the towns the larger will be the numbers that come in. The more you legislate against the Indian the stronger he becomes. We have passed legislation through this House against the black man, and the black man is stronger in the country today than ever before. When President Lincoln laid down his charter of human rights he said that America was conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition all men are created equal; government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth. He fought a bloody war in his own country in which 2,000,000 men were killed and hundreds of millions of pounds were spent to carry out that principle of government of the people, by the people and for the people. That is the tradition of America. [Interruptions.] Yes, in spite of what my hon. friend might say about racial riots in Detroit. You have racial riots all over the world. You have racial riots in Glasgow, you have them in South Africa. The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) will tell you that in Newclare they have their racial riot once a month. I am not going to speak about that now because the matter is sub judice. A case is coming before the court where eight young South Africans are being tried for taking part in racial riots. I know full well we have a tradition in South Africa, a Voortrekker tradition, a Voortrekker ideal, but on that side there is not a single member who is a descendant of the Voortrekkers. My people came up with the Voortrekkers, these people never came up with the Voortrekkers; they are Cape people. The Voortrekkers went in amongst the barbarians and no white people ever treated the natives better than the Voortrekkers did. They gave them a fair deal and there was not the economic pressure on the Bantu there is today. What we have to stand for today is what the Minister of Finance has proclaimed today, the liberal philosophy of Onze Jan, of Merriman, of Sauer — father of the present member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) — and the Afrikaner Bond, and Rhodes’ challenging statement that there shall be equal rights for all civilised men south of the Zambesi.

He gave a definition of a civilised man.

I do not know whether he did that.

I will read it.

Yes, let us hear it.

“A man whether white or black who has sufficient education to write his name, has some property, or works, and is not a loafer.”

I accept it. Will the hon. member accept it?

I do not. If that is your test then in a few years’ time you will be giving the vote to every black man in South Africa.

That does not frighten me at all, because I know what will happen.

That is what you are aiming at.

I represent an urban constituency and I will be held responsible for what I say in this House. I am prepared to face it. I have made exactly the same speech for ten years in a platteland constituency.

They chucked you out afterwards.

Of course they chucked me out, just as the hon. member will be chucked out one day. Let us take Natal. That province has always been the scene of discord right from the beginning. They were more British than the King. Then they threatened Churchill over Bambata and threatened to cut the painter. Then encouraged Indians to come to their country to cultivate their fat lands and dig their coal because their own labour, both European and African was ignorant, impotent and slothful. Natal has been built up on the broad back of the Indian peasant. My mother came to Natal when she was a girl many years ago. She died almost at the age of 90. She was one of the first women to support the Nationalist Party in this country.

She was better than you were then.

The last time we went together through the fat lands of Natal she said: This part of the country was jungle when I came here, the white man could not look after this country and it was built up by the Indian. And it has been built up by them, there is no doubt about it. Not a good word has been said about the Indians in this House during the debate. Everybody who has got up here has said he is a bad and awful type of man. Our figures prove that the Indian on the whole forms a most law-abiding section of the community. He is certainly the only farmer I know that has carried the soil with his own hands when there has been erosion and saved the slopes around Durban, while the white man in the Free State has allowed his land to be washed to the sea. Our friends always think of the rich Indian merchant, the Mohammedan, but the majority of the Indians are first-class workers. In our Cape hotels they have won such a good name that the proprietors do not want them to leave. They are trying their best to keep them here. They are going to the Minister of the Interior and saying: For goodness’ sake do not allow those Indians to go back. I know of a member of Parliament who is going to the Minister over the same thing.

I do not believe it.

Ask the Minister whether it is right or not. When these Indians were in Natal for some years, due entirely to the laxity of the Europeans in Natal and to the absence of education and decent wages, the authorities and the Town Council in Durban turned a great portion of the city of Durban into a vast poor-house, because the white capitalist of Natal sweated and exploited the poor Indian. On the railways it was the same. When Natal came into the Union the Natal railways were run by cheap Indian labour, and it was Charlie Malan who introduced the white man to the railways there. But all the Indians get is jeers and sneers in this House. It is not an Indian problem but a European problem to be solved by this House. The provincial representatives of Natal have not been able to extend their own feelings beyond the horizon of their parish pump. I feel sorry for the Prime Minister, just as I feel sorry for the Leader of the Opposition. He (Dr. Malan) was in an awful position. Natal kept on clamouring and clamouring, and he tried to do his best. The Nationalist Party at that time did their best also to solve the situation, and they brought Mr. Sastri to this country, and they tied South Africa to India by bringing Mr. Sastri to this country. So pleased were the Indians that they placed a wreath of roses round the shoulders of the Leader of the Opposition. I personally attended a dinner where I heard the hon. Leader of the Opposition get up and praise Mr. Sastri and they shook hands about the wonderful thing they had done about tieing this country to India. The Leader of the Opposition and the Nationalist Party brought the High Commissioner for India into this country and nobody else. Now they want to turn him out of this country. I think it is only fair to say that political rights may be divided into three classes — the right to lead a full life, the right to own property and the right to the franchise. Those run down the corridor of history, and this Bill denies the Indian the privilege of leading a full life. Natal sinned when she brought slave labour into this country. Slave labour was brought from the slums of Bombay and Calcutta and other big cities and these indentured Indians came to work in the sugar plantations of Natal at 4s. or 5s. per week.

They got more than they got in India.

That is no argument. My forefathers and I am sure the forefathers of most members in this House got far more money in this country than they did overseas. Naturally they got more, otherwise they would not have come here. The 1820 settlers got more money. Van Riebeeck’s settlers got more money when they came here. That is why all these people came here. There is no need to sneer at what Gandhi said. Gandhi said that these fellows came from the slums of India. Look at the history of the white man in this country and see where we came from. We came from the working classes of Europe. My hon. friend talks; he has never read his history. Let him read what the poet Pringle said about the 1820 settlers, and let him then come and talk to a man who knows what he is talking about. I say that Natal sinned when she brought in indentured labour. If indentured labour is not slave labour, I ask my hon. friend what slave labour is.

Are the mines sinning when they bring in Portuguese native labour?

Of course, they are sinning. But the sugar industry is now getting rid of its Indian labour. They are now bringing in indentured labour from Portuguese East Africa. Again Natal is sinning in bringing in indentured labour from Portuguese East Africa and Pondos from the Cape, and one of these days they will have so many Pondos in Natal that they will come to this House and ask us to peg the Pondos. Yes, they sinned and the wages of sin is death. Whatever this House thinks, whatever resolutions this House passes, whatever Bills this House brings forward, whatever wonderful speeches are made by Natal members—and I have heard nine Natal members speaking; and they have all made different speeches and laid down different principles — the future of Natal is black. It is a physical problem.

If you have your way the future of South Africa will always be black.

The physical problem was laid down by the extraordinary reactionary but polished speech of the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp). He gave figures which showed that the white population in Natal is not producing its species whereas the Indian population is increasing enormously.

They are over-producing; it is part of their religion.

My hon. friend says it is part of their religion; he says they are overproducing. Those are the facts. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson) told me the other day that he went to Ladysmith on business and he had to visit the richest man in the north of Natal who introduced him to sixty sons.

No, he did not tell you that.

How many daughters?

This is no laughting matter. The hon. member says that he was told this at a public meeting which he held in Ladysmith.

And he believed it.

He believed it. There is no man in this House, from the Prime Minister down to the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz), who will place his hand on his heart and say that that is not a real problem. And here I want the help of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom), and I want the help of hon. members opposite. Let us open our gates to western civilisation and bring white men into this country. That is the answer to this problem. Let us open our gates and go and fetch as many Hollanders as we can get to come to this country, and as many Germans as we can get to come. Yes, Germans make good colonists. Let us get as many Englishmen as we can persuade to come here, and let us do it as fast as possible.

What is wrong with the Scotch?

My hon. friend wants to know what is wrong with the Scotch. Nothing. But will my friends on the other side who always talk about white South Africa, about the white man being the boss in this country, will they encourage this Government or the State to bring white men into this country so that we can meet this great black cloud that is going to overwhelm us unless we bring more white men into this country? I am asking the hon. member for Waterberg to answer now on behalf of his party: Will he encourage State-aided immigration into this country?

I have said over and over again that we will be in favour of the right type of immigrants once we have made provision for our own poor people in this country.

That is the man who says: “Die witman moet die baas wees.” (The white man must be the master.) How many poor people have you got to put on their feet?

If this country is developing industrially, as our policy lays down, there will be scope for immigrants, provided they are of the right type.

But we do not want any Arthur Barlows here.

Order, order.

The hon. member cannot answer the question.

I have replied to your question.

This question will go to the country, and the country will decide whether hon. members opposite are playing a party game, or whether they are playing a game of trying to save this country for white civilisation.

That will be your test, too.…

Just before I close I want to talk to the Leader of the Opposition. One of the greatest points he made against this Bill was this: he asked what right the Indian had to be in this country, what right he had to the franchise when he runs to Russia, when he runs to England, when he runs to America and to India and to other countries to get more rights for himself in this country. We older men in this House remember very well that the same Leader of the Opposition went to his friends to try and get on to an English man-of-war—to go where? To go to America to ask America to interfere in this country.

Now you are talking nonsense.

My hon. friend must read Hjalmar Reitz’s book.

On which man-of-war did they go?

I did not say that they went on a man-of-war.

What did you say then?

I said they went down to their friends and the. Admiral offered them a man-of-war. They wanted to go to America to get America to help them to get their Republic.

But that is not true.

They had to go to America in order to get to Britain. [Laughter.]

I don’t know why there is all this laughter, because the only boat they could get was via America.

Many years ago, in June, 1938, I remember an interview that was given by the members of the Dominion Party on this question of Indian representation, and the heading came out of my own paper. [Laughter.] My hon. friends need not laugh. This is from the “Sunday Express,” which all my friends over there asked me to send to them for nothing. I read here—

The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg) was asked what his views were and he stated—

Then the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire) was asked what his views were and he expressed himself in favour of the representation of the Indian in Parliament. Now I come to the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer). He said—

My hon. friends of the Dominion Party, with the exception of the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Acutt), all expressed themselves in favour of legislation of this kind. But the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) who is always cautious, said: “I would like to think it out.” The Dominion Party accepted the principle that the Indians should have representation in this House. I then wrote an article on this and I said—

I am not going into this question again because it has been discussed ad nauseam, but I would just like to ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister this: He says this is a domestic matter. Hon. members will remember that he was the Attorney-General of the old Transvaal Republic, and I was the political reporter for the Argus group. That was a long time ago. When Cunningham Green used to come and see him on behalf of the British Government he used to remark: “This is a domestic matter; this is a question which we must decide for ourselves.” And then the Prime Minister rushed his fences as he is rushing them today, and he sent an ultimatum to England. He rushed into this matter and through that he changed my nationality. I only hope that he is not going to change it again. As an old man I want to say to the young members in this House that they must come together, because they have to solve a most difficult problem; this is the most difficult problem that South Africa has ever had. Forget about the leaders of the parties. Go into the world and talk to the young black man and the young native and the young Indian and get him to come and sit down and reason with you and see if you cannot save this country for western civilisation. We old men have probably lost it for you. We have done our best but we have probably lost it for you, but your opportunity has now come. The leaders of the parties in this House are all over 70. Time rolls on and men go. I hope that they will not go for many years, but they will go one day and the future of South Africa lies in the hands of you young men, and it does not lie on the lines of this Bill. It lies on the lines of the Atlantic Charter, where the white man need never be afraid that any colour will be on top. The white man has never stood back for any other colour, whether they be Asiatic or Negro, and I say that the young men of South Africa need not be afraid. Take your courage into your hands and go forth into the world and say: “We are prepared to meet anyone on this basis.” We shall be the boss in South Africa, and we shall only be the boss by giving the proper rights to all people in South Africa.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) should remember that this is the House of Assembly and not a club where old men exchange reminiscences. Furthermore I think the time has arrived for the hon. member for Hospital as well as other members on the other side to make up their minds exactly where they stand on this Bill. After cracking up the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance, after cracking up the Indians…

He cracked up himself.

Yes, do not forget that. One need only read last week’s issue of “Arthur Barlow’s Weekly” to see how the hon. member cracks himself up. After cracking up the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance and after cracking up the Indians he suddenly realised the implications of this Bill, and advocated a bold policy of immigration to save the white man in South Africa.

I said so.

It is time that hon. members on the other side make up their minds exactly where they stand. All of which goes to prove the correctness of the statement made some time ago in a certain English monthly that “the United Party consists of irreconcilable elements, and all that holds them together is plain fear of the Opposition”.

I want to devote my speech particularly to the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance. If one or other of the modern-style biographers were to write the life history, particularly the political history, of the Minister of Finance, he would probably entitle it, “The Strange Case of Mr. Hofmeyr”. This morning this House was treated to a political eggdance by the Minister of Finance. Let me put it this way, that it was more like a combination of an egg-dance and a swordswallowing act.

Let us get on with the Bill.

It is much easier for a certain type of person to swallow his principles than it is for another man to swallow a sword.

Ask your leader about that; he is an expert.

If this Bill could speak, it would in respect of the speech made by the Hon. Minister this morning be like a coy young girl who picks the petals off the flowers, and says: “He loves me; he loves me not”. I made a note of the various statements made by the Hon. Minister in regard to this Bill. He started off by saying—

“He loves me not.” He goes on to say—

“He loves me.” Then again —

“He loves me not.” Then he goes on to say—

“He loves me not.” Next he says—

Again “He loves me not.’4 But then again—

“He loves me.” And then he says—

“He loves me not.” And then again—

“He loves me not.” Next he says—

“He loves me.”

And then he ends up by saying that it is a tragedy that we did not get the consent of the Indians. On that note he ends: “He loves me not.” I think that more or less puts the position of the Hon. the Minister of Finance in a nutshell.

But let us be serious. The attitude of the Hon. Minister this morning was not merely the performance of an egg-dance. No, Sir, it is something much more serious. It goes far deeper, and the attitude of the Hon. Minister has very definite implications. The Hon. Minister stated on more than one occasion this morning that he regarded this as an important Bill. He used these words—

We entirely agree with that part of the Minister’s statement, particularly in regard to the implications of the Bill. It is an important Bill. Now the question arises— and I wish to discuss that for a moment— what is the position of the Hon. Minister of Finance in the Cabinet? I want to discuss very briefly the constitutional position that has been raised by the attitude taken up by the Hon. Minister of Finance this morning. That, Sir, cannot simply be brushed away, as the Minister of Finance tried to do by saying that after all he was going to vote for the Bill.

That is our concern; why are you worrying about it?

The hon. the Minister of Finance, and also the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, will agree that there is a fundamental issue in this Bill, a fundamental principle, viz., the principle of segregation. In regard to that fundamental issue, the hon. the Minister of Finance is not in agreement with his leader the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. That is the constitutional issue which is raised by the speech made here this morning by the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance stated his position very clearly on the question of separation, more commonly known as segregation, which is an inherent principle of this Bill, particularly the first part of the Bill relating to land tenure. He stated his position very clearly. He will admit that himself. He condemned the colour bar….

The colour bar in Parliamentary representation.

The Minister condemned the colour bar in general terms.

No, in Parliamentary representation.

And what about your “herrenvolk” speech?

I am coming to that. The general impression conveyed by the Minister of Finance this morning was that in general terms he was not in agreement with the principle of the colour bar, and I will also quote from his speech made at the Witwatersrand University ten days ago to show that that is actually his view.

He corrected you this morning.

He condemned not only the colour bar, but he went so far as to say that he was prepared to extend the Indian franchise to municipal councils. He said—

In Parliamentary representation.

It may be. I challenge the Minister to say whether he is not generally known as being one who is opposed to the colour bar in this country.

You stick to what I said in the speech.

I will stick to what the Minister said, and I will also quote the Minister’s own words spoken at the Witwatersrand University ten days ago. He said this morning—

When he referred to “this Bill”, he included the first part of the Bill, viz., the Land Tenure section of the Bill, which deals with territorial segregation. That is what he said, and it is clear enough. There can be no doubt whatever in the mind of any hon. member in this House, either on this side or on the other side of the House, as to what the attitude of the Minister of Finance is in regard to the colour bar provisions, as he calls them, of this Bill.

Let us contrast the attitude of the Minister with that of his Leader, the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. What did the Prime Minister say in his speech?—

The Prime Minister went further and said—

Now let us for the moment take the Minister of Finance at his own word that he was referring only to the colour bar in Parliamentary representation. I say that, also in regard to that matter, his view is diametrically opposed to that of his Leader, the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, who says—

I return to the main issue. The fundamental issue of this Bill, apart from side-issues, is the question of colour separation, particularly in the first and also in the second part of the Bill. I say that the Minister of Finance and the Rt Hon. the Prime Minister are at odds with each other on that issue. The “Cape Times” is now coming out in full support of the Indians. There is no doubt about that; the “Cape Times” said that the statement quoted from the Prime Minister’s speech seemed to be an enunciation of a new attitude on the part of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. The “Cape Times” is very perturbed about the attitude of the Prime Minister, and puts this question—

There is undoubtedly a distinct difference on the fundamental issue of the Bill between the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance and the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. The question arises as to what the position is from the constitutional point of view. It is hardly necessary for me to deal with the constitutional position. We all know—and the Minister knows it—that in that respect our practice is based upon that of Great Britain, upon that of the House of Commons. It has been clearly laid down by authorities on constitutional practice that on a fundamental issue there cannot be a difference of opinion between a Minister and the Cabinet, or between a Minister and his Prime Minister.

Why not come to the Bill?

I am dealing with a fundamental issue in the Bill. Do not run away from that issue; that is what the hon. member is now trying to do. It was laid down as early as 1878 by Lord Salisbury—

And that is exactly what the Minister of Finance said. He said that he regarded this Bill as a compromise, and for that reason he was voting for it. And then in the rest of his speech he proceeded in so many words to condemn the attitude taken up by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. Let me quote further from the most recent book on British constitutional practice, viz. “Cabinet Government,” by Jennings—

Then the writer proceeds—

And that is exactly what is not happening today. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are not telling the same story in regard to this fundamental issue of this Bill. That is the position.

We are not worried at all; why are you?

The Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance says he accepts the Bill as a compromise, and then he proceeds to condemn it; he condemns the fundamental issue of the Bill. He said: “I cannot vote for the Bill because of the amendments put forward by the Opposition.”

No.

Yes, most decidedly. He says: “If there is nothing else which will make me vote for the Bill it is these amendments.”

No, I said that the opposition coming from that side made me more convinced that I am right.

I am prepared to accept that; it’s the same thing. What is very clear is that the Minister is not so much voting for this Bill as against the attitude taken up by the Opposition.

No.

That is what you say. The position is that we have here a difference of opinion between the Prime Minister and the Deputy-Prime Minister on a fundamental issue on this Bill. I wish to point out that in the past the Minister of Finance has resigned from the Cabinet on a much less important issue. [Opposition cheers.] He resigned in 1936 because of the appointment of Mr. A. P. J. Fourie as a representative of coloured interests in the Senate. He resigned purely on a question of opinion as to whether Mr. Fourie was the right man to represent non-European interests in the Senate. But after listening to the Minister of Finance this morning one is forced to the conclusion, particularly after witnessing the egg dance which he performed, that he on this occasion has not the courage of his convictions. [Laughter.] It is no good laughing. It is a fact, and you cannot laugh it away. The words of the Minister of Finance stand in Hansard as proof of the fact that either he has not the courage of his convictions in regard to this Bill, or that he is not prepared to relinquish his post on a fundamental issue in this Bill.

Has he not done that before?

I am very glad indeed of that interruption. I will deal with it later. May I once more quote from this latest work on Cabinet responsibility. It says—

And that is what happened this morning when the Minister of Finance swallowed his objections in regard to the segregation principles inherent in the first part of this Bill. We are driven to the conclusion that the Minister of Finance, whilst making a parade of his principles, has in fact swallowed them in so far as the segregation principle is a fundamental principle and a fundamental issue of this Bill. This is what I have termed “The Strange Case of Mr. Hofmeyr,” which brings me to the interruption of the Minister of Native Affairs.

It is necessary to devote a few minutes to the past political record of the Minister of Finance. It is necessary to do so, because it is well known that the Minister of Finance has been designated as the successor to the leadership of the United Party, the successor to the Hon. the Prime Minister. It is therefore necessary that the country, and also his own party should know what his record has been in the past, in regard to these matters.

For many years the Minister of Finance has admittedly been the upholder in this country of liberal traditions, the leader of the liberal forces in the country. He has always been regarded as the champion of what he has termed “equal rights for all races and sections of the population. He has been in the forefront of the fight against what he himself termed in his recent speech, the “racial and colour prejudice in this country”. On each and every occasion the Minister of Finance has expounded his ideas and his ideals. The country is accustomed to the high moral tone adopted by the Minister of Finance. Even in his Budget speeches the Hon. Minister of Finance has been accustomed to adopting that high moral tone.

You do not object to it, do you?

I object under certain circumstances, as I shall show. But history and experience has shown that it is very difficult consistently to act up to high moral standards. Many, like the Minister of Finance have set out to scale that steep and narrow road leading up to the heights of idealism, and many have fallen by the way. Others have branched off on the branch roads of political expediency; and others merely slip and slide: And that, I am afraid, is the strange story of the Minister of Finance. He is slipping and sliding badly.

His attitude today, in swallowing his principles in the matter of segregation, was not entirely unexpected. For some time it has been apparent from lobby gossip that there were differences of opinion in the United Party caucus. It has also been evident that the Minister of Finance has been preparing himself for the painful act of swallowing his own principles. Which brings me to the speech made by him at Witwatersrand University. Sir, that speech gave a ray of hope to the Liberals who have been following his lead in the past…

Those negrophilists.

… because in that speech he complained about the strength of prejudice— “race prejudice and colour prejudice in our midst”; he stated his liberal convictions with considerable force. He could not have stated it more plainly than he did at the Witwatersrand University on 18th March, 1946. And what is very significant is that the speech was made on the day following upon the introduction of this Bill into Parliament. It was made on the following day after the Prime Minister had moved the first reading of this Bill. The question probably occurred to many of the Liberals who look upon the Minister of Finance as their leader: Was the Minister of Finance serving notice upon the Prime Minister that he was going to oppose the Indian Bill in Parliament? He specifically mentioned the Indian question in this speech—

And then he proceeded to say—

“May.” You are reading more words into it than there are.

I beg your pardon. I am reading every word that is here. Blame the reporter if it is not correct, but do not blame me.

He is doing what he did a few weeks ago.

I will again read the words as they stand in this SAPA report; not a “Burger” report, but a report from the “Cape Times”—

Those are the words, and the Minister must either blame the newspaper, or retract his suggestion that I did not read the correct words. Does the Minister retract?

The report is not correct.

It is not my habit, as is the case in pamphlets issued by his party, to omit certain words.

It is clear that the Minister of Finance in his speech connected what he termed “the Herrenvolk attitude” with the Indian Bill, and I am satisfied in my own mind, and I think every student present there that night, was certainly under the impression that the Hon. Minister of Finance indicated that he was opposed to the segregation principle inherent in this Bill. That was the only possible impression he could convey.

Is he in favour of segregation at the university?

One does not know. He says he is only in favour of segregation in regard to the franchise. Is he in favour of segregation of students at the universities? Perhaps the Minister will explain to us? No, he remains silent. That is what the hon. the Minister said on 18th March. Liberal Youth of South Africa was in great fettle. At last there was a lead from the Minister. So also were the Indians, who later, however, expressed their disapproval and disappointment with the Minister’s attitude, and said it was not much good paying lip service to the ideals of racial equality. They accused him of paying lip service, those same people whom he today protects.

Today came the dawn of disillusionment, when the Minister told the House what his attitude is. He is going to support the Bill. He does not agree with some provisions of the Bill, and other provisions shock him, but he will yet support it.

Those Liberals in South Africa who have been accustomed to look to the Minister of Finance for a lead should have known him better, because this is not the first time that he has swallowed his principles. And now I come to the interjection of the Minister of Native Affairs.

Let us go back to 9th September, 1938. How well we remember that afternoon when the Minister, like a modern Luther, faced an unsympathetic House.

“.… with every fibre of my being….”

I will come to that. He said, in effect, “I cannot do otherwise.” He stated that he’ was resigning from the Cabinet. Why? Because he did not believe that Mr. Fourie was the right man to represent nonEuropeans in the Senate? What did he say?

I leave my colleagues on a matter of conscience and of principle. I do so without rancour or bitterness of any kind. … There are involved in this matter issues of a sound Parliamentary tradition, there are involved in this matter issues of constitutional propriety, there are involved in this matter issues of fair play for the non-European people in this country. But there is also a moral issue involved in this matter.

And there he proceeds to quote from a speech made by him at a Junior Chamber of Commerce meeting in Cape Town, and he says—

And then he proceeds to explain—

At that time he was still ascending the steep and narrow path to which I referred—

Brave words! Brave words! The Minister proceeds, and in the closing words of that memorable speech, a word-perfect speech, he says—

And on that note he ended his speech. That speech made an impression on every member in the House. “E’en the ranks of Tuscany could scarce forbear to cheer!” And Liberal Youth of South Africa girded up its loins, eager to go into battle, under the inspired leadership of Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr, their great leader.

Come back to the Bill.

That is all part of the Bill.

You seem to feel hurt.

But alas, that clarion call did not reverberate for long. A few years later we find our modern Luther slipping down the path of political expediency. A certain Sir Alfred Hennessy was appointed as representative of the non-European interests in the Senate, a person who knew absolutely nothing about native affairs, or about the interests of the coloured population. Did our noble modern Luther again resign from the Cabinet? No, not on your life! He held on to his Cabinet post. At that time he was already sliding down the wide and dubious path of political expediency. Already he had forgotten all about his clarion call. He did not even hear the echoes of that call. [Opposition laughter.] He swallowed his principles, apparently without much discomfort. Unfortunately once one starts sliding, one slides fast.

You seem to know all about it.

A tu quoque reply to my argument does not help you much.

Then came the Pegging Act. And once more our modern Luther who had sounded the clarion call was prepared to swallow his principles. He rose in this House and said there was a war on, and muttered something about seeing the war through. Again he was prepared to swallow his principles, and swallow the Pegging Act. And now, once again, the clarion call is forgotten, and the hon. the Minister has once again swallowed the principles. But by this time he is probably enured to the after effects of swallowing his principles.

Did he get indigestion?

He did. That speech on the Rand was a case of moral indigestion following upon the swallowing of the principles he had upheld in the past. Or shall I say it was a case of hiccoughs of remorse, following upon an acute attack of moral indigestion. That is the real significance of the Rand University speech.

So what?

That is exactly what it is. And what was the reason for swallowing his principles this time? After all, the war has been won. Is it perhaps because he now wants to win the peace, which is also in danger of being lost? Is that the reason why he is again prepared to swallow his principles? If that is the reason, it is a very thin one. I am afraid that the motive is a very much less elevated one, and that what we have here is in reality a conflict between the interests of the good old United Party and those of liberal idealism; it is the conflict against which the hon. the Minister warned the Junior Chamber of Commerce at Cape Town, that same conflict between political expediency and liberal principles. I still hear the echo of the clarion call on 9th September, 1938. Other hon. members on this side of the House, who listened to that word-perfect speech, still hear echoes of the clarion call. Only the hon. Minister of Finance no longer hears the clarion call. He has forgotten all about it. And poor Liberal Youth of South Africa has been badly let down; in fact, left in the lurch. I suggest that the less the Minister of Finance in future talks and preaches about principle, the better it will be for his political reputation.

And for his indigestion.

I now want to say a few words about this matter of the interference of the Indian Government in our domestic affairs, and what is more serious, the encouragement of such interference by the Indians of South Africa. In that connection I wish to refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) who presided at a meeting of Indians held in the City Hall on the occasion when they protested against this Bill.

I did not preside.

I will not insist upon your presidency, but the hon. member was present and spoke. I hope the hon. member will not, as was done by the Minister of Finance, accuse me of not quoting correctly. The "Cape Times” reported that the hon. member told the Indians congregated there—

I would like to ask the hon. member: What exactly did she mean? What did she mean when she referred to “backing”? Was she referring to the backing which the Indians subsequently received from the Indian Government? I rather suspect that that was what she referred to.

I did.

She agrees. I say it is a most important matter that a member of this hon. House should actually go so far as to encourage a section of the population of this country to secure backing from other people, or from the government of another country. If ever proof were needed of the undesirability of having separate race representation in Parliament, that proof is forthcoming in the attitude adopted by the native representatives in this House during past years, and particularly in the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Cape Eastern when addressing this meeting of Indians.

As regards the interference of the Indian Government, combined with the action of local Indians in this country, I think that common sense requires that they should now decide what they are going to do about it. Neither the Government of India, nor the Indians in this country can have it both ways. They are either citizens of this country, or as Mr. Khare says, in his speech in the Indian Legislative Assembly, they are nationals of India.

What do you say they are?

I say the Indians in South Africa are an alien, and not an indigenous part of our population, and in that respect their position is not as strong as that of the native or coloured man. But that, as regards our domestic legislation and policy, particularly on the matter of colour question and segregation, the Indians are exactly in the same position as the native and coloured population of the country, and must submit to the policy and decisions of this House.

Whether they are South Africans or not?

I say the matter cannot be left in the air. In regard to the attitude adopted by the Indian Government, I think the time has come when the Indian Government must be told frankly that they cannot poke their noses into the domestic affairs of South Africa; and if they insist on regarding the Indians in South Africa as their nationals, they must make arrangements to repatriate them. In that connection I wish to refer to a remark in the speech of the Hon. the Minister of Finance, in which he suggested that the arrangement made by the previous Minister of the Interior, the present Leader of the Opposition, in regard to repatriation of Indians, constituted an approval of interference on the part of the Indian Government in the affairs of South Africa. Does the Minister deny that this morning he deliberately said that this is not the first time that the Indian Government has interfered in the affairs of South Africa, and that the Leader of the Opposition had been a party to such interference? [Time limit extended.]

I said that was based on a conference between the Indian Government and our Government.

I have nearly finished. I wish to repeat what the Hon. Minister said, and Hansard will bear me out. He said that the Leader of the Opposition had come to an agreement with the Indian Government with regard to the repatriation of Indians, and that that was a recognition of the right of India to interfere in our affairs. The Minister knows that it was the policy of the Nationalist Party Government to get rid of the Indians by repatriation, and he knows that no country will receive people who are not its own citizens unless its consent has previously been obtained. India at that time regarded the Indians in South Africa as Union nationals. One cannot deport or repatriate people without first having received the consent of the country to which they are to be sent. The Minister referred this morning to so-called “specious” arguments used by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges), but if ever there was a specious argument, his statement in regard to repatriation was one. In fact, like the Greeks, I have another word for it, but will not mention it, because the Speaker will not allow me to do so. But that is the position. The Indian Government and Indians in South Africa cannot have it both ways. The Indians in South Africa have to decide once and for all whether they are prepared to be subject to the same laws and policy of the Union Government that happens to be in power, as natives or coloured people. They cannot have it both ways. If they are not prepared to accept that, and if the Indian Government regards them as their nationals, then the sooner they go back the better. And then for the first time they will experience what Dr. Khare in his sanctions speeches termed “a position of permanent inferiority”. In India they will for the first time realise what a position of permanent inferiority is.

There is one other matter which I would bring to the attention of the Prime Minister in the hope that he will deal with it in his reply. It is a matter not as yet raised by any speaker. I refer to what I term the Imperial aspect of the matter. In that connection we should like to have some information from the Prime Minister. I am not au fait with the actual relationship between Great Britain and the Government of India. It is a matter about which there is considerable doubt. India has a High Commissioner in London, and is represented in the Imperial Conferences, and yet India is not a Dominion. What we want to know is this: Whether, in regard to this reprisal measure against South Africa, passed by the Indian Parliament, it was necessary for the Viceroy of India to secure the consent of the British Government? We would like to know whether or not the Viceroy is in the position of the Governor-General in this country, who is able to confirm legislation without referring it to London. Was it necessary for him in this case to secure the consent of the British Government? If so, will the Prime Minister tell us what the attitude of the British Government was? We are often told —recently again—that there is continuous consultation between our Government and the British Government We would like to know whether the Prime Minister was consulted about this matter; whether he was informed by the British Government, and what the attitude of the British Government was. I think that is a matter on which we can expect a clear and unequivocal reply from the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister.

May I in conclusion point this moral in connection with this whole business? This interference of the Indian Government, and the probable support of the British Government—the probable support, I say, subject to what the Prime Minister may say….

Why probable?

Because I do not have the information; and because I do know that India is not a Dominion in the sense South Africa is. If you do not know it, it is time you knew it. Under the circumstances, therefore, I am perfectly entitled to say “the probable support of the British Government”. It is necessary, I say, to point to the moral. What has happened will, I hope, make members on the other side of the House and their supporters all over the country realise the disadvantages, the implications and the consequences of the British connection.

One would have expected from the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) a clear exposition of the merits of the Bill. Instead of that we have had from him a diatribe against the Minister of Finance. I am very pleased we have had that from him, because we have now had in the course of a few hours two statements varying as far as the North from the South Pole about the same person. I listened very carefully to what the hon. member said about the Minister of Finance. He said he had been completely defeated and that he had to swallow his principles. Only a couple of hours ago the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) said that this Bill was a triumph for the Minister of Finance.

I say it again.

And you say he has swallowed his principles?

In regard to land tenure conditions.

You cannot have it both ways. You said he had swallowed his principles.

In regard to segregation. On a point of explanation, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with that matter of the swallowing of principles I was referring to segregation, and I repeated the word. I was referring to the land tenure provisions of the Bill, and the hon. member knows it.

It still bears out what I say. The hon. member for Waterberg said the Minister of Finance had had his way.

In regard to the franchise.

No, it was in connection with segregation and the whole Bill. But I wish to refute a statement made by the hon. member for Waterberg, who imputed that the Minister of Finance wished to convey the idea that he was going to do away with the colour bar in all its aspects and in all its bearings. What the Minister said had a bearing only on the parliamentary representation, and it had nothing to do with the colour bar in our social and economic life. He said: I wish to make it perfectly clear it is entirely in connection with the parliamentary representation on the communal roll. But the hon. member for Waterberg wished to convey that the Minister was in favour of the abolition of the colour bar.

Are you trying to apologise for what the Minister said?

The Prime Minister was correct when he said this Bill was an attempt to provide social peace and good ordering of our society in South Africa. I entirely agree with him, and for that reason I cannot support the amendment moved by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. If it was accepted we would have nothing but chaos, and we would never be in a position to come to grips with the problem, and what is more this is a question that brooks of no further delay. For that reason I support the Prime Minister. I believe that Indian opposition to the Bill will fall away as soon as they realise that their rights are now entrenched and that statutory power has now been given them to retain what they got. I think that ought to satisfy them; and as soon as they realise what we have accomplished for them they will be in accord with this Bill. I personally welcome this Bill.

In February, 1939, I had the permission of the then Prime Minister, Gen. Hertzog, and the then Minister of the Interior, Mr. Stuttaford, to move the following motion—

That Bill would probably not have gone as far as the present Bill, but the same principle was envisaged, limiting the further purchases of land by Indians in Natal. Subsequently Mr. Stuttaford asked me to drop it as he intended to introduce a more comprehensive Bill during the following Session. As we all know, war then broke out and the matter had to stand down. I am very pleased that the Prime Minister took this opportunity in the first Session after the war to tackle this question.

There are three main views on this Bill. There is the view held by those who oppose it because in their opinion it does not go far enough. Those are the people who would like to break down all the barriers and who would like to open every channel. They would like to break down those barriers behind which the white community in South Africa has entrenched itself for centuries. Then there are those who think it goes too far. My hon. friends opposite hold that because you give a person an opportunity to express himself and to put his case before you, you are throwing away your own case, that it will be lost because you give the other man an opportunity to speak for himself. With that point of view certainly I cannot agree. Again there are those who think this is a reasonable attempt to establish good order and good fellowship between the various sections of the community. We honestly believe this Bill is an attempt of that nature, and for that reason I support it. I do not view this Bill from the extreme peaks, points and pinnacles of prejudice. I want to deliberately refrain from doing so, and I prefer to take the more rational view and to study this Bill from the realms of reason and reality. Imperfect as it is I regard it as a necessary step. No one today will have the temerity to say there is no real ground for anxiety in Natal on the land question. It has been said here—I think by the Minister of Finance — that under the agreement with the indentured Indians in 1860 Natal agreed, if after so many years the Indians were still to be found in Natal, they would have the right to land, arid some hold as a result of that that these people are entitled to buy all the land they wish. I cannot agree with that view. I cannot agree that because I ask a man into my house either as a guest or a servant that I am allowing him to take possession of the whole house. He must be satisfied when I relegate one room in the building to him. If I suspect he is going to take possession of the whole house no one will blame me if I say, No. And when you see European land disappearing as sand runs out of a glass you are bound to sit up and take stock. The Prime Minister has done that. In order to save our land it has been necessary we should make certain sacrifices in other directions, in extending rights and privileges and liberties not enjoyed by the Indians today. We are expected to give that, and we are giving it, and I am prepared to give it. I cannot understand the Indian opposition to this Bill; in regard to demarcating areas where Indians and Europeans can live together surely that cannot be taken as an insult or an injury to the Indians. I cannot understand them objecting to the application of that principle as it is a principle in their own Rational life and in India their temporal as well as their spiritual leaders practise it daily. Separation or segregation operates in their churches. Provision is made there for various castes to sit alone. Why then should such strong exception be taken when something is done in South Africa which is not really segregation, but only creating areas where they can live happily, where they can expand and do as they like. This Bill is not a segregation Bill, I emphatically deny that it is. Reference was made to the ghetto. I emphatically deny that this Bill aims at anything like a ghetto, or to send people to dark and dismal dens of depravity and degeneration known as the ghetto. This Bill is not a segregation Bill, it is a limitation Bill, and an extension Bill at the same time. It limits the areas in which Indians can buy land in Natal, and it extends the franchise to them in that province. I regret that the Indians should have appealed to outside opinion. They have gone so far as to evoke the sympathy and invoke the aid of India. Strikes and boycotts are threatened. Let me warn the South African leaders of Indian opinion that this attitude may recoil on them. They have succeeded in securing the support of the European. Do not let them alienate that support. If “boycott” is to be the watchword it will fare badly with the Indians in South Africa. This Bill will limit the acquisition of land in Natal by Indians, and we are entitled to that.

The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger)—she is not here now—in her speech the other day said: “Open your provincial barriers.” Does she extend that invitation to the Transkei and the Ciskei? No, she urges us to pull down the barriers, but not the barriers of the Transkei and the Ciskei and other native barriers. I want to know at whose expense these barriers are to be removed. You cannot remove the floodgates and then expect the flood to run in certain channels only. The whole country will be inundated, and the hon. member for Cape Eastern ought to know that. She stated further that Indian progress depends on further access to land by them. May I ask her again at whose expense that is to be done? The time is not far off when saturation point of land in South Africa for Indians will be reached. A solution therefore cannot be found along those lines. I hold that what is wanted if the Bill is passed, is not more land for Indians, and I shall show why. In 1929 the Indian population of Natal was 165,000 and in 1941 it was 245,000. In India in 1921 the population was 306,000,000 and in 1941 it was 389,000,000. No European nation has such a record. The prolific propensity and natural high fecundity of the Indian is unequalled. What is needed therefore is not more land but free education on birth control for the Indians. It has been said that by granting the franchise we are digging our own grave. With that I cannot agree. If you do not give these people representation your fear may be justified. We are taking this step in the interests of all sections. We are trying to do justice all round. Let us then temper our justice with mercy and let us not strain the quality of mercy. For those reasons I wholeheartedly support the Bill, imperfect as it is.

The hon. the Minister of Finance had the opportunity and the advantage a little while ago of listening to a long lecture on his conduct and on his principles from the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). I do not know what value the Minister of Finance will derive from that, but there was one point upon which the hon. member for Beaufort West said he agreed with the Minister of Finance, and that was the importance of the subject under discussion. I should like, in passing, to make this observation in relation thereto; I have never heard in this House a subject of any importance dealt with in so trivial a manner as it was dealt with by the hon. member for Beaufort West. It is not for me to defend the Minister of Finance—I shall have occasion in the remarks I make to disagree with him to some extent myself— but that speech consisted of a string of trivial personalities, nothing more. Yesterday the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) —who, I regret, is not in his seat—issued an admonition to my colleague, the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger), for having spoken in a way that would prejudice the interests of this country abroad. I do not think there was anything that fell from the hon. member for Cape Eastern to prejudice this country. What I think, however, is likely to do damage outside the country is the sort of remarks we heard from the hon. member for Sunnyside himself, and also from the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), who is not in his seat either. The hon. member for Benoni made a reference to certain individuals, to a very disgusting incident, which he could only have referred to with the object of throwing the guilt of it on the whole Indian race in this country. The hon. member for Sunnyside referred to the Indian community as failing to observe the integrity of agreements. I shall have something to say on the subject of agreements and who keeps them at a later stage in my remarks. I repeat, it is statements such as those from an ex-Minister and from a front-bencher of the United Party which can only be construed as an attack on a whole race, that do real damage to this country and its reputation and its prestige as well. This Bill rests on principles which I and my colleagues have always made clear we reject, to whatever race they may be applied. We regard those principles as inappropriate and unjust in a country which, whether we like it or not, is a multi-racial society. The principle on which this Bill rests, as I see it, is equivalent to the assumption that at a particular historical moment the majority which happens to have political power in its hands is wise and just in imposing on a minority a solution of a problem against the interests of that minority. That is subversive of the whole principle of government by consent, and what I have said applies in my belief, but with all the greater force, where that minority is unrepresented. The fact that this is a voteless minority we are dealing with in this Bill gives to them not a lesser claim, but a greater claim upon the consideration’ of every member. The Prime Minister recommended this Bill to the House on the ground that it was in accordance with what had already been decided, in accordance with the same principles as were laid down in relation to the natives in the Native Bills of 1936. Whatever the hon. member for Sunnyside may say—and I am speaking seriously here—our opposition to a measure of this kind is based on practical experience of how in fact this discriminatory and segregatory principle works. We base that opposition on experience, on years of study and investigation of thousands of individual cases of those affected by laws of this kind. We know from experience that to limit access to land, to the primary means of production, whether agricultural or industrial, is bound to lead to serious handicaps of a discriminatory character on economic opportunity. We know from experience that in practice it is impossible to lay down in advance, by way of a schedule to an Act of Parliament, residential areas which will satisfy the residential necessities of the individual which are governed by his opportunities for employment and not by what Parliament may do on a particular day or in a particular month. We know the hardships imposed in thousands of individual cases by attempting, in the case of natives, to do these very’ things. So far as the principle of residential separation of people of different races is concerned, we recognise, the Indian people recognise, that it is an ordinary attribute of human nature to wish to live amongst your own kind, with people of your own speech and religion and of your own race. We know that that is so, but the only way in which that principle can be practised in this country with justice to all is by virtue of voluntary agreements amongst those locally who are most concerned. I shall return to that topic in a moment, but I want to say a word or two in reply to the criticism levelled by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. A. O. B Payn) yesterday at the speeches made by the hon. members for Cape Eastern and Transkei (Mr. Hemming). He said—and the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Friend) also mentioned it just now—“Why are you not prepared to throw open the boundaries of the Transkei or the Ciskei or Bechuanaland?” The answer is one that has been given many times. Those are areas of land settlement, and free purchase is not open to anyone in those areas. I am surprised at the hon. members’ not knowing that. Even a native can only take up residence there in accordance with regulations, just as in European settlement schemes, and he cannot dispose of the land as he likes. We have never accepted that the African should be prevented from buying land wherever he requires it for his economic purposes. We have in fact advocated it; and we have no objection to his competing in that field with any other race in the country. So far as the hon. member for Tembuland’s support of the principle of communal representation is concerned, I will deal with that when I deal with the franchise proposals. I should, however, like to make this observation in passing, that of all members of this House who have had most experience and knowledge of how the principle of communal representation works in practice, they are the members on these benches. I have already suggested that problems of this kind are matters that should be dealt with by those most affected locally by means of agreements and by means of consent. I want to elaborate on that. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, in moving the second reading of this Bill, spoke in terms which suggest that we are involved in a conflict in South Africa between Asiatic culture and western culture. That is an assertion which I feel bound to challenge. The Indian community, as a community, have already accepted, in terms of the Cape Town Agreement, Western civilisation as the goal of their own people. I shall deal in a moment with the interim position, but that is the principle accepted. They have not said: We are out to force our own institutions and our own culture or to propagate our own religion in South Africa. The goal of Western civilisation, which I suggest was visualised in the Cape Town Agreement, depends amongst other things, though not solely, on economic opportunities, on a rising standard of living, and the limitation of property rights is the most serious limitation on economic opportunities that could possibly be imposed. From the practical point of view you must admit that this goal of Western civilisation, visualised for Indians not taking advantage of the immigration facilities provided by the Cape Town Agreement, is not a thing which can be achieved overnight. In the meantime, therefore, there will remain Indian communities who have not yet achieved these standards and the need will therefore exist for the adjustment of such problems as arise as the result of inter-cultural contacts by agreement and consent. But, Mr. Speaker, the Government has itself accepted that principle, the principle of agreement and consent in the proposed solution of the Indian problem. They accepted it at the time of the Pegging Act. Some of us suggested at the time of the Pegging Act that we would oppose it, and would oppose it on the ground that it was likely to be permanent. The then Minister of the Interior, the present Minister of Justice, said this when speaking on the Pegging Act—

That is the principle adopted by the spokesman of the Government at that time. What progress has been made in that direction? Well, there have been local agreements at Glencoe and Port Shepstone and elsewhere. There have been what the Prime Minister referred to as partial agreement in the case of Pietermaritzburg. The Pietermaritzburg Corporation made an offer to the Indian community of an area for Indian occupation, and that offer was accepted by the Indians before the Broome Commission itself. At a later session of the Commission that offer was withdrawn by the Council. I want to make that clear. The Indian community through their representatives accepted the offer and the Corporation repudiated it, and the Commission passed the very strongest strictures on this repudiation. As far as Durban is concerned, as the Minister of Finance told us this morning, successive Ministers who have been responsible for housing have passed the gravest strictures on the Durban City Council for its failure to make adequate housing provision for the poorer classes of Indians. I am not going to enter into that. We have argued the figures and the facts before in this House.

So far as Indian purchases are concerned, an attempt was made to reach a concrete solution through the appointment of the Lawrence Committee. Why did the Lawrence Committee break down? The reason is given in uncontradicted evidence by one of the secretaries of the Natal Indian Congress before a Select Committee of the Natal Provincial Council the year before last. This is what he said. He is Mr. Pather, secretary at that time of the Natal Indian Congress, and who had been a permanent member of the Lawrence Committee—

In other words, he wanted the Council to make areas available for purchase by Indians of the middle class, for the man who could afford to pay for his own house—

There is a lot of evidence here. These sites pointed out by the Indians were right away from the European areas. The Mayor of Durban agreed that some of these areas could be allocated to Indians, but the City Council did not agree. So that if the solution of the problem by agreement and consent has met with difficulties in Durban, that has been due to the failure of the Durban City Council, firstly to make adequate housing provision for the poorer Indian, and secondly to sell unalienated Council land in suitable places to the middle class Indian where he could build. That evidence is on record.

Now a further attempt was made to reach a more comprehensive basis of agreement— the Prime Minister has referred to it and so has the Minister of Finance—and that was the Pretoria Agreement. I have a copy of the memorandum before me which formed the basis of the Pretoria Agreement, and I want to make it clear that this agreement was not only come to between the Prime Minister and the Indian Congress. It was entered into with the acquiescence of Mr. Heaton Nicholls and the present Administrator of Natal, Mr. Mitchell. I want to make that perfectly clear. These are the vital parts of the agreement. It was a memorandum put to the Prime Minister and accepted. Later these terms were embodied in a draft ordinance which the Provincial Council referred to a Select Committee—

1. (a) ownership and occupation in rural areas for trade, farming and residential purposes;
2. (b) ownership and acquisition of property for trade, commercial and investment purposes as distinct from
3. (c) occupation of property for residential purposes in urban areas where the question arises of Indians living in close proximity to Europeans.

There is, we understand, complete agreement that no question has arisen or exists in regard to (a) and (b).

This I want to emphasise was acquiesced in by the Administration of Natal. They go on to say, further, as regards the residential juxtaposition of Indians and Europeans that they recognised that there was

The memorandum then went on to state that a board should be set up on which Indians were to be represented, and that the authority of the board should be restricted to Durban and such other towns as those to which it might be applied after enquiry by the board. Now what I want to make clear about this agreement, because of a certain passage in the speech of the Minister of Finance which rather gave a wrong interpretation to it this morning, is this: There was no agreement for separate areas. The Indian contention was that this question of residential juxtaposition applied only in individual cases, and they were therefore prepared to submit individual cases to a board so that evidence from the neighbours could be heard. And I do suggest to the Minister of Finance that he is not correct in saying that this agreement, which safeguarded property rights to the Indians and which did not include the principle of separate areas, but merely controlled individual cases of change of occupation, does not appear to suggest that the Indian community have in any way accepted the principles of a Bill which prohibits their further acquisition, except with permission, or in certain areas, of all land, whether business, agricultural or residential, and which is based on a principle of segregation. And, Mr. Speaker, I do suggest this Bill is based on the principle of segregation. By segregation I mean that people are forced to live in certain areas in their own country and their property rights are limited to certain areas. The Minister of Finance, in dealing in 1939 with the first Transvaal Pegging Act, made it clear that in his view the introduction of segregation by compulsion was inconsistent with the Cape Town Agreement, his reason being that the Areas Reservation Bill of the hon. member for Piketberg was dropped as a result of the Cape Town Agreement. These are his actual words. I do not quote in order to score a point. I agree with much of what he said today. I quote because I think they express better than I could my own contention in this matter. Referring to the Minister of the Interior introducing the first Transvaal Pegging Act, the Minister of Finance said—

Hear, hear.

I am merely repeating what the Minister has said. May I say that it would be impossible for the Government, in my opinion, to come forward with legislation which did involve the acceptance of that principle unless it had first specifically terminated the agreement with the Government of India, for which the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) was responsible.

Now, that is the contention which I maintain. I do not know of any other conclusion that could be come to. The Areas Reservation Bill of the hon. member for Piketberg was dropped because it was regarded as inconsistent with the terms of the Cape Town Agreement which required that Indians who wanted to remain here, who did not take part in the voluntary emigration scheme, which the agreement provided for, should be assisted to attain Western standards, and that could not be done without giving to them the ordinary property rights that other classes of the community had. In fact it was specifically laid down, as the Minister of Finance quoted this morning, that they should not lag behind any other section of the community. The Cape Town Agreement may have achieved less in the field of assisted emigration than the hon. member for Piketberg or anybody else expected, but nevertheless it is an agreement which so far as I know has never been terminated, and by which this country is bound. Thus this Bill involves, in addition to the principles I have already referred to, the principle of observance of treaty obligations. The Prime Minister said that this is a domestic affair of South Africa. Well, Mr. Speaker, of course it is, but one’s domestic affairs can also be effected by one’s treaty obligations. The whole question of minorities all over the world is involved in treaty obligations of one kind or another. And Mr. Speaker, I say this, that if Indian leaders have appealed to outside nations to intervene on this occasion, they have done no more, in fact less, than other sections of the community have done in the history of this country. After the Anglo-Boer War, there was a movement by people in the Cape to suspend our Cape Constitution. They appealed to Britain to suspend the grant of responsible government that we in the Cape had enjoyed since 1871. And then later a deputation, including the hon. member for Piketberg, went over to England after the first World War to try and get Mr. Lloyd George, eleven years after South Africa had entered into Union, to interfere in the internal affairs of this country. A description of this bizarre incident is given by the present editor of “The Cape Argus” in a book he has written on the life of General Hertzog. He says—

And they had to go by way of America to get to Britain—

Mr. Lloyd George turned down the deputation’s request. He said—

Those were people who had full franchise in a country which could make its own decisions in a free Parliament. But the disfranchised Indians are a different case and, moreover, their appeal is based on treaty obligations.

Now I come to the political proposals of the Bill. We have two traditions in this country. We have the tradition of the northern provinces, which, owing to historical circumstances, established a racial bar. But there is a different tradition, which is too often lost sight of, and that is the tradition of the Cape. From the time it first received the grant of responsible government, that political representation depended on the degree of civilisation that a man, irrespective of race, had reached. It was a principle to which all Cape people, whether Afrikaner or British, subscribed. That was a principle that was not questioned, but it is a principle which has been departed from in recent years. But nevertheless I believe it to be the right principle. When we on these benches said that we are opposed to communal representation, an hon. member said: “I hope you tell your electors that at the next election.” I want to say that I have always made it clear to the native people that I stand for the common roll, that I stand for the old Cape system. We did what we could to oppose the taking away of the old Cape native franchise. I still believe that this country will have cause to regret that it did not draw on the experience of the Cape Colony in relation to this Bill. I have made my attitude clear on this Bill. I support the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). In my view the Bill infringes the principle of equality of economic opportunity; it infringes political principles which at one time worked so well in the part of South Africa which has been the home of my forebears for over a century. I go further. I agree with the Minister of Finance that it infringes treaty obligations by which this country is bound. I believe also that this British Commonwealth of Nations, of which we are still a member, is facing difficult conditions,, and that this country is making no contribution by means of this kind of Bill to the discharge of the obligations which are inherent in our association with that British Commonwealth of Nations.

I am not rising to talk about the Bill itself, but I am obliged to make a statement in reply to the unfortunate allegation that was made here yesterday by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). I am not going to repeat the words he used. He used certain words which it is not necessary to repeat in connection with the female workers in the tobacco factory at Rustenburg and in the co-operative society. I just want to say that I reject that statement with contempt, and I want to give the House the assurance that conditions of this kind do not exist at Rustenburg.

Is there an Indian problem at Potgietersrust?

In 1939 an excellent hostel was erected for the female workers of the factory. They were housed there under the supervision of the Social Welfare Department. The wage scales were laid down four years ago under a wage agreement. This wage agreement was entered into between the employers and the trade unions under the Industrial Conciliation Act, and it was confirmed by the hon. member for Benoni himself when he was Minister of Labour. Those wages compare more than favourably with the wages paid in other factories in the country. I just want to say, therefore, that this statement is devoid of all truth, not only as far as the conduct of the female workers in the factory is concerned, but also with regard to the wages paid by the factories.

You know that the hon. member did not put it as you are suggesting.

Whether it was intended in that way or not, it is my duty as the representative of Rustenburg to deny it most strongly. That is all I wanted to do.

Although I do not derive pleasure from the misfortune of my opponents, I cannot refrain from referring to the scourge, the tremendous political scourge to which the Minister of Finance is subject. One could detect the disappointment in the faces of hon. members on the other side. Look at the hon. member for Carolina (Mr. Fourie). Judging by the reaction on the other side, it is clear that they were very disappointed at the formidable thrashing and chastisement which the Minister of Finance received at the hands of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) and the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). Before saying a few words in regard to the Bill, generally speaking, I want to address a few words to the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) who is fortunately in his seat. On Monday when the hon. member made his speech he specifically drew the attention of the House to the fact that members of Parliament in dealing with such a delicate and intricate Bill are expected to approach it in an objective fashion. I just want to say to the hon. member that that is what we on this side have always done. We have always approached such intricate problems impartially and without prejudice. But I want to ask the hon. member, since he says we must view these matters objectively, whether it is not a fact that an intricate Bill such as this can, as a matter of fact, be dealt with more objectively by a Select Committee than in this House. He will have to admit that the amendment introduced by my leader does in fact make it possible to approach this involved problem in an objective way. The hon. member talks about objectivity, but in doing what he is doing he is making the greatest farce of objectivity. It would seem that the hon. member for Vryheid realises that a problem of this kind can be approached in an objective manner if one merely approaches it from the point of view of the Nationalist Party. That is correct. Objectivity in connection with such important legislation is identical to the attitude of this party in connection with these problems. The hon. member started to say that we must be objective, but later in his speech he used the following expression: He says he is going to vote for this Bill; he approaches it objectively, but when the time comes to vote he votes subjectively. He went on to say that we must not approach this problem from a party political point of view. I want to tell the hon. member that he should address those words not to this side of the House, but to the Prime Minister who brought this legislation before the House in this manner. If the motion of the Opposition to deal with this intricate Bill in a Select Committee is accepted, we can then approach it objectively and not from a narrow party political point of view. It will be seen that the hon. member is following in the footsteps of the Minister of Finance. He does not practice what he preaches. He talks about objectivity and a non-party political attitude, but as soon as he is called upon to vote and to act in public, he votes subjectively for this Bill.

How are you going to vote?

I am going to vote the right way. We on this side of the House have always dealt with these great problems objectively and we have always tried to keep them out of the political arena, and for that reason we are going to vote the right way and we are going to vote against this Bill. But I want to address another few words to the hon. member for Vryheid. In dealing with the hon. member for Vryheid I cannot help thinking of the days when he and I were both members of the Student Parliament at Stellenbosch. In those days the hon. member for Vryheid thought like a Nationalist and spoke like a Nationalist and he voted like a Nationalist, but when I again met the hon. member for Vryheid in this House in 1944 I found that he was still talking like a Nationalist when I spoke to him privately in the lobby, but I found that he was no longer voting like a Nationalist when he got inside the House. But in the course of this debate he has undergone a wonderful change. For the sake of objectivity he thought like a Nationalist in this debate and spoke like a Nationalist, but, believe it or not, he is going to vote S.A.P. I am convinced that the time will arrive, if the hon. member continues to make this progress, when he will not only think like a Nationalist and talk like a Nationalist, but when he will also vote Nationalist, but in that case he should act objectively and approach the matter impartially. In other words, he should adopt the attitude of this side of the House, and in that event he will not only think like a Nationalist in the future, but he will also vote like a Nationalist.

Now I want to deal more specifically with the Bill as such.

Hear, hear.

The hon. member is pleased that I am going to deal with the Bill now, but I think he may be disappointed by the time I have finished with the Bill. Perhaps he will then feel as the Hon. Minister of Finance must have felt after other members on this side of the House had dealt with the merits of the Bill. I want to say to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister with all due deference that he laid particular emphasis in his speech on the fact that this legislation is certainly not intended as an insult to the Indian population. When we study this Bill it is clear to us that the Prime Minister certainly did not intend this Bill as an insult to England, nor as an insult to India. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister is too experienced a politician and too confirmed an Imperialist to do that. Who can deny that here we have a Bill where the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister acted very cleverly and in a very psychological way? That is why this Bill is a compromise Bill. There were certain factors particularly which the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister had to take into account when framing the Bill. In the first place he had to take into account the ultra-liberalists in this House like the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance and members like the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) and the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) and a large number of others who are ultra-liberalists, and I think he also had to take into account three Cabinet Ministers. I say that he had at least to take into account that ultra-liberalistic element, but on the other hand he also had to take into account members like the hon. member for Vryheid and the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo), who experienced the pangs of conscience, just like the hon. member for Vryheid who finds himself in a dilemma as a result of the struggle between the East and the West. But the Prime Minister also had to take into account the members of the Dominion Party, those people who some time ago sent an S.O.S. to the Free State and who stated that they would rather have a European Republic in South Africa than Indian domination. I say that in framing this Bill, the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister took those factors into account, but what is more, in approaching the Indian problem in South Africa the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister fully took into account not only the Indian population, but he took into account the following dangers, namely that the prestige of Britain in India must remain untouched, and in the second place he took into account the fact that he must at least avoid a clash between India and South Africa. I say that those five factors, as it were, influenced the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in framing this Bill, and he brought the Bill before the House in a very clever and psychological way.

That only goes to show what a good leader he is.

And now the first part of this Bill is being held out to us, especially to the conservative element in this House, and in the country, but let me give the Prime Minister the assurance that the first part of this Bill, which deals with restrictions on the purchase and occupation of fixed property and land tenure, is not something new. We have already discussed that in this House. I will not say these are all old things but there is nothing new in them. This is just the Pegging Act with perhaps certain improvements in that direction. But the Prime Minister was thoroughly aware of what the reactions of the Indians would be to the first part of this Bill. We have had experience of that. It is a matter that has been frequently discussed in this House, and similar legislation has in the past been piloted through the House. The Prime Minister was thoroughly conscious of what the reaction of the Indians would be to the first part of the Bill, and consequently the Prime Minister came with the second part of the Bill and it was presented in a fine psychological way. With what object? It was to have a calming effect on the mutinous reaction of the Indians which would be evoked by the first part of the Bill, and therefore the Prime Minister came with the second part of the Bill. It is drafted finely, Craftily and psychologically, so that the liberal attitude that the Prime Minister has taken up in granting the franchise to the Indians as far as the provincial council is concerned, and the granting of representation to the Indians in the Assembly and in the Senate will, as such, have a calming effect on the minds of the Indians. Do you see? Is it not clear? As far as these things are concerned, as far as the second part of the Bill is concerned, the intention was to calm the minds of the Indians. It was a fine psychological approach to the position, and the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister took thoroughly into account that the prestige of Britain and the prestige of India must remain unimpaired, and in the second place that there should be no conflict between South Africa and India. But let me now put this direct question to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister: Will he admit that he was mistaken in his anticipation of the Indian reaction to the second part of the Bill? The conflict between India and South Africa has not by any means been avoided, and the prestige of England has not remained unaffected by this legislation. The Prime Minister must now admit that the die is cast. It is not now a case of the prestige of England being unaffected, and it is not a question of there being no clash between India and South Africa, but, what is more, the prestige of South Africa is at stake, and if I am not mistaken the prestige of the Prime Minister is also at stake in regard to the attitude he has now taken up towards the Indians and South Africa. I wish especially to emphasise this fact. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister cannot deny that large concessions are granted to the Indians in this Bill. The Prime Minister spoke about the contribution that the Indians had to make. When you speak about a contribution that the Europeans must make, and a contribution that the Indians must make, you cannot get away from this fact that you are giving concessions to the Indians such as have never before been surrendered to the Indians in this country. But although we are making concessions which in my view are a milestone on the road to complete political equality between Indian and European in this country, these concessions are being combated by the Indian population, and what does this indicate? It is irrefutable proof that the Indians will not be satisfied with anything less in South Africa than complete political equality. This is also the standpoint of the hon. the Minister of Finance. I would only say this, that though it appears the Indians are opposed to this Bill, and though this side of the House and everyone else is opposed to this Bill, it must not be assumed that we associate ourselves with the Indians. We do not identify ourselves with their standpoint, because their standpoint is that of the liberals. The difference between the standpoint of the Indians and the liberals is only a question of degree and method. When you, according to your opinion, set to work tactically and gradually to grant complete political equality to the Indian, you are sowing the seed for a demand on the part of the Indian that he must have political equality, and as soon as he has political equality it will only be used by him as a jumping-off place to demand complete and absolute equality in South Africa. The Indians appeal specially to the fact that they are a permanent section of the population of South Africa. They pose as Union citizens. Some of our hon. friends on the other side of the House are annoyed when we say that the Indians are in no sense Union citizens, or that they form part of the permanent population of South Africa. The Indians are always posing as Union citizens, but what happens at their congresses? They have spoken about the minority that is entrenched in South Africa for good. When these Indians raise opposition to this Bill at their congresses, or wherever it may be, they are trying by their action to torpedo this legislation, but when it suits them they want to be a permanent part of the population and then they wish to pose as Union citizens. But when they have to make the contribution that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister referred to, what line do they take then? Then they behave like people possessed; then they display an antinational spirit, then they act as aliens and that, moreover, in a very improper way. Here I should like to utter a word of warning and say that the way in which the Indians are reacting to the Bill will aggravate still further the racial tension between the Indian and white South Africa, racial tension which in the future will hold no good for the Indians as such. I think I should read out to the Prime Minister what the reaction of the Indians is on this Bill which the Prime Minister says is not intended as an affront to the Indians. I have before me a pamphlet that was published by the Indian Congress and that has been sent to all Indians in the Transvaal. It is a brief summary of what I regard as the reaction of the Indians towards this Bill. This is what is stated in connection with the congress they had in Johannesburg. Here they say—

It continues—

Can the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister see what the reaction is of the Indians to this Bill? What did they say later? I shall read another sentence—

Is this not clear proof to you of the reaction of the Indians to this Bill? Certain members from the Transvaal want to use this as a salve for their consciences. They say the fact that the Indians are opposed to the second half of the Bill is merely proof that the Government is right. Let me tell them this, that the Indians are indeed opposed to the second part of the Bill, but at the same time it is a big concession that has been granted to them. It is something towards which they have striven for a long time. If this is the reaction of the Indians to the second part of the Bill then I think I am entitled to ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister what the attitude of the Government will be in the future, as well as at present towards this Indian penetration. What will be the attitude of the Government in the future in regard to this Indian interference and towards this Indian dominance? To comply with the claims of the Indians will mean paving the way for Indian domination. The foolish policy of granting the franchise to the Indians can only work in the direction of Indian domination. To us the choice is clear, and although this Bill before the House has been presented in such a way that the first part has just been coupled to the second to throw dust in the eyes of hon. members on the other side so that those members cannot make an honest choice, the choice before us on this side of the House is very clear. It is a choice between Indian penetration on the one hand and European supremacy on the other. The choice is very clear to us, and I say that as far as this choice goes we do not hesitate for a moment where we stand. We on this side of the House choose the side of white South Africa. India recently threatened to break off trade relations with the Union. As you see, they are also trying to place a choice before us.

They have done that already.

They have already broken off trade relations with us. They also want to force us to a choice. They want us to choose between trade relations with India, between rice and bags from India and the concessions they demand. We do not choose that, we choose a white South Africa, and I wish to say this to the hon. the Minister of Finance and to the Minister of the Interior, who is every bit as much an ultra-liberal as the Minister of Finance, and the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan), who is also an ultra-liberal, and to Dr. Dadoo, that communist Indian in South Africa, who is propagating that ruinous policy of equality in South Africa, that the Afrikaner people’s pride of race is scandalised by that ruinous policy of equality. The Government of India are engaged in attacking the position of Europeans in South Africa. We cannot get away from that fact. I say the Union Government ought to hit back. We ought not to sit still, and I would like to ask the Prime Minister what the Government intends to do. It is clear to me that the Government ought also to take drastic action now. If the Indians say they want to break all trade relations with us I want to say the best we can do now is this: As they are now resisting the second part of the Bill in such a peculiar way the time has arrived when the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister should now scrap that part of the Bill. This will be in a great measure a reprisal. But there is a second reprisal that the Union Government can take, and I want now to put the question to the Prime Minister quite frankly: Does he not think the time has arrived when we should give the High Commissioner for India his passport and let him leave this country? I think the time has arrived when the High Commissioner for India in this country should be given his papers, because in his position in the country at present he is being used to embarrass the internal affairs of the country and, as it were, to incite the Indians. The Indian is engaged in taking measures against us. We shall strike back, and I will tell the Indians that the fight will not be confined to this House but it will be carried on outside. It will be continued on the platteland. On the platteland we shall show them, if they are aiming at getting into their hands the political and economic power, that we can take other measures. I see the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) is looking at me very meaningly. He knows that if we want to strike back on the platteland we can in many ways bleed the Indian to death, if this is the way in which they wish to act against the European population.

Now I come to the first part of the Bill. Even in the first part of the Bill there are defects. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister spoke about a contribution the Indian is making, and he said this was the contribution that the Indian was making to South Africa. Just imagine. The contribution of the Indians in South Africa is the first part of the Bill. Is it really a contribution on the part of the Asiatics? It is indeed a poor and miserable contribution. Is the territory of Natal Indian territory then? Was it not the tremendous sacrifices and the superhuman privations on the part of the Voortrekkers that made the country habitable for us? This is not a contribution the Indians are making—to give to India a country that our forefathers civilised, and to apportion it out in the way that will occur by these mixed areas. Then there is the concession of separate and even combined areas. In my opinion this is no contribution the Asiatic is making to South Africa but it is a contribution South Africa is making to the Asiatic.

No.

I see the Minister of the Interior shakes his head, but I maintain it is a fact.

He does not understand what you are saying.

One of the hon. members who represent Natal in this House said only the other day that they think along the same lines as the Afrikaners and that they will work with the Afrikaners to preserve these rights of the Europeans. If you allot land to these alien people you cannot of course say that they are making a contribution to South Africa. It is we who are making the contribution.

Today they have the right to buy anywhere in Natal.

What have you the Pegging Act for them?

The Minister of the Interior does not think now that the Europeans are not making a contribution. We have already made a contribution to the Indians. When they could not find a haven in India we gave them a haven here and put them in a position to make a livelihood. Today they are much better off in South Africa than they were in India. One does not need to look far for proofs to support this. Just look at the way in which they multiply. The fact that our Minister of the Interior is today using the party for the Indians shows clearly that we have made a contribution. But we have made our contribution in so far that they live more happily here than they do in India. But then they must not expect that they will have the same say as the Europeans in the government of our country; they must not expect that we will grant them the same rights as the Minister of the Interior would grant them, namely representation in the municipalities or in the provincial council or in the Senate or here in the Assembly. They must not expect that we will allow that higgledy-piggledy kind of ownership and living quarters to continue in the country. I maintain that that must be stopped for good. The Transvaal members, especially such members as the hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) wish to use the first part of the Bill as a salve for their conscience. I have made some study of psychology, and I can see that the hon. member for Middelburg is most unfortunate. If one makes a study of physiognomical expression, one must immediately come to the conclusion that he will at any rate use the first part of the Bill as a salve to his conscience. Do you know what the United Party members from the Transvaal now tell us? They say that they have now carried out the policy of separation and segregation with all its consequences. I say that is a misrepresentation; it is a conscience-salve in a certain sense that is used here. It is not the sort of segregation we stand for. Seeing there are still free areas in the Bill and the same process of denationalisation, seeing there is still this process affecting the blood purity of your people, will the hon. member tell me that this is the right sort of segregation; will he tell me that this is the sort of segregation that we on this side of the House stand for? I say that as it is, for example, outlined in the first part of this Bill, it is not segregation, it is a travesty of territorial segregation. The policy of segregation in the first part of the Bill is also founded on a farce, because on the one hand you have separate areas, and on the other hand you have free areas. I want to put it very clearly to the House this afternoon that as far as this problem involved in the first part of the Bill is concerned, the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister cannot today give us the assurance that in future a policy of equality will not be carried into effect. He cannot give me that assurance. Then I would like to invite the Prime Minister’s attention to what he said at the Imperial Conference in 1917, because it has an intimate connection with the thought I wish to link to it. At the Imperial Conference in 1917 the Prime Minister made the following observations—

The Prime Minister was conscious in those days of the fact that we had a heterogeneous population, and that is why we have to deal with this problem today. But I read further—

I should like the hon. members opposite to listen to this. When they accuse us of a fear complex they ought also to accuse the Prime Minister of a fear complex. The Prime Minister has also held up to us the great dangers that threaten white civilisation in South Africa, and let me at once say that if the Minister of Finance, especially, hears what the Prime Minister says, that a nation has the right to self-determination and self-preservation, then I am not offended with the Minister of Finance when he may plead for the rights of other nations, but I make this retort to him: Has Christian European civilisation also not the right to self-preservation and self-determination? Have we as an Afrikaner nation also not the right to self-preservation and self-determination? Let me tell the Minister of Finance this. We do not make any excuses; if he has the courage to interpret the liberal opinion, then we are not ashamed to interpret our opinion, which is that selfpreservation and self-determination is the biggest motive behind our policy of separation, and, what is more, it is the essence, the force behind our policy. I want to tell the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance that just by this policy of race separation and segregation we wish to keep pure the blood of our white nation. We wish to maintain the political position of Europeans in South Africa, not only in the interests of Afrikaners, but also in the interests pf the other white races in South Africa. But, what is more, we wish to continue as a white race, we wish to assure the continuance of our white civilisation. We owe it to posterity to maintain this attitude of preserving the racial identity of the white man. Is there anything unjustified in that; is there anything un-Christian in wishing to protect the white civilisation for posterity? Most certainly not. I wish specially to emphasise this fact. I wish to direct a warning word today to the Minister of Finance. He ay be engaged in a serious conversation there, but I want to point out to him that there are also dangers that will threaten him and will threaten that Government. Public opinion is opposed to the ruinous policy of equality he is propagating. The Government knows this, and it is because the Government pays heed to public opinion that the Government has come to the House with a Bill that is a compromise. Not only the Prime Minister realises that, but even the ardent liberalists know it. I am convinced that the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance would never compromise himself by voting for this Bill if he did not know what public opinion in South Africa is. He takes account of public opinion, and consequently he is prepared to vote for the Bill. He knows his party is doomed to certain downfall when he comes with the policy he has announced in the House today and which he proclaims from time to time in public. Therefore you are forced to attach your approval to this Bill because you hope to derive a tactical advantage from it, because it will be the start…

The hon. member must address the Chair.

I am sorry that I addressed the Minister direct, but the Minister is so inseparably linked with this policy of equality that one is involuntarily drawn in his direction. But even an ultra-liberal paper like the “Cape Argus” stated the following on this question, and no one can say that the paper is not ultra-liberal—

This is what the “Cape Argus” says. But on the other hand what does it warn against?—

Is that taken from the leading article?

How do you know it is from a leading article? I am quoting something I read some time ago and clipped out of the newspaper. I shall leave that there. I have driven my argument home. I want my warning voice to be heard by the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance as well as by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and hon. members on the other side of the House. Public opinion is not only opposed to the policy of complete equality, but public opinion is even opposed to this Bill, especially against the second part of the Bill, because public opinion knows that the second part of the Bill is only a jumping-off place to obtain complete political equality, and that in turn will only be the jumping-off place for establishing absolute equality between Europeans and non-Europeans in South Africa. I can well understand the reaction from that side of the House against our policy of race separation. Race separation does not suit the imperialist and capitalist. The policy of the capitalist and of the imperialist is just that ruinous policy of equality because they wish to subject the non-Europeans in South Africa to a process of equality so that they can exploit the western civilisation, in order that they may be exploited by the imperialist and the capitalist. I say this is their policy. It is to me very clear that the big motive behind this policy of equality is not any humane consideration. It may be a case of considerations of humanity on the part of a few Europeans, but the fact remains that in the case of hon. members who are not only liberal but who are also capitalistically and imperialistically-minded the big motive is not humanistic but purely the promotion of their own interest. The imperialist and the capitalist and the liberal are opposed to this policy of race separation. The policy of race separation must be used as a stepping stone to a higher object. What object? An object that can lead to the exploitation of those non-European groups and the enrichment of the capitalist and the imperialist in South Africa. I want to conclude, and I will just say this, that a permanent solution to this Indian problem can only be arrived at in the future on one condition, and it is that we approach it in an objective and impartial manner, as the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) has already stated.

Hear, hear.

I am glad you say “hear, hear.” But then you must not only approach this problem objectively and keep it out of the party political arena, but you must approach it in an Afrikaans spirit and from a national standpoint. If we wish to solve this problem we must approach it from the angle of the traditional and historic race policy of the Voortrekker, which was not founded on unfairness and exploitation but which had as a sequel the reasoned, well-considered and scientific policy of separation, and it is only on that foundation that we can obtain a durable and permanent solution of this vexed and involved problem. I wish to make an appeal, and the appeal I make is to that side of the House, especially to members like the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) as one of the members who always comes and tells us that he feels very unhappy over this matter. We do not wish to make a political question of this. We wish to do what one of our great Afrikaners has said, one who enjoyed the high esteem of this House, and was previously Speaker. Dr. Jansen, in the “Inspan,” which deals with the chief foundations of the attitude of the Afrikaans-speaking people towards non-Europeans, said, inter alia—

This is not a political matter but rather one of self-preservation of the white race, English-speaking as well as Afrikaansspeaking.

Now I want to ask my English-speaking friend who sits over there and who made an appeal to us as from Natal saying they would prefer a white republic to Asiatic domination. Do you think that it is only the Afrikaans-speaking part of the population who embrace a policy of separation? That was an appeal from the English-speaking to the Afrikaans-speaking people to take action. We will help you, but you must not make an appeal to us to come and save you and save South Africa and then tie up the question of separation in one respect to a drastic policy of franchise and also try to obtain the second reading of this Bill. I would make an appeal to the English-speaking, and the Afrikaans-speaking people to grip each other by the hand and try to find a solution of this vexed problem.

As a result of the debate during the past three days it should, I think, have become evident to the Prime Minister that further enquiry is necessary into the proposals contained in this Bill. For that reason we moved the amendment asking that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee. The position today is perfectly plain to the Prime Minister. He stated there were two principles contained in the Bill, the one being complementary to the other, and that both must be accepted. When he put that before this House he was guilty of conditional selling. In the early part of this war certain shopkeepers, if you wanted to buy an article for 10s. said: You cannot have that unless you buy this other article as well. You say to that: I do not want that article, but this one is all right. To that the shopkeeper retorts: You must take them both. The thing became a racket, and the Government had by regulation to make the practice illegal. But here we have the Rt. Hon. gentleman doing this inside the House. If he did it in the course of trading he would be fined £50. I feel aggrieved because I want the first portion of the Bill, with certain modifications, but the second portion is a totally different story. We have heard speakers from every side of the House —with the exception of the native representatives—say that they have some fault to find with the franchise proposals, and for totally different reasons. The Prime Minister is forcing something on the country that will have repercussions in the future, and I am going to appeal to him, that he has the support of the country in the first portion but the second portion being unwelcome he should give the country the opportunity to buy the article at once.

Then he must sell the Minister of Finance.

The position is a serious one and I approach it in a serious manner. Let us deal with the first portion of the Bill, which deals with zoning. For the Borough of Durban there are eight different portions, what are termed exempted areas, eight red spots. If ever one saw fruitful ground for trouble in the future it is those red spots, eight of them in one town alone. We have even a corridor in Durban, it is clearly laid down. A Select’ Committee would surely have found a much better plan and would have tried, if possible, to keep them down to one or at least two red spots. It can be done. It is a question of using a certain amount of common sense.

And the big stick.

Perhaps the hon. gentleman and his party may believe in the big stick. The big stick is there in this Bill, because as the hon. member heard me say in the beginning, we want the first section of the Bill but the second section is being forced on us.

Have you thought of what the Indian wants?

I am not concerned at the moment with what the Indian wants. For the moment I am dealing with the point of view of the Europeans, and in doing so we cannot approach it in the moral sense. We have to approach it in the political sense, and also bearing in mind the necessity for selfpreservation. We therefore cannot defend it, and I do not think the Prime Minister himself made any attempt to defend it, on moral grounds. It is something forced on the European population, and we have to handle it in the sense that we have to secure our Western civilisation and our Western standards. In order to do that we must have the Bill. If this Bill was sent to a Select Committee we could set up a much better arrangement than the plan to leave it in the future to a committee of five, two of whom may be Asiatics. I am not content to leave the future of the set-up of these exempted areas to any committee of five. I think there must be a fundamental rule laid down in order to secure that before that committee functions there will be a foundation on which they cannot go wrong. At the present time it looks as if our last stage may be worse than the first. I see dangers in the set-up from the very beginning, and what will be the position in a few years’ time? I appeal to the Minister not to hurry the Bill just to secure something which at the moment is bristling with difficulties. The Indians themselves have repeatedly told us they are not opposed to segregation by consent, but they are opposed to segregation by compulsion because that puts them in a position of inferiority. Proof of the effectiveness of segregation by agreement is shown by experience in the U.S.A., though over there it does not work entirely satisfactorily. They have had bloodshed and difficulties in Chicago and Detroit. In the Southern States the control is better. There is an element of compulsion, not directly but by methods which have secured peace, really a system of agreement between the two sections. I give an illustration to the hon. member for what it is worth. In dealing with transport in some of the southern States, the conductor has full power to allocate seats on his tram. When a white man boards the tram, the conductor allocates him a front seat, and when a negro comes on he is given a seat in the rear, or vice versa. The thing is very simple, but it works, and secures peace, and there is not the unpleasantness that you find in Cape Town. There is nothing in the sense of racial discrimination; it is simply left to the good sense of the conductor. The Indians have said repeatedly, and they have come to an agreement, with I suppose the usual provisos or reservations— the Asiatic usually has mental reservations, and there is some little loophole whereby he can get out of a bargain—we are told now, though there was an agreement it was not an agreement in the right sense because the proof is the Indians did not carry it out. Penetration took place, and took place to such an extent that they were certainly not accepting segregation by agreement. Therefore, the Pegging Act had to be applied as an emergency proposal three years ago. It was for a specified time; but so far we have not any knowledge of any preliminary steps having been taken with regard to preparing for the finalising of that Pegging Act. It may have been brought up in the Prime Minister’s own working with his Cabinet, but as far as this House and the general public are concerned, we had no knowledge until the beginning of this year that the Prime Minister proposed to bring in this Bill. This should have been provided for, in my opinion, at the beginning of this session, and then we would have had the opportunity to assimilate it, and by the time we met at the beginning of the session we would have been in a position to do justice to the Bill and evolve something that would stand the test of time and give, as far as possible, justice to both sections. We have seen the difficulties growing and growing, and I submit we are today faced with the most serious position this country has been faced with for many years in connection with the Indian question. We could have settled it if we had two separate Bills. Realising it is not for ourselves so much that we are legislating in this matter, but for future generations, the foundations of this Bill should be such that the measure would be sound and generally acceptable. Whether future generations will be pleased with the present Parliament for its action, or whether they will curse us, is a matter we cannot foresee, but at least with time and thought and the right approach, we could make the best possible Bill in the circumstances.

I follow on to the question of the franchise, and that is the part of the Bill I do not want. I do not see why it is tacked on to the Bill. It is the greatest and most important thing for any human being to have the franchise. Right through history we have fought for the vote, as in the early days in England and Scotland, where they had a heavily-loaded franchise, and it took them many generations to develop from that stage to the position of adult suffrage. So we realise, therefore, when we approach a question like this and we set up a system of a communal franchise for one section of the people simply because we have set up another communal roll for another section of the people, as against what we know is a common roll. We must question it when we are told that the communal roll is first to secure representation for these people, and secondly to secure that the European section shall retain the political power in this country. I think we all agree that it is essential to maintain western standards of civilisation, and for that it is essential that the political government of the country should be in the hands of the European section. But we are now told that it is because the system is going to meet the requirements of that section that we accept the principle they should have this representation and that it will not endanger the position of European government. This is not the way to go about it. I am not advocating it at the moment, but I say it is something the Select Committee could have enquired into: To what extent could what the Prime Minister wants be attained under a proportional system of voting? The proportional system is known to this House, and it is given to secure that minorities shall be represented. In so far as the Indians are concerned, if the voting was on a proportional representation basis, the loading could take place and be of such a character that only a limited number of Indians would be elected.

Do you advocate that?

If the hon. member would listen, he would know I am not advocating it, but I am saying it is a matter for enquiry. I want that enquired into.

Do you approve of it?

How can I say that? I want the various methods of giving the franchise enquired into. The present system as advocated in this Bill I am opposed to. I do not think it is going to be any good to the Indian. But he will use it. Of course he will use it. He will use it in the establishment of an Indian bloc which will be used all the time not, in my opinion, to assist the general government of this country and Western standards but to promote only the interests of that particular class of the community. We can at least say today, though the House is comprised of four different parties, that we do approach many of our problems from the national aspect, but I venture to suggest when we have this representation it will be a very different story indeed. The Prime Minister can take it that will not be a satisfactory solution. He will have more trouble as the result of this franchise than ever he has had before. That is why I strongly appeal to him to accept our amendment and set up a Select Committee. The enquiry need not take long. The points are fairly clearly defined.

I object to certain hon. members who support the United Party Government suggesting all the time that by appointing a Select Committee we would only be delaying a settlement of the problem. That reminds me of the Inquisition days, when the Grand Inquisitor had always one set of questions to ask the heretic when he came before the court. He asked: Why have you come to hinder us?. But history showed that the men and women brought up before the Grand Inquisitor were right, and the Inquisitors were wrong. I am not suggesting that the Rt. Hon. gentleman is in the position of an Inquisitor, but as an example of the worthlessness of the argument that by urging the appointment of a Select Committee we are hindering or obstructing the solution of the problem. We resent it, because we are in favour of the principle contained in the first part of the Bill and we are anxious to follow up with suggestions in regard to a settlement on the franchise proposals. We believe we have a very good case in asking for the Select Committee. The whole country has shown it is nervous of the franchise proposals and the repercussions will be considerable if the Bill is forced through. In respect of the first portion of the Bill certain amendments could be made and it could be made acceptable to the Indians. But in regard to the second portion no one wants the present proposals, least of all the Indian section themselves. So I appeal to the Prime Minister to give our amendment serious consideration. The Pegging Act, as has been stated, can be extended to cover the whole field in dispute at the moment. Let it be carried on for another twelve months, or another six months, and let us evolve a measure of real value that posterity will treasure and not pass an Act for which they may curse us.

When we consider this legislation in connection with Asiatic land tenure my mind involuntarily goes back to the thought that is mentioned, I believe, by Langenhoven, that we must hold the truth level. If we hold it crooked it is not only half a truth but a lie, so we should hold this matter level and look it squarely in the face. To commence with I should like to regard this matter as a painting which is hung up, so that we may see its background. Your thoughts then revert to the Voortrekkers. There has been mention on both sides of the Voortrekkers, and I make bold to say that if anyone in this House can talk about the Voortrekkers it is I. I shall endeavour to deal with the speeches that have been delivered here and I shall not indulge in recriminations with the other side because I have listened to all the speeches made by the hon. members opposite in which they have endeavoured to find fault with this legislation, and I can make nothing out of them. It is a case of people who have to look after themselves first before they look at anyone else. My thoughts travel back to the days of the Voortrekkers. They forsook the southern portion of the continent. The cause was the very same— the colour problem. They trekked to Natal and we know their history. We know it very well. We recall Slagtersnek; we recall Weenen, and all those places where horrible murders occurred, and where the limit of endurance was reached to gain a solution of the problem; and further to the north— Moorddrif. One can see all these features in the background to the picture. All this was done on account of colour. Well, the Indian problem filtered through. It commenced in Natal. Natal is a precious colony well. We recall Slagtersnek; we recall all these things I have mentioned, but the soil of Natal is also coloured with the blood of liberty and justice, and that makes it precious to us. I go even so far as to say that my father enriched the soil of Natal with his blood for right and justice. Therefore I desire that we should hold truth level in order that right and justice may prevail.

By giving Natal to the Indians.

The Indian problem trickled through from Natal to the Transvaal. I do not want to talk about the position in Natal because I do not know about it, though I do know that the Indians came there and were employed on the sugar plantations. Our friends who derived an advantage from that were certainly partially responsible for the difficulties in Natal. But the Indians filtered through to the Transvaal. Were we old Transvaalers unjust towards the Indians? Emphatically no. When the Indians penetrated how did they arrive in the Transvaal? They walked long distances with a whole shop on their heads. They began to take up business there. They began by begging and pleading for their load to be lightened a little, and for a little food to be given them. Were the old Voortrekkers unreasonable? No. They lightened the load. They did not know they were playing with fire, but they acted as good Samaritans towards these people. They gave them a place to sleep, and protection, and some food, and they made their load lighter. But the Indians were not satisfied with that. They penetrated further and began to take more and more. They wanted not only the business but they wanted equality. The old republic went so far as not only to deny equality but they also laid down that an Asiatic might not walk on the sidepath with a European.

What is the position now?

I shall be grateful if the hon. member will keep quiet, because I shall not give him any reply. I have seen with my own eyes and I have heard myself how they have penetrated further. The Voortrekkers treated the Indians with Christian charity, but they did not take that into consideration, and later legislation had to be adopted, but they endeavoured in every conceivable way to evade the law to secure permanence and to penetrate. When gold developments began they penetrated further. I am now painting the background. When the Voortrekkers had to purge the land of barbarism we saw no Indians there. That little group of Voortrekkers had on their own to clean up the country and bring civilisation to the north from the south. Later the Indians came like parasites and exploited the kindheartedness and Christian charity of the Voortrekkers in order to gain possession of those things the Voortrekkers had spilt their blood for. Things had got to that pitch that fifty years ago we were already confronted with this problem. It was to my mind exactly the same problem as that we are faced with today. What are we going to do now? There are members, on the other side who spoke about machine guns and such things. Fifty years ago we were also faced with this problem. What did the Transvaal and the Free State do? We went to war. To me it is still the same thing. At that time it was also the franchise. How did we emerge at the end? With a lost cause. But God be thanked we retained our rights, we opened our eyes; and now I come to my people and my nation who make such an appeal to my sentiment when they ask how I now feel. But who is the cause of the Indians having now penetrated further, so that a year or so ago we had to send a deputation to the Government to ask that they should stop them? Today I still say to the Prime Minister: Stop them, stop them. Things are moving too quickly. There is a big danger, the Indians are penetrating. Now it is not only the wealth of South Africa that they are after, but they also wish to meddle with our problems here, and they are making the position of the coloured people difficult for us. The Indians use every possible method. The Afrikaner people have sunk, and even our Afrikaner girls are used to promote their interests. And the difficulty is that when there is the smallest crisis our Afrikaner people are so weak because we quarrel about trifles. We buy from the Indians; if the husband does not, his wife and the girls buy from the Indians. There lies our difficulty. Now I ask hon. members on the other side why they do not speak about that.

But we agree with you there.

Why do hon. members not see that danger? When the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) was Minister, I led a deputation to him and the late Mr. Piet Grobler, and we then discussed the matter. When we had finished he asked us where we purchased our things. We could not say otherwise than that we bought from coolies. I saw with my own eyes our own people driving 75 miles in a donkey cart, passing four or five shops on the way in order to buy from an Indian. Why? Because they might perhaps get their coffee a penny a lb. cheaper there.

But when we say “Buy from your own people” you say we are racialists.

I have seen all these things, and my thoughts go back and the whole picture unfolds before me.

At 6.40 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on 31st January, 1946, and the debate adjourned; to be resumed on 29th March.