I move—

I second.

I should just like to know whether the Prime Minister will not consider the question of allowing the House to adjourn from Friday until Tuesday and not only until Monday. The position is that practically all the members are present in connection with this important legislation which is now before the House. There are practically no members to whom leave has been granted to be absent; either by our party or by the Government party. It is necessary for many members to attend to their business, and once this legislation has been disposed of there will undoubtedly be many members on both sides who will find it necessary to return to their homes for a while to attend to their own business. There is the further consideration that this sitting will in all probability run into June. Up to the beginning of the war we usually adjourned for a week over the Easter holidays. That was an important pause in the middle of the sitting and it gave members an opportunity to have a little rest after their arduous work, and at the same time it solved the difficulty for members who had to return to their homes for a while to attend to their own affairs; and the result was that there were fewer absentees from the House. The members made their arrangements for that week. We are faced with the difficulty that members cannot do it now, and they will have to leave during the sitting if they are called upon to do something elsewhere. They do not like doing it, nor is it in the interests of the business of this House. I should like to know whether it is not possible to give Monday as a holiday as well. I am not speaking on my own behalf but on behalf of my party in putting forward this friendly request to the Prime Minister.

I introduced the motion in this form, namely, that we adjourn until Monday because it is customary to do so. As hon. members know we have been sitting on Easter Monday for a number of years.

Only during the war.

It has been the practice for years and for that reason I framed the motion in this way. But, of course, if it is the wish of a large number of members rather to adjourn until Tuesday, I am prepared to do so.

It will not help members who live far away.

Yes, members who live far away like myself and others, will not benefit but we are always willing to oblige. But there is a condition attached to it. There must be a quid pro quo, and that is that members should at least help us not to prolong the business of the Session, so that the second part of the Session will not be unduly protracted.

Just think how good we were yesterday.

Yes, I am grateful for the concession. Such favours are precious to me. With regard to the second part of the Session I see no reason, with the work ahead of us and the few measures which are still to come, why the House should sit longer than the end of May. I hope every effort will be made to expedite the work and that there will be such a spirit of co-operation that it will be possible for us to dispose of’ the business of the House in May. It is not in the interests of the country and in the interests of the administration unduly to protract the sitting of Parliament in these very difficult times. I am agreeable to the House adjourning until Tuesday but I also want to express the hope, more than the hope, that members on both sides will help after this short vacation to expedite and to shorten the work as much as possible. I move, with leave—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

in lines 35 to 37, to omit “one-half of the value of such property as at the time of the registration of such mortgage bond” and to substitute “in the case of any such mortgage bond securing the repayment of a loan used to redeem a mortgage debt in existence at the fixed date, the amount of such loan or one-half of the value of such property as at the time of the registration of such mortgage bond, whichever is the greater, and in the case of any other mortgage bond, one-half of the said value,”; in line 48, to omit “and”, and to insert the following new definitions to follow the definition of “premises”:

The first amendment is to have a new definition to follow the definition of “European” in line 21. It will make the Bill more elegant, and certainly facilitate it if instead of referring to these areas under Clause 9, we give them a specific name, and therefore it is moved here that an “exempted area” means an area in respect of which, in terms of Section 9, the provisions of Sections 2, 3 and 4 do not apply. It is merely a redrafting. There is also a definition of the “Province of Natal” and “Province of Transvaal”. That amendment is rendered necessary by a change in the structure of the Bill which I shall move later. Hon. members know that the northern districts of Natal were old Transvaal falling under Act 3 of 1885, and in the Bill as it stands here, that situation is maintained. But on reconsideration I found it more convenient and a better arrangement that the northern districts of Utrecht and Vryheid should remain under the Transvaal legislation, under the old law No. 3 of 1885, and the changes which have been made in the Transvaal since, which do not apply in Natal and which should be applied. So that the amendment which will be proposed later will be this, that the Indian situation in the northern districts will continue to be governed by the Transvaal provisions in this Bill, and not by the Natal provisions. That amendment will be moved later, and I am simply paving the way for it now by moving these two definitions. The one is that the Provinice of Natal shall not include the territories referred to as the northern districts and that the Province of Transvaal shall include these territories.

It’s a very good thing that there is an Opposition is it not?

I think this will’ be a better arrangement. In view of the criticism which has been raised here, I have found it necessary to consider the whole matter again, and I think we have found something which will really improve the Bill and for Asiatic purposes, these old districts that belong to the Transvaal, are now placed under the Transvaal provisions. I do not think it makes much difference, but it is an improvement.

It makes a big difference.

Then I move another amendment in regard to the value of bonds on property. As “fixed property” is defined here in the definition before us, it includes land and bonds on land up to a certain amount, and the value of the amount is to be determined at the time of registration. Now it has been pointed out to me, and I think there is a great deal of force in the argument that we should not include old existent bonds; we should preserve the status quo and not let vested rights be touched, and bonds that had been registered before the fixed date, 21st January, will not be affected by this definition. The amendment is on the Order Paper, and I need not read it. I therefore move accordingly.

I do not want to comment on the other amendments which have been moved by the Prime Minister but since the definition deals in anticipation with the northern districts of Natal which fall under the Transvaal law, I want to say that I am very pleased that our protests….

Whose?

You were quite satisfied with the position as it was under the Bill.

I am very pleased that the protests which came from this side persuaded the Prime Minister to give his attention to this matter. During the course of the second reading debate, we objected to the proposal to treat the northern parts of Natal, as far as this legislation is concerned, on the same basis as the rest of Natal. We adopted the attitude that in consequence of that the northern parts of Natal will be placed in a worse position. The Prime Minister realised that. He accepted our suggestion and the northern parts of Natal will now remain under the law of the Transvaal. That disposes at once of the assertion of the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) that the northern parts of Natal would be bétter off under this legislation.

This motion of mine is intended to arrange matters better.

We had an amendment on the Order Paper to delete Clause 32 so that the northern parts of Natal may remain under the law of the Transvaal. The northern parts are now getting all the protection which is given to the Transvaal.

My amendment is better than the one you had.

It only goes further. We are grateful that the Prime Minister realised the advisability of doing this as a result of the criticism levelled by this side. What becomes then of the statements of the hon. member for Vryheid that the northern parts of Natal were better off? Nothing remains of it. I am glad that the Prime Minister moved this amendment. I just want to refer in anticipation to a difficulty which may arise. If my fears are justified the Prime Minister may have to introduce another amendment. As a result of this amendment moved by the Prime Minister he may have to move a further amendment. Clause 32 lays down that the law of the Transvaal will be applicable to the northern parts. How will the position now be affected in this connection? According to the Transvaal legislation, under Section 9, which is applicable to Natal, the Government cannot lay down in which area the Indians may buy land. Such areas can only be fixed in the Transvaal by means of an enactment of this House, but in Natal the Governor-General, that is to say, the Cabinet, may do it. But once an area has been fixed for the erection of towns where Asiatics may live, the Provincial Administrator of the Transvaal comes into the picture. When dealing with an area such as Natal, which Administrator will then have jurisdiction in connection with the northern districts? I raise this point timeously so that the Prime Minister and his advisers may give their attention to it. It seems to me that a further amendment will have to be introduced to put this point more clearly.

Personally I have no objection at all to these northern districts being treated in the same way and under the same law as the Transvaal, but with regard to the other portion of the Prime Minister’s amendment I put it to the Committee it does not get over a very practical difficulty which arises from the amendment as moved and the original draft in the Bill. It involves considerable difficulties when registration of bonds has to be effected. As I read it it will place on the Registrar the onus of determining what is the value of the properties in all these different cases in order that the limit of one-half may not be exceeded in cases where that is prohibited. The difficulty in getting a determination of what is “one-half” the value of a property is a very real one and this will, I am sure, appeal to anyone who has had to undertake the registration of bonds on properties. I do not know why the half has been fixed. I suppose some sort of limit in the mind of the draftsman had to be fixed, but the confusion that will arise is very real indeed. I now propose to move the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper. I move—

If the amendment I am proposing is adopted by the Committee it will have the effect of preventing foreign companies, as defined, and an Asiatic company, as it is under the law from acquiring a right in fixed property as it is defined. I think that is in the spirit of the zoning principle which this Bill proposes to make into law, and at the same time it does away with the practical administrative difficulty of imposing on registrars the actual fixing of the value of property before registration takes place. I think it will remove the loophole that occurs for long disputes as to the value of the property; it would give rise to a whole crop of losses involving considerable expenditure of money and occasioning a great deal of heart-burning.

I want to express my appreciation to the Prime Minister….

You mean to the Opposition.

I want to express my appreciation that the Prime Minister, after representations had been made to him, particularly by the hon. member for Vryheid, agreed to safeguard the position as it was previously. During the second reading debate I pointed out that as far as the new provisions under this Bill are concerned, the position in Vryheid will be better than ever before in consequence of these provisions.

That is so.

Someone on the other side of the House refuted that for no other reason than to make political capital out of it in the northern districts and to tell the people there that the member for Vryheid left them in the lurch. That is the only reason why it was done. And for that reason, in order to obviate all possible political disputes and distortions, I again approached the Prime Minister in this connection, and the position has consequently been left as it was previously. But in actual fact there has been no change in the position of Vryheid in respect of Asiatics, because I maintain that the crux of the whole matter in connection with Asiatics in the northern districts of Natal, is Act No. 33 of 1937, in terms of which an Asiatic may not enter those areas unless he can obtain registration there. That remains the position under this Bill, and that is the whole crux of the matter. But I am grateful to the Prime Minister in that he tied the hands of the Opposition, as far as Vryheid is concerned, at any rate, thus obviating political disputes and possible distortions.

I move the amendment appearing in my name on page 449 of the Votes and Proceedings—

The effect of the amendment will be to exclude all reference in the definition of fixed property to a bond for a greater sum than half the value of the property mortgaged— at the time of registration of the property in the name of the mortgagee, and leave the test to the bona fides of the transaction as being in fact one of securing money actually lent. This would do away with the difficulties referred to by the member for Maritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard) as to value, with which I agree although I am opposed to his amendment. After all, Mr. Chairman, what is the magic of fixing the maximum of the bond at 50 per cent. of the value of the property mortgaged? What consequences can flow from a bond for 70 per cent. of the value or even more, which do not flow from a bond for 50 per cent? The definition interferes with the inherent right of the owner of a property to mortgage it where he pleases and for whatever sum he may be able to borrow. The value of property is not static; it may be £500 today and £5,000 in a few years. It is looked upon as an arbitrary figure causing or calculated to cause hardship. I urge the Prime Minister to consider carefully the amendment I have moved which does not endanger the principles of the Bill.

I just want to make one remark in connection with the alteration in respect of the northern districts of Natal. I welcome this alteration. If the Bill had gone through as it now stands, it would have meant that any expansion of what we call exempted areas, could have taken place in the northern provinces only if the Governor-General, after consultation with the Administrator of Natal, approves of it, while the present position is that under the Transvaal provisions, which are now applicable to the northern districts, an area can only be exempted if both Houses of Parliament approve. Under this alteration the northern districts are in a much stronger position than they were under the old Bill. No new area may now be set aside for Asiatic occupation and ownership, except upon a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I think this is a great improvement and we welcome it. With regard to the other amendment of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in connection with the definition of “exempted area,” I agree that the Bill will be more elegant as a result of this alteration, and I do not think we have any objection to it. With regard to the existing Bill and the definition of “fixed property,” I also want to say that I agree with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard) that practical difficulties may arise in determining what is the actual value of the land, not more than half of which may be bonded, and I feel that what he suggests is completely justified by the practical difficulties which may otherwise arise. But I also want to support the other part of his amendment in which he asks that a lease of longer than a year should also be regarded as fixed property. He pointed out that difficulties may arise in connection with companies, particularly under Clause 3. As the Bill now stands it is possible in actual fact for an Asiatic company, by entering into a lease for nine years, to possess fixed property. In other words, it leaves an opening for evasion. He will not be the actual owner and he will not have the bond, but he will be the lessee of the property under a long lease of nine years. I feel therefore that I can support the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) as far as this portion of his amendment is concerned, namely, that fixed property should also include any lease for a period of one year or longer, or any lease which empowers the lessee to lease for a period which, together with the original period of the lease, covers a period of one year or longer. I hope the Prime Minister will accept this. With regard to the motion of the hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) may I say that this is, of course, an attempt so to restrict the definition of “fixed property” that it will to a great extent frustrate the object of Clause 3, According to him it will only include a man who has a real right to immovable property, and any other right approximating that will be excluded. That opens the door to further evils, particularly with regard to the ownership of land by Asiatic companies. I hope therefore that the Prime Minister will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District).

It seems to me that the exclusion of the Northern Natal districts including Vryheid and Utrecht, and other parts from the provisions of the Bill, and regarding them for the purpose of the Bill as part of the Transvaal, seriously detracts from the principle of the Bill. The Prime Minister has made it clear in regard to granting the franchise to the Indians that he went as far as it was possible for him to go. I regard this part of his amendment as a retreat from that position. It means that the Indians in the northern part of Natal will not get the franchise as it is to be exercised in the remainder of Natal in respect of the Provincial Council; and, though the Prime Minister may reassure us in this matter, it will exclude them from representation on the local authorities. It seems to me that is quite unfair to the Indians in the Northern part of Natal. It is equally unfair to Europeans in the rest of Natal. It is discriminatory treatment against them.

There are very few of them.

I feel We should regard Natal as a unit, and that this matter of interfering with the principle of the Bill is a very serious precedent. One can only come to the conclusion that political factors— which have been evident in the discussion in this Bill—have played a big part in this move for the exclusion of the northern part of the Province of Natal.

I just want to say that the objection of the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) that a great injustice has been committed against the Indians in the northern districts because, according to his explanation, they will not have the vote as a result of the amendment of the Prime Minister, as in the rest of Natal, is an objection which leaves me cold. It leaves us altogether cold because we are entirely opposed to giving the Indian representation in the Provincial Council or the House of Assembly. I hope in any event that the Prime Minister will not pay any attention to that objection. I take it for granted also that the number of Indians involved is very small, apart from our objection to giving the franchise to the Indians.

The amendment does not affect the franchise.

I am not going into that because it leaves me entirely cold. I only hope that the Prime Minister will not pay any attention to the hon. member’s request. In connection with the amendment of the Prime Minister I want to make this further point, however, that in dealing with a serious matter one sometimes appreciates the comical side of it, too; one appreciates an interlude which is entertaining, and the entertaining incident in this case was the effort of the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) after he had cornered himself as a result of his blind allegiance to his party.

He is right.

The Prime Minister does not believe it because he himself cannot help laughing. The Prime Minister appreciates the comical side of it. He stated that this amendment was being introduced in consequence of justifiable criticism which had been levelled against the clause. Now the hon. member for Vryheid wants to deny that it was introduced as a result of the criticism of this side of the House. Since the only criticism there was came from this side, the effort of the hon. member is very amusing.

“Aikona.” Where do you get that from?

The hon. member is so confused that he is beginning to talk in the native tongue. The only criticism there was came from this side, but the hon. member wants to make us believe that this amendment is being moved as a result of his representations; and for that reason he says he wants to express his gratitude to the Prime Minister in that he decided to leave the position as it was previously. That is precisely what we advocated, and the hon. member then proceeded to attack our attitude.

I did not.

But surely to goodness we emphasised that because the prohibition in Act No. 3 of 1885 with regard to the right of ownership by Indians was being repealed by this Bill, the northern districts would be placed in a dangerous position, and we stated that as a result of the introduction of clause 33 those parts may now be in a worse position. The hon. member denied it, but now that the Prime Minister is complying with our request to leave the provisions of the Act of 1885 in force, the hon. member joins us in expressing thanks to the Prime Minister. May I just give the hon. member for Vryheid some advice.

I do not need advice from you.

The hon. member is very ungrateful. We were instrumental in saving Vryheid, and he does not even want to accept our advice. I want to advise him not to allow himself to be completely blinded, not to allow his powers of judgment to be totally confused in the future by his servile allegiance to a political party. Let him view matters from the point of view of the interests of his nation. If he does that he will not find himself in the difficult position in which he finds himself at the present time.

In view of the regrettable absence of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Morris) I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he would tell us what the position of Zululand is in respect of this Bill. I know it is proposed to exclude the northern districts of Natal from its operation, and I have no comments to make on that. At present Indians are prohibited from entering Zululand, and I think we ought to know what the position will be in future.

I wish to point out one of the effects of the amendment by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard), an amendment I am entirely opposed to, as I shall make clear in a moment. According to his amendment, an acquisition of fixed property is to include a lease up to a year. In other words, the taking of a lease up to a year would involve an acquisition. In Clause 7 of the Bill—we have certain amendments in any event, but I am taking the clause as it stands—occupation for business purposes is not to be interfered with. The effect of the amendment of the hon. member is that a lease of any period up to a year would amount to acquisition, and hence no trader could exercise the rights which Clause 7 proposes to reserve for him, because occupation which lasts longer than a year would be prohibited under Clause 2 I am pointing out what the effects would be on the assumption of that clause standing, but, as I said, we have a further amendment on Clause 7-. I do want to make an appeal to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to accept the amendment, which I submit is a reasonable one, that has been moved by the hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming). I fully concur in what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) said about the administrative difficulties that will arise in connection with limiting mortgage bonds to 50 per cent. of the value of the land. I do not see what machinery the Registrar of Deeds is to use to determine the value of the property. In any event, as the hon. member for Transkei has pointed out, the value of property is not static. All I ask is if a man has property, he should be allowed to transact business with ordinary business institutions. Whether he is a European or an Asiatic, he should be permitted to borrow if he wants to do so up to the ordinary amount in the business market. The Prime Minister knows this 50 per cent. is far below the business margin, which differs from time to time. The usual rule here seems to be 66-2/3 per cent. I believe it is higher in Natal as a safe margin for bonds. The principles of this Bill have been accepted in the second reading— not with my consent, but they have been accepted by the House—and the Bill aims at restricting Indians from acquiring further rights to immovable property and from living in juxtaposition with Europeans. The acceptance of the proposal by the hon. member for Transkei does not infringe either of those principles. Assuming an Indian has a bond on European property outside the exempted areas, if he calls up his bond and the property is sold in execution, it can only be sold to a European unless a permit is granted, and the same applies the other way round. If a European had a bond on an Indian’s property, it could only be sold to a European unless it were in an exempted area. So there is no question of this amendment involving any infringement of the principles of the Bill in relation to the acquisition of property. It is simply to allow a clear field for investment, and in so doing it will meet the difficulty the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) has referred to. In the earlier stages of the discussion on the Bill, fears were expressed—I cannot comment on the merits of the discussion at all— as to Indian investments in the Cape. Shutting off the right of legitimate investment in Natal would affect that position in the Cape much more. This 50 per cent. limit seems to be illogical and to have no bearing on the ordinary business margin. The principle of allowing bonds irrespective of race is not challenged in this definition. The definition simply places an arbitrary limit of 50 per cent. as a margin. I submit that is unsound. On this ground, I would appeal to the Prime Minister to accept the amendment.

I think I had better make my position on these amendments clear at once in order to prevent further unnecessary delay. I cannot accept the amendment either of the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg (Col. Stallard) and Transkei (Mr. Hemming). I think they both go too far, in opposite directions. Take the amendment of the hon. member for Maritzburg (District). I agree there are difficulties and will be difficulties about the valuations. That is inherent in the matter, but we shall deal with these difficulties. His definition of fixed property as framed in his amendment, goes far beyond the practice adopted and common in South Africa. We regard leases of at least ten years as fixed property. The hon. member proposes that annual leases shall be looked upon as fixed property. He wants to narrow the position as much as he really can, but that makes it absurd. He goes much too far and I cannot accept it. Nor can I accept the amendment of the hon. member for Transkei. I think that will open the door much too wide again for evasion of all kinds. I resist both these amendments. The hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) has expressed his objection to the exclusion of the northern districts from Natal because he thinks it makes a serious inroad on the Bill. Even if you take it in practice, even apart from the law, how many Indians are there in the northern districts? They have been excluded. You can count the number of Indians on the fingers of your hands, so it makes no difference, apart from the construction of the Bill. I think he is just tilting at a windmill. With regard to the question of the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt), as far as I know, we leave the law relating to Zululand alone. Indians have been excluded from Zululand by the old law, and there is nothing in this Bill which changes that. So it does not seem to me that Zululand is affected by this Bill. I therefore hope that the House will pass the amendments as proposed by me, and resist the amendments proposed by the other hon. members.

With reference to the amendments proposed in relation to the northern districts of Natal, Vryheid, Utrecht and Paulpietersburg, it seems to me that the proposal to regard those districts as no longer forming part of the Province of Natal, is in the nature of a legal device to enable these districts to avoid the effects of Indian penetration inevitable from the terms of the Bill itself. It is argued that as these particular districts have never been subject to Indian penetration to the same extent as the rest of Natal, it is just that they should now not come under the provisions applying to Natal. I want to urge upon the Prime Minister that the same argument applies to the Province of Zululand. Zululand has been less subject to Indian penetration than any other portion of Natal. But it is now certain that the Bill will not be as effective in defending Zululand against Indian penetration in future, and it seems to me as a layman that this Act is bound to apply to Zululand and that this proposed board which has almost unlimited powers could include Zululand in any further delimitations of exempted areas that may take place. I think the only safe thing for Zululand would be to adopt the same device in regard to that area as that to be applied to the northern districts, so that Zululand, for the purposes of this Act, could be excluded from its operation, and I wish to suggest that in line 12 of the Prime Minister’s amendment after the word “include” there should be inserted the words “the former Province of Zululand or” but I do not propose to move that “the Province of Natal includes Zululand”. That would not affect the force of the Prime Minister’s amendment, but would merely remove Zululand from the Indian penetration inseparable from the operation of the Bill. I move as an amendment to the amendment proposed by the Prime Minister—

I am afraid I cannot accept that amendment.

May I appeal to the Prime Minister to consider this amendment. If it includes Zululand as well as the northern districts, he is taking away nothing which the Asiatics enjoy at present, but he does secure Zululand and give it the immunity which it had since before the annexation to Natal. I ask the Prime Minister to consider Zululand being included in the exempted area in the same way as the northern districts.

I just want to associate myself with what has been said here, that is, to welcome the amendments of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. We have certainly made a little progress, however small it is. It only makes one a little sad and it makes the people despair if one has to fight and struggle so hard in order to make such a little progress with the Government. In any event it is some progress. I am pleased that the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) admitted that it was really because of his fear of what the Opposition might do, that he asked the Prime Minister to accept that amendment. I just want to tell him that this is the beginning of his troubles; it is not the end of his troubles. I am very pleased that the Prime Minister inserted a word here which clearly defines the exempted areas. The definition explains the provision in that connection. I heartily welcome that. I should also like to associate myself with what has been said here in connection with the hotion of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard). I do think that there is a great deal to be said for that amendment and that we should accept it. This also represents some definite progress in the Bill, and I hope the Prime Minister will reconsider the matter.

I just want to come back to the question of Zululand. The position is somewhat uncertain. Cannot the Prime Minister tell us through his Department what the position is in connection with Zululand.

Speak up, please.

Cannot the Prime Minister tell us what the position is in connection with Zululand? Is there a law at the moment which prohibits Indians from entering Zululand? If there is no law prohibiting it, it means that under this legislation the Government, that is to say the Governor-General, may fix exempted areas in Zululand.

There is such a law. I have said that there is such a law and we are not altering it.

If there is such a law, then there is nothing else to be said.

We are not affecting the position here at all.

I just wanted to be certain that there is such a law.

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

Question put: That the words “other than a mortgage bond over immovable property securing the repayment of a bona fide loan granted in the ordinary course of business” in lines 29 to 31, proposed to be omitted stand part of the Clause, and the Committee divided:

Ayes—75:

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.

Christie, J.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Henny, G. E. J.

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.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

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.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Suiter, G. 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—47:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Brink, W. D.

Christopher, R. M.

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.

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.

Madeley, W. B.

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, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

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 Col. Stallard dropped.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Hemming put and negatived, and second amendment proposed by the Prime Minister put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Marwick to the third amendment proposed by the Prime Minister put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—47:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Brink, W. D.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

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.

Madeley, W. B.

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, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

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.

Carinus, J. G.

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.

Fksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

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.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

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.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Suiter, G. 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.

Third and fourth amendments proposed by the Prime Minister put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I move—

I move my amendment as printed on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) No person shall enter into any agreement with any other person in terms of which an Asiatic acquires or purports to acquire any fixed property in the province of Natal (other than fixed property in an area referred to in section 9) and no Asiatic shall enter into any such agreement

For the sake of clarity I want to say that on an earlier page of the Order Paper there appears an amendment in my name which I wanted to move in a different form; in other words, I intended to move it if this clause were deleted. I want to move my amendment now in any case, irrespective of whether this clause is rejected or not. I move it in the form set out above, the object being to obtain the desired separation that we visualise and that is visualised by the whole nation. The Committee will remember that this Bill is accompanied by a map on which areas are indicated in white and red. All the areas coloured red are exempted areas. We know what the exempted areas are under this Bill. It is contemplated in this Bill that in the areas coloured white the Europeans and the Indians will continue to live as at present, but no European may buy from an Indian and no Indian may buy from a European, but an Indian may still buy from an Indian. In those areas, therefore, we do not get any separation. The Indian in that area may live there for ever. Briefly, my amendment visualises that in these areas coloured white on the map, we will gradually get rid of the Indians who are still living there, because we lay down that in those areas an Asiatic may sell to a European only. If this amendment is accepted, the Asiatic will be able to sell or transfer his property to a European only. That means that the Asiatics who are there at, present will gradually be removed from those areas, because they will not be allowed to sell to Asiatics. In terms of this amendment, any transaction which perpetuates the present state of affairs whereby Indians and Europeans live cheek by jowl in those areas will be unlawful, and any person who is a party to it either as buyer or seller will be punishable. I just want to say this to members on the other side: We are faced with a very important choice as far as this amendment is concerned. We often hear people say that they are in favour of separation. Here is an opportunity for us to show who is in favour of it and who is against it. I just want to say to hon. members on the other side that those members who vote against this amendment, which gives us an opportunity to clear up those areas, so that Europeans only will live there, must not say in the future that they are also in favour of separation. Here we are now being offered an opportunity to attain that separation. It is an acknowledged fact that it is the wish of the Europeans in the European areas in Natal to remove the Asiatics from those areas. It is their desire and wish that the Indians who are still living in those areas should be removed gradually. I do not think there can be the slightest doubt in regard to this matter, and if there is any doubt let hon. members on the other side, and particularly those representing Natal, contradict us. Let them say that the Europeans in the areas coloured white do not want the Indians removed. This is a very clear issue. The amendment is very clear, and I want to urge its acceptance for the sake of the European race, for the sake of the Europeans in Natal and particularly in those areas which are coloured white on the map. I want to make a plea to the Prime Minister to accept this amendment. We shall then be taking a step in the direction of this much desired separation which everyone is keen to have in this country. I just want to add that our attitude during the second reading debate was that we wanted to obtain separation immediately, but our motion was voted down. But since we cannot get it at once, we are now presenting an opportunity to obtain it gradually, thus preventing a continuance of the state of affairs whereby Indians and Europeans live cheek by jowl, a state of affairs which is so in conflict with the wishes of the Europeans in South Africa. We want to make those areas purely European areas, in accordance with the wish of the Europeans in our country, a step which will be of the greatest importance to the future of our nation and our fatherland.

I want to support this amendment very strongly and to express the hope that not only the Prime Minister but members opposite, those of them who say that they are in favour of segregation, should give very careful consideration to the real meaning of the amendment. As the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) stated, in terms of this Bill, there will be two areas in Natal as regards the ownership of property. The white areas under section 2 will be where Europeans live, but in those areas there will also be quite a number of Asiatics. They live all over in those areas. As the section reads now, that right of Asiatics to own property in between Europeans, is safeguarded. Their right to live there is practically perpetuated, because as the section reads now the European cannot buy ground belonging to those Asiatics. The Asiatic can buy from another Asiatic, which means that the Asiatics will forever have ground in that area which the European may not buy from him.

He can buy from them on obtaining a permit.

It will have the opposite effect. A permit, in the hands of the Minister of the Interior, means a permit given by him to the Asiatic to buy from the European.

I have never yet refused a permit to a European to buy from an Asiatic.

In Pretoria the Minister permitted Indians to penetrate into European areas. If I could give the Minister of the Interior some advice, it is to remain dead quiet about this Bill. His past is of such a character, that he should not talk. In Pretoria he permitted Indians to penetrate into white areas, and he has even clashed with the City Council of Pretoria which for the major portion consists of members of his own party. That is the tendency of this amendment. Hon. members should clearly realise that. It is a serious matter. The object of the amendment is eventually to get those areas quite white. At the moment the position of the Asiatic is safeguarded because the European is not allowed to buy from the Asiatic. The Indian can sell to the Indian. We propose that the Indian should only be allowed to sell to the European, so that eventually he will disappear from that area.

And supposing the European will not buy?

Supposing the sky falls down, where will the hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) be then? How can he say that the European will not buy, seeing that the demand for ground in Durban is so great? The brain of that hon. member surpasses everything I have ever seen.

It is something which can happen.

It cannot happen. The demand for ground in Durban is so great that the European will eagerly grasp at the opportunity of obtaining ground now in the hands of the Asiatic.

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

As I have stated, the object of the amendment of the hon. member for Boshof is to have the areas regarded as European areas completely white in the course of time, with no Asiatics in those areas. But that is not sufficient. One should also rectify the other side of the matter, regarding the areas now marked on the map as red areas, the exempted areas. One should also purify those, so that eventually they will be owned only by Asiatics. Then the one area will be exclusively white and the other will be an Asiatic area. For this second object I have an amendment on the Order Paper on page 471 in which I propose a further clause, a new clause, to follow clause (2), the object of which is that in these so-called red areas, only Asiatics can purchase from Asiatics, so that eventually the Europeans will be pushed out there, just as Asiatics will disappear from the white areas. Then alone will one have a sound basis. Then alone does one actually achieve separation and segregation. If these two amendments of the hon. member for Boshof and mine are adopted, then only will the Bill be truly efficient. We want the same thing in the Transvaal. It will put a stop to the conditions of intermingling. I hope that the Prime Minister will be of assistance there, so that this portion of the Bill, at all events, will be a proper measure. I wish to direct an appeal to members opposite, especially from the Transvaal and from Natal, who know what the conditions are. Those who know the north as I do, and know what penetration of Indians into European areas is taking place there, will agree with me that it is something awful. Here we now have the opportunity. If they have the same feelings as I do, and they are really striving for separation between Europeans and Indians, they have this opportunity of putting it into effect. What will happen otherwise? Take the position first as regards clause (2). If this amendment is not adopted one will have a perpetuation of the state of affairs where Indians live between Europeans, and vice versa, if the amendment I have on the Order Paper is not adopted, one will have a perpetuation of the state of affairs that Europeans will forever live amongst Indians. If these amendments of ours are adopted, there will be an end to this undesirable condition, and Asiatics will be limited to one area, and Europeans to another. Then eventually one will have effective segregation between European and non-European. I do not wish to expand upon this any further. The amendments speak for themselves. In the meanwhile I have spoken to members opposite. I do not wish to mention names, because that would not be fair, but there are members who have in the meantime given their attention to this matter, since we suspended business, and I have ascertained from them that they see the reasonableness of this amendment. The only question now is whether, after having recognised the justice of the amendment, they will vote according to their convictions. May I just ask the Prime Minister whether he will allow his members to vote according to their convictions, without calling into use the party Whips.

They always vote according to their convictions.

I do not wish to mention the names of any members, but the Prime Minister has now stated that they can vote according to their convictions, and that he will not prevent them from voting against the clause and in favour of the amendment by means of applying the party discipline. They are now free.

This side of the House is always free.

I know that the hon. member for Middelburg is convinced that our amendment is correct. He will not rise and say that it is not right and that he does not agree with me in being in favour of certain areas being entirely European and other areas being inhabited purely by Asiatics. I know he agrees with me, and I now ask hon. members opposite to vote according to their convictions, seeing that the Prime Minister has given them the right to do so. Let them now see to it that proper divisions are made between Europeans and non-Europeans. I wish to put the question pertinently. I wish to put it to the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie), to the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) and the hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) and others, as to whether they do not feel as we do on this side of the House that Indians should not live amongst the Europeans. They sympathise with us as far as that is concerned.

If one can attain that object in a different way, why not?

One cannot attain it in any other manner. Here is the opportunity of attaining it. [Time limit.]

I wish to support the amendment of the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) wholeheartedly, and I wish to express the hope that the Prime Minister, after this matter has been brought to his attention so clearly, will recognise the necessity for it. Let me point out that when the native Bills were adopted we saw to it that Europeans living in the areas set aside for natives would be bought out, and Europeans there had no right to sell to other Europeans. Even when they did not want to sell, we forced them to sell; the ground was valued and the Europeans had to get out there in those areas which were declared to be native reserves. But now we come here and propose that in the long run, in those areas set aside for Europeans only Europeans would be allowed to live, and that in the areas set aside for Asiatics, only Asiatics would remain, and that the same process of expropriation should take place. I think the Prime Minister sympathises with us, that he would not like to live surrounded by Asiatics. I would like to see a European area remaining purely European. Here we now have the opportunity of attaining that object. Seeing that we did not attain our wish that in the first instance it should be done immediately, we are now proposing that over a period of fifteen or twenty or thirty years, whatever the case might be, this ideal will be attained, so that Asiatics in European areas cannot sell to Asiatics, but only to Europeans, and that Europeans in Asiatic areas cannot sell to Europeans, but only to Asiatics. In this way we will have proper segregation. The Prime Minister also stands for segregation. Let us then apply it. I wish to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the conditions in Wolmaransstad and other parts of the Transvaal which he knows. Portions of the towns there are already in the possession of Asiatics. We want Asiatics to live on one side and Europeans on the other. If ever a reasonable suggestion was put before the House, and one which really aims at segregation, it is this motion which aims at gradually having segregation. I think hon. members from the Transvaal will say that these proposals are reasonable, and seeing that the Prime Minister has now given them freedom to vote, they must not come and tell us tomorrow or the next day that they were bound by the party Whips. They were given the opening today, and they must not complain tomorrow when we tell them that they could have got one portion of their towns completely white, but that they did not want to do so. They must not reply then that the party Whips prevented them, because in this instance they are not under the discipline of the party Whips, but can vote according to their convictions. We must take the Prime Minister at his word. He stated that members opposite could vote according to their conscience and their convictions. Let those hon. members now consult their conscience and consider what the feeling is in their own towns. I am sure that if they do this, they will feel that they are obliged to vote for this amendment. [Interjection.] I do not hear what the hon. member opposite is saying. Evidently he is willing to live amongst Indians.

Is that relevant only to dwellings or also to businesses?

To both. The Asiatics are penetrating in our towns and in the business sphere. That is deleterious to European trade. We are making this reasonable suggestion. Once again I want to direct an appeal to the Prime Minister to adopt this amendment. The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) knows that there is penetration in his town, and I am sure that he will give his support to this amendment.

The amendment of the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) makes it clear that—

It is in unambiguous terms, and whether he is an Asiatic, a coloured person, or a native, he may not enter into an agreement by which he can acquire fixed property in the Province of Natal. The ordinary interpretation given by our courts is that where the language is unambiguous it must be given effect to, and where the terms of an Act are amended by a later Act it implies the repeal of the provisions of the earlier Act. In terms of the Native Land Acts a native may buy land in a released area in Natal. This proposal of the hon. member for Boshof, if given effect to, would prevent any native buying land in a released area of Natal. It explicitly provides that nobody but a European can purchase in Natal except in a section nine area. It is clear and unambiguous in its terms. This provision would undo the whole of native settlement under the Land Acts so far as Natal is concerned. That is the proposal on which the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom), who is himself a lawyer, seriously challenged hon. members on the other side of the House. The proposal goes further. Nowhere in Natal may anyone, except under section nine, acquire land who is not a European. But under the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Waterberg, only an Asiatic may acquire property in a section nine area. In other words, a native may not acquire property anywhere in Natal, even in a released area. I do admit that our courts would probably hesitate to give such an absurd interpretation to the law, but I do not see how they would have any choice in view of this amendment which is perfectly unambiguous. Then the hon. member for Waterberg comes along….

I regret I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss the amendment of the hon. member for Waterberg because although it is on the notice paper it is not before the Committee.

I will simply take the position then of the amendment of the hon. member for Boshof. He clearly prohibits anyone except a European from acquiring land except in a section nine area. In terms of the Bill these are free areas. It is clear however that natives may only acquire land in the released areas under the Native Land Act, and if there is any doubt about this interpretation I will take the position of the coloured community. While it is not as large as the coloured community in the Cape it is considerable in numbers and its members have the right of land purchase and franchise. In terms of the amendment of the hon. member for Boshof no coloured person would be able to obtain immovable property in Natal, and there is no provision for separate areas for coloured people in the Bill. So in this amendment an attempt is being made to draw in other communities than Asiatics whom this Bill does not contemplate shall be affected. The hon. member for Waterberg has seriously thrown out a challenge to everybody irrespective of party allegiance to support him on that. I wish to draw attention to this because it does seriously affect the rights of other nonEuropean groups. I do in addition want to say if this were given effect to it would infringe a precedent in our statute law that has been observed since Union. In terms of the proposal of the hon. member for Boshof Asiatics outside these exempted areas could not sell to another Asiatic. In all our native land legislation there has always been a saving clause that wherever there is restrictive legislation of this character, limits ing the rights to property of a racial group, existing rights have been maintained, and people of that group have been allowed to sell to the members of their own race. I have never heard anybody on that side objecting to that principle. It is a principle which has been observed where native legislation is concerned, but under this amendment an Asiatic who owns land today could not sell to one of his fellows. That infringes the precedent that has always been observed. I want to emphasise before I sit down the recklessness of this proposal.

A few minutes ago when we wanted to protect Zululand against Indian penetration it was very interesting to observe that the representatives of the natives walked out of the House. That is what their protection of the natives against Indian penetration is worth.

You know the protection exists.

An interesting fact is that while we are dealing with this clause which is vital to the Bill, and I might almost say vital to Natal, practically no members of the United Party representing Natal in this House are present, with the exception of the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp), who is not really affected by this Bill, the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson) and the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson). I thought when we were dealing with a matter of this importance to Natal we would at least have seen here the hon. members in that party who represent Durban constituencies. I do not know why they are absent, perhaps it is because they do not want to support this clause.

It is because they are tired of listening to your nonsense.

And that comes from the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) whose sense has become senile.

Order, order. The hon. member must not be personal.

I apologise but I became personal as a result of a very personal remark made by the hon. member for Hospital, and I think he deserved what he got. It appears to me from remarks that have been made to me by persons outside, not members of this party, that many members of the public do not realise the implications of this clause and what it proposes to do, and I should like in a few words to put it to them. We are dividing Natal into released areas and exempted areas. The released areas are marked white and the exempted areas are marked red on the maps. The white areas are the areas which it is proposed to become the European areas of Natal whereas it is proposed the red areas will be the Indian areas. But now you have this position, that a number of Indians are holding their own property in the white areas, that is the released areas, and if we accept this clause they will go on owning property in the European areas in Natal. According to this Bill an Indian owning property in a white area is not allowed to sell that property to a European. He must sell it to another Indian.

Unless he gets a permit.

Unless he gets a permit he may not sell that property to a non-Indian, he must sell it to another Indian. He must transfer it to another Indian, even in the case of his death the property passes to another Indian. I take it the object of this Bill is to keep the white areas white and to make the red areas, the exempted areas, Indian areas. By why must we perpetuate Indians holding this property in white areas? I want to make it clear that in a white area, a released area, Indian property should only be transferred to Europeans. In other words, in the course of time, we want to make white areas completely European instead of keeping them mixed as they are to a greater or lesser degree in different parts of Natal. They will, if we do this, in course of time cease to be mixed, and in your white areas you will only have Europeans. In the other areas you have a mixed population, you have Indians and Europeans, and we want to do a corresponding thing there. We think it is wrong that Europeans should live mixed up with Indians, and we want to move amendments to make it possible that the areas marked red will be Indian areas arid Indian areas only. At the present moment we are dealing with the one point, to make these areas white in the course of time. The object of our amendment is to make those white areas white. Can anybody tell me why we should not do that? Nobody has advanced any argument. Why? Because the attitude we have taken up is the correct one. Otherwise this Bill is all eyewash. We have areas here marked white and we are telling everyone these are European areas, but an Indian living in these areas—unless he can get a certificate—can only transfer or sell to an Indian; he cannot transfer to a European. Why? I hope somebody will get up and tell us why. Surely the Prime Minister should tell us why? There is no argument in favour of it. It boils down to this that there is a lot of eyewash about this Bill. It means that though new Indians may not come into a white area those Indians in occupation and their descendants will be perpetuated in a European area. Surely that is not the object of the Bill? We call it a Pegging Act. We say we want to have certain areas occupied by Europeans only. Where are the European areas? Do they want Europeans to remain living in the exempted areas? Of course they do not. That is probably why these members are not in the House. They have not the courage to show their faces. Not a single argument has been adduced in favour of clause 2, and these Durban members realise it, and the best thing they can do is to keep out of the House and not show their faces. As strong arguments have been made in favour of altering clause 2 if the Government does not want to allow members …

The Prime Minister said they could vote according to their convictions.

I think he meant the Natal members can run away according to their convictions. That is probably what is meant by it. I think the Prime Minister should tell us why he cannot accept our amendments. They are reasonable, they further the objects of the Bill to create areas with Indians and Indians only in Natal, and not a single argument has been used against our arguments.

We now come to that part of the Bill which receives the greatest measure of suppport from all sides, viz., the idea of delimitation, and everybody hopes that this delimitation would be done so effectively that we would be applying the principle of segregation efficiently. We had hoped that after the passing of this Bill we would receive areas in which Europeans could live and other areas in which Indians could live, but as the Bill reads at present we will have the position where there will still be areas where Indians and Europeans can live amongst each other, and in view of that fact we are not solving the problem at all. In addition to that, in spite of all the good intentions aimed at in the Bill, it still fails as regards the chief object, because we shall have areas where Indians and Europeans do not live amongst each other, but, on the other hand, we shall have areas where they do live amongst each other. Seeing that that will be the case, it seems to me that we will have this position, namely, that the poorer Europeans will find their way to those areas and live there in exactly that atmosphere in which we do not wish them to live. In one regard we are creating a safe paradise for a certain group of Europeans, but in the other respect we are allowing them to live amongst Indians in other areas. The great idea is to have areas where Indians can live, where they can build their houses and surroundings in such a way as to show us what they can do. If we passed the Bill as it is at present, they will nowhere have an area in which they can prove that they can live decently. The real aim of this Bill, segregation, will be missed. Therefore, I should very mush like to see that if this clause is passed, we shall state this principle clearly, that on the one hand we will have areas where Europeans can live, and on the other hand areas where the Indians can live, and that we shall have no places where they live together. We ought by now to have recognised the fact that allowing these people to live together can only cause friction and clashes. In the long run, it causes friction and clashes instead of racial harmony. It breeds racial differences and racial hatred instead of racial harmony, and we shall only be able to attain racial harmony when each one has its own area where each section will be able to live according to its own standards and customs, and so show the country and the Government what it can achieve. If we do not do that, we shall always have the reproach that we did not give them an area in which to work out their own salvation and to show what they can achieve, with the result that all the good arguments with which most hon. members supported this Bill will not work out in practice. I want to plead with the Prime Minister that when we apply the principle of segregation, we shall do it in such a manner that we apply consistently and on a sound basis. But the foundation we are laying at present is not sound. We shall have a Bill which will allow to continue the friction, quarrels and clashes we had in the past between Indians and Europeans. In the course of years the Europeans might be able to say that they now have the majority in a certain area, or else the Indians might be able to say it; and that the other section should get out. Why not now solve the difficulty by giving each one his own area? Then we shall be able to prevent this friction in future, and so only shall we attain racial harmony and avoid racial clashes.

It seems to me that members on the Government side have now become deaf and dumb, or else they are in the process of experiencing a tremendous struggle with their own consciences. As far as I can see, there are present here only the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson), and he is fast asleep; then there are the hon; member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson) and the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp); but the rest of the members are not present. It is a very important matter we are discussing here. In his reply to the debate, the Prime Minister made much of the fact, as he said, that We are solving this problem in the same way that we solved the native problem. There were white areas in the native territories and black spots in European areas, which would be eliminated. Why is the Prime Minister in this connection not also using the solution found at the time by Gen. Hertzog, namely, that the white spots in native areas should be bought out, and, on the other hand, also the black spots in European areas? Where is the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. A. O. B. Payn), who had so much praise for the native legislation as regards the franchise? He stated that we were following the Bills introduced by Gen. Hertzog, but why is he not also lauding them in this connection? But what is really strange to me is that the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) stated here that members opposite also are in favour of segregation; he prided himself on the fact that they were also in favour of segregation, but now he has not the courage to rise and to say that he supports these amendments. Why is the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) so quiet? Does he not support the principle of segregation, or does he like Europeans to live together with Indians? Then there’s the Minister of Justice. We remember that when he was still responsible for Housing he stated that they were also in favour of segregation, and that eventually they would regulate matters so that Europeans live on one side and non-Europeans on the other side. Now he is getting another chance to support that policy of his, but also he is dumb. It is the most peculiar combination we now see on the other side of the House. They all differ.

No, we do not differ.

That hon. member can only interject, but cannot rise here to make a speech which exhibits any intelligence. What is wrong with members opposite? Why do they not now plead for segregation, and where are the members for Natal?

What did you do nine years ago?

We cannot allow this clause to pass, as it is before us now with the Minister of the Interior, whom we now have sitting opposite. The Minister of the Interior was the first to go to Natal to classify the Indians. He made concessions to them at regular intervals. Eventually he arrived at a compromise, and persuaded the Prime Minister to accept the compromise. He beat himself on the chest and stated that he was the man who would issue the permits. We have not the least confidence in the Minister of the Interior. As regards this matter, the European population have no confidence in that Minister, and Natal has no more confidence in him. If Natal had had confidence in him they would have sent him to the House of Assembly. But he has not the courage to defend this Bill in all its details on any platform in Natal. He’s completely incapable of even piloting this Bill through the House. One other matter, Sir: he will continue to make concessions to the Indians. We know that he wants to give the franchise to the Indians in Natal in municipal affairs. He wants to sell or hand over Natal to the Indians. For that reason it is absolutely essential that we should have this safeguard proposed by the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein), namely, that the white areas should become completely white as soon as possible. It will have to take place gradually, but we must now make provision for it. Otherwise, we will once more come to the point where trouble arises, and then the Prime Minister will tell us again that we are faced with a crisis and that we should be realistic and solve the problem, and once more we will concede and concede. The whole policy of the other side is so dangerous that we must now safeguard the future. Otherwise, Natal will become an Indian territory.

I should like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein). I want to say that I do not believe that the Prime Minister can have any objection to adopting this amendment. What we ask for in this amendment is not only in accordance with our party policy but also in accordance with what the Prime Minister has already on two occasions stated in this House. As recently as last year there was an occasion when the Prime Minister said that he was in favour of segregation. In introducing this Bill the Prime Minister also stated that he is introducing it on the basis of segregation. What objection can he then have to the amendment? We have already had the position today when we began to plead for this amendment that the Minister of the Interior suddenly stated, “You know that I will not issue permits undesirably”.

He did not say that. He said that permits could be refused.

We do not trust the Minister of the Interior in regard to permits because as the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) stated, we have seen what goes on in Pretoria. We know the Minister’s actions as the champion of the Indians in Natal. The former Minister of Justice took up the same attitude. When the Indians penetrated unlawfully in Johannesburg, and when a prosecution was launched, the matter was simply stopped. There are other hon. members here who say that the position is safe because permits have to be issued. Hon. members should not all hide behind the permit. If they are correct why is it not clearly stated in this Bill? As the Bill reads today it is not based on segregation. If Asiatics from outside can still purchase in the so-called delimitated areas there will never be segregation and we shall never be able to have those areas completely white. The only safeguard for European civilisation in South Africa lies in segregation. The Prime Minister has now told members on his side of the House that he will leave them to vote according to their convictions. Now hon. members over there will no longer be entitled to say, when they are criticised in their constituencies, that they had to stand by their party, that they were bound by their party caucus. Whatever hon. members on the opposite side do now they do of their own free will and they can vote according to their conviction. Here’s a test for them to show that they are in favour of segregation. Therefore I hope that the Prime Minister, after his actions and statements in this House in regard to segregation, will agree that the salvation of the European civilisation must be sought along the way of segregation, and that he will have no objection to accepting the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to follow the example of hon. members opposite in the personal line they are taking and the personal remarks they are making, and the taunts they are flinging against members on this side of the House. I want to deal with this amendment before us, and state to the Committee why I cannot accept it. This amendment is in conflict with the whole scheme which underlies this Bill.

How do you like that, Middelburg?

I want hon. members to understand what the scheme is, and I shall repeat what I said before. This amendment, together with the new clause which the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has moved to follow on it, forms another scheme, an alternative scheme which is not the scheme before us at all. It is a different scheme and I want to explain once more what the scheme before us is, and why this amendment is in conflict with it and cannot be accepted. Let me take hon. members back to the years before 1943 when the Pegging Act was passed. Before 1943 buying and selling of land in Natal was free and open to everyone. There was no bar or barrier. Indian and European could buy or sell to each other anywhere. We know what the situation is that arose in those circumstances. We had to pass the Pegging Act which said that there shall be no more free buying and selling by Europeans to Indians or vice versa in Durban unless by permit. The Pegging Act has now been in existence for three years and it has expired. Now, what are we doing here? What we are doing in this Bill is in substance to extend the principle of the Pegging Act to the whole of Natal except in certain reserved areas called exempted or released areas where there may be free buying and selling. I am using the term “exempted” because that is in accordance with the amendment we passed this morning. These areas are exempted from the permit system. Now, what we are doing is to make provision for such free and exempted areas in Natal. There will be a certain number of them. Some are specified in the schedule to the Act, and some will be laid down in future after proper investigation, but there will be these red or free or exempted areas, where buying and selling can take place freely. The rest of Natal, the great bulk of the province, remains under the Pegging Act. We are not dividing Natal into white areas and Indian areas. We are applying the Pegging Act and controlling buying and selling promiscuously between Indian and European. This is what this Act does. This permit system instituted under the Pegging Act is carried out under control. No selling by one section to the other will take place without a permit from the Minister. That was the principle of the Pegging Act, and is the principle of this Bill, and the Minister in giving his decision, in granting a permit is bound by certain instructions laid down in this Bill. Hon. members will see what these instructions are. I believe they are contained in clause 8. I just refer to them incidentally to explain the position. Clause 8 says—

and so on, and in sub-section (2) it goes on to say—

That is the position. There is a complete system of control of occupation and of purchasing established for Natal, apart from the free areas. That is the principle of the Bill. There is no attempt made here to divide Natal into European or Indian areas. It cannot be done. The position in Natal, we know, is quite different from that which exists in the Transvaal and elsewhere. In Natal you have an Indian population practically as large as the European population, and they are already living promiscuously all over the province. Therefore any attempt to try now to create exclusively white and exclusively Indian areas, separation to that extent, is an utter impossibility, and will fail. What we are doing is this: We are carrying on the principle laid down in the Pegging Act, and we are controlling, over the great bulk of Natal, this passing of property from one section to the other. That is all you can do. You can say this, that in this control, in the issue of permits by the Minister, he must be guided by certain considerations. He must look at the way the people are living, at the existing housing situation and at the land-owning situation there is, and the racial groups as they exist, and the Minister, in granting the permit, must be guided by these things, having always in view the idea that the two elements should be sorted out as much as possible and that he should issue permits in such a way as to make like live with like, and not have this mixture. That is all that the scheme before us means, and therefore section (2) which is now before us, simply says this, what is done in the Pegging Act, namely that A shall not buy from B or B from A and that the Indians shall not buy from the European, or the European from the Indian, in this area without the control of the Government, and the Government shall be guided by certain fundamental considerations which are laid down in the Bill. This is the utmost extent to which one can go in Natal. If an attempt were made to sort out now in Natal and to create exclusive Indian and European areas, it will fail.

Why?

Because the people are already mixed up to such an extent that you will create the gravest injustices. We have tried now for three years the experiment of control under the Pegging Act, To a large extent it has been successful. It has stabilised the position, and has prevented this accumulating trouble we had to face before the Act was passed, and it will continue to control, beneficially, future development also. It will be possible by Government control to see that the great bulk of the population in Natal is sorted out, and that people gravitate according to their racial groupings, and you will not continue to have this mixture. That will be the position in the great bulk of Natal. Certain areas will be marked out. Some are in the schedule. Others will have to be investigated. Quite a number of urban areas will still have to be enquired into in order to lay out the areas to be scheduled in respect of them where there can be free buying and selling.

If you continue with that process you will ultimately have the whole of Natal as an area where promiscuous buying can go on.

No, the great bulk of Natal is under control. The Pegging Act has worked well for three years, and this Bill will work well for the next thirty years. We are not trying to do the impossible. We are not trying to have a system which will inflict irreparable injury on one section or the other. We are trying to find a system which will ensure that in the end both sections can live together in peace.

You have just said that that is impossible.

I said it was impossible to do it all now.

Our amendment does not say it must be done at once.

The amendment of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) wants it to be done at once.

No, we say it can be done gradually.

We also say “step by step.”

No, the step by step system is what we apply in saying that the buying and selling must be controlled by the Government. In regard to the scheduled or exempted areas, it is not possible to do that. The Indian population do not want to be put into Indian locations. They want free areas, and there is no reason why there should not be free areas where anyone can buy. Even so, in the course of time, there will be a natural process of sorting out. It is inevitable that where you have free areas a sorting out process will take place gradually. But these are the smaller areas. A certain percentage of the country will have this freedom to buy and to sell and to occupy; the great bulk will be under control under the system envisaged in the Pegging Act which we are now applying to the major part of Natal, which is certain to work well in future, and lead to this sorting out which we want.

I am sorry that the Prime Minister has taken up the attitude he has done, but I am very glad that he spoke so clearly, because now there is no longer any doubt as to his attitude, and I hope that hon. members on the other side who feel with us that there should be separation, listened attentively to what the Prime Minister said. His first point is that there is a world of difference between our proposal and what he aims at in this Bill. Well, we propose that there should be separation of the two races, and the Prime Minister says that that is entirely different to what he envisages in this Bill. I hope that hon. members understood this clearly and see the difference between our standpoint and that of the Prime Minister. He further said: “It is utterly impossible to bring about separation.” Later he added to that “at once”. But our motion does not envisage immediate separation. During the second reading we moved for immediate separation and the Prime Minister turned that down through his party, but now we are bringing up an amendment that has gradual separation in view. Let me tell the Prime Minister again what the amendment is. It means that in the white areas Indians can only sell to Europeans, so that eventually all Indians will have left that area. Clause 2 lays down that the Indians are not permitted to sell to Europeans in the white areas. Can you imagine it? An Indian in a white area is not permitted to sell to a European.

Without a permit.

But why is it not permitted for Indians to sell to Europeans so that eventually we can get the Indians out of the white area? The excuse made by the Prime Minister is that they are now living mixed up, and then he falls back on Clause 8 and represents the permits as something by which eventually there will be achieved what we seek to achieve in this amendment. How is it put in Clause 8 (2)? It says—

He “may” (“kan”) take it into consideration but it is not stated that he must do so. In English the word “may” is used. Let us now see how that will be carried into effect. The Minister of the Interior, or the Minister of Justice, or the Minister of Finance may exercise the authority. If the Minister of the Interior, knowing him as we do, should have to take into consideration the housing needs of the people, he will say there are too few houses in the area, and he will give permits for the purchase of more houses from Europeans. This is what will happen. This Clause 8 is not intended to restrict but to extend, and the Minister of the Interior will, in adjudging the needs in regard to further housing, grant permits for further purchases, and this will eventually aggravate the position. Knowing the position of the Minister of the Interior, knowing what Clause 8 says as it stands here, it is one of the most dangerous clauses. In the Pretoria Agreement the Minister of the Interior showed them how he would exercise his power, namely, to permit the Indians to penetrate further in white areas. Now that the Prime Minister has stated hon. members opposite may vote according to their convictions, I wish to make an earnest appeal to hon. members to really vote according to their convictions. Sitting over there are the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson), the hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen), the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp), the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood), the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Visser), the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson), and the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. van der Merwe); let these members and the Durban members as well vote in accordance with their convictions, because then they will be in favour of this amendment. The Prime Minister has now given them permission to vote in accordance with their convictions.

They have always had that permission from me.

Oh no. Does the Prime Minister think that we are always blind? Is it not the fact that when the party whip cracks the Whips move from bench to bench to tell members what they must do? They may not even speak. Now is their opportunity to vote according to their convictions. When I chat with these hon. members outside they frankly tell me that they are in favour of what we have in mind. In their constituencies they also say that. This is their chance to confer a service on White South Africa. But to show further that I am right and that it is not sought by clause 8 to effect the eventual exclusion of Indians from the white areas and of the Europeans from the exempted areas—what we describe as Indian areas—I wish to repeat the Prime Minister’s words and the reason he mentioned as to why he could not accept our amendments. The purpose of the amendment that I wished to propose is to get the Europeans out of the red areas and the Prime Minister said, “The Indians will not be put in a location”. The Indians refused to live in areas where there are only Indians and where they alone can buy. That is the standpoint of the Indians. They object to live in areas where only they can purchase land. In other words, he has conceded the demand of the Indians that they must be allowed to buy land from non-Indians, and under the permit system new areas will be proclaimed where they will live intermingled. Anyone who uses his intelligence knows what will occur if this is left in the hands of the present Government. We know how the Indian population is increasing, and the Prime Minister has already held out the prospect of further areas in Durban having to be proclaimed. Now I want to draw the attention of hon. members from Natal, not only those from Durban where the red areas are, that further areas may and will be proclaimed.

In other parts of Natal; Durban is disposed of.

Let us accept that it is in other parts of Natal. Thus those hon. members who imagine for a moment they are quite safe now know what the Prime Minister has in mind, namely that there will be further exempted areas, that the red spots will be increased. [Time limit.]

I think the Prime Minister has made the matter perfectly clear. Natal is to be divided up into areas. On the map some areas are coloured red, and others are left uncoloured. In the red areas everyone is free to buy and sell without let or hindrance, but in the rest, before anyone can transfer property, he has to get a permit from the Minister of the Interior. That is to say, at present the larger part of Natal is subject to the latter position, that one has to get a permit. Now certain areas have been painted red on the maps, and they apply to Durban and the environs of Durban, Pietermaritzburg, Glencoe and Port Shepstone. But that does not mean that the rest of Natal is to be free from these red splotches. In time to come certain other areas are going to be splotched red and within those areas free buying and selling can go on without let or hindrance from anyone. But in the rest of Natal and in the areas abutting on those red-coloured areas, the Minister of the Interior is empowered to grant permits and he has to take into consideration certain aspects of race grouping and amenities and things of that sort. We have had some of these precious permits in the last three years and we are not altogether satisfied.

Who issued them?

There is nothing to prevent the Minister of the Interior from granting permits which will gradually expand those red areas. There is nothing to prevent him from granting permits which will result in little colonies here, there and everywhere all over Natal, and in the future we are going to have the fact that these colonies are going to be greatly expanding colonies, and the end of the whole matter will be that Natal will be coloured red from Volksrust right down to the sea, and from Umtamvura to the Portuguese border. For that reason I think that the whole matter should be re-cast in the mind of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. He comes to us and says: “You cannot put the Indians in one area here, and reserve those for Europeans”. No, the whole thing is in the hands of the Minister of the Interior, and—I won’t pursue that idea or I shall cast aspersions. I do earnestly recommend to the Prime Minister that he will consider this matter a little more, and see whether there is not a position which can be created which will be a little more favourable to the European and not all in favour of the Indian.

I am glad to see the Minister of Justice in his place, because last year we brought up a motion here in connection with separate residential areas. Now it will be interesting to the House to hear what the opinion of the hon. Minister of Justice was at that time, how he wished to placate us. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) moved an amendment for separate residential areas, and listen to what the Minister said. He said (Hansard, Vol. 50, col. 9060)—

He said that clearly.

Read that again; perhaps he did not hear you.

I read it again clearly—

We do not turn somersaults.

In the same column of Hansard the Minister said further—

But let the hon. Minister refresh his memory a little further. Let me read what he said when he was still Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation. On 2nd June, 1944 (Hansard, Vol. 50, col. 9074)—

Now I want to ask the Minister since when have they run away from this policy? How can they now prevent the Indian in Natal from living amongst the Europeans? Do they wish to tell me that they stand for the principle of separate residential areas? He says the difference is that the Opposition wish to compel him, but they do not wish to compel him or force him and the idea was that it would be done gradually; but now you are preventing the Indian from ceasing to reside amongst the white people, in flat contradiction of the policy you proposed there. And this is why I think we must now get a reply from the Minister of Justice as to Whether they have run away from their policy. Last year they advised us that they stood for separate residential areas, but now the Indians in Natal simply live amongst the Europeans, and, what is more, they are prevented from coming out from amongst the Europeans. These must be mixed residential areas. Consequently I hope that the Minister of Justice will tell us whether they have changed their policy since last year.

I think the House and the country is greatly indebted for the clearness with which the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has explained what his scheme in the first part of this Bill is. It is quite clear that whatever the scheme may be, it is not a scheme of segregation. It is clear that that scheme is, in fact, the very opposite of a scheme of segregation, because the Prime Minister has said very clearly that it is in conflict with the scheme of segregation. Now let us see what the actual scheme is. The Prime Minister has said that it is the Pegging Act scheme. We heard the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister say that this was the time to solve this matter on a grand scale, and how does he attempt to solve it? He attempts to solve this as a permanent solution by adopting what was admittedly a temporary expedient in 1943. When the Pegging Act was introduced the idea was that it was merely a temporary measure to give the Government time to consider a more permanent solution. Three years have passed since that date and now we find this temporary expedient translated into the permanent scheme of the Bill now before us. If ever there was an example of political bankruptcy then it is here. Has the Government not been able in the three years at its disposal to get any further than the Pegging Act of 1943, an Act which was designed merely to stabilise the position temporarily until a more permanent solution could be found? Now the Prime Minister comes along and says it is impossible; he says it is impossible today to apply the principle of separation in Natal. It is a policy of complete despair. It is a policy of complete surrender to the demands of the Indians that they will not be separated. I have said here before that separation in its very nature is a two-way traffic. It cuts both ways, and if you have white areas and you have red areas the people who are bound to live and own land in the white areas may consider themselves as much separated or segregated as those in the red areas. Therefore it is not a question of coming and taking up the position that it is impossible, and the reason the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has given for saying that it is impossible is that the Indians—mark you—refuse to live by themselves. We, the Europeans, in terms of this Bill are confined to the white areas and our feelings are not considered at all, but there is no area to which the Indians are confined in the same way as the Europeans are confined to the white areas. The feelings of the Indians apparently count for more with the Prime Minister than those of the Europeans. Let me put this to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that in this amendment that has been proposed by the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) the over-riding principle is separation; separation in its broad aspect, but coupled with that principle of separation there are three other principles, the importance of which I do not think members sufficiently realise. The first is the principle of reciprocity. We say in this amendment, coupled with the amendment which the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) is proposing, that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander We say: “We will give you areas in which you will have the same rights as we have in our areas.” So as far as the ethical side of it is concerned, no one can cavil at it. There is the principle of reciprocity, but secondly there is the principle of gradualness. We are not asking this state of affairs to be brought about at once. We are not at this stage suggesting any question of expropriation. We did that on the second reading debate and it was turned down. What we are asking now is that over a period of years it should be our policy ultimately to arrive at this stage, not all of a sudden. And the third principle is that we do want to protect the rights of existing owners whether they are in the white areas or the red areas. In other words, as long as those people are the owners they can hold it, but if they want to sell it then the moment they want to sell it they must sell it so that it falls into the broad pattern of separation. It has been suggested that there may be no purchasers. We could then exclude the case where a property in a red area has been put up for sale and there is no Indian to buy it, that then it can go to a European or vice versa. If in the white area there is a property belonging to an Indian and he wants to sell it and there is no European to buy it then in those circumstances it may be sold to an Indian after proper advertisement and after an attempt has been made to sell it by public auction. That I think is very fair. What is the alternative that the Prime Minister puts here? It is a system of permits, a system under which you are going to concentrate powers which by right belong to this House, in the hands of the Minister. That is a further example of this new despotism we have. I want to ask the Minister of the Interior this: In the past three years how many permits have been issued to Indians to buy property from Europeans and how many have been issued to Europeans to buy property from Indians? Let us have those figures, they ought to be interesting. I say that this is not a matter which ought to be left in the hands of any Minister, least of all the Minister of whom we have had the experience that we have had in the last three years of the present Minister of the Interior. It is not fair and it is not right that we should surrender this right which the House has, and all that this amendment asks is that the same policy, which I understand will probably be attained administratively over a period of years, should not be left in the hands of one Minister. We know how Ministers differ; we know what difference there is in their sense of the fitness of things, their sense of when a permit should be issued or not. They are like the chancellor’s foot; they vary with the individual occupant of that post, and we are not prepared to leave a matter of this kind to the vicissitudes and the natural inclination of the Minister of the Interior. We want it to be fixed here by the supreme legislative body in South Africa, the Parliament of the Union, and we must say that those are the lines along which, over a period of years, we must attain the position where there will be a separation between the two races who, if they live cheek by jowl, must necessarily cause friction, and out of that friction is born the unrest and agitation which we have had in the last few years. [Time limit.]

It is true this is a complicated measure with which we are occupied, and that has a significant bearing on the absence of the great majority of members on the Government side, especially the Natal members. But at any rate there is present the present Prime Minister of the Interior, who is not only a Natalian but the person who will have to administer the Act. Now in the first place we should like to ask the Minister of the Interior whether he will not evince the ordinary courtesy to the House when questions are put, as they have now been put by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges), to reply to those questions. But in the second place we should like to know from the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister whether he can give this House the assurance that the silent Minister of the Interior is really conversant with the restrictions of this Bill. This is a Bill which places tremendous powers in the hands of an individual, in the hands of the Minister of the Interior, and members on this side of the House have hitherto not had any assurance that the present Minister of the Interior has the foggiest notion of what this Bill is about. We should like to see him stand up and tell us what his ideas are. And now I wish, with all diffidence, to put a question to the Prime Minister. He has just told us that it is impossible either immediately or in the near future to effect the desired separation between Indians and Europeans, but that he will introduce that sifting-out process by this permit system he is going to institute. I want to put this question to him: Can he hold out any prospect that an application will ever be made by an Indian for a permit to sell to a European? This Bill and the Pegging Act that was passed eventuated as a result of the penetration by Indians. This arose as a result of the capital that was in the possession of the Indian. He employed that capital to purchase fixed property in the Transvaal and in Natal. As a result the Government first introduced the Pegging Act and now it intends by this Act to stop to a large extent Indian penetration. Therefore we ask the Prime Minister whether he can hold out the prospect of an application ever being made by an Indian for a permit to sell to a European. To all eternity this will not occur. So this sifting-out process which the Prime Minister spoke about is, I fear, merely dust thrown in the eyes of the public. Such a thing will never happen. Those red spots that at present exist in Natal will remain there. Only one change can be made, and that is by the application of the permit system, and in the circumstances described by the Prime Minister those red spots will become larger and larger. As an hon. member of the Dominion Party stated a moment ago, eventually it may happen that the whole of Natal will be red.

It is red now.

We wonder why the Prime Minister did not succeed before in closing the mouths of his followers so that they should not speak about this vital principle that is contained in Clause 2; why he did not have the necessary courage to tell the country he dare not go any further, because if he went any further he would lose the present Minister of Finance. He is the individual who stands behind this refusal of the Prime Minister. The Minister of Finance would rather see more rights being given to the Coolie than to have his rights abridged. No, the attitude of the Prime Minister, as well as the attitude of hon. members on the other side, members who privately agree with us, is inexplicable to us. We cannot understand why the Prime Minister should not at least go so far as to give the right to the Indian to sell to a European. He may not do this. He first has to ask for a permit, and if the Minister of the Interior says, for instance: “No, I cannot allow you to sell to a European because there are at present too few residential areas for the Indian,” then he will refuse that permit. As we understand from the experience we have already gained of the Minister of the Interior, this is something that may well be expected of him. Before I resume my seat I wish to make this appeal to the Minister of the Interior that he stand up in this House and show us that he will not only sit there and blow, but that he does know something about the contents of this Bill.

I myself, and I should think quite a number of other members in the Committee, are grateful to the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) for having moved this amendment, because it has succeeded in drawing our attention more closely to the implications, and in fact the positive dangers, inherent in this Bill. He has drawn from the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister an unequivocal statement, so I am informed—he can correct me if I interpret him wrongly — to the effect that if the amendment is passed, then there is no possibility of Asiatics purchasing land anywhere in European areas and anywhere other than in the areas set aside for these Indians. Am I correct?

I never said any such thing.

I am glad to hear it, but now I am beginning to wonder whether it is so; and it only goes to prove how necessary it was for the House to agree to our amendment on the second reading, namely, that we should have gone to a Select Committee and enquired most closely into the implications of the wording of the Bill, because if it is as I now suspect, then you do not want a Bill at all; then it is a waste of time for us to consider the Bill. This House, by a majority at all events, contemplates giving the franchise to the Indians which they have never had before, in exchange for something which we thought was something tangible and which is not. That requires very serious consideration. It is no use burying our heads in the sand, because if the Minister, without let or hindrance, without any other supervision, without any collaboration, except perhaps from his own personal colleagues, can grant permits for the purchase of land by Indians in the white areas—that is what it amounts to—how long will the isolated little piece of land remain as it is? It becomes the nucleus of a growth. There can be no question about that, because the immediate European surroundings are not going to stay there. As the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) correctly says, the whole object, or åt all events the ostensible object, originally was to bring about separation of the races so that there should not be this friction that has hitherto existed. But if you leave the door open in the fashion which is now contemplated and as explained to us by the wording of the clause as it now stands, and to which I am informed the Rt. Hon. gentleman is not prepared to accept an amendment, the danger is there and the danger Will grow.

You had that provision under the old Act.

It may be, but we are now considering the position as a whole. I do not care whether it is on the Statute Book or not. I am examining this clause in the light of our information, and I am concerned about it. As I say, as a Parliament we will have no knowledge either of the fact of a permit being issued or the consideration leading up to the granting of a permit. We shall know nothing about it, and I want to urge this most strongly. I do not know how the sympathies of the present Minister of the Interior lie in this matter, but it depends on his whim; but let us ’assume for a moment—and I say this in no invidious way —and I am glad that the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance has now come in, because I am going to refer to him—let us assume that at some future date he should take over the functions and the administration of the Minister of the Interior, is it not painful to contemplate? The Rt. Hon. gentleman in all probability, his mushy sentimentality being what it is, will probably give every permit that is asked for. When the time comes, God forbid, when the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister may shuffle off this mortal earth—although I hope that will not be for many years; I hope that, like the King, he lives for ever—but supposing the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance takes over the reins of Government, you can easily contemplate the effect of his influence upon the then Minister of the Interior, whoever he might be. Let this amendment go through as it is; let it go through as the hon. member for Boshof moves it, and then it means that in any future development of the Asiatic areas it would be a mass development, a mass extension of the boundaries deliberately brought before this House. You could not do it otherwise if the hon. gentleman’s amendment is passed, and I heartily support it. I see the danger looming ahead, and if we are out to separate the races, as has always been understood by all of us, let us do it, but do not leave the door open for having to come again to Parliament with all the acerbity of feeling that must be engendered by a continued growth of Asiatic penetration, and at that time we will find it still more difficult to curtail their penetration. I find it most extraordinary, in view of the explanation of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, and in view of the fact that the sole right to decide the fate of the European, speaking geographically and socially, rests in the hands of one Minister, that this whole matter is left in the air. It is all right if you make me Minister of the Interior, and on the other hand that opens up another vista. If you get an unsympathetic Minister of the Interior; no permits at all will be granted, so the thing is all left in the air. It is most unsatisfactory and, to my mind, most dangerous.

I am very pleased over the clear speech the Prime Minister has just made. In any event it removes many difficulties. Two things stand out clearly to me. The first is this, that when we heard so incessantly about the policy of segregation especially from members of the Cabinet, after the speech by the Prime Minister we cannot do otherwise than come to the conclusion that to a large extent that was throwing dust in the eyes of some members on that side of the House and especially in the eyes of the people. Pure segregation such as the people desire is not admitted by the Government. What is more, the second thing that is very clear is this, this scheme of the Prime Minister’s contained in this Bill will never lead to a realisation of the ideal of segregation. We will never reach that. We find this position, that in Natal there will be Indian areas on a fairly large scale although Europeans may also live in them. The Indians multiply in those areas and social sores will develop there. In the interests of the ideal of racial peace we cannot tolerate this and for this reason the Prime Minister should accept the amendment of the hon. member for Boshof. It is an inexorable fact that in South Africa you can only realise the ideal of racial peace by means of a policy of separation. Philosophise as we may it is an undeniable fact that if we desire racial peace we must have separation, and therefore we should accept this amendment. When we listen to the speech of the Prime Minister and when we look at the implications of this Bill it is clear that in the course of years we shall have a much worse position in Natal. The Prime Minister knows even better than we do that a dangerous position has developed in Natal. I make the definite assertion that if it was not for the war unpleasant incidents would have occurred in Natal. The war alone has prevented collisions. We cannot suppress the position for all time. This Bill endeavours to clamp it down, but it does not really help. In a relatively short time the discontent there will grow and assume a form that may be highly dangerous not only on the side of the Europeans but on the side of the Indians. If this amendment is not accepted the position will be aggravated. We still have the discontent between the Europeans and the Indians. In addition to that we are now going to have this position of Indians living amongst the Europeans and that those who are living in exempted areas may not go and live there. We are consequently also going to create dissension between these two sections of the Indian population. We are not going to serve the ideal of racial peace. Under this scheme of the Prime Minister’s it will not surprise me if India does within a short period take up the same attitude in regard to Natal as it has taken up in regard to Tanganyika, namely that it should have the mandate over Tanganyika. Within a short period India will also demand the mandate over Natal. You cannot resent this because everything is moving in that direction. I want to make the assertion here that the Indians are the last people who can protest against segregation. They had segregation before any other country in the history of the world. Ever since the Aryan race streamed into India they had segregation there; and it has not been applied in the Christian way but in a most undesirable way, and it is exercised with the greatest determination. Take the fifty million untouchables. That is something you do not find in any other country in the world. Even in the workshops you find segregation in a more acute form than in any other country. One section of the Indian people will not work with the other section in the same factory and then we allow the Indians to tell us that they are opposed to segregation and we do not want to offend them by applying segregation. If the Prime Minister is concerned with racial peace, if he wishes to prevent an unpleasant upheaval taking place in Natal within a measurable period, he will have to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) without further discussion. It is in the interests of the country and in the interests of racial peace in Natal. The Minister of Native Affairs is in his seat. If he has at heart the interests of the natives in Natal he will vote for this amendment. I know that amongst the natives in Natal an anti-Indian feeling is growing and it is assuming larger dimensions than one realises. He stands up here and he tells us that he is in favour of segregation. Well, here is the test. If the Minister of Native Affairs does not vote for this amendment then he should not stand up again in this House and say that he is in favour of segregation. I make an earnest appeal to the Prime Minister to accept this amendment.

I should like at this stage to point out that there have been two occasions in the past when the segregation process was under consideration. In 1923 the Prime Minister introduced the first Class Areas Act,. It was withdrawn in 1924, or rather it lapsed by the resignation of the Government. According to the title of that Bill it was a Bill for the setting aside of “residential” areas, “business” areas and “business and residential” areas for certain classes of persons.

The hon. member is now going beyond the clause.

The same thing that the Prime Minister is proposing in this clause, or rather that is proposed in the amendment of the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) we find in that Bill. The first clause of the Bill laid down that areas might be set aside for certain classes of persons for residential purposes and for business purposes. So the Prime Minister in 1923 proposed the principle of segregation and advocated it, and it was not only for coloureds and natives but also for Asiatics, because in Clause 8 of that Bill we see that Asiatics were one of the classes of persons for whom residential and business areas could be set aside. That is clear from the references to the Act of 1885 of the old Transvaal republic that applied to Asiatics. Consequently it is clear that the Prime Minister in the past also had the idea of separate areas for Asiatics. I have said that this Bill lapsed because the Government resigned. In 1925 the then Minister of the Interior, now the Leader of the Opposition, introduced the same Bill that aimed at separation. We thus had the position that the Government of the Prime Minister in those days, as well as the Opposition that later became the Government, were in favour of separate areas for Asiatics. Members like the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) who supported the Government at that time, were in favour of that, and the party of the Leader of the Opposition were in favour of it just as the Prime Minister, with his Government, were in favour of it.

But the Minister of Finance was not yet with them.

Yes, that is so. He was responsible for the liberal policy effecting a lodgment amongst the party opposite. I obtained these two Bills from the Clerk of the Papers to refresh the memory of hon. members a little. There were thus two attempts made in the past in the spirit of the amendment now proposed by this side of the House. The reason why the Bill brought in by the Leader of the Opposition did not go through at that time was that the Cape Town Agreement was made shortly afterwards. This was the only reason; otherwise we would at that time have had separate areas for the various races in the different parts of South Africa. The great majority were in that time in favour of segregation as is clearly shown by these two Bills.

This clause in the Bill can have one result only; it will not sacrifice the Indians to the Europeans, but it will sacrifice the Europeans to the Indians. Today there are Europeans in the exempted areas. The value of the properties of those Europeans has fallen as a result of this legislation. If they are called upon to sell at the present time they will not get the market value for their properties. What is going to become of those Europeans if they have to suffer this great damage, because we may be sure that they will not want to remain there. We are continually being told that the European population should be increased by means of immigration from overseas. But the Europeans in the exempted areas are not being given any protection, with the result that they will retrogress because no provision is being made for them. We want to know! what the number of Europeans is in the exempted areas. We still do not know what the number is because further exempted areas will still be proclaimed. That is a disturbing prospect, and it creates the conviction in our minds that what is happening here is that the Europeans are simply being sacrificed to the Indians. What astonishes us is that not a single member on the other side has had the courage to say what he advocates and whether he is prepared to sacrifice the Europeans for the sake of the Indians. I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) said with regard to the natives in those areas. We know that the Indians have exploited the natives on a great scale. The natives are an old established race and they gave us many years of service during the whole period that Natal was being built up. We must consider the interests of the natives. I am convinced that they will not want to live in those areas in these circumstances, because they are being starved and pushed out. I want to put this question: Has any consideration been shown to the natives? On the strength of this, anyone who has the interests of the Europeans and of the natives at heart cannot do other than vote for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein). We repeat our request that the members of Natal should get up in this House and tell us what their attitude is in connection with this Bill.’

I just want to draw the attention of the Committee again to a very important point in connection with this clause. The areas coloured white on the map are the areas in which various Asiatics live together with Europeans. They will remain there when this Bill has been passed. The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) put the following very pertinent question to the Prime Minister, whether an Asiatic would ask for a permit to dispose of property he owns in an area which is coloured white. No, he will not do it. Take the case of a European who lives next door to an Indian in such an area. He will never have the right to arrange things in such a way that he will be rid of the presence of the Indian next door. I challenge any member in this House to prove to me that he can do it. He will have to be satisfied, in spite of all his grievances and all the difficulties with which he is saddled at the moment, to live next door to an Indian. He has no right to ask for a permit which will compel the Indian to dispose of his property to a European. This is an important point. Hon. members talk so lightly about segregation. Here I have a specific case where a European lives in such an area. He wants to retain his property but he wants to get away from the Indian next door to him, and yet he cannot make any move because this legislation restricts him. The granting of permits is a question which rests with the Minister of the Interior, but the application must be made by the Indian. I want to put it very clearly. The question of the permit does not really depend on the Minister. It depends primarily on the attitude of the Indian and as long as he does not want to sell he cannot be forced to sell. Then I want to put this further point, that we are dealing here with a concession in favour of the Indians and at the expense of the Europeans in these areas which are coloured white on the map. Now we come to the areas coloured red. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) will move that eventually these areas coloured red should be occupied by Indians only. As far as the areas coloured red are concerned too, the Prime Minister has yielded to the Asiatics. He stated very clearly that he could do nothing about it and that we must resign ourselves to the fact that Europeans and Indians will live there cheek by jowl, because the Indians want to live amongst the Europeans; they do not want to be separated. Here again he yielded to the Indians. Since the Prime Minister has done this, I ask again what is to become in those areas of the welfare of the European race? On the other side of the House we have a number of absent members, and even those who are here are not taking part in the debate. Their mouths have been zipped and they have been forbidden to express their views. They are not allowed to break a lance for the European races whom they represent in this House. The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) asked by way of interjection why we should support this amendment if there is an alternative. Let him tell us what the alternative is. Let the Prime Minister tell us what alternative there is by which we can get total segregation. No, neither he nor anyone else can do it. If there is an alternative then it is a secret and this House is not allowed to know about it. But the people in the country insist on knowing it. It is remarkable that not only are the members on the other side remaining silent but they are systematically disappearing from the House. Take the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp), for example. Initially he regarded this legislation as being of the utmost importance, and since 25th March he has continued to take an interest in the Bill, but after having burnt his fingers this morning and having realised the implicaations of this Bill, he thought it advisable to disappear from the House. What I find deplorable is this. Take the Minister of the Interior, for example. There he sits right opposite me with a red rose in his buttonhole. He is the man who will be responsible for the administration of this Bill. He does not say a word and he refuses to open his mouth. Here we are dealing with a clause which, according to the explanation of the Prime Minister, will be dependent on the administration of the Minister of the Interior. When we couple this clause to clause 8, we see that it will be dependent on the administration of the Minister of the Interior, and up to the present he has not given us the slightest indication as to how he is going to administer this Bill when it becomes law. Not once has he ventured to say a word about it. What is the reason for it? Has he also been forbidden to speak because the Prime Minister is afraid that he will blurt out what he is really going to do? Is the Prime Minister afraid that he will trumpet everything abroad in connection with this Bill, that he will really tell us what he is going to do? No, this type of action does not redound to the honour and credit of the representatives of the people in South Africa. This type of conduct and the manner in which members on the other side are as silent as the grave, is no credit to the voters who sent them here to represent the interests of the electorate. The Prime Minister said that we want to solve this urgent problem. When one reads this clause, one can only come to the conclusion that this Bill definitely does not provide a solution. My contention is that as long as we allow Indians to live in European areas and Europeans in Indian areas, the question will not be solved. We shall still have the position that the Indian will live next door to the European and the European will not be able to keep his children away from these undesirable elements. In attempting to solve this problem we want to do it in such a way that that state of affairs will be eliminated from our national life and I maintain that this measure, unless we accept this amendment, which is a very reasonable amendment, is not going to solve this problem. This amendment, a reasonable amendment which is based on justice, on the maintenance and the perpetuation of the European civilisation, will solve this problem, because it cannot be solved as long as we allow these two races to live cheek by jowl. For that reason we one this side urge with all the power at our command that this amendment be accepted, or, at any rate, that we be given a sound reason why you are not prepared to accept it.

I must confess, until I heard the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister deal with the amendment of the hon. member for Boshof, I could not fully comprehend the meaning of this Bill. I am also willing to hazard the opinion that 90 per cent. of the people of Natal have not comprehended it, and that from the day upon which they understand the real position there will be a different spirit shown in Natal. But I do appeal to the Press: Do not let us have any further suppression of the real facts. The fact is admitted by the Prime Minister today that the proposal that certain areas which are marked red in the very impressionist map which accompanies the Bill is not really a proposal that those areas shall be regarded as the only areas in which the Indians can buy, but that in addition the Indian is free to buy, with the consent of the very accommodating Board the Minister can choose at any time. Indians will be free to buy in any corner of Natal, and the process can be repeated of having a further crop of red areas painted on the map, the white areas being thus converted gradually into red areas. That is inevitable from the statement made by the Prime Minister this afternoon, and to my mind it is the gravest statement we have yet heard in regard to this Bill. I should like to make this suggestion to the Minister of the Interior. If he really believes that this Bill has in it the germ of fairness to the people of Natal, who are his fellowcolonists, let him go with me to Durban immediately. Let him, with all the prestige and power at his command as a Minister of the Crown, summon the people of Durban from every corner of that city, and let us both go on to a platform and each man tell his story. I do not for a moment claim to be a public speaker, but I will wager in those circumstances that I shall be able to tell the people the truth, and when they hear the truth that is the last we shall hear of the Bill in its present form. The Bill today is laden with the greatest possible danger to the people of Natal. It will not end with the liquidation of the position on the plan of those attractive-looking maps. We have all been led to suppose that there was a certain amount of reluctance to name those areas as Indian areas, because all people could buy there for the time being. Instead of which we should have been told that the Indians under permits from the Minister can buy anywhere, and will continue to buy anywhere until this Bill is superseded by another Act. They can buy in any corner of Natal at the present moment, with the approval of the Minister and his Board.

From other Indians.

You have not read the Bill’.

No, the proposal is that the Minister and his Board shall be able, through the issue of a permit under Clause 2, to make legal what is declared illegal by this Bill itself, and the position that will be brought about will be that as long as Indians are permitted to buy outside the red areas, we continue to create the beginnings of further red areas for the Indians. Some of the Indians already own land in farming areas. You will bring about a state of affairs that will be chaotic in the province of Natal. There has never been a worse day for the province of Natal than the day upon which the Minister of the Interior was given that portfolio. In that capacity he has proved one of the worst enemies Natal has ever had.

Hear, hear.

I say that advisedly on the ground of his administration of the Pegging Act. I was one of those persons who were appealed to by the Ward Associations in Durban to send a telegram to the Prime Minister appealing to him for the curtailment of the excessive number of property transfers that were being committed by the Board under the Pegging Act. That is only a mild indication of what the present Minister of the Interior will be able to do, by virtue of the provisions of this Bill. He will be able to establish red spots in every portion of Natal, beginning from the farms already owned by Indians, from which Indians will extend their ownership to other adjacent places. We shall have no end to it. Instead of our putting an end to this state of affairs, we are just making a new start with it. With the aid of this Bill, there will be established red areas throughout the whole of the province. The only areas protected from that will be those areas falling within the northern districts, which are now protected by the amendment moved by the Prime Minister today. The rest of Natal is exposed to the very gravest danger, and that danger is enhanced and rendered more acute by the existence of the Board proposed by the Bill, and by the wide powers the Minister of the Interior will have under this Bill, advised by that Board.

We are really witnessing a comedy in the House today. We are dealing with one of the most important matters which can be deliberated upon in this country. We are dealing with a matter which has occupied the minds of the people of South Africa for many years, a matter which fills us all with deep concern when we think of the future, and while’ we are dealing with what is in actual fact Probably the most important clause in the Bill, although we have been dealing with it this afternoon for almost 2½ hours, not a single member on the Government benches, except the Prime Minister, has up to the present expressed his view in connection with this matter. In every other debate we have had up to the present, if the case of the Government could be defended at all, members on the other side get up in great numbers to defend the case of the Government. Although we are dealing today with a most important matter and although we have dealt with this clause for 2½ hours, not a single member on the other side has ventured to defend his Government in connection with this matter.

Not even the Minister of the Interior.

Even the Minister of the Interior who said that we would hear from him lacks the courage to get up this afternoon and to defend the attitude of the Government in connection with this matter. This is a democratic country and we pride ourselves on our parliamentary system, a system that we want to retain, and under that system when matters of this kind are brought before the people they must be debated in this House and the best possible solution must be found as a result of the debates which are conducted in this House. I want to know what has been the contribution of Government members, as is the custom, in analysing and finding the best possible solution for this complicated problem. It is very clear to me that there is a tremendous difference of opinion in connection with this legislation. There is also a tremendous difference of opinion particularly on the Government side in connection with the clause with which we are now dealing, and no hon. member on the Government side may allow a matter such as this which is contained in clause 2 to be placed on the Statute Book if it does not meet with his approval. The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) has alleged twice today by way of interjection that the same final result can be obtained through this Bill as the Nationalist Party on this side seeks to attain by means of the amendment of the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein). If that is the case, I challenge the hon. member to get up and to explain to this House in a speech how these results can be attained which he alleges can be attained.

I speak when I like, not when you want me to do so.

The hon. member says he speaks when he likes. We are living in hopes. We hope that the hon. member will get up before the clause is put and prove to the House that what he says is right.

I was very disappointed in this Bill, but after the speech of the Prime Minister this afternoon I am more disappointed than ever. We knew that there was a great difference of opinion. We knew that as far as this Bill is concerned, there was a tremendous difference of opinion between the Government and the Opposition. But we also know that there is a tremendous difference of opinion on the Government side. It was my conviction that we were paying a tremendous price—to achieve what? To achieve this result, that in the future the Asiatic will also be governed on the fundamental principle governing our native policy, the principle of separateness. It has now become clear to me from the speech of the Prime Minister that there is absolutely no idea at all of also applying the principle of separatism to the Asiatic in this country. For many years we in South Africa have differed on the fundamental principle of how the coloured people in this country should be governed, whether they will be governed on the South African national principle of separatism or whether the coloured people will be governed according to the wishes of the liberalists, as we know their policy in this country. After hearing the Prime Minister this afternoon, I cannot help coming to the conclusion that this legislation does not represent any attempt— in fact the Prime Minister said so—to govern the Asiatic according to the principle of separatism. I believe therefore that this legislation has been introduced on the one hand to give a certain amount of relief in view of the agitation on the part of a certain section of the country because these people are afraid of economic domination, but it seems to me that the greatest reason which motivated the Prime Minister in introducing this legislation was to satisfy the Asiatic who was clamouring for greater political rights. As a result of that clamouring the Asiatic is being given important political rights which he has never enjoyed, and in that way the liberalists are being satisfied with that portion of the legislation. And what are we getting in return for it? We are not getting the maintenance of the principle of separatism but simply and solely that the Pegging Act is now being made permanent. I would be sadly neglecting my duty if I did not express my indignation that the country is being asked to pay this tremendous price for nothing else but the perpetuation of the Pegging Act and not the maintenance of the principle of separatism.

I also want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein). I feel that I must express my deep regret that the Prime Minister did not see his way clear to accept this amendment. When the second reading of the Bill was agreed to, I thought the Prime Minister would accept certain amendments when we came to the Committee Stage, but so far it seems to me that that is not the case. He is proceeding with the Bill as it stands, whatever we on this side of the House may say. If this clause is accepted, there is no doubt that the Asiatic will score a triumphant victory over us. The Asiatic is getting just what he wants under* this Bill. The Asiatics will have a foothold; they will systematically penetrate into one place after another and push out and outwit the Europeans. We know their tactics and we know in what underhand ways they acquire properties. We shall have this position in the Transvaal too. Great areas already belong to them. They buy under pseudonyms and establish companies and in that way they acquire land. One need only mention Lichtenburg where they have already penetrated in this cunning way. In Natal they will practically be free to penetrate in areas where they ought not to be. This measure is no solution and the Asiatic is scoring a triumphant victory over the European. I also want to object most strongly to this Bill. I would be neglecting my duty if I did not state my attitude in regard to this Bill. I am becoming perturbed. This Bill is going to give the Asiatic just what he wants.

I also would like to direct an appeal to the Prime Minister to reconsider the amendment of the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serf ontein). This amendment aims at laying down once and for all the policy of segregation which the Prime Minister himself would like to have in South Africa. Evidently the Prime Minister does not wish to adopt the amendment, and from that I must deduce that he is much more concerned about the future of the Indians in Natal than about the future of the Europeans. It has been stated that the Indians amount to about half the number of the whites. Therefore the danger is very great and it is utterly essential to accept the amendment in order to prevent the European civilisation from going under and being thrust aside and swallowed by the Indians in Natal. The danger inherent in this Bill is that the white areas will systematically disappear while the red spots become increasingly larger, and that the Europeans will eventually no longer know where to live. I went through Natal and the Prime Minister also knows that all the important businesses are today controlled by Indians. According to this clause, too, Europeans will not have the right to take over businesses from Indians, but Indians will have the right to take them over from Europeans if they can receive permits. And seeing how well we know the Minister of the Interior, who will be responsible for the granting of permits, we know that he will not refuse permits. That is the great danger. For that reason I appeal to the Prime Minister to reconsider the amendment and to see that the Europeans in Natal are safeguarded, so that they are not completely swamped by the Indians. The same process is possible in the Transvaal, where the Indians are already living in white residential areas. They are already monopolising all the businesses in the chief towns in the Transvaal, and if we accept this amendment, its effect can be extended to the Transvaal and we can also try there to limit development. The Prime Minister has stated that this Bill aims at continuing the provisions of the Pegging Act. That is what it amounts to. Clause 2 provides that Europeans will not have the right to occupy or get possession of the businesses and residential areas of Indians. I want to ask the Prime Minister to give his attention to the matter and to prevent the Europeans in Natal and even in the Transvaal from being swamped by the Indians. Let us have separate residential areas. Already there are many Indians amongst the Europeans and the Town Council of Volksrust, for example, did everything in its power to remove the Indians, but they could not manage it because there is no Act by virtue of which they can remove those Indians. One finds a chaotic state of affairs which is being perpetuated by this Bill. Once more I ask the Prime Minister to consider the amendment and to prevent the intermingling of these various elements.

I am surprised to see the attitude adopted here in regard to the reasonable request contained in the amendment of the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein), namely to apply the principle of segregation gradually. When the Prime Minister introduced the Bill we on this side stated that as far as the first part of the Bill was concerned we could support it to a large extent, because it contained the principles of our party, but at that time we did not know that it was intended that property in the hands of Asiatics in the European areas would not eventually pass into the hands of Europeans. The Natal members sitting opposite will agree with me that we who live in the Free State do much business with Durban. It is our seaport, and it is the place where for all these years we have done our business and where we have traded. The Minister of the Interior is a unilingual English-speaking person. I want to ask him where are the original old English firms, those importers who through the course of many years had built up a reputation for themselves? Have Indians not today taken their place, and are they not the directors of the great companies? Those good old English firms with whom we did business for years, and honest business, are today in the hands of the Asiatics. Is that not enough to show that the time has arrived to draw the line? It is now the duty of the Prime Minister to help Natal, and to help South Africa in doing it. It will be a slow process, and the aim can only be attained over a period of years, but then we must now lay the foundation for it. We dare not wait, but must lay the foundation now. We are here dealing with a race whose standard of living is low, and we know that the European in the same area cannot compete with him. His standard of living is much lower, and the European cannot compete with him. In view of the fact that we are here laying the foundations for the future we dare not play into their hands and create difficulties and make it possible for the properties of Europeans to fall into their hands still further. The aim of this amendment is to insure that the possessions of the Europeans will gradually come back into the hands of the Europeans in Natal.

I should like to put a few questions to the Prime Minister. The principle of segregation has now been very clearly stated by this side of the House, a principle with which the hon. members opposite also pretended to agree to, or at least, many of them rendered lip service to it in the past. But now the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister evidently does not want to give way. He is fully determined to apply these principles of the Pegging Act and to perpetuate these conditions of mixed living. I now want to ask what the reason is for the Prime Minister’s obstinacy. I want to ask him whether there was any correspondence with the British Government in connection with this matter.

Not at all; not in the least.

Or an exchange of ideas?

Nothing.

Was there any exchange of ideas in connection with the Pretoria Agreement?

No.

Preliminary to the deputation which has now been sent to India from Britain, was there no exchange of ideas?

No.

If that is so, I want to ask the Prime Minister why, if this is being regarded solely as a South African problem, as something which has no “Imperial context”, as it was expressed in the past, the Prime Minister does not approach the problem from the South African point of view? You see, we had experience in the past of the “Imperial context”. The whole of the history of the Asiatic in Africa is permeated with the “Imperial context” idea. I might just remind the Prime Minister of what happened after the first responsible government had come into power in Natal. One of the first Acts they passed was to the effect that when the period of indenture of Indians had terminated they could remain on in the Province as free Indians only if they paid a poll-tax of £25 per annum. The idea underlying that policy in Natal was to send the Indians back and not to let them remain on in Natal. What happened then? The British Government interfered in the matter. There was correspondence and an exchange of ideas, and in the result the responsible government in Natal was obliged to reduce the tax from £25 to £3 per head. That was in 1896. But even before that time the Act of 1885 was considered in the Transvaal and passed, and again the British Government, under the pretence of applying the terms of the London Convention of 1884, interfered, and again there was diplomatic correspondence between the two governments, as a result of which the Transvaal Government had to amend the Act in material respects. It had to reduce the registration fee from £25 to £3, and the old policy of segregation adopted by the old Transvaal Parliament was only to be applied for sanitary reasons. That is the interference which took place in the past as far as South Africa is concerned. But one had the same interference in Kenya in 1922 when the Europeans, under the leadership of Lord Delamere, saw the, danger of Indian penetration and tried to safeguard the Europeans in Kenya, and also those races who have their homes in Africa and do not come from Asia. Then again there was interference which had as result that except in the case of the highlands the principle of segregation had to be abandoned in Kenya. For that reason I am now asking whether there was again any question of similar interference. If the Prime Minister gives me the assurance that there was no exchange of ideas and no correspondence at all, then I ask—and the people of South Africa have the right to ask —if there is no longer the “Imperial Context,” why in heaven’s name do you not set out to act purely in the interest of South Africa? If you are no longer obliged to pay attention to the relationship between Britain and India, if the British Government has brought no influence to bear on you in this regard, if you on your side are not obliged to bear in mind that aspect of the matter, why do you then retreat from the attitude adopted by you in 1929? Did the Prime Minister then hold the views which he now holds? No, then the Prime Minister wanted to put the Indians into bazaars. That was his election cry in 1929. That went much further than we now want to go, because the principle we now lay down is one of reasonableness and justness towards Europeans and Indians. If you are no longer bound by any British considerations in respect of India, why can you not solve this problem on the basis of segregation? That is the principle inherent in the thoughts of the English-speaking as well as the Afrikaans-speaking people in Natal and the Transvaal. Coming down to brass tacks, we are dealing here with a matter which is not regarded on racial lines by the English speaking population vis-à-vis the Afrikaans-speaking people. Everybody realises the importance of it, or at least the majority of English-speaking people realise its importance just as much as we do. Everybody who is interested in the preservation of the European civilisation, the western civilisation, must support the principle of segregation. I now ask the Prime Minister with all the seriousness of which I am capable: Can he not apply this principle which he himself applied in another respect here also? We do not ask for something which is unreasonable or unjust towards others, but we do say that there are two separate races. The question is not whether the one is better than the other. The only question is whether they are identical, or whether there is a difference between these two races in their standard of life, their economic standard and of culture and philosophy of life; whether there is a difference in their ethical standards. And when we regard the matter from this point of view, I say that it is only a principle of common sense to keep those two races apart as far as possible, because the moment you throw them together you cause friction, and as a result of that friction you get all the evils which we had in Natal in the past. We have an indigenous problem in South Africa with all its racial groups. Why should we now, in regard to a racial group which is not indigenous to South Africa, and which therefore has less right to make demands on us, place that group in the position in which the Prime Minister places it by virtue of his willingness to make concessions, to such an extent that he is throwing overboard the principle of segregation? The Indian population in our country constitute a minority group, and they are an extraneous group, but on their behalf the Prime Minister is willing to sacrifice the principle of segregation, the only principle which can form the basis of continued existence of the European civilisation in South Africa.

I shall be glad if the Prime Minister will listen attentively to this new aspect which I now want to emphasise. Our amendment reads that in certain areas only Europeans can purchase land, and a later amendment we intend moving will be to the effect that in other areas only Indians can purchase land and occupy properties. As far as this amendment is concerned, the Prime Minister waves his hands and says: We cannot do such a thing. Now I just want to remind the Prime Minister and members on the other side of the Bill which the Prime Minister himself introduced in 1924. The title of the Bill was as follows—

Thus it was a Bill designed to make provision for class areas for Indians.

And what is wrong with that?

I do not say that there is anything wrong with it. My point is that the Prime Minister at that time proposed what we are proposing now. In clause 4 of the Bill the Prime Minister proposed that certain areas should be set aside where certain races could live, and that on the other hand areas would be set aside where other races could live. I will read the provision—

1. (a) for any person other than a person of the class concerned to acquire immovable property or a lease or renewal of lease of immovable property within any such area; or
2. (b) for any person of the class concerned to acquire immovable property or a lease or renewal of lease of immovable property anywhere within the urban area save within the limits of the class residential area or of the class residential and trading area, as the case may be.

It is crystal clear. In this Bill the Prime Minister proposed that there would be separate areas or districts, and that in such districts only one class of person would be able to live. In areas set aside for Asiatics, only Asiatics could buy and occupy properties. What we are now proposing in our amendment is not something which, as the Prime Minister said, is quite unacceptable; it is something which he himself proposed in 1924.

Why did you not do it?

That does not matter. I am not discussing the reasons why the Prime Minister did not carry it through. I am dealing with the fact that what we are proposing here is exactly what he proposed. If the hon. member for Rustenburg wants to ask his Leader why he did not carry it through, he can do so. The Prime Minister has the chance of saying why he did not carry on with it. But, as he proposed it, it is very peculiar that he should now raise his hands in indignation and say that this proposal is so unfair—towards the Indian. He does not speak of unfairness towards the white man, but of unfairness towards the Asiatic. He says that our proposal is unfair towards the Asiatic, but take note that in the red areas it is permissible for an Asiatic to sell to a white man or to buy from a white man, but the Prime Minister will not even give the white man permission to buy from the Asiatic in the white areas.

That is a distortion.

That is the position except for the permit system, and the permit system under the Minister of the Interior will work just the other way round. It will not be used to allow the white man to buy land from the Asiatic. If the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) imagines this to be the case, then I can only say to him that in 10 or 15 years’ time he will wake up like a second Rip van Winkle to find out that a large portion of Durban has become a coolie province. I thought it would be as well to bring this piece of history to the attention of the Prime Minister, and to ask him to do now what he wanted to do at that time.

That was just before an election.

Perhaps it was only an electioneering cry. Perhaps he was in earnest about it, or it was merely electioneering propaganda. The Prime Minister will be able to tell us. In any case, an election is not near at hand at the moment, and he can do now what he proposed doing at that time. Let him be just as sensible as he was in 1942. He has no less wisdom now than he had at that time. One must surmise that his wisdom has grown with his experience. Let him do the sensible thing, and accept this amendment.

I want to go a little further than the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom). In connection with the introduction of the Pegging Act in 1943 the Prime Minister indicated that when further legislation was introduced it would merely be a continuation of the Pegging Act. This legislation is a continuation of that Act with certain alterations in favour of the Indians. Natal is not as well off under this Bill as under the Pegging Act: it is considerably worse off. Take the red areas. There Indians can purchase land from Europeans, but under the Pegging Act they could not purchase land from Europeans in those areas.

There were no red areas under the Pegging Act.

Nowhere in Durban were the Indians permitted to buy land from Europeans, and now there are, in fact, large areas where Indians are permitted to buy land from Europeans. In other words, as far as protection of the white man is concerned this legislation affords much less than was extended to him under the Pegging Act. But when the Minister of Justice introduced the Pegging Act in 1943 the Prime Minister did not intend to stop at that. He regarded it as a temporary measure that would give him time to introduce more comprehensive legislation, probably legislation containing the clauses of the 1924 Bill. Let me read from the speech made by the Prime Minister in 1943 when the Pegging Act was passed to show that the legislation he then had in view was not the Bill that we now have before us in 1946. On that occasion the Prime Minister said, I quote his words in English—

He emphasises that it was only a temporary measure, as he puts it. Then he goes further—

What became of this judicial enquiry? We have seen nothing of it. He continues—

The Prime Minister said further—

And then further—

I link that up with what the hon. member for Waterberg said here, namely that when the Prime Minister spoke about the Pegging Act in 1943 he had in view something on the lines of the 1924 legislation—the Class Areas Bill. I again emphasise that his whole speech indicated that the Pegging Act was only a temporary measure, merely to stabilise the position until such time as an enquiry could be instituted to see what steps were necessary to afford further protection to the Europeans; because we must remember that the object of the 1943 Pegging Act was to protect the Europeans against Indian penetration. Its object was to stop the Indians temporarily, to preserve the status quo. The Prime Minister himself stated that he would appoint a judicial commission of enquiry. We never had that, nor any important enquiry after 1943 to provide this House with advice in regard to what steps should be taken. No, the Prime Minister is doing what he has always done; he lets things develop. He speaks nice words about a judicial commission and all that sort of thing, but he does nothing. It is a case of soft words and fine talk and all the time he is occupied with his old policy of allowing things to take their course. After the three years that have gone the position of the Europeans is now worse than it was under the Pegging Act. The Prime Minister lets things take their course until he is suddenly faced with a crisis, and then he has to take action. Now he is going a little further in this sense that the Act is being made applicable to the whole of Natal and not to Durban only, but in other respects he is going no further than in the legislation of 1943. It is only because a crisis has arisen in other parts of Natal that the Pegging Act is being applied there, but it is being applied in a modified form compared with the Act as it has been administered in Durban since 1943. The other parts of Natal imagine they are better off than Durban was under the Pegging Act. They have now been disillusioned. They are not better off but they are worse off than Durban was under the Pegging Act of 1943. This Bill represents merely a shelving of the problem to the future, and not a solution of it. It is merely a little more salve to smear on Natal’s sore without going down to the real cause of the mischief. The Prime Minister is only treating the symptoms of the disease. He is smearing salve in order to deal with the symptoms without going to the root of the trouble. That is something that is dear to the heart of the Prime Minister, if he can but postpone the solution of a matter.

Since this amendment was moved something has transpired in this Housce which I certainly did not expect. The amendment was definitely introduced in a very able manner. Many good reasons were mentioned why an appeal was being made to the Government for the acceptance of the amendment; but hitherto, with the exception of the Prime Minister, not a single person on the other side has stood up to give reasons why this amendment should not be adopted. No effort has been made to refute the arguments of this side of the House. It is true the Prime Minister rose and said that it could not be accepted, but I have never seen the Prime Minister so unconvincing as when he made that statement. He gave no reasons why this amendment cannot be accepted. When I consider the attitude of the members on the opposite benches I am involuntarily reminded of the story about the kangaroo. We know about the person who was told that the kangaroo carried its young in a pouch. He refused to believe it and when he saw it himself all he said was: Come, let us clear off; I still do not believe it. From this side we have furnished proof that it is necessary to adopt this policy of separation but members on the other side are as silent as the grave. I want to make an appeal to them that if they do not think about themselves they should at least think about posterity. If they allow these mixed residential areas to continue, as they will continue under this Bill, they should think about posterity.

That is an old story.

That hon. member has not got an old story. I should like to ask this of members on the other side. Seeing there are mixed residential areas of Europeans and non-Europeans, if they give it consideration they will find that it is not a case of non-Europeans being raised to the living standard of Europeans when they live amongst them, but the Europeans fall to the standard of the non-Europeans. It is definitely not beneficial to European civilisation, nor is it beneficial to the nonEuropean civilisation. Both suffer by it and I am making an earnest appeal to members on the other side to give to this matter the earnest consideration it deserves, and to assist this side of the House to ensure this amendment being adopted. The amendment has not been moved with any idea of obstruction. The Prime Minister made an appeal to the House this morning for co-operation. During this debate has there been any co-operation from members on the other side in connection with this amendment? No, there has been a total absence of co-operation. I would ask the Prime Minister not to address his appeal for co-operation to this side of the House but to address it to his own followers so that we can make progress with this matter; and when we on this side show good reason why an amendment should be adopted let them discuss those reasons and present other reasons if they think the amendment should not be adopted. They may be able to convince us that the amendment is not necessary, but no attempt has been made from the other side to make headway with this matter. Although it appears that an appeal to the Prime Minister is absolutely futile I would nevertheless again appeal to him for his support and for the acceptance of this amendment for improving the position not only of the Europeans but also of the non-Europeans.

Since the speech by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) a great deal of new light has been thrown on this debate. He is a Natalian and he was under the impression when the Prime Minister moved the second reading of this Bill that the Bill aimed at segregation. I am convinced that the Natal members all held the same opinion, that the Bill was so drafted that it would bring about separation, and members on the other side were for the most part under the impression until today that this was the object of the Bill. Now they are disillusioned.

Just think.

That hon. member thinks that he has a monopoly of wisdom and he always is telling us of his wonderful past, regarding which we are all rather tired. When, however, we read what he writes we see what nonsense he is capable of and how little he knows. Take an hon. member like the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer), whose family has taken part in the building up of Natal since the beginning and who is proud of being a Natalian. I am convinced that he did not understand this Bill and all its implications. He also thought that the white areas would be exclusively white areas. He has spoken a good deal with us and he cannot talk that away. He has told us in the lobbies time and again that he is worried about the position in Natal, and now he comes here and he sits here without making a single contribution. It is not right.

He may not.

It is not right that the hon. member for Durban (Point) should sit here as if he is dumb.

Order, order. The hon. member must return to the amendment.

I come to the amendment. The hon. member can assist us in our effort to effect separation in Natal, and particularly in Durban. If he allows Clause 2 as it is drafted to be adopted, with such a Minister of the Interior as we have, then he can be certain that his descendants will live in a red area, in an Indian area. It is very good that we have these contacts. There are some of us who are young. We look to the future and we should like to have our contacts on the other side, and you must allow me to make an appeal to hon. members on the other side. We no longer wish to listen to men like the Minister of the Interior. He no longer has the courage to fight for the future.

He is not even here.

Today the Prime Minister throws up his hands. He has neither heart nor counsel for the future.

As usual.

He has no solution for the future. He allows things to develop to a certain stage and then he says we must give in. That is not the spirit of South Africa. The Prime Minister has always told us that we must look to the spirit of South Africa; when a problem appears we must tackle it. I remember the days when he was Minister of Justice and when he was filled with zeal and when he still had courage, but he holds communion with a set of old men on that side and he is losing the heart to do these things. He must cut adrift from the Minister of Finance, otherwise he will become infected with his liberalism. We must make an appeal to those members. Why cannot the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) stand up and tell us where we are wrong?

No, he thinks we are right.

We ask those hon. members to tell us where we are wrong, or rather we challenge them to prove that they still stand for separation.

You have never been right yet.

Are they going to say in the future in Natal that they stand for separation? The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) challenged the Minister of the Interior and said: “Let us hold meetings together in Natal and let us hear the voice of Natal.” Today we do not hear the voice of Natal. I am prepared to accompany the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson) to his constituency and to fight his standpoint, and I am prepared to go with him on the same platform, and then he will have to explain why he no longer stands for separation, and why under this Bill he wishes to allow Indians to live together with Europeans in the white areas for ever and ever.

It is really a very tired commando that is sitting on the opposite benches. It must be difficult when one has a leader like the Prime Minister who has to rely on the assistance of an old commando like that who have not even the courage to stand up and plead for their Coolie pals. The whole point is that they have no interest in a white South Africa. Take my old friend the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson). Once he fought the Coolies.

Order, order. The hon. member must keep to the clause or the amendment.

I want to keep to it.

Order, order. The hon. member must return to the clause.

I would only say that I am very sorry the Prime Minister, who we thought had the courage of his convictions, is doing nothing here to give the white man the assurance that Natal will eventually not become a Coolie country, that Natal will not eventually be a half-caste country. I am very sorry that he now is surrendering the principle of segregation. I am sorry that he is even breaking the Pegging Act that he introduced. Under the Pegging Act the Coolie could not buy land in white areas. What is happening now? The Coolie has the right to remain in those areas and to remain there for ever. But what is the Prime Minister doing further? He is now abandoning the whole point of segregation and creating an area in Durban that will be a half-caste area. I ask the Prime Minister to stand by this policy of segregation that he himself has pleaded for in the past. We know he has always had courage in the past. I am sorry that he is now surrendering that big point and that his followers who sit behind him will not even stand up and speak against this clause.

Order, order. The hon. member is now repeating all those arguments that have already been used.

But this one is my own.

Order, order.

I am very sorry that the Prime Minister should at this stage in his career go so far as to surrender this big principle. I hope that he will yet listen to this side of the House and give in on this point.

Question put: That all the words from the commencement of the clause down to and including “in an” in line 56, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause, and the Committee divided:

Ayes—78:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

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.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

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.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

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.

Steyn, C. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

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—49:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Brink, W. D.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

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.

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.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, D. F.

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, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

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. Serfontein dropped.

Amendment proposed by the Prime Minister put and agreed to.

Clause as amended put and agreed to.

I move—

Agreed to

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 8th April.