I have examined the provisions of the Irrigation Districts Adjustment Bill and find that although it may be regarded as dealing with public policy it will have the effect of depriving certain private individuals, as distinct from the public generally, of rights they now possess. For these reasons I consider that the Bill should be proceeded with as a Hybrid Bill. The order of the second reading should therefore be discharged and the Bill referred to the examiners for report in terms of Standing Order No. 182. Subsequently, if allowed to proceed, the Bill will be referred to a select committee after second reading.

Ordered accordingly.

1. 1. Before dealing with the estimates of revenue and expenditure for the ensuing financial year, I propose to comment briefly on the results of working the railways, harbours and steamships during the current financial year, which terminates at the end of this month.
2. 2. The final accounts will not, of course, be available for some time to come, so it will not be possible to give members more than a revised estimate of the results anticipated for the year, but as far as can be seen, there is justification for assuming that the estimate, which I will now give you, will not differ materially from the actual result when it is known.
3. 3. Let me first of all remind you that the estimates submitted to Parliament last session provided for a gross expenditure during the current year of £31,181,118; and that we budgetted for a net deficit on the year’s working of £105,171.
4. 4. Had normal conditions continued throughout the year, there is no doubt that the actual result would have approximated that figure, or even shown a better result.
5. 5. But, as I stated recently, from the beginning of December, 1929, the general depression prevailing throughout the country made itself markedly felt in the railway earnings, and in consequence it is now certain that revenue will fall short of our estimate.
6. 6. Hon. members will appreciate the position better when I inform them that up to the end of November, 1929, railway earnings were well maintained, the total for the eight months April to November not only exceeding the estimate to the extent of £21,378, but exceeding the corresponding period of the previous year by £346,238.
7. 7. On the other hand the revenue for the nine months ended the 31st December showed a decrease, compared with the estimate, amounting to £9,318; while the revenue for the month of December, 1929, alone, was less than that for December in the previous year to the extent of £44,232.
8. 8. Remembering that December is usually a month in which the revenue shows an upward tendency, and on the other hand, that railway revenue would suffer to some extent as a result of signs that a setback in the country, generally, was imminent, the decline, not only below the estimate, but below the corresponding month of the preceding year was disappointing.
9. 9. The months of January, February and March are not, normally, good months from a revenue point of view and the returns to date indicate that they are even less so, consequently the deficit as originally estimated will be exceeded.
10. 10. The difference will not be of such a magnitude as to justify measures of a drastic nature being taken and while it has to be recognised that an estimate made over twelve months ago involving a figure of over 31 millions is liable to many variations, the position is being carefully watched.
11. 11. In the green book which will be distributed this afternoon, hon. members will find the latest revised estimates of revenue and expenditure to the 31st March, 1930, based on the actual results to the 31st January, 1930, plus the estimated results for the months of February and March.
12. 12. Under the head of revenue the figures show that whereas the original estimates for 1929-’30 provided for a total revenue of £31,075,947, the revised estimates provide for a total revenue of only £30,916,377, a decrease, compared with the amount originally anticipated, of £159,570 made up of: Railways, a decrease of £249,744; Harbours, an increase of £112,474; Steamships, a decrease of £22,300; a net decrease of £159,570.
13. 13. It will also be seen from the green book figures that the total expenditure is estimated to be £31,205,941; and as the total revenue is estimated to be £30,916,377, a deficit from the year’s working is anticipated of £289,564.
14. 14. During the last three months, in fact ever since the forecast of depression was first made, the Administration’s officers and staff have taken active steps to effect savings and economies to counteract as much as possible the fall in railway earnings and so it is just possible that the actual position may prove to be more favourable than has been estimated.
15. 15. In the event of the deficit of £289,000 being realized it will be liquidated by the withdrawal of the same amount from the Rates Equalization Fund, in which, at the moment, there is a credit balance of £500,000.
16. 16. I will now refer briefly, to certain interesting features of the year’s working.

I move—

This will make it clearer.

It is unnecessary.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause 2 and title having been agreed to,

When I stopped last night I was saying that the only suggestion that had been made was that of the hon. member for Durban (County) Mr. Eaton, and his proposal was very characteristic of his party. It was that the Minister should first do something, and then come to the House and ask for indemnity. That is a motion by an hon. member, who belonged to a party that always strongly opposed indemnity. Now as a member of another party, whose ranks he has joined, he has met the word indemnity several times and now recommends it to the other side of the House of that party which in the past required a great deal of indemnity. I think it is a very wrong proposal and I shall be very sorry if it is ever agreed to. I think it is right to grant the powers which the Minister is asking for, as for me, I do not mind what Minister it is, but I think we must grant him those powers, because it is absolutely necessary so that the Minister will be able to do what he asks for in the Bill. I am well acquainted with affairs in the native territories. The natives are very peace loving, but we must not allow agitators to go into the territories. I am certain that every hon. member who lives in or near a native territory, and knows the circumstances, welcomes the Bill, and not only hon. members but natives also who live in those territories welcome the Bill. Clauses 12 and 16 have been much opposed. I can understand Clause 12 being a difficult clause and that the Minister who used it would cause much trouble, but I cannot imagine that there can be any Minister who takes an interest in South Africa who will abuse that clause. I am prepared to grant that power to the Minister, so that the agitation in the towns may be prevented. I know that, e.g., in Bechuanaland we never heard anything for years about agitation among the natives. It was very quiet and they were satisfied, but lately people have come there who travel about to stir up the natives and who foment agitation. We know that many of the natives in those territories have lived on their own land, and when they feel hurt about ground which had been taken away from them it is easy to use that circumstance and to tell them that they must get the ground back. So there are many things which the agitators can use, and I therefore hope that the Bill, as drawn, will be passed by the House. Another objection of hon. members is the right of deportation. But we have it in other Acts as well that if persons are guilty of certain offences they can be deported. I hope that we will include that deportation clause in more Acts, because we have got an undesirable element from abroad, and the only way of getting them out of the country again is to deport them. I hope that this clause will therefore stop in the Bill. We must not be so concerned about the liberty of the subject. I think that too much time is wasted in considering the liberty of the subject, but we must not lose sight of the liberty of the natives as a race. As I have said, I am well acquainted with conditions in the native territories, and, in my opinion, we must do all in our power to see that natives in those territories do not get into trouble through the agitators, especially because the natives themselves do not want the agitators there.

I think the Minister of Justice must be pleased to think of the amount of sympathy with which his important statement has been received by this House, and I do not think any member of the House would wish to speak on the Bill without a feeling of deep responsibility for what he proposes should be done, and also an equal feeling of deep responsibility, if he is against it, for what he proposes to leave undone. In view of the statements of the Minister of Justice, our responsibility is very great. I endorse the statement made by the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) when he said that when the Minister of Justice comes to this House and states, with the responsibility of his office, that the law is not sufficient to meet the grave state of affairs existing, then I am prepared to give him my wholehearted support. I recognize the grave state of affairs which has arisen, and have considered very carefully indeed whether the means he proposes are proper to meet that state of affairs. If there is one thing about which the Minister might have enlightened us, it is the precise mischief which this Bill is designed to defeat. That is not quite clear. The Minister retailed with considerable effect, and with evidently deep conviction, the difficulties which faced the police in dealing with people who are guilty of creating mischief and sedition, as between white and black throughout the country. If there is one offence which is more reprehensible than another, that is the offence. But when the Minister has said that he is not clear as to exactly what the mischief is, and how he proposes to deal with it by this Bill. It is all very well to express himself in general terms. I gather that there is propaganda on foot, from what we may call communist sources, and that natives, in their elementary state of development, are peculiarly susceptible to doctrines of specious communism. But there is nothing in this Bill which touches communism expressly, and I think a great many members are under the impression that they will get more from this Bill than the Bill contemplates. Members think if we arm the Minister with this Bill, the whole mischief will cease. Nothing is further from the truth. When the Minister is armed with these powers I have yet to learn that the propagation of communism will cease, or that people will cease to complain of grievances, or that the preaching of other doc trines which we regard as seditious, will come to an end. But the Bill will take away a great deal of the support on which our liberties have been built. Is it necessary that we should sacrifice what is asked in the Bill in order to attain the results. I would like to point out to the Minister and this House, that while we recognize a grave state of affairs existing, the mischief this Bill is intended to tackle should be tackled in some other way. It was with the intention of going “full out,” if I may so express it, to assist the Minister in exploring all the avenues to find alternatives to this, that I went to the select committee, but the select committee did not approve of the avenue of approach which I thought the right one, and so my suggestion did not materialize into concrete form, as I had hoped.

You were alone in your view.

I am not concerned whether I was alone or whether I had support. I will put my point to this House, and the House will judge whether there was substance in it or not. It has been said that the matter is very urgent and something must be done at once; that if you go to the courts it will involve long delay, and mischief will be done before you can overtake it. Reference has been made to veld fires, and the way in which they should be extinguished, but you are not really going to speed up anything if you destroy some of your own building in the speeding up. I have yet to learn that the way to deal with a fire in the main part of a house, is to set fire to the kitchen. You have to size up the mischief, and then find a remedy. What is the object of the first portion of the Bill? Is it to prevent meetings being held in public places, which the Minister thinks are calculated to arouse feelings of hostility? What is the precise mischief at which you are aiming; is it public meetings; are these the cause of the offence? It is not sufficient to say that mischief has arisen at public meetings. Under the Riotous Assemblies Act, as it stands, there is provision to deal with public meetings, but I doubt very much if the holding of a meeting in a public place, which appears to be the sine qua non of the coming into force of the first portion of the Bill, is an important element in the creation of the agitation to which the Minister has referred. As far as I know, the evidence he has cited in the House, and that of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) showed that it was not the people who spoke at public meetings, but the hidden hand behind the men who addressed the public meetings, that you want to get at. If that is so, what is the real point of this first portion of the Bill? The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) said he, for his part, would be willing to let it pass; but this portion of the Bill will involve a sacrifice of a very important part of our public liberties. But it pales into insignificance besides the sacrifice of liberties entailed by the latter part of the Bill, and I do not see why we should agree to this.

It will act as a deterrent.

Now the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) has intervened again. Yesterday he told us that the mischief of these public meetings lay in the desecration of graves and the defiance of the power of the magistrate by some 4,000 natives. No better illustration of the utter futility of the first portion of the Bill could have been given by anyone than that given by the hon. member. The difficulty is a police difficulty. You must put detectives on the track and find out who desecrates the graves. The law is amply sufficient to punish in a very severe way the commission of such an offence. That is what you want, namely, your machinery of detection to be so adequate and so operative that you will be able to find out the perpetrators of dastardly deeds of that kind. In regard to the second illustration of the hon. member, this again shows the futility of the first portion of the Bill. If these 4,000 natives treated the prohibition of the Minister with the same scorn as they treated the prohibition of the magistrate, then the passing of this Act will give a fresh opportunity for defying the law and bringing the administration of the law into contempt. It is one thing to pass a law and to give power to an individual to prohibit a meeting. It is a different thing to carry that into effect. The illustrations given to us are illustrations which go to show the difficulty of enforcing our law, and the necessity of bringing into effect a new branch of the law. We have been dosed with fresh laws as this 20th century gets older. The more laws that are passed, the less knowledge there is of the law, and the less knowledge there is of the law the easier people will find it to push the law aside, and the less regard and respect of the law will prevail. It is respect of the law based on a knowledge of the law upon which observation of the law has mainly to rely. We do not rely here, or in any civilized community, upon the police force to enforce the laws, but on the knowledge of whether it is right or wrong, and that it is a decent thing to do for any man to observe the law. It is that sort of spirit which has been weakened. It is the weakening of that spirit which is at the root of the mischief exposed by the Minister of Justice in this House. I suggest that the remedy of passing fresh laws of this kind is not an approach in the right direction. You must tackle it from a different angle altogether. The mere passing of these laws and the act of the Minister of Justice in the past in attempting to put them into force and finding that his power is defied is a degradation of law and order. The Minister will take into his own hands the prohibition of public meetings in a public place anywhere, at any time or in any circumstances, as long as he is convinced that mischief will arise. What will he do at a time of elections? I suppose there is no subject which is likely to promote more feelings of hostility, or more calculated to raise feelings between black and white, between European and native inhabitants, than a discussion of their relationships. Take the burning question of the franchise. Is that question going to be discussed at times of election or not? Take the question of education, and the expenditure of money raised from the natives. Is that going to be discussed or not? If those questions are going to be discussed, then you have all the material there for a public meeting in which feelings of hostility are going to be promoted. If you are going to carry this law into effect and you wish to prevent any such action from arising, you will have to extend it to all political meetings, even at times of election, where questions of relationship between white and black will be discussed. If you are going to do that, it seems to me that it will be very difficult indeed to carry on anything like popular parliamentary government in this country. Of course, the Minister will say that the power will not be exercised in that way only in extreme cases of a certain character. Of what character? He will not describe it. If he was prepared to describe it, he would be prepared to accept the definition of sedition suggested by my hon. friend the member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), which would render his description liable to be interpreted by an ordinary court of law. He has difficulty in putting into a form of words the sort of meeting and discussion which he wishes to prevent which makes him fall back upon an administrative act, thus making one person only the sole judge of whether that danger is likely to arise or not. That principle, once it is accepted, is subversive to all principle. It is the quintessence of the dictatorship system. There are many people who believe in that system, and there are many instances in history to show that the nation has flourished at certain times by the administration of that system. It is not the theory on which we work. It is one of our institutions of polity, and it is our national conception of the basis for public law and order. We are making in the first portion of this Bill a radical departure from the principles on which we have always acted up to the present time, and we are making it for no good purpose whatsoever. Does he think that this is going to be the end of the propaganda of communism? What will happen? Supposing for the sake of argument that public meetings are prescribed in this way. What will happen? The people who are behind the movement, not the mere fuel or powder for the activities of the movement, but the hidden hand, will take other measures and will move in secrecy, and will arrange to hold meetings in private. They will hold a meeting in a place to which the public has no access, and you are defeating the object of this section. What is the good of passing a law of this kind when you can defeat it by a simple alteration of tactics which the most elementarily instructed in political activity will be able to defeat with a stroke of his pen? I submit, then, on the first part of the measure promoted by the Minister of Justice, that it is not calculated to serve any good or necessary purpose. Now we proceed. I am still in the dark trying to analyze this position for the purpose of finding out what is the mischief at which it is aimed. I think I may say that, in coming to this next section, I am on right lines in saying that the Minister is aiming here at the secret and underhand provocation of communistic or seditious doctrines. It refers to the prohibition of the distribution of documentary information calculated to engender feelings of hostility. That has to be discovered in the first instance before it can be prohibited. When it is discovered, a great deal of mischief is done. We will suppose it is discovered as timeously as may be, and the Minister has formed an opinion on it. He has to form an opinion whether the information is calculated to engender feelings of hostility. Everything I have said about the difficulty of discussing questions which touch the relations of black and white without saying something which may engender feelings of hostility on one side or the other, is apparent, and under this Bill you would be able to prohibit the publication of any book, document or paper which seriously discussed these matters. I have before me a report of a public meeting at which these subjects were discussed in most moderate terms. One speaker said he welcomed the colour bar—that is a good opening—which had been created by the Pact Government. He also said “the native should be kept in his place, and that place was the unskilled labourer’s sphere.” If the speaker had his way,” not one of these magnates would be allowed to have natives to drive them to their offices in motor-cars.” Is that not a very ordinary kind of speech, couched in not unmeasured terms? It was delivered at a public meeting presided over by Mr. Longeveld, and he introduced Mr. Pirow as “one of those strong Nationalists who stop at nothing.” “A young Turk,” suggested somebody from the audience, and the enthusiastic chairman accepted that description and shouted “That’s him.” The “young Turk” at that meeting and the Minister of Justice have come together in the same person. When we find a matter of that kind being discussed at a white meeting—and you have only to transpose these words into their direct opposites and put them in the mouth of a black speaker and see what mischief might be engendered by arousing feelings of hostility— if the Minister is going to enforce that as a reason for preventing public meetings or preventing the dissemination of documentary opinion, it is bound to be enforced either in a partial manner against one group or another, or it is going to be enforced impartially, and it will rule out the discussion in press and on platform of some of the most burning questions of the day. Either course is undesirable, if not impossible, of accomplishment. In dealing with documentary information, the matter goes further, for once the Minister has determined that the information is likely to engender feelings of hostility, then he prohibits it, and the prohibition extends not merely to that document, but to the publication of the same master in any other form. This is a most startling and most astounding provision. Once you determine that a speech or an article on the native franchise, or any matter of that sort, is likely to engender feelings of public hostility, then you may not publish that information in any other form at all. The unfortunate authors and sellers of books, and the writers of newspaper articles, will perpetually have before them the danger of contravening a section of the Act which may carry the most dire consequences when you refer to the measure as a whole. I do not think anyone in this House has indicated how far-reaching this measure is. It is to be a perpetual prohibition; you are never allowed, for all time, to publish this information again in any other shape or form. This will be the gravest possible matter, and only the most extraordinary possible circumstances would make that the only remedy, and nothing has been said by the Minister to justify such a course.

What about the appeal to the courts?

I admit that here the Minister, feeling the drastic character of his proposal, said: “We will try to get the courts to intervene.” So this is what has to be done. When there has been any prohibition, you may go to a court within a specified time limit, and you have the opportunity of proving that the natural and probable result of the matter sought to be prohibited would not be to engender feelings of hostility between the races. If the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) had been Minister of Justice, such a speech as that delivered by the present Minister of Justice at the meeting to which I referred would have been prohibited. What chance would the letter have of showing in court that the speech was not calculated to engender feelings of hostility.

If the speech creates mischief, why should it not be prohibited?

What is the standard?

I am leaving that to the courts.

That is not a correct representation. What the Minister is doing is to form his own opinion and then leave it to the courts to say that that opinion should not have been formed, and that the words complained of were not calculated to generate feelings of hostility. The onus is then placed on the defendant to show the contrary, and the judge will probably say: “This should not generate feelings of hostility, but feelings have been aroused”; and it would be difficult to convince him that publication of this matter should not generate feelings of hostility. And, therefore, you lose your order.

There is never any onus on a document.

No, but the person who applies to the court to set aside the prohibition has then to convince the court that the documentary information could not have that effect. How are you going, under ordinary circumstances, to convince the court where the subject matter of the speech is such a one as the Minister himself used and the language he adopted on the occasion to which I refer? Is it only for him to say—

From the decision of the Minister there would be practically no appeal. In the rest of the Bill we get to far more serious consequences, and whenever the Minister thinks there is any person in an area promoting feelings of hostility, he may prohibit and prevent his being within that area. The consequences of that are very far-reaching. A man may have established a home and a business there, and if he oversteps the limits allowed by the law, he becomes guilty of sedition. Again, the judgment of the Minister as to whether this person is, as a matter of fact, within the area promoting feelings of hostility, is the test; that person may be removed and taken away from his home; his business and his family life may be destroyed, and there is no appeal. The Minister will remind me again of sub-section (13) where, I admit, he did make an effort to try to mitigate, to some extent, the possible serious consequences of this form of legislation, but I submit that this is no shelter and protection at all. Under sub-section (13) the Minister has to furnish such person with a statement in writing, setting forth his reasons for such notice, and so much of the information which induced the Minister to issue such notice as he can, in his opinion, be disclosed without detriment to public policy. We all know, who have had anything to do with the administration of law, of the very rigorous way in which sources of information are prevented from reaching the ears of the accused person, and that is done in the interests of justice—rightly done. It is right that the authorities should receive information and not disclose it. In nearly every case these reasons are potent and active, and they prevent these reasons from being given. I do not see any reason why they should not be equally potent and effective in cases of this kind. So I think you will find that the source of information on which the Minister acted in practically every case will be withheld, and the accused person will have to be content with a general statement of his defence. Sub-section (18) states—

I ask what chance would the Minister of Justice have in proving any of these accusations against the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) if he had issued a prohibition against him in the circumstances? He might have acted on erroneous information, and been entirely misled by the evidence placed before him. [Time limit extended.] I thank the Minister of Justice for his courtesy. The protection which he has sought to be given under this sub-section is really misleading—it is no protection at all. I want to turn to other aspects of the case. The method which the Minister has adopted is one of prohibitions, of creating fresh crimes, and of enabling him to pick on an individual and take him away. One of the facts which are outstanding in these circumstances is that the fuel which the agitators work upon is mainly supplied from the dense populations. The fuel for the agitator comes from those who are unemployed, or those who are only temporarily employed, or the togt labourers referred to by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane). If you were to remove these elements from the urban areas, you would take away the fuel, and the agitator would have nothing left to work upon. Before you take these arbitrary powers, you should do what you can to remove the redundant natives from urban and densely settled areas. You have got the opportunity now in the Urban Areas Bill which is before the House. I urged upon the Minister that he should take this opportunity of introducing the necessary amendments to the Urban Areas Bill. He has not seen fit to do so, though I gathered from him that he did not recognize that it was in this form of material that the danger lay. The next thing I suggest is that within the native reserves the powers already in existence be employed. The system of government there is by the great chief. The Governor-General is the great chief. I gather that the overwhelming opinion of the natives themselves is that drastic action should be taken. Let that action be taken within the native reserves by the power of proclamation and of government in that way. The third line in which I would approach this is to have drastic powers within native locations, and within native villages attached to urban areas, of preventing assemblies in contravention of law and order. That, I think, very little amendment is required to do. The next line is to adopt an extension of the definition of sedition, which was suggested by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). I do not share the criticism of the Minister of Justice of the amendment that was introduced into the select committee, but I am quite free to admit that the language could be improved upon, and the language has been improved upon in the first draft which several of my hon. friends and I considered. When in select committee attention was not given so much to alternative forms of drafting as to the broad line of approach, and our line of approach was not that taken by the Minister. He wanted to deal with this by personal powers of decision. We, on the other hand, thought that an ordinary alteration of the law of the land, coupled with the removal of the fuel for the flame in the urban areas, would have been the most suitable way. I do say that this House should hesitate very greatly indeed before adopting a measure such as this on such slender provocation, a measure which is calculated to undermine the very foundations of liberty and justice upon which our liberty is built up.

I feel that the condition of things is very serious in South Africa, and it is an important matter we are now dealing with, because it concerns the future of the country. This Bill is a measure of great importance. The preamble of the Bill says—

A feeling of hostility has been spoken about here, and I think that the great point, or the heart of the matter, is the question is there a feeling of hostility between the natives on the one hand, and the white population on the other? I do not think there is anyone who will deny that there is some hostility between the whites and the natives. When we go back to the old days—and there are men here who remember the days of the old republic—where in the old Free State and Transvaal did hostility exist between the natives and the whites? I think there is no hon. member here who will say so. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) laughs. He possibly does not know what the conditions were, because he was not there in those days. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), who sits next to him, was there, and he will admit that there was not hostility between the two races. We left the women on the farms, and I challenge anyone to come here and say that the natives ever did anything to the women on the farms. Subsequently there possibly arose some hostility, but it was owing to the lead of certain officers who induced the natives to commit certain offences against the whites. Among the natives themselves there was no hostility. We left our women and children on the farms, and the natives committed no offences. Thousands of our men in the Free State and the Transvaal had to go away from their houses, but their women and children were safe so far as the natives were concerned. I acknowledge that subsequently Europeans were murdered by natives, but that was under the direction of white persons. I think that that is a well-known fact in our history. Now, however, I return to the question whether there is hostility to-day between the natives and the whites. My answer is that it is undoubtedly so. The cause of that hostility is the inciters and seditionists who travel about the country. Negroes have come here from America. When I was minister at Kuils River I met them among the coloured population in those parts, and they were engaged in stirring up the coloured people. Years later I was shooting in the northern Transvaal and met the same people there. I then went to the Commissioner of Police, Col. Truter, and told him to take steps to stop those things. I do not know whether these negroes from America belong to the Ethiopean church, but they are followers of Marcus Garvey, the so-called President of the African Republic, and they preach his doctrines to the natives in our country. What is to be done now to put an end to the existing hostility? In this case I want to refer to some speeches which have been made by responsible men. The first refers to the act of the ambassador of the Soviet about whom the following appeared in the London Times—

Mrs. Bunting states the majority of the white communists were willing to wage warfare under the device, “An independent black Africa.”

Here an “independent black Africa” is spoken of, and when the crowd were busy in Cape Town we saw what was written on their banners. They spoke about “an independent black republic.” The report proceeds—

Here we have a clear proof of what the position is. It is Moscow that is doing this kind of thing, and to-day people are going there from our country to be instructed and they are using their influence to strive after those ideals. What was said the other day by the natives at Worcester? I will quote it from a newspaper—

That is the speech made there, and now the question arises how to put an end to the agitation and stirring up those people are engaged in. Are those things to continue or do hon. members opposite wish that violence should once more occur as in the past? I have here a report of what took place in Port Elizabeth during the troubles of 1920. Hon. members will still recollect what happened there. I have the report here, and will quote what took place. Mr. Stidolph writes—

Further I find in the report—

That was the case at Port Elizabeth. Do hon. members opposite want a second Port Elizabeth? Must we again resort to shooting? Is that what they wish? What was the position at Bulhoek? I will quote from the Bulhoek report—

There you now have these two reports, and we ask whether the opponents of the Bill think that we should again get to the point of shooting people? Is the prevention of such irregularities not better than the forcible curing of them? We cannot deal with these matters so lightly. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) spoke about the maintenance of “law and order,” and also of “liberty of the subject.” He forgets that the people, with whom we have to do, are still half barbaric. They are uneducated people who have no idea of law and order, who are led by men like Bunting. The natives are still children. 90 per cent. of them are still uncivilized, and we must help those people when they are misled by such agitators. It is not the native himself who is hostile towards the whites. We know the chiefs in the Transvaal, and the natives, and we know that the harm is caused by these people who come and stir up the natives. Then the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) speaks about the matter. We know the natives, but he knows as much about them as the devil of holy water. We know them because we have been in touch with them since our childhood.

Confine yourself to the fact.

I think I am keeping to my point. I am talking about people who know nothing about the natives.

Keep to the facts.

It is a fact. The hon. member may differ from me, but it is a fact. Theoretical knowledge will not give you what you ought to have. If you have not studied the natives as we have studied them, you will never know them. To come and say that the same position must hold for the Europeans as for the natives is untenable. We have to do with semi-barbarians. The Europeans from overseas, the communists, come and stir them up, and stampede them. Mention has been made here that we are descendants of the Huguenots, and of the “Geuse.” I am proud of it.

Show it.

I have proved it in the past. I hope that you, who speak so much about freedom and fighting for freedom, will some day make some sacrifice for your nation. You employed other people and sent them to the Transvaal and the Free State to annex them, but you, yourself, stopped away.

The hon. member must address the Chair.

We must clearly understand that we have to do with people who do not think for themselves, with natives who do not know what the position is. We, therefore, feel that it is necessary to protect the natives against people who want to bring about hostile feeling between the natives and the whites. The people who stir up the natives are the danger. The native, himself, has respect for the white man, and the white man means well by him. We Europeans in the north have always treated the natives justly. There were, of course, exceptions, but if we look at history of other countries we find how the natives were eradicated so that now they have disappeared, but in our country to-day there are millions of natives, and that shows how the Europeans have treated them. We realize that we need an Act like this. The view of the Minister, and of this side of the House, is not to proclaim martial law, and to try and compel obedience, by means of machine guns, aeroplanes and bombs, but we want to try in a lawful manner to prevent the natives getting themselves into misfortunes as a result of the action of the agitators. We are friends of the natives, and every friend of the natives feels that a Bill like this is necessary to protect them against the bolsheviks and people who come here to create hostility. Hence we also agree with what the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) and Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) have said, people who come into daily touch with the natives, and who know how the people go about and visit the natives in their kraals, how Bunting and people like him went about the Transkei stirring up the natives against the whites. Undoubtedly the natives are indebted to the Europeans. We do not want blood spilt, but to prevent resort being made to force, as the English proverb says: “Prevention is better than cure.” Therefore, I hope that even members on the opposite side will feel that the Bill is necessary to prevent those things. We cannot wait any longer and cannot talk in a sentimental way about freedom. We want to protect the natives against irresponsible people who only want to exploit them, because the agitators only want to use the natives for their own purposes, and for nothing else. They are out in their own interests and their own importance. We do not want to permit the natives to be sacrificed. Therefore, I heartily support the Bill.

In all troublesome circumstances there is always some comfort and a ray of light. I listened to the representations of the Minister when he introduced the Bill, and his argument is that all the trouble is due to the bolsheviks and communists, the people who are fighting against imperialism and capitalism. It is very nice to see the unanimity of hon. members opposite, that they are now agreed that those people are a danger to South Africa. I remember now the Prime Minister said a few years ago that bolshevism and communism were great dangers, but that in principle they were sound.

He did not say so.

Because, he said, they fight capitalism and imperialism, and when we over here took up a strong attitude against them in the past, we were looked at sideways. During the recent election at Pretoria West the Prime Minister said that those communists and ultra-socialists were but a small group, that they were not dangerous, but that the South African party was the great danger. The Prime Minister said that they were such a small group that his hearers could safely vote for their candidates.

That is not true.

I am glad that hon. members opposite are taking up the matter so seriously. This party admits that there is a flaw in the law, and that the law should be made more stringent than it is to-day, but I do not agree when the hon. members for Kuruman (Mr. de Jager) and Gezina (Mr. Pienaar) said that the liberty of the subject meant nothing. Does the foundation on which our nation has been built amount to nothing? That is the slogan we hear here to-day, but I thought that we all stood for the liberty of the subject, and now it is proposed here that we should surrender all our liberty and place it in the hands of one man, the Minister. I must say that it is impossible for me to do so. In the first place it is not a case of bolshevism, but the Bill can be enforced against any person who says anything which, according to the opinion of the Minister, may give rise to hostility between the races in South Africa. If at a public meeting an hon. member on this, or the opposite, side got up and criticized the attitude of the Government in connection with any class of people in South Africa, and it did not tally with the feelings of the Minister, he would have the power to stop such a meeting and the men who still remained there after the Minister had issued the prohibition against the holding of the meeting could be dealt with and severely punished under this Bill, and if they contravened the law they could be deported to their own country from one territory to the other. Now the Minister says that they can appeal to the court, but the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) has made it clear what difficulties are involved in that. I think the Minister will agree that the proviso to Clause 17 which gives persons who are removed from one territory to the other the right of appealing to the courts cannot possibly be carried out.

It is fairer than what took place in 1913.

Yes, but I am not here to defend what took place in 1913. Who will ever prove in such an appeal to the court that the Minister acted hesitatingly, how can such a thing ever be proved? We, who know how such cases are dealt with in the courts, also know that this proviso means nothing, not only has the Minister the right of removing such persons from one territory to the other, but if anything appears in a newspaper or journal he cannot only prohibit that publication, but, according to his own discretion, he can even suppress that newspaper. The Minister accordingly becomes an absolute autocrat not only with regard to the personal liberty of the subject, but also the freedom of the press. Those are the liberties our ancestors fought for. The most serious thing of all, however, is that if a man was born overseas the Minister will have the right to declare him a prohibited immigrant, put him in gaol for three months, and then to deport him. The Minister will decide this by himself, and there will be no salvation for such a person by an application to the court. He is possibly a person who has serious views on public matters, and only made a mistake in going too far. In that case the Minister will be the only judge to say whether he will deport him and first put him in gaol.

Where is that stated?

You can first punish him and then send him away.

I cannot punish him.

Well the court can then punish him.

Do you not know that that is the case to-day under the insolvency Act?

Yes, when a man has first had a proper hearing in court. I want to meet the Minister as far as possible in his attempt at tightening up the existing law, but it is impossible to support him in this proposal. As the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) asked the question, I also ask whether we are so inefficient that we cannot draft the clause which will give the Minister the necessary power under the old Act. I think it is actually possible, but the Minister introduces this Bill with the object of putting it through, whether it comes to grief or is amended, because the Minister wants that power himself. It is a serious matter we are dealing with, and I hope that in committee we shall succeed in passing a satisfactory amendment. I know that my hon. friends opposite are just as peace loving as I am, and I therefore cannot understand how they can agree to put such unbridled power in the hands of the Minister. I hope that when we reach the committee stage we shall be able to pass an amendment which will meet our objections and which will, nevertheless, enable the Minister to attain the end he has in view with this Bill. I think that it is our duty to give the Minister as much power to be able to combat the evils that exist to-day, and which he wants to oppose. If I were in the position of the Minister, however, I would hesitate before taking such great powers. We shall never feel safe. We may go to a meeting with the best possible intentions, but we are asked questions, and reply to them to the best of our ability, although the Minister may think that our answers are such as to expose us to a prosecution. The result of that will be that a person will not feel free in your own father-land. It is not class legislation which we are dealing with here. It applies to Europeans as well as the coloured people and natives. It affects every citizen in the country, and I must say that when legislation of this kind is passed it practically amounts to martial law, which is the negation of the common law of the country. The Minister could deport me and send me over the water. That is martial law. And we are going to permanently establish martial law as an Act of the country. The Minister is allowed to proclaim martial law. The Minister of Defence laughs, but he feels very badly about this matter. I would like him to remember 1914. I admired him in that year. He then stood his ground, but what has happened in the meantime? Then he stood for a pure principle; to-day, however, he remains silent. I should like to ask the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Justice whether they are really going to put on the statute book an Act which is going to justify martial law in the country? When martial law is proclaimed there always has to be an indemnity Act subsequently passed by Parliament, but here we are going to have a state of martial law without there ever being any Indemnity Act. We ought not to make a party question of this matter. Unfortunately, the Minister wants to administer and deal with the matter as he wishes. I am very sorry, and I can only hope that we may reach an agreement in committee which will be acceptable.

It was very interesting to listen to the hon. member. I interrupted him and asked him what he wanted to do in connection with the Bill. His reply was that he wanted to make it stronger. I listened for what the hon. member was going to propose to make the Bill stronger, but he did not mention a single point by way of strengthening the proposals. On the contrary he criticized the Minister for wanting now to push the Bill through with all his might. I think that that is very unfair. When he introduced the Bill the Minister said that he would very much like the Opposition not to oppose it. He expected co-operation, and therefore referred the Bill to a select committee. We have had the report and notice that on certain points agreement was reached. The Minister, therefore, acted quite rightly to again bring before the House the Bill as amended in committee so far as they could do so, and therefore the matter is now before us to express ourselves and this House will have to decide whether it considers the Bill a good one or not. I am sorry the speeches were made here like those which we have heard today to the effect that the natives are considered as the “under dog” to-day. I want at once to say that the hon. member for Mow bray (Mr. Close) is under quite a wrong impression if he thinks the native is the under dog. He is many cases to-day the “top dog.” We who are acquainted with conditions on the countryside know how he has been organized during the last few years, and that with only one object in view, viz., to be the master in our country. The principle which the agitators preach is that the country does not belong to the Europeans but to the natives, and the organization is secretly spreading to all the natives. The natives are thoroughly organized, know what is going on, get their newspapers, read what takes place in the House, hear about the speeches about the “under dog,” etc., and see how the Europeans differ, and the fact that the Europeans do not agree is exploited by the agitators. We, as Europeans, must stand together as much as possible on these points. We know the native, and Know that we can do no injustice to him, that we must protect him as we have always done, and as our ancestors before us did. I do not think it can be proved that the Afrikander people have oppressed the natives; on the contrary, they have always protected them, and still do so to-day. It was a great pleasure to me, and I want to congratulate the Opposition on it, to listen to the speech of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) who spoke the language of the Afrikaner. One can see that he knows the position, but I think the flaw in the case of many hon. members opposite is that they are not au fait with matters. They do not know the conditions, and many of them know nothing about the natives. On this side of the House there are mostly farmers who have grown up with the native, know their mentality, and know exactly how to treat them. We have always treated the natives well, and will continue to do so, but on the other hand it is also our duty as guardians of the natives to pass the necessary legislation to prevent them being exploited to their detriment by persons from abroad. We have got the data here about the societies which have come into the country, and during the last few years have constantly increased their propaganda, and also want to exploit the natives politically to the detriment of the natives. We find this even amongst the old natives who are acquainted with the affairs of the country, and who admit that it is desirable that legislation should be introduced to put an end to this sort of thing because it will— and they appreciate it—lead to the detriment of the natives. The natives themselves are ignorant and innocent, but they are misled. The younger natives especially get into touch with the agitator class in the towns, hear things which possibly have no good effect, and often follow the advice they are given. They are very superstitious and if one tells a native that if he passes a place two or three times that it will be haunted be believes it and will not go there again. We see therefore that the native is a very stupid and innocent creature, and therefore it is the duty of the white population, and of both sides of the House to protect the native. I think the Minister has dealt very capably with the Bill, and his intentions are good. I am not much impressed by the objections on the opposite side about the deportation provision. We have other Acts like the Immigration Act which contains similar provisions. The Minister will not use it wrongly, and I think we can put our confidence in any Minister of Justice that there will be no abuse of it. I hope that hon. members opposite who know anything of the natives will vote with us in favour of the second reading.

I listened with interest to the speech of the last speaker, who seems to think that we on this side of the Houe have a different mentality from hon. members opposite with regard to native affairs. He said, “we farmers have come into contact with the natives, and know them inside out” as though we have no knowledge whatever.

On a point of explanation, I said the majority on this side know the mentality of the native and also a lot of the hon. members on the other side, and I mentioned the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) for one.

How does the hon. member know what the mentality of hon. members on this side is, and what my mentality is on this when he has not yet heard my speech? I think this is a case where we realize there is a spirit of unrest going on amongst the natives, and if we could pass a law which would be in the interests of both natives and Europeans, it would be in the best interests of the country. It is a question of the different mentality of hon. members, of a difference in outlook, and of the different outlook of the provinces of the Union. The Minister tells us that it is impossible for the law as it stands to be applied, and that the rule of force must be used, the rule of might instead of the rule of right. We say that the time has not arrived when might should apply instead of right in this country. In 1926 I took up the same attitude that I am taking up to-day. At that time there was a similar outcry to that which is now taking place and I said that if such a state of affairs had arisen that it was incapable of being dealt with by the ordinary rule of law then we should apply martial law, but I added that I did not think that such a state of affairs had arisen and I was right. In 1926 speeches were delivered in this House on very much the same lines as those delivered here to-day. Kadalie at that time was making very rabid speeches, exactly the same kind of speeches as are being made to-day by other agitators. What has taken place as far as Kadalie is concerned during the past three years? Kadalie was held up as a menace four years ago, but he is now in the background. He was tried for creating a disturbance, and sent to Grahamstown, and he sat in jail for two weeks before he could raise bail of £50. He has lost caste with the natives of the country.

How many other Kadalies are there?

It was Kadalie who created so much stir four or five years ago. The hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen) referred to speeches made in the vicinity of Cape Town. What has taken place in the vicinity of Cape Town during the last three or four weeks? It is not the natives, it is the coloured people who are creating trouble.

Agitators.

The danger we were supposed to be faced with four years ago was discovered to be imaginary. The gloomy Deane in the corner made exactly the same speech four years ago as he has delivered on this, occasion. I would ask hon. members to recognize that there is a distinct difference between the natives of the Cape Province and those of Natal. The Cape natives are more advanced in education and civilization. I asked the Minister how often the section in the Native Administration Act, which allows of natives being deported from one place to another, for certain reasons, has been applied. The reply I got was that it has been applied four times in the Transvaal, five times in Natal, and not once in the Cape. I admit that there is a state of unrest in the country, but I do not admit that there is a spirit of hostility and enmity among the natives of the Cape Province towards Europeans. The natives in the native territories asked for Bunting to be turned out of their part of the Union, because he was creating trouble. That proved their desire to maintain peace and order. The Minister is making a mistake in adopting the rule of force at this particular time. We suggested that he should try the effect of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) which defines sedition. Seeing that the case against Bunting failed because the present definition is insufficient, why did not the Minister accept the amendment? Why did he not try it?

And what would happen meanwhile?

Four years ago dire calamity was prophesied. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) prophesied it. Has anything happened? The Minister is taking powers to himself which he will be the first man to regret. If he takes these powers he will be expected to use them. He has just as much hope of curing the evils complained of with these powers as he would have if he were a dictator. As the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) says there are factors prevailing in this country which we must recognize. Natives are coming more and more into touch with civilization. They are learning something every day. They do not always learn desirable things from contact with Europeans, but they are going through a phase, and we have to recognize that this cannot be stopped by force. The Minister himself by deporting forty criminals recently from the Rand to the Transkei, is himself causing unrest and incipient trouble, but I am glad to see in a paper I received to-day that our magistrates are adopting an attitude of reciprocity. A native in the Transkei was convicted of a crime and the magistrate gave him a suspended sentence of five months imprisonment with the condition that he should not immediately depart from the Transkei. We are playing see-saw with our criminals. I admit that the document read by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) showing a dead man, is calculated to have a tremendous effect on the natives. It appeals to their superstition and I agree that Champion must be a very serious danger. But why does this trouble go on? I believe that tenure of land may have some effect. Half of the Transkei is held on communal tenure and half on a system of individual tenure. Any native who is guilty of theft or any other serious offence is liable to lose his land operating in communally owned areas. We had trouble in 1914; we had Dr. Wellington quite recently, but in no case where the natives have that satisfactory tenure of land where they had titles have we had any trouble at all. If the native realizes that he has a stake in the country he is law-abiding, but until you reach that stage you are going to have trouble.

Is he divested of his land by the court?

On conviction by the court, the magistrate has the right to cancel his title. I personally would rather draw up a law prohibiting newspapers from advertising these agitators as they are doing to-day. It is the advertising they get that brings them their influence. The newspapers come out with a photograph of Thaele and others and say they have formed a “Cabinet” and so on, and these natives go round producing the newspapers and saying what great men they are. Every native wants to be a leader to-day. The old days of the chiefs have disappeared, and to-day, even if a man cannot get two men to follow him, he can always get two women supporters. I know the late Minister of Justice, Mr. Roos, himself, during the 1926 debate made an appeal to the newspapers not to boost these men, and that he recognised this was one of the reasons why these agitators were getting a hold. We have faced similar positions of unrest in the Transkei in previous years, but never yet has the Minister applied for this autocratic power. It has been stated by natives and by Europeans that one of the reasons for this type of disturbance which we are having in the country is that Europeans insist on attending these meetings. I speak as a farmer. I know how difficult the position is. If one of these agitators came to my farm— they ride on a bicycle as a rule—I should know that he had come to stir up trouble and preach the gospel of higher wages and that the white man is ill-treating the native in every way, but we can do nothing. No matter what happens the Minister can never get at this insidious movement that is spreading amongst natives. If he is going to depend on the police, he will make a mistake, but if we could prevent these Europeans from attending the meetings it would go a long way to prevent trouble. I ask the Minister if a native or coloured meeting were to be advertised at Rawsonville, or any other place, and he heard that half a dozen Europeans intended to be present at that meeting, would be issue an order that the Europeans should not attend?

I would certainly protect the coloured man as much as the European.

But the Minister is penalizing the coloured man in order to protect the European.

I will prevent any white man going to a meeting to cause trouble.

If farmers go to a meeting to deliberately break it up, the Minister has no power to prohibit the Europeans from attending, so he prohibits the meeting being held by the natives. Is this fair? The Minister’s predecessor was fair because he said he had no intention of applying his powers against the natives who were forming trade unions.

Read their speeches and see what they do.

If their speeches are so serious, why not prosecute them? Surely the Minister must admit that the definition we gave of the sedition clause the other day would have enabled a judge to find a man guilty. Why not put the onus upon the man who uses the language referred to? Do as we do in sheep theft cases. If a native is found to be in possession of sheep or mutton and cannot give any satisfactory explanation of it, he is found guilty of theft. We put the onus upon him. I am not a barrister, but it seems to me that some method of that kind could have been adopted. Instead, the Minister will get a report from a police officer to the effect that a native did such arid such a thing. He remembers that in Pretoria the native Kadalie used very strong language. He went into court but the shorthand reporter could not swear definitely what the man had said, and Kadalie was acquitted. The language he used was just as strong as some of the language quoted here. Yet he might deport Kadalie or any one of us under similar circumstances. You should give a man the opportunity of defending himself in court. To-day, a man may be charged with attending a meeting prohibited by the Minister. He may have attended that meeting with the bona fide intention of trying to persuade the people from making trouble, as Professor Thaele did the other night. He spoke against the truculent attitude of those present. The Minister was present and heard it himself. A man might attend a meeting and make a speech of that nature, and if the Minister has given an order that he should not attend, he could be prosecuted and must be fonud guilty.

No, no.

He can, if he attends the meeting when he has been ordered not to.

Only if he is told not to go and he does go.

He may go to the meeting when he has been told not to go and he asks, “Why cannot I go?” If he is charged and convicted, he may be deported from the country. I would like to ask if that is right. I would like to ask the Minister and hon. members on the other side of the House, if any of them would be prepared to subject themselves to a law of that kind. That is the real test.

Is a native to be placed on exactly the same footing as a European?

I will read a few words here to the Prime Minister of a statement made in this House—

I take it that the Prime Minister agrees with those words—

Yes, what about it?

Those are the words of the Prime Minister.

I agree with them still.

Yet the Prime Minister says that the scales of justice should not be evenly held between black and white.

I did not say that.

Or that a different system of justice should be applied between natives and Europeans. I say that so far as the law is concerned, there should be no differentiation between white and black. When the day comes that you are going to apply any different principle in this country and say to the native of the country, such and such is the law for you, and such and such is the law for the European, then—

Don’t you do it to-day?

To-day a native is charged before the criminal courts of this country and has exactly the same justice meted out to him as to a European. In the principle of criminal law, I say there is no difference. When a man comes before a judge, he is treated in exactly the same way, whether he is white, black or coloured. That is the great difference between the north and the south. In the north you have the rule of law. They want to say, “We take the power to deal with the native as we think right.” In the Cape we say that you should treat him as a European would be treated, as any human being should be treated. That is the essential difference. I think I am speaking for the great majority of Europeans here when I say that I think we in the Cape regard this matter from a more liberal point of view than do the people in the north. I am sorry to say, in referring to the people of the north, that I must also refer to my friends from Natal. The Minister of Native Affairs is appointing a commission of enquiry into the economic conditions of the natives. I believe the natives will appreciate it. They have been asking for it for a long time. They have been saying that the economic conditions in this country are not satisfactory, and they have asked for an enquiry. If that enquiry is to be held and we take action on it it is going to do very much to create a spirit of amity and friendship, and will do more to satisfy the natives and to prevent this hooliganism than anything else I know of. It will, in a way, put the native upon his honour. If we have this enquiry and also extend the definition of sedition in this particular Bill, I believe myself that that is all that is necessary and we will not have any trouble. This Bill has been introduced by the Minister in order to prevent the engendering of hostility between Europeans and the other races. Let me say, as a warning note, that this Bill as it stands now, is going to create more hostility between the two races than half a dozen Kadalies or Thaeles. I say to the Minister that in taking these powers, I think he is making a big mistake. I again ask him in the committee stage of the Bill to accept a definition of sedition, and on every possible occasion to give the courts the power of treating with these blackguards, for one can call them nothing else, who are going about, and endeavour to restrain them by legal powers. If the Minister uses the powers under this Bill too freely, I am certain that they will re act against himself, and he will land himself into infinitely greater trouble than the Bill will land Thaele or Kadalie and other agitators.

The hon. member who spoke last said that this Bill will cause more hostility between Europeans and natives if it is passed. Will the hon. member tell us whether conditions of recent years have become better or worse? They have undoubtedly become worse and we heard from the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) how the natives go about the country and distribute cards, and tell the natives of tears and blood that are flowing, and in that way stir up the natives to hostility against the white race. We also heard about the occurrences at Durban. The position of the natives and Europeans remains the same there, but relations have undoubtedly so changed that something must be done. We heard what took place recently at Carnarvon and Rawsonville. Those were circumstances which will result in people some day taking the law into their own hands whether rightly or wrongly. But they feel that something must be done. The Minister said that if the Opposition could make a proposal which will satisfy the legal advisers he will be prepared to accept it, if it satisfied the object that he wanted to attain by the Bill. We feel that something must be done to remedy the position, because the people who are going about the country take the money of the natives to push their propaganda against the white, and live on that money to the uneasiness of the other inhabitants of the country. I agree with the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) when he says that we love the liberty of the subject, and no one will want to curtail that liberty if it is possible, but when he have a position such as that prevailing to-day we must take drastic steps to put an end to the agitation. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) said that he supported the Bill and the hon. member for Zululand told his own party members how serious the position was. The hon. member sees what we have to do but he says in the same breath that he will not vote for the second reading of the Bill, but if the Bill passes the second reading and through committee he will vote for the third reading. What use is it then to point out to his colleagues what is going on, and to show them the pictures that are being circulated amongst the natives to create hostility, and then to say that we will not vote for the second reading. Then he might as well let it rest. They feel that something must be done, but it looks to me as if the Natal members with the exception of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) cannot stand on their own legs in support of the Government, although they feel that the amendment has long been required. I will be quite honest and admit that in cur part of the country we do not as yet have much trouble, because we have not got many natives, but if things go on as of late we may expect that they will extend their organization even to that part, and the sooner the Minister’s Bill is passed the better. If hon. members can suggest nothing better then they ought to support this Bill, and in that way to see that we are free from people who do nothing else but stir up the natives. It will be a very good thing if a number of those people can be put out of the country, and I am certain that if that can be done we shall immediately have a better state of affairs. The hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen) rightly said that the natives themselves were not the cause, and that they were really against that agitation, but we find agitators going about talking over and stirring up the people. If any hon. member doubts it he need only go on the parade in Cape Town and hear what language is used there by people who for some reason or other are dissatisfied, and are now stirring up their own people to hostility against the whites. I think that the Bill has long been necessary and I hope it will be passed by the House.

One would have thought from the speeches made by the Minister and other hon. members that this law was introduced to get rid of the white agitators who had caused so much damage to the country, but all the speeches from the other side have been the other way. It is apparently the intention not to get rid of the white agitator but the unfortunate native who has been misguided enough to make certain remarks.

Any agitator.

The point is we are supposed to be the leaders of the nation and are called to train the natives up to better things. We are not going to do so by teaching them to disregard the law. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) very clearly put that point. There are legal luminaries on the Opposition and the Government benches who can put the law into good shape, and I cannot understand the Minister saying that he cannot find words either in the English or the Afrikaans language to do what he requires. The hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen) referred to what happened at Port Elizabeth. The man who made the trouble there was in jail for drunkenness a few days after, and that is the position of these men who go round the country, who are not respected by the respectable portion of the native population who live in the urban areas of the Cape Province. In Port Elizabeth we have from 12,000 to. 15,000 natives, and we have no trouble. Ballinger went away after a few days as empty-handed as he came. He certainly had meetings and at one there were Europeans present who took an interest in the native population, consequently, he did not enjoy this meeting and went away very unhappy. I feel there is a good deal of sympathy to be given to the Minister in the very serious trouble they have had in Durban. Apparently they were serious, and that being the case he is justified in having serious measures taken. After the hon. members for Mowbray (Mr. Close) and for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) had put the matter forward so clearly, the Minister might have given it more serious attention. We do not object to the Minister asking power to deal with this matter, but we do object to such power being given to one man. We object to these people being sent away without a right of appeal to a court of law. Our natives know that to day they can go before the courts and receive justice. We ask that these men shall not be deported without a trial. The Minister said that personally he did not want the power. I can quite see that he does not want the responsibility but why does he take it. He will be a very miserable man if, by any chance, he makes a mistake. We have heard something about a Native Affairs Commission. If the Minister of Native Affairs appoints a nonpolitical commission we shall find that native matters will be considered in quite a different atmosphere. At all events, the natives will be looked upon as human beings and worthy of some consideration. If this Bill passes, there is an old saying that “a worm will turn,” and these people are going to given trouble. There will be this smouldering fire which may break out at any time, and I am quite certain that, instead of curing the evil, we shall make it worse. These people are being taxed. I do not think we should tax them in every possible way, as for example the new sugar and flour duties. We are proud of being South Africans, but we want to pursue the clean course we have followed for many years. This Bill, if passed, will be a blot on our country. The Minister says that he wants to crush communism. I am with the Minister in wanting to crush the people who advise natives in the way Champion and other persons have done, and I feel that it is our duty to support the Minister to a reasonable extent. But take Rawsonville. What has farmer de Wet done? He has done the only thing a farmer should do. He has discharged the men who were dissatisfied with their jobs, and who said they did not want to work. If the farmers would do that, we should have less trouble. The only way to treat them is with firmness and fairness, and it is perfectly fair to dismiss a man without any question if he is hot satisfied with his job. Would there have been trouble if those Europeans had not attended. I hope something of this kind will be done. I am sure the Minister is conscientiously trying to stop this trouble, but he is not doing it in the right way. In Port Elizabeth we have law-abiding natives, but if this Bill goes through, there is bound to be discontent there. I hope the Minister is not suffering from “fear complex.” He has told us that the police cannot handle the position if it gets more serious. Why not? These people are quiet, at present. I hope wiser counsels will prevail, and that the Minister will see that the natives get a fair deal. We hear a great deal from Natal, but the member for Durban (County) (Mr. Eaton) felt that this Act was one which would react hardly upon the just and the unjust. There is, in my opinion, no necessity for this action to-day. We do not require any repressive measures, for you cannot rule by oppression. The native, of course, is becoming more and more educated, and I am sorry to say that in some cases he is being educated in the wrong way, because it leads to conflict with a number of people and causes trouble These agitators encourage every bit of lawlessness that they can. Unfortunately, they tell these people “You do this, and you will be all right.” They take these poor people’s money. I heard of a case the other day, where a man was getting £1 per month. The workers on the farm were paying 1s. 6d. per month to keep these agitators going round the country, but after it was explained to them that these particular people were not doing any work, and that the workers on the farm were doing the work, they decided to tell those men to go to pastures new. I mentioned a commission just now. I ask that it should be nonpolitical. In my ignorance, I should like to see it outside of Parliament altogether. I should like to see it consisting of men who are interested and understand our native problem, who will consider the ins and outs of this undoubtedly serious trouble, which is affecting the native population of this country. It is an arbitrary action to say that one man alone can act, and that one man alone can do the right thing. I am afraid that the Minister will have many sleepless nights, particularly if he acts upon this Bill. I think, perhaps, that he is insisting upon it, because possibly he feels that it will not have to be applied. There is no doubt about it that our leaders, in the past, would never have thought of doing anything of the kind. Mr. Jan Hofmeyr would never have thought it, and Mr. W. P. Schreiner would never have thought of it either. I feel that such a man as the hon. John X. Merriman would not have thought of it. He would have shouted across the floor of this House all sorts of anathemas if anything of this sort would have been brought in. Then there was Mr. Saul Solomon. I heard him, as a youngster, thundering out his views on similar questions. I was rather sorry to hear a remark which came from the hon. member for Willowmore (Mr. Steyn), because he comes from our part. He knows that there is very little of this lawlessness going on in our part. He knows also, that the remark made by the hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen) was unjust. He knows, further, that we have had little or no trouble with our coloured population. The meeting on Church Square the other night consisted almost entirely of coloured people. I did not see any natives there, although I did see plenty of riff-raff.

This law is directed against riff-raff, whatever their colour.

But you must give them a chance, and you can only legislate by giving fairness and a fair trial to these people. You cannot force them.

You have had trouble with the natives in Port Elizabeth.

But we did not have serious trouble. What happened? I will tell you. The other day some of the railwaymen did not wish to continue their work. What happened? The system manager said, “You don’t want to work? All right, I will give you passes to return home,” and some did so. A fair proposal.

The Bill has been subjected to a very searching examination in the very interesting discussion which has taken place in the last few days, and I am afraid I have very little to add to what has been said. The various points of view have been very fully realized, but I should not like to give a silent vote on a matter of this kind, and would like to say a few words to indicate my standpoint. The Bill does raise some fundamental points. It may not have been the intention of the Minister to do so, but there can be no doubt that fundamental issues are raised on which one feels bound to express one’s opinion. The discussion so far has not been carried on in a party spirit; in fact, it has scarcely been on party lines. The Minister has found a certain amount of support—I hope he is pleased with it—even on these benches. We have tried to give the subject very careful examination from various points of view, and we have not discussed it merely from a party point of view, and in that sense I wish myself to say what I am going to say. I feel that something has to be done, and I have said so before. The House will remember that during the short session last year I made some remarks in which I pointed out to the Government that to my mind the position was becoming highly undesirable. A very important prosecution had taken place in the Transkei, in which the accused had been found not guilty because of a flaw in the law. I felt —as we must all feel—that it is necessary to maintain law and order in this country. It is in the interests of the natives just as much as in the interests of the whites, and even more so, that no conditions of lawlessness should arise. That is the feeling of all the decent, reasonable natives themselves. Their speeches have been quoted to show that the native leaders—the responsible men—take that view that nothing is more to their detriment as a portion of the community than that conditions of lawlessness should arise. I remember a very striking instance some years ago during the troubles which we had at Queenstown with the Israelite movement. A great deal of bloodshed took place, and after that the Transkei Bunga passed a resolution thanking the Government for having acted with firmness, having asserted the law, and for having re-established order. I mention this particular case to show that the responsible natives are very strongly in favour of maintaining law and order in the interests of their own people, and if this Bill had no other effects and results than simply to help the Government and the Minister in maintaining law and order, we on this side and members on both sides of the House would go a long distance to support it, but it is because of the side-issues raised, the indirect effects of this Bill, that I think we cannot vote for it; and I must say why I shall vote against the second reading. Let me just, for a moment, examine the various powers taken here and the various steps which the Minister takes in order to give him the necessary power to deal with the conditions which have arisen. The first power the Minister takes here is to suppress public meetings when he thinks feelings of racial hostility are likely to be raised. That certainly goes very far indeed. I note what the Minister has said, that the select committee made no difficulty on this point, and that the committee, representing both parties in the House, were prepared to make that concession, and accepted this recommendation—that the Minister should have the power to suppress public meetings when, in his opinion, either the character of the audience at the meeting itself, or the presence of any particular people, would lead to the engendering of racial feelings. We have already power under the existing law, which has been exercised repeatedly, and the Minister exercised that power a couple of days ago, to prohibit meetings when a breach of the peace might be expected. That power was not given to the Minister, but to the local authority. The magistrate, when he anticipates a breach of the peace, can step in and prevent the meeting from being held.

On the authority of the Minister.

Yes; but the actual exercise of the power takes place through the local people, who are supposed to be in touch with facts. Here we go a good deal further, and give power to the Minister, whenever he expects that racial feelings may be embittered and aroused, to prohibit public meetings. I agree with the argument which has been raised in the House that the sort of thing we have seen going on in this country does not take place at public meetings. It is these underhand methods which lead to the real danger, and to this state of affairs which we see to-day in the country—it is the underhand methods of the men who stand behind and keep themselves out of danger, and who do not appear at public meetings. I do not think that what is done here will be very effective, only it goes very far. I am bound to point this out, however, that I would not go against the second reading merely on this ground. It is power given to the Government of the day, and to people who may conceivably exercise it in an oppressive manner and not in an impartial way. I remember not so long ago, as we all remember, at the general election the Prime Minister going from one meeting to another all over South Africa preaching what was called the “black peril,” the “black menace.” I do not think any meetings have been held in South Africa where there has been more racial embitterment generated than by these meetings of the Prime Minister. [Interruption.] I hope my hon. friend will follow my argument, which is this: I cannot conceive that the Minister of Justice, if he were armed with this power, which he seeks in this Bill, would have prohibited the meetings of the Prime Minister, although for weeks on end this sort of thing was going on— public meetings held, at every one of which the burden of the speech was the black menace to white civilization, with all the consequent bitterness which was engendered. We can see from this one instance how dangerous it is to place this power in the hands of the Government. Here the power is given to prohibit public meetings where racial feeling many be engendered. Of course, it is part of the politics of the country, and how are you going to deal impartially with a situation like that, and expect the Minister of Justice of the day to use this power equally and impartially both against his friends and his opponents in politics? It goes very far. I am sorry we have to go this length. But I can swallow this if the Minister tells me this is essential. I will trust to its not being unduly abused. But now let us go on to the next power asked; in sub-section 7 of clause 1, which reads as follows—

The Minister here gets, so far as the native question is concerned, an absolute power of censorship in the country. I say that in no democratic country in the world does there exist such an unlimited power of censorship as is here to be assumed by the Minister of Justice. In other countries it is given to some board, or some body which is carefully constituted, but here it is given to the Minister of Justice as far as the native question is concerned, and the native question is two-thirds of the public life of this country. Wherever you are up against the native question, there is given to the Government of this country a power of censorship. If the Minister thinks that any book published in this country will engender racial feeling, or any magazine, or any newspaper, he may suppress it. All these things, from books to newspapers, can be simply suppressed by the whim or will of the Minister, because he thinks that racial feeling may be engendered. Should we give such a wide power simply because of an emergency which has arisen—the state of unrest among the natives —to the Government of this country, a power which does not exist elsewhere? I must say I cannot swallow this. The Minister says there is an appeal to the court. What is the appeal to the court? The appeal to the court means this. The Minister has already declared his opinion publicly, and by an advertisement in the Gazette, that that book or that newspaper engenders racial feeling, and must be suppressed. It is now given to the person affected to go to the court, and he can try to prove to the court that the book or newspaper, or whatever else is suppressed, is not of such a nature that the probable result of its publication will be to engender racial feeling. The Minister has already declared that that is the effect of it. The court is now asked to upset it, and the burden of proving the negative is thrown on the man whose book or newspaper has been suppressed. I can understand the Minister having to go to court, and having to prove his case before he takes action. Even that would be a very drastic step to take; even that would be a power I should hesitate to give the Government. But here he has power to suppress a hook or a newspaper or a magazine in advance, and thereafter the man who is affected goes to the court and has to prove the negative. I do not think this House will be serving the interests of the country if they give this power to the Government. Nobody knows how this power may be used in future. Almost any book written on the native question, almost any article or magazine written on it, may be held to engender racial feeling. People have strong opinions on this subject, and they take sides. They express themselves strongly, and it is natural that they should do so; and in any case to give power to the Minister to suppress a book or a newspaper because it appears to engender racial feeling, I think, is to give a power which no government should have. Then you have the removal order. A person who, in the Minister’s opinion, engenders racial feeling by his speeches, or his actions, in one area, can, by order of the Minister, be removed to another area.

Just excluded from one area. The rest of South Africa is open to him.

He is excluded from one area, and he has to go anywhere else. That is a very far-reaching power. That is an interference with liberty such as should only be given, if given at all, under the amplest safeguards. What are the safeguards? The only safeguard is that the party who is injured can go to the court, and he can try to prove to the court that the Minister has acted mala fide, capriciously, or is actuated by improper motives. How can he prove that the Minister was acting mala fide or capriciously, or without due consideration of his case? All that he has is a document which the Minister has given him, in which the Minister gives the reasons for his removal, and so much information as he thinks does not conflict with the public welfare. I am afraid that the Minister will be loath to disclose the sources of his information. The injured party will have to prove that the Minister has been actuated by mala fides, or by improper motives, or by want of consideration of his case. Even with the facts before him, and a full statement of the case, it would be practically impossible for him to prove that that was the state of mind of the Minister. Mala fide, after all, is a most difficult thing to prove. Here the person injured will have to go to court. He may not even have the facts. The Minister may say, “I decline to give you the facts, because I shall have to disclose confidential information.” There is no safeguard whatever. In substance the Minister here gets so far-reaching a power that I do not think any Government in this country ought to get it.

1912 and 1914.

No Government should get it, and I think it would be a mistake. Even if this is a power which could be effectively used to maintain law and order, it is so dangerous a weapon, its effects are so far-reaching, it trenches so deeply on the established system of law that we have in this country, and in all democratic countries, that this is not a power that we should give. There is the fourth power that the Minister seeks, the deportation of undesirables, the deportation of people born abroad whose actions or speeches engender racial feeling in this country. If the power to deport aliens who do mischief is to be given to the Government, it should he more circumscribed than it is here.

So 1913 cannot be repeated?

No, that is a different case. The difference is this: in 1914 the Government deported nine of those ringleaders who had been responsible, in their opinion, for the revolution. You see what happened. The Government knew that it was acting outside the law, and had to come to Parliament and to give the facts to Parliament and to get indemnity to cover the case. What happens here? A permanent martial law is created. No indemnity need be asked. The Minister may deport whom he likes, and he need never come to Parliament or seek indemnity for his actions. A blank cheque—carte blanche—is given to the Govern merit of this country, and that is the end of it. I do not think that this case can be compared for a moment with the revolution in 1914 where we took action.

What happened in 1914?

The hon. member knows what happened in 1914. The hon. Minister fought for his convictions with the courage of a lion; where are those convictions to-day? Where are those principles of the Minister who wants now to create a permanent martial law without discussion, without indemnity, without safeguards to public interest? This is a power which should not be given to the Government unless absolutely safeguarded in a different way from what is done here. These are four powers that are asked for, and in many respects they are ineffective. I take the case of the pamphlet mentioned by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), a pamphlet written by a certain Champion against buying municipal beer in Durban. I listened carefully to the reading of that document, but there was nothing in it which brought it within the terms of this Bill. It looked like a temperance pamphlet couched in somewhat offensive language. That sort of thing could go on without the Minister being able to take any action under this Bill.

Yet the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) suggested I should deal with Champion under the present law.

That pamphlet could not come under the terms of this Bill because it does not purport to raise any racial issue at all, but simply warns natives not to buy municipal beer. These powers are largely ineffective from the point of view which we are aiming at, to maintain law and order and to see that native unrest is fairly dealt with. But my main objection goes further; it is that powers are asked here which the Government should not have. Our system is what the Minister has called the rule of law. We create rights and institute an impartial tribunal to apply that law. Here that system is scrapped and in vital matters affecting the liberties of the private citizens, we are not going to create rights and to make laws, but to make the will of the Minister supreme. By administrative action we shall, in future, settle these matters. It is proposed to substitute the will of the Minister for the law. This is a completely new departure for this country, and it is a thing which we ought not to countenance. No blank cheque should be given to any Minister—even the best —it is not consonant with our system. Looking at this Bill, I am under the impression that the Minister has been too much actuated by the difficulties which he finds to-day. He wants to deal with the situation with which he is confronted here by means of a law which is based simply in the engenderment of racial feelings. Many difficulties arise in our relations in South Africa which are not of a racial character. The problem is bigger and should be dealt with in a more comprehensive way. This is the way in which the late Minister of Justice looked at it. To him it was not a matter of stirring up racial feelings; it was a matter of sedition. It is not only a case of preaching ill-will with the other race; it is a disregard of law and order, an attempt to subvert existing institutions. It is really sedition that is at the root of the problem in the present unrest. It is from that point of view that the late Minister of Justice tackled this. He tried to re-define sedition and to create a new crime in the law; to extend the old definition of sedition so as to deal with people who preach not only racial ill-will, but also the suppression of the existing order, and unlawful methods and combines for such purposes Mr. Roos viewed the problem in the right light and tackled it along proper-lines. He could not carry out his Bill of 1926 for reasons that are well known.

What were they?

Because of the outcry of the Labour wing of the Pact. I knew that the hon. member was young, but I did not know that he was a child. Well, that difficulty has disappeared. There is no Labour party any more to protest against the carrying out of that legislation. The Labour party has ceased to exist, and that voice will not he heard for some time. Mr. Roos looked at this question in the proper way. He did not arrogate to himself the position of dictator; he was not a tinsel Mussolini; he did not want autocratic powers. He wanted to deal with the matter by way of law. To-day it is possible to take that line, and it would be far better to deal with the question on that basis. Let us define these crimes; let us constitute offences that can be punished by courts of law in an impartial manner. Do not let us make the Minister of Justice, for the time being, the law of this land, the person who dictates what shall be the rights and wrongs of the position. I know the difficulties. I do not wish the Minister for a moment to think that I am unmindful of the difficulties with which he has to deal, the difficulties of his position in the administration of justice, and the difficulties which surround this question as a matter of definition and as a matter of the shaping of the law. I think that the Minister has made this mistake, that he has set his mind resolutely in the direction of administrative action rather than of exploring a definition of the law. He comes here and says “a definition is impossible. You cannot do it. You cannot define the crime.” That is a very curious story to hear from the Minister of Justice in this country.

The select committee tried it and failed.

The select committee has failed because the Minister had made up his mind that he wanted to deal with this question by a short cut, by administrative action.

I will take an amendment to-night.

I hope the Minister will do that. If the Minister is willing to take an amendment let me ask him to go a step further, and not confine his Bill merely to this one question concerning racial feeling, but let him extend it to social disorder and illegal action not of a merely racial aspect. Let him revert again to the Bill of 1926 and see whether it is not possible, on the basis of that Bill, to define the law in a way which will not constitute a dangerous precedent in this country, which will not be turning our backs on the past of the law and the liberties of this country, but which will be something which will conserve them and define the legal tradition which has existed so far. There is one more question that I want to raise. I have been through these difficulties myself, and I am conscious of the problems with which one is faced. Let me deal with one matter of such difficulty. It is this. In 1922, hon. members will remember that the troubles on the Rand started with the drilling of commandos. I recognized at once that this drilling of commandos, if allowed to go on, with impunity, must in the end create trouble. I appealed to the attorney-general in the Transvaal at the time and asked his opinion. He said there was nothing in the Transvaal law to prevent the drilling which was taking place from one end of the Rand to the other. It went on for weeks or months, but in the end we know what happened. The law at that time, according to the attorney-general, did not prevent this drilling and did not make it illegal, and it was impossible for the Government to stop it. That may happen again to-morrow. In that case it was a case of white men drilling, but to-morrow it may be a case of the natives drilling. It may be a case of the natives forming commandos and drilling. For all I know there has been no change in the law since 1922. The law is still what the attorney-general of the day advised it to be. It is not a question merely of engendering racial feeling. It goes much further than that. It is like sedition. It is really a subversion of the existing order. This Bill does not deal with that. To my mind these are questions which should be dealt with. I ask the Minister to keep an open mind, and not to come here with ideas that administrative action, that his personal will, is the only way of dealing with this matter.

The Sedition Bill does not deal with drilling.

No, even the Sedition Bill does not do that, and I think that was a very grave omission. Probably many people have forgotten what happened in 1922. Those were the difficulties I was up against and could not deal with because the legal authorities said there was no legal power to deal with them. Legal power should be taken in time to deal with them. To-day it is the whites, to-morrow it is the blacks, and you never know what may happen. Supposing the natives were to start drilling in this country; you could not say that it was engendering racial feeling, and under the present law you would be helpless. [Time limit extended.] I thank the hon. the Prime Minister for his courtesy. I have practically finished what I want to say. I have discussed this whole question as far as possible in a non-controversial way. I think we are dealing with a matter here which is no party matter at all. We are dealing with fundamental questions. We want to settle this native trouble which has arisen, as an emergency but at the same time we are up against graver difficulties. This difficult question is one of those which are like a canker eating into all other questions. Unless we view it in the right light it becomes a poison, which in the end poisons everything, including our liberties and the whole constitutional system of this country. We must see that these things do not happen. That is why I raised this discussion, and why I have expressed my views in no party sense at all. I know that we on both sides of the House value our personal liberty. We have been through grave vicissitudes in this country. We have been the top dog, and we have been the under dog, and we know what we each feel. Let us try to maintain our liberties and our legal system to the fullest extent. Let us see whether this Bill before us cannot be reformed in such a way that it becomes a much more effective document, and that it does not put powers into the hands of the Minister of Justice and the Government of the day which may be abused, and which, in any case, whether they are abused or not, should not be given to any Government. To my mind, we have to view the question in that light. I hope that this House will, before this Bill becomes law, see that such a transformation of the Bill takes place. Whatever assistance can be given from this side of the House in formulating these difficult matters will be given to the Minister, as long as he abandons his idea that administrative action is the only way open and the only avenue to be explored, and he is willing to confer with us and consider a tightening up of the law, and the leaving of this difficult question not in his own hands, but in the hands of an impartial tribunal. So long as he does that he will have our assistance to shape a law which will not be in conflict with the best traditions of this country.

I think we are all very glad that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has departed a little from what, up to the last moment, we understood was going to be his policy, because up to the last I thought, and he actually said, that he was going to vote against the second reading. I must say that I was very much surprised to hear it. We all remember that not so long ago, about six months ago, he said overseas: “Look, such things are going on with regard to the natives, are you going to do nothing to provide preventives against such agitation?” Is that not so?

Yes, it is so.

The hon. member must admit, then, that I have reason for thinking that it appeared a little inconsistant and unfair when I heard that he was going to vote against the second reading. Now when we introduce a Bill to make such provision the hon. member says without moving the necessary amendments that he is going to vote against it.

I said that I would vote against the second reading.

Then I must assume that the hon. member can suggest nothing better. What logical reason has the hon. member got for first voting for the rejection of the Bill? We feel that he has nothing better, or will not propose anything better. It surely is a fact that the Bill went to a select committee. I believe we cannot but accept that the other side, for all their talk, have nothing better to suggest. The hon. member for Standerton in a “school-masterly” manner has again tried to-day, as usual, to be amusing and to tease, but I must say that he did not seem to me to-night to tease and amuse so much. We could not have got a better example of the difference between the policy of this and the opposite side, as the one he has given himself here this evening. His policy resulted in complete failure and a sad termination—the policy of 1922 of “let things develop”, and in opposition to it there is the policy of this side to meet the evil in good time and to stop it before it gets too bad. He could not have quoted or mentioned a better example of the fatality and blameworthiness of the policy which he is again supporting to-day after his own experience and what happened in the past in his own case. I want to point out to the House how that if the hon. member for Standerton had seen in 1922 what the end would be, instead of “just letting things develop,” as he himself said, he would in time have given a better turn to the state of affairs and have found a solution in time, then things would never have come to the tragic position that rifles, guns, and aeroplane bombs had to be used. And let us not forget that we there had to do with whites versus whites. Let me say here what strikes me more and more in the hon. member for Standerton is that he is a master at preaching, in stating his abstract ideas from the heights, and I have no doubt that it is on that account that the hon. member is so good a philosopher. What so often strikes me is that I have nowhere found a man so out of touch with the live politics of to-day. To-day he has once again come, but he knows nothing of the needs of the public in the country, and he knows nothing of the practical actual position there which makes it so urgent for the people to ask: “Is anything going to be done, and if so when will something be done to prevent a thing taking place which is still worse than occurred in 1922.” I can so well understand what impression the hon. member for Standerton must make when, e.g., he appears at Geneva between all the peace loving people who have no practical difficulties to deal with, but think out and talk wisely to others from the heights of philosophy and in an abstract way. We have here, however, not to do with an abstract question, but with practical facts which if allowed to develop will cause more bloodshed in South Africa. What is the position? The hon. member for Standerton asked if we had ever seen such a thing in the world as what was proposed in this Bill, but I want to ask the hon. member if he can show me a single country in the world which has such a state of affairs as we have? We have the position here that the governing class is in the minority, a minority highly civilized and which is situated among a mass of natives three times as many. Can the hon. member show me anywhere in the world a country where civilization and barbarism are in such daily contact as here, with an overwhelming majority, and with the physical force on the side of barbarism? But because we are unable to give an example in the world’s history we are asked to abandon any measure for which we cannot find a precedent. Greater nonsense I have never heard because nothing so unpractical will ever be enforced by the Government that it would be disastrous to the country. We not only have in our midst round about us 6,000,000 natives of whom 5,500,000 are uncivilized and practically barbarous, but we have at the same time as has been made clear in the House, the danger of a number of rascals who are in the pay of the revolutionary agitators from other countries of the world, and who are here engaged in lighting a fire in the midst of 5,500,000 babarians to create a conflagration in South Africa of the very greatest and very worst kind. The hon. member for Standerton knows this, and only last year as a result of it he himself asked what the Government was going to do. Notwithstanding all this he now comes and says we must live under the protection of the law. I want to ask my hon. friend when that law came into force, what stage of development the white race had reached when for the first time they had advanced so far as to allow themselves to be restrained under the discipline of that law? That law is hardly a few hundred years old, and does he now think that that law which we have adopted for nations that have reached that stage of development must necessarily be the law by which the barbarian peoples of South Africa are to be kept in check? I want to ask the hon. member if it is really a fact that the natives in their stage of development understand, just to take an example, the value of such a principle as the liberty of the press? Does he really think the 5,500,000 barbarians amongst whom to-day those Communist agitators are most actively engaged, appreciate the value of the principle of the freedom of the press, as we know it? Ought we to let them keep that principle and if necessary shoot them down at the mouth of the cannon and the rifle, rather than take measures and protect them against those misfortunes, and, if necessary take away that liberty from them? In this Bill there is not even a suggestion of taking away the liberty of the press because that liberty is only memtioned in so far as the printing of books is concerned. I must say that I was amused when the hon. member said: “You are really now going to give the Minister of Justice the power of prohibiting a printed book from circulating amongst the natives.”

The Europeans will also not be allowed to read it.

I am now talking of the book which we know is intended to corrupt and ruin the natives, that is what the intention of it is. If the European has to pay the price of not being allowed to read that particular book then I think he can do so without any damage. There are thousands of other books for him to read. If a European is not prepared for the sake of his weaker brother to give up reading certain proscribed books then I must say that I have not much confidence in that European brotherhood. The only objection of Europeans to such a provision will come from those who are constantly preaching brotherhood with the native, and possibly from such natural philosophers as the hon. member for Standerton. The one may possibly object to it from purely theoretical speculations, and the other from a feeling of brotherhood. It amused me very much to hear the argument that we ought rather to allow the native to go to the devil, to use that expression, rather than withhold that book from him. That is the doctrine which is preached on that side. Now, however, I would like further to ask the hon. member if we are now to assume that all that is going to happen here and may be done will really be felt and appreciated by the natives as the Europeans would feel it if, e.g., it were done in a country like England. I am now speaking only from the point of view of the native, but let me say here that the hon. member spoke as if the Bill was only meant for natives. No, he knows just as well as I that it is directed just as much against Europeans as against the natives. But against which Europeans? Against the villain, the man who to-day is out to make mischief here. I have not the slightest respect or feeling of pity, and I do not believe anyone in this House has any feeling of pity, for that person. I am convinced that everyone in this House will shout “hurrah” if we could catch hold of everyone of those persons by the neck and imprison them. But why take this action then? Let me again say here that the hon. member for Standerton said that we must not regard this matter from a party point of view, but purely objectively as something which we ought to examine, and for which we must find a solution for the sake of the country and the people. I agree with the hon. member, but I must say that I had already asked myself while listening to the speeches whether they would have been made if there were no native vote.

That is unworthy.

Let me give an instance. I was not here this afternoon, but I heard that the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) had spoken. He told the House that I was formerly a violent worshipper of Bolshevism and Communism, and I know not what else.

I repeated what you said years ago.

I understand that you said and implied by your speech that I was a supporter of Bolshevism.

Don’t put something into my mouth that I did not say.

No, they spoke here, not because they wanted to speak in the interests of the country, but because they thought of the people with the votes outside the House. They were again engaged, I do not say all of them, in smousing, and smousing in connection with one of the most serious matters—

You are doing so now.

If the hon. member for Caledon said that, then he was actually smousing. I learn that the hon. member also said that I am supposed to have declared that there was only a harmless handful of Communists or Bolshevists, and that I would rather see them in Parliament than the South African party.

I stated that you said at Pretoria West that the South African party was a greater danger than the Communists and the ultra-Socialists.

Then you know that it is not true, that I never said such a thing. Why are these untruths retailed here? Because smousing had to be done, and an hon. member like the hon. member for Caledon is not ashamed to do so in connection with one of the most serious things.

May the Prime Minister use language like that?

I fear that the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) was also not out to make honest criticism in the interests of the country and the people, but I hope he is not going to smouse. It is amusing how those important gentlemen, when they are caught in the act jump about and kick to show that they were not guilty. Although the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) wants to make out that this matter is outside party politics, I am not prepared to concede that, because I ask myself whether all these speeches from the opposite side of the House would have been made if they were not for the native vote. I do not think that there can be the least doubt. I do not say that the same tendency would not be found on this side of the House if they were to the same extent dependent on the native vote, but we have fortunately never tried to make our election to this House dependent on the native vote. Consequently we can express a very much more unprejudiced opinion on this matter.

We also speak for the Europeans.

I accept that and the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) must not imagine that I think that he is quite insusceptible to any good. I will assume that the white vote still counts with him, even more than the native vote, because he and his colleagues are in the first place dependent on the white vote. I want, however, to return to the main point. We live in South Africa in the midst of inflammable material; we are surrounded by natives, and people are circulating amongst them who exercise an influence of the worst and most criminal kind, and when steps are taken to pass legislation to restrain those people then it is stated in the House that such a measure is wrong and it is opposed. The Bill is not only intended to protect Europeans; it is intended to protect the native just as much as to protect Europeans. Listening to the speeches that are made here, one would never have thought it. It is made out that the measure is aimed against the liberty of the native. We shall have to do one of two things in South Africa. We shall either have to take effective measures enabling the Government to prevent this kind of agitation, or things will happen in South Africa which will be worse than have ever occurred in America. We then shall be responsible for it, and the natives will have the right of saying that the white man has not properly fulfilled his “trust” and that he has neglected his duty. He will be able to say that the white man is not out to protect him and that it is therefore his duty to protect himself. While I was sitting here the matter presented itself to me as follows. The native cannot be regarded other than as a child compared to the European. Hence he is subordinate to the European, and therefore we insist that the European should have lordship over him in the country. But what will happen if we are going to allow these evil agitators to stir him up and incite him against the white man? Would we permit strangers to come into a big family and to stir up the children against their parents? Would that be in the interests of the children, and would anybody take it amiss of the parents taking steps to prevent such a thing? What difference is there between our position and that of those parents? How can we be accused of acting wrongly towards the native if we say that we want to protect him against such things as must lead to his destruction? What difference is there between children over 12 who are left to the discipline of their parents, and the native who has to come under the discipline of the European, and why would it be a good thing to take action in one case and wrong to do so in the other? It is only when we proceed from the point of view of the old sentimental fanaticism that the native, although grown up physically is still a child intellectually, and must have all the rights of the developed Europeans, that we can defend the point of view that the hon. member for Standerton has taken up here. He spoke of the sacred rights of the natives that could not be interfered with. This Bill is intended for the welfare of the natives, to protect them against being misled in connection with matters on which they have every right to look to the right man for protection. With these few words I shall sit down. I only wish to add that if we want to make it appear that there ought to be practical legislation to protect the native, we must not so give ourselves away that we want to reject this Bill on the second reading, although amendments may be made to it in committee.

But they will be ruled out of order.

First propose the amendment and then we shall see.

I hope that all the eloquence of the opposite side of the House will not bring those hon. members and the country under the impression that they are the only people who feel for the liberty of the individual, and for the rights that every person has. I shall not say only every white person, but also the rights that every other person has in normal circumstances, apart from the colour of his skin. I have already assured hon. members, during the original second reading speech, and again on the introduction of this motion for the second reading, that I feel just as much for that principle as any of them, and as far as this ide of the House is concerned, we need never go to our past and compare it with that of theirs to show that it is a serious matter with us, and not a thing which is merely lip talk. They have already proclaimed martial law four or five times and deported people without a hearing with the result that at the end they had to apologise so that the people could return to the country. As my hon. friend here says, there followed on that all the Indemnity Acts which usually succeed martial law and deportation. As I understood hon. members opposite, all except possibly the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) agree that the position is serious. I think the House is indebted to the hon. members for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) and Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) for the fact that they have shown how really serious the position is. We knew it, but it appeared once more what great knowledge those hon. members have of the natives, a knowledge which they did not acquire at the ballot box as some hon. members have done, but which comes from years of experience, based on the fact that they grew up amongst the natives. I grant that most of the speeches of hon. members opposite were certainly intended seriously, and I took them in that spirit, but I think that hon. members took an unnecessary amount of time to make it clear to this side that this Bill is drastic. We know it, and that was one of the first things that I said in introducing the Bill. But do hon. members who consider this Bill drastic want to tell me that the amendment which they have moved, which not only provides that anyone can be deported, but that an offender can be given seven years’ imprisonment, is not drastic? Therefore, we are in agreement that this Bill is drastic, that the amendment is drastic, that the position is serious, and that drastic measures are necessary. Hon. members appreciated it, at any rate those who served on the select committee. It is, of course, unfortunate for the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) that he has again done the wrong thing. He, and those who went with him. Just as in the case of the Immigration Bill they have again done the wrong thing. The hon. member for (Standerton (Gen. Smuts) was not here, or if he was he did not bother about it. Unanimity was, however, reached with regard to the first part of the Bill, but now we have to learn from the hon. member for Standerton how terrible, especially the first part, is. We can all only feel sorry for the deputy leader of the South African party, who is so constantly out of touch with his leader, who never appreciates where he must concede and where he must differ from us. The Government appreciates with the Opposition that the position is serious, but we say that effectual measures must be taken immediately. We say that this is no time for experiments, but that steps must be taken at once inasmuch as we shall have other outbursts, and a position such as indicated by the Prime Minister which will be worse than anything they have ever experienced in America. The Opposition says that they are anxious to help, but it is strange that they want to do it in that way. I do not say that their line of action has anything to do with the pending elections, but perhaps that is an influencing factor. One member after the other got up and suggested experimenting for a year. What happens during the year does not concern them, they do not bear the responsibility, but we, the Government, do. During the year things may develop and if there are outbursts this Government must bear the blame. We say that this is not the time for experiments. I said it clearly while the hon. member for Standerton was speaking, and I repeat it again, that we, on our side, are prepared to accept any amendment which does not eliminate the courts so long as it is effective. I do not want to set myself up as a judge whether an amendment is effective or not, I made it clear that the legal advisers had gone into the amendment and I am always still prepared to leave the decision in their hands on the understanding that we must be certain that it will not end in failure. One or two more Bunting cases, one or two more of the cases where such language is used, and those who have used it, are acquitted by the court and you will have the outburst. Have hon. members not noticed what has been happening during recent weeks? Commandos of white people have met and if that is the state of feeling and the people have got to the stage of taking arms, then things look bad. I have not the least doubt that in connection with this Bill precisely the same thing will happen that took place in the case of another administrative measure, when I took action in Durban. There was no Opposition newspaper in the country with the exception of one in Durban, that did not attack me, and did not make a fuss about the autocratic powers I had exercised. I was ready for a strong attack in this House. The severest attack I had yet experienced, but not a single word has been said. I want to prophesy that when this Bill is passed and hon. members see how the Act is applied, and the effect of it, then we shall hear no more about it.

Then also the election will be over.

Now the sacred principles of the liberty of the subject are so much insisted on. Have hon. members forgotten that two or three years ago the Native Administration Act was passed and that it contained a provision which affects the native in the Free State, Transvaal and Natal, and is just as drastic as anything proposed in this Bill?

More drastic.

Yes. According to that Act the Governor-General, that practically means the Minister, can take any native, remove him from his home without the intervention of the courts, and put him at some other place. The Minister can remove him to the other place and as long as he lives he is an exile. Those are the rights which the House unhesitatingly granted to the Minister, and even the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) who is now so tremendously concerned about the liberty of the subject, did not oppose them at the time.

I was opposed to it.

Did he vote against Section 1?

I did not vote.

It was mere chance. I know with what enthusiasm he would have raised his voice in favour of the clause. The House unhesitatingly granted those powers with regard to the natives. One constantly hears speeches with a throb in the voice, and tears in the eyes about the unfortunate condition of the natives after these powers shall have been granted, although without any debate another Minister has been given powers which are still more drastic. This Bill will not only affect the natives, but will also apply to whites. I made the position very clear, and agreed to the appointment of a select committee. The fullest opportunity and liberty was given there to move any amendment that would effect the same purpose.

Did you see the Speaker’s ruling?

Of course, and that is why I agreed to the Bill going to a select committee before the second reading. I gave every opportunity for amendments to be moved. An amendment was proposed and although the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) exhibited a certain amount of judicial hesitation, he was about the only member who did not acknowledge that that amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville was adequate. The hon. members for Yeoville and Wynberg (Mr. Roper) acknowledged this and said that we could alter the wording. The hon. member for Wynberg has now in fact suggested a further amendment of the word, but not the hon. member for Yeoville.

It is very easy.

The easy things are so difficult to me. The hon. member could have proposed the easy thing in the select committee. Does the hon. member now say that he did not have the opportunity?

You would accept nothing.

I said in the select committee that his amendment was inadequate. Another suggestion has now been made not actually a proposal in connection with a fresh amendment. If we sum up the position it amounts to this that there are only two kinds of amendments that can be moved; in the first place we can provide that all words that are calculated to cause feeling, the use of such words shall be a crime. Such is the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg, which he has not written out, but indicated during his speech. Another is the motion of the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close). The second kind of amendment at the other end of the scale is that where words are used, whether they are calculated to raise feeling or not, actually do raise feelings which excite and stir up the emotions, it shall be punishable. Those are the two extremes, and between them there will possibly come half a dozen other kinds. Let hon. members, however, bear in mind that there are two kinds of amendments at the extremes, on one side and on the others, viz., words that are calculated to cause feeling on the one hand, and words that create feeling, whether they are calculated to do so or not. Let us first mention words that are calculated. Who is to judge what the effect of the words will be? The magistrate or the judge of course, therefore in this case different people. There will be a magistrate who knows the psychology of the native, who can say authoritatively what the effect of the words used will be. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) so clearly showed how, viewed superficially, a very innocent sentence can be interpolated, how a nuance can be used, how the emphasis can be laid, without the apparently innocent word having a disastrous effect on the natives, although the magistrate or the judge is possibly not at all able to see the undercurrent in the expressions. The tone alone is sometimes enough. The matter comes before a magistrate who knows the psychology of the native and sees the point, or before another magistrate who does not see it at all. Let me compare it with hon. members who only know the natives with regard to the vote, and then go to the Transkei and set themselves up as judges of natives. I just want to point out bow unpractical such amendments are. So we possibly have a judge to-day who has full knowledge and to-morrow one who knows practically nothing of the pyschology of the native. Judgment has to be given to-day about statements which an agitator has said to an audience which consisted of practically only educated natives, to-morrow about words addressed to an audience which consisted half of educated natives, and the other half of pure barbarians, and the next day about words addressed to a meeting which included Europeans, and the day after that about words addressed to coloured people. On whom is the effect going to be tested? Who, in the opinion of the judge, will be the person on whom the effect must be tested, the educated native, the barbarian, the European, or who? I merely point out the difficulties, and I say that no test can be formulated in connection with a criminal offence which will embrace 100 per cent. of the cases, or even 75 per cent. Perhaps it will be possible to embrace 50 per cent., but 50 per cent. will not be able to come under it.

What steps do you propose to make the test effective?

I am coming to that. The results could immediately be conflicting decisions. There would be one magistrate who would say that in the circumstances a speech might lead to trouble, and another would be astonished at such a matter being brought before the court. Let us now come to the other side of the doctrine, the second kind of amendment. I have shown, I think, that the first kind is quite impossible. I therefore come to the kind of amendment which prefers the words, which, whatever the intention may be, whatever the effect on the native may be under normal circumstances, make the words a criminal offence if the words in fact have a certain effect. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) spoke about public speeches. If the second kind of amendment was passed, 99 out of 100 speeches which the hon. member for Standerton made on his Whole tour could be considered an offence, because whatever the intention was the effect might have been the stirring up of feeling. We should not be able to discuss the most important problems in public without immediately coming into conflict with the Act. The hon. member for Wynberg said that was merely a technical contravention, but if such an amendment were passed, as was proposed in select committee, then anyone who makes a speech causing feeling will be punishable with seven years, with deportation, and with other penalties of a similar kind. What struck me was that hon. members said that we surely had enough brains to draft something that would be sufficient, but not one of them touched the basis of the whole trouble, viz., that there are only two kinds of amendments possible, and that they are all inadequate. They merely spoke about putting our heads together, but I think that hon. members surely have given consideration to the amendment they proposed, or am I to understand that they did not properly consider it? It almost looked like it, because now they already have to admit that the amendment they proposed in the select committee is not effective. This proves that they did not sufficiently consider it, because otherwise they must have realized the difficulties. The hon. member for Yeoville had a few more small objections which I noted because they might possibly influence the vote. He said that no man ought to be deported except on the order of the Supreme Court.

As the result of a sentence of the Supreme Court.

I want to remind the hon. member that it regularly happens that when a magistrate convicts anyone in connection with insolvency and such person is sentenced to 14 days, two months, or what not, I deport such a person. That does not only occur because he has been convicted, but because in certain cases the circumstances in connection with the bankruptcy are such that he is an undesirable person in the Union. I prefer the opinion of the hon. member to that of quite a number of other hon. members, but he said something more which is not accurate. He said that if a man attended a meeting which was prohibited, although he was not aware of it, he was guilty of an offence and could be deported. I fear the hon. member has not properly read the Bill, because this Bill incorporates Section 1 of the principal Act, and that states that if anyone attends a prohibited meeting in ignorance he cannot be convicted. There is thus adequate protection. The hon. member for Wynberg made an interesting speech, and said that the existing law was not a failure. There he apparently differs from the leader of the Opposition and other speakers. He said that it was not a failure inasmuch as a certain "N’dobe” was recently convicted and discharged more or less with a caution. This shows at once that they went so far that even the existing laws can apply to them. Then the hon. member dealt with what I said in connection with Mr. Lansdown’s object in drafting the Sedition Act. If the hon. member will read the evidence he will see that the intention of Mr. Lansdown was not actually so ranch to make the Act hit the creation of feeling between white and black, but to get rid of the effect of the case of Rex vs. Viljoen proves it. I further wish to point out the decision in the case of Rex vs. Bunting, which clearly showed that the Act did not answer to its purpose. The hon. member suggested two amendments, one in writing and the other during the course of the debate, amendments which I have already dealt with, and on which I do not need to enlarge now. The next speaker was the hon. member for Durban (County) (Mr. Eaton), and he treated us to a serious and well-meant speech, but which was, nevertheless, typically Sap. He made it clear to us that the way to rule our country is to use as much force as possible, to then get to the point of facing the House with a fait accompli, with the result that an indemnity Act has to be passed to cover the act of force. I am glad that the hon. member did not think it necessary to continue his description, and to tell us we ought merely to let things develop, and that there eventually would be a national convention to discuss the matter from all points of view.

You will drive all the agitation underground.

I do not know whether the hon. member means that the people will be shot and buried. The hon. member for Mowbray suggested an amendment which I dealt with in passing, and I made it clear to him that it had the same tendency as the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg, viz., that the people must be sentenced according to the “intent” of their words. For the rest, I must congratulate the hon. member on his speech. The hon. member further said that what was good enough for Mr. Roos and Mr. Lansdown ought to be good enough for me as well. All I can reply to that is that both those two gentlemen had to rely on Section 29 of the Native Administration Act. The court has now decided that that section of the Act is not sufficient and adequate, and we have, therefore, to try some other means to attain the desired object. The hon. member said that that could be attained by the proposed amendment, and I hope I have now convinced him that that amendment is inadequate. The next speaker was the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), who was fortunate enough to be absent by chance, and unable to vote on the section of the Native Administration Act in question. He almost made another fuss like he did the other day when he pleaded for the so-calld curtailment of the freedom of persons still living outside the Union. The hon. member cannot blame me if I do not take his objections seriously. He is in the position of having received strict and definite instructions from his congress about what he wants to do here. He has carried them out, but yet I want to remind him what precisely the instructions he received were. Unanimously and practically without debate, it was decided that the triumvirate of the party in this House were not only to oppose the Bill, but they were to obstruct it in every possible way at every stage and on every point.

Have I done so?

Perhaps the hon. member’s heart mollified in the meantime. I only wanted to show why the hon. member had to be so dissatisfied with the measure. The object is not only mere opposition to the Bill, but obstruction. The result was that with that object in view, we cannot blame the hon. member that his legal inferences were not so good as they otherwise would have been. He mentioned the tradition of the trade unions. He was not here when the measure was debated after it came out of select committee, otherwise he would have known the reasons I gave why I, first of all, put that article into the Bill, and why I subsequently decided to take it out of the Bill. I said that there was just as little reason to suppose that the measure would apply to the transactions of a trade union, as it would apply to an ordinary farmers’ union. The work of neither of these unions is intended to create hostility between the two races. Their work cannot come into conflict with this Bill. I know that the trade unions, or some of their governing members, were incited to send round a circular against the Bill, but when we enquire into the history of that, then we know how much value to attach to it. We can trace that circular to Messrs. Sachs and Andrews, who are both Communists, and who influence their committee.

Senator Briggs is also concerned in it.

I do not believe that the hon. Senator was also misled. I can, however, understand that some of the committee members were misled by those people. The hon. member for Cathcart (Mr. van Coller) quoted in an eloquent way what was said by the natives at the Bunga, and how they pleaded for something to be done to put an end to agitation among the natives. The mistake he made was in drawing a wrong conclusion from it all. Did they talk about the freedom of the individual, about the freedom of the press, and that Bunting should be convicted by the court? No, they regard the Minister of Native Affairs as their father, and they request him to lake administrative steps to help them. So that is precisely what we are proposing in this Bill. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) is in the unhappy position of standing alone He stands firmly, but he stands alone. Neither the select committee nor the other hon. members on his side, of the House could be convinced by him of the reasonableness of his proposed solution. He has advocated it in a very eloquent manner, but it availed nothing. The hon. member says that he does not believe in administrative powers being put into the hands of one person. He wants them to be divided up between various persons and bodies, e.g., between the Minister and town councils, etc. His attitude practically amounts to this, that we must take everything which is mentioned in the Bill and divide it between the persons and the bodies that he names, and then he will have no further objection. The natives in the native territories must be protected against this sort of thing. In connection with other natives, he permits a certain amount of administrative power. He emphasized that it was not the Act which was inadequate to enable us to deal with agitators, but that the difficulty lay in our finding out how the agitator got into touch with the natives. But that is exactly the reason why the amendments which have been suggested are inadequate. There are a thousand and one ways in which it takes place, with the result that administrative powers are necessary. He tried, for instance, to answer the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) by pointing out that the prohibiting of the meeting did not prevent the desecration of the graves, and that the meeting was held despite the prohibition. Yes, but if other meetings had not been held, then the natives would not have been so emotional as to get to the state of committing those acts. If it were not that Champion held his meetings in Durban and did his work there, then the trouble there would not have happened. The object, therefore, is to prevent stirring up the emotions of the natives to commit illegal acts. The hon. member further emphasized that the provision made in clause 9 for an appeal amounted to nothing. The hon. member for Standerton held exactly the same view. There, however, they conflict with the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Wynberg, who in the select committee thought that the clause was adequate. This shows how difficult the matter is. Gentlemen, and let me say legal gentlemen, on the opposite side of the House are not in agreement about the amendments and other things they have recommended, but yet they expect us to experiment with them. They are not certain about it, but they expect us to make tests to see if they will succeed. The fact that he considered clause 9 insufficient makes his criticism of little value in respect of the later clause 18 with regard to the right to go to the court if the Minister makes use of his powers under clause 12. If the House thinks that his criticism on clause 9 is not sound, then it will also attach no value to his criticism on clause 18. But what is actually the criticism on clause 9? I want to emphasize this matter because the hon. member for Standerton also spoke about it. Clause 9 lays down that a person has the right of going to the court and proving that a book is not intended to create hostility between black and white, that is if the Minister prohibits the publication of that book under the provisions of this Bill. The hon. member says that the Minister has then already given a decision. He has already decided the matter, the burden of proof lies on the publisher of the book, and it is almost impossible to expect the court to upset the decision of the Minister. Does he think that the court in our country will allow itself to be influenced by the decision of a Minister, or ten Ministers? The whole matter has nothing to do with the Minister’s decision. The court must give its judgment after considering the book or clause under the provisions of the Act, and if it comes to the conclusion that there is anything wrong in the decision of the Minister, then it will reverse it. If the court agrees with the Minister, it is its duty to confirm the prohibition. I cannot imagine how we can better protect the publication of a pamphlet, or the issue of a book, better than in this way. Now I come to the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige). I think that the Prime Minister has already sufficiently dealt with the speech, but I just want to refer to one thing in connection with it. The hon. member has again referred to 1922, and I must say, to the honour of the Opposition, that he is the only member of that side of the House who has again referred to the Communistic mask bogies stories of the Communist rising in connection with the troubles of 1922. In 1922 we heard that the Communists were behind the troubles. The hon. member for Standerton then produced the proof hour after hour, and it eventually came down to this, that somewhere or other they found a toga of some fancy dress or masked ball or other, which was red, and that was the only proof. I refer to the extract I have quoted from the official document of the third Internationale which, without any doubt, shows that up to 1926 the Bolsheviks had not the least touch with South Africa. It is therefore nonsense to talk of the Bolshevik movement in 1922. I just want to mention another point in connection with the speech of the hon. member for Standerton. The hon. member said that the blood and tears pamphlet quoted by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) was a thing which did not at all come within the terms of this Bill: that I would have no power in taking action in connection with it. I am only pointing out how many difficulties I have in connection with the legal advice of hon. members opposite, because the hon. member for Mowbray, for whose legal knowledge I have much respect, said with the fullest conviction that I could take action under the existing Act in connection with this matter, an Act which, as hon. members know, is much weaker than this Bill. He says I can also act under the existing Act. Where hon. members differ so much with each other, how can I overlook the danger and simply accept the inadequate amendment? I want to repeat again that we all see that the position is serious. This Bill makes provision for going to the court with regard to documents and books that are published, and to a certain extent provision in connection with persons who an be removed from a certain district. If that, under all the circumstances, is not 100 per cent. safety, then hon. members must further remember that the Minister’s reasons in connection with any action under clause 12 must be given under oath, and a full statement of his actions must be laid on the Table of the House. There is thus sufficient security, and in the circumstances I hope that hon. members opposite will see their way to vote for the second reading.

Motion put, and the House divided: