laid upon the Table—

Papers referred to the Select Committee on Native Affairs.

moved—

He said: It was the cynical Voltaire who remarked that language was given mankind to conceal its thoughts. On occasion that may be true, but at the same time, however, there is no doubt that the right of free speech in public meetings is one that is recognized in all civilized communities. It is one that should be protected and jealously guarded. It is common cause in the Union of South Africa that this right has been done violence to, more particularly at political meetings. On the Reef and in the country, time after time meetings have been turned into riotous assemblies and have been frequently broken up by the action of lawless, intolerant, and disorderly persons. It is sometimes the work of organized gangs and it is sometimes that of a few individuals or even of one. I would ask hon. members to consider what this means to a Parliamentary candidate at an election meeting. The candidate goes to considerable expense; he hires a hall, advertises his meetings, and gets the assistance of his supporters. The public attend, and yet through the conduct of a few ill-mannered ruffians the meeting is broken up. Violence in such a case as that is violence to the rights of the candidate and to the public who attend the meeting. I expect most members here have had some experience of this kind. I myself have had frequent experiences. I remember one meeting I held was broken up through the action of one individual. This individual, while another speaker was addressing the meeting, got up, and insisted there and then upon putting certain questions. It was pointed out that the opportunity of putting these questions would shortly be afforded him, and in the meantime he should allow the speaker to proceed with his remarks. He persisted and kept standing on the floor of the hall, being incited by some hooligans. Eventually the chairman had to close down the meeting. There was another case and I would like to mention the circumstances of this case as a warning to members. A friend of mine had an open-air meeting at the last general election; on the way to the meeting we passed another meeting which was similarly held in the open by the rival candidate and which was of a most orderly character. We got down to the “locus” in which my friend, who is now a member of this House, held the meeting. The candidate had made all preparations—[An Hon. Member: “Is that Newlands?”] The locality does not matter. There was an audience of quite well-behaved citizens, waiting to hear what he had to say. I happened to be the first speaker, and although there was that interjection which one welcomes at such meetings, finished my remarks. The meeting higher up was then over and an individual from that meeting who, as Shakespeare says, “was full of distempering draughts,” came to my friend’s meeting and reiterated in violent speeches full of expletives that he was not going to allow this meeting to be held. He was remonstrated with by my friend, his daughter and by other gentlemen present, but it was of no avail. This violent person persisted and was backed by some others, who stood around him. The end of it was, that the meeting could not be held. On the way back I said to my friend: “It is such a misfortune that that ill-mannered sot escapes without any punishment; he is absolutely immune.” I said: “You will remember that when the Electoral Bill came on in 1918 I introduced a clause which would deal with this sort of thing. If that clause were on the statute book that individual could to-morrow be served with a summons and he would receive that punishment his conduct merited.” My friend was in anything but a good humour. He said: “I remember that well—.” I dare not here repeat literally the expression he used but in substance it was: “Like the fool who is doomed to perdition I voted against it.” I only mention this so that it may be a warning to other members to have a little imagination and not wait to be impressed with the necessity of a measure of this sort until they themselves are the victims of the conduct I have just described. My observations and experiences are that this denial of the right of free speech is the work of persons who constantly prate about the liberty of the subject and the liberty of free speech. Now the object of the Bill will be, if not the prevention of conduct of this sort, the affording of such protection as this House can and should afford to public meetings. Other countries have found it necessary to legislate in similar circumstances to meet this contingency, and it seems almost paradoxical that in these countries where the right of free speech is most valued—those occupied by English-speaking communities—they have found it necessary to pass laws to meet the situation. The English Act is one of 1908 and it is entitled an “Act to Prevent Disturbances at Public Meetings.” That Act constitutes it an offence to act in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business for which a public meeting is called. A more serious view is taken under the Act with regard to political meetings between the period for which a writ was issued for the return of a member of Parliament and the time of return of that writ. This Act, I notice, from the Parliamentary debates, was passed without a division, and I hope and anticipate that this may be the case in respect of the Bill I now bring before the House—[An Hon. Member: “What a hope!”]. An Act was passed by the State of Victoria in 1906, which is almost identical in terms with the Bill except that sub-section (c) of Clause 1 of the Bill does not appear in that Act. This Act of 1906 was re-enacted in 1912 in and consolidated in the State of Victoria relating to police offences. In 1911 a similar Act was passed by Tasmania and in 1912 an Act was passed by South Australia. The Bill which I have the honour now to speak to is similar in terms to the South Australian Act with one slight difference, and that is in regard to the “place” where the offence may be committed. As hon. members will notice, the Bill provides for meetings held in a hall. The South Australian Act covers any place whatsoever, whether the same is or is not a hall, room, or building or part thereof. I personally see no reason why the Bill should not be extended to embrace that also. In the consolidating laws of the State of New York, 1909, sections 40 and 170 read: “A person who without authority and law wilfully disturbs any assembly or meeting not unlawful in its character is guilty of a misdemeanour.” Within the Canadian Criminal Code (the Revised Statutes of 1906). there are several provisions in regard to the attendance of public meetings. For instance section 126 makes it an indictable offence when one is attending a public meeting or on his way to attending a public meeting, to refuse to deliver up any offensive weapons which he may carry. Section 128 makes it an offence to lie in wait for a person returning from or expected to return from a public meeting. Then a penalty is also imposed on anyone coming armed within one mile of where a public meeting is held. This seems drastic. Section 169 lays down that persons attending a public meeting may be disarmed. I think this disarming would be somewhat of a difficult matter. At the recent Provincial Council elections I attended a meeting of a very hostile character at which the only occupants of the platform were the candidate and myself. The candidate was a very youthful person. He had been warned that if he came there to address that body or meeting it would fare very hard with him and I think I was to be included for similar treatment. However, we went to the meeting. I was to have spoken in support of the candidate, but when the spokesman asked the meeting to elect a chairman they very ungraciously refused. So I was appointed as chairman by the candidate. Owing to the tact and patience of the candidate, if not that of the chairman, the friction was eliminated at an early stage. We were on the point of leaving when a policeman came and said that he was very glad that nothing had happened, as he had been nervous, seeing that one person had been armed with a black whiskey bottle and that he had seen another taking off his boot. It is difficult to describe that as armed weapons. The provisions of the Bill are simplicity itself. It lays down what constitutes misbehaviour and riotousness. A chairman may, when any person misbehaves himself in the manner indicated, request a police officer to remove the person and the police officer has to carry out this request, and if the individual leaves quietly nothing else happens. If he resists, he will be guilty of an offence. I feel this measure is necessary to do away with conduct which we have seen in the past. The breaking up of public meetings should be made an expensive form of amusement. If you do not agree with the views of the candidate you need not attend the meeting, but if you do attend you will be required to behave in a decent manner. Parliament has the fullest liberty of speech, and I think it is the duty of Parliament to insure within the law a similar right to every citizen. Citizens have the right to expect as much from Parliament. If we fail to pass an Act of this sort, people will take matters into their own hands, and there will be retaliation, which will lead to breaches of the peace which is something we all deprecate. The Bill is not a kill joy, it will not put an end to all liveliness, interpolations and interruptions. The intent is to prevent the breaking up by organized gangs of public meetings which is a form of national disgrace. The public has the right to free speech at public meetings and what protection the law can give they are entitled to receive. I appeal to all hon. members of the House, irrespective of party, to support this Bill to show their abhorrence of lawlessness at public meetings, and it is with confidence I move the second reading.

Personally I am against this Bill. I may point out that there are always disturbances at such meetings in England and Australia [An Hon. Member: “And a good deal of prosecutions.”] I have in the past, for 30 years as a reporter and speaker, attended public meetings and I say with the exception of three or four occasions have we known little of organized opposition in South Africa. Before the Boer war a meeting was broken up in the Transvaal, and I remember a meeting being broken up by the Chamber of Mines, when an endeavour was made to stop the importation of Chinese labour, when the leader of the Labour Party attempted to stop it. Again the great labour leader, Mr. Keir Hardie, on the occasion of his visit to this country, had his meeting broken up. These are all I remember. Taking it all round election meetings in South Africa are tame affairs, and does any candidate with any sense of humour want to gag an election meeting? What will happen to the heckler if we stop him at the meetings? A God-sent gift at meetings I call him. If this Bill is passed the heckler will be turned out, and I do not want to see the heckler turned out. I should indeed be sorry to be the candidate where the chairman at a meeting had to get anyone arrested. Do you remember the old elections? Has the hon. member forgotten the Eatanswill election? My friend the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) would not have been here to-day were it not for a boisterous meeting which was an arranged opposition by opponents of the Labour Party. I think if we pass this Bill it will be of little use to anyone. What about the Ladybrand meeting when a South African Party member went down and broke it up? It was packed when he started to address it and before he had finished everyone had left the room. Again my hon. friend the member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) had an organized attack against him and the result is that he is stronger in Brakpan than ever before. A similar thing happened in the Free State at Viljoensdrift where the South African Party adopted a like attitude in regard to the Labour Party and that party is stronger there now than ever it was. Do let us have a little sense of humour. If Parliament does not turn down this Bill we will be the laughing stock of the country. I think myself that all of us would be sorry if we had to attend a quiet meeting. We should remember that the public seldom get a chance to attack us—only once in four years—and therefore I move—

I have the honour of representing a constituency which I have off and on represented for the last twenty years, and there always is a certain amount of liveliness during the Parliamentary elections there. And I have not had the honour of escaping these attentions. But if this measure were passed, and I must say I must oppose it, if it were passed, I am quite certain that the glory and excitement of a Parliamentary election in Krugersdorp would be departed and I certainly would not like to be the means of perhaps annoying some of my constituents and creating a hardship, a grievance, by depriving them of the excitement and pleasure of a political meeting. We have had a very excellent speech from the hon. member for Bloemfontein North (Mr. Barlow), but he opposed the Bill from a different point of view. When I was in England, I read that the hon. member was going through the Free State with a fiery torch. Hewas going from canteen to canteen, from dorp to dorp; he was going to fight Republicanism, and he was not going to agree to the “pact” so long as there was Republicanism, and he doesn’t want to see this measure passed so that he will not be prevented from going through with the fiery torch. But a few days ago there was a meeting in his constituency, a meeting of Nationalists, and they said “No, we will not support you if you oppose Republicanism.”

Order!

I am just going to show, Mr. Speaker, that if this Bill were passed he would not be able to go through the country on his mission of fighting Republicanism.

I am afraid that would be rather a laboured argument.

He has dropped his mission already.

I only want to say that the hon. member rather reminds me of the case of the man who has run away from his wife with another woman, and after a little while his wife wires him “ Come home and all will be forgiven.” Well, the hon. member has returned home, and all is forgiven. If I am not allowed to go on with that part of the argument, I should like to say that as far as my meetings are concerned, I have perhaps had as lively meetings as any man in South Africa, and I have often been prevented from making a speech until 12 o’clock and I have only been prevented from going on then because I had no midnight privileges. As far as my friend the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) is concerned, in asking through this Bill that a policeman should come and protect him, I think that would do much more harm than good, and as far as Krugersdorp is concerned, I do not think the policeman would be much good if they were determined to have, what they called, their fun at my political meetings. But, Mr. Speaker, our meetings are nothing compared to the rowdyism at the English meetings, and there they have not got laws of this kind. They mentioned them, but they haven’t got any laws of this kind. If they have, then the laws do not have the desired effect. We had, at the last election in England, some of the greatest rowdyism that has ever been at any elections. All I say is, that if you have a Bill of this kind, you get fettered freedom; you are not allowed to do what you like. I am against the Bill, and I will vote against it. I think the people of South Africa were meant to be people of strife, people of sacrifice, and the nation was not meant to live, die and decay in comfort.

I rise to support the Bill. There have been meetings in this country which have been interfered with and not in an orderly and respectable manner. I sympathise with the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) and the production at his meeting of a black whiskey bottle which I believed happened to be a baby bottle. I think the meeting he attended was one in which a candidate was opposing one of the Nationalist Party candidates for the Provincial Council, and the women attended there to show their disapproval of the youngster who came to oppose the Party’s candidate by giving him a baby’s bottle. I sympathise with the principles of this Bill. The Bill is not of necessity required in the rural districts, but unfortunately in Johannesburg and in such places it is required. If a person attends a meeting and is against the candidate the most honourable way to show his interest is to propose a vote of “no confidence,” but in an audience you have five men who will kick up more rows than any hundred of quiet citizens. I remember one meeting where the Prime Minister attended with the late Mr. Ewald Esselen who came away minus part of his trousers. That sort of thing we don’t want to have. I remember attending a meeting in 1915 in the constituency of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and I am glad to say it was not the Nationalists who cut up that meeting but the dense Unionist Party who were responsible for the row. Also I remember a meeting at Turf fontein when I was standing in the room supporting the Nationalist candidate I got two oranges on the chest. I do not think that such conduct should be allowed at any public meeting. Election meetings should be conducted with decency, and if you do not like a man’s opinion why should you go and listen to him? Why should there be deliberate organised obstruction, which I am sorry to say started from the days of the Rand’s reform party, and ever since then it has been carried on the Rand and on the Reef. I personally support the principle of this Bill. I would like to see in Committee a certain softening of the Bill. The principle of the Bill is right, and I am going to vote for it on principle.

Ek staan ook op om die Wet van harte te ondersteun. Meneer Speaker, ek het die geluk gehad, dat in my kiesafdeling is daar nie baie nie wat sodanige wet vir nodig is nie. Ek wens dat dit duidelik sal word verstaan. Die gevaar is nie in die buitedistrikte—hulle lê ver uit mekaar,—maar in die groot plekke, soos Johannesburg. Daar is dit so maklik om mense in menigte van die een kiesafdeling in trams ens., naar die ander kiesafdeling te bring, om die vergadering op te breek. Daarom is ek bly dat die lid van Hospital (de hr. Papenfus) die Wetsvoorstel nou voor die Huis gebring het en ek hoop dat hierdie wetsontwerp sal deurgaan en dat die Minister nie sal probeer nie om hom af te water net soos ander wette van die selfde soort waf deurgegaan het. Ek het aan die Minister van Justisie vroeër gesê dat hy sekere wette so afgewater het dat hul niks beteken nie. Daar is die oproerige mense wat ’n mens op vergaderinge aantref wat die moeilikhede veroorsaak met die gevolg dat die fatsoenlike klasse van mense van vergaderinge wegbly. Ek weet dat daar mense is wat lyk om na vergaderinge te gaan om die toestande van die land te hoor maar omdat die ander oproerige mense soon toe gaan, bly hierdie fatsoenlike mense weg. Die edele lede vir Bloemfontein Noord (die hr. Barlow) en Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) het grapperig oor die Wet gepraat maar ek is oortuig dat alle verstandige lede met hierdie wetsontwerp sal instem. Dis ’n wet om orde te bewaar in ons land. Wat gebeur nou? Jong mense gaan naar soo’n vergadering toe, maak lawaai en die end is, hulle word oproermakers, en die onskuldige moet daaronder ly. Ek het mense dikwels gesê, dat dit die gevolg is van lawaai op vergaderinge, dat daar so baie van ons mense onder die grond lê en dat ons moet sien agter hul vroue en kinders. Daarom is die wetsontwerp vir alle verstandige mense baie billik, maar ek weet nie of dit ver genoeg gaan nie. Ek herhaal, ek het geen klagte in my kiesafdeling nie, maar die Wet is bedoel vir die groot stede. Ek kan die edele lede die versekering gee, dat afgesien van alle partye, die mense in my kiesafdeling sterk gekant is teen oproerige vergaderinge. Ek is bly dat ek vandag met my ou vriend die edele lid van Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) kan saamstem.

Meneer Speaker, ek dink hierdie wetsontwerp is onmoontlik. Die edele lid wat hierdie wetsontwerp voorstel, het verklaar, dat hierdie wetsontwerp nie soseer is vir die buitendistrikte maar vir die stede. Ek dink, ek kan uit ervaring praat en dink dat ek net soveel eiers teen my bors gehad het as enig ander lid. Maar iets van die aard kan ’n mens verdra. As ’n mens vir sy party wil veg, dan moet hy nie bang wees nie vir een of twee verrot eiers nie. Vir my lees die wetsontwerp baie snaaks. Die edele lid wat die voorstel ingedien het, sê dat as iemand hom op ’n vergadering onbehoorlik gedra, dan moet die voorsitter dadelik die poliesman roep. Maar wat as dit die voorsitter is, of die kandidaat of een van die lede, wat hom onbehoorlik gedra? My herinnering gaan jare terug, toe ook ’n sekere lid van die Suidafrikaanse Party, wat nou op die Thesaurie banke sit, hom baie onbehoorlik gedra het en as die wet toe al van krag gewees was, sou hy lankal in die tronk gewees het. Daar is in my geheue ’n lid van hierdie Huis wat op ’n politieke platform gestaan het en wat die publiek en vooral die hollands-sprekende publiek beledig het op soon manier, dat hy van die platform afgehaal is. En as dit nie was gewees vir die optree van ’n paar verstandige mense, sou hy die grootste pak slaag gekry het, wat hy ooit gehad had. As hierdie wetsontwerp deurgaan, dan voel ek seker dat daar van die ministeriële banke ’n paar moet afgehaal word, wat onder die voorsiening van hierdie wet sal val, tensy dat daar ’n spesiale verskoningswet gemaak word waardeur hulle buitenkant die gevaar gestel word. Ons kan natuurlik die geval kry waar daar ’n nasionale spreker is, en ’n nasionale voorsitter wat goed agter die dinge sal pas, maar ons kan ook die moeilikhede sien wat daar sal kom. Ons kan sien b.v. dat die edele lid vir Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) op die platform sal wees en die vergadering in ’n strydlustige gees sal toe spreek. Ons ken hon. Iemand sal hom miskien puntenerige vrae stel, wat hy sal reken dat hom beledig. En wat gaan dan gebeur? Hy sal aan die voorsitter sê, dat hy beledig is en die voorsitter sal dadelik die vrae-steller laat arresteer. Ek sê, die wetsontwerp is heeltemaal onmoontlik: in die eerste plaas, wie is die man wat gaan oordeel wat beledigende taal is, en wie is die man wat kan beveel dat die arres gemaak moet word? Nee, ek dink dat die mense wat voor hierdie wetsontwerp gepraat het, juis die persone is wat verantwoordelik is vir die oproerige vergaderinge wat plaas het gevind. Ons weet dat dit meestal die lede van die ander kant was wat vir die moeilikhede verantwoordelik was, wat plaas gevind het. Ek is jammer vir die edele lid vir Johannesburg Noord (de hr. Geldenhuys). Hy is ’n ou man en, ek sal jammer wees as hy beledig word, maar dan sal dit seker sy eie skuld wees en hy sal dit seker verdien wanneer hy dinge hoor wat hom nie aanstaan nie. Ek het seker ook heel wat belediginge moét in slok en miskien het ek hulle verdien, soos ook die edele lid van Johannesburg Noord (de hr. Geldenhuys) hulle seker verdien sal het. Ek onthou dat ek self ’n wetsontwerp ondersteun het, en ek was die eerste om onder die wetsontwerp gearresteer te word. Dit lyk vir my dat die edele lid vir Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) ook weet dat hy die eerste man sal wees wat onder hierdie wet gearresteer sal word. Ons weet hoe hy hier praat, maar hoe sal hy praat as hy in Krugersdorp op die platform staan met al sy vrinde om hom heen. Nee, ek sal nie voor die wetsontwerp stem nie.

I want to support the Bill. Probably if one lived in the country, one would look upon this Bill from a different standpoint from those of us from an industrial centre look upon it, because we have reasons to. The tendency to break up political meetings has developed very much in recent years, and it is very doubtful if some measure of this kind has not become absolutely essential. I agree with the hon. member for Bloemfontein North (Mr. Barlow). We do not want to affect the heckler and do away with the rough and tumble of elections. Far from it, but it is perfectly correct to say, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus), there are certain people in this country who organize deliberate gangs for the breaking up of public meetings. I do not refer to this gang as belonging to any particular party. If the hon. member for Bloemfontein North (Mr. Barlow) says the Chamber of Mines break up meetings, they should and would be treated just the same as anybody else under this Bill. I read with some interest the punishments inflicted under an English Act, for offences during public meetings at the recent election. I saw a cabled account of prominent statesmen, who were unable to deliver their messages and get a hearing, through meetings being held up. If the hon. member had read the papers he would have seen that not a few prosecutions took place for breaking up these public meetings. It is all very well to suggest the broad outlook and to say we do not want to bring a policeman into a public meeting. I read a few years ago that in Ireland they paid such blackguards, and men who could only shout, 10d. per day, those who could throw stones 1s., but those who fought with sticks were paid 15 pence. We do not want this country to develop into a position of that kind, and I do not know any candidate who could enroll and pay all the riotous people in his constituency. I just want to support this Bill very heartily. If it was a Bill as they have in Queensland and Victoria, I would not support it. You will find that when this Bill gets on to the statute book it will be the mildest Bill of its character. It will be the means of preventing what the hon. member has described—of preventing organized gangs from breaking up public meetings, to the disappointment of the many who have come to listen to the speaker. I am of opinion, and have been for a long time, that these gangs who have broken up public meetings in the past do not belong to any party at all, or the party in question does not want to claim them. I support the Bill.

Tereg is aangehaal deur die edele lid vir Bethel (Lt.-Kol. H. S. Grobler): “Wie sal sig skuldig maak?” Ek vind dat een van die lede hom reeds skuldig gemaak het. Die woorde dat die voorsitter moet oordeel gaat bepaald te ver. Mens sal altyd vind dat gedurende eleksies woorde gebruik word wat deur die opgewondenheid veroorsaak word. Word iemand daaroor vervolg, dan sal die vergadering verder onmoontlik word, en dan sal dit ook naar bakleiery toe lei. Ek geloof aan vryheid en sal, waar dit nodig is, my lewe vir die vryheid gee, maar laat op ’n vergadering elkeen sê wat hy wil en vra wat hy wil. Dit is maar eenmaal in die vyf jaar dat ’n eleksie voorkom, en mens kan altyd, na afloop van ’n vergadering weer vriende wees, maar as mens die onstuimiges laat uitgooi, is julle dadelik kwaai vriende. As iemand kandidaat wil wees, moet hy die daaraan verbonde risiko aanvaar, en als ander die vergadering onderstebo gooi, dan is dit nie jou vergadering nie maar die ander kant sene. Jy kan anderkant die bult weer ’n vergadering gaan hou en miskien met baie sukses. Die edele lid vir Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) het onlangs op een publieke vergadering die beledigende woorde gebruik “dat hoe eerder die ou Majoeba klimmers dood is hoe beter,” en nou verdedig hy hierdie Wet, waar hy self skuldig aan sou wees. Ek sien geen kans om die Wet te ondersteun nie.

Dit lyk of die edele lid vir Hospitaal (die hr. Papenfus) geskrik het vir die toekoms en die edele lid vir Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) ook. Ek is vir die strekking of geest van die wet, maar die bewoording is nie duidelik nie. Die voorsitter of die kandidaat kan beledigende taal gebruik en daarom voel ek dat die wet te vaag is, anders sou ek daarvoor stem. Die wet gee nie definisie van die woorde wat strafbaar is nie en so as dit staat sou dit die vergadering opbreek en tot bakleiery lei. Maar als dit niet kan gedaan word nie, is dit onmoontlik om die vryheid van die publiek so aan bande te lê. Lede moet maar nie so bang wees nie, die atmosfeer is baie verander die laaste tyd en dit sal nie meer so erg gaan nie. In die voorgestelde wet word te veel mag gegee aan die voorsitter.

Ek is van oordeel dat ons met die wet besig is om misdadigers te maak. Die kwessie is dat ons in Suid Afrika nog nie so ver is nie dat sodanige wetgeving ingevoer moet word. En as dit wet word, hoe sal dit molik wees om dit uit te voer? Sodra die polisie optree, sal dit juis die uitwerking hê om die vergadering op te breek. Ek stem met die edele lid vir Barberton (Lt.-Kol. J. C. Fourie) saam dat as mens vergadering hou en mense moet arresteer dan maak jy overtreders van die wet van hulle. Die beginsel van die wet is verkeerd en ek sal daarteen stem.

Personally, I have no fault with the electors who attend my meetings. They are always well conducted. In a great measure that depends on the popularity of the candidate. I cannot support this Bill, because I do not think it will do any good. I think meetings will be carried on in the same fashion as they have been in past years, and at any disturbances which have taken place I have not heard of any people being killed. Sometimes a disturbance of the meeting is very good for a candidate. I remember when the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) and myself were candidates for Barkly West in 1904 we both addressed a meeting at Long-lands and during a disturbance my hon. friend got out with the greatest possible difficulty. At this meeting the diggers not only created a disturbance themselves, but brought their dogs with them. My hon. friend was being heckled on the Chinese question. I did not know much of it then, as the Cape Colony had not had much to do with it. But my hon. friend was heckled by them and he had to employ all his ingenuity to evade a direct reply. My hon. friend was fairly cornered when there was a providential dog fight. Some diggers had big dogs and others had little dogs, and those who had the little dogs were more concerned than those who had the big dogs. The tables were upset, the lights put out, and my hon. friend was relieved of a very great difficulty. The diggers were more concerned about their dogs than about Chinese labour, and in that instance a disturbance was in favour of the candidate. On these, and on other grounds, I cannot support this Bill, because I do not think it will make the slightest difference in putting an act like this on the statute book.

Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that the House is not following the tone in its debate in which this Bill has been introduced. This Bill, as far as we in the Transvaal, and more particularly we in Johannesburg are concerned, should receive the most careful consideration of every member of this House. Things have been, still are, and may become very much worse. I have heard it said in the House that so far no one has been killed, but I may just remind the House that it is only due to the grace of God that the Prime Minister was not killed some years ago at one of these meetings. I can tell the House that at one of my own meetings matters got to such a pitch, when the fellows, who were rather decent and would not be put down, got among the roughs who were trying to break up the meeting, and the roughs picked up glass bottles and stones to attack us. Those are the things we have to contend against and no decent man can put up with these things at these meetings. Our young fellows up there, our callow youths, come to many of these meetings and the effect of it all is that they are becoming a perfectly lawless crowd. It is an alarming thing, a very alarming thing; these youths turn up and they will go to any excess and I think the House will agree with me when I say that they should be curbed for their own good. I do not know the experiences which some other hon. members have referred to, but I can say this that there is no meeting of any other party held which our fellows would think of disturbing. We have not been able to carry on peaceably in the past and we are now asking for a measure which will at least keep the younger fellows away and as to the older men we can deal with them in our own manner.

Ek is verbaasd oor die wet, want die strekking is dat mens niks mag doen op ’n vergadering nie. Dit het daar baie van of ’n mens in die kerk is, en ’t sou dan maar die beste wees om die predikant voorsitter te maak. Ek het geweet dat dit die gevolg sal wees van die “Catch them young” beweging. Die jong mense moet buitekant die politiek gehou word. As die poliesman kom en sit een uit, dan wil ek graag sien hoe sal dit verder gaan. Daar sal ’n hoop in die tronk gesit word. As daar vyf is moet elkeen van die vyf uitgesit word. Ek sou ook in die tronk gewees het, want hulle wou my uit ’n vergadering sit [Edele Leden: “Hoe het hulle jou uitgekry?”]. As iemand gaat staan vir kandidaat moet hy sy man staan. Hulle moet ook hulle woorde weeg, want party praat hier teveel en kry dan swaar onder hulle kiesers.

So far as I am personally concerned, I do not care whether this becomes an Act of Parliament or not, but we should consider the public. The public in Johannesburg—I am speaking now of the decent public—are thoroughly disgusted with the way in which meetings are being conducted on the Rand. I have had the honour of addressing public meetings ever since 1906, and there is hardly a meeting that I can refer to at which there has not been a disturbance of some kind. Not that I mind personally, because the surest result of a disturbance of that kind is that it will be in favour of the candidate, particularly when his meeting is broken up. That has been my experience, and I delight in it when they break up my first meeting, because it simply means that it saves me holding further meetings. It shows the public whom they should vote for—and so far they have voted in the right way. But, this is the point one has to bear in mind—the public have the right to hear what a candidate has to say without being disturbed by organized mobs. The very moment you enter a meeting in Johannesburg, you can see whether it is going to be orderly or not. In the front benches you usually find them packed with women and children, while the other people who are intent on disturbing the meeting are distributed over various parts of the hall. An hon. gentleman, who is to-day on the Ministerial benches, was present on a platform one night when those who were there were pelted with tomatoes and rotten eggs, and the chairman pointed out that tomatoes and eggs were very nice for breakfast, but were out of place at a meeting. That was at a meeting when the late Mr. Quinn, M.L.A., was by rowdyism totally prevented from addressing a meeting. At one of my meetings everything was turned topsy turvy and damage done to carpets and other furniture to the extent of £10. But, Mr. Speaker, speaking from the point of view of the people who have sent one to Parliament and who want an account of what has taken place, I say that this Bill Is essential and that these people must be given an opportunity of hearing what the speaker has to say. The position to-day is that your friends and supporters will not come to your meetings, but your opponents will come, and only with the object of disturbing your meeting. We hear hon. members opposite speak about freedom of speech, and I desire it myself. By freedom of speech we understand being given the opportunity, the right of addressing people in peace and order. Very often a very fine speech is lost through the opposition—not an opposition which comes merely to heckle—to that one does not object, but what one objects to is being shouted down all the while by an organized mob. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) was at one of my meetings in 1907, and neither he nor I was allowed to speak. It was not the ordinary heckling which stopped us, but it was a crowd of twenty of thirty people shouting “we want so and so”—and then they shouted out the name of my opponent. Well, I contend that the public have the right to know what we do in Parliament, and to-day the public have not got that opportunity, simply because of the scandalous shouting. For these reasons, I heartily support the Bill.

I am sorry I cannot support this Bill, because to me it seems entirely futile and impracticable. I cannot see how you can hope by the provisions of a Bill of this kind ever to restrain anyone. If you get an excited crowd, does anyone think that they will be restrained from calling out by the possibility that they will be hauled before a Magistrate and perhaps be fined £10? Then, what is an offensive expression? And, offensive to whom? And how? What may be most offensive to one person may be most gratifying to lots of others. And the same applies to the use of insulting language. In regard to Clause 2, if you want to find an infallible way of getting your meeting broken up, just ask your chairman to have some one arrested. If there are one or two people at a meeting who are making themselves offensive, well, you can very well deal with them—the meeting will deal with them. But, if there are many of them, you cannot deal with them in the way the Bill proposes. You cannot get your chairman to get a policeman to have them arrested—if you do that, your meeting will certainly be broken up. After all, if we have these provisions to deal with people who attend a meeting, what then about the speakers at such a meeting, what about the candidate? If you want to restrain the public, then what about the candidate who speaks in an indecent and offensive manner? There are lots of people who cannot open their mouths without saying something offensive, but what some people will regard as offensive is highly gratifying to others. A speaker will come and excite and insult a crowd which is there, and the result is that they get entirely out of hand. Is it reasonable that all the penalty should fall on those who attend the meeting, and that the person responsible will get off scot free? It seems to me that if you have a Bill of this kind, you must also deal with the candidate who cannot open his mouth without insulting and offending people. It seems to me that this Bill is impracticable and futile, and I think it is far better to leave these matters to the common sense of people to deal with.

This is the third time that we have been asked to deal with this subject. The whole question has been debated on previous occasions. It was debated when the Electoral Bill was under discussion and the sense of the House was strongly against anything such as contained in this measure. I listened with great pleasure to the speech of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey). It was really a sporting speech. I have had a long experience of these matters, perhaps not as long as he, but I have addressed public meetings for a matter of over twenty years—and some of these meetings have been very rowdy and were held at times of great political excitement. One remembers the meetings at the time when a small minority protested against the suspension of the Constitution. I was one of those. It was one of my first experiences. Then one remembers the meetings in connection with the Chinese question. My experience had been only in Cape Town and the Cape Peninsula, till 1915 when I went to the Reef and addressed a series of meetings along the Reef. On one occasion there it was suggested that there was to be so much rowdyism that they would have a meeting by ticket, but I protested against that and declined to speak at a ticket meeting. I had never spoken at a ticket meeting and would not do it. The meeting was held in the usual way and although there was a good deal of noise, it turned out to be one of the best meetings we had. I remember addressing a meeting for the present Minister of the Interior at Fordsburg. We had some rowdyism there The body of the hall was full and people were very near the platform and some advanced to the platform in a threatening manner, but we were not perturbed and got through. It was very exciting, that is so. Then there was another meeting which I addressed in Bezuidenhout Valley. I had been to another meeting and came in later and after I had spoken I saw the table on the platform was full of water. I asked what had happened and was told that while I had been addressing the meeting a small orchestra had been conducted upstairs, but I had gone on. Then somebody threw something and knocked the water-bottle on the table over. But we carried on. It was all taken in good part, and no one was any the worse for it. I do not see how you can stop that sort of thing by legislation of this kind. Of course, I do not believe in disorderly meetings. I think they are most unpleasant, and when disorders and disturbances stop meetings altogether one wants to deal with matters. I agree that everyone has the right to be heard, but in times of political excitement people have their feelings aroused and many people interject without any desire of being offensive. Some remarks are made by speakers at public meetings which are strongly resented by men in the body of the hall. They cannot contain themselves until the end of the meeting, but make their objections. That would be a crime under this Bill, which does not define what riotous behaviour is. It would be a crime if in the opinion of the chairman he is behaving in a riotous manner. I quite believe what the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Bisset) says. If you want to prevent disorderly meetings this Clause 2 is the worst way to do it. Bring in a policeman at a public meeting and the meeting is finished. It is the least feasible way in which to preserve public order. I might point out that most of the things which have been referred to are covered by the ordinary law. If a man picks up bottles and stones in the manner referred to by the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Rockey) the law will deal with him whether it is a public or a private meeting. If he goes with a weapon to a meeting and threatens he can be punished for that. If he uses disgusting language and libels a candidate the law will also deal with that. There was a case in Cape Town during the last election where one of the supporter» of the candidate on the platform made a remark which brought an interjection from a man in the body of the hall. The man was invited on to the platform; he came up; a blow was exchanged and some of his teeth were knocked out. He sued the other man, who had to pay damages. If anybody breaks the law at a public meeting, by behaving indecently, you can deal with him under the ordinary law. Does the hon. member suggest that you can be indecent in other ways, that you can be guilty of public indecency at a public meeting and you cannot deal with it. The common law will deal with it very effectively. The only person that you cannot deal with is the man who makes interjections, or possibly a body of men who go there and sing a song. That you cannot deal with if they do not break the law, but if, as the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) says, they break the furniture, you can deal with them. They can be prosecuted for malicious injury to property so that the ordinary law deals with all these things. Really when you come to it, if there is any real crime being committed apart from just the inconvenience of not being able to carry cut a meeting as you intended, the ordinary law deals with it, and after all the proposed law may be abused. The chairman may be an autocrat, and he might, in the way the Bill is worded, do a lot in the way of suppression of free speech. I believe, as the last speaker has said, in leaving it to the good sense of the public. If the public once believe and are shown, and it is proved to their satisfaction that any political party is engaged in preventing its opponents holding their meeting, that political party is going to lose votes, because the public resent that. I must say I should be most unhappy myself at a public meeting which was quiet and had no interjections at all. One’s best points are made in reply to an interrupter, and, in fact, some people think that members arrange for one or two interruptions during their speeches. I have never done that myself, I must say, but I am always grateful for them. I should hate to address a public meeting which was so quiet that most of the members fell asleep. A few interjections here and there liven up proceedings, so long as they do not go to extremes. It is quite true that on the Reef perhaps they are a little more lively than down here; but during the 1915 campaign, one of the liveliest held on the Reef, the feeling was very high, and sometimes we addressed two or three meetings in one night, and yet not a single one was broken up. There was a little rowdiness at these meetings, but they were very enjoyable and very lively, though I was led to believe before I went to Johannesburg that it was going to be the most dangerous thing I had ever done to address these meetings. On the whole, legislation of this kind was unnecessary to deal with the situation of 1915. Let us therefore leave it to the good sense of the people, and if some people allow liberty to degenerate into licence leave it to the good sense of the public to deal with them. After all human beings must have a great deal of humouring, and when a country is seething with political excitement you cannot expect people to come to a political meeting and sit as quiet as at, say, a lecture on astronomy. We want to see orderly conduct but we do not consider that legislation of this kind is going to promote it. Rather the contrary.

I have no difficulty whatever in opposing this Bill. I do not think that it would be creditable to us as a Parliament or to our constituents to pass a measure of this sort. Hon. members may not be aware that this is the most orderly legislative body in the world, and I do not think that this is due to anything else than the fact that we represent on the whole a very orderly community. After all we are more or less composite pictures of our constituents, and the orderliness of this House is, I think, an index of the general orderliness of the South African people. I dislike the principle of this Bill very much as well as the details. Some of these details have been very ably handled by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Bisset), and I think that this Bill does not carry out the general instinct of our people, which is to the effect that the freest possible exchange of opinion in our politics and at election times is desirable. I think that this Bill goes against their intentions. Opinions should be expressed not only by the candidate, but by other people present, and we should not endeavour to restrain that. There is no necessity whatever for this Bill. So far as I can see, the instances which have been advanced here have been neither numerous nor impressive. I have taken part at some of these meetings, notably at Krugersdorp, which were held up as shocking examples of how meetings should not be conducted, and perhaps of the necessity of introducing a Bill of this sort. It does not seem to me that the conduct on those occasions seems to require the repressive legislation of this kind. We ought to encourage freedom of speech and thought as far as possible, and it is not by such legislation that we will get a healthier state of things. We want to cultivate a healthy public opinion. That goes further than law in keeping public order, and bringing about a better state of affairs at political meetings. As the hon. member for Cape Town Castle (Mr. Alexander) has pointed out, the common law deals with most of the incidents that are likely to arise at election meetings. I am surprised too that some of the legal luminaries here have not alluded to the well-known fact that judges take a very lenient view of libel alleged to have been uttered or published during election times. Even judges recognise that a certain amount of latitude is to be permitted on such occasions, and libel has to be very gross or malicious indeed during election time before substantial damages can be recovered. But the promoter of this Bill seems to think that the common law is not sufficient, and therefore goes dead against the practice as I understand it of the Supreme Court on the comparatively rare occasions on which they are asked to intervene as a result of election proceedings. Our people do not require to be kept in order by measures of this sort; and if there is any lingering doubt in the minds of hon. members in this matter, I would suggest that after the 14th of this month it is likely that women will be able to take a more active part in our elections, and in that case I am sure the chivalry and consideration of our people will remove the last vestiges of doubt as to the future orderliness of meetings.

Die edele lid vir Parktown (Mr. Rockey) wil beweer dat dit net die Nasionale Party is wat skuldig is aan die opbreek van Sap vergaderinge. Ek weet egter dat toe Gen. Hertzog teruggekom het uit Europa net na die oorlog, die mense hom byna doodgeslaan het. En tans sien ons, dat ons beskuldig word van die mense te wees wat vergaderings in die war stuur. Politieke vergaderings is alreeds dikwels onaantreklik genoeg en as dan die enigste aantreklikheid, wat dieselwe nog besit t.w. die reg van die publiek om vrage te stel en aanmerkings te maak hulle ontneem word, dan sal daar naderhand niemand meer na die vergaderings toe kom nie, veral as dit dan aan die voorzitter oorgelaat word om te bepaal wanneer iemand hom aan die wet skuldig gemaak het of nie. Die wet bepaal, dat ’n poliesman geroep sal word, maar hy sal nie kom nie, want hy weet dat sy lewe met die optrede gemoeid is. ’n Ander saak is, dat dit onuitvoerbaar is. Die voorsitter of die kandidaat kan hulle onwelvoeglik gedraag of ongepaste woorde besig en wie sal hulle dan daar uitgooi? So word die wet ondoelmatig en daar is reeds ’n wet om mense te beskerm, soos uiteengeset deur die edele lid vir Cape Town (Castle) (die hr. Alexander). Die Eerste Minister is ook al byna met klippe gegooi en so ’n wet is nutteloos. Ek sal daarteen stem.

One has to carry this question a bit further than political meetings. My memory carries me away back to the old nomination days when I was a boy in the Old Country, when the hustings were erected outside the County Buildings, and the nominations took place there. In those days the people assembled in their thousands, and generally drank health and success to their candidate, and then drank the health of the other candidate, leaving out the success. I think that anyone who has been at elections in this country, and been at them in Britain, will say this country compares favourably with the Old Country. I have been at some very rough election meetings in this country, but one has generally found that if you get a happy hit in you generally silence your interrupter; but a man should try as far as possible not to interfere with the freedom of election speech. I was at a Port Elizabeth meeting some time ago when three or four thousand persons were said to be present. The famous “Pussyfoot” Johnson was there, and some forty people in one corner interrupted the meeting. I do not know what constitutes offensive language, but I heard language there that would be offensive to some, perhaps not to others. The hon. member who has just gone out (Brig-Gen. Byron), said that after the 14th of this month the chivalry of women would keep the matter right. Why, the experiences, if one can rely on the newspapers, of the election meetings in Britain were that the women have been, if anything, worse than the men. I also can remember when my hon. friend who is now representing with such success the Government in London addressed a meeting that a person came with a megaphone. Anyone who knows Sir Edgar Waltin would know at once what chance he would have against a megaphone. I managed to put the megaphone man down. I wonder how many men have been at the election of a Lord Rector. It is one mass of what some people call “rowdyism” from beginning to end. But it is not rowdyism: there is no offence meant. I do not like the principle extended to political meetings, because it is such a difficult thing to say at a political meeting what constitutes an offence. I would have liked to support this Bill, but one does not like to place one’s imprimatur upon anything and give people the idea that one is doing away or interfering with public right. Because the consensus of opinion in this House is against it. We have not reached the stage in this country when such a Bill is demanded. We should be very careful and not say by legislation that our citizens in this country cannot control themselves at public meetings except by legislation. I hold that this country has been well conducted in the past. I will give you an instance—I am sorry the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Merriman) is not present to show his experience in Edinburgh when he spoke at the time of the Boer War. There were a large number of stewards there, and if a man misbehaved himself they gave him the frogs’ march, the stewards carrying it out. This was sufficient for any interrupter. I ask the hon. member not to press this motion, as the opinion of the House will be against him and even the passing of the motion will not improve public meetings. I do not pay much attention to the penalty of £10. It is not the penalty, but the conviction I do not like. I must ask the hon. member to withdraw this Bill, leaving it to the good sense of the country and to the people of the country to conduct political meetings properly. I think that the passing of the Bill would be a slur on the reputation of the country. Politics are politics, and human beings are human beings, and while both we talk, we are bound to have excitement at elections.

Ek kan my volkome aansluit by die edele lid vir Pietersburg (de hr. Naudé) en verklaar, dat ek teleurgesteld is dat so ’n wet hier voorgebreng word. My ondervinding is op baie publieke vergaderings, waar nie met eiers en lemone gegooi word nie, maar seifs met dooie katte en dat die vergadering in wanorde uiteen gaat, is die oorsaak dat die voorsitter van die party, wat die publieke vergadering beleg het, ook daar moet optree as sodanig op aandringe van die kandidaat. Hy moet in dergelike gevalle eenvoudig toelaat, dat die publiek ’n eige voorsitter kies en as die standpunt ingeneem word, is dit baie onwaarskynlik, dat daar wanordelikheid sal voorval. Ek het al vergaderings gesien van twee duisend mense, waarop dit volkome ordelik toegegaan het, eenvoudig omdat toegelaat was, dat hulle ’n eige voorsitter kies. Ek sal bly wees, as die voorsteller die wet liewer wil terugtrek.

Ek is regtig teleurgestel, dat so ’n wet voorgebreng word want verkiesings is hier nog nie so onstuimig nie. Ek was ook al op plekke waar oplopies plaas gevind het maar dit was nooit te erg nie. As iemand kandidaat wil wees moet hy sy man kan staan en nie deur die wet beskerm wil word nie. En hierdie wet word net die kandidaat beskerm, maar wat van die publiek? Dit is die enigste plek waar die publiek kans het om te praat; net as daar ’n verkiesing kom is daar sulke oproer. As sulke dinge plaas vind sal uitsit nie help nie. As my party die sterkste is kan ons uitsit, maar so nie dan sal ons die vergadering moet verlaat; of omgekeerd. Hierdie wet is absoluut onnodig vir ons land; ons publiek is nog nie so wanordelik dat so’n wet nodig is nie. ’n Eleksie is ’n woelige tyd en dan moet so iets verwag word. Ek sal bly wees as die wet teruggetrek word.

I do not regret in the least bringing forward this measure, which has given rise to a good deal of discussion. Much of the criticism has been altogether wide of the mark. Take, for instance, the enlightened criticism of the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Mr. Alberts), who says he favours the Bill, but that it was most vague in that it did not state which words should not be used. If he will draw up a schedule of such words, they might be appended to the Bill. Members will however agree that resort to the dictionary for definitions would serve the purpose better. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) has adopted the attitude that the position is met under the common law. I say there is no common law which can deal with it. The member for South Peninsula (Mr. Bisset) said that the Bill would be entirely impracticable, but I have quoted the instance of Victoria, which was enacted in 1906. The measure was so beneficial that it was reenacted in 1912. The law was enforced in other places and had a wholesome effect on the holding of public meetings. We feel that the public who attend public meetings should have the opportunity of listening to the speaker, and that this Bill will be the means of making the conduct complained of an unpopular and expensive form of amusement. The hon. member for Border (Brig.-Gen. Byron), a protagonist of women’s rights, says that when we have the franchise for women we will have a better condition of things. I have heard of meetings where women have fainted on account of the uproar and the conduct of these ruffians, and it is as much for the protection of women as anything else that this Bill should be passed. I feel that if the Bill does not pass the House and is not placed on the statute book, the time will come when it will have to become law. This unseemly conduct at public meetings is increasing, and I think that the House will be anticipating public opinion if they extended to the public the privilege which they have themselves, that is freedom of speech. It is not only necessary for the protection of those who attempt political meetings, but those who attend any public meeting. At present a man can break up a public meeting with impunity. Surely that is not a thing that any member would approve of? I intend to press for a division.

Question put: That the word “now”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion; and the House divided:

Ayes—29.

Buchanan, W. P.

Cilliers, P. S.

Coetzee, J. P.

Dreyer, T. F. J.

Fitchat, H.

Geldenhuvs, L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Greenacre, W.

Grobler, H. S.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

King, J. G.

Leuchars, G.

Louw, G. A.

Malan, F. S.

Marwick, J. S.

Nathan, E.

Nel, T. J.

Nicholls, G. H.

Papenfus, H. B.

Rockey, W.

Rooth, E.

Scholtz, P. E.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Venter, J. A.

Visser, T. C.

Tellers: Henderson, R. H.; Moor, J. W.

Noes—72.

Alberts, S. F.

Alexander, M.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Ballantine, R.

Barlow, A. G.

Bates, F. T.

Bezuidenhout, W. W. J. J.

Bisset, M.

Blackwell. L.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brown, D. M.

Byron, J. J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Waal. J. H. H.

Duncan, P.

Du Toit, F. J.

Enslin, J. M.

Forsyth, R.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Fourie, J. C.

Graumann, H.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Hugo, D.

Hunt, E. W.

Jansen, E. G.

Jordaan, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Lemmer, L. A. S.

Le Roux, P. W.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Moffat, L.

Muller, C. H.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé. J. F.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Nixon, C. E.

Obermeyer, J. G.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Purcell, I.

Raubenheimer, I. v. W.

Robinson, C. P.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sampson, H. W.

Smit, J. S.

Snow, W. J.

Stewart, J.

Strachan, T. G.

Stuart, W. H.

Swart, C. R.

Van Aardt, F. J.

Van Heerden, B. I. J.

Van Hees, A. S.

Waterston, R. B.

Watt, T.

Webber, W. S.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Wilcocks, C. T. M.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; Brand Wessels, J. H.

Question accordingly negatived and the word “now” omitted.

The addition of the words “this day six months” put and agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.

moved—

He said: I do not think this Bill warrants a very long speech, because it is really self-explanatory, and I assure hon. members that I will not take up their time. The Bill concerns the question of the words which were inserted in another place when the Apprenticeship Bill was before the Committee, viz., that an apprentice shall not belong to a trade union. They were considered by this House at the time, and it will be remembered that the House did not think it advisable to risk the passage of the measure for the purpose of insisting upon these words being deleted from the Bill. Some of us on these benches, and others in the House, had very great fears what the effect of those words would be. We were warranted in those fears, for upon returning to the Rand and visiting other parts of South Africa I found that the words inserted in the Schedule of the Act had caused very great feeling indeed. The people who form one-half of the Apprenticeship Committees, the trade unions regard these words inserted in the Act as a stigma against trade unions, and they were at first disposed to ignore the Act and take no part in the constitution of the Apprenticeship Committees. Some of us on these benches induced the trade unions to accept the Bill in good faith and leave it to the good sense of Parliament to take the offending words out of the Act. The people who perhaps we have done the greatest wrong to are those whom the Bill is primarily intended to assist—the apprentices. The apprentice has to carry his indentures wherever he may go as a credential that he has served a proper apprenticeship, and he carries with him those words that he undertook not to belong to a trade union. In countries where trade unionism is very highly developed it can be understood what a stigma would be attached to the use of these words. Again, I would point out to the House that this Bill being for apprentices, the very people whom it is designed to assist, by putting in these words, have been prevented from having a voice in regard to the appointment of the persons who serve on such committees. It is only by belonging to a trade union that apprentices can have any voice in regard to the people chosen to serve on the committee, who determine the conditions of their apprenticeship. Therefore, we have done injury not only to the trade unions, but also to the apprentice. For a long while I was totally in the dark as to the idea or motive which prompted those who put these words into the Act and shared the common idea that a stigma upon trade unionism was intended, but I find now that there was another motive behind the insertion of these words, namely that no persons should interfere with an apprentice during the course of his employment, or induce him to break his agreement. With that idea I associate myself unreservedly. I realise the difficulty of getting apprentices to serve their apprenticeship and carry out their indentures, and I know what failing to do so has meant to many of them in later life. There are many trade unions who will not accept a person as a member unless he can produce his indentures properly fulfilled showing that he has served a proper period of apprenticeship. I believe that we shall train in this country a good many of our boys, who unfortunately through the circumstances of the country, will not be able to get employment as journeymen in South Africa. They will be forced to look to other countries for their future employment. That is most regrettable, although it has nothing to do with the Bill. But we have to look to the future interests of those boys and see that we do not put a black mark on their indentures which will handicap them when they go overseas, and will follow them wherever they go. I have met the point which those responsible for the insertion of the words in the principal Act tried to effect. It is provided in this Bill that no person or trade union shall have the right to pull a boy out during his apprenticeship. Further, any person who brings pressure to bear upon an apprentice to break his contract will be guilty of an offence, and I think it will be allowed I have effected the object in a far less clumsy way than the way followed in another place. In this we go further than in the principal Act and say that an apprentice is guilty of an offence if he leaves his employment without the permission of the inspector, I hope that all hon. members will vote for this amending Bill, and so meet the objections which have now been raised against the Act as it now stands. I move the second reading.

I appreciate the manner in which the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) has introduced this Bill, but I rise to oppose it. I do not think it should be placed upon the statute book. There are just a few reasons which one ought to give why we oppose this Bill, remembering, in the first place, the circumstances under which this particular condition got into the Bill. I think the hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries gave way in permitting apprentices to join trade unions during the last year of, their apprenticeship.

I proposed that in this House, but it was not carried.

I think I did say a word against it on that occasion, and I feel now as I did then, that the principal object in regard to apprentices is to give them every liberty and leave them undisturbed to learn their business.

How does this stop it?

I will show how, as I proceed, if the hon. member will be patient. The Act itself, as it is on the statute book to-day, is a very desirable one, and I think it is just on the eve of doing a very great deal of good. The Apprenticeship Committees have been accepted by all.

How many are there?

I say Apprenticeship Committees are on the eve of functioning in the manner intended. I think the Act is a beneficent Act, and will be of great use to the youth of this country. I accept the hon. member’s assurance that the leaders of trade unions are not going to bring these apprentices out on strike. But what good will it do to these boys? What will it add to what is on the statute book by permitting the boys to belong to trade unions? I cannot see what object will be gained, and no advantage will be given to them by the disturbance they would have during a period when unfortunate events should happen again. It is admitted by all of us that this is a personal contract; there is the boy himself, the parent or guardian, and the Apprenticeship Committee; and the whole of the original Act is for the protection of the apprentice. I think therefore they are specially provided for in many ways. Now it is proposed the boys should become members of trade unions. Now, the Apprenticeship Committees are composed mainly of the trade unions. There is representation, and surely that is all that is necessary. I do not see any good in the apprentices of this country being allowed to join trade unions.

What are you talking about? We can’t follow you at all.

If the hon. member will have better manners it would be very much better. He sits in the corner there interrupting in a most ill-mannered way. He is very fond of interrupting, particularly the Prime Minister, and it would be very advisable if he tried to conduct himself with better manners. There are three persons to be considered. First, the apprentice; secondly, the guardian; and thirdly, the Apprenticeship Committee. What are their opinions? Have you got the opinions of any parents of these boys? Have they been considered? Is there any mandate on behalf of these boys? I venture to say there is not. Now, with regard to trade unions, have you any mandate from them? I have reason for stating that I do not believe that the best class of trade unionist, the old trade unionists whom we all know and whom we appreciate, are desirous immediately they apprentice their boys to a trade in this country, that they are desirous of having them in the trade union. I oppose this very strongly, as I believe it is not in the interests of the boys in this country. I appreciate the Act which is upon the statute book. I believe the schedule could be very much enlarged, so that it should cover the whole of the commercial enterprises of this country in the placing of apprentices. I think it is an excellent Act, but why begin to tamper with it at this early stage? Why alter it; why add to it? There is no question I think with the hon. members even on the cross-benches, that being members of the trade union would not be in the interests of the apprenticeship of this country. I rather say they should learn their business. They might be better trade unionists afterwards and might make better citizens, but I do say that the right thing, and the only thing to do, is to see that these boys get the justice and right provided under the Act, and leave them alone to learn their trade, and become proficient in whatever calling they are taking up in life. I oppose the Bill.

The hon. member who has just spoken wants to know what good are the trade unions going to do for the apprentices. [An hon. Member: “For the boys.”] The hon. gentleman says we must leave the apprentices free to learn their trade without interference. Is the hon. gentleman aware that as far as the parents are concerned on the Witwatersrand there is a tremendous feeling-to-day that the employers are making use of apprenties for the purpose of supplying cheap labour, and that they are not learning a trade? There is a feeling to that extent, and the function of the trade union, as has been so well pointed out by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson), is to protect the lad and see that he has some organization and some representation which will enable him to have a body to lock after his side of the question. [An hon. Member: “ He has got the Apprenticeship Committee.”] I am sure the hon. member has not read this Bill. If he had read the Bill, he would have seen it laid down quite distinctly that any person who brings pressure to bear on an apprentice to break the conditions of his contract in any circumstances shall be guilty of an offence. That is what the hon. gentleman says he is working for. He is working for the apprentices to be left entirely free from any interference. The hon. gentleman’s objections are met in this Bill. If he will only get out of his mind for one moment his prejudice towards the trade unions in this country, and look at the question from an impartial point of view, it would be fair to say that all his objections have been met in this Bill. But the hon. member is bitterly opposed in his heart to trade unionism and he is fighting against their interests, if he were only frank enough to admit it. They are safeguarded under this Bill, which even goes further. It lays down and goes so far as to say the apprentice shall not leave his work or break his contract without the consent of the inspector. So the hon. gentleman is doubly safeguarded. The hon. member says this is a personal contract. It is a personal contract between the employer and the parent of the apprentice concerned. We have got a little further than that, and we have to realize to-day that as far as the rising generation of this or any other country is concerned there are other people who have an interest in the training of the apprentices as well as the employer and the parent. We are concerned as a State, and this House is concerned with any lad who is growing up in this country. We are concerned to see that this lad is turned out efficiently. That is the concern of the State. We want to see the citizens of this country hold their own with the citizens of any other country. What is the experience of many people on the Witwatersrand to-day? We have one case in particular in Benoni where a lad there went through his form of apprenticeship, and became a full-fledged tradesman and has never had a job since. Why? Because they say he has been turned cut as a half-made tradesman, and I say again that the trade unions are to see that the employer does his duty to that lad, and that he is really learning his trade instead of being used as a medium for cheap labour. When I was put to a trade in Australia, I got half a-crown per week to learn carpentry and joinery, and how was I used? I was put to dig the garden, to bang up putty with a big hammer, to turn the handle of a circular saw—instead of having steam-power we had to turn the handle to cut wood for the boss—and on Saturdays I had to go and dig worms for him to go fishing on the Sunday. After I had put in a few months on that half-crown a week, I was offered a job at fifteen shillings a week as a stable boy, and I took it. To-day a similar result is that many people are turned out without any trade at all. It is wholly in the interest of apprentices themselves that this Bill is being brought forward, and I appeal to members to get rid of any prejudice they may have against the trade unions in this country. The trade union interests are the same as ours—that is the interests of the people, and let us see that every protection is granted to them to see that they are not misused.

I support the Bill because I believe in the liberty of the subject. If an apprentice, after serving two years wishes to join a trade union, let him be free to do so. What I do object to is limiting the number of apprentices. Now, the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterson) just now deplored the fact that many people are turned out without a trade. Now, the limiting of the number of apprentices has the effect of turning out a large number of youngsters without a trade. The trade unions are in favour of limiting the number of apprentices. There is nothing to my mind which causes more unemployment than a regulation or an act of that kind. An untrained man has the greatest difficulty in the world to find employment. If a man has a trade he can turn to it: it is an education to him, and if we had the children of these poor whites, and if an industrial school were provided for them to learn trades, they would not only be an asset to the country, but they would be in some measure able to support their parents who are at the present time a burden upon the State. We have in this country, I am sorry to say, a lot of youths, sons of poor whites, who are bootless and foodless. These youngsters would not be in this condition to-day if they had the opportunity of learning trades. Members on the cross-benches have prevented them. They have limited the number of apprentices, and I say that the number should be unlimited. There is no necessity for limiting the number, because the natural laws are much more effective than any Act of Parliament can make them. I hope that the hon. members on the cross-benches will come forward one day and amend the Bill in the direction I have indicated. It is doing a lot of harm to the country. If you have too many carpenters or blacksmiths or boilermakers or fitters who cannot find employment here, they can find it elsewhere. It is the same in England. We have had to import into this country thousands of mechanics; if they had not had a trade what would have become of them to-day? And the same with the apprentices. They can go overseas; sorry to lose them, but it is far better for them to earn money than to stay here. I think the hon. members who have limited the number of apprentices have done this country a disservice.

The hon. members will remember that when the Apprenticeship Bill was introduced by me in 1921 and 1922, this clause read without the words “And not to belong to any trades union.” When the Bill was, in 1922, reconsidered in another place these words were added, and when the Bill came back for consideration to this House, I moved as a compromise to say, “except during the last year of his apprenticeship.” I understand that in some trade unions they do not take any apprentices at all until the last year. They regard them as practical journeymen tradesmen and begin to give them privileges. So I tried to induce the House in 1922 to accept that amendment. It was negatived and the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. R. H. Henderson) will find in the Act that it will read: “and not to belong to any trades union,” without the exception which was negatived, and the Bill became law with these words in. In 1923, that is last year, the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) gave notice of an amending Bill merely to delete these words. The House did not come to a decision on that matter. I do not think we even arrived at a second reading. Personally, I was prepared to vote for the second reading of that Bill, but not unconditionally. I wanted certain things to be added in place of the words proposed to be deleted. Since then the hon. member gave notice in the Gazette in December for the re-introduction of this Bill in the same form as it was last year. The form in which he has introduced it into the House now adds two clauses—2 and 3. I must say that these two additions very largely meet my objections. Now, what were the objections to the apprentices being members of a trade union? Two, mainly, as far as I can gather from all the discussions which have taken place since. First of all, that the apprentice may be induced to break his indenture in case of a strike by being called out; second, that his being a member of a trade union would interfere with discipline during the time he is being taught. He would be serving under two masters, so to say: the master to whom he is apprenticed, and the trade union. There would be a sort of divided responsibility between the two. These were the two objections which the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) has tried to meet in the new Bill. With regard to the question of strikes, he distinctly says: “No apprentice shall leave his employment without the consent of the inspector.” If a strike takes place that he shall not be called out and that he should not leave. The other points with regard to discipline is met in the other clause, by which you say that nobody shall interfere with the apprentice while he is being apprenticed. Here he is with his indenture properly signed and entered into, and it says that anyone who brings pressure to bear on this apprentice to break the terms of his indenture by doing work during a strike, for which he is not indentured, shall thereby commit an offence. It seems to me that the question of discipline is met with in that clause. I therefore think that with the addition of this clause to the Bill, I am prepared to take a second reading, and I hope the Bill will be agreed to.

I have the same view on this Bill as when the matter was discussed two years ago, and that is that the inclusion in another place of these words “Shall not belong to a trade union” was a direct slap in the face to the trade unions. I voted against the inclusion of those words, and I am very glad to-day to be able to take part in an attempt to remove them. Whatever was the intention of the hon. gentlemen who put the words in, there is no doubt about the manner in which the trade unions on the Rand received the inclusion of those words. They took it that it was introduced in a spirit of hostility to all that the trade unions stood for; and I think we would be wise in this House to express our opinion that we are not hostile to trade unionism in any sense of the word at all. I am not. I do not see why any apprentice should not belong to a trade union, as I take it that most trade unions have an age clause, and will not admit mere boys. It is as important for an apprentice to be educated in the same principles of trade unionism as to be educated in his job, because I do feel that what we want in trade unionism is not a mass of irresponsible youngsters, but a body of men who are educated in the responsibilities of trade unionism. Nearly all the trouble we have had in this country and most of the industrial trouble in England has not been through the strength of trade unions, but through its weakness, through the fact of their not being in a position to get their members to carry out the agreement with employees. Apprentices should be allowed to join trade unions, as membership is a distinct privilege and creates a sense of responsibility both to himself and fellow workers. That is all for the good.

I wish to congratulate the right hon. Minister on his speech in support of this Bill. I think the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) can now claim the support of all hon. members who voted for it on a previous occasion when it was introduced by the right hon. the Minister and passed by this House. I was very much surprised when the Bill was sent back from another place, and I was more surprised that the Government did not then take up a firm stand in the matter, but gave way to another place. The right hon. the Minister has a reputation on the Rand of always trying to do the correct thing, to see fair play all round, to the men working in the mines as well as to the mine owners. He has to-day enhanced that reputation. He does not say in one place that he approves of the trade union movement and in another act and speak differently. There are members of this House who have a tendency in that direction. I have heard them at public meetings state that they believe in trade unions and here their vote shows that they do not. I believe it is in the interest of the country to have, trade unions, and that they should be on a sound basis and command respect. We should show we have confidence in them. I am a great believer in trade unionism, and if the Bill is passed it will show that the House believes in the movement. It stands to reason that it is far better for employers and the Government to deal with a well-organized trade union than with a mob. Unfortunately in the past trade unions have not always been able to carry all their members with them. If a trade union comes to an agreement with the Government or with employers, that agreement should be respected by every man in the trade union. I consider the apprentices would take a greater pride in their trade and would be more likely to stick to their trade if they were allowed to join the union of the trade they are learning.

Like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), two years ago I took up the same position as I do now, but contrary to what he has done, I opposed the principle that during the time any scholar was learning a trade he should be under the jurisdiction of outside people in so far as his trade was concerned. I know that in the legal profession, the medical profession and all other associations the principle is that these young learners are not allowed into the trade unions or full associations until they have finished, or let me say, qualified. Now I ask myself: what is the special reason why these trade unions of technical trades should be so anxious to have these learners in their trade unions where other associations and trade unions do not want them? I have really never had an answer to that question. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) this afternoon made an attempt to answer that. He said “you want to train these learners not only in the technical work, but you want them to belong to a trade union so as to teach them to become proper trade unionists.” Well, what is there to be learned in that special way? I think the principle of trade unionism is that you must stick to your particular trade and that you must stick to your particular trade union. Apart from that, I do not think that there is anything very special in trade unionism that will differ from what you learn in your particular trade. I take it that in order to be a good trade unionist, you must be a good tradesman and you must stick to your particular trade union, and that seems to me to be the sum total of good trade unionism. I am speaking subject to correction, but I should like to know what the real reason is for this proposal that trade unions of technical trades should depart from the ordinary accepted principle of all other professions or trades, namely to keep learners out of their association until they are qualified. That is one question which I wish to ask. Then there is Clause 2, which says that “any person who brings pressure to bear on an apprentice to break the conditions of this contract under any circumstances shall be guilty of an offence.” Now I would like to see any young apprentice bell the cat to prove that pressure has been brought upon him to break his contract. Is an apprentice going to bell the cat against A. when he knows that his future life in the trade union will be affected? I would like to say that I think that so far from this new section in the Act making it any better, it will make it worse. I think the Bill is not practical, and I cannot support it.

I am also sorry that I cannot support the Bill, and I must oppose it for the reason that there are many sound objections to apprentices being members of trade unions. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) recognises that it would be a very serious objection, that if an apprentice belonged to a trade union, he could have his contract broken against his will. The hon. member speaks of this as if it were a new point. But that objection was very strongly emphasised when the discussion was in the House on a previous occasion. The right hon. the Minister says that he is satisfied that the clause which is put in here now will practically remedy the difficulty, but with all due respect to the Minister, I want to know whether there is any practical value in that clause. After all, this clause only comes into effect when a strike takes place and apprentices are pulled out by pressure. What chance is there of prosecution when a strike is on and what prospect is there of a prosecution after a strike is over? We know all these strikes are settled on the basis of everything being forgotten and forgiven. Let us be quite frank and say that that clause has no value in protecting the boy whose interest we are out to protect. The hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell) says that it is the same whether the apprentice is in a trade union or not. But if he were not in a trade union, he would not be subject to the same direct pressure. If he does not belong to a trade union, it is much easier to prove the pressure than if he does. I feel the same as I did before that the boy cannot try to serve two masters. The very reason why we have an Apprenticeship Act is because he is not at liberty to select his own master at will. There are certain trade unions which do not admit apprentices at all, and there are others which do not admit him until his last year of apprenticeship. Surely in those circumstances one cannot say that any stigma is being cast on trade unions by us who oppose the Bill. I think in the interests of the boy himself and in the interests of the trade union we should not pass this Bill. It has been repeatedly proved to be very detrimental to trade unions for immature youth to belong to a trade union, and for these reasons I take the same view as I took before, that while I have the utmost regard for the existence of trade unions, and I really believe in their value for the community, I also believe that apprentices are not proper persons to be allowed to join trade unions during their apprenticeship.

The Bill seems to me to be a reasonable compromise between certain views which have been placed before the House, and for that reason I will support it. I have to congratulate the hon. member for Turffontein (Maj. Hunt) for the point which he has put forward that the real difficulty in the past among trade unions was that when they adopted certain agreements certain members would not stick to them. I hope that when next he joins a party and honourable agreements are come to he will stick to them.

I would like to reply to some of the arguments which have been put forward. The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. R. H. Henderson) has asked what advantage an apprentice gains by belonging to a trade union, and also emphasises that some trade unions are in favour of making apprentices members and others are not, while the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) says we should not allow persons of immature age to join trade unions. I would remind the latter that the Act provides for apprenticeship up to 26 years of age, and surely he would not say this was not a mature age. If apprentices are not allowed to become members of trade unions you might as logically say that no young person under a certain age should be allowed to be insured by an insurance company. Generally speaking, a trade union is a benefit society, which extends to persons not only protection, but also a large number of benefits. I happen to be a member of one which makes provision for unemployment, mortality, and if a man is out of employment and going from town to town, assists him in travelling expenses. The amount of these benefits entirely depends on the length of membership. Now, some trade unions do not admit apprentices for the whole time of their apprenticeship, while in other unions they are admitted during the last one, two or three years of apprenticeship. They pay half the subscription of journeymen, and are entitled to the full benefits when out of their time. I want to put it to you that there is no period in a boy’s existence when he needs the assistance of trade unions more than when he has completed his apprenticeship and has to face the world and look round for employment. He has no experience of the world and most employers hesitate to take him on, and he will have to battle for a considerable time before he gets a permanent job. This is the time when trade unions can assist him, but a boy who has not been a member of a union during his apprenticeship will certainly not have a claim or right to that assistance. In this matter I am speaking alone in the interest of the apprentices. Many journeymen will abuse me for the position I have taken up in providing these penal clauses, but I am fighting to get the greatest benefit for the apprentices themselves out of the Act, and I contend that Parliament should for that reason pass this unanimously.

Motion put, and the House divided:

Ayes—56.

Alberts, S. F.

Alexander, M.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bates, F. T.

Bisset, M.

Blackwell. L.

Boydell. T.

Brink, G. F.

Byron, J. J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conroy E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Waal. J. H. H.

Duncan, P.

Fitchat, H.

Forsyth, R.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Harris, D.

Havenga. N. C.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Hunt. E. W.

Jansen, E. G.

Le Roux, P. W.

Le Roux, S. P.

Mackeurtan, H. G.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, F. S.

Malan. M. L.

McAlister, H. S.

Muller, C. H.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Nicholls. G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Pienaar, B. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. v. W.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Smit, J. S.

Snow, W. J.

Stewart, J.

Strachan, T. G.

Stuart, W. H.

Swart, C. R.

Visser, T. C.

Waterston, R. B.

Watt. T.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Wilcocks, C. T. M.

Tellers: Sampson, H. W.; Brand Wessels, J.H.

Noes—32.

Ballantine, R.

Bezuidenhout, W. W. J. J.

Buchanan, W. P.

Burton, H.

Cilliers, P. S.

Claasscn, G. M.

Close, R. W.

Coetzee, J. P.

Dreyer, T. F. J.

Fourie, J. C.

Geldenhuys, L.

Ginvanotti, C. W.

Greenacre, W.

Grobler, H. S.

Henderson. R H.

Jordaan, P. J.

King. T. G.

Lemmer, L. A. S.

Leuchars, G.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Moor, J. W.

Nel, T. J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Scholtz, P. E.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Van Aardt, F. J.

Van Heerden, B. I. J.

Venter, J. A.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; Louw, G. A.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on 7th February.