I have to announce that, on behalf of both Houses of Parliament, Mr. President and I have accepted an offer of the South African National Memorial Committee, conveyed through Gen. the Right Hon. J. O. Smuts, to present to Parliament, for preservation in these buildings, a Book of Remembrance compiled from official war records of the names of all South Africans who fell in the great war. This valuable gift will be placed in the Queen’s Hall in close proximity to the model of the Delville Wood memorial which was presented in 1927.

Does the Minister really intend to take the second reading to-morrow?

No, it is only being put on the order paper.

Second reading to-morrow.

I beg to draw attention to the instruction on the order paper, House to go into committee on Riotous Assemblies (Amendment) Bill—

Before you put this, may I ask to have an opportunity of putting before the members of the House my point of view on the matter.

No; in the present case I do not think any useful purpose would be served by points of view being raised. The hon. member has been good enough to see me in my office on the question, and I went very thoroughly into all the pros and cons before coming to a decision. I cannot permit any argument with the Chair.

We would like to know if you approve of the motion going on the order paper. We do not expect that you will now rule definitely one way or the other.

My ruling must be taken as definite.

I think it would allow us an opportunity of giving our views in support of the motion.

My ruling follows those laid down by previous Speakers, including the hon. member for Caledon.

I would like to give my reasons for wishing the motion put on the order paper; it was in reply to a challenge of the hon. Minister of Justice to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and myself that we would do something to assist the Minister, and that is why we now wish to fulfil the promise made,

I regret to say I cannot permit it. Let me now read my ruling. I wish to draw attention to the proposed instruction to the committee of the whole House on the Riotous Assemblies (Amendment) Bill by the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) on the order paper to-day. It will be seen that this instruction aims at strengthening the existing law, under which courts have to decide the guilt of persons charged with offences, in lieu of the administrative powers conferred on the Minister by the Bill. The question raised by the proposed instruction is therefore essentially the same as the question which was put to me earlier in the session by the hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz), when a similar Bill was before the House. On that occasion I indicated to the House that after second reading it would not be competent to move an alternative proposal destructive to the principle of the Bill as disclosed by its subject matter (Y. & P., p. 204). The order for the second reading of the Bill was then discharged by the House and the subject referred to a select committee, in order to give the desired opportunity to substitute other principles. On the report of the committee that Bill was withdrawn and a new measure containing similar principles introduced, so that the position to-day, so far as the instruction is concerned, is the same as when the question was first raised. I stated on the occasion to which I refer that the point of procedure was one which should properly be decided when the proposal was actually made, and as the hon. member has now placed his motion on the paper, I have to rule formally that, as the House has accepted the principles of the new Bill by agreeing to the second reading, it is not competent, in view of the specific language of the proviso to S.O. 165, for an hon. member either with or without an instruction to move an amendment such as that proposed.

Might I suggest that your ruling is a compilation—

As I have stated, I cannot allow any argument on my ruling.

Might I ask in what circumstances may an instruction be moved to the committee of the whole House which is going to consider the Bill? If an amendment is moved-

The hon. member is now asking me a hypothetical question.

The Standing Rules and Orders give us the right to move an instruction to the committee of the whole House on the consideration of a Bill, and I would like to know for guidance how is it possible for such an instruction to be moved?

I refer the hon. member to Standing Rules and Order No. 165. But I may suggest, if the hon. member would like further information, he might see me in my chambers.

Your ruling is based upon the proviso of Standing Order No. 165. I understand your ruling is that you say that you found your ruling on the proviso to Standing Order No. 165. Standing Order No. 165 seems to deal with amendments of the committee.

I am not prepared to allow any arguments upon my ruling.

I should like you to explain to us what the proviso to Standing Order No. 165 does apply to.

The hon. member is a lawyer, and I think as a lawyer he will know that a proviso governs what immediately precedes it. If the hon. member will read the proviso concerned in conjunction with what precedes it in the rule, he will see that amendments moved by instructions are not excluded from its operation.

Standing Order No. 165 deals with amendments in committee of the whole House. The proviso says that if you want to move an amendment in committee of the whole House you cannot do so if it is in conflict with the principles of the Bill.

Exactly. I have pointed out that the proviso governs amendments proposed in the instruction, as well as other amendments.

My purpose in rising is not to argue this point at all. I want to ask if you can tell me what will he the effect of your ruling upon the committee when it is considering the Bill? I think in the past we have been able, if the committee thought fit, to eliminate all, or any, of the provisions as submitted to the committee. Will the effect of your ruling on this occasion debar us from doing that, because, as you see, the principle of the Bill has been accepted. The principle is contained in only one clause. True, it is subdivided, and we have a large number of subsections, but they are all elaborating the main principle. My anxiety is to save time in committee.

The hon. member is asking me what the chairman of committees will do if an amendment is moved in committee. That is a matter for the chairman to decide.

I realize that, but in the ultimate, if we question the chairman’s ruling, the House may order the matter to go to you for your ruling. On this point it may be as well for you to be fore-armed.

The chairman will have to rule in accordance with Rule 165.

First Order read: House to go into committee on the Riotous Assemblies (Amendment) Bill.

House in Committee:

On Clause 1,

The Minister has not told us why he wants this provision in. The existing law has been proved sufficient to deal with the state of affairs found in the Western Province lately, and what more the Minister wants I really do not see.

I think the hon. member need only refer to the select committee’s proceedings to find that both sides of the House, as represented on that select committee, were in agreement that these powers are necessary, and they are necessary for this reason. Under the existing law a meeting can be prohibited only if a breach of the peace is to be apprehended. This deals with an entirely different state of affairs. This deals with a meeting at which feelings of hostility may be engendered without necessarily involving a breach of the peace. It is true that meetings prohibited lately have not been of such a character that a magistrate could reasonably anticipate, apart from the question of feelings of hostility being engendered, that a breach of the peace might, or would, take place. In connection with a recent turbulent meeting the existing provision was sufficient. If the hon. member cares to think about the matter he will realize that that will cover only a small percentage of the type of meeting which is now taking place all over the country. I should like to move a very small amendment to sub-section 4, in line 11, to delete the words “class or”, In this and subsequent sections, I want to take out the words “class or”. It was represented to me that the use of the word “class” is somewhat misleading. The word “class” is understood by certain people by reason of historical associations, to denote a section which has a class consciousness. That, of course, is not so according to the strict legal meaning of the word, but as there is an apprehension that it may mean a section which possesses a distinct class consciousness, I want to allay that suspicion by removing these words.

Although the Minister may have met the views of some members of the select committee, he absolutely failed to meet the views of other members of the committee.

There was no suggestion of “smousing” in the committee.

Do not let us use words calculated to arouse feeling. The Minister has not given an explanation as to why he has taken additional powers.

I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss the principles of the Bill in any way. There are several separate principles in the Bill and no principle that has once been accepted in the whole House can be again debated, but only details and the application of those principles.

The House is entitled to say “yes” or “no” to every clause of the Bill. I am asking whether the Minister will not drop this particular clause.

May I refer to a passage in a ruling by Mr. Speaker Jansen in which he quoted from May to the effect that, although the committee has power only to amend a Bill, even to the extent of qualifying it, they could not alter its principle.

The Minister referred to the fact that both sides of the House were represented on the select committee, but we were not represented.

I do not think the hon. member can discuss that.

I am not discussing that —I am dealing with the Minister’s amendment.

The question has been raised as to the right of the committee to reject any section of the Bill. The committee has that right. It can vote against the whole Bill, or any part of it, but the committee has not the right to discuss any principle once it has been accepted by the whole House.

The Minister started by telling us about certain arrangements made in select committee. Well, we were not represented on that select committee as a result of a systematic and illegal boycott which is a contravention of the Riotous Assemblies Act.

The hon. member can only give an explanation—he has no right to discuss that question at all.

I am not discussing it. The Minister has now submitted an amendment, and I take it we can discuss to what extent the details in the clause were necessary in order to give the Minister the powers laid down in the principle of the Bill. The Minister is really wasting the time of the committee in moving his amendment to delete the words “class or,” as he has the right under the Bill to prohibit any assembly the moment he comes to the conclusion that it is calculated to provoke hostility between the Europeans and any other section of the community. Therefore, I fail to see what necessity there is for the amendment. If all these details were deleted and the clause simply stated that the Minister will have power to act, he can do what he desires and the effect will be the same. We want to know to what extent the Minister is going to exercise his power. For example, supposing an individual, during an election, deals with the native franchise. Is the Minister going to have the power—as I presume he will have under the Bill—to say that because somebody is arguing against the native franchise, then he is creating hostility between Europeans and natives? Alternatively, suppose someone is arguing in favour of the native franchise, the Minister would then be in a position to say that he was going to prohibit this individual from addressing meetings on the subject. I can conceive the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) arranging to attend a native trade union meeting to deal with the colour bar—a principle which was so dear to the hearts of the Labour party in days gone by. I can appreciate the Minister saying to the hon. member: “You are going to create feelings of hostility between different sections of the community.” Or we might have a native, Mr. Kadalie, coming along to the trade union of the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) and attacking the colour bar, and the Minister will be able to say he is creating hostility. I am pointing these matters out to show how futile is the Minister’s amendment and how unlikely it is to prove satisfactory to the trade unions, which, after all, have sent definite resolutions to the Minister—the trade union congress, the Cape Federation of Labour, and the Creswellite section of the Cape Labour party. The amendment in no way answers the requirements of these resolutions. I claim I can get the support of the Minister of Defence.

I move—

Agreed to.

On sub-section (4),

I move–

In line 11, to omit “class or”.

I move—

My reason for doing that is that in looking up similar legislation I find that in almost every case the word “Governor-General” is used. I refer to the Native Administration Act, where similar powers were given, and these were given to the Governor-General. I refer to Section 5 of that Act. Power is given to the Governor-General to deport a native from one area to another. I submit the amendment is not unreasonable, and the Minister will find it in all similar cases where similar provisions have been adopted. The power is given to the “Governor-General,” instead of being vested in an individual.

If that will salve the conscience of the hon. member, I do not think the Minister will have any objection to accepting it; if there is any difference they are both alike. I would like to know what difference that is going to have in effect in the operation of the Act. None at all. As for the Minister of Justice, we will have to revise our terms and alter the word “justice”. We cannot allow that to go on longer after this Bill. But the Minister of Justice will recommend to the Governor-General, and, in turn, the Governor-General will say to the Minister, “Right, do it.” It is all done in five seconds. So I would ask my hon. friend to save his breath. I want to know what difference this amendment of the Minister is going to make, if there is a difference. He wants to delete “class or”, the net result of which is to make the Bill worse. Now there is no alternative at all, and” any other section of the people” will embrace any other people or anything, including trade unions. The idea of that is to placate the trade unions. I appeal to the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown), the only trade unionist on that side of the House.

What about the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs?

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Shaw) and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs—

The hon. member must confine himself to the amendment.

You will forgive me, sir; it is very pertinent to the subject, to the outlook of the people who claim to be trade unionists. It is only fair that at this juncture I should read out certain correspondence which has come from representative trade unions. On the second reading debate the Minister of Justice deliberately pooh-poohed the value of certain representations made to him by the Trade Union Congress—made to him as Minister of Justice—on the ground that the representations made by that congress were drawn up by the secretary, Mr. W. H. Andrews, and one Sachs—both of them communists. It is indicative of the atmosphere that has grown up in that political body and that combination over there that the Minister of Justice can lend himself to an expression like this, “because they are communists”. Surely people have a right to be communists; I am not a communist myself; but any man may have any political belief he likes; he may even be a republican, and, in consequence thereof, his word is not such as can be taken !

I do not think the hon. member has the right to discuss that now.

Yes, because the bona fides of these people have been called into question. Mr. Andrews is the secretary of the Trades Union Congress. Instructed by the congress, he has made special representations to the Minister against this clause. I will now read a further communication. He writes to the Minister complaining partly of the statement that the letter reflected his opinion, and stated that this statement was strongly resented by his national executive council. Further, that there was no warrant for the assumption that Mr. Sachs had a hand in writing a formal letter.

Order. I am quite satisfied that has nothing to do with the subsection.

Then in argument with regard to the sub-section, I want to give representations made by trades unions, with supporting letters from the Federation of Non-European Trades Unions, the Cape Liquor Trade Employees Union, the Engineering Union, the South African Typographical Union —the Minister for Posts will probably salve his conscience saying he has resigned his presidency of this union.—the Johannesburg Musicians Onion, and a resolution passed by a meeting of trade unionists in Vereeniging on March 14th. These were not coloured trades unionists, but trades unionists who are very much concerned about the position that has arisen. Then there is the Cape Federation of Labour Unions, who, after the Minister of Labour had got into personal touch with them, and said that by his intervention everything in the garden was lovely and the offending clauses had been removed— subsequent to the knowledge that that had been done they passed a resolution placing on record its most emphatic protest against the Bill, and appealing to Labour members and the Government to save the fair name of the Labour movement in South Africa, as the Bill is an attack on every conception of liberty cherished by every self-respecting community. If that will not wring the withers of the hon. the Minister of Defence, nothing will.

I cannot allow the hon. member—

The whole trades union movement, the whole labour movement, pseudo and otherwise, is definitely and diametrically opposed to this measure, and to this clause particularly, and surely I have the right to quote these authorities, authorities before whom even the Minister of Defence quailed a little while ago when he got into personal touch with them, and begged them to take no further action, because the offending portion of the Bill was to be removed. When you remember that you and Mr. Speaker have, and quite rightly, circumscribed our rights of debate on this question, and that it involves a principle dear to Dutchmen and Englishmen alike, I do hope you will not still further shorten our opportunities by preventing us from using legitimate arguments.

The hon. member is chronologically wrong with regard to the interview to which he referred. I quite recognize legitimate differences of opinion, but I think, as far as trade unionists are concerned, they are no more concerned with this Bill than a farmers’ association, or any other association of persons, and it was largely as a result of that interview and the objection to the wording of the clause—

What was the date?

I think it was probably last Monday week.

You are thinking of resolutions by your district committee.

No, I am not. I was saying that in my view, and that is the reason I asked the Minister to take out Clause 17, I do not know any trade union activity which can be characterized as arousing hostility between the European population of the Union on the one hand, and any other section of the community, on the other hand. The whole object of this Bill centres around those two lines referring to the engendering of feelings of hostility between the European section as a whole on the one hand, and any other section on the other hand. I am not entering into the question for the moment, whether the circumstances of the time necessitate these exceptional powers. I say that when the hon. member and other hon. members recall—and rightly recall the debates of 1914 on the Riotous Assemblies Bill, they will remember that it was introduced by a Government who had a few months before shown their inveterate hostility to anything like trade union combination, and the very Bill itself contained a number of clauses which showed it was aimed against effectual trade union combination. You all said at that time “if you pass this Act you will emasculate any possibility of trade union activities.” We all know perfectly well that we have advanced far beyond those days. It is recognized on all sides that the trade union movement is something the Government is not going to and cannot put a stop to. I am convinced that so far as legitimate trade union activities are concerned in combining for economic causes in the promotion of their own interests; I say that does not mean promoting hostility between the people of the Union on the one hand, and any other section of the community on the other hand. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) has been jibed at by the hon. member, but I say in respect of all these authorities— the Trade Union Congress, and the Cape Federation of Trades—I say they are wrong; their fears are founded upon an entirely erroneous reading of the Act, and upon a long standing tradition of the past—though well justified— that anything which prevents licence of speech may be interpreted as something to prevent combination among workers.

Who interprets licence of speech?

I want to say I am convinced that there are certain activities let loose in the world to-day with powerful external backing whose main aim is to stir up revolution for revolution’s sake, which were not in existence a few years ago—

On a point of order, sir, you did me the honour to call upon me to speak before the hon. Minister. I wish to say that when this Bill was originally introduced I took the strongest exception against placing this extraordinary power in the hands of the Minister of Justice—of any Minister. I considered that the power should be placed in the hands of the supreme court, if necessary. My hon. friend has moved the deletion of the word “Minister” for the purpose of inserting the words “Governor-General”, The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has pointed out that this means that the Minister goes to the Governor-General and gets his authority to act as he wishes. In order to test my view of the subject I beg to move-—

I rule this amendment quite out of order, as it is not in accord with the principle of the Bill.

When the hon. Minister moved the deletion of the word “class”, that may, or may not have been, in accordance with the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill, I take it, is that where immediate action should be taken in case of trouble—

The hon. member is aware that I ruled his amendment out of order.

I should just like to enquire from the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) in connection with the motion he is going to introduce in a matter that has so often occurred in South Africa, viz., when something has suddenly to be done on a Saturday afternoon or Sunday. If the word “Minister” is replaced by “Governor-General”, and there are difficulties with a police on a Saturday afternoon or Sunday when the Governor-General is not available, and the police have to act immediately what will the position be then? The proposal would make the clause absolutely ineffective and impracticable. As for the word “Minister” in other subsections we can debate it later, but I should regret it very much if in this case the responsibility must lie with the Governor-General.

I just want to say that when hon. members speak in committee they must also address the Chair. If that is not done it is very difficult to know whether an hon. member wants to speak or not.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has just said that he could see no difference between the Governor-General and the Minister. It makes an enormous difference because some of us oppose the Bill when it gave this unrestricted power to the Minister, but now that the Minister is prepared to accept that change, with the exception of one clause, it means that those who attach importance to that change are now in a position to support it. But one is surprised to find that at even this late stage in the proceedings, it seems desirable to make it perfectly clear why a Bill of this nature is necessary, and why the Government should have the powers conferred on them under the Bill. The difference between the Governor-General and the Minister, as the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) has said, is that the Minister has to go to the Governor-General to get his signature before action is taken; before that he could act without consulting anyone. I am averse and always have been averse to any single official acting in an arbitrary manner on his own account, exercising drastic powers on the spur of the moment, which might easily lead to mistakes being made. There seems in some quarters to be a great deal of prejudice against the Bill— that something is being done which is entirely new to the country; there is really no new principle in this, for the powers conferred by the Bill exist at the present moment—under the 1927 Act—

The hon. member cannot discuss that.

I suppose I shall be in order in explaining that by seeking these powers the Minister is asking nothing new.

The hon. member can only discuss the details of Sub-section 4. It is not a question of whether it is necessary or whether it is right or wrong.

May we not discuss the question of the necessity for this clause?

The Bill has passed the second reading in this House and the principle has been accepted.

To a point of order. Are we to take it that every one of these sub-clauses contains a principle which must not, in any way, be altered in committee?

Most of these clauses contain a certain principle.

Are we bound to pass every clause in committee without amendment? If that ruling is to be accepted then this committee is valueless.

To a point of order. I take it it is the custom of this House that any member of this House has the power to move the deletion of every one of these clauses if he wishes. Therefore, it is obvious that an hon. member must be in order if he wishes to state his reasons for desiring the removal of a clause. Otherwise the committee discussion is useless.

We are here with the power to say “yes” or “no” to every single clause in this Bill. If we wish to get a decision, “yes” or “no”, we have to get a majority here to vote “yes” or “no”. For that purpose, we have to state to the House why we ask the House to give its verdict either for or against a clause. Otherwise, what are we here for? We are not here as a matter of privilege but as a right. We must be able to give reasons why the House should reject any particular clause. If there is any doubt about it, we may have to take some other steps. Personally, I do not propose to allow my privileges and rights to be curtailed. If we are not to be entitled to give reasons why the House should reject any clause, then I say that we shall not be able to accept that position at all.

I will read an extract from Standing Order No. 168—

That standing order is very clear and very definite.

With profound submission, I would point out that the standing order’s actual words are very clear. The practice and the necessary practice of this House, is that you may move the deletion of any clause. It is impossible to give any reasons for that without, in some way, trenching upon the discussion which we had at the second reading. At the same time, while that standing order is framed to prevent the committee stage on a Bill developing into merely a re-hash of a second reading debate, it is obvious that if you have the power to delete you must equally have the power to advance reasons for the deletion of a clause. Therefore, it necessarily follows that while one must be kept within bounds, it is the privilege of a member to advance such reasons as he may believe will appeal to his brother members. It cannot be intended by this rule to forbid that.

I think I may come to your assistance here. We are anxious to expedite the work of this committee. I would point out that we are dealing to-day with riotous assemblies. That is the principle and nothing more. The question is how are we going to carry out that object? The various portions of the Bill merely carry out the principle. I submit that we are entitled to deal with every word and letter of the Bill for effecting that purpose. The particular section referred to by you, sir, says that the principle of the Bill shall not be discussed in committee but only its details. What are the details? The details are set out in the Bill, and are set out with the object of carrying out the principle. Surely we are allowed to move any amendment to assist us in carrying out the Bill.

The very section that you quote, sir, in support of the ruling you wish to give would, I submit, seem to show that in this particular case, your ruling should not be persisted in, because it seems to connote only one principle in the Bill. If we were discussing the women’s suffrage Bill, it would not be permissible for any member of the House to get up in committee and oppose the principle of the enfranchisement of women. That rule you very rightly applied during the discussion on women’s enfranchisement last week. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Vorster) wanted to get up and give a second reading speech on the question and you very rightly interfered. In this case, the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) has rightly said that the real principle of this Bill is that further and more effective steps shall be taken to deal with certain manifestations which have occurred in South Africa during the last 12 months or two years, and the principle of this Bill is that such further steps shall be taken. That is the entire principle. We are now discussing in committee the method and manner of effecting that object. To one hon. member one thing may appear right, and to other hon. members another thing may be right, but if you say that by our act in passing the second reading of this Bill—every section of which contains a sub-principle, as I may term it, and we are not allowed to discuss them— then you are going very much further than I, in 15 years’ experience in this House, have ever known a chairman to go. There is a subsection enshrined in Sub-section 4. That is the prohibition of meetings and the prohibition of people going to those meetings. Then when we go over the page we find there are other principles enshrined in the other sub-sections. There is the question of banishment from a particular portion of the Union, and actual banishment overseas. So it is no use pretending as a general principle that there is any one principle enshrined in this Bill. There are a number of sub-principles or methods and each of these we are perfectly free to discuss ad lib in this committee. I should deprecate any ruling which will say that, by passing the second reading of this Bill, we have swallowed the whole of the Bill.

I am quite satisfied that there is more than one principle included in the Bill. All these principles were accepted at the second reading. However, I always allow members fair latitude to discuss every clause or sub-section of a Bill. But hon. members must also assist the chair in seeing that the discussion does not develop into a second reading debate.

That is quite reasonable.

I understand you to rule that members are not allowed to give reasons why a particular section is right or wrong, and while we might attempt to amend a sub-section in detail, we cannot address the committee on the whole of the sub-section?

It is not a question whether a sub-section is necessary for the Bill as a whole, but if there is a definite principle in a sub-section, that cannot be discussed.

I take it that Mr. Chairman’s ruling is that there is a principle in the first clause in the Bill, namely, that the Minister should take powers to deal with circumstances as they arise, and we may speak for or against that principle, according to our convictions?

No. The principle in this sub-section is that the Minister has a right to prohibit meetings. Hon. members may say there are cases where that power is not necessary, but they cannot discuss whether the Minister should have these powers, for such a discussion would become a second reading debate.

It seems to me that the Minister’s amendment does not—as the Minister of Defence attempted to show—merely cover the objection that has been raised. I am not here to gibe at the Minister of Defence, although his defence of the Bill is a spectacle calculated to make the angels weep, but in the unhappy position in which he finds himself, he has confused completely the dates to which he referred. The position was put by me on a previous occasion. The Cape Federation of Trades met several weeks ago, and among the items on the agenda was the discussion of this Bill. The evening of the meeting a telephone message was received from the Minister of Defence to the effect that the objectionable clauses were to be withdrawn. On the second reading debate, I referred to this, and the Minister of Justice said that the clause was to be withdrawn; as a result of that, the Cape Federation of Trades did not pass any resolution on the subject, but subsequent to that—on April 3—it passed a resolution which was conveyed to the House by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). The amendment moved by the Minister of Justice does not cover the position. On the contrary, the scope of the Bill is widened. In fact, I can conceive the agricultural union when dealing with a matter affecting the native population being considered by the Minister as creating hostility between Europeans and natives, ii the Europeans happen to have the same views on the subject, as the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Maj. Richards). The trade unions will be in a worse position under the amendment than they would be otherwise. So far as concerns the amendment to substitute Governor-General-in-Council for Minister, that simply means that the Minister of Justice will be able to go to the Cabinet and say, “I have decided that this is to be done”, and without a Cabinet crisis, I cannot conceive the Government refusing to consent. The hon. member for Durban (Greyville) said, “We on this side of the House”, I do not know whether he is now speaking for the whole of the South African party, or whether this is one of those occasions on which that party is divided. Anyhow, I hope he does not speak for the South African party. Certainly he is not speaking for the electorate of Greyville when he supports a Bill of this kind. If he consulted his electors, they would suggest that he should go to some backveld constituency. Without going into the principles of the Bill, we are concerned with the manner in which the Minister is going to carry out his powers. I know of only two countries where such powers are now wielded—communist Russia, and fascist Italy.

I am afraid the arguments of the hon. member are as confused as his dates. He suggested that the Minister of Defence was seen by men from the Cape Trade Union Conference. He is entirely wrong. We saw these men together subsequent to April 3, and we discussed the wording of sub-section (4). Sub-section (17) was dicussed long before that, and it was in respect of that sub-section that we gave the assurance that it would be eliminated. After April 3—I think it was on April 7—we met them together here, and we discussed the subsection, and satisfied them.

I have seen no notification of that.

Possibly there are many things the hon. member may not have seen. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) said, and the hon. member for Troyevilee (Mr. Kentridge) supported him, that the elimination of the words “class or” widened the scope of the Bill. Instead of the European section of the population on the one hand and various sections or classes on the other hand, thus increasing the possibilities of conflict, I now confine them to a section by themselves. Instead of having the parties standing opposite each other, in respect of which feelings may be engendered, we formerly had more than two, and the more you have, obviously the greater the possibility of conflict, so the elimination of the words “class or” eliminates one possibility of conflict. The word “class” was repugnant to the trade unions, and they said that it would eliminate a difficulty if it were removed. I wish I could accept the amendment of the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel), but I am afraid it is impossible to do so for practical reasons. I would like to shift the responsibility on to the Cabinet, whose responsibility, of course, it is ultimately. I would accept the amendment, but for the fact that the Minister is very often called upon to act on the spur of the moment. If hon. members turn to the main Bill, they will see one of the main prohibitions of meetings is by publication in a newspaper. The experience I had in connection with a local newspaper was that it appears on certain days only, and you have to come to a decision within an hour or so; it is impossible to lay it before the Cabinet, so as to enable you to publish in a certain issue, which has to be ready for the press at a certain hour, and to put a notice in the newspaper prohibiting a certain meeting. As the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Col. M. S. W. du Toit) pointed out, from his experience as a police officer, the Criminal Investigation Department transmit news over the telephone, and a decision has to be come to. I am, therefore, very sorry that I am unable to accept the amendment.

There seems to be some misunderstanding as to why trade unions are objecting to this Bill. In Natal, trade unions have asked Natal members not to support the Riotous Assemblies Bill, as it infringes inherent right to free speech. That is one of the serious objections to the Bill, that it goes against the right of, and infringes the rights of free speech. The Minister must not have any misunderstanding that the trade unions are not opposed to this Bill. They are just looking a little bit ahead—-I think if this House tries to look ahead and has some regard to the nature of this agitation, this legislation gives one furiously to think—agitation is formidable only by reason of what is reasonable in its demands. If they have reason in their demands, they will ultimately be satisfied, and if they are unreasonable this agitation will die away. The Minister should take the matter into consideration, and the matter ought to be considered from that point of view. Personally, I am opposed to this Bill in that I think it is premature. If necessary Durban may be quoted, but even with the case of Durban before us I say this Bill is premature as its necessity has not been effectively proved. I think the Minister wants to take a bigger view of the whole situation.

I am astonished at what the hon. member for Durban (County) (Mr. Eaton) has said. I think he noticed that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) is not here to-day. It is very plain to me that the opposition to the Bill this afternoon is nothing else than an attempt to defeat the whole Bill. We have, therefore, now got to the point that we must decide whether we are to take steps to put a stop to the things that are going on in the country or not. The public demand it.

The hon. member must confine himself to the clause under discussion.

On the amendment of the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) I want to say that he is a farmer, and knows the position. He proposes to leave out the word “Minister” and to replace it by the words “Governor-General-in-Council”; that the hon. member ought to know that if this amendment is made the Bill will be hopeless. Urgent or immediate steps could not then be taken when they were required. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Col. M. S. W. du Toit) who is an fait with these matters has already explained that the Minister has to act immediately in certain cases. He cannot first call the Cabinet together. Then the mischief will already be done. I am, therefore, surprised that a representative from a farmers’ district moved such a thing. I hope the Minister will take up a definite attitude against the amendment, and that we shall now come to a vote on this clause.

I hesitate to pit myself against the Minister of Justice in his analysis or interpretation. At the risk of being thought impertinent, I must oppose him. He takes me to task because I said that the deletion of “class or” has no effect on the Bill.

My argument is to remove one source of friction.

I accept the Minister’s expression; it may remove one source of friction so far as it affects sentimentality, but is it not a positive fact that the effect of what is left covers the whole or the rest of any part of the population? It really means you have the European inhabitants as one factor; and what is left as the other; and instead of saying “class” you say “section.” That leaves all the rest of the Union to be divided up as the Minister cares—a section in regard to colour, political outlook, trade union outlook, and a section with anything else. It may be large or small. It may be two people, if the Minister likes, or it may contain all the rest of the inhabitants of the Union outside the European inhabitants. I think the Minister will be fair enough to admit that that is the effect. The Minister shakes his head. My point is it has no effect at all. It is the case with regard to those who object to the word “class” that it is “thank you for nothing.” I am just informed, while the Minister and his colleagues may have been perfectly satisfied while in consultation with the deputation, as to the date unknown—

I do not say, for one moment, they are enamoured of the Bill.

Why did the Minister bring in anything at all about it in his argument? I want to express my objection and their objection, that they object only because it might hit them individually—nothing of the sort—your trade unions are taking a wider outlook than the business of their associations— and object because it is fundamentally unsound, unfair and undemocratic. I need only read this, “that it views the amendments to the Bill in their present form as a camouflage calculated to placate the Trade Union movement, and other bodies are opposed to the Bill”. The deputation came away from the meeting with the Minister highly dissatisfied with the Minister’s attitude, and with the Bill. Subsequently the Minister of Defence did ’phone up that meeting, and try to get them to agree to withdraw their opposition to the Bill. The fact that they are still continuing their opposition lends additional weight to my argument that they are not looking at the matter from their own point of view, but from the point of view of the public. May I deal with the Minister of Defence? He said trade unions will not be affected. We quite agree that the trade unions are no more affected than the farmers. The farmers are equally affected, and hon. members who presumably represent farming constituencies, and who hug to themselves the idea that this does not apply to the farmers, are wrong. The Minister himself is setting up feelings of hostility by his legislation between the Europeans and the natives, and this Bill is just as likely to be applied to the farmers if they kick over the traces owing to their economic conditions, as to trade unionists. The argument the Minister of Defence used was employed when the member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) sought to strengthen, as he called it, the Masters and Servants Act which applies to natives. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs knows that when he had trouble with the strike he organized in 1911, the Masters and Servants Act was brought into operation against members of the Typographical Union. [Time limit.]

I just want to ask the Minister whether it is not necessary to include in the Bill a definition of “public meeting”, or “public assembly”.

It is not necessary.

Is the kind of meeting which the Opposition have recently been holding so many of, I refer to a ticket meeting, a public meeting? People are only allowed into those meetings that have tickets. The Bill lays great stress on the word “public” In view of the deletion of the subsequent clause, so that it does not apply to trade unions, but suppose that under the guise of a trade union a native meeting was held on definite invitation so that only those natives are allowed that have been invited, is that a public meeting or not? If it can be considered a private meeting will the Minister then attain his object?

I do not believe for a single moment that any trades union in the country want preferential rights. They want equal justice and equal rights with any other portion of the community. I happened to look up Hansard to see something the Minister had said, and I found there were 87 references to occasions on which the Minister spoke in a somewhat similar debate. This afternoon he has spoken once, but what a different hon. member spoke. The Minister has pointed out that the provisions of the Act are good, and it would seem that they are good or bad according to the Government who introduced them.

The Bill to which the hon. member refers was introduced by a Government which had just suppressed trade unions, and in that identical Bill a number of clauses were directly aimed at trades union activity.

On the question of what the Bill contains, this marks an extraordinary change in the attitude of the Minister of Defence. He speaks of the Bill as being designed to meet revolution. Of course, the 1921 Bill was introduced to meet revolution. But the same argument which was good then, is very bad now when another Government is in power. I propose to move—

My reason is that he is a person who is fully in touch with local opinion and he has no political bias. I think that we will have a better position if a man who is free from any political bias is permitted to be the judge as to whether a matter is one likely to promote hostility or not between two sections of the community. I propose another amendment—

If the Minister does his duty he will give notice to every person who is not to attend that meeting. That power is so extraordinarily wide that I propose to alter the wording to read “presiding at, or addressing a meeting.” Do not make the law ridiculous by threatening to punish everyone to whom the Minister has chosen to give notice not to attend. As the Minister will notice, this is a provision on the lines of the Act of 1914. I asked the Minister why he introduced this measure; he said it was necessary to introduce it because it did not deal with the question of promoting hostility. This clause will give him all he wants. He will be able to deal with the promotion of hostility, and the matter will be decided by a person who has no bias, and he will be limiting the offence to the necessary proceedings.

I cannot accept the amendment as it is contrary to the principle of the Bill.

I may say that there is an application to a magistrate’s court. It is the same principle as that of the Riotous Assemblies Act, 1921, so that the only new principle contained in the Bill is that the hon. Minister wants to substitute under a particular section the rule of administration for the rule of law. This will be still the rule of administration.

I want to refer to a statement made by the Minister at the commencement of the debate when he said that there had been an agreement arrived at between the two sides, in the select committee, in regard to this clause. I do not know whether the Minister means an agreement—

An agreement by compulsion.

There was no agreement. Our attitude was that we recognized, as was made clear in the second reading debate, that there were conditions existing in the country which called for serious reconsideration of the existing law, and whilst we are prepared to agree in regard to certain points, we did not see that there was any need to give the Government greater powers to deal with disturbing influences that were at work. When we came to the select committee, it seemed to me that this clause did not go very far beyond the existing law. The Act of 1914 gives the Minister power to direct the magistrate to prohibit a meeting if he thinks that it is likely to lead to a disturbance of the peace. This Bill goes further because, first of all, there is no intervention of the magistrate, and it allows the Minister to prohibit a meeting not if he apprehends a disturbance of the peace, but because it may lead to hostility between two sections of the community. I do not consider that that is such a drastic advance on the existing law that we should take exception to it. I think a section like this is one which the Committee can accept. If we accept that there are conditions in the country which call for extended powers, it seems to us that this clause is one which we cannot take exception to. As regard to the Minister’s amendment, I do not know what the precise effect will be except that it will provide a certain soporific for the Cape Federation of Trades. I regard it as an anaesthetic. What effect it will have beyond that I am unable to appreciate. With regard to the clause itself, I am prepared to vote for it.

I would not intervene in the committee stage but that my name has been twice dragged into the discussion. I can make my position quite clear. I am opposed to the Bill root and branch. I do not think it can be amended to make it a good Bill. I think it is unnecessary to introduce the Bill at the present time. I do not agree that it will place the trade unions in a worse position than at present, because under the Act the Minister can do what he likes with the trade unions. It’ is not going to interfere with us in any way. The hon. member for Durban, I forget his constituency, mentioned that it would interfere with the right of free speech, and that, in the hands of the Minister, if, in his opinion, a certain thing should become a crime, he could make it a crime, and, in my view, that principle is absolutely wrong. I do not think we can amend it. I wish to make my position definitely clear that I shall vote against it.

Dealing with this matter from the point of view of trade unions, I have a letter before me from no less than seven trade unions at Vereeniging, asking me to oppose this Bill. If the interpretation they place upon Section (1) is correct, I have no hesitation in saying that I shall oppose it. I am perfectly satisfied however with the explanation by the hon. Minister and with the plain reading of Section (1) of the Bill that it cannot affect the trade union movement or activities in the slightest degree. As it stands, it is quite clear. It is only where the Minister apprehends that feelings of hostility will be engendered between European inhabitants of the Union on the one hand and any other section of the Union on the other hand.

What is the interpretation of the Act in regard to trade unions?

I cannot conceive of any possible occasion where it would be necessary for the furtherance of the trades union movement to preach doctrines at their meetings that are calculated to engender feelings of hostility on the part of the European section of the community as against another. If that is so, how can it possibly affect the trade union movement? The hon. the Minister has told us of certain influences that are at work in the country at present which are likely to become worse, and it is necessary for us to control them if not to eradicate them. In that case we must give the Minister some power. The hon. the Minister very fairly asked the House that if any hon. member could suggest to him any procedure whereby be could achieve his object, other than as laid down, he would welcome it. I have not heard of any suggestion. I would point out to the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) that the principal Act makes provision that the Minister can, through a magistrate, stop a meeting. If we adhere to that principle, it is still the Minister who has power to do it. Therefore, I must candidly say that, as this section stands, and its reading is clear, that those interested in the trade union movement, and I am one of them, need have no fear that the trade union movement will be in any difficulty whatever or that the liberty of speech in that direction is at all handicapped.

I will first deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Winburg (Dr, van der Merwe). He asked me whether the definition of “public meeting” was sufficiently wide to prohibit meetings which were called by means of ticket admission. I can tell him that this prohibition would certainly not apply. In other words, any meeting of that kind composed of sections of the public called by means of tickets of admission, would not fall under the Act. That is one of the greatest safeguards which the trade union movement and other similar movements have. They can hold meetings because they are not meetings to which the public have access. The hon. member for Winburg pointed out that, in many instances, I cannot possibly achieve my object. I quite agree. This Bill is not watertight in regard to meetings of communist agitators to which the public, as a body, have not access. The communists can hold meetings if they hold them in a place to which the public have not access, in the same way as in the past. That is the greatest safeguard the trade union movement has under the Act. The same reason applies in the case of a meeting of an agricultural society or a farmers’ union. The hon. member indicates that I should widen the definition in the Bill.

Take in republicans.

I am quite satisfied that most of the difficulties would be met by the Bill in its present form.

They have been taken in already.

I am not prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Mowbray. It is unfair to place on an acting assistant magistrate the responsibility either for prohibiting or allowing a meeting to be held. I ask the hon. member to put himself in the position of an assistant magistrate in one of the outside districts, where the farmers are up in arms over some particular matter. What is his attitude? If he prohibits the meetings, he cannot defend himself in Parliament, and, on the other hand, if he allows a meeting to be held when the whole white opinion is against him, he is putting himself in an invidious position.

He can wire to the Minister.

No, according to the amendment of the hon. member, he cannot wire to the Minister. He could do that under the original Act, but not as is proposed by the hon. member for Mowbray.

The effect of my amendment will be this, to have the word “magistrate” substituted for “minister,” and it will mean that the Minister must prohibit the meeting.

I misunderstood the effect of the amendment. That alters it to this effect, that the magistrate, who was subjected to local pressure has to furnish information upon which the Minister is really obliged to act. If the magistrate recommends that a meeting be prohibited, and the Minister does not prohibit it, and a disturbance takes place, what will be the position of the Minister? If the magistrate does not recommend action, the Minister may be satisfied it is necessary to prohibit the meeting, but he will not be allowed to do so under this Act.

Who is likely to inform the Minister?

There are numbers of sources of information upon which the Minister can draw.

Chiefly the police.

Not only the police, he also gets information from the magistrates in the way indicated by the hon. member. I ask the hon. member to place himself in the position of some third-grade magistrate who is surrounded by a white population.

I cannot do that, because he is paid so little.

The position is quite clear that it is not fair to the magistrate to put the onus upon him to come to a decision. That is the responsibility which the Minister should accept, and in respect of which the Minister lays papers on the Table of the House, and can defend himself or his policy in this House.

The Minister is very fond of arguing from special and extreme cases. His argument is based upon the practical difficulty of a third-grade magistrate acting in a certain area and having certain responsibilities thrown upon him. There is going to be nothing like a third-grade magistrate acting at all. In these particular cases the magistrate would be one in whom the Government has complete confidence. As far as I can gather from the press, everybody was loud in their admiration of the way in which the acting magistrate acted during the recent disturbances.

The magistrate had nothing to do with the decision.

The Minister had very extensive powers placed on him under the Act of 1914 regarding matters which may be likely to endanger the public peace. The Bill does not take away the duties cast on the magistrate under the existing law. The Minister has not dealt with the other point I raised—limiting the class of persons liable to a penalty, which, under the clause, means that every person who attends a public meeting after being warned to abstain is liable to be punished. I asked the Minister to limit the punishment to the person, who, after warning, persists in addressing or presiding over a prohibited meeting.

I am still in a grave difficulty. I do not wish to question the Chairman’s ruling, but he has allowed an amendment to substitute magistrates, but has ruled out an amendment to substitute Supreme Court. I am thoroughly confused about the whole thing.

The reason for my ruling is that a magistrate is one of the officials of the Minister, but Supreme Court judges are not.

If the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) looks at the Bill he will see that the only prohibition set out are in sub-section 5, and also in respect of 4 (B), sub-section 6. There is no penalty clause except Section 5, which refers to sub-sections 2 and 3 of the Act. These sub-sections refer to persons presiding over or speaking at prohibited meetings. Under these circumstances it it not necessary to amend the clause.

I seek to confine the offence to persons presiding over or addressing prohibited meetings. The 1914 Act refers to a meeting which may endanger the public peace, but the Bill widens the scope by bringing in meetings, speeches at whim may provoke feelings of hostility, and it is also made an offence to attend such a meeting.

By a person on whom a notice has been served.

A thousand persons may attend such a meeting, and if they were not prosecuted the result would be worse than having no such law at all.

No person can be prevented from attending a meeting unless the Minister serves on him a notice in writing not to do so. Is the Minister going to sign a thousand notices unless for a very good reason, and if he has a good reason for doing that that is the very power the section confers on him. The Minister cannot make it a criminal offence for any person to attend a meeting unless a notice in writing has previously been served on such a person. That so circumscribed the scope of the clause that I do not see how any injustice can be done.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Close and Mr. Nel put and negatived.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice put and agreed to.

Sub-section (4), as amended, put and the committee divided:

I want to move an amendment similar to the one I moved in sub-section (4). I move—

The objections which were raised against Clause 4 apply with greatly intensified force to this Clause 7, because here we are dealing with a matter of a far wider character.

This section will surely be very difficult to carry out in practice. It pre supposes that if an inflammatory pamphlet or letter is about to be published, the Minister will somehow hear of it in sufficient time to put a notice in the Gazette prohibiting its publication. It is presupposed that he will hear of it in time to draw the notice for the Gazette, which comes out only once a week. Surely that is a cumbrous way of doing things, and one that is calculated to defeat the objects of the clause. It does seem that the whole object of this clause will be defeated by this particular form of procedure. Human nature being what it is, the one way to make a document valuable is to publish in the Gazette a notice saying that it may not be issued, and that no one may read it. When you want to give a novel an outstanding circulation, and to make people rush to buy it, the sovereign way is to have it censored. Things become valued and prized because they are prohibited. Imagine a particular letter or pamphlet being published in one of the native papers. It may or may not, attract attention, but imagine the effect on the native mind if they find that the document is so important that the Minister has issued a notice refusing to allow it to be published. I can imagine the printing presses working overtime in secret to produce copies of that particular document. I have the very greatest doubt as to the wisdom of the step that the Minister is taking here. We will say that some native, burning with a sense of grievance, sits down and unburdens his soul in a long and inflammatory letter to a newspaper. How is the Minister going to know about it until the letter has appeared? But supposing he does in some mysterious way get to hear about it, which I cannot imagine, how in the world is he going to frame his notice in the Gazette so as to describe that letter? It may be from “a well-wisher” or “an injured native How is he going to describe it in such a way as to prohibit the publication? This is the most futile provision of the whole of the Bill. When you talk about prohibiting public meetings, or prohibiting people from going to a meeting, it is something you can visualize. Supposing I was going to try to stir up native opinion, and I couched the document I was going to effect that object with in the form of a letter. The Minister hears of it. How, I do not know, but he publishes a notice in the Gazette to the effect that I am not allowed to publish that letter. I think hon. members will see that the whole of this clause stultifies itself, and carries its own criticism on the face of it,

There is more in this clause than meets the eye. I want to put the position in this way. I have been a member of Parliament for Von Brandis since 1910, and on each occasion I have had to contest a division. I happen to know from good information that there is a great desire on the part of other political parties to oust me from this seat. Supposing I have information which would be useful to my political party if I were to publish it, and would make my return absolutely certain. If the Minister stops me from publishing that, document—

Oh;

Ah, that is the political motive. I warn hon. members opposite I may come into their constituencies one day, and they may have a document they may wish to use against me. It is a sinister clause.

I think there is a good deal to be said for the argument of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). How does the Minister know what is going to be published? I have a document here now, a photograph of the bodies of the natives who were killed during the riots in Durban. They have been photographed for propaganda purposes, in order to stir up the people there for purposes of revenge. But this document has been published, and the damage has been done. It is, of course, printed in the native language, and seeing that the damage is done I would like to know how the Minister would deal with ift or with a document such as this.

I think I can set at rest the fears of the hon. member for Greyville (Maj. Richards) by referring him to the existing law in connection with the impounding of any documents which cause feelings of hostility. I refer him to the existing law in connection with the amendment in regard to documents likely to cause feelings of hostility. I refer him to Section 29, sub-section (2) of the Native Administration Act. Under that Act there is power to suppress this type of literature. Now the type of literature referred to in Sub-section (7) and the subsequent sections is not so glaring as that. We provide that particular method so that the liberty of the press may be in no way tampered with, The powers under Sub-section (7) coupled with the existing powers under Section 29, Sub-Section (2) will suffice.

Aye you not locking the stable door after the horses are out?

If hon. members suggest that the Minister should take greater powers, we are prepared to agree. If a man is in possession of such a document, it can be impounded under Sub-section (2) of Section 29. He may be quite innocently in possession of such a document. I think this accusation that we are erring on the side of leniency should commend itself to the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close).

The Minister is trying to put forward a very lenient view of the subject, but I think the Minister will agree that Section 11 includes a newspaper. If the Minister is satisfied that a certain newspaper in its leading articles or its general policy is liable to create a feeling which may give rise to creating hostility between the white and coloured, the Minister has power to suppress that newspaper; not what has appeared, but what may appear in the future. The Minister will not seriously argue that I am wrong in my contention. Is that a power to give the Minister? Surely we have some regard for the freedom of the press. If this Parliament is prepared to give such an absolute power to the Minister, that in his discretion he can suppress any newspaper, the policy of which appears to the Minister to be likely to create hostility between white and black, he therefore suppresses the newspaper. Now the liberties which we enjoy to-day we enjoy by virtue of the freedom of the press. If we had not the freedom of the press, we should not have the free Parliament we have to-day. Our forefathers fought for the freedom of the press in South Africa. We are giving the Minister in his own person the right to stop any newspaper which he thinks may engender hostile feelings between different sections of the community. No, I cannot vote for this clause; I shall vote against it.

This is the point which was raised in the select committee as to whether the Minister will have power to close down a newspaper, and the Minister gave his assurance that that was not how this clause should be read; that it was not capable of that meaning. I admit it is arguable whether it is capable of that meaning or not. Under Sub-section (8), and other sub-sections, it would seem that “publication” does not extend to newspapers, but applies to the prohibition of any such articles which the Minister regards as dangerous. Now the definition in Sub-clause 11 goes contrary to that, if the Minister considers that hostility will be created, it threatens the existence of the newspaper or periodical; I do not know whether we can go as far as that.

Where is that?

In Sub-clause (11).

I am prepared to accept an amendment to Sub-clause (11).

Then, so far as I am concerned, my objection will disappear. So far as I am concerned, I voted for this particular Clause 7, and I am prepared to do so still on the understanding that it is amended.

I must say that I differ from my hon. friend. Sub-clause (7) says that if such a document contains matter which is objectionable, the Minister can prohibit it from being published. Then it defines “documentary information” in Sub-section (11) and says it may be a book, magazine or newspaper. In other words, the Minister may prohibit a newspaper coming from overseas. It is very clear. That is all that is intended, and I think we shall have to retain the word “newspaper” in Sub-clause (11).

The Prime Minister cannot speak on that sub-clause. It is not under consideration at the moment.

I am now trying to show the meaning of Sub-section (7). I may be wrong, perhaps, but I do not accept an amendment to Sub-section (7).

The more I read sub-clause 7 the more tbsurd it appears. Let me put this to the Minister. In the first place, there is nothing in the clause which compels him to tell the person who is about to issue an offending pamphlet that he must not do so. It is true that in section 8 where an offending publication is to take place in a newspaper, he is compelled to tell the editor of the newspaper that he must not publish it. Supposing I am going to do this by way of a pamphlet or a duplicating machine. I run off thousands of particularly inflammatory matter. I may do this in the course of trouble, say, in Namaqualand, on the diamond diggings there. The Minister gets wind of my intention, and publishes his veto first of all in the Gazette, which I never read. Who ever reads the Gazette? Secondly he publishes it in some newspaper circulating in Namaqualand. What newspaper circulates in Namaqualand? I suppose the Cape Times or Die Burger, if anything at all. In complete ignorance of the fact that I may be told I cannot publish this, I go ahead with my printing press, or duplicating machine, and publish thousands of these documents. After all, it is commonsense to suppose that the person should be told that he is not to publish such articles. There is no provision in the Bill as it is to-day. There is no provision to tell the person about it, although you tell the world of it. Then, again, what does the Minister mean by the word “publication”? Is the word “publication” there used in a technical sense, in which lawyers would use it in regard to the law of libel, or is it publishing it by actually printing, or in the sense of dissemination? Is the offence dissemination of documentary articles? What does the word “publication” mean? I have not seen it defined in this Act. If you ask me afterwards what the offence committed by publication would be, I certainly could not tell you. If it means publication in the sense of printing it in the newspaper, or by pamphlet, and afterwards disseminated, why not use the word “disseminate”? If I want to publish thousands of inflammatory documents, all I have to do is to get them out before Friday, compose them on Sunday, print them on Monday, and distribute them on Tuesday, and the Minister cannot touch me. I can go on to the crack of doom doing that. What he said was this, that if he hears, by some mysterious process, that I am going to do it, he puts a notice in a publication that comes out once a week, and he finds a newspaper in the district and he thus stops publication. I say that the Minister might just as well scrap the whole of this particular provision of the Bill. It is calculated to give a bad impression of our legislative efforts, and will create even worse feelings amongst the natives, and he might as well tear it up. It is absolutely impossible to work it. Not one single publication of the sort that he is hitting at will ever successfully be dealt with by machinery of this sort.

I feel that were it possible for this clause to be put into operation quite impartially, and in a practical manner, then it would be a very good one indeed, and one would be inclined to support it. But I foresee a considerable number of difficulties in which the Minister will find himself. It has already been pointed out that in most cases the damage will have been done before the Minister can take action, and under this clause there is no means of rectifying the damage. A newspaper may publish an article which is likely to engender feelings of hostility between Europeans and natives. The offending article is published and broadcast through the country, and the Minister can then step in and prevent further issues possibly, but the damage is done, and under the section there is no remedy for the damage that is done. If this clause is put into effect, it will have to be impartially administered. But I foresee, if the Minister attempts the impartial application of its provisions, he will find himself frequently in a very embarrassing and invidious position. I would draw the attention of the House to certain publications which appeared in the public press of this country not long before the last election. I think I am justified in referring to them on this occasion. I have copies of them in my hand now. They are publications published by reputable journals of standing in this country, of wide circulation, all being official organs of the Nationalist party. I do not intend to mention them by name this afternoon, for fear of bringing, perhaps, a belated blush of remorse to their representatives upstairs! I have, first of all, a cartoon which appeared in one of these reputable newspapers depicting Gen. Smuts going up to a native and holding up his hand, with Europeans, and natives in the background, and the native leader saying, “We are 14,000 voters all at your service.” Then we have another picture depicting a raw native sitting upon a throne with a mealie pot sizzling at his feet, and a white gentleman kneeling at his feet, who is, presumably, a member of the South African party. This picture is entitled “Black and White.” There is another cartoon depicting a native judge, native officials in the supreme court trying a white man. These, I submit, are calculated to engender feelings of hostility, not only between different sections of the European population, but also between white and black. A more infamous use of the press of this country would be difficult to find in the history of South Africa. If the clause were able to deal with iniquities of this sort, I would be whole-heartedly in favour of it. But I do not see any provision which will enable the Minister to deal with them. And if there were, the Minister might be in a very embarassing position, if he had to impose perpetual journalistic silence on a possible potential future Cabinet Minister! I ask the Minister of Justice whether he will tell this House, if this provision becomes law, whether it would be possible for him to deal with publications such as those referred to by me. I submit that these are publications which are calculated to engender feelings of hostilities between black and white. I have brought the matter up because I feel that we cannot allow these things to pass away in the limbo of the last election, and because they were infamous tactics to adopt.

After listening to the hon. member I am quite satisfied that there is something ulterior in this section. Not only will it prevent the engendering of ill-feeling between Europeans and natives, but between whites politically. I ask the Minister in view of the speech just delivered whether there is not something at the back of the clause?

I appeal to the Minister to withdraw the clause. How is a man to know what the opinion of the Minister is going to be on, say, a matter affecting the interests of natives? As to the expression of opinions by members of the public, opinions are not worth having unless they are held strongly, as people who hold these strong opinions do not address mothers’ meetings. There is another danger under the clause. Every time a man expresses himself strongly he is liable to the ipsi dixit of the Minister who can say that the man is likely to provoke feelings of hostility, and then the Minister can take all the drastic steps provided in the Bill. It might be urged that the law might not be used, but unless it is going to be carried into effect there will be a far worse reaction. Some definition will be necessary of the word “document”. In this House we have the utmost freedom of expression on very controversial matters; within the limits of debate we can say what we feel, but the Minister may have copies of Hansard containing the reports of those speeches seized.

There is nothing to prevent that.

Let us take reports of supreme court proceedings in which there may be an examination of witness regarding the interests of different sections of the population. The proceedings are privileged in a court of justice, but will the Minister prohibit publication of the reports either in the newspapers or in the law report? When one analyses what the effect will be of the very wide powers conferred on the Minister by the Bill one is astounded. You may have the most important political trials, and questions may be asked which the witness must answer on oath. Does the Minister wish to have the power to curtail the publication of reports of such cases? If he is not going to do that, I would like to know in what way he is going to meet the situation.

I feel bound to return to the charge and to point out the absurdity of what the Minister has put before us. If you turn to the definition of “documentary information,” it means “any book, magazine, pamphlet, newspaper, handbill or poster or any article or advertisement in any periodical publication.” This section presupposes that the Minister is of opinion that the publication of any one of this class is calculated to engender feelings of hostility. I ask the Minister how, in the name of common sense, he can form the opinion what harm there is in an article, poster or advertisement until he has seen them. How is he going to stop it then? He cannot see it until it is in print or draft, and does he think that everybody in South Africa who would engender feelings of hostility is going to draft something, then take it to the Minister and ask whether it is calculated to engender such feelings? The opinion can be formed only ex post facto. The prohibition of publication must intend to be that of either a particular issue of a newspaper or a particular portion of the issue. The Minister has clearly told us he does not’ intend to close down the newspaper. Unless the Minister claims to be all-wise, how is he going to form his opinion until he has seen the thing in cold print? Taking the particular document the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Maj. Richards) held up, is the Minister so simple as to think that the natives of Natal who composed that document would allow their intention to be known until it was actually in print in the course of being distributed? If his powers were to impound something he thought was calculated to engender feelings of hostility, there would be a certain amount of reason in it. What is wrong with the present law? I will read Section 29 of the Native Administration Act. [Section read.] The magistrate in Durban can to-morrow order the seizure of that particular document and order its destruction. What more does the Minister want? This proposal is so cumbrous and so useless, and so little will it do beyond what is already in the Act, that I cannot understand the Minister for one moment keeping it in. It really cannot do any good. It is bound to create an extremely unpleasant state of affairs, and if the Minister can tell me how he is going to exercise these powers, I shall be enlightened. Already we have got very drastic and wide powers. The words that a thing “is calculated” take my mind back to speeches made by the Prime Minister. Whenever hon. members defend the natives, he gets up and wags a solemn finger at us, and says that these speeches are calculated to cause disaffection among the natives; just as the Minister of Railways and Harbours, when some of us make representations on behalf of railwaymen, says that our remarks are calculated to create disloyalty among the railway employees. It is these words “is calculated” which leave a discretion to the Minister which, I think, is dangerous. The Minister may honestly think that a speech of mine is calculated to engender feelings of hostility amongst the natives. I may differ from him, but apparently, he is to be the boss in this matter. Look at those joint councils of Europeans and natives at Johannesburg and elsewhere. They publish matter which apparently is negrophile. Many honest people think they go too far, and that their activities are calculated to fill the native with a sense of grievance, and thus to engender in his mind feelings of hostility against the European.

I very much appreciate the concern of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) on my behalf, and his desire to make it quite clear to me that the clause is utterly useless. If we had only had the valuable services of the hon. member on the select committee which went very carefully into this, he would have had an opportunity of endeavouring to bring the committee round to his point of view, but all the members of the committee were of opinion that this sub-clause would serve a useful purpose. I am asking the House to pass these particular sections, and I am taking responsibility as to whether they are of some use or utterly useless. But if they are utterly useless, I do not see why the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) should object, although his speech would seem to indicate that this clause would engender feelings amongst the natives. I have already told the committee that taking these clauses as they stand in conjunction with existing legislation I think we should be able to deal with most of these seditious documents and pamphlets, bearing in mind that newspapers coming from abroad will be dealt with on a different basis. I cannot discuss sub-section 9, and subsequent sections, but the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) will bear in mind that the Supreme Court will be the judge as to any particular publication. Whilst I am prepared to take responsibility for the fact that this clause is of some value, and serves some useful purpose—I would remind the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that the Department of Justice is often in possession of information not available to the general public as to what is going to happen. I think that should be sufficient to warrant the committee in passing this Bill.

I feel we all agree on one point; that the position in the country is far from satisfactory. I agree with the Minister of Justice that this Bill is an honest endeavour on his part to meet the present need, but are we taking the best means to meet this unfortunate need? My conviction is we are not. It seems to me to be a rather hasty and undesirable method of meeting that need. There must be some cause for this unrest throughout the country—

The hon. member must confine himself to sub-section (7).

I feel it is a state of affairs that is far from satisfactory. Whatever measures we pass are for all time. I would assist the Minister if I could because we feel that these agitators are doing incalculable harm. The law to-day is not sufficient, and if it is the intention of the Minister to get at these agitators in a better way he will get the support of the whole House. Under the present conditions I feel it is impossible for me to support legislation which we shall regret if we destroy law and order in this country.

I want to move an amendment—

I will accept that amendment to delete the word “Minister” and insert “Governor-General.”

One would have thought that the Minister of Justice would have been grateful to any member of the committee who took the trouble to read this clause, and then said exactly how it would work out in practice. Instead of replying to my criticism point by point, and trying to meet the difficulties I pointed out to him, the Minister indulges in laboured sarcasm at my expense. Let me tell the Minister that my withers are unwrong. I was not on the select committee, and I am considering this matter for the first time. I put it to hon. members on both sides of the House whether there is or is not any point in the criticism I have made, or whether I have satisfied hon. members that if the clause is printed without amendment it will effect no good purpose whatever. It will be quite useless. If the Minister had directed his reply to some of the points I raised, I am sure that we should have been glad to hear him. I repeat that to impose prohibition on a person and not to tell him of the prohibition except by means of an advertisement in the newspaper is a complete absurdity. He has no powers of interdict in the meantime, and to require that the prohibition be effected by publication in a newspaper published once a week is again an absurdity. The Minister speaks about getting information. Supposing that his police officials inform him that a highly seditious or inflammatory pamphlet is about to be issued, he is powerless to do anything at all. He cannot move a finger until he has prepared an advertisement and published it in the Gazette, and the Gazette has actually come out. Let the printers work overtime and get it on to the streets before the Gazette appears, and the Minister is beaten. One would have thought that the Minister would have been grateful for criticism pointing out that the supposed powers he has taken are absolutely worthless. But he sits quietly down and tries to administer doses of soothing syrup to hon. members on his own side and on this side of the House. He says he is convinced it will give him the power to do what he says it will. He has not met my criticism in regard to the word “publication.” People are entitled to know what they may do, or what they may not do. What does the word mean? Printing or dissemination? I say that the clause itself is bad because of the use of these words “is calculated.” What is calculated to engender feelings of hostility between black and white? I see the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) looking at me. His idea of what is calculated, and mine, are poles and poles asunder. If I thought that natives in any particular part of South Africa were being oppressed and unjustly treated, and I said so openly, he would tell me honestly in his opinion that the speech I had made was calculated to engender feelings of hostility as between black and white. We have had it again and again. If you look at Hansard you will see the phrase used again and again in the discussion on the colour bar. You will see these very words used in Hansard in the speech on native legislation which was brought forward by the Prime Minister. We are asked in cold blood to let one of our political opponents tell us that in his opinion that the speech that we have made, or the letter that we write, or the pamphlet we issue, is calculated to engender feelings of hostility between black and white, and he orders us to stop it. What are we coming to in this country? Take the case of the joint councils of Europeans and natives, such as exist at Johannesburg and elsewhere, which issue pamphlets in connection with economic and educational questions affecting the native. After reading these pamphlets a native might very well say: “We are not getting a fair deal,” and in that case it might be said that the publication of the pamphlets was calculated to engender feelings of hostility. So the Minister might put an end to the publication of opinion by these organizations, and he can come down with a heavy hand on the publication by any native organization of doctrines they genuinely believe should be published. The Minister says that the exercise of his discretion may be the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court, but in that case the onus is placed on the appellant of proving that the Minister is wrong. In other words, the appellant will have to prove a negative. When we come to that clause I shall have something to say about it. As to the present clause, from the practical point of view it is unworkable and from the point of view of policy, it is absolutely dangerous.

I cannot allow this clause to go through without making a protest. I think the whole effect will be to defeat its own ends, and to drive the evil underground. I am against what is happening in the country today, but I say the Minister is going about the matter in the wrong way.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Sub-section (7), as amended, put and the Committee divided:

I move—

Agreed to.

I move—

[Interruption.] I withdraw it.

I move:

Whose signature will it bear, the Governor-General’s or the Minister’s? I am referring to line 50.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Sub-section (8), as amended, put and agreed to.

On sub-section (9),

I move—

Then the line affected can apply to the Supreme Court. That shifts the onus on to the Minister and gives him, all the power he requires. I therefore move this amendment.

I am against this whole clause. I know it was inserted by a select committee with the best intentions. I say that the whole idea is bad because for the first time so far as I know in any Parliament the Supreme Court is brought into politics. Our judges are to be asked to express an opinion not on a matter of law, not in a judgment in a suit but to express an opinion on what is fundamentally a political matter. Now it is bad enough that the Minister has to express that opinion, but he is a politician—he may be a statesman—and he is responsible, not only to this House but to public opinion. But our judges are put in a position that they are to be considered as removed entirely from politics. You are now calling upon them to listen to political arguments and give political judgment. I ask the Minister whether he has consulted the Supreme Court bench on this particular proposal. If the Minister does make a wrong decision or a finding which is prejudiced he will have to answer to this House and to public opinion. But to drag the Supreme Court in the country into politics, to compel them to utter an opinion on a political matter, is fundamentally unsound and opposed to the traditions of the country. It breaks across the fundamental distinction between the legislative, administrative and judicial. Our judges have powers of review over ministerial acts when they are mala fide or without due regard to fundamental requisites, but you are not making this a review, but an appeal. The Minister with particular views on the question which are not shared by a number of people makes a decision and then the unhappy onus is put on the judges of sitting in solemn conclave to decide whether the Minister’s opinion is right or wrong. I say that it is the worst possible thing that could be done. I prefer it to be accepted in the form proposed by the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close). I am against it for the reasons given. What will happen? If a judge disagrees with the Minister, and public opinion is inflamed at the moment, you will get a hue and cry aroused against that particular judge. Further, the particular views of an individual on the native question generally are likely to be canvassed before he gets a judicial appointment. I heard of a case the other day where the views of a man who might be called upon to fill judicial office were canvassed to find out whether he could be elevated to the bench or not. I am merely saying that to give point to my contention that if this sort of thing comes into our law, then the question will be asked as to whether a man is sound on the native question; whether he is likely to share the views of the powers that be as to what is likely to engender hostility between black and white. You are bringing the bench in this country into a position which it has never been in before. We are bringing the judges into party politics, and the most contentious and heated form of party politics. They have never been asked before to interfere in fundamental questions between black and white. Does the Prime Minister think that this sort of thing is sound or right, that our judges should be asked to express an opinion upon political matters, opinions as to what should be done or not done? I say with the best intentions this may have been inserted as a safeguard by the Minister, but I say let us leave it to the Minister. If there is a dirty or unpleasant job to be done, in the way of prohibiting publication, let the Minister do that job arid not share the responsibility. Let him alone take the full responsibility. If he is right, public opinion will support him. If he is wrong, public opinion will tell him so. To ask him to share that responsibility with the judges and to put upon them the odium of an unpopular decision is a singular disservice to the bench of this country.

I cannot agree with the last speaker on this point. This is one of the safeguards that we were looking for. As a matter of fact, we would like the whole of this business to be handed over to the courts. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) may be a better judge than I am, but it seems to me that the courts, under this clause, will not be asked to decide as between the politics of this man or the other, or this section or the other, but they will be asked to judge as to the possible effects or probable effects of this, that or the other, as the case may be. So far from agreeing with the hon. member, I totally disagree, because I want to see some check upon the Minister, whoever he may be. It would be a bad principle indeed. So much so do I hold this opinion that I propose to ask the committee to extend the operation of this clause. I move to amend sub-section 9—

This will be giving the same facilities or the same right to the person who is being dealt with under sub-section 4, and is prohibited from attending or addressing a meeting, and he will also have the same right to go to the court and have the prohibition set aside just as is proposed to be done in regard to the publication either in pamphlet or newspaper form. Of course, the words “or other act” only apply to documentary information. The general effect of the amendment will be that an individual who is prohibited from doing certain things will have the right to appeal to the court to have the prohibition set aside.

With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), I cannot agree with him that we should view with misgiving the prospect of a judge having to consider these questions. Our judges frequently have to decide issues in which rival political parties are concerned, and we should have sufficient confidence in the integrity and independence of our judges not to worry about that. Any difficulty, however, might be met by inserting the words “a full bench of” in line 55, so that when a matter of this sort is considered, it would be dealt with by two or three judges. In practice, where political questions are an important factor in a case, the case is generally heard by two judges, while an election petition is decided by three judges. I move—

I have no objection to the last amendment, but the person affected will be in a much worse position than he is under the Bill, for, during vacations, it is impossible to secure the attendance of two judges. I wish to emphasize what has been said by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) and Benoni (Mr. Madeley). Our judges are very often called upon to decide matters which savour of politics, and to express their opinion on the meaning of words in certain documents. We can safely leave the task to the Supreme Court. I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member tor Mowbray (Mr. Close). There is no question of onus; where a point of law is concerned, all that the court has to do is to decide what the probable and natural result of uttering certain words may be. As to the amendment of the hon. member for Benoni, the objection to that is that where you deal with a man whose presence at a meeting, it is conjectured, will cause hostility, you cannot reduce that opinion to such a liquid form that a court can consider it. From a practical point of view, it would be impossible to put the case before the court in the shape of affidavits.

I think the amendment of the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) will raise more difficulties in the way of a person concerned, than are in the Bill now. I wish to endorse entirely what the Minister has said of the integrity of the bench, which is one of our proudest possessions. The provisions of this clause will not throw any shadow on that integrity of the bench. On the other point, I wish the Minister to reconsider his attitude. I cannot, for the life of me, see that the onus is immaterial here. It is the great difficulty, in very many cases, to know where the onus is.

I move, as an amendment—

I want to appeal again to the Minister on that point. He has all the evidence, and he will have his own belief based on that. He can lay that all before the judge, but the man concerned has only his own bare word. The ultimate result will be the judge will consider all the facts laid before the Minister, and then weigh the probabilities. I hope the Minister will not be so stiff-necked to prevent the unfortunate man on the very remote chance of having his prohibition removed.

May I ask the Minister now to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

If we have passed this clause.

But we have not yet passed it. There are a whole host of amendments.

I am quite certain everybody has said what he wishes to say on Clause 9. Clause 10 is quite non-contentious, and I will report progress and ask leave to sit again after that.

I want to raise a drafting point. In sub-section (7) it says “is calculated,” but when it comes to the appeal, the words used are “when the natural and probable result of that publication will be.” Why the different phraseology employed in the one place as compared with the other? Why not decide upon precisely the same wording? It is only a source of confusion, and apparently it is bad drafting. I therefore move—

I take it the Minister will accept the amendment. Is there an appeal under this section from a decision of a judge to the Appellate Court? Has the Minister considered that point, and can he tell me whether an appeal does lie?

I want to appeal to the Minister to report progress. I do not think it is fair that we should be kept here till about 7 o’clock dealing with so important a subject. I move—

Upon which the committee divided:

I propose to withdraw my amendment and ask the Minister to consider at the report stage altering Clause 7 to make it uniform with Clause 9.

With leave of committee, amendment proposed by Mr. Blackwell withdrawn.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice put and agreed to.

Sub-section (9), as amended, put and agreed to.

On sub-section (10),

The sub-section does not require that prohibition to he addressed personally to the person affected, but published in the Gazette or a newspaper, which a native may not read.

Move in the word “knowingly”.

Precisely what I intend to do. I move, as an amendment—

That does not meet the point. The only effect of that will be that he knowingly publishes. That is why the Minister says it makes no difference.

Amendment put and negatived.

Sub-section 10, as printed, put and agreed to.

On the motion of the Minister of Justice it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.