As regards clause 8, I should like the Committee to be clear about what this clause really means. According to this clause the Minister can, notwithstanding the provisions of clauses 2, 4 and 5, issue permits to Asiatics. Clause 2 provides that in what for the sake of convenience, we shall just call white areas, Asiatics can only purchase from Asiatics, and Europeans can only purchase from Europeans. That is regards ownership of property. Clauses 4 and 5 deal only with occupation, and there it is provided that properties which were lawfully occupied by Asiatics at the time this Act comes into force, or the date announced, in future can be so legally occupied, just as properties which were occupied by Europeans at the date of the coming into force of this Act, or the fixed date, can only be occupied by Europeans. But notwithstanding that, this clause provides that the Minister of the Interior can authorise permits to be issued whereby Asiatics can acquire the right of ownership in respect of ground or property belonging to Europeans, or the right of occupation, which was not possible under clauses 4 and 5. In the Transvaal or Natal the Minister can issue permits allowing Asiatics to occupy ground or premises which were formerly occupied by Europeans. In other words, the Minister is given this right to allow penetration by Asiatics as regards occupation to develop further. That is the power which is given to the Minister. As regards the taking over by Europeans of premises occupied by Asiatics, that is not dangerous, but the danger which arises here is that permits can be issued in conflict with the previous provisions to allow Asiatics to hire or occupy dwellings or premises which formerly belonged to Europeans. This danger is not imaginary, because we have the example of the Minister of the Interior who had precisely the same powers under the Pegging Act. Now, I should like hon. members opposite to give their attention to this aspect of the matter, namely, that the Minister of the Interior will again administer this Act with the same powers he had under the Pegging Act. That Minister went so far as to give Indians in Pretoria the right to penetrate into European areas. That being so, what guarantee have we that this same Minister will not once more by virtue of the provisions of this Bill misuse his powers as he has done in the past? We have no such guarantee. I asked the Prime Minister whether he would give us the guarantee that his Government or his Minister who handles the matter, will not act in that way, but he bluntly refused. That is the danger of this clause. I should like to know from the Prime Minister whether he will not, before I put the amendment, himself consider amending this clause and if necessary the rest of the Bill accordingly, or even in Another Place, so that the power given to the Minister to issue permits will only apply to the issue of permits provided the person who by that means is authorised to acquire or to occupy such ground or premises is a European. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he will not consider that, because otherwise permits will be issued in contravention of clauses 2, 4 and 5. It will not be limited, as I stated, to the acquisition of ground from Asiatics by Europeans, bub by this means the areas which for the sake of convenience we call white areas will not eventually be able to be purified of Asiatics, but Asiatics will be able to penetrate there still further. That is true not only of Natal, but also of the Transvaal. I am again taking my own town as an example. What is true of Nylstroom is also true of the majority of other towns in the Transvaal. There Indians intermingle with the Europeans everywhere, not only in residential areas, but also as regards business premises, and my request to the Prime Minister is that he should have this Bill amended in such a manner that the permits can only be issued to Europeans, so that eventually we will be able to eliminate the Asiatics from those areas. In other words, permits will only be given to Europeans to acquire ground which is situated in European areas and which at the commencement of the operation of this Act is in the hands of Asiatics. If that is not done, not only will this Bill achieve very little, but there will also be the danger that instead of us having certain areas quite white eventually, the Act will be handled in such a manner that in those areas there will be still more intermingling than there is already. This is such a serious matter to me, the peneration of Indians amongst Europeans with all its fatal results, not only as regards the deterioration one finds amongst Europeans, but also in view of the economic weakening of the Europeans, that with all the power of my being I wish to plead with the Prime Minister that he should amend the Bill in such a manner that penetration will not take place any further. As I said, I think not only of the deterioration one finds amongst the Europeans as a result of the penetration by non-Europeans, but also of the economic deterioration, the economic harm done to Europeans when one allows Indians to penetrate amongst them. We know what the results are when Indians are allowed to enter into a European business centre or residential area. It immediately has the economic effect of lowering the value of the property of the Europeans as a result of this contamination, if you will allow me to use that word. The value of the property of the European, whether it is a dwelling-house or business premises, decreases immediately, apart from the unpleasantness of the whole situation. I want to ask the Prime Minister not to harden his heart and to take into consideration what up to now has been happening under the Minister of the Interior, who permitted Indians to penetrate into Pretoria and in other areas by virtue of the same powers which will be given to him by this Bill. Now, hon. members opposite must not say that those powers will be used in this or that way. They must not bluff themselves that these powers will only be used in the interests of the Europeans. The immediate past, the experience of the previous few years, has taught us the bitter lesson that if powers of this nature are given to a Minister who has no strong convictions on the question of the continued existence of a pure white race, apart from what his own liberal views might be, the danger exists that he will be affected by the influence exerted on him by Asiatics. We must not lose sight of the fact that, apart from the fact that some Europeans have no strong feelings about maintaining the colour bar between European and non-European, there is also the financial power of the Asiatics. [Time limit.]

*Mr. FOUCHÉ To me this clause is very clear. It provides that the Minister may, on written application made therefor, direct that a permit may be issued for an Asiatic to purchase land from a European in an area shown on the diagram as a European area. It is quite clear, therefore, that this clause makes provision for further penetration by Asiatics. I cannot imagine this clause having any other ultimate result than the final decision between Europeans and Asiatics in Natal, and that decision will be in favour of the Asiatics. We have these red areas on the diagram which are already pre-doininantly occupied by Asiatics, and then we have other areas of Europeans as shown on the diagram with regard to which most people believed that they would be areas for Europeans; but this clause with which we are dealing now has been introduced precisely to make provision for the Asiatic to be able to penetrate into the European areas. What will ultimately be the practical result of this? We know that today the Europeans and the non-Europeans in Natal are numerically equally strong. We know that the increase of the Asiatics is almost three times as rapid as that of the Europeans. It must be quite clear to us that on the part of the Asiatics there will be a greater demand for land than from the Europeans, that there will be a greater demand for permits to acquire land in the European areas. In terms of this clause, permits can now be granted. Eventually it can mean only one thing, and that is that in the years to come the areas which at present are regarded as European areas will become more and more red. I want to put this question: This clause, which provides for permits to Europeans to buy from Asiatics and Asiatics to buy from Europeans—has it been included in the Bill to provide that in the years to come the Europeans in the so-called European areas should acquire more land, or has this clause been included specifically to provide that the Asiatics will be able ultimately to acquire more land in the white areas? It must be clear to everyone that this clause was included in the Bill with the express purpose of not allowing the European to acquire more land in the European areas, but, on the contrary, to allow the Asiatic to acquire more land. It is perfectly clear to me therefore, that it can have only one result, and that is that the Europeans will be dominated in the white areas. The penetration of Indians is not being stopped. For that reason I am appealing to the Prime Minister to follow a different course, and to prevent the Europeans from ultimately being pushed out of these European areas. As the clause stands now, and in view of the rest of the Bill, it will only mean that there will be a retardation of the tempo of penetration of Asiatics, but it will not be stopped. Theré will only be a retardation of the tempo, and because the Asiatic multiplies so much more rapidly than the European, the clause can have no other result than that the Europeans in Natal will eventually be dominated. I believe that this clause 8 is the most condemning clause in the Bill as far as the Europeans are concerned, and that it will be a disgrace in the statute books of South Africa.

In dealing with an important point such as this, it is necessary for us to refresh the memory of the House and to recall the reasons given by the Prime Minister when he presented us with this legislation so hurriedly. Members will recall that the Prime Minister gave as the ostensible reason why he had to introduce this legislation so urgently and why he refused to appoint a Select Committee to investigate the whole matter, that the penetration had become so acute that steps had now to be taken. With that apparent reason he at any rate persuaded his side of the House to proceed with the measure at this stage. Now we come to this important clause, and what is the position under this clause? It gives the Minister of the Interior the power to promote Indian penetration into European residential and commercial areas. I am making a very serious statement, but I want to put this position to every hon. member on the opposite side and ask them to get up here and to deny it. This clause gives the Minister, who will carry out this Act, the definite power of not restricting Indian penetration amongst the Europeans, but actually to promote it. It is because we want to avoid the danger which this power in the hands of a Minister will mean to the European that we are asking the Prime Minister to reconsider this point. It is very clear and it has become increasingly clear during the course of this debate; it was also clear from the debate on the Pegging Act of 1943 that the penetration of Indians amongst the white people was proceeding and was on the increase, with permission and without. I am again making a very strong statement. I say that in spite of the law of the land, in spite of the Act of 1885, the Act of 1919, and subsequent Acts, the Indians have penetrated amongst the Europeans. It is a fact which the Prime Minister has admitted. It is also a fact which was admitted that in spite of the Pegging Act of three years ago the penetration has taken place. I want to recall the words of the Prime Minister in the debate on the Pegging Act of 1943, namely, that the Government of the day had to take steps and that the Indian penetration was to blame for such steps having to be taken. It was the result of penetration on the part of the Indians. Now I want to put this question and it is a very serious question. If the Indian population was able to penetrate in spite of the existing laws of the land, then I maintain that the danger does exist that these people will be able to overwhelm the Minister to such an extent that the powers given to him will be abused, with the result that further penetration will follow. That is no apparent danger, it is a real danger. Now I want to put the matter clearly once more. Under this Bill two areas are determined. The one area is the red area on the map. In this red area it is Ichabod to the European population who desire separation between Europeans and non-Europeans. Once again I am making a very strong statement. Every red spot on the map indicates an area where it will be Ichabod to the Europeans who desire separation of the two races. The Prime Minister says that these areas will remain mixed. They are intended to remain mixed. What is more, these red spots on the map are only the first step. Larger and larger areas throughout Natal will in future become red spots, and when they are made red at the discretion of the Minister, it will also be the end there of the European who is not prepared to live together with the Indian. That being the case, why does the Prime Minister not make a slight concession? Let him make a small concession to those who want the white areas to be white and who do not believe in mixed residential areas. Give the white man a place in Natal where he has the guarantee that no further penetration and intrusion will take place. I am not asking the Prime Minister anything that is unreasonable, neither is it something impossible. We are pleading on behalf of the white man in South Africa. Give him on the soil of his own fatherland, on the blood-drenched soil of Natal, a little place which he can be sure will remain untouched. What we are asking for is this: We are asking for a guarantee which will be based not on the discretion of a Minister, but on the law. That is why we say that the Indian in the white area should gradually leave that area and live in the red area. Give the white man an area which will be exclusively European and give him a guarantee that his rights will not be encroached upon through the arbitrary decision of a Minister. Right from the beginning we have made this plea to the Prime Minister that he should comply with the wishes of the European community and not in one instance so far in this Committee has he complied with the wishes of the European community as expressed here by us. I want to say once more that the position has become acute, especially in Natal, not as a result of the penetration of the European, but as the result of the penetration of the Indians. Year after year the Indians have penetrated further and ousted the white man from his living space, and we are asking now that such ousting should be put a stop to. It is not something unreasonable that we are asking for. We do not want the European to be subjected to penetration at the discretion of a Minister. We do not want to vest power in a Minister to perpetuate or to promote Indian penetration. Let us restrict it by law in order that the white man may have a place where he can be safe by law and not at the discretion of a Minister. That is our request and that is what we are asking for. It is a serious request and a reasonable one, and I want to express the hope that even at this late stage the Prime Minister will give us a definite reply and also the correct answer.

I am just rising to make it clear that we are not laying down a principle here. The principle has already been laid down in sections which we have agreed to. Sections 2, 4 and 5 lay down the principle that the one race may buy from the other race under a permit. We are not again arguing about that. That has been dealt with. What is being laid down here in Section 8 is how it shall be carried out, what the machinery will be, and it is provided here that the permit shall be issued by the Minister on a report from a Board which will be appointed for that purpose and which will investigate and report to the Minister. That is all that has to be decided here. It is purely a question of the machinery for the carrying out of a principle which has already been accepted, and we need not argue again about that principle. I have an amendment which I want to move to provide that the permit shall be put into effect within six months or else it lapses. It will, of course, be wrong and perhaps prejudicial to issue a permit which remains pending and which is put into effect years later. If a permit is issued it must be an urgent matter and it must be put into effect within six months or else it lapses.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard) has moved an amendment which probably comes down to this, that the Minister will make the necessary investigation, that he will see to the publications and obtain the necessary information and decide thereon. That is his principal amendment. It seems to me that is the wrong procedure. The correct procedure is, as I shall move in an amendment of Clause 12, that this preliminary investigation, this assembly of material for a judgment, should be done by the Board. The Board should ask for the necessary information; the Board should gather all the material, and their report should be based on a full investigation of the facts. Then their report will go to the Minister, and the Minister will decide thereon. It is not for the Minister to investigate the case, it is not for the Minister to collect all the material; that is the function of the Board. I therefore think that the arrangement in my amendment is, if I may say so, better than that suggested by my hon. friend. It is not for the Minister to do the job; a Board has been appointed to do it, let them do it. I cannot accept the amenmdent simply for that reason. The substance of it is taken over by me in a later clause, but in connection with the proper authority, which is the Board. The hon. member has also moved a couple of minor amendments. He wishes to substitute “the” report for “any” report. I have no objection to that. If my hon. friend attaches any importance to that, I am prepared to accept “the” instead of “any”. But a little further on in sub-section (2) he wishes to delete “may” and to substitute “shall”. If my hon.‘friend reads the whole clause, he will see a discretion is left to the Minister. The Minister will have all this material before him. It will have been collected by the Board and embodied in a report, and the Minister will have to act on this report and give it his consideration. We say he “may” decide. Sub-section (2) expressly says that any matters which in his opinion are relevant to the question whether or not any permit shall be granted will be taken into consideration by the Minister; so evidently the whole object of this clause from its very terminology is to leave a discretion to the Minister on the facts that have been collected by the Board. Under those circumstances you cannot say “shall”. You cannot say a man may have to express his opinion and then also say he “shall”, because it is contradictory. I think the word “may” is the correct word in this connection, and I cannot accept the substitution of “shall” for it.

It is eminently desirable that at this stage of the proceedings publicity should be given to what has taken place, and although the Prime Minister is moving in Clause 12 to the effect that advertisements shall appear in a paper in circulation in that area, that is for the information of the public that the Board is about to consider this permit, but the Board has to make a report on that, and that report will not be published at all. The object of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard) is therefore that at both stages of the proceedings there shall be publicity, and that the people most interested can have access to the Board’s report before the Minister decides what action shall be taken in regard to the permit. In those circumstances I would ask the Prime Minister to reconsider his objection to the amendment, and let us have all the publicity he possibly can. We know the Indian, and the better you know the Indian the more you will be prepared to counter any move he may make which will take him here, there and everywhere. It is simply with the idea of stopping up any loopholes that may occur owing to lack of knowledge of those interested which would result in the Indian getting in where he is not wanted.

The hon. the Prime Minister has just told us that the Minister will ultimately decide in which cases a permit will be issued and in which cases not. That is precisely our objection. No provision is made here that the Minister will be bound by the report or recommendation of the board. In the course of the discussion on this Bill, we find that clause after clausa is nullifying this principle which in the first instance we were prepared to accept, namely, that to a certain extent separateness and segregation is being achieved by the Bill. If the Prime Minister is not prepared to make a concession, he will find that an extensive organisation and structure will be created, but the executive power will ultimately depend upon one person, namely the Minister who administers the Act. Then we will have the same position as we have at present. Here in this House there are people who will lead the dissatisfied Indians, who will sit on the doorstep of the Minister to get permits from him if they cannot get them from the board. We know what the ordinary course of events is. Give the power to the board, provided it is satisfactorily composed. It will investigate the matter and it will have sufficient evidence on which to decide whether a permit should be issued or not. But as the provision stands at present, I am afraid that we will get back to the old position where the same things will take place. The Minister will be inundated with requests. They will live on the Minister’s doorstep and eventually he will take it upon himself to issue permits whether the board is in favour or not, and that is exactly what we wish to avoid. We want to avoid that and we want to try and bring about a separation between the races economically and otherwise.

The Prime Minister emphasised just now that the principle of the Bill has been adopted. I assume that that principle is separateness. The object and the tenor of the Bill is to prevent the penetration of Indians into European areas. The principle has been agreed to but this clause gives to the Minister of the Interior the right to undermine that principle if he desires to do so. The principle is to prevent Indians from penetrating into European areas, but this clause gives the right to the Minister of the Interior to allow Indians to penetrate into European areas. If we did not have the precedent in the past that the Minister of the Interior allowed Indians to penetrate into European areas, we would not have been so concerned. Then there would have been an excuse; then the other side could have argued that the object of this clause was to give to a European the right of occupation in cases where an Indian owned property in a European area which he surrendered, and to give power to the Minister to allow that by way of a permit. But we have had the precedent in the past that the present Minister of the Interior actually allowed Indians to penetrate into European areas. The present Minister is not a member of the House of Assembly, he is a member of the Senate. He is not responsible to an electoral division. He is in a position to disregard the wishes of the electorate of Natal. He cannot be called to account and for that reason the position is still more dangerous. I maintain that this Bill should be applied in order to make European areas out of European residential areas; that I admit, but as we know the present Minister of the Interior, we fear that the provisions of this clause may be used precisely to nullify the purpose and the aim of this Bill. It may totally undermine this Bill and we want to ask the Prime Minister therefore to take into consideration an amendment to prevent Indians in future to penetrate into European areas under this Clause. The Prime Minister emphasised that this Bill is in a certain way a compromise. In the first part of the Bill we are depriving the Asiatic of certain rights to property and in the second part we are granting the franchise to the Asiatic, but I am afraid that as far as the first part of the Bill is concerned and particularly this clause, we are watering it down to such an extent that it will depend upon the arbitrary wishes of the Minister who administers the Bill whether the provisions of the Bill will be carried out in the way we want them to be carried out. It has been left to his arbitrary wish. If he wishes to permit the penetration of Indians there is nothing to prevent him from doing so and I maintain, therefore, that if we give the franchise to the Indians in the second part of the Bill we should have a guarantee in the first part that the Indians will not penetrate into European areas.

Mr. Chairman, the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has dealt with the amendments of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard) that notice should be given when application for a permit is made. The only difficulty is that he wants this notice to be effected through the Board and not through the Minister. My difficulty here is this: What guarantee is there that any representations that are made to the Board as a result of this notice would be put before the Minister? It may be incorporated in the report of the Board, but there is nothing to indicate that it must be incorporated therein. It may be that departmentally the Minister may ask for it, I do not know, but I would like to have it quite definite on the Statute Book that when representations are made to the Board, when as a result of the new amendment application for a permit is made, that these representations should also be put before the Minister when he considers the issue of that permit; not only the report of the Board, but also the specific representations by the interested parties. I was wondering if the Prime Minister could not make that position quite clear in clause 8—the clause we are considering now—that the Minister may after consideration of any report made by the Board, and any representations made to the Board in terms of clause 12 (2), in his discretion direct that a permit be issued. These representations must not be pigeon-holed in the Board’s office, they must definitely be put before the responsible Minister in the last resort. I think that would go a long way towards meeting the point made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). The interested parties should know of any application that is made, and they should have an opportunity of expressing their views on that application, and finally their representations on the wisdom or otherwise of the issue of such a permit should be brought directly to the notice of the responsible Minister.

This clause 8 is probably one of the most reprehensible clauses in the Bill. I say that because the separation contemplated by the Prime Minister in this clause, however slight that may be, is now totally nullified by this clause. The Prime Minister can be sure that Europeans will not continually come to the Minister for permits to take up residence in Asiatic areas. That will not happen, but he will receive requests daily from Asiatics for permits to take up residence in European residential areas, and that is where the danger lies. I want to draw attention to the clause itself. Clause 8 reads as follows—

Section 12 defines the functions of this Board. In the first place, the Board is constituted in such a manner that we feel dubious about it. This Board has to consider the applications for permits. Two of the five members, it is proposed, will be Asiatics. Now it all depends upon the attitude of one of the other three members. If he is a person of the calibre of the Minister of the Interior, then this Board will recommend to the Minister every application received from an Asiatic to enter a European residential area. There is not the least doubt about that. Then we will find this position as pointed out just now by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood). The position is now created in which all the other preceding provisions in the Bill aiming at separation can be undermined. To prove that we cannot entrust the administration of an Act such as this to the Minister of the Interior, I would like to explain to the Committee the matter mentioned here by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) relating to Pretoria, in order that every member may know what happened there and what the attitude was of the Minister concerned. I have here the report regarding the trouble in Pretoria. It says, inter alia, the following—

The whole area in the vicinity is occupied by Europeans—

Now we come to the matter which is so dangerous—

Now there we have had this position in Pretoria. Notwithstanding the fact that the whole City Council was opposed to the issue of a permit in that instance, the Minister to whom we are asked to entrust the administration of this Act today comes along, and he simply gives a permit to the Asiatic to enable him to penetrate there. It is clear that we on this side cannot entrust the matter to such a Minister. In any case, if we are aiming at separation by this legislation, as the Prime Minister has said, then this system of permits should not be allowed at all. In this regard I am completely in agreement with the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein). On the one side there should be Asiatics, and on the other side Europeans. Now you are going to create further loopholes, and the danger exists today that under this permit system the European areas will eventually become red areas. There is no doubt about that. We find that this clause is most dangerous, and that, is why we ask, as the hon. member for Waterberg has asked, whether the Prime Minister cannot meet us in such a way that if this permit system has to remain, permits shall only be issued to Europeans to enable them to occupy properties, but not to Asiatics. If this Bill is to be passed with this clause, then the whole Bill of the Prime Minister will be of no use to South Africa. Separation at which he also aims, according to what he said, will become a farce. It already is a farce, and if this procedure is to continue for some years, it will get out of control also in the Transvaal as it has already got out of control in Natal. Whilst we are dealing with this matter now, let us see once and for all whether we cannot bring about separateness in South Africa. I want to agree with the hon. member for Boshof that however much the Prime Minister may implore us on this side to meet him in this matter, we cannot do it. We on this side will continue fighting until our aim is achieved, namely, separateness. To say the least, the Prime Minister is rather unreasonable. The Prime Minister does appear to have become obstinate. No matter how we talk and how we plead, he simply says he will not grant our request. We ask hon. members on that side of the House to realise the implications of this question. Every one of them sitting on those benches will be jointly responsible if this Bill is passed, and we shall reach the position in South Africa eventually where the matter will get completely beyond control. I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Waterberg in asking the Prime Minister once more to reconsider this matter. This may be his last opportunity of saving South Africa from this evil. The attention of the whole country is today focused on this Assembly, and I hope that the Prime Minister will accede to our reasonable request, and assist us to save what can still be saved.

It is very clear that this clause, together with all the clauses relating to the permit system, changes this Bill to such an extent that it may be compared to a sieve with which the Minister is trying to stop the East wind. This clause 8 changes the Bill to such an extent that the whole policy of separatism is going to be destroyed. That is very clear. Moreover, by means of this clause the Prime Minister is placing a butcher’s knife in the hands of the liberalistic elements, in the hands of those people who do not care a scrap what becomes of South Africa; those people who are intent on making South Africa a hybrid race. Under this clause that ideal is being promoted. When we look at this Bill, particularly the first part, it is clear that this clause 8, with its permit system, is the Magna Charta of the interests of the Indians under the first part of the Bill. They have scored a greater victory in this respect than they have scored in South Africa for a long time, perhaps greater than they have ever scored in South Africa. I said at the outset that all this hullabaloo on the part of India in connection with this Bill is nothing but camouflage, the sole object being to strengthen the Prime Minister’s case. When we look at the implications of this clause I am more than ever convinced of that fact. We are acquainted with this system of permits and, particularly as far as the Indians are concerned, there is a very unpleasant history attached to this whole system of permits.

Order, order. May I point out to the hon. member that the principle of permits has already been accepted by the Committee and I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss that matter at this stage.

I am merely linking it up with the clause itself. Even this clause 8 contains a message of warning as to our experience in the past with regard to permits. It is for that reason that it behoves us to pay particular attention to this clause. We are now going to have penetration on a greater scale than we realise as a result of this clause. It is merely creating an opening for penetration.

Order, order. May I point out to the hon. member that the principle has already been accepted in clauses 2, 4 and 5 and the hon. member cannot discuss the principle at this stage.

I am not referring to the principle.

On a point of order, may I just put it to you that clause 8 refers to permits which may be issued in connection with clauses 2, 4 and 5, and my submission is that the hon. member is in order in discussing the permit system and the effect of granting permits.

Clause 8 does not deal with the particulars of the permit system, the principle of which has been accepted under clauses 2, 4 and 5.

I say that an opening is now being created under clause 8 for Indian penetration to take place everywhere, particularly when at the head of affairs there is a Minister like the Minister of the Interior and his supporters; particularly when a Minister like the Deputy Prime Minister is at the head of affairs.

Order, order. That argument has been advanced ad nauseam.

Hear, hear.

You have advanced no arguments at all.

You are sitting there like a lot of sheep.

The fact remains that under clause 8 penetration may take place in every possible sphere. We visualise this great danger for the continued existence of our European civilisation, and we cannot repeat this warning often enough. As a matter of fact, the whole issue turns on that point. To us it is a matter of life and death. The fact remains that by means of this clause we are creating a position under which an Indian may obtain a permit enabling him to live next-door to a European, with the result that the moral standard of the European civilisation, of a section of the European civilisation, is at once lowered. It is the highest task of every government in our country not only to protect the moral standard of the European civilisation but to do everything in its power to strengthen and to build it up as much as possible.

The hon. member is again dealing with the principle of the Bill. I am sorry, I cannot allow him to do so.

In any event that state of affairs is being created by this clause and we want to sound a note of warning in this connection, and for that reason we ask the Prime Minister so to amend this clause that it will promote the ideal condition which is advocated by this side of the House and the whole population. I want to make a serious appeal to the Prime Minister. In making a plea to the Prime Minister one often feels that it is altogether in vain; but he must bear in mind that by means of this clause he is creating a danger which makes the future of South Africa very dark and black. If the Prime Minister has the interests and the future of our nation and country at heart, he ought to accede to our request and so amend this clause that it will bring about proper separation between European and nonEuropean and protect the European civilisation.

The power which is given to the Minister in this clause cuts two ways. In the first place, he is given the power, notwithstanding the provisions of clause’s 2, 4 and 5, to allow Indians to buy land or to occupy sites formerly belonging to Europeans, in European areas. That is the danger. But it could work satisfactorily if this provision is administered by a Minister who stands for the purity of the races. It may then have a good effect, because under the provisions in clauses 2, 4 and 5 he could then remove the Indians. This danger of an infiltration into European areas can be warded off if the Prime Minister alters this clause as suggested in the amendment which I propose to move, namely, that this power will be limited in such a way that a permit can only be issued if the person who is thereby authorised to acquire or to occupy such land is a European; that is to say, if Europeans only are enabled to acquire or to occupy land in European areas, which has been occupied by Indians up to the present. I should like to move an amendment in these terms—

If the Prime Minister will accept such an amendment, the danger that we now fear can be completely eliminated, because in that case there can be no infiltration on the part of Indians into European areas. The Prime Minister refuses to accept this. In view of that, I want to move another amendment, and I hope he will accept this amendment, at any rate. The object is to provide that where there are Indians in any European area, whether they own property or whether they have the right of occupation in a European area, and an application is made by a European to take over the property of an Indian, whether it be to acquire ownership or the right of occupation, that in such cases the Minister may not refuse to issue a permit. As the clause now reads, the Minister may make use of his powers to refuse a permit where, for example, a European in Durban applies for a permit to buy the property of an Indian in a European area. Where a European in Durban or Nylstroom applies for permission to occupy a house formerly occupied by an Indian, so that the Indian will in that way be removed from the European area, the Minister has the right under this clause to refuse a permit. I hope, therefore, that the Prime Minister will accept the following amendment—

I move that amendment. The permit system remains, but the amendment means that if a European applies for permission to acquire or to lease or to occupy a property from an Asiatic in a European area, the Minister must issue a permit. In that way it will, at any rate, be possible to remove the Indians from European areas. The permit system remains, but the Minister will be compelled to issue a permit where the person in favour of whom the permit is to be issued is a European. I, hope the Prime Minister will appreciate the reasonableness of this amendment.

The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) is acting on the assumption that the responsible Minister will be so unreasonable as to refuse a permit where an agreement has been entered into between a European and an Asiatic in terms of which the Asiatic will sell or lease his land to a European. That is foolish.

We have had many foolish cases where permits have been granted to Indians, thus allowing them to penetrate into European areas.

This whole debate is tantamount to an attack on my colleague, the Minister of the Interior, and expression is given to it in the amendment which has been moved here. I cannot see any reason why, when an agreement has been entered into between a European and an Asiatic that the European will buy or lease land from an Asiatic in such an area, a permit should then be refused.

You will remember that we asked you not to approve of sales where the position is reversed, and you would not accept it.

I am glad that the Prime Minister has accepted one of my amendments, even though it is the smallest of all, the substitution of the word “the” for the word “any”, but there is some substance in it, because it seems to me that that will to some extent prevent the Minister from acting independently; the adoption of this amendment will prevent it. With regard to the second amendment the use of the word “shall”, the clause itself clearly indicates and anticipates that the Minister should take these different matters into consideration, and when it says that he may take into consideration the relevant needs of the races, etc., I thought really that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, as the author of this Bill, really intended that the Minister should do it, and it seems to me to be an improvement upon his draft to say that if it was intended that he should take these matters into consideration, the words should be in the imperative form and not merely permissive. It is, I submit, an improvement on the draft as it stands, and it carries out the intention, the obvious intention I should have thought, which the Prime Minister had. With regard to the third amendment, that is really a very much more important matter, because here the question at stake is whether the report which the Board has to make shall be made public or shall be kept private. One cannot close one’s eyes now, although we have not reached this clause, to the fact that this Bill as drafted, as it stands at present, intends to set up a very heterogeneous Board. It is to consist of members of both races who are appointed by the Minister and who will hold office for a fixed time. Now, the nature of these reports on the Board will be a matter of prime interest to the public as a whole, and especially to those who take an interest on behalf of the public in the properties concerned. The Prime Minister has replied to me on this question, but he did not devote any attention to this aspect of the matter. He relied upon his draft amendment to clause 12, which does not propose to do anything of the kind. The enquiry and the report which is made will be kept entirely private. Nor is it provided in the amendment as it stands that it will be as comprehensive as the amendment proposed by me. I believe that my amendment is essential and that it will improve the Bill considerably. As regards the composition of the Board, I would just like to say firstly that I disapprove of a Board altogether. I think it would be very much better if the Minister or the Government were responsible themselves for all these decisions. The idea of the Minister sheltering or shielding behind the decision or recommendation of some Board seems to me to be a slight upon our administration. All the advice given by the Board and all the information collected by it may equally well be collected by the Minister himself and by his department, and I prefer—and I think we would have greater reliance in—an enquiry made by the Minister and his staff than in such a Board. And that is one of the reasons why we think that if this report is to be put up by the Board, it should be made public, and rendered available to all people interested. That is why my amendment says that notice shall be given of the place and time where this report may be inspected by everyone interested. I hope this amendment will be accepted.

I should like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom), because in the first instance it will facilitate the administration of the Bill. Moreover there will be less danger of loopholes through which irregularities can take place, because the Minister will then know precisely what to do. As the clause now stands it is being left to his discretion. I want to come back, however, to the Prime Minister’s argument for refusing to accept this amendment. He says he does not want to accept it because he regards it as an attack on the Minister of the Interior. This legislation will be in force long after the Minister has disappeared from the scene, and different Ministers in the future will be called upon to administer the Bill. I cannot therefore accept it as a convincing argument as to why we should not vote for this amendment. I think the Prime Minister should have a reasonable excuse why he does not want to make it compulsory. If he can advance a clear and reasonable argument we shall accept it and abide by it, but he has not convinced us at all that we ought to vote against this amendment.

I hope the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard). I think there is ample evidence that such an amendment is highly desirable. The Prime Minister will probably remember the recent case in Durban, known as the Copper Case. Now, had that information been available to the public and the reasons stated for the granting of that permit, I venture to say that that permit would never have been granted at all. I was privileged to head a deputation to the Minister of the Interior of something like 25 public men and women of Durban who were highly incensed at a permit having been granted to this Asiatic to have occupation of a house in a European area. When the Minister of the Interior was asked for reasons as to why this permit was issued he said: “Well, the granting of this permit may be right, or it may be wrong. I really do not know and I am not prepared to say that this permit should not have been granted.” And then he said: “It has been issued and what can we do about it now? I can do nothing more now. This person has been given a permit to occupy the house and nothing more can be done.” I do suggest that had the information been available to the people concerned that permit would hot have been issued and it is to avoid such cases as that happening in the future that this amendment has been drafted. Though we will have very little faith in the board we do think some precautions should be taken to prevent any friction occurring when permits may be granted in the future. The Prime Minister knows only too well the stir that was caused in Durban over that case. They went so far as to say that 200 men in that area would see that those premises were never occupied. You can issue permits but if we are not going to be consulted and told the reason for the issue of these permits, if you will not take us into your confidence in this matter, we will see that the premises are not occupied. You say what is being attempted in this Bill is to obviate friction taking place in future, and what objections there can be to this amendment I cannot for the life of me understand. All the amendment asks for is that before the Minister makes his decision the people vitally concerned in that area will be able to see the report and also tender advice to the Minister, and be able to show—as I feel sure they will—that they must not accept the recommendation of the board if the board recommends the grant of a permit. That has been the whole cause of the trouble in Durban; permits have been issued and nobody has known why. Do not the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior agree that this amendment will prevent such an incident as the one that happened in Durban quite recently? There was no board in existence at that time, merely two individuals who made some recommendation to the Minister, who said: I do not know whether the permit should have been granted or not, I was advised it should be, it may be wrong, it probably was wrong, but the permit was granted and I can do no more. This will obviate cases of the kind recurring and prevent further trouble in Durban.

First amendment, proposed by Col. Stallard, put and agreed to.

Amendment, proposed by Mr. J. G.

Strydom, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—48:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Noes—79:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sullivan, J. R.

Suiter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Question put: That the word “may” in line 76, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—79:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sullivan, J. R.

Suiter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Hum phreys.

Noes—49:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Neate, C.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stallard, C. F.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Warren, S. E.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wilkens, J.

Werth, A. J.

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

Question accordingly affirmed, and the second amendment proposed by Col. Stallard dropped.

Remaining amendment proposed by Col. Stallard put, and the Committee divided:

Ayes—49:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Neate, C.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stallard, C. F.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Noes—78:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendments proposed by the Prime Minister put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On clause 9,

I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as printed—

1. (3) The Governor-General may, at any time within a period of twelve months after the commencement of this Chapter, in like manner excise a defined area from any area described in the Schedule, if land of not less than an equivalent acreage is simultaneously under sub-section (2) declared to be an area in respect of which the said sections do not apply.;

in line 22, after “(2)” to insert “or (3)”; in line 24, to omit “province concerned” and to substitute “said province”; and to add the following proviso at the end of sub-section (4):

Provided that any such provision which, before it lapsed, was contained in the title deed of land in an area which is excised under sub-section (3), shall revive as from the date of the excision.

I want to move the amendment which stands in my name on page 461 of the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (2) Parliament may declare any area in the Province of Natal to be an area in respect of which the provisions of sections two, three and four shall not apply, by amending by resolution of both Houses of Parliament, the Schedule referred to in sub-section (1), provided that no such amendment shall be valid unless the approval of the Administrator of the Province concerned has first been obtained.

The object of this amendment is, in the first place, to remove the difference which now exists between the Transvaal and Natal. As far as the Transvaal is concerned the position is that no new areas may be declared as prohibited areas unless it be by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. As far as Natal is concerned, it will be seen that in clause 9 it is now laid down that the Governor-General is in a position to do this, and all that is necessary is that he must then consult the Administrator of Natal in the matter. I think it is important that there should be uniformity in connection with this matter. This is a very important matter. It affects the expansion of the areas which may be described as exempted areas,* and since we already have an existing position in the Transvaal, I think it would be a good thing, as far as Natal is concerned, to make the position uniform and to bring it into line with the position which has existed in the Transvaal from 1885. That is the first reason for this amendment, but there is a further reason, and that is because the existing clause gives the Government of the day the right to amend this Act. The schedule to the Act, which sets out the exempted areas, may be amended by the Government, and I feel that in placing this legislative power in the hands of the Government, it represents a serious encroachment on the rights of Parliament. Here we are giving legislative powers to what should be the executive authority. I know that there is a tendency in that direction. But I think we should try as far as possible to put a stop to that tendency on the part of the Government to assume legislative power. We are not dealing here with the ordinary case where it may be said that it does not greatly matter whether the Act will in effect be altered by the Government or not, but we are dealing here with a very important subject in giving this power to the Government. This means that in respect of the schedule the Bill may be amended without Parliament hearing about it at all or without Parliament’s approval. What is required is not even that the executive committee of the Natal Province must approve of it; all that is required is that the Governor-General, before extending this important schedule and placing new areas under the exempted areas, must consult the executive committee of Natal in that regard. It is only necessary for him to be able to say: “I have heard what the executive committee of Natal had to say in that regard.” I take it that by “Administrator” the Prime Minister means the executive committee of Natal, not the Administrator personally. I take it that the rule which is laid down in the Interpretation Act, which says that when reference is made to an Administrator, the Administrator together with the executive committee is meant, applies in this case as well. If one assumes that, it means that all that need be said here is that the Governor-General, that is to say, the Government has consulted the executive committee but no more. I do not think that is sufficient protection. Parliament is, of course, the supreme legislative authority. Parliament must be able in all cases to amend the law. It can alter the schedule to this Bill at any time in the customary manner by means of a Bill passed by both Houses of Parliament, but I do not want to stipulate that in this case. I think it will be sufficient if there is a resolution by both Houses. Instead of leaving it to the Government as such, we want it to be done by means of a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. But if we depart from the usual procedure to bring about such an amendment of the law other than by means of a new Act, there must be some protection, and for that reason I am moving in clause 9 that such a resolution can be passed by both Houses only if the approval of the Administrator of the province concerned has first been obtained thereto; in other words, before there can be any extension of the schedule it is necessary in the first place to have an investigation instituted by the Board. The Board must examine the position and make a recommendation. In the second place the executive committee of Natal must approve, and thirdly both Houses of Parliament must pass it. This is a fairly safe guarantee to ensure that the schedule will not be tampered with unnecessarily without giving wide publicity to the provisions of the schedule, that no new areas will be added to the schedule until such time as all three bodies have functioned and functioned properly in the matter. I do not think it can be said that we are setting aside the supreme authority of Parliament, because I ask that the approval of the provincial executive committee must first be obtained. I do not think that is the case. What I do contemplate by means of this amendment is an acknowledgment of the provincial interest in this matter, without a denial of the Parliamentary authority. The approval of both will then be necessary. We must admit that the extension of these areas indicated in the schedule is a matter of great provincial interest, but at the same time we must also recognise that Parliament is the supreme authority, and Parliament therefore can still amend the schedule by means of legislation against the will and the wishes of Natal. But if Parliament seeks to do it merely by resolution, the approval of the provincial executive committee of Natal must first be obtained. I think that is asking a very little. The only object is, as I have said, to safeguard the principle that legislative power should not be given to the Government. I am sorry that the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) is not present to lend his support on this point to my representations. Then I want to deal for a moment with the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard). I just want to say that his amendment goes further than mine.

Order, order. The amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) has not yet been moved. It is not yet before the Committee.

I refer to the amendment standing in his name. I am prepared to give preference to his amendment over and above the amendment I have moved, because his amendment goes further and it also gives the power to both Houses of Parliament not only to extend the schedule, but to reduce it, and I am moving my amendment as an alternative to his. If he moves his amendment and the House is not prepared to accept it, I ask the House in any case to be prepared to accept mine. My amendment simply reads that those areas which are indicated as the exempted areas may not be extended unless both Houses of Parliament pass a resolution to that effect, but I am quite agreeable, and I shall give preference to it, that the schedule may also be reduced, not only that it may be extended, but that it may also be curtailed if Parliament so decides. I move the amendment standing in my name.

I move—

1. (a) the Minister shall consult the Administrator and the Executive Committee of the Province;
2. (b) the Minister shall publish a notice in two successive weeks in a newspaper circulating in the district in which the fixed property concerned is situated, setting forth the purport of the proposed proclamation and inviting the local authority concerned and all other interested persons to make representations in favour or against the terms of the proposed proclamation on or before a date to be specified in the notice, which shall be not earlier than 30 days from the date of the first publication thereof; and
3. (c) the Minister shall take into consideration such representations, the matters which he must in terms of section eight consider, and the report made by the Board under paragraph (b) of section twelve.”

It will be convenient to the Committee to have both these amendments before it at the same time. It will be seen that to a great extent, but not all the way, the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) and I have covered the same ground. The amendment I propose to move, however, covers ground which I do not think it covered by his amendment, and it will be convenient if I state now what my amendment proposes to do. The clause in question deals with the setting aside of exempted areas, where there may be competition between members of both races in obtaining ownership and occupation of a property there situated. The setting aside of these areas is of the first importance, and under the Bill it is of a two-fold character, firstly, in respect of the areas already set aside in the schedule—and it is proposed to set aside these at once—in respect of two areas enquiries have been made for setting aside fresh areas. The object of the amendment moved by me is to prevent the immediate operation of the setting aside of these areas in the schedule, to prevent this immediate automatic action, and to wait until a proclamation has been issued after proper enquiry before these areas mentioned in the schedule are set aside, and to give an opportunity for the expression of objections in respect thereof. That is one object. The other object I had in view in drafting this amendment is to secure that before any fresh area is set aside there shall be not merely an enquiry, but that the matter shall be brought before Parliament. In this I am entirely at one with the hon. member for Fauresmith. We both entirely agree upon this, that Parliament should be the forum in which the setting aside of new areas shall take place. The Bill as it stands, in that respect, seems to me to go very far indeed in giving powers to the Minister after what is merely a private enquiry as to the pros and cons, and the people who enjoy property today and who attach considerable value to their property may find that their property is suddenly included in these areas. This may effect very materially indeed the value of their property. It seems to me that this is very high handed action indeed, and if it becomes necessary to set aside some fresh area, assuming that we are going to accept something like this Bill in the form in which the Committee has already approved of it, in those circumstances we recognise that fresh areas will have to be set aside. Now, before other areas are set aside I submit that there must be the fullest enquiry, with opportunities to all to lodge objections and opportunities for consultation by public bodies, and finally, the determination should rest in the hands of Parliament by resolution of both Houses. Therefore, what I propose in my amendment here is this, that the declaration shall not be issued and the setting aside shall not take place unless the following requirements have been fulfilled. I refer to consultation. The Minister shall consult the Administrator and Executive Committee of the province. I included the Executive Committee because I am not quite clear whether under the law the Administrator necessarily has to consult with and attain the approval of the Executive Committee, and therefore as a precaution it is desirable also to include the Executive Committee. Secondly, I propose that the Minister shall publish a notice for two successive weeks in the newspapers as to the proposed proclamation and invite all interested people concerned to make representations. I hope I have made the object of my amendments quite clear. Let me say that there is a very great feeling of resentment at the setting aside of these particular areas without the persons affected having had an opportunity to make representations about it. From my own constituency I have had the strongest possible representations made and a petition with a very large number of signatures attached to it was lodged with me against the inclusion of a certain district in the exempted area. If this Bill takes effect in its present form there will be no possibility of those inhabitants having their objections heard. The areas now scheduled were settled, I understand, with the greatest secrecy. No-one was informed before the Bill was published and the maps disclosed that that particular area was going to be included, and still less did they know what the operation of the Act would be. The amendments I propose will have the effect that all the proclamation issued will have to be published and an opportunity given, after hearing representations, for altering or amending them. If that is necessary now in respect of the areas already set aside in the schedule, is it not much more necessary that a similar enquiry and a determination by Parliament should take place before any fresh area is set aside? A resolution of the two Houses of Parliament could be easily taken. I am not asking in this amendment for a fresh Act of Parliament. I am proposing here a very reasonable procedure, the holding of an enquiry and getting a determination which is backed by a resolution of the two Houses of Parliament. [Time limit]

I should like to move the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper, and in this connection I should like to point out that there are two definite principles contained in it, practically the same as those contained in the previous two amendments, namely, that the Administrator of the province should be consulted. I feel that the Administrator of the province is the person who is acquainted with the facts, particularly as far as’ the Asiatic question is concerned, and I do not think anyone in the House will be opposed to, the retention of a provision that is already in the Bill before us, namely, that he will be consulted before any steps are taken in connection with the exempted areas. During the past few days we have seen how dangerous it is to leave such important principles in the hands of the Minister or of the Government. This power under clause 9 constitutes a danger if left in the hands of a Minister. It may result in’ his actions being severely criticised and condemned in Parliament, which is the proper body to whom such an important principle should be entrusted. As the position is at present under the Bill, and more specifically under clause 9, it is being left to the Government, that is to say, the Govemor-General-in-Council to establish the exempted areas, exclusive of course of the northern districts of Natal, for the exclusion of which I am responsible. It is a power which has such far-reaching implications that in my opinion —and here lies the difference between my amendment and the other two amendments —it should as far as practicable be in the hands of Parliament. Except in the areas stipulated in the schedule, of course, it is a matter of urgency to fix the exempted areas, and if we are to wait until Parliament assembles before fixing those areas, it may lead to great inconvenience, particularly as far as the Asiatic section of the population is concerned. It is for that reason that I am leaving aside the question of the establishment of the first areas by proclamation, but thereafter I should like the establishment of new areas to be left in the hands of Parliament, that is to say, both Houses of Parliament. That is the difference, and I think in practice it will be much better than the two amendments which have already been moved. In principle these two amendments do not conflict with my amendment, but I think in practice, since expedition is required, my amendment is much more effective. I therefore move—

1. (3) No proclamation shall be issued—
   1. (a) under sub-section (2) or (3) unless the Minister has consulted the Administrator of the said province; or
   2. (b) under sub-section (2) except with the prior approval, by resolution, of both Houses of Parliament, unless, in the case of any such proclamation in respect of any area within any municipal area (other than a municipal area within which any area or any portion of any area described in the Schedule is situated) it is the first proclamation having reference to that municipal area, or unless it is a proclamation issued for the purpose of sub-section (3).

I wish to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard). The difference between his amendment and that moved by the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) is that in the case of the amendment of the hon. member for Vryheid it is intended that none of the precautions called for in the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) shall be applied to the scheduled or exempted areas coloured red in the diagrams accompanying the Bill. The amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) requires that all those areas, including those coloured red on the maps, shall be subject to the same procedure, that objections shall be called for and that every opportunity shall be given for discussion of the suitability or desirability of these areas being set aside as exempted areas. In other words, none of the red areas shall be considered as final. In view of what has happened in the selection of these red areas, the secrecy with which that was done makes it imperative that people should have an opportunity to offer their objections, because I am informed on the very best authority possible that these areas were marked on the maps by a firm which was sworn to secrecy in regard to these markings; that everyone employed there was prohibited from disclosing to any living soul what areas were being marked out. Now, that is the very reverse of the proposal made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). His amendment requires that before these areas are included in the schedules the procedure of calling for objections shall be gone through and that every feature of publicity contained in his amendment shall be followed. The Administrator and the executive committee shall be consulted; notices shall be issued in the newspapers circulating in these areas calling for objections or support in relation to the proposed areas. Compared with the amendment of the hon. member for Vryheid, the amendment of the latter becomes ridiculous, if he will excuse my saying so. It simply means that for the future the most perfunctory procedure shall be followed. No specific terms are laid down by the amendment of the hon. member for Vryheid in regard to the nature of the notices drawing attention to this matter, and we shall find these areas being approved of before any objections can be lodged. The greatest possible care must be taken to invite persons who own these properties to lodge objection to their properties being included in the infected area, as I call it, before that fatal action is taken. It means the severance of these people from their homes, possibly from the places where they were born. Otherwise they will have to sit still and see, that with the speed of lightning, and before they have any opportunity to protest, their properties will be included in the exempted areas. Personally I should have preferred that a separate Act of Parliament should be passed whenever a further crop of exemptions may be contemplated, because they are bound to occur with the appointment of a Board such as is proposed by the Minister. I am opposed to the Board, I am opposed to the slackness and the slovenliness with which these areas are going to be permitted to be proclaimed. I am therefore in favour of the greater precautions proposed by the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). They represent the minimum precautions that should be observed, and I hope this House will indicate its support, and that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will realise the reasonableness of this being done. After all, this House is engaged in a process which may rob thousands of people of their homes, which they may be required to evacuate in face of the flood of penetration that will drive them from their homes and the homes of their forefathers. This is no light matter. It may be regarded as a light matter by hon. members sitting here in comfort and legislating in a way that may affect people who regard their homes as the most precious possessions they have in the world.

Is that why they sell them?

That is not the case; in many instances they are to be robbed even of the opportunity of getting a fair price for them should they be compelled to sell; they can only get the lowest possible prices.

Penetration can only come if some European is prepared to sell.

The hon. member lives in another province, and is entirely out of sympathy or understanding with those who see their homes going. Many of these Europeans have been driven out by the action of some contemptible person who began selling because he possibly had some affinity with an Asiatic, or was offered a great inducement, or sellers have had to succumb because their position was rendered intolerable by the presence of conditions that could not be endured any longer; and it is no use trying to deflect my argument by a futile objection. I am dealing with a class, with the deserving people of Natal who are going to be compelled to be included in these exempted areas. The anti-Asiatic clauses which their forefathers left by their wills to protect them are thrown aside by this compulsory method of stripping them of the very death-bed wish of their fathers that the property should belong to the heirs and descendants in perpetuity. Without being willing to sell, they are being made to part with their property in conflict with the will of their fathers, and in hundreds of cases the anti-Asiatic servitude derives from the written will of the father. That land has been left a legacy to them, and to many of them it is regarded as sanctified by the wish of their father that they should continue to have possession of that land, and that it should not be permitted to pass into the hands of Indians. Now this Bill is coming along today and saying, “That is all nonsense, you have to get out or suffer the consequences.” No alternative is offered these people, and the least we can do is to call for objections, to call for their representations, and never on any occasion, even the present occasion should we agree to an area becoming an exempted area unless it is done by resolution of this House. [Time limit.]

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name on page 492; it is an amendment to the Prime Minister’s amendment—

Provided that any such provision contained in the title deed of land situated in an area described in the Schedule shall not lapse until the expiration of a period of twelve months after the commencement of this Chapter and then only if such land is not situated in an area excised under sub-section (3).

In moving that amendment, I want to congratulate the Prime Minister on his amendment, because it completely answers the case made out by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick), but my difficulty is that if the House were to accept the Prime Minister’s amendment in toto there may be some serious anomalies. The Committee will agree that once this Act is passed all anti-Asiatic clauses that exist in regard to properties in a scheduled area will lapse. The Prime Minister has provided that application can be made and the Governor-General can excise certain properties from these areas. But the difficulty is that though the application for the property to be excised may be successful, in the interim period the Act will have nullified the anti-Asiatic clauses. The Prime Minister in his amendment provides that the anti-Asiatic clause shall be reinstated. But in the interim period some Europeans, by virtue of the fact that the anti-Asiatic clause has been removed, may sell their property and then on the excision being made effective you will have the position that an Indian will be living in a property which is subject to an anti-Asiatic clause on account of the anti-Asiatic clause being reinstated. That is a serious position to arise. The Indian will be in possession of this property in conflict with the law, or he will have to be made to evacuate it. My amendment provides that the title deeds of land situated in any of these areas shall not lapse for a period of 12 months. I mention 12 months because it is the principle that evidently the Prime Minister has accepted in his amendment, and I believe if the Rt. Hon. gentleman will accept my amendment no serious anomalies will be created during the interim period.

I wish to move a short amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) —

The only difference between my amendment and the other is that we both feel that when any new area is proclaimed it should be with the approval of both Houses of Parliament. The hon. member for Vryheid stipulates unless it is the first proclamation”. I say: No, if the proclamation is issued after three years it must be by both Houses of Parliament. One feels there is not likely to be a proclamation within two or three years after this Act is passed. It may be fifteen years before we have a change. …

What a babe in the wood.

It should be both Houses of Parliament who would give the decision.

I think it may be useful to the House if I refer to the clause as it stands here and as it is affected by my amendments and the amendments proposed by some of the other hon. members. The clause as it stands declares in the first place that the areas in the schedule to this Bill are exempted areas and that they will therefore be exempted, free areas, without further proclamation by Parliament and without further enquiry. I shall come presently to the additional clauses but I am keeping now to the areas mentioned in the schedule. They will be exempted areas in terms of the Act without any further to do. In this I follow the procedure we adopted in the case of the native Bills. In the case of the native Bills an enquiry was held by the Beaumont Commission which established the areas that should become native areas, and the subsequnt legislation, without further enquiry or action by Parliament, adopted those areas and made them native areas, just as here we are making the areas in the schedule exempted areas. The areas in the schedule have been enquired into. They have been enquired into by the Broome Commission and also by the Mitchell Commission, the Postwar Works Commission thereafter, and the areas inserted in the schedule are based on these enquiries of these two commissions. We take them and we put them into the schedule and we declare them to be free areas, exempted areas under this Bill. It was found in dealing with the native legislation that there should be some opening for amendment of these native areas so settled, and provision was made in the native legislation that the opening should be reserved to make changes, to excise areas from the schedule, provided that other areas of equal size and value are substituted for them. That was the procedure adopted in the case of the native Bills. The areas set out by the Beaumont Commission were passed by Act of Parliament, but an opening was made in the Act that these areas could be altered on further enquiry and that certain excisions could be made provided there was substituted areas of equal size and value. Hon. members will see I have moved an amendment which provides for these means of excision and substitution. I am simply following the procedure of the Native Acts. There will be this power of making excisions and substituting further areas. It is quite impossible for this House, for Parliament, to enquire into the details of these schedules. The details deal with a large number of properties and areas, and it is quite impossible for us to deal with them. We must have this power of excision and substitution after proper enquiry, just as was done in the case of the native legislation, and that is done here. I think that this step will overcome a lot of the difficulty which is felt. I see a number of amendments to the schedule. It is quite impossible for us to amend the schedules here. We have no power—we have no means of doing it.

We have the power.

Theoretically yes, but it is not a practical step; it is not practical in Committee to deal with these schedules. They must be properly enquired into as they will be under my amendment, by the board, which will make recommendations to the Government, and thereafter the excision or the addition will take place which the Board recommends. I think that is the proper procedure to follow, as it was followed in the case of the Native Acts. So much for the schedule. We need not go into the amendments to the schedule. They will be considered at the proper time in the way I have described. The schedule only includes exempted areas in respect of Durban, Maritzburg partly, Port Shepstone and Glencoe, but of course there are a number of other towns in Natal in regard to which the Broome Commission could not make enquiries, and they have made no recommendations. We had no guidance at all there, but it is clear in regard to these two towns it may also be necessary to set aside exempted areas. The provision in this Bill is that the Government can take action there, but the action shall be through the Board. Immediately after this Bill is passed we shall appoint the Board. The Board will go into these cases of new exempted areas in respect of these other towns that have not yet been dealt with by the Broome Commission. They will make enquiries, they will make recommendations to the Government, and, according to the Bill, the Government will act thereon and the Governor-General will declare them to be exempted areas. In that connection the question arises whether Parliament should not deal with those cases, whether some action by Parliament either by way of resolution or otherwise would not be called for before such additional areas are set aside, and it is with this point that the amendment of the hon. member for Vryheid deals. The amendments moved by the hon. members for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) and Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard) require Parliamentary intervention, in respect of these new exempted areas to be created in regard to other towns not dealt with in the Bill. In that respect the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) has moved his amendment, which draws a distinction between the two cases. The first case is that of all these towns where exempted areas for Indians and others can be set aside, and provides that in the first selection so made it should not be necessary for Parliament to intervene, they should be approved as a matter of course. To this the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure) has moved an amendment to the effect that Parliament should not intervene in first selections, that is, in the first areas set aside in regard to these other towns; but in the second case we should intervene after a period of years, say three years. Those cases that are settled after enquiry by the Board and action of the Government should not come before Parliament. Those are cases that may be considered on a par with cases in the schedules, and they should be dealt with after enquiry by the Board. They should be dealt with by the Government, and the Governor-General will proclaim them as exempted areas, and of course the Provincial Administrations will be consulted. But in respect of other areas which may be set aside in future—there may be additional areas which in the course of time may become necessary to be set aside as exempted areas—Parliament will intervene. The first areas to be set aside do not require the intervention of Parliament. The examination by the Board and the action of the Government would suffice. But in regard to future expansions which may have to be acquired, in these cases Parliament should intervene, and the action of Parliament will become necessary. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that on the whole I like these amendments. Parliamentary intervention should not be called for in the first instance, in the first areas that are set aside, because I must confess frankly that I am afraid there will be great difficulty in getting these areas through Parliament in future. There are signs of great reluctance to set aside any areas which are necessary, and with the difficulties surrounding Parliamentary action, I myself think that these first selections to be made during the next three years ought not to come before Parliament, but should be dealt with by the Government after proper enquiry, and I therefore give my blessing, for what it is worth, to the amendment of the hon. member for Vryheid, as amended again by the hon. member for Paarl. The result will be that in the future these exempted areas will come to Parliament for ratification but in regard to the immediate period before the House, Parliament need not intervene. I think that is fair, and I recommend it to the Committee.

Is that time limitation sufficient?

Yes, it is expected that within three years this Board ought to be able to deal with the remaining cases not yet dealt with by the Broome Commission. This Commission cannot get these areas into the schedule, but it is anticipated that three years will be a proper period for the Board to investigate these towns, and recommend the exempted areas in respect of them.

There is another amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer) which I think is also an improvement. Hon. members will see that I have added a proviso at the end of section 4, which deals with the question of reservations on the title deeds, and it is laid down there that in respect of those exempted areas the reservations on the title deeds shall lapse. There would be no sense in continuing with the reservations in the title deeds in respect of these exempted or free areas where anyone may live. I have put a proviso in this form—

This proviso deals with the case of excisions, which I have referred to, and it is quite clear that these discriminatory reservations should go, because they are now taken out of the schedule, and if they are taken out of the schedule, they should be lapsed. The whole position should be restored in toto, and this proviso which I have moved, and to which the hon. member for Durban (Point) has moved an amendment will provide for that. His amendment reads as follows—

On the whole I am inclined to think that the amendment of my hon. friend is preferable to the phrasing of mine, and I therefore recommend it to the attention of the Committee. Well, I hope I have made the position clear, Mr. Chairman. There will be the Schedule which now becomes law, but with the reservation that excisions can be made from the Schedule after proper enquiry, and also provided that equally suitable areas are set aside.

Within twelve months.

Yes. With regard to new areas, these will be set aside after due enquiry by the Board and proclaimed by the Government—after consulting the Provincial Administrations, and the first areas set aside, those that have not yet been investigated by the Broome Commission, will not require parliamentary ratification. But any extended areas will necessitate the intervention of Parliament to approve such areas. I have as far as possible followed the procedure which we adopted in regard to the Native Bills. It is quite impossible for us here in Parliament to deal with the Schedule by way of amendment. The Schedule can be properly enquired into, and we have, by the constitution of the Board, provided for such enquiry. I have tried to follow that procedure and principle as far as possible, and I now move that the clause, with the amendments which I have proposed, and the amendments I accept of the hon. member for Vryheid and the hon. member for Durban (Point) be put to the Committee.

I take it that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister withdraws his amendments to sub-sections (3) and (4).

Yes.

With leave of the Committee, the amendments proposed by the Prime Minister on sub-sections (3) and (4) were withdrawn.

I have listened with surprise to the reasons the Prime Minister advanced why he cannot accept the amendments of the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard), namely, that Parliament must give its assent before new areas can be established as exempted areas under clause 9.

Yes, the first areas.

I am dealing with the first: the other is of less importance. May I ask the Prime Minister why this difference is being made between the Transvaal and Natal? In the Transvaal there is provision both in existing legislation and in the present Bill to proclaim areas where Asiatics may become the owners of land, but in regard to the Transvaal the decision rests with Parliament. In the Transvaal the Government cannot simply determine Indian areas where Indians can buy land.

But the law in regard to fixed property was entirely different in the Transvaal.

But the idea of areas under clause 9 is to give Indians an opportunity to buy land in Natal, and hon. members on the other side represent it as if the areas eventually will become Indian areas.

They have this right now.

In the Transvaal such areas can only be created if both Houses of Parliament decide on it.

Because the Indians did not have the right before in the Transvaal. They have it now in Natal. It is an entirely different case.

But the fact is that in the Transvaal it is regarded in such a serious light, this throwing open to Indians of land belonging to white people, it is such a momentous matter, that it may not be done unless both Houses of Parliament approve. And now we come together and the Government here assumes the power of its own free will to take a portion of Natal and give it to the Indians. Under the provisions of this clause the Government could eventually give the whole of Natal to the Indians.

No.

Is it possible?

When I listen to the Minister of Finance all things are possible, and if I follow aright the pliable and compliant member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) all things are possible to him as well. This is the implication here. I have mentioned the case of the Transvaal. Now the Prime Minister gives as an illustration the Native Trust and Land Act. He says he is following that example, but that is not true. He is only following the basis of the Native Trust and Land Act in so far as it pertains to exchange. The Native Trust and Land Act, 1936, lays down that the Government can exchange land in exempted areas or in native areas for land of the same extent and value, but the Native Trust and Land Act nowhere lays down that the Government, apart from exchange, may proclaim new areas as native areas. There is no such provision in the Native Trust and Land Act. Such a thing can only happen if Parliament decides to make further areas available to the natives, because in the Native Trust and Land Act not only are native areas and exempted areas defined, but the extent of the land is laid down in that Act. Consequently it is not correct for the Prime Minister to say that he is simply following the basis that was laid down in the Native Trust and Land Act. I maintain that to give to Indians today land that belongs to Europeans in Natal is of such high importance that the representatives of the people must be informed of it and they must decide on it. It is not that I am averse to your giving certain areas to the Indians in Natal. On the contrary, it is our policy to effect complete separation as between Europeans and Indians. But to leave it to the free will of this Government to give land in Natal to Indians, and that in such a manner that Asiatics and Europeans can buy in a mixed way time and again, I say this is such a drastic measure that it may not be left in the hands of the Government. That power must be in the hands of Parliament. Consequently I hope that that power of Parliament will not be taken away from it. Here the power of Parliament is being taken out of its hands. The ratification of Parliament is being asked in respect of the first territories that appear in the schedule, but if subsequently the Government wish to give any areas to the Indians, it can do so without Parliament having any say, and it is to combat that dangerous position that the hon. member for Fauresmith and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) have put these amendments. Let me turn for a moment to the amendment of the hon. member for Vryheid, which the Prime Minister will accept. What does the hon. member’s amendment say? As amended by the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure), an amendment that was accepted by the Prime Minister, it now comes down to this: When an area has to be given to the Indians in Natal for the first time it is not necessary for Parliament to give the approval. But that is most dangerous. Should that area later on be expanded the Prime Minister will come to Parliament. But that is less important. More dangerous is the initial determination of new areas because the Government has the power to paint Natal completely red from one end to the other, and it wants to have a free hand to do this; it does not want to do so under the control of this Parliament. As I have stated, the amendment that the Prime Minister has now accepted is a highly dangerous amendment because the most serious harm can be done in just that way, by the first proclamation of new areas. This is a dangerous position. I hope therefore that this House will not agree to this power being taken out of its hands. What is now proposed represents an absolute encroachment on the whites and the powers of Parliament and the Prime Minister gave his reasons why he is taking the power out of the hands of Parliament. He let the cat out of the bag. Have hon. members paid attention to what he said as to why he would not place this in the hands of Parliament, or rather why he is taking the power out of the hands of Parliament? His reason is that great difficulties will be experienced in inducing Parliament to approve of such measures. Because he realises there will be great opposition should areas be allocated to the Indians in an injudicious way, he wishes to take it out of the hands of Parliament. Have hon. members heard why the Prime Minister wishes to take it out of the hands of Parliament?

The same thing was done in connection with the native legislation.

I have just said that in connection with native trust land no such power was given to the Government. The only power that was given was the power to exchange but no power was given to the Government to determine new areas in respect of native trust lands.

There was the enquiry by the Beaumont Commission.

But the fact remains that Parliament did not regard their enquiry as final and that the Act made provision for exchange, but no power was accorded the Government to proclaim new areas. Certain limits were imposed. New areas could not be defined by the Government. If new areas had to be fixed the Government had to come to Parliament. But now the Prime Minister wants to give the Government the right to extend the Indian area as it chooses from day to day, and that is not fair towards the Europeans of Natal. I hope that the Prime Minister will give in on this point and that he will realise the reasonableness of this amendment that proposes to allow the power to remain in the hands of Parliament. This is nothing else than right and proper towards the European inhabitants of Natal.

I would like to express my alarm at the decision of the Prime Minister to accept the amendment tabled by the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp). I have already expressed my attitude to the whole of this measure. And I had an idea that the Prime Minister himself was not too happy about it, hence I was satisfied that he was not prepared to make this Bill any worse than it was when it came to the House. But the amendment accepted this afternoon will definitely in my opinion aggravate the worst features of this Bill. The Prime Minister put into the Bill that additions may be made to the areas exempted from the provisions of the Bill by consultation with the Administrator. He has now agreed to limit that by suggesting an amendment about the range of which I am not quite clear, since it is a combination of what was proposed by the hon. member for Vryheid, and the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure). As I understand it, open areas, which will be established in the course of the next three years, will be exempted from Parliamentary endorsement. I gathered that the Prime Minister believes that all the remaining areas which the Commission is authorised to enquire into can be decided upon and scheduled within three years. He may be right about that, but when that is done we are now going to accept in this amendment a further limitation upon the possibilities of establishing areas which will be open to Asiatic settlement. In this matter, of course, my approach is entirely the opposite of that of the hon. member for Waterberg (J. G. Strydom), but it is supported by the Prime Minister’s statement which was quoted by the hon. member for Waterberg when he said that to put such matters to this House would lead to endless difficulty. The Prime Minister himself foresees endless difficulty in getting initial schedules for areas for Asiatic settlement through this House. I may say that the Prime Minister there speaks from long and deep experience of what happened in regard to the native areas. He is there facing one of the problems of this Bill which I raised in the second reading debate, the problem of ever getting Europeans to decide upon areas which shall be open to occupation or purchase by the people whose rights are limited by this legislation. No-one who has been associated with the work of the native trust will deny the difficulties of that situation. To get any European community to agree to the release of an area for occupation or ownership by a non-European group whose rights are limited by this type of legislation is a Herculean task. We saw what happened in this House in regard to the Feetham resolutions in respect of the Transvaal. They were introduced and at once opposed and they never got through this House at all. That is what will happen if we leave this question of the extension of open areas to the endorsement of this House. I am saying here, with the weight of my experience behind me, that if we want to do any measure of justice that is possible within the framework of an Act of this kind, we can only do it if we are prepared to leave the responsibility to the Administrative officials to whom you are proposing to give the authority to investigate the circumstances. They will have the responsibility of investigating the reasonable needs of the Asiatic population. They will already be hampered by having to get the approval of the Administrator who will be extremely sensitive to European provincial opinion—and as if that is not going to be a difficult enough method of getting extensions to these schedules, it is now proposed that the approval of this House must be obtained also, and we know what the results of that will be. Every proposals made, presumably on the basis of careful consideration, when it is put before this House, will become a battle ground of conflicting European interests. There is no hope, in my opinion, of doing any justice to the community who are our wards under this Bill if we are going to throw them into the political arena every time they need more room for their legitimate needs. I hope very sincerely that the Prime Minister will reconsider his decision in regard to these amendments which he has indicated that he might accept. I think that if he accepts them he will be going back on the stand he has so far taken in this Bill. I hope that he will stand by what he said and not make the position any worse. The need to obtain the approval of Parliament will lead to endless trouble and will definitely create continuous political friction every time this issue is raised. The situation is not the same as in regard to the Native Land Acts. There the amount of land is already defined and all that is necessary is that where you are taking away parts of what was the old native reserves you have to come to Parliament in order to guarantee the substitution of areas which are of equal value, and we know how that works. We know how it worked last year in the case of one area, Makoba’s location. There is no guarantee of justice in this provision. As a matter of fact, I was also alarmed by the Prime Minister’s own amendment in regard to the possibilities of excision. I see that the Prime Minister himself is proposing that areas may be excised from the existing schedules, and alternative areas put into their place. I should have liked to see the addition of one phrase—“areas of equal economic value”. We succeeded in getting this sort of provision introduced in the Native Land Acts in regard to native land, that land of equal value to the native community should be substituted for any land it was proposed to take away. In this regard, the economic value of the land is more important than its acreage. In dealing with this question, we have to bear in mind the economic development of the Indian population, and their economic development tends to follow two lines which are different from those of the natives. One is market gardening, and the other is trading. For both these purposes, it is important that their land should be situated near areas inhabited by Europeans. I can understand the intention of the Prime Minister’s amendment, but I think that the Prime Minister should consider this aspect of the matter. But in regard to this other question of land to be added for future Indian occupation and purchase, I think the Prime Minister will be making the gravest mistake if in the final draft of this Bill he accepts the amendments put up by the hon. member for Vryheid and the hon. member for Paarl.

I wish to ask the Prime Minister to go back in his mind to the question of the scheduled areas. The significance and importance of solely by this Act declaring that these red areas are exempted areas is far-reaching. I gather that the Prime Minister is not prepared to reconsider that, except for the promise of the amendment which he is moving, that within a period of 12 months the Governor-General may excise some portion of this area if a corresponding area, corresponding in acreage, is transposed. I take it that the fact that the Prime Minister is moving that amendment shows that he is alive to the very grave character of the legislation which he is introducing to deprive people of well-established rights without them being heard, and indeed that is of such an outstanding character that I do not think anyone in Parliament, or out of it, can avoid seeing it. Starting, therefore, from the point of view that the Prime Minister thinks that there should be some remedy for that, I wish to put this to him and the Committee: the proposal he makes is no remedy at all. Who is to set this machinery in motion? Take, for example, some occupier of some house in some street in any town. The obligation is thrown upon him, who is the owner of the house, an ordinary householder, to put in motion the machinery which is going to get the Governor-General, which means the Cabinet advising the Governor-General, to excise this particular piece of ground and at the same time to substitute some other piece of grond. That is the obligation thrown on the householder. It is a duty which he cannot discharge. The ordinary householder could not discharge that duty. I do not know how the small householder can possibly be expected not only to put up reasons of such a comprehensive character as would lead the Governor-General-in-Council to excise his particular holding and at the same time to mobilise information which would justify the Governor-General in substituting some other area.

That has repeatedly happened in the Native Acts.

The Prime Minister is now comparing a farm in a country district with the property of an ordinary householder in an urban area. I do not think that the one can be cited as an illustration of how the other would be affected. I think my point is correct, and that it should be clear that it is beyond the capacity of the ordinary householder to satisfy the conditions which would lead to the Governor-General exercising his power. He cannot do so. It would have to be done by a municipality or an association, an organised group with considerable power and with funds at their disposal to obtain advice, to make plans, and to get valuations, etc. No individual householder could possibly do it. The householder would have to move his municipality and try to get them to take it up, and the difficulties in the way of an individual or even two or three of them doing that is overwhelming. It would be a great exception if it ever happened. I wish to stress this fact very much, that the whole machinery which the Prime Minister is putting forward as a remedy throws the onus on the wrong person. Under the amendment of the Prime Minister, ground privately owned can be put into the exempted areas and the onus is thrown on the owner of the ground to prove that his land should not go into that area and that there is some other ground which should go in in its place. Why throw that onus upon the unfortunate individual who is a plot holder in a particular street? The Prime Minister knows, as all of us who have had anything to do with public affairs know, that the onus of proof is a point of tremendous importance, and if the onus lies on one side or the other it often renders the other side incapable of proceeding further with the matter. I appeal to the Prime Minister in the remedy which he has proposed to what he recognises is a real point of difficulty, and not to put the onus on the wrong party. In the amendment which I am proposing the onus is put on the other party. A proposal is made, but anyone who wishes to object, or any body of people, can raise an objection, and before the ground is put into the exempted area there has to be an enquiry, a discussion and consideration of the objections of every individual concerned. Surely that puts the onus of proof upon the Government which is proposing to take this action, and is that not right? I say that first of all to say: “We are putting your ground into this exempted area where your anti-Asiatic clause goes by the Board and where anyone may buy and sell freely, and you have to prove your case,” is wrong. Surely that cannot be justified. I shall deal with the point I was discussing when interrupted by the time limit, that opinion is very widespread and intense. I believe many members of Parliament have received this telegram from the Dutch Reformed Church, which reads as follows—

The Dutch Reformed Church as compared with any single individual is a very powerful body. They may be able to get the excision. But if they are able to do it, surely a poor person should not be prevented from doing it because he cannot face up to the enormous onus he is called on to discharge and which is necessary before the Prime Minister’s machinery can be brought into operation. I have a petition signed by a very large number of my constituents in Maritzburg, protesting most strongly against the inclusion of this area of Mountain Rise. Why should that area be put in without the residents being consulted or having an opportunity of putting their case before the Minister? ETime limit.]

I did not think that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister would accept amendments to the Bill, other than his own, which were on the Order Paper after the Bill had passed the second reading. Apparently, however, when the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) comes along, the Prime Minister feels moved to accept his amendment. I cannot allow this particular amendment to go through without adding my protests to those which have already been voiced against its acceptance. What will this amendment involve in practice so far as any additions to these exempted areas are concerned after the first determinations have been made? It would involve this: that however carefully a matter may be enquired into, however full the evidence that may be heard, for and against, by a Board whose duty it is to enquire into these matters, however strong the merits of the case that may be established, nevertheless the finding that is arrived at can be undone by this House; that is the proposal which is involved in this amendment. Quite apart from practical experience of similar legislative provisions which I, at all events, have had, I want to present to this Committee this general contention, that where you have an issue to be decided by enquiry and on evidence, this House of Parliament is not the proper body to discharge the function of decision. That is what lies at the whole root of distinction between a legislative body, which this House is, and a judicial body such as the Supreme Court Bench or the Magistrate’s Court. There was a time in the bad old days when Parliament did discharge —it was not so in this country, but in the country from which our parliamentary institutions were derived — when Parliament did attempt to exercise functions which in their fundamental character were judicial. The name of “impeachment”, the memory of that phrase, recalls how Parliament, though formed on different lines to any judicial or quasi-judicial body, was called upon to pronounce on the rights of individuals. What is the purpose of giving any power to extend exempted areas? It is to meet the expanding needs of a community. To meet needs which cannot be foreseen today. And that is why I do value the preservation of some element of elasticity in matters of this kind. Once that is admitted, that there is need for the reconsideration of the exempted areas from time to time, it seems to me that the needs of the community affected should be considered on evidence and a decision given on evidence. Admittedly, the Minister, advised by this Board, will not discharge what are strictly judicial functions in the sense that the Supreme Court does, but he will discharge quasi-judicial functions, and in an age when more and more functions affecting the individual are relegated by Parliament to quasi-judicial bodies, it is all the more important that these quasi-judicial bodies should be placed by the House in a position to make an independent decision uninfluenced by other than the merits of the case in the matters that come before them. That is the principle which is at stake in the acceptance by the Prime Minister of this amendment of the hon. member for Vryheid. I want to return to my original contention, that any House of Parliament—not this particular House composed of members sitting here at the present time—any House of Parliament anywhere is unfit to discharge functions of a judicial or quasi-judicial character. And why must that be so? Because the vast majority of the members of the House, from the very nature of the duties that fall on them and their duty to their constituents, from the character and composition of Parliament, cannot know the merits of the case and cannot be in a position to decide. My mind also goes back to the case which was referred to by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger), when there was a question of the excision of a certain native area, the case of Makoba’s Location. A vote was given by the House which, except for one or two members—like the hon. member sitting over there who is a member of the Native Affairs Commission—really knew nothing about the history or the merits of that particular matter. I cannot stress that point too strongly. The only protection this community can have under machinery such as is proposed in this Bill is that protection which comes from the impartial investigation into the merits of the particular case and the particular locality concerned; and to vest in Parliament the right to undo the results of that investigation, I submit, is a virtual withdrawal of that protection to which I have referred. So far as the amendment relating to the revival of anti-Asiatic servitudes is concerned, it seems to me tantamount to saying that the property owner in an exempted area, if there is an anti-Asiatic servitude on his property, should on that account have a claim to excision. If land subject to an anti-Asiatic servitude was originally included in the area, presumably it was included with good reason. I do want to stress, however, that my main objection, as I have stated, is to this attempt to confer on Parliament quasi-judicial functions. I remember the case, soon after I came to this House, when an attempt was made by the late Mr. Stuttaford, then Minister of the Interior, to induce the House to accept what were known popularly as the Feetham Resolutions, by which a certain number of stands recommended by the Feetham Commission for exemption from the Gold Law were to be exempted. Mr. Stuttaford put the case, and the hon. member for Fordsburg, then Mr. Schoeman, at that time an enthusiastic supporter of the United Party … [Time limit.]

I should like to follow up the remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) in respect of the amendment proposed by the right hon. the Prime Minister. It is not often I find my thoughts running parallel to those of the hon. member for Cape Eastern, but on this occasion it is a case of “twin souls with but a single thought”. It is in reference to the passage where it is suggested that acreage should be exchanged for acreage. I foresee a great danger in that, in fact it is almost an impossibility. One would have a board suggesting that a certain area should be exchanged for another area perhaps five miles away. The one area may be worth £500 and the other may be worth £5,000. I earnestly suggest to the right hon. gentleman he makes an addition to his amendment of clause 9 to the effect that not only acreage but value should be taken into account. I suggest that is a reasonable amendment to the proposal of the right hon. gentleman, and I hope he will agree to it.

I should like to say that I feel the point put forward by the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno), looked at from an impartial point of view, is unanswerable. If we are going to enter into this question of limiting further exemptions, whether today or in three years’ time, if we are going to limit the possibilities of exemption as the needs may grow by providing for every case having to come to this House, it means that we are putting an end at the end of three years to the very conditions laid down in the clause of the Bill which provides for certain things being taken into consideration. We know by practice that in every instance, whether it be municipalities or other public bodies, where an attempt is made to establish a certain area for non-European people, the Europeans in that particular area exert so much pressure upon their member, whatever may be his Views, that he is forced to give in. So it means there will be no possibility of the provision-bad as it is—which has now been accepted in the Bill being improved and extended in time; if anything, it will become worse and more restricted. And I am sure the right hon. Prime Minister, when he reconsiders the position, as I hope he will, will realise if he is going to start accepting amendments of a limiting nature from here, there and everywhere that the administration of this Bill will become more difficult than it will be under its present form and he is likely to tear up the principle he has accepted in this Bill and which many of us have unwillingly accepted. I hope he will reconsider the position from the point of view of considering the possibility of retaining the clause as it stands and not throwing the onus on a legislative body to become an administrative and investigating body.

I Should like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Maritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard). I give preference to his amendment and next to that of the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges). I do this because those amendments make for a simplification of the whole position and for securing greater uniformity in our legislation. Why should a difference always be made between province and province? I do so in the second place because those amendments are an admission of and give effect to the universally accepted principle that is contained in the policy of this country, namely that we should not leave such matters to the will of the Minister but that they must be placed under the highest authority in the country, namely both Houses of Parliament. In the third place I am doing so because these amendments contain a guarantee that the treatment of this important matter will not be carried out injudiciously. When we regard the Indian legislation in this country we can only characterise it as a labyrinth, and the acceptance of the principles in this clause merely signifies that a few more rooms are being added to that labyrinth. It is the general policy of this country and one that really stands superior to all party consideration, that this important matter of setting aside certain areas shall be left in the hands of the highest authority in the country, namely both Houses of Parliament. The principle has been admitted by all parties in the country when legislation in connection with natives was piloted through the House. That legislation also contains the principle of a resolution being taken by both Houses of Parliament. We find that not only there but also in connection with the Indian legislation applying to the Transvaal.

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

I was indicating that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister should, in connection with the amendments of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg and the hon. member for Fauresmith, by accepting them give recognition to a principle of policy which is universally recognised in our country. If the Prime Minister does not accept these amendments it implies that he is violating the generally recognised feature of policy in connection with our racial problems. It is a violation of an important principle in regard to which unanimity exists in our country. What is more, the setting aside of separate areas is an extremely delicate matter. If there is one matter in connection with which we should act prudently and judiciously it is this, and consequently it is necessary that it should not be left to the free will of a statutory Board with a Minister, but that it should be left in the hands of the national authority in our country. As I have stated, it is a delicate matter, and it may be a source of continuous friction and agitation and racial clashes. It should consequently be taken out of the field of purely political considerations, sectional considerations, of a single Minister. That is absolutely necessary. Hence we propose that procedure should be instituted of such a character that proper control will be exercised so that problems will not be created unnecessarily. As the clause now stands it will not portend the solution of problems step by step, but on the contrary its implications are simply the creation of new problems step by step, of additional problems. It will not be long in operation before the Prime Minister will experience the unpleasant reactions. The solution of the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) is no solution at all, it is a farce. If his amendment is adopted it implies that the matter can simply be bungled as badly as one can imagine, and only then will the measure proposed by the hon. member for Vryheid be put into effect. In other words, the whole matter can first be botched and then an attempt will be made to solve it. If you are in real earnest to obviate all possible racial collisions and to assure the largest measure of contentment, then the amendments of these two hon. members must be accepted. They represent the only solution, and I again earnestly plead that the Prime Minister should meet us to some extent in connection with this clause, and that he ought to accept these amendments, because the clause offers no solution at all. The reason the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister mentioned why he would not leave the matter in the hands of Parliament but wished to place it in the hands of a Minister is precisely the important reason why it should not be left to the free will of a statutory Board and the Minister and the Government but to both Houses of Parliament. I hope that the Prime Minister will again give the matter earnest consideration for the sake of the important principle which has been accepted by the whole of the nation as the policy of our country.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the Prime Minister explaining the basis on which he is founding this Bill. He compares it to the Native Land Bill of 1936. Now, in that Bill certain areas were set aside for native occupation only. Areas are not being set aside for Indian occupation only in this Bill. The areas, which are defined and printed in red on the maps are areas in which everybody is allowed to reside, without let or hindrance, and I submit that this is a very marked distinction, and that the one does not suit the other. What I have to contend is in connection with sub-section (4), which states that any restrictive clauses in a title deed in an area which is defined as an open area automatically lapse. Now, the Prime Minister has accepted an amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer), deferring the abolition of the nonEuropean clauses until the Bill has been in operation for twelve months, but he has also accepted an amendment from the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp), and I confess that I can scarcely understand exactly what is meant by that amendment. It seems rather complicated, and quotes clause 2 and clause 3.

It has been substituted by one from the Prime Minister.

I understood the Prime Minister had withdrawn it. Well, in that case, I do submit that all these amendments, in so far as the non-European servitudes are concerned, are taking away rights which Europeans have had, and which they have had inserted in their title deeds; and with one fell swoop to deprive everyone in these defined areas of rights which have existed for many years, and in some cases have existed for only a short time, seems to me to be very drastic indeed. I cannot see that there is any necessity for these servitudes lapsing. If everybody is agreed to buy and sell in these defined areas, then the mere fact that there is a non-European servitude in a title deed will prevent the passage of property from European to Indian control and ownership. I see no reason for it. If the owner wishes to remove the servitude from his title deed, he can do so by application to the Supreme Court. I can quote a case in Port Shepstone which happened only in December last. There an application was made to the Supreme Court to remove from a title deed this non-European clause which restricted occupation and ownership to Europeans. I submit that if anybody wants to remove the servitude from his title deed, the proper thing is to apply to the Supreme Court, and advertise in the ordinary way in the newspapers and the “Government Gazette”, as was done in this case. But this sub-section (4) lapses practically every nonEuropean servitude where the property lies in a so-called defined area, an area which is free to occupation and purchase by a European or Asiatic, and I would ask the Prime Ministr to consider seriously whether this sub-section (4) should not be left out altogether, and the matter left to the ordinary law of the land to take out the servitude if it is desired. There is really no reason for lapsing these non-European clauses in the title deeds, and I do ask the Prime Minister to consider very seriously deleting the subsection. We have gone to no end of trouble on the South Coast of Natal to insert a large number of these servitudes in title deeds in the past, and even in the last six months. There are 33 in Scottburgh alone, and a large number have been inserted at Warner Beach and in the area between Amanzimtoti and Illovo. A large number have been inserted in the last six months, and all for nothing if this sub-section remains. It has cost the people there money. It costs on an average £2 2s. to get these servitudes against their title deeds registered in the Deeds Office, and I would submit that these people have rights which should not be taken away from them.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to appeal to the Prime Minister not to make things even more difficult than they are at present. We were hoping that this Bill would give us a certain amount of relief, but any benefits we might receive from this Bill will be offset by the difficulties in which so many péople will find themselves. I would like the Prime Minister to bear in mind the difficulties of the average person in Natal, the ordinary householder, in the free areas. We have had it thrown at us that if we in. Natal had been more civil to the Asiatics, there would have been no trouble. Well, we have gone to a tremendous amount of trouble to persuade people in certain areas to have the antiAsiatic clause inserted in their title deeds, and it has been a very expensive matter. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) mentioned the sum of £2 2s. Well, if he has been able to get legal attention and the other facilities necessary in this matter for £2 2s., he has been most fortunate. In the cases I know of, where people tried to save European areas from Indian penetration by inserting this anti-Asiatic clause in their title deeds, it cost something like £8 8s. or £10 10s. each. If we are going to ask a European who is in possession of a house in a free area to go to all the expense and trouble necessary to comply with the regulations, I am afraid he will say that it is quite impossible for him to undertake these legal costs to save his property, and it would be far better for him to sell out and clear out, as so many of them have already done. Literally hundreds in Natal, rather than go to all the trouble of endeavouring to save their property from Asiatic penetration, have taken the least line of resistance and sold out, saying that it was useless trying to battle against odds so great, and when they see what is envisaged in this Bill, I am afraid the result will be that they will sell out and clear out. I have not yet had it explained to me why this is necessary. Should it not be optional in these three years for anyone to say: “We will forgo the anti-Asiatic clause in the title deeds”, because the Government can say: “Well,’ you have the anti-Asiatic clause in your title deeds; you can forgo them if you like”, but do not make it compulsory. In all these free areas the anti-Asiatic clause must go immediately this Bill becomes law. I see tremendous hardship resulting from that, and I would be very glad if the Prime Minister or any other member would explain to me why it is not possible for the subsection to be deleted. We had a case in Durban quite recently where a man had a property in an Indian area and could not dispose of it to a European. His only hope of getting rid of his property was to get rid of the anti-Asiatic clause in the title deed. He was going to apply to the Supreme Court, but pressure was brought to bear on him not to go to the Supreme Court, as we thought he would be establishing a very dangerous precedent, and if he were successful there would be hundreds of others in Durban who would immediately do the same thing. I have had strong representations made to me to prevent, if possible, certain of these free areas from being proclaimed free areas. A few years ago, just before the war, they were predominantly European areas. The Asiatics have penetrated into these areas, and under this Bill they become free areas, and they should not be free areas. What is my reply going to be to my constituents in this matter? The area that I represent has been more affected by Asiatic penetration than any other part of Durban. I have had strong representations made to me to have these areas put back where they rightly belong. The position is, that where we have gone to such trouble to persuade people to go to the expense of having this anti-Asiatic clause inserted in their title deeds, they now become null and void. They have no value whatsoever, and I would appeal to the Prime Minister not to cause us more trouble in Natal. This Bill will affect Natal, and practically Natal only. The Transvaal will be affected only slightly, and I do not want people in Natal to turn round and say: “You have passed a Bill in Parliament, but the advantages we receive are offset by the disadvantages contained in the Bill.” I would be glad if I could explain to the people whom I represent that there is no real reason for the anti-Asiatic clause completely disappearing from their title deeds in the free areas, and I hope the Prime Minister will make it possible for them to remain as they are, but if a person is desiring of disposing of his property to an Asiatic, the anti-Asiatic clause in his title deed may be waived.

Mr. Chairman, by accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) and the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure), the Prime Minister has made himself guilty of inconsistency. We are pleading for the principle that an important matter like this, which can override a clause in a title deed, which can set aside the wishes of a testator, is a matter which should be dealt with by Parliament. That is the principle for which we are contending. Now the Prime Minister wants to have that done by the Government. He wants to take what is really a legislative function out of the hands of the Legislature. He wants to keep the matter in his hands and the hands of the Government. He accepts the joint amendment of the two hon. members, and the effect of that amendment is that he is prepared to subscribe to the principle for which we stand, that this is a matter for the legislature, but he is only prepared to subscribe to it three years hence. Where is the logic, and where is the consistency? If it is a sound principle it is a principle which should be adopted immediately. It is not a principle which should be adopted only three years hence. One wonders why this three years. The hon. member for Paarl has stated there may be another government in three years’ time. Well, if that is the reason I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Paarl. There would be some sense in it. There will be another government in three years’ time.

Another Parliament, not another government.

All right, another Parliament, it comes to the same thing. But if his amendment Had been that for the next three years Parliament should approve of the areas, and after three years it would not be necessary, there would have been some sense in it. One knows that the new government and Parliament that will be here in three years’ time will be more aware of their responsibilities in matters of this kind; but it is precisely the next three years that is the dangerous period as far as this Bill is concerned, because if you have a principle in operation during the next three years, it means that the Government can do whatever it likes. You have three years in which to do it, and you cannot be called to account. It is not a matter which will come before this House again. It is a matter for the Government, and the Government alone. ’ That is the first point I want to make. If it is a sound principle, it is a sound principle not only three years hence, but a sound principle now. I go further and I say that if we have the present Government and the Minister who will probably be responsible for the administration of this Act, it would be criminal negligence on the part of this side of the House to allow this power to be vested in that Government and that Minister. Now, let me go a little further and say that not only do I protest against the fact that the Prime Minister wants this power in the hands of the Government, but I protest even more strongly against the reason for which he wants that power in his own hands. It is a reason which I submit is fraught with the gravest dangers to democratic government in South Africa. I do not know whether hon. members appreciated what the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister said this afternoon as to why he wanted this power in his hands. He said that he wanted the power in his hands for the next three years because, if he brought any further extensions of these exempted areas before the House, they would not be accepted. In other words, the authority of this supreme legislative body has to be flouted. He wants the power in his own hands because he knows, or he fears, that the House and the will of Parliament, will not be in agreement with the will of the Government. That is the effect of what he said, and I would be failing in my duty as a parliamentarian if I did not rise to register my protest against such a tampering with the principles of democratic government. I think this is a far-reaching declaration on the part of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, and I can merely say that if members on the other side are prepared to submit to that argument, to that reason— that we must give this power in the hands of the Government because Parliament will not do what the Government wants it to do —then I say it is the most damning admission on the part of the Prime Minister that he is prepared to set aside every principle of democratic government in South Africa. I feel for that reason one has to be even more on one’s guard against the power the Prime Minister seeks for his Government. The hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) “is it possible?”—when the suggestion was made by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom)—that the whole of Natal or the major portion of Natal can be splashed red? Is it not possible, is this not the red light that the Prime Minister wants that power for his Government because he is aware this House will not pass it? He has admitted that. For this reason I must protest not only on the ground that it is contrary to the principles of democratic government that in a matter of this kind we should be giving legislative authority to what is the executive power in the land, but still more do I protest against the reason the Prime Minister has given for wanting this power in his hands. I am sorry the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) and the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford), two hon. members who have pleaded most earnestly for the principle of government by Parliament instead of by the executive, are not in their places tonight to raise their voices in unison with mine in protesting against this inroad into the democratic foundation of the Union. I may just add this, if the Prime Minister is not prepared to accept our amendments, either the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard) or my amendment on this subject, if he wants this power in his own hands we shall be compelled to vote against this clause. This is a clause for extending the exempted areas, and we would rather say there should be no extension if he wants to have that power in his own hands. Then let the position be: These areas Parliament is prepared to exempt tonight, let them be exempted areas, but we are not going to allow the Government to usurp what is the right and power of this House and we shall be compelled to vote against the clause as it stands now.

It is quite evident from the discussion which has taken place on this clause that the clause itself is of a most difficult kind. It sets out to override previous clauses which have been passed in this Bill. Clauses 2, 3 and 4 that have been passed will be found to deal specifically with restrictions in favour of the stoppage or the suspension of further transactions between Indians and Europeans for the purchase of property. Clause 2 contains specific restrictions of that kind. Clause 3 deals with a restriction on the holding of fixed property in Natal by certain companies, and clause 4 with restrictions against the occupation of certain land in Natal. Clause 9, which we are dealing with, gives power for the overriding or suspension of clauses 2, 3 and 4. It says that the provisions of these clauses shall not apply except in areas described in the schedule. Let us examine how those areas were put into the schedule. I have said earlier in this debate that these areas were put into the schedule with the greatest secrecy. The holders of those properties were kept in complete ignorance of what was going on. The firm that was instructed to prepare these maps and colour them in red was sworn to secrecy, and was at liberty to tell no living soul what was going on. The whole of the plea of those who asked for amendments in regard to the method of setting apart exempted areas has been that there shall be full publicity, that all persons interested shall be notified by a notice published no less than so many days in the newspapers circulating in that area of the fact it is proposed to include their property in the exempted area. That is the very reverse of the secrecy we complain of. In spite of the remonstrances we have made, there is no single indication of the intention of the Government to give information in regard to the property of hundreds of people who have never had a hearing. Ón this question I can tell the Minister the name of the person employed in that respect, a distinguished man in the surveying profession, who rendered fine service in this war, and he was employed by the Government on terms of secrecy to prepare those maps without the knowledge of the owners, without the knowledge of any other person interested, so that the whole matter might be treated with the greatest secrecy and so that it should burst on the public without their having any previous knowledge of what was going on. We want to know why that attitude is maintained in the face of the pleas we have made—that not only should desirable publicity prevail in regard to future inclusions in an exempted area, but that we should begin from the beginning, and anybody who wants to voice an objection to their property being included in the areas already coloured red in the schedule should do so in the manner prescribed by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). I want to show how full of objection other features of this clause are bound to be to persons whose interests are threatened. One clause says the Governor-General may by proclamation in the “Gazette” declare any area in the province of Natal as an exempted area, to be coloured red—I suppose under the same terms of secrecy as prevailed, excepting for the perfunctory offer contained in the amendment of the hon. member for Vryheid for a certain amount of publicity during a certain period just immediately before the matter becomes final. There is no invitation to the public to object to these areas with sufficiently long notice to reach everybody. In other words, it is a wholly inefficient and unsatisfactory manner of dealing with the forfeiture of a man’s right to his land, because this is a forfeiture that becomes permanent and begins from the time his property is included in a doomed exempted area. No concession of any kind is made to the person concerned. I have indicated that in a large number of cases the anti-Asiatic clause has not been imposed on the property by the person in possession, but by his father before him, and it has been part of the disposition of the deceased testator’s property that that property should be protected by an anti-Asiatic clause. Without a word of any kind of warning, by stealth and by secrecy this property that has been inherited by the heir is included in an exempted area and doomed from that time onwards.

Without secrecy there will be a difficult position.

The hon. member does not know much about the subject, and I shall not take much notice of his raucous voice on this occasion. Sub-section (3) of the clause states that no proclamation of an area under sub-section (2) shall be issued unless the Minister “has consulted the Administrator of the province concerned.” I am not going to say that I have no confidence in the Administrator, but I am going to say this is worded very differently from the amendment of the hon. member which says that the Minister “shall” consult. If this section remains as it is, it is open for the Minister, relying on informal conversations, to say “I have consulted him.” He may have done so in a very perfunctory sort of manner, but where there is an injunction that he “shall” consult the Administrator and the executive committee, he is much more likely to do his duty formally and deliberately. An important matter is contained in sub-section (4), which provides that no provision discriminating against any race or racial group shall be inserted in the title deed—

We have in this section clause after clause of the most objectionable type. The section has a totalitarian effect on the property of people who in some cases have earned the property by the sweat of their brow. In other cases, it has come to them as a disposition under their father’s will, or the will of other forbears. [Time limit.]

It seems to me the effect of the hon. member for Vryheid’s amendment together with the amendment of that amendment by the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure) is going to have the effect of certain areas in Natal, whether urban or rural, being defined as exempted areas, and no one for a period of three years is going to have any voice in objecting or endeavouring to induce the Government to leave his property outside an exempted area. After that no expansion of that area and no curtailment of that area can take place without a resolution of both Houses of Parliament, and no separately defined area can be proclaimed without a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. But for three solid years this precious Board is going to recommend to the Minister what areas in Natal in addition to those already defined in the map shall become free areas. I submit that to bar everyone in Natal from objecting to the inclusion of his property— whether it be small or large—in an open area, and to render any restrictive servitudes which may appear in his title deeds becoming null and void is asking really too much of the people of Natal. I should like to see that clause disappear altogether. After all, as I pointed out, there is no necessity for that clause in either area, no necessity at all. What I want to come back to is these three years during which no one has any right to say yea or nay to this precious Board when it recommends such an area in Natal, it may be several hundred square miles in extent for all we know, to become a free and open area. I certainly think that amendment should be made so that from the very outset, not three years afterwards, any new defined area shall be set out by special resolution of both Houses of Parliament, and then with that publicity we undoubtedly will get representations from the people. I understand from the Prime Minister that is exactly what he wants to avoid. The hon. member for Paarl has proposed an amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) to extend the period of three years during which the Board may recommend to the Minister, and the Government may recommend to the Governor-General, by proclamation to define these areas, and no person who is in those areas will have had any opportunity of protest or guarding against his property being included in those areas until three years have passed: I do think that that is a hardship, and it is imposing on the people of Natal something the Legislature should never invoke. I do ask that the Prime Minister should look into that matter. In so far as the Board is concerned, I beg to move—

I have already given the Committee my reasons for my protest and that of my colleagues on these benches against the acceptance by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister of the amendment by the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp), as to some extent modified by that of the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure). I have no intention of repeating those reasons. They are reasons which are well established in the constitutional experience of parliamentary government for many, many generations, and as no answer has been forthcoming to the considerations we placed before the Committee, we assume there is no answer and that this will be simply carried through by a majority without consideration of the merits of the points we have put. I do, however, wish to complete what I had to say when the time limit interrupted me. I think if no answer is to be forthcoming to the very grave considerations against these decisions by the Prime Minister that were put forward from these benches, we should at least know why at this stage an amendment should be accepted which fundamentally alters this Bill. As the Minister of Finance said in an earlier stage of this discussion, there is at least this to be said for the land tenure provisions in this Bill, that they are elastic. In other words, there is provision, after consideration and enquiry, for modifying the exempted areas in the schedule. That is what I take it he meant. In terms of this amendment, which has been subject to certain modification, after three years have elapsed it will be impracticable to carry this element of elasticity into effect. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) said the first three years was the period that counts. My answer to that is, as I have already submitted, such virtues as there may be in the elastic provisions, provisions that are open to modification, of the exempted areas, after due enquiry, lies in the very fact that this House cannot see into the future; we cannot foresee today what the future residential needs of the people affected by this Bill will be, and we have had practical experience in the past of how difficult it is for this House to adjudicate in a judicial spirit upon matters which require enquiry and evidence before they can be properly decided. As I was saying when the time limit interrupted me. Mr. Richard Stuttaford, when he was Minister of the Interior, tried to induce the House to accept the Feetham resolutions in respect of exemptions from the Gold Law applicable on the Witwatersrand. The Feetham recommendations for the exemption of certain stands had been arrived at after extensive enquiry in the course of which voluminous evidence had been heard and which had received the closest consideration by one of our most distinguished judges, a judge moreover who has been called upon in the international field to adjudicate in important arbitrations. Though the judge had given years of close consideration to the subject, there remained a provision of the law that the judicial recommendation could not be given effect to until the House passed a resolution. What happened? Hon. members will remember what happened. The late Mr. Stuttaford, in his capacity as Minister of the Interior, introduced the resolutions, and he put before the House the findings of the Feetham Commission. The hon. member for Fordsburg, who was then Mr. B. J. Schoeman, and who was at that time an enthusiastic supporter of the United Party, rose in his place on the back benches—he was sitting just behind where I sit now—and he objected to these recommendations as many of those stands were in his constituency. After one or two other members had spoken the late Mr. Stuttaford moved the adjournment of the debate, and that was the last, from that day to this, that we heard of those recommenations of the Feetham Commission. I see the hon. member for South Coast smiling with approval at the fate of those recommendations. Actually, a resolution was later adopted by which in a modified form, certain stands were exempted, but not the stands that were included in Mr. Justice Feetham’s report. I refer to that as a precedent of what happens when you interpose between the finding of a body that has to take evidence and make enquiries a provision that it is subject to confirmation by resolution of this House. I am not blaming the individual members of this House, or of Parliament, that sat at the time when the resolutions came up; it comes back to the point I tried to make at an earlier stage, that Parliament is a body which by its very character is unfitted to discharge judicial or quasi-judicial functions. I cannot make that point too strongly, because that really was the reason those particular resolutions to which I have referred were not carried. In terms of this proposal, after three years we are likely to have a repetition from time to time of the sort of debates that have gone on in connection with this Bill. The board is given three years within which it has to define these areas. Any human being, any board comprised of human beings, knowing that Parliament is going to pronounce on the whole question in three years’ time, will not touch any contentious matter but say: We will leave that matter to Parliament to be decided in the future; and the result of this will be a repetition of debates such as we have had on this Bill. As I have already stated, I am not going to repeat again the arguments that have been advanced in all seriousness, in all gravity, from these benches, against these proposals, but I do ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to give them the consideration I submit that they deserve.

When I reached the time limit of ten minutes on the last occasion I was in the course of explaining what had taken place in regard to any enquiry that may have been made as to the justice of including the properties now shown in the exempted regions. It has been suggested that the enquiries made were as thorough as those made in connection with the native land delimitation that took place under the Native Lands Act. I happened to be one who served on a commission that was appointed in the late Gen. Botha’s time to investigate the proposed native areas set apart by the Beaumont Commission report and we were appointed to ascertain whether they were just and right and whether they should have been so included. That commission travelled throughout the whole of the area we were concerned with and in no single area did we fail to see the owners concerned, and they gave evidence which entirely recast the delimitations of the Beaumont Commission. Property to the extent of two-thirds of the areas had not been visited by members of the Beaumont Commission. We visited them for the first time and as a result of our visits we were obliged to eliminate a considerable portion of the Beaumont Commission areas which had been included. The procedure then followed was to describe some of these areas as released areas in the Bill and some as potential native areas, and in the end the areas delimited in Natal and set apart for natives were the areas which after ’full enquiry we had recommended. The utmost publicity was given to our visits and in that respect our proceedings differed totally from those followed by the Broome Commission or by the subsequent secret proceedings for the preparation of the red areas I have already described, where with the greatest secrecy exempted areas were set apart without the knowledge of the owners. I therefore challenge the right of the Government to deal in this manner with the property of the electors of the country, and I maintain that this clause is a thoroughly bad one. I want to move the deletion of clause 9.

First amendment proposed by Col. Stallard put, and the Committee divided:

Ayes—49:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer K.

Brink, W D.

Conradie, J. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Neate, C.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stallard, C. F.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Noes—77:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit. A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Maré, F. J.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Fayn, A. O. B.

Fayne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

First amendment proposed by the Prime Minister put and agreed to.

Question put: That the words “(2) The Governor-General may” in line 18, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—78.

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Maré, F. J.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson. R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—49:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Neate, C.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stallard, C. F.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Dr. Dönges dropped.

Amendments proposed by Col. Stallard on sub-section (2) put and negatived and new sub-section (3), proposed by the Prime Minister, put and agreed to.

Question put: That the words “(3) No proclamation under” in line 22, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—49.

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Neate, C.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stallard, C. F.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Noes—76:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Christie, J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Maré, F. J.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Question accordingly negatived and subsection (3) omitted, and the remaining amendment proposed by Col. Stallard dropped.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Faure to the new sub-section (3) proposed by Dr. Steenkamp put and agreed to.

New sub-section (3) proposed by Dr. Steenkamp, as amended, put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Neate put and negatived and amendment proposed by Dr. V. L. Shearer put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—75:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Moll, A. M.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Suiter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—48:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Neate, C.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stallard, C. F.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

On clause 10,

I move—

I move—

This board is a very important and necessary board. It will depend on the board in large measure whether certain of the provisions in the first part of the Bill will yield the desired results or not. Consequently I wish to bring specially to the notice of the Prime Minister that by way of this amendment I wish to make the composition of the board such that it may answer its purpose and function efficiently. Under the clause we now have a board comprised of five members, two of whom may be Asiatics. What I am aiming at in my amendment is a European board, a board on which no Asiatic will have a seat. The most important reasons that I can adduce why I do not want Asiatics on the board are in the first place that there is a world of difference between the Indian’s conception of morality and that of the Westerner. Let me say at once that I am not deliberately casting any reflection on the morality, the moral conceptions of the Indian, but we have already heard from the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) and other members what the moral ideas of the Indians are. I am merely stating the plain fact. In order to substantiate my contention I wish to read out what Professor Engelbrecht has said—

From this quotation it seems clear that the Indian frequently resorts to financial means to corrupt Europeans and to me it is a foregone conclusion that if he can manage it with Europeans in certain cases the danger will be even greater when he has to deal with people of his own race. Therefore I wish to propose that we should have a purely European board comprised of eminent and distinguished individuals who will be above all suspicion. I feel that the Asiatic representatives on the board will not be proof against the manifold demands that will be made on them by the Indians themselves, who will employ all sorts of methods to get their way. I therefore urge the appointment of a European board. But I have a second reason as well why we on this side do not want to have Asiatics on the board. We on this side of the House are protagonists of the principle of separation. From the start and also in connection with this measure we have made it perfectly plain that we stand for the principle of separation and consequently I cannot agree to mixed boards. In the second reading the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) tried by way of an amendment to institute segregation which would lead to complete racial separation. When this did not succeed we tried in the Committee stage to effect this separation gradually in a different manner We declared ourselves against mixed and higgledy-piggledy living and we are also against mixed boards. To us it is a question of principle. I am very glad that the Prime Minister is listening and if he adopts this no further discussion will take place on it. I hope he will accept the amendment.

I would be glad if the right hon. the Prime Minister would explain the necessity for his amendment wherein he inserts the words dealing with the number of members of the board “not more than five members”. Does he contemplate the board may have fewer than five members; may it be possible to appoint only three members or two members? I feel it is a point on which we should know exactly what the intentions of the right hon. gentleman are. If it is “not more than five” it may be three or two or four, and I feel there is a weakness there which should be cleared up. Before the right hon. gentleman replies I would also like to deal with sub-section (2). There we have the position where the five members are appointed, one of whom “shall be designated by the Minister as the chairman of the board”. There has been a good deal of discussion with regard to the necessity for a high standard of membership on that board, and I think we are all agreed that that high standard should be there, and particularly that the chairman should be of the highest standard available, a man who can detach himself from pressure from the one side or the other, and who will bring an independent mind to bear and decide a matter on its merits and on principles of common justice. So I wish to propose an amendment for the omission of sub-section (2) and substituting that one of the members shall be a judge of the Supreme Court who shall be designated by the Minister as the chairman. I think if the right hon. the Prime Minister will accept that we shall get a chairman of the highest possible standard. I do not want a retired judge, but one who is still functioning as a judge of the Supreme Court and who would devote his time to the job. The highest standard of integrity is found in our judges, and we have in them such faith and confidence as I do not think we shall get in respect of any section of the public service—very high though the standard of integrity is in the service—or amongst members of the public. There is no one whose integrity is less likely to be challenged than that of a judge of the Supreme Court. I believe the acceptance of my amendment would make all the difference in regard to the acceptance of the decisions of the Board in future. It is going to relieve our minds, and it will take a great deal of worry off the Government when they know they have that very strong support in the chairman. I hope that the amendment will be accepted, and I shall be glad if the Prime Minister will also explain the reasons for inserting the qualification “not more than five”. I move—

1. (2) One of the members who shall be a judge of the Supreme Court shall be designated by the Minister as Chairman of the Board.

The hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie) wants to know the reason for my amendment to limit the number of five members in the way I have done by saying “not more than five”. I may say it is the intention of the Government if possible to have a Board of five; but this amendment is introduced here as a precaution in case the Indians do not want to play, and do not want to take part in this system which we are founding here. The Committee knows there has been a threat, a fairly widespread threat, to boycott the whole system which we are establishing here, and it may be that Indians will refuse to serve on this Board, and it is therefore necessary to provide for that in the Act itself; and supposing the two Indian members do not want to join the Board, then the other three will be appointed and the Board will carry on and function. That is the purpose for which this amendment is made.

With regard to the second point the hon. member has made, I explained in the second reading of this Bill that it is the firm intention of the Government to appoint to the Board personnel of the highest standing and of unquestionable integrity. There is no question of it. But the proposal which the hon. member makes will not work. There will be a great deal of work for this Board; it will be a whole-time job. If the Board is to discharge the functions that are being entrusted to it under this Bill, it will be a full-time body that will work from day to day. And under those circumstances a judge of the Supreme Court cannot be appointed. You cannot have a judge who does not carry on his judicial functions but who is only and merely a member of a Board. That will not work. The hon. member and the Committee may rest satisfied that not only as regards the chairman, but as regards the other two members, too, the Government will do its best to select men of the highest standing and of unquestioned probity and integrity and ability. Much will depend on this Board. This Bill when it comes into force will depend very largely on the ability and integrity of the members of that Board. If the Board functions properly, this Bill will be a success, and therefore it is absolutely essential to the experiment we are now trying that the Board members should be of the very highest character, but it is not possible to appoint a judge who is a full-time official and not a judge. But, even so, we shall be able to find men whose position and standing is such that their appointment to this Board will be quite satisfactory to this House. I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member.

Can you tell us about the appointment of the Indians, and whether you reasonably expect that they will serve on such a Board?

I am making this amendment simply as a matter of precaution. An opening is being made here with the best intention and with goodwill to the Indian community. We want to be fair to them, and we want to give them a place on this Board that will decide the important matters mentioned in this Bill. We are making this gesture and giving them this position. If they refuse to take it, then of course the consequences will be theirs and will not be ours.

*In regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Potgieter) I would just say this, that the Government cannot accept it. On neither of the two grounds mentioned by the hon. member can we accept this amendment. The argument he advanced in regard to the ethical conception of the Indian is not a ground on which we can refuse to admit them on to a body that will decide on their interests, their greatest interests. There is no doubt that when you are affecting people’s interests deeply, and as deeply as we are doing in this legislation, you must give them a say. It is our European ethical conception that, where you touch people’s rights as we are doing in this Bill, you must give them some say and the right to speak for themselves. That ground consequently does not carry weight. The other ground is equally ineffective, that it should be simply a European body. I do not believe one should drive the idea of separation to those extreme lengths. You are going too far and when you go too far you frustrate your own purpose. We wish to have separation in the social sphere; that is our European conception, but to apply it in every direction does not work at all. As hon. members know we Europeans do not refuse to trade with Indians. Their ethical conception and our European conception do not go so far as to prevent us having trade relations or financial or economic relations with each other. These exist on a large scale; and consequently it would be entirely wrong to drive the idea of separation so far as to adopt the amendment of the hon. member. If you go too far you defeat your own object and on both grounds that the hon. member mentioned I must decline to accept this amendment. Neither of these grounds should weigh with us and I cannot accept his amendment.

The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will recollect what our experience has been in connection with all committees which have been appointed in Durban previously in connection with the Pegging Act, and the various times we have endeavoured to persaude our Indian friends not to give us more trouble than was necessary in regard to penetration of the European areas. A number of committees were appointel. The Rt. Hon. gentleman will remember that the Indian community eventually boycotted the Lawrence Committee and I believe another committee has been set up. Our experience has been most unfortunate in connection with the committees which have been appointed previously. The Bill sets out that there shall be appointed a board consisting of five members who shall hold office for a period of five years. This board is to be appointed by the Government, and can be appointed overnight as it were, and in view of our past experience of boards and committees in connection with this matter, I would like to suggest to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that instead of a period of five years he should agree to the members being appointed for a period of three years. The board can do a tremendous amount of damage to the cause in five years, and as I understand the Bill no provision is made for dispensing with the service of any member of the board unless he is incapable or if he becomes of unsound mind or if he is convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine. As I have pointed out the committees which have been appointed previously have come in for a tremendous amount of criticism. If we are going to appoint the board members for five years I am just afraid that the members will feel: “We have been appointed for a period of five years and at the end of the five years we will have to go, so it does not matter much what we do in the meantime.” I feel convinced that we will get more efficiency from this Board if the members knew that in three years’ time, unless they do their jobs satisfactorily, they will not be re-appointed. As I have mentioned, the Government can re-appoint them overnight, and I would like to move, and I hope the Prime Minister will accept this—

That would meet the case and we would then appoint the members for three years. I feel perfectly certain that we will then get more efficient working from the Board with a three-year tenure. I am moving this amendment because in Durban we are definitely afraid of the workings of this Board. We feel that due to its composition it may not be as satisfactory as we feel it ought to be. It is all right on paper, but when it comes to this very delicate question of the Asiatic problem in Durban and the insinuations that have been made, I think the Government would be well advised to place itself in the position where it will be able to say: “At the end of three years we can re-appoint the members if they have been satisfactory, but if they have not been satisfactory we can dispense with their services after three years.”

During this debate we have had many disappointments at the hands of the Prime Minister in regard to his attitude, but as far as this is concerned things are going from bad to worse. Here we had an amendment from the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Potgieter) asking that the Board, a very important Board, a body, as the Prime Minister himself has stated here, that will decide on important matters, should be comprised entirely of Europeans. The Prime Minister stands up and he refuses that request. Now I wish to remind the House that this afternoon we discussed this same question and it was mentioned that the Prime Minister on a previous occasion today denied the right to this Parliament to decide on this important matter. It was proposed today that the further demarcation of areas, just as was the case in connection with native areas, should rest with Parliament. The Prime Minister refused this, and he said that Parliament would not decide over the red areas as they have now been defined, but for a period of three years from now, when the whole matter will really be decided afresh and area after area will be demarcated —Parliament will not decide. In that period Parliament will have no right to decide and this Board will function, and together with the Minister they will actually do the work which should be left to Parliament. And this was the Prime Minister’s argument. Why has he refused Parliament the right to function during those three years? He said honestly that during those three years he would not be able to influence Parliament to accept those resolutions. In other words, he would not have enough people on his side to approve of these things. What is the intention then in regard to the demarcations in the first three years? And now he comes and refuses, as a matter of fact, that that Board that will have to function during that period, when Parliament may not function, should be comprised entirely of Europeans. The Board is to be composed of not more than five members, of whom two must be Europeans and two Indians, and the Government will appoint the chairman, and the Prime Minister makes specific provision in this clause that if the Indians wish it, two of them will be entitled to serve on that important Board. That Board has extraordinary powers. Let me put the matter in this way before I go further, and I want to put it very strongly. I do not think there is any hon. member in this House who can recall a single instance in the history of our people and of our fatherland where nonEuropeans have been appointed to sit on a Board that decided on the land tenure and the interests of the European in this country. If there is any precedent at all of this character in the whole of our history I should like to know it, because here we have two Indians being appointed to this Board and those Indians will now have to decide on the question of land tenure in so far as it affects the European in Natal. Could we have anything worse? It was mentioned here by the Prime Minister that in many respects he is in this following the procedure that was adopted in connection with native lands. Let me put it to the Prime Minister that in connection with the demarcation of those native areas every inch of those demarcations was decided by this Parliament. That decision by this Parliament was refused by the Prime Minister on the previous clause, and what is he going to do now? Now he is not only going to appoint that board to do the work instead of Parliament but he is actually placing two Indians on the board to do the work. The Prime Minister talks about ethical conceptions. Let me put this to him. This is the ethical conception of European civilisation in this country, that in this House no non-European will sit. It is the ethical conception of this side of the House that we only wish to have Europeans sitting here and here all the interests of all sections of the people are cherished and decided. Where does the argument arise that because their interests will be affected you must therefore necessarily appoint two Indians to the board? I wish to ask the Prime Minister why, as far as this matter is concerned, is he departing from the precedent that was established in connection with the laws of 1936 regarding native land tenure. Why is he breaking new ground here and appointing non-Europeans to define these areas? I have from the start of my speech stated that this House has very considerable powers. Let me now refer to the powers that this board has. I have stated briefly and clearly that this board will be empowered to act in an advisory capacity to the Minister and to decide on matters affecting land tenure of the European in the country. But let us refer now to the powers of the board. I wish to refer to the following clause, clause 12 (c) which runs as follows—

Under this clause the board is empowered to determine any areas in Natal in future as exempted areas, areas in which the Indian can buy as much land as he wishes. This board is empowered to recommend any territory in Natal for proclamation and to recommend to the Minister — even though the European may wish to live apart from the Indian — that such a spot should be exempted, and a board that possesses such power, that can infringe the common law and the tenure and rights of occupation of the European ought to be comprised of Europeans. Are we unreasonable in asking that such a board should consist of Europeans in this country? I should like further to refer to the fact that the Minister has the right under this Bill to confer other functions on this board. It has the right, inter alia, to enquire into—

Can there be any doubt that these are extraordinary powers that have been granted to this board and seeing these powers have been granted to this board, can we now agree that non-Europeans should also have the right to sit on that board. No, the argument of the Prime Minister that he cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Brits, that he has a different ethical conception to what we have, that argument is the deciding factor in this big matter which is clearly put here, and I say without the slightest hesitation that the Prime Minister and the people sitting on the other side are heading for the destruction of European civilisation in this country and our plea is for the saving and the stabilisation of the rights of the European on the soil of South Africa that he has bought with his blood. That ground that the Prime Minister described as an ethical ground revealed a different basis of ethics to that we have accepted; we say that the European is there to exercise the Christian trusteeship over the non-European, but the European is not prepared to allow the nonEuropean to supplant him in his field in life. This question has been strongly put by one of our Afrikaans authors, who said—

We say no to that and the Prime Minister with his standpoint says “Yes”.

We would like the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to reconsider this matter of appointing a judge of the Supreme Court as chairman of this Board. We fully understand that the work will require a full-time official. We know the work to be tremendously important. Surely the Prime Minister can second a judge to the Board for this most important work. If the law will not allow that, we suggest that the law can be altered. If the difficulty is that there are no judges to second—we know that our judges are terribly overworked— then we suggest that there are men in Durban of whom I know, and there are men in Cape Town of whom I know, and the authorities must know of men in Johannesburg who are quite capable of becoming judges. If no fresh judge can be appointed for this purpose, we hope that the Prime Minister will be prepared to allow us ’to move that a retired judge take up this position. We have no wish to be obstructive in any way. We are rather afraid, though, that this most important Board will not be served as thoroughly as it needs to be. We know that Boards are very unpopular in South Africa. We have always had great men to choose from, but we do not seem to have chosen them always. A Board, to most people in this country, is a little body of demi-gods to whom one goes cap in hand from time to time to be told by them that your prayer cannot possibly be granted under any conditions whatsoever. That is what a Board is to most of us, and then we go home and find that that permission has been granted to our neighbours on both sides. We want to guard this Board against the low appreciation percentage in which other Boards are held, and we have great trust in a Board composed of judges. We want to suggest, moreover, that the work really and truly is of a judicial character. To weigh up accurately and exactly, as it needs to be done, the remedies and the rights and the wrongs, calls for legal knowledge and training. We suggest that the layman, however good he may be in other ways, is less competent than a judge to do this particular thing, and that is why we make this suggestion. There is another point. A judge of the Supreme Court is not easily swayed by sentiment. He will come to his decision on the facts and merely on the facts that are placed before him, a most desirable thing in this connection. Whoever is the adjudicator in these matters will be met by, or rather let me say will be surrounded with, a fairly fervent public opinion, and I say again that a judge is by nature almost and by second nature certainly, and by training a man who is superlatively able to set aside prejudices and come to a judgment on the evidence and nothing else. That point, we submit, is really and truly important. We want to ensure that all races are satisfied that when their affairs come before the Board, that Board will be competent and that it will have the necessary knowledge and that it will be impartial. We know that if this Board is to carry out its work, it must be very highly respected. We want people to come to the Board with the certainty that their case will be fully and fairly treated, and our point is that judges are more competent to come to a fair decision than any other person. That is the reason for this amendment.

Moreover, he is entirely dispassionate.

He is entirely dispassionate, and we do not know of any other grade of men who have the necessary qualifications to do that essential job. Everything will depend on the Board, and we are making an honest recommendation to appoint to the Board the strongest official who can be appointed.

We deprecate the action of our Prime Minister in laying down in this clause that he is going to set up a mixed Board on which Europeans and non-Europeans will sit round the same table. It hurts me deeply to think that such a proposal emanates from the Afrikaner nation which is anxious to see separation between Europeans and coloureds. It hurts me to think that a proposal of this kind should emanate from a great leader of the South African nation, a proposal under which Europeans and non-Europeans will sit round the same table in the same room. I most strongly deprecate it. It is humiliating for the Afrikaners to think that we have a Government in power which is prepared to appoint a mixed Board such as this to decide matters affecting the European population.

Your leader did the same.

He is making another faux pas.

The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) sat here for days without saying a word, and now that I am on my feet he wants to talk. If he wants to talk I shall sit down to give him an opportunity to make a speech. I deprecate the fact that an Afrikaner like the hon. member should give his approval to a proposal under which Europeans and non-Europeans will be thrown together., The hon. member ought to be ashamed to make such a remark. We as Afrikaners want to remain honest; we want to follow in the footsteps of our forefathers, and we must see to it that Europeans and non-Europeans do not intermingle in South Africa; and when we make a reasonable request to the Prime Minister we find hon. members like the hon. member for Rustenburg making remarks of this character. In this clause the Prime Minister is asking us to agree to the appointment of a mixed board. That is an indication that in the future the Prime Minister intends to show the people that he is wholeheartedly in favour of Europeans being thrown together in the same spheres of activity, and I feel that we as an Afrikaner nation cannot be satisfied with that. The people of South Africa have always shown that they do not want to associate with non-Europeans. For that very reason the Voortrekkers left the Cape Province and migrated to the north; but here the Prime Minister is placing a Bill before us in which we are asked to approve of Europeans and non-Europeans being thrown together. I deprecate it most strongly, and as Afrikaners it hurts us most deeply. I hope the Prime Minister will alter this clause and agree to the request which has repeatedly been made to him in this House and that he will see to it that some alternative is found which will bring about an improvement in the position. I think this is one of the points to which the Prime Minister as a grey beard and as a leader of the people should give his attention, that some alteration should be brought about. If Indians have to serve on this board, they should be given a separate board, and the Europeans should be given a separate board, but we do not want mixed boards, as is proposed here. I agree with the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Potgieter) who introduced this amendment and I ask the Prime Minister in all civility to see that a change is brought about. If he does not do it the time will come when fathers and mothers with tears in their eyes will recall that they voted for this Prime Minister who is prepared to appoint mixed boards. I hope the Prime Minister will give his attention to my request and that he will accept the amendment. This is an important matter, and it is a matter of importance to the Europeans. It has been said here that it is the fault of the Europeans that the Indians have acquired property. The Prime Minister also stated that we must be satisfied with a mixed board because the Europeans trade with the Indians. It does not behove the Prime Minister to pride himself on the fact that the Afrikaners have erred in the past in trading with the Indians. He as a leader ought to realise that these things are wrong and he ought to put a stop to them.

I do not know whether the Prime Minister realises what the words “not more than” signify. I assume that the Asiatics will not nominate anyone and then an amendment will have to be made in Clause 11. Therein it is provided that three members form a quorum, but if the Asiatics have no representatives there will only be three members. But I wish to refer to another point. These are three members apart from the Asiatics. But there is nothing in the Bill that those three members must be Europeans. They may be coloureds or natives. There is nothing laid down either that the chairman should be a European. The Minister of the Interior may appoint a native, a coloured or an Asiatic as a chairman. The Prime Minister can laugh at that but let him look into the provisions of the Bill. In Clause 11 it is provided that three members shall form a quorum. Then those three members can appoint a chairman and they can choose an Asiatic. Then the chairman will be an Asiatic though he will not have been appointed by the Minister concerned. That is a rather serious matter. This is a board that can exercise all the powers that have been explained so well by the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein).

What about bilingualism?

We can expect that from those members on the other side who fought an election over bilingualism and are now making fun of it. I do not think that the Prime Minister will give his approval to this. We hope he will see to it that the members are bilingual, although we have not proposed it here. But I would again point out that the chairman may be an Asiatic appointed by the board itself. I would further point out that it is not stated clearly that three members of the board should be Europeans. Natives and coloured people also live in the red areas. They will demand that their interests should also be protected. All sorts of possibilities exist. I would also refer to another point. The Asiatics get two out of the five members, or a representation of 40 per cent. Apart from outside the exempted areas Europeans also live in exempted areas and why cannot they receive larger representation? I would strongly urge that the Prime Minister should go into this matter again, especially the words “not more than” which are going to land them in difficulty. Furthermore he will have to do something in connection with the quorum of three if there are only three members.

I just want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Potgieter) in a few words. I want to advance this one important argument. The Board will consist of five members, one of whom will be the chairman. When the Board is called upon to come to a decision, the position will be that it will never be able to approach the matter objectively. There will be two Indians on the one hand and two Europeans on the other hand, and the chairman may be a European. The position will be therefore that there will continually be a tug-of-war between the two Europeans and the two Indians. It will degenerate into a cat and dog fight and, moreover, the position will be that the proceedings of the Board will have repercussions on the two sections outside. It will develop into a very useful source of racial clashes and racial friction in the future. This is an extremely dangerous position. We are placing the chairman in the position that he will frequently have to cast a decisive vote, and it can be imagined that that will lead to an unsound position. If the Prime Minister wants to attain the best results he ought to accept this amendment, because we shall then have a Board of high standing which will be able to view matters objectively. Then there is the principle of separatism that we want to emphasise strongly. One is given the impression that the history of Joseph with his coat of many colours made an indelible impression on the Prime Minister in the good old days of his youth, because in his old age he is now making South Africa more and more multi-coloured. Not only is he making the surface of South Africa more and more multi-coloured, but he is making the Boards of the people more and more multi-coloured, and he is heading for a multi-coloured South Africa. I hope the Prime Minister will again give his attention to the amendment of the hon. member for Brits.

When the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister moved the second reading of the Bill he stated that the establishment of this Board was one of the principal features of this Bill, being a compensatory feature for restriction which was imposed on Asiatics in regard to their occupation and ownership of land. The amendment now moved by the Prime Minister is virtually an admission of the fact that the Bill is not likely to operate in the sense and in the direction that was first hoped by him. I suggested myself during the course of the second reading that it seemed to me that it would be much more advisable to have the Board established first and let things grow from that source, rather than to establish a fait accompli in the scheduling of areas and at a subsequent date to have an advisory Board which would then in future deal with any modifications or exemptions which might then be required in terms of the living necessities of the Indians. The fact that the Prime Minister now at this stage moved the amendment which he has moved, is, I repeat, a virtual admission on his part that the Bill will not work out as he first anticipated and that there is a distinct likelihood of not getting Indians who could be considered to be representatives of Indian opinion to sit on this Board. It follows from this that it is hardly a compensatory feature which the Prime Minister held it out to be. The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire) has now moved an amendment. Whether the Board is established for five or for three years is not of much material importance, but the argument submitted by the hon. member should be examined in relation to the amendment which was submitted by the hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie). The hon. member for Durban (Central) submitted in this House that there have been committees set up in the past to deal with the very matter with which this advisory Board will have to deal with, and that the people of Durban expressed a lack of faith in those committees established in the past. It is quite true that there was a lack of confidence on the part of the European population of Durban in the establishment of that committee, and I think I hit the nail on the head during the second reading when I submitted that the reason why there was a lack of confidence was because of the absence of any real power which these people could use. A voluntary committee so established without the power to enforce any decision which they might come to, is doomed to failure from the commencement, and that, I submit, was the primary reason why there was an absence of confidence. There can only be real confidence in the advisory Board that is set up if that Board is given a judicial chairman, and I would like to urge upon the Prime Minister, in view of his own amendment and in view of what, to my mind, is a virtual admission that the thing will not operate as he first expected it would, that it becomes more essential and ever more necessary that we should provide in this Bill that a judge should be the chairman. The House recognises that in any contemplated selection the Prime Minister might make he would seek to get persons of unquestioned integrity and character. That would be expected of the Prime Minister, and we know that he would be guided by these necessities in making the choice. But the public can only have confidence, or be helped to have confidence, in the establishment of an Advisory Board if at the head of that committee there is a person who is surrounded with the authority which only a judge has. I would like to urge upon the Prime Minister that if he hopes this Board will function properly, and if he wants it to function as well as possible, he should provide in this Bill that the chairman of this Board should be a judge. The hon. member for Durban (North) (the Rev. Miles-Cadman) has submitted the means by which it can be done. If it requires a further amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Rand, to ensure that a judge will be appointed, or even a retired judge, I am sure that we on these benches will be happy to agree more with that amendment, and on an indication from the Prime Minister that he is prepared to accept such a further amendment, such further amendment will be forthcoming. I urge upon the Prime Minister the necessity to provide in the Bill itself that a judge should be at the head of the Board if he wants the public to be satisfied with such a Board.

I think it will be admitted that we can hardly consider clause 10 without also considering clause 11. In clause 10, read with the Prime Minister’s amendment, it is provided that the Board shall consist of not more than five members, of whom two may be Asiatics. But in clause 11 there is a provision that the chairman can be absent, and in his absence the chairman shall be one member of the Board to be appointed by the Minister, and if he also is absent then the Board itself shall elect a chairman. I want to point out in connection with this number of not more than five members, that it may very well happen that the second chairman designated by the Minister may also be absent, and then we shall have three members present, two of whom may be Asiatics, and then the three of them are sure to appoint an Asiatic as the chairman, and he will have the casting vote, so that there will be two Asiatics and one European. That is not impossible. It is provided for in section 11 of the Bill, and I would suggest that this Board should consist of five members, each with an alternate, and that the quorum of the Board in that case shall be five and not three. I would commend this matter to the Prime Minister, because the matter was raised very pertinently during my recent visit to Natal, and this position was pointed out, and it was the subject of very strong adverse criticism, and in that sense I commend the matter to the notice of the Prime Minister.

I am sure the House will be indebted to the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Wanless) for his amendment to this extent. I do not think the House will be indebted to him in regard to the voting that took place on the various amendments in the Committee stage, but I am very pleased to hear him say that the committees that were appointed by the Government in the past were an utter failure. He stated that one of the reasons why they were an utter failure was that they had no power to enforce any of the decisions they might have arrived at. Well, that bears out my statement that we should limit the period for which the Board is appointed to three years instead of five, because, as I mentioned when I moved my amendment, a tremendous amount of damage can be done in five years. But if the period is limited to three years, we can then get rid of that Board. The Government could get rid of it. But there is no provision today in the Bill for superseding the members of that Board by others, and no matter what action they may take, although the Board is subject to the Minister, we know that the Minister cannot be confronted by a Board which continually gives wrong decisions of which he does not approve, but has to put up with because he has no power to dispense with that Board. In this Bill we are prolonging the life of the Board to five years. If you have an Advisory Board or a committee, as we have had in Durban, appointed to settle these matters amicably between the two sections by having Asiatics on this Board as well as Europeans, and by coming to a solution in a voluntary way instead of forcing decisions on each other, all that will fail. I cannot see for one moment that the mere fact of having a judge as chairman will make the amount of difference that the members of the Labour Party suggested it will. I do not say that at all, but I do see the danger; I do see the danger of having a Board appointed for five years, able to do enormous damage to the cause we all have at heart. I welcome the remarks of the hon. member for Umbilo in this respect. He mentioned also that it would make very little difference whether they were appointed for three years or for five years. But if they can do a tremendous amount of damage in five years, they can also do much good in three years, and they can be reappointed. It may then be considered that they have carried out the intentions of the Bill and that they have proved a success, and that there is no reason whatever why they should not be reappointed. We in Durban are more vitally interested than anyone else, and I do make that appeal to the Prime Minister to limit the period to three years. This Board will have enormous responsibility, and it will be impossible to please everyone, but I do say that if they know that they can be discharged after three years they will try to do their best and endeavour to serve the interests of all sections, and not only the interests of Europeans, and when after three years they have done well they can be reappointed. But I see great danger in giving them a run for five years, not knowing what they will do or how they will behave.

At 10.55 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 11th April.

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

Europeans started the flood.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I prefer to move the deletion.

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

Do you rule me out of order?

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

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

The hon. member has not got that right.

Then you rule against me?

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—77:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—51:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Cilliers, H. J.

Conradie, J. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Neate, C.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stallard, C. F.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

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

Amendment proposed by the Prime Minister put and agreed to.

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

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—80:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, H. J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—48:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Neate, C.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

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

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

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—73:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson. R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—54:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, H. J.

Conradie, J. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood. J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Latimer, A.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Neate, C.

Nel. M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Sullivan, J. R.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

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

Amendment proposed by Mr. Derbyshire put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—78:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Moll. A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—49:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Neate, C.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stallard, C. F.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. F.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

On clause 11,

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

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

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

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

Then I wish to move—

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 12.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendments proposed by the Prime Minister put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On clause 14,

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

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On clause 17,

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

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On clause 19,

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

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

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

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

I am speaking of the principle.

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

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

Town areas?

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

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

Is the hon. member speaking about proclaimed ground?

Yes.

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

Cannot the hon. Minister m&ke a statement?

I cannot allow it.

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

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

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

Yes, I will.

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

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 28,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 31,

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

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

Mr. Lucas said—

Mr. Justice Innes said—

Mr. Justice Solomon said—

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

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

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

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

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

Prior to 1913?

When was the first exclusion?

I think it was in 1919.

No, it was in 1932.

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

Is a Syrian the same as an Assyrian?

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

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

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

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

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

Is it not the other way about?

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

The average Syrian is an Arab.

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

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

What are you reading from?

The case of Gandur versus the Rand Townships Registrar.

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

9th May, 1913.

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

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

Were they Mahommedan subjects?

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

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 32 put and negatived.

On new clause to follow clause 31,

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

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

Agreed to.

On new clause to follow clause 36,

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

Protecting vested interests.

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

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

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

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

Up to what date?

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

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

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

My point is that you do not know.

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

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

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

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

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

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

There must at least be publication and consideration of objections.

I move—

Agreed to.

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

I wish to move—

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

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

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

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

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

You have not replied to my question.

On Clause 40,

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

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

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

Yes, that is correct.

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

While the Afrikaans version says—

No “chapter”.

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

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

Clause 1?

Yes, it must be “chapter”.

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

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

What do the Natal municipalities say?

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

What did the Natal Parliament say in 1896?

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

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

How many people were present?

The resolution was as follows—

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

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

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

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

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

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

That was Gen. Hertzog’s policy.

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

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

What has that got to do with the Indians?

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

All right, sing away.

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

And who do not really want them.

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

He did not say that.

The application of his argument was to that effect.

Do not put words into his mouth.

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

Of course.

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

No Indians who had the franchise were deprived of it.

Read your law.

Read the Brougham report.

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

Where? In India?

Those who can qualify have it.

Why should there not be qualifications here?

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

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

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

No Indian was disfranchised.

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

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

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

Why not?

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

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

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

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

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

That was one of the things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am not talking about a referendum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very well, I will do that. I move—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are wrong.

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

No.

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

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

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

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

You are satisfied with very little.

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

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

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

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

What trouble?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I cannot allow it.

I have not yet read it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And it is further laid down—

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

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

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

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

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

By an Asiatic.

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

Do you agree?

What is the difference?

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

Do you agree with Indians in the Senate?

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

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

You seem to be talking.

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

As a “Kapie”?

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

He is a citizen of Papbroek-land.

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

They are zipped.

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

I have a better opinion than you.

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

You are only playing up for another post in Europe.

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

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

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

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

A very negative one.

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

Faith on this side and no faith on yours.

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

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

I know about that.

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

Hear, hear.

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

I did not say “hear, hear.”

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

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

Where is the telegram?

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

Why have you not explained them to the public?

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

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

The hon. member must return to the clause.

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

The hon. member must return to the clause.

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

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

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

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

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—81:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn. C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—49:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Cilliers, H. J.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Neate, C.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stallard, C. F.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

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

Amendment proposed by Mr. Wanless put and negatived.

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

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—80:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—49:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. v. G.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brink. W. D.

Cilliers, H. J.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Neate, C.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stallard, C. F.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

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

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—78:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys,, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—49:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. v. G.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Cilliers, H. J.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Neate, C.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stallard, C. F.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 41,

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

Clause put and agreed to.

On clause 42,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

Now we come to the land tenure qualifications.

These also have been reduced.

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

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

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—46:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. v. G.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Cilliers, H. J.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Neate, C.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Noes—77:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer; O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Question accordingly negatived and the words omitted.

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

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

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

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 45,

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

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

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

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

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

We have two sorts now.

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name—

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

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

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

I said there could not be two sorts of Senators.

Some of them sit for ten years.

Their powers are the same.

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

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

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name—

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

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

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

My reasons were good enough.

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

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

House Resumed:

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