Mr. Speaker, I trust that you will not rule me out of order when I rise to congratulate our Minister of Finance on the memorable occasion of his birthday. I wish to convey the hearty good wishes of this House to the Minister on this, his birthday.

The hon. member cannot make a birthday speech.

I hope, sir, you will extend an equal indulgence to me. I hope I will not be called to order, if with the hon. member I extend the hearty good wishes of this side.

We have a few criticisms to make of the conduct of the Minister’s department. I want to come back to the point I raised on the Part Appropriation Bill—the policy of the Minister of Justice in particular, and I believe it extends to other departments also, with regard to the retiring of Transvaal officials at the age of 55. I know the Minister has the right to do that, but it has been definitely understood up till now, and assurances have been given to the public service, that old public servants would not be required to retire at that age, provided they were carrying out their duties with efficiency.

And Natal.

It was considered that the public servants of the Union should be on the same footing in regard to the terms of their service, and it was understood, and still is, that any members of the public service coming from the Transvaal and the Natal public service could not be retired at the age of 55, while they were carrying out their duties efficiently. When I raised this point before the Minister gave an answer which to my mind was unsatisfactory. He attempted to draw a distinction between efficiency and sufficient efficiency. He said they were public servants who were efficient, but not sufficiently efficient. That distinction seems to my mind rather metaphysical, and I was not able to follow it. I came to the conclusion that what was in the Minister’s mind was that although an officer might be efficient and fulfil all the conditions efficiently, he might be required to retire at 55, if he was not fully bilingual. I came to the conclusion that it was bilingual efficiency the Minister had in mind. The answer the Minister gave to this House disposed of that. He said—

That leaves me still more mystified. If that is not the ground, what is the ground? The Minister also said—

Remember they are not inefficient, but not sufficiently efficient. The Minister said—

I want to know from the Minister generally what is this “sufficient efficiency”? What is the further degree that is required of a public servant if he is efficient that he must be sufficiently efficient? I know personally some of these men, and I know that in the cases of some they have never had a bad report against them, and no complaint made against them by their superior officers; but they have received nothing but commendation from their superior officers—and now they are not “sufficiently efficient.” They had no reason to believe that the axe was going to fall upon them and that they were going to be put on pension. There has been nothing in the performance of their duties and in their conduct to lead them to believe that there was anything against them. I know personally more than one of these officials who is more than efficient, but they are not “sufficiently efficient.” What is the standard they have to reach before they are secure from being retired?

What is the law; must their services be retained?

The law is that the Government have the option to retire them at the age of 55, and they have the option to choose retiring at that age. But since I was in office and since that time it has been understood that the option would not be exercised so long as they were doing their duty efficiently, and they were allowed to remain in the service till 60, just as other public servants. But now we have got a position that although they may be efficient they are being retired because, as the Minister says, they are not sufficiently efficient. I want to know what is this super standard which is being required. Persons have been appointed to take their places who are over 55, and who have not shown any super-efficiency. These are men who have now got to look for occupation elsewhere to enable them to maintain their families, and they go out with a stigma through being discharged. I say they are entitled to know on what this stigma is based, so that they may have an opportunity of clearing themselves. [Time limit.]

Perhaps the Minister is following the example, or the precedent, laid down by the previous Government, which also retired officials when they reached the age of 55 years. I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) if they did not retire officials when they reached 55 years.

It is the law.

Why then when the Minister carries out the law is an objection raised? You did it yourself in your own time, and now that your example is being followed it is not right. During their time Afrikaans-speaking people, and people born in South Africa were discharged, and it seems very much as if the hon. member’s intention is that English speaking people should be imported to replace South Africans who are discharged. My experience is that people were retired at 55 years by the previous Government, although they were born here and were fully bilingual; they were retired simply because they were 55 years of age.

I am sorry the hon. member has brought up this matter again. Is it impossible to raise any question in this House without it being interpreted racially? This is the law, and I challenge the hon. member to tell the committee that the previous Government interpreted it in the way he suggests.

Perhaps I had better deal with this point right away. Let me explain the rule again which I have adopted. The men who may be retired at 55 are the Natal men, the Transvaal men and the Union men. There is a specific provision regarding the vote bearing the cost of pension, These men all get 12 months’ notice. As regards the Free State and the Cape, I am applying the same rule. I cannot, of course, let them go, but I can deal with the question of their promotion after 55. Let me state definitely that the Free State and Cape men are not getting promotion after 55 unless I am satisfied that they are above the average efficiency. I thought I had made this clear on the Additional Estimates when the whole question was gone into, and at that stage I understood I was exonerated from any racial, personal or political bias. All that the committee has to decide is whether I have reason for my actions, or whether I am entirely mistaken, or whether I am acting capriciously. What I do want to emphasise is that I am convinced, and others whom I have consulted are convinced, that the standard in the higher grades of Justice, and it also applies to the prison service, is insufficient, and is not the standard to which the public are entitled. Administratively, and as far as the judicial duties are concerned of these higher officials, I am not satisfied that the public is getting value, and it is useless to tell me that these people are of a certain efficiency, which, it is admitted, has passed muster so far.

Not only passed muster, but they have been commended.

One or two of them may have been commended, and there again there are other considerations which will have to be gone into. If the hon. member wants to discuss individual cases, I am prepared to discuss any individual case if he has the permission of the individual officer. On the previous occasion, I explained how, administratively, we were not satisfied with the work which was being done in many of the districts, and if the hon. member wants to have practical proof of that, he need only attend at my office any time of the day when all kinds of complaints are received with regard to the way in which administrative work is being carried on.

From whom?

From all sides—mostly from members. It may be that our system has been such that only exceptional men can really be good as regards their administrative duties and judicial duties. If we did not have better men to put into the places of those who leave, probably we should have, to leave things as they are.

Do you pay them a proper wage to carry out those duties?

Yes, a wage which satisfies them. I would like to increase their emoluments, but that has nothing to do with the question of efficiency. I think these two questions should be kept strictly apart. I have instanced cases showing that our discipline in the higher grades is not what it should be. At the time it was suggested that it was a red herring to refer to defalcations, but when we see how these things increase at a very alarming rate, it does show that there is slackness. The Auditor-General complained of the same thing, and on all these factors, the responsible Minister has come to a conclusion as to whether or not the standard is sufficient, and I have definitely come to the conclusion that the standard is too low, and that in the public interest it has to be raised. The public is not getting proper value.

How do you test efficiency?

There is only one test of efficiency. Inefficiency is so gross that you charge a man before the public service commission. I take the standard as a whole, and from my own experience and that of others, I have to ask myself whether, comparing what they do in any ordinary business —where you are liable to rise more quickly than in the civil service—whether the average is sufficient. Let me appeal to hon. members of the legal profession on the other side. Let them honestly think back—

As honestly as we can.

Does that apply to our profession? Let hon. members who have cases in magistrates’ courts, ask themselves whether they are satisfied with the standard they have found.

The standard of jurisdiction is too high.

Yes, but we cannot alter half a dozen Acts and then see whether the standard is sufficient. In all these circumstances, it is an unpleasant duty of the Minister to come to a conclusion as to whether the public is getting value or not. In the House we are too much inclined to emphasise the civil servants’ point of view. We are constantly hearing about their dissatisfaction; they are feeling this, that or the other. In many cases that is justified, but I have yet to hear that the House has seriously addressed itself to the question as to whether the public is getting value for money. Whether times are good or bad, civil servants receive their salaries and are secure. These are things we have to take into consideration. We rather over-emphasise the civil servant’s point of view. In connection with these very retrenchments there are several cases I have reconsidered, and wherever possible I have stretched a little and given another year’s trial. With this incentive, that at the end of the twelve months, they may get notice, they may do better than in the past. They have been accustomed to going along at a certain pace; it may be that we are increasing that pace—I see the right hon. gentleman intended commenting on my accelerating that pace—but only to the extent that those who take their positions are capable of maintaining. There is not a single man promoted to those positions who has not done years and years of bench work. We have the fullest opportunity of going into all these details. Even during the twelve months there are cases I have reconsidered—I may almost say to see whether I can find an excuse to change my opinion. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) attaches no value to the opinion of the public service commission.

Do you?

I have already come into collision with the public service commission; if they are right they maintain their attitude. The ex-secretary and ex-director considered the cases, and having discussed these cases we have come to a certain conclusion. They had to tell me whether these people were of average efficiency, and I came to a conclusion. Each of these cases, after thorough enquiry, has been referred to the public service commission. I am glad the hon. member for Yeoville has read a part of my statement with regard to bilingualism. I wish I could be in a position to say that a man who is not bilingual is not efficient, but with regard to people who entered the service in the Milner time we cannot always expect that—

They are nearly all unilingual men who are going.

No, I will give the hon. member the list. Of fifteen retained, six were unilingual, eight bilingual and one doubtful.

Are these all magistrates?

They are officials in the magistrates’ department; either magistrates or officers occupying a position in the magistrate’s office. I cannot say every one has been on the bench—that is as far as justice is concerned. Of those being retired, nine were bilingual, and eleven unilingual, twenty in all. Amongst those going there are a number of Dutch names. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) was not fair that day when he read out some of these names; he did not read the complete list. If hon. members realize that these people came into the service just after the Boer war they will realize that to have two or three Dutch names is a very high average.

I would just like to bring a few things to the Minister’s notice, and shall be glad of information. I am thinking of the sparsely populated constituencies, and to mention a few cases I want to cite first of all the village Dealsville. My proposal will not make the administration any more expensive, but be of very great importance to the constituencies. There is no receiver of revenue in Dealsville, and no proper officials; a special justice of the pease sits there only twice a week. Boshof is the capital of the constituency, and it is very inconvenient for the people to have to go there in view of its situation. Their central point is really Bloemfontein, but now they have to go to Boshof for special matters. If the Minister would put a second grade clerk at Dealsville who could attend to the business of the public as a special receiver of revenue it would be a great convenience and cost no more. Then Bultfontein comes under Hoopstad. I think that if the statistics are investigated it will be found that the traffic is much larger there than at Hoopstad. The magistrate of Hoopstad has to go on various occasions to Bultfontein, which causes great expense.

The hon. member can discuss this under Magistrates vote.

I thought that we could debate all these things under the salary of the Minister, but if not I will do so later.

I move—

I do so for the purpose of discussing a question of public policy, the question of investigating and dealing with or averting possible miscarriages of justice in the administration of the criminal law. I may say, broadly speaking, that the lines on which I propose to discuss this question this afternoon are connected with the question of miscarriages of justice, or possible miscarriages of justice, and in connection with the jury system. I also want to deal with the question of identification parades, and with the matter of questioning prisoners in custody. These are the three matters which I had the opportunity of raising before the House in the debate which took place on the 9th April. I submit to the House that I raised the points in a most moderate way, and with a full sense of responsibility, the responsibility which one owes to one’s position as a member of this House, shirking no unpleasant duty, as the case may be, and I am surprised at the answer given by the Minister of Justice. He gave an answer of rather feminine ideas of what are logic and fair. I propose to point out to the House that I got an answer only on one point in connection with the three points I raised, and that answer was unsatisfactory. To my regret the Minister of Justice gave an objectionable answer to the whole affair, in view of the fact that the question was raised as a matter of public importance. He gave me no answer on the other two important points I raised. I propose to return to the question again, and on this occasion the Minister may not have the opportunity of having the last word unless the closure is applied.

I am not at all anxious to have the last word.

Perhaps I shall have that opportunity this time. I raised the question, in the first place, of the concrete matter of an investigation into the circumstances attending a well-known trial of prisoners in relation to an offence at the Wellington police station. In regard to that I asked the Minister, in the most moderate way, whether he would cause an investigation to be made. I said—

That was the first point I made. I followed up with two other points. I asked the Minister to go into the question of the constables themselves, and to what they admitted in regard to prisoners in custody awaiting trial. If there is anything more I said in that speech to which the Minister of Justice could take exception, I challenge him to point it out, and I challenge anybody either inside of this House or outside of the House, to say if I was not perfectly justified in the form of the question which I put to the Minister. To-day, I propose to ask the Minister again exactly the same question, and I intend to say exactly the same thing. I ask him if he will cause the fullest investigation to be made into the occurrences at the Paarl, and to the remarks made by the judge in that case? The answer of the Minister is reported in Hansard. He said—

A more monstrous distortion of what was said it is hard to imagine. Those remarks were entirely unworthy of the Minister. We only want him to make enquiries into the matter. I want him to deal with every matter for which there is fair grounds for investigation, no matter what party or person or press wants investigated. I have not any particular knowledge of what the press have represented, for I was away at the time of the occurrence. I came to this House, irrespective of what anybody said on any platform at any meeting, or what has appeared in any particular press. I demand —[interruptions]—I demand, as a matter of public interest, that the Minister shall go into the case and deal with the circumstances which took place at Paarl. That is point number one. The hon. Minister in his reply, said “Does the hon. member expect me to deal with every case which his party or press wants me to investigate”? That is unmitigated rubbish. People say that the administration of justice shall be above all suspicion. His next point was “I further want to ask the hon. member whether he expects me to go through the whole of the evidence in connection with the case when anyone is apparently disappointed. Does the hon. member expect me to go through the evidence and tell him what I think of the judgment”? That was not in my mind at all. Where there is a fair suspicion that a miscarriage of justice has taken place, then in his capacity as Minister of Justice he should investigate the matter and ascertain whether justice has been done, or a miscarriage of justice. I say let him go into the question and ascertain if there is a prima facie case. Then, if there is a prima facie case he should say whether investigation shall be made. If there is a prima facie case he must read the evidence.

If I think there is a miscarriage of justice, what shall I do?

The just thing to do is to hold an investigation in your capacity as Minister of Justice, to see whether justice is being administered or not. To do that the Minister must satisfy himself whether there is a reasonable ground for investigation, and he should satisfy himself whether or not that is the case without pre judging those who bring the matter to his notice. Where there is reasonable ground for investigation it is his absolute duty to the Crown and to the State to find out whether or not the prima facie case is a just one.

Bunkum.

No more appropriate remark could come from the hon. member than that, That is a sort of remark we expect from him. We are never disappointed in expecting such remarks from the hon. member even when the most serious questions come before the House. The Minister went further and said that it looked to him that if the people were guilty they had to thank the Cape Times and the Opposition for their acquittal. A more damning accusation against a jury has never been made than this suggestion of the Minister of Justice that because the Opposition and the press took up a certain attitude the jury were therefore willing to fail to do their duty and to subvert the ends of justice in order to spite the Opposition and the press. The Minister could not have given a better justification of our case for an investigation. Evidence was given by the accused that they had falsified their duty books to show that they had been walking 20 or 30 miles on their beat at night when they were either sleeping or doing something else. The two points at issue are, was the Wellington case a miscarriage of justice and was the action of the police blameworthy? I wish to challenge most definitely the position taken up by the Minister of Justice that he is not bound to make an investigation where there has been a clear miscarriage of justice or a prima facie case for believing that there has been a miscarriage of justice. If the Minister of Justice will not make the fullest investigation who is there in this country to make that investigation, to accept the responsibility and to take steps to see that similar miscarriages of justice do not occur in the future? Cases have occurred in which judges have made serious remarks to the jury—

And very often wrongly.

I am not talking about cases in which the judge and the jury merely differed on the evidence, but I am talking about cases quite apart from a bona fide difference of opinion on fact, but where it is clear to the judge that although the jury differs from him it does so not on a bona fide ground but on a ground which is open to a grave charge. I remember at least three cases in which judges have addressed themselves very strongly indeed to the jury, and in one case the judge said—

There have been cases in which the right to a jury trial has been taken away because of the perverse findings of juries. I am challenging the Minister’s statement that he is not going to make an investigation. He is bound to do that where there is a fair prima facie case, and in this case we have the distinguishing feature that the judge made certain comments and failed to thank the jury for their services. I ask the Minister has he, or is he, asking for a report from the judge who presided over the Wellington trial. In the ordinary course it is the regular practice for the Crown prosecutor to send in a report on such cases; a fortiori. It would be his duty to send in a report in such a case as this. I ask the Minister assuming there was such a report—and it would be extraordinary if there were not—if he will lay the report on the table for members to consider it in order to see to what extent we are justified in proceeding further in this matter.

Supposing there is no such report would your remarks be condemnatory of the judge?

I am not making remarks condemnatory of anybody at present. I do not make any allegation about the judge, but it is the duty of the Crown prosecutor. I simply ask that we, as members of the House, should have full information. I do not think I can ask anything fairer than that, and it is only for the Minister to see if there is a prima facie case. From the remarks of the judge, it would seem as if there is a prima facie case for investigation. I will say that the Crown prosecutor is a fair man, and he will give the Minister the fullest opportunity of finding out why he acted as he did. I know that no investigation the Minister may make can alter the burden of the jury as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner, but we want to be quite certain that the administration of our justice is as pure as it should be. The Minister raised the question the other day of the jury system, and much as I resisted the abolition of trial by jury in civil cases, I am in favour of trial by jury in criminal cases, but that does not do away with the fact that now and again we have had miscarriages of justice by our juries, and we should take the necessary steps to stop it. In 1917, exactly the same difficulty occurred. We found in certain classes of case under certain conditions, certain types of people in this country were not certain of getting justice under a jury. This House, after a very exhaustive enquiry by a select committee, on which I had the honour to be, altered the system to this, that persons should have the option of being tried by a judge with assessors. I make bold to say that, in the circumstances for which that provided, the alteration of the law has proved a most beneficial one in the interests of justice. I now wish to deal with the question of identification parades. We saw some remarks reported in the press last night of the judge president of the Eastern Districts Local Division, which referred to the system of holding identification parades. These remarks are in line with similar remarks made from time to time by the judge president of the Cape Division. Here again do not let the Minister run away with the idea that I am making general charges; I am dealing with specific matters which require investigation. Let the Minister investigate what basis there is for the complaints such as the judges have been making from their experience, and come before them. It is a very serious matter, and this is a thing which should be attended to. The whole tenour of the remarks is that these parades do not give a fair chance to the prisoner when he is to be picked out in connection with a charge that is made against him. It is quite obvious there are many complainants who are easily influenced by suggestion to pick out a particular man a zealous officer thinks is guilty of the charge. I would like to remind the Minister of what appeared on page 44 of the Law Journal of November last—

The other point I also wish to raise is the matter of questioning prisoners who are in custody. There have been an extraordinary! number of so-called confessions produced before the courts. In the Act of 1917 a provision was made that no confession is to be made to a police officer other than a magistrate, unless it is reduced to writing in the presence of a magistrate or of a justice of the peace, so that we believed it would obviate a large number of dubious confessions. While I believe that a number of confessions have been obtained in a very doubtful manner—

Do you know of any particular instances?

I am not prepared to give the Minister any particular instances. I am going on the basis of the South African Law Journal.

Will you give me the information confidentially?

No, I do not think I can do that. I think it will be understood why I cannot. Let me ask the Minister in how many cases persons have been prosecuted for illicit diamond-buying in Namaqualand in which there have been irregularities in connection with confessions or questions put to accused persons which ought not to have been put. A good many of these cases took place while I was away, and I would not mention the matter in the House unless I had received information in regard to it. I drew the attention of the Minister to this subject on a previous occasion. In a number of these cases confessions or information are obtained by questions asked by officers who are extremely zealous in the discharge of their duties, who are extremely anxious to see that the accused persons are rightly brought to trial, but who have not in their minds the questions which they are entitled to ask and the questions they should not ask. In Canada the matter is being gone into, and it has been the subject of discussion in England. As a result of investigations his Majesty’s judges in the King’s Bench Division in England drew up a set of rules to apply to all police officers. Let us put ourselves in the position of an unfortunate, ignorant man, perhaps not of our own colour, charged rightly or wrongly, with an offence, who is asked questions by police officers who inspire him with awe while he is in a state of terror because of the position in which he finds himself. When we think of the way in which by suggestion or otherwise a zealous officer may ask questions which are not proper questions, then you will see the necessity for having regulations drawn up. I asked the Minister the other day whether he had such a set of regulations with regard to this matter. I got no answer. I ask him again. Is there such a set of regulations, will he lay them on the table of the House, and also will he consider the efficiency of these regulations in the light of experience in England and Canada? I trust the Minister will accept the suggestions and criticism which I have offered in the spirit in which it is tendered. I make no general charge against the police. I am talking about the question of the administration of justice and of possible defects. It is not a question of undermining the confidence of the people in the police. Let us have the facts, and if all is well, all the Minister has to do is to say so. I have deliberately refrained from using a lot of information that has been given to me. I have tried to confine myself to the pure ground of the public interest, and I hope the Minister will make enquiry into all these points I have mentioned.

The concluding remarks of the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) show that he is rather apprehensive as to the effect which this speech of his may have on me. I do not know that he need worry about that, but the probable effect on most members of the House, and certainly on a large section of the public outside the House of the first portion of his address will undoubtedly be to convey the impression that he is bitterly disappointed with the result of the Paarl trials. I know of no single precedent where the judge not feeling that a case is one which calls for report or special comment as far as the Minister of Justice is concerned, the Minister of Justice goes out of his way to ask the judge: “What did you say in a certain trial, and why did you say it ?” It would be impertinence on my part to ask the judge: “What is it you said, and why did you say it?” I am not allowed to ask a magistrate: “Why did you,” either in acquitting or convicting, “make certain remarks?” It all comes to this: a report is an expression of opinion by the judge as to what he said and why he said it. The hon. member was not quite clear when he said that he made use of certain remarks. If correctly reported—if the judge said, when addressing the second jury, “It is no use what I say to you; you will do so-and-so,” I cannot understand why it was not promptly and bitterly resented by the jury. I prefer to believe that the judge was not properly reported. It would be an impertinence on my part, where that judge has settled these questions, to enquire where the Paarl jury was the proper jury to try the second case. It was not raised in general terms, but supported by certain allegations which were at once enquired into. The Crown prosecutor had raised certain information which had reached him. The judge, then and there, with everybody present, enquired into it and came to the conclusion that there was no reason to make a change. The judge even decided that the jury was the proper jury to try the case. The second question which the hon. member put to me was whether I would enquire into the conduct of the officers; would I examine the evidence with a microscope, and come to a conclusion as to whether they had been guilty of anything else. Certain remarks were made; certain passage did occur in the evidence, which showed there was a contravention of police regulations, and there is a trial in progress by their superior officers as to how far these men have committed a breach of police regulations. Let me tell the hon. member that a civil case is also pending. But because I do not care to have all this made public; because I do not want to have an enquiry—

I would not have raised that point, but when the Minister was speaking on the question he said there was not a case pending.

I made it clear, as far as the hon. member was concerned, that there was no question of an investigation; I did not say more than that at that stage, because it would have prejudiced the matter. I may tell the hon. member now, as I am concerned with only two things; firstly, must I act as a court of appeal in a criminal prosecution, and secondly if police officers, in the course of their evidence, indicate that there may have been a breach of police regulations, am I called upon to do more than I have already done in forwarding the matter for investigation?

Have you referred the matter of this irregular conduct?

There is no irregular conduct apart from a breach of police regulations.

But if these facts, as alleged, were made out, would there not then be a breach of police regulations?

Yes.

Have you referred that to the superior officers?

Yes, I have referred the whole of the evidence to the police officer for investigation and trial. We really get no further as to these vague allegations of irregularity.

What about the railway case?

I think the hon. member is rather prejudiced as far as the railway is concerned, with regard to several of the staff who were regularly tried. The hon. member asked whether I would enquire into the conduct of the police as far as awaiting trial prisoners are concerned. There is no necessity whatever. The first point I am asked is whether I would act as a court of criminal appeal to the prosecution—that is all it comes down to—on questions of fact. Where a man has stood all the agony of his trial; where his peers have found him not guilty, will I review the whole thing? I do not know any single instance where that has taken place. There have been serious alleged miscarriages of justice, not when we were in office, but when hon. members opposite were in office. The hon. member presses for this kind of thing. I know of no precedent or reason in equity or law, why this should be done. My hon. friend must not blame me that his energy is somewhat affected by his feelings on this question. The hon. member mentioned that I stated that if these people were guilty, they owed their acquittal more to the newspaper agitation than to the eloquence of their counsel.

Do you blame them for that?

If the hon. member will allow me to explain, as far as the jury is concerned there must inevitably be a reaction if there is a political agitation. There is no law at present to prevent scare headlines. There is, fortunately, a reaction in the minds of the jury, and in a case like this which has been the subject of political discussion to a great extent, there is bound to be a reaction in the minds of the jury. I have not the faintest idea how this jury is composed politically. I imagine it must be composed of members of both political parties. But there is bound to be a reaction, and that reaction is bound to tip the balance in favour of the accused.

Do not you think, in the interests of justice, the jury should be a special one?

We have already gone far too far along the way of trial without jury, and I am not prepared to introduce further legislation to allow cases like this to be tried by a judge sitting by himself. I think it is a bad principle although I may be right or I may be wrong. I see the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) shake his head, but I would not be disposed to deprive any man of the right to be tried by jury. The hon. member does not advocate the abolition of the system, but he would modify it to cover those cases about which he personally feels strongly. In this particular case the hon. member obviously feels strongly. It is no discredit to him. I can see farmer members coming along and feeling strongly on the question of stock theft, and where there is a jury not composed entirely of farmers, preferring that two judges should be appointed, who do a bit of farming in their spare time. I put this to the hon. member for Mowbray. If there has been a miscarriage of justice, or if I think there has been a micarriage of justice, I am supposed to judge, if the judge does not feel called upon to make any comments, and I am to investigate. If that is the idea of the hon. member let me tell him straight away that I am not prepared to consider that for one moment, and no other Minister of Justice, so far as I am aware, has ever considered these points or has even been prepared to consider them. So far as the report of the prosecuting barrister is concerned, I am not prepared to lay upon the table any of those confidential documents dealing with the administration of justice. I have not seen the report although I may see it later. I have not had a special report from the attorney-general as I should have received a report if he thought there was anything serious in this case. As to whether I should receive a report from the barrister in the case, I would point out that it is junior barristers who are generally engaged in these cases.

He may be a man of medium experience.

Yes, he may be a man of medium experience but he is not at the top of his profession.

Still, his reports may be valuable.

Yes, they may be valuable, but I prefer the report of the attorney-general who has all the facts before him. I have not had any special report from the attorney-general, but if I got one it would not alter the position one iota. I would ask myself whether there is any comment or request from the judge to enquire into it. Then I would go and ask for further information The hon. member next came into less troubled waters on a subject on which we might arrive at a certain amount of agreement. He discussed the question of identification parades. Speaking generally, let me say that from my experience at the bar, and since I have been in office, I have come to the conclusion that our identification parades are in almost every case—in the vast majority of cases—conducted with scrupulous fairness. I say that the way the C.I.D. and the police deal with these parades is a credit to everybody concerned. I know, however, that there have been certain remarks made by certain judges. I will here say that, for the purpose of getting more intimately into touch with judicial opinion, I have decided to call a conference of judges once a year, and the chief justice has kindly consented to preside over that conference. The first conference will be called for January of next year. Amongst other subjects on which they will let me know what they think, I intend to bring up this question of identification parades. I shall do that not because I have the least doubt that they are conducted otherwise than with the utmost fairness, but that several judges have seen fit to make certain remarks in this connection. The third point raised by the hon. member was that of confessions. I do not know of any judge who has commented on the way that a confession has been obtained. I am satisfied with the safeguards, namely, that any confession that is made must be reduced to writing in the presence of a justice of the peace. I am satisfied that these safeguards are adequate and complete, and unless I am given definite instances of individual misconduct, or that the system as a whole is open to criticism, that is not a matter I shall be prepared to submit to the judges conference.

Will the hon. Minister be prepared to give us some details as to the conference? Will the judges who form that conference come from all the provinces?

My suggestion to the chief justice has been that we should call together the four judges president and also that Kimberley and South-West Africa should be represented.

They will all be on leave in January.

That will be a nice time to call them together. I have no doubt that the strong sense of duty which we know all our judges have in a high degree, will provide us with the necessary quorum for that conference. Reference has been made to diamond cases, but I know of no instances where a diamond case jurors have acquitted in Cape Town when a confession has been made. Here I would say that I have some information from the attorney-general’s office that he knows of no single case of a written confession in a diamond case in which the jury has acquitted. I know of a case where confessions have been put in and where a jury has acquitted, but that has not been on the ground that the confession was improperly obtained. If there was any suspicion of that the judge would rule it out. The jury may have acquitted because they may have thought, not that pressure was being brought to bear upon the accused, but possibly because he wished to shield a third party when making it. So far as the rules are concerned which govern the interrogation of accused persons by the police we have fortunately no such rules here. I say “fortunately” because that is the best proof we can have that there is no necessity for such rules. The C.I.D. know perfectly well that they cannot bring any kind of pressure to bear upon accused persons. We have not found it necessary to lay down that specific questions shall be allowed or others that shall not be allowed. If English judges have found it necessary to draw up a complete set of rules for the English police, in the circumstances, I take that as a very high compliment to the South African police.

I commend the attitude adopted by the Minister of Justice in this matter. It would be an extremely dangerous thing if the Minister of Justice were to interfere with things such as he has been asked to do this afternoon. Whilst I have a tremendous amount of sympathy with the point of view expressed by the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close), I took up a firm stand on the question of the Wellington business before the trial. But after the trial and the acquittal, or whatever the result has been, it would be most dangerous for the Minister of Justice to start interfering with the course of justice, subsequent to that action. Of course, the hon. Minister is, I fear, largely to blame for this outburst on the part of the hon. member for Mowbray. I am afraid that he has been creating an atmosphere in this House by the introduction of the Riotous Assemblies Bill, sufficient to make hon. members think that he is a ministerial Mussolini who shall decide what shall be done, and what shall not be done, and who shall interfere on any occasion he thinks fit. He cannot, therefore, escape some of the blame for hon. members’ intervention in this matter. With regard to the question introduced by the hon. member for Yeoyille (Mr. Duncan)—it is a pity that we do not talk about one subject and finish it before starting another —not for one moment do I question the Minister’s bona fides, nor do I range myself on the side of those who make the insinuation that there is some ulterior motive behind the Minister’s action. But while I accept the Minister’s bona fides, I have the right to question his judgment, and I do so because I do not feel that he has taken into consideration all the factors in the case. As a Cabinet Minister he is, as he has said of certain magistrates, of average efficiency, but as a Minister of Justice he is not of sufficient efficiency. In reply to an interjection, the Minister said: “Are you going to suggest that because certain magistrates do not receive sufficient salary that they deliberately slack?”

I would like to pay them more.

I am afraid he is not strenuous in urging the Minister of Finance to pay them more.

Did you urge him when you were in office?

Yes, but without avail. I do not think it is right that the Minister should have made use of the words I quoted just now. The Minister says, further, that you have to keep efficiency and salary entirely separate. You cannot do anything of the sort without admitting the possibility of the smallness of their salary causing them to slacken. I say the smallness of their salary will have an effect on their efficiency, particularly in their judicial capacity. It is not fair to these men to put them in a position of a state of financial worry.

They are not in a state of financial worry.

There are 250 magistrates, 29 of whom get from £475-£550 a year, and 127 magistrates who receive from £575-£700 a year. In view of these figures I think I have a right to say that very often a very large number of these magistrates are in a state of financial worry. They are bound to be when you recollect the great amount and the varying amount of work placed on their shoulders. My hon. friend reminds me that in the country districts they are the centre around which the local social life revolves. Suppose the Minister decides to visit, a place, the local magistrate is informed and would regard himself as in duty bound—and indeed he is pleased to do so—to entertain the Minister. If royalty go to a place they gravitate to the magistrate. Whenever a new Act is passed, the poor, unfortunate magistrate is charged with its administration in addition to the general supervision of his court and all its officers. I know of no greater circumstance making for lack of super-efficiency than a constant realization on the part of an individual—I have been through it myself and I know—that he is not sufficiently sound financially. If that is so with the ordinary individual, how much more so is it in the ease of a magistrate. Just imagine the position of a magistrate who has to pass judgment on an individual to whom he owes money. That is not impossible owing to the low salary scale for magistrates.

They are not being retired for that.

The Minister is largely responsible for the condition which he makes a qualification for discharge. He says that he does this very differently, but complaints have been received by members of the House—

That is in one case.

I have assumed that members have expressed themselves strongly because of the Minister’s action. Has the Minister ever given consideration to the fact that he starts wrongly with the training of magistrates. [Time limit.]

I want to move a reduction of £1 in the salary of the Minister in order to call attention to a specific matter.

An hon. member has already moved the reduction of the Minister’s salary by £1.

Well, I will move—

I make this amendment in order that we may consider the system of training and recruitment for the police force. The Minister should enquire into this matter. There are a number of headings which might form the subject of such an enquiry such as standard of education, system of training and instruction, and so on. That is not only in the detection of crime and the protection of property, but the prosecution of crimes and methods of presenting evidence to the courts. We have in our police force a body with the very highest traditions, and police officers perform a vast amount of arduous and most exacting work, and on the whole with very great efficiency and with the utmost conscientiousness. I have a very high admiration for the way in which our comparatively small force works. Of course it is essential that there should be the very highest discipline, esprit de corps, conscientiousness and fairness if they are to perform their duties in the administration of justice. But recently all over the country there have been occurrences which seem to me to make out a case for an enquiry. There have been charges against the police, and I admit at once charges have been made which have not been sustained, old offenders have been given the cue, and have put up stories before the court of ill-treatment by the police, who were anxious to obtain evidence from them. A large number of these charges must on that account be discounted. But I do say there are symptoms lately that in some instances— I do not say many—the police have shown a disposition to be a little over keen to get evidence from accused persons. I am suggesting a radical enquiry into all these matters affecting the police with a view to strengthening the best elements and eliminating as far as possible the possibility that they may be a little bit too keen in trying to secure convictions. There seems to be a tendency amongst young police officers to think that their promotion will depend on their ability to secure convictions. There was an illustration of this which came to light in a case in Port Elizabeth not so long ago, where one constable gave evidence against another and said there was to be an inspection the following morning. The accused constable said to the constable who gave evidence that as the latter had a case he must also have a case when the inspecting officer came round to make his inspection. That is an indication of the idea which is getting abroad, that promotion depends to some extent on the ability to secure convictions, and that has a tendency to make a policeman anxious to get on and to get promotion, show a little bit more anxiety to get a conviction than is in consonance with a fair and just administration of justice. The Minister said we had no rules for the interrogation of accused persons, and that that showed that no rules were necessary. But I consider that there should be some rules regulating the procedure to be followed in such enquiries. There has been a tendency on the part of detectives and constables to approach prisoners who are on trial and have what appears to be a casual conversation with them, and the accused may during a talk make some statement to the detective—

That is not evidence.

It is not evidence, but at the same time evidence may be given on a conversation which does not amount to a confession. I do not say it is a general practice, but it has happened in one or two cases. The detective proves that the remark is incorrect, and that prejudices the prisoner. It may result in definite hardship and injustice to a prisoner awaiting trial. A man who is awaiting trial is not in his normal state of mind. In a very large number of cases the tendency is for the accused to make a statement which is not frank or in accordance with fact; the police are often dealing with men who are not of the highest mentality, and who in a state of fear may make a statement not of fact, which may prejudice them. As an instance of a case where prisoners were interrogated by the police in a manner which I submit is improper I may mention the Wellington case. Two men and a woman were taken out of their cells and interrogated by the police in the middle of the night. Evidence was given there that that was quite a common practice—to take awaiting-trial prisoners out in the middle of the night and to interrogate them. I am not bringing up the Wellington case because of the outcry there was against it, but because it contains an instance of the practice to which I have referred. Another instance is the Robertson case, which is still sub-judice, in which evidence was given that a detective had visited the accused man at 10.30 at night, sat down at his side, and had a conversation with him about the case. That conversation may have been quite harmless, but one cannot imagine why a detective should have gone out of his way to visit that accused man’s cell, and to sit down on his, bed and have a conversation with him about the case, unless it was with the object of getting him to make some remark which would give him a handle against the accused These are two instances which have come up in the public press recently, and they are evidence of police practices which are not in the interests of justice. We have another instance of this over-keenness on the part of the police in the case at Port Elizabeth, which I have already referred to, where one constable gave evidence against another constable. The accused constable was charged with attempting to defeat the ends of justice. The case against him was that a burglary had taken place, and a piece of glass had been found bearing marks or smudges which may have been caused by fingers. This constable arrested a prisoner, took him to the police station, handed him this piece of glass, and said, “Take that glass and tell me what you know about it.” The man took the piece of glass between a finger and thumb, and the constable took back the glass and produced it before the magistrate the next morning as bearing the finger print of the accused; and the man was convicted. This was the evidence of one constable against another. In the same case it was alleged against the accused policeman that he arrested a man for being in possession of dagga and took him to the police station although he had found no dagga on him. The prisoner asked, “What are you taking me to the police station for?” and the constable said, “For having this in your possession,” taking a packet of dagga out of his own pocket. That is the evidence of one constable against another. If these statements are not true, then the constable who gave evidence against another constable in each of these cases, committed deliberate perjury, and that in itself is a matter for enquiry. There should be the fullest enquiry into the whole system of the training of the police force. Then we had another case where a sergeant was convicted of extortion. He made a practice of going to white men in a village saying that, they had been seen in compromising relations with coloured women, and extorted money from them. He was very properly charged with extortion, and was convicted, and he lost an appeal to the appellate division. Then there is the matter of identification parades. The hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) has referred to the remarks of the hon. the President of the Eastern Districts Court. That matter is also one for enquiry, and the procedure at identification parades should be regulated for fear that much greater abuses may take place than have already taken place. I want to refer now to a Cape Town case, Rex V. Papert. This is the case of a man who was charged with drunkenness, riotous conduct and assaulting the police. He was acquitted on the first two charges, and convicted of assaulting the police. There was strong evidence that this man was a teetotaller, and it was clearly proved that he was subject to fits. He had had supper with his sister and her husband, and he had no drink at supper. He left them at 8.45, and caught a bus to Cape Town. He had no drink after leaving the house and before catching the bus. Shortly after 9 p.m. he was seized with an epileptic fit in the bus. The conductor could not remove him, and called in the police. Two constables took him out of the bus. In the course of his fit he was violent, and there is medical evidence that that violence was one of the symptoms of epileptic fits of the nature that he was subject to. There was a struggle of some sort on the pavement. The two policemen arrested him, and took him off to the Wale Street police station. Those two constables both swore that this man smelt of liquor, and another constable who saw him at the police station, also swore that he smell of liquor. He was put into a cell. His father was communicated with, and a doctor was called in who examined him specifically to see whether he was drunk, and smelt his breath. The doctor saw him at about 11 p.m. The doctor stated that he was not drunk, and that there was no smell of liquor upon him, and said his condition was due simply to the fit. The medical evidence is definite on that point. Not only was there the evidence of these three constables, but also of three sergeants, two at the police station and one outside, that this man was drunk and violent at the police station. Though they did not say that they smels the liquor, the Three sergeants were prepared to swear that he was drunk. One is forced to the conclusion that either they were prepared to back up the evidence of the constables at all costs or that they could not tell the difference between a man who was drunk and one in a fit. There is a further feature in the case. There was a scuffle in the office and one constable received a painful kick. The accused said he came to himself in the police station, and lost control of himself; one cannot blame him much. He says that he was therefore struck in the face repeatedly by one or more of the constables. His jaw was broken. The medical evidence was that the broken jaw was the result of a violent blow. The police, in order to explain the broken jaw, called an awaiting trial prisoner who was in the cell into which the accused had been put, who gave evidence that the accused was so drunk that he was running round the room beating his head against the wall. The prisoner awaiting trial who gave that evidence, later made a statement that he was induced to give that evidence by a police constable, who promised him a free pardon of the offence with which he was charged and the sum of £5. The court would not accept the evidence that he was offered a free pardon or that he received £5; but the outstanding features of the case are, that although the man was suffering from a fit, and that that fact was accepted both when the case was heard and on appeal, three constables swore that he was drunk and three sergeants supported their evidence. This points to the feature I have referred to that in some quarters the police are over keen to secure a conviction, and to cover up malpractices by other members of the police force. I ask the Minister whether the militarization of the police force —the building up of an esprit de corps on military lines—is in the interests of justice. It may induce members of the force to cover up malpractices and so defeat the ends of justice.

Are you suggesting that the training is military?

The training of the police force has been on distinctly military lines. The Minister may be satisfied that the police force is not unduly militarized, but there is a tendency to carry things so far that evidence may be hushed up, and may result in bringing discredit on the police. One knows how extremely difficult it is in cases such as that of Rex v. Papert for a man to succeed on the facts. If the defence in that case had not fortunately put up such a strong case on the facts, and had not been fortunate in several members of the police coming forward to give evidence, a gross miscarriage of justice would have resulted, and the man would have had no redress at all. I quote this as an instance of the dangers we are exposed to in this country, unless in the process of training steps are not taken to obviate any irregularity in that direction. For various reasons, there is a feeling—I am speaking with a due sense of responsibility—among those concerned with the administration of justice that police evidence has to be scrutinized more closely now than used to be the case, and one can realize what unfortunate results this impression may have on the administration of justice, because a number of people who are guilty may not be convicted, simply because police evidence cannot always be accepted at face value. On these grounds I say that the Minister should institute an enquiry. I do not suggest how the investigating body should be composed, because I have every confidence that the Minister if he takes action will appoint a satisfactory body. But I consider that there should be someone from outside the police force serving upon it.

Dealing first with the remarks made by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), I do not know whether he was quite serious in, without putting it into words, drawing a comparison between a man with an insufficient salary and a starving worker, and both being inefficient. I think that must have been at the back of the mind of the hon. member.

Not at all. I was trying to show the effect on the mentality of the men.

I can understand the argument that the inadequately paid man will be inefficient, because he is on the verge of starvation.

Besides that, there is worry. That is besides actual starvation.

It all depends. The hon. member referred to social intercourse and the amenities. Any man, whatever his station in life, must arrange his social amenities according to his purse. There is no magistrate drawing £400 or even £450. Those are acting magistrates. People who have several districts and have to take up a representative attitude in those districts, draw considerably higher salaries.

Additional magistrates.

So far as I know, there is only one who draws anything in the vicinity of £500. Although, personally, I hope to see the day, given proper efficiency, when those salaries will be increased, to-day we are not in a position to say that their salaries have become a crying scandal, or that any lack of efficiency can he attributed to the pay they are drawing at the present time.

I do not agree with you.

Coming to the statement of the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper), I am glad he prefaced his remarks with a wholehearted tribute to our police force, because I am convinced, and I am convinced that everybody concerned is, that, bearing in mind the time we have for training the troops, on an average about six months, the isolated posts upon which comparatively young men are placed and to which comparatively young men are promoted, their conduct, as a whole, is exemplary. We can compare, so far as efficiency in our police force is concerned, with any police force in any civilized country. The charges brought forward by the hon. member, or, shall I say, the instances given by him, rather remind me of what I saw in the humorous column of the Argus a fortnight ago. The heading was, “This Week’s Fairy Tale.” Under that heading it was set out that there was once a young coloured man who was brought before the magistrate who did not complain that he had been beaten by the police. That was this week’s fairy tale. As the hon. member pointed out, old offenders take advantage of any excitement in the press, or any disturbance of public feeling adverse to the police. This story of having been beaten by the police will probably be told in many of our courts for the next 12 months. Hon. members will realize that, mentioning these particular instances, and making these fortunately very isolated instances, the basis for a demand for an enquiry may have somewhat unfortunate results. The instances the hon. member has given are very isolated now, and, for a proper appreciation of everything that takes place, we would have to have a full record before the House, and everything would have to be elaborated at length. I put it to the hon. member that the view defending counsel takes of police evidence and their attitude, is bound to differ from that of the prosecuting counsel and from that which the Minister of Justice, who is supposed to hold the scales, in his turn, takes. I have had experiences of defending and prosecuting, and I can give the assurance that, although, in many cases, whilst defending, one has the impression that promotion in the police depends upon convictions, that is certainly not the general rule; and, if it is entertained of policemen at all, it would be in a very few exceptional cases. The commissioner of police and all his commissioned officers are constantly at pains to impress upon the police force as a whole, that their business is not so much detection of crime, although that is incidental with their duties, but the prevention of crime by proper patrolling and investigation and by doing everything required to keep crime down to a minimum. If it is committed, every effort must be made to detect it, but no inducements are held out to the man who succeeds in detecting a crime, as against the man who does not. Commissioned officers and sergeants in the police are keen on seeing that such mentality is not developed. The hon. member referred to interrogation of prisoners at night.

Should they be interrogated at all after arrest?

Sometimes prisoners express a desire to see a detective.

Should they be visited in their cells by detectives?

They should not, and are not as a rule, unless the detectives are sent for. There are only two cases in which detectives have seen prisoners at night, and those cases are being suitably dealt with. I do not approve of it at all. If it is not against the regulations, at all events, it is against the spirit of the regulations, and those are two very isolated cases which carry no weight, so far as the police, as a whole, are concerned, and they will not take place again, subject to human limitations. There have been definite instructions issued that that should not happen again. In a police force, with a membership of 10,000, and if you add the prisons, another 2,000 or 3,000, there must be a certain number of black sheep, and we need only look at recent events, and events over a great number of years, in connection with an institution like Scotland Yard, an institution which has possibly higher traditions than any other force, not only in Great Britain, but traditions which are respected right throughout the civilized world, to note a comparison. We look at the occurrences which takes place from time to time and if we take the number of those occurrences and compare them with what has happened here, I say that we compare very favourably indeed with Scotland Yard. The hon. member has emphasized the case of an enquiry held at Scotland Yard some time ago. I think there were two enquiries. I can only refer the hon. member to what was published at the time in the newspapers, indicating that there was infinitely a more serious state of affairs at Scotland Yard than the hon. member for Wynberg has brought up. He has brought up certain cases which cannot be fully investigated, and has mentioned certain features which I am prepared to accept. But hon. members will realize that to say that, because here and there is a weak man out of a force of 10,000, who has been over-zealous, we must now have an enquiry, is running the risk of inflicting a stigma upon the police which is entirely uncalled for. The fact that certain cases have come to light, and came to light by way of prosecution, shows how exceedingly zealous the officers are and headquarters are to see if there is anything wrong, and, if there is, it is immediately followed by a prosecution. All the instances mentioned by the hon. member were brought out by the police themselves by means of prosecution.

Not the Baker case.

The case was that a certain constable swore that a man smelt of liquor. But a doctor who saw him a considerable, time afterwards swore that the man did not smell of liquor. I make bold to say that if it is a question whether a man’s breath smells of liquor or not no greater weight should be attached to the opinion of a medical man than to that of a constable.

You ought to read the evidence.

If the hon. member cares to hand me the record I will go into the question, but on what he has told us I have not discovered a glaring scandal that should be enquired into. Under the circumstances I hope the hon. members will not press for an enquiry. As the methods of training the police, I understand that the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) will raise the question of the militarizing of the police on the police vote, and I will deal with the matter of police training when we reach that vote. The consensus of opinion is that for a force that very often has to deal with something resembling a small insurrection we must have a certain amount of military drill, we arm the police with rifles, and we must teach the officers how to handle their men in the open, and we must train the police, who may have to storm a kopje, how to behave under such conditions.

We have had a very welcome explanation from the Minister of Justice, who has told us that he will enquire into alleged breach of regulations by the police. As to awaiting trial prisoners, I am very glad the Minister makes it known that he does object to the police interrogating prisoners in the cells.

It has hardly ever taken place.

I did not ask the Minister to act as a court of criminal appeal in the Wellington case. I did not ask him to find out what the judge said or why he said it, but to make an investigation, and if he thought all the circumstances put together warranted this, to request the judge concerned to make a report—irrespective of what he is reported to have said—whether there was a miscarriage or not, in order to prevent miscarriages of justice in the future. It is useless to attempt to divert attention from the real point. I may have spoken strongly on the matter, and I feel very strongly indeed on the subject. I do not say there was a miscarriage of justice in this case, but there may have been, and there is reason for an investigation. I feel very strongly that where there is a suspicion, that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, the Minister should go into the matter, and if there has been a miscarriage of justice, the Minister should consider what steps should be taken to see that there shall be no repetition of the matter.

As the House is debating the general policy of the Minister, I should like to bring a few things to his notice. The first is in connection with the Mesters and Servants Act. It is very important for the farmers to know the Minister’s policy. There was a case at Bultfontein where a native deserted his service; he was charged by the police—

What point is the hon. member discussing?

One about police.

That comes later.

There has been an agitation in the northern districts of Natal in favour of the supreme court of Natal holding sittings in the northern portion of the province. At present the inhabitants in the northern districts of Natal are put to great inconvenience and much expense because they have to go to Pietermaritzburg when cases in which they are concerned come before the supreme court, In many instances persons have to travel very long distances and be away a long time, and I have known of instances of over two weeks, and of doctors called away for over a week when having to give evidence. Some steps should be taken to have circuit courts held in the northern districts, and other parts of Natal, where they are necessary. The supreme court rules provide for the holding of circuit court.

It is just a question of expense.

But why are these courts held in the other provinces, and why should Natal have to be inconvenienced?

It has never happened.

Oh yes, I can remember circuit courts being held in the northern parts of Natal.

Before the days of railways and motor-cars.

Then there is the question of the native high court. I understood there is a movement by a small section to try to get the native high court merged into the supreme court. The major part of public feeling in Natal would be against that The native high court has functioned very well, and served a useful purpose, and it would be a mistake to merge that court into the supreme court.

This matter should be raised in superior courts.

It is a definite question of policy. I should like to know whether there is any intention of merging that court.

I want to appeal to the Minister to change his policy with regard to the magistrates courts in certain parts of the country. At present we have large, stretched-out areas, especially in the north-west where the magisterial districts are very large. In those districts we only have occasional periodical courts which the magistrates hold once or twice a month. I am not criticizing the work of the magistrates, but I think it would not cause more expenditure if an assistant magistrate or a clerk from the chief town were to be stationed in those far-off villages. As an example, I want to mention the district of Calvinia. We have a village there, Brandvlei, which is 105 miles from Calvinia, and there are other villages which are still further off. This means that farmers have to come to the village under difficult circumstances. Inter alia, to pay their taxes. As we have places like Brandvlei, which is a village with a church, and where the farmers go to church three or four times a month, it would be very desirable for them to be able to pay their taxes there, and that minor court cases could be dealt with there by a clerk subordinate to the magistrate of the district. I do not think it will cause any greater expense.

The hon. member can only discuss policy.

Yes, I am discussing the policy. The policy is that we have periodical courts, and I think that a clerk with certain powers ought to be stationed there. It would be much better, and is not only of financial importance to the Department of Justice, but beneficial to the public in general. I want to point out to the Minister that he must treat those parts differently to the thickly-populated parts. Just let me mention another case. In the Prieska district there is a church in the village Marydale. It is an important village, and we find that the magistrate only goes there once or twice a month, with the result that the farmers suffer because it creates so many difficulties in dealing with smaller cases, with the result that the offenders are not punished. It is the same with Van Wyksvlei in the Carnarvon district. I want again to point out to the Minister that circumstances are so different there that it is desirable to have other arrangements. The people there suffer much inconvenience. Therefore, I think the Minister should meet them as much as possible. Then there is another matter of policy I should like to bring to the Minister’s notice. It is that his department does not establish any one man police station, in other words, that they will not establish any police stations where there is only one constable.

To a point of order is the police vote being debated now?

We have a special vote for police, and, in my opinion, it would be better for the hon. member to discuss the matter under that vote, unless he is discussing the policy.

To a point of order, I should like to know where we stand. The hon. member is now discussing a matter, and when a moment ago I was discussing the Minister’s policy in connection with magistrates courts, I was stopped. I would like to have a ruling.

I would like to point out that the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper) has moved the reduction of the Minister’s salary in order to discuss a special matter. This question must be debated under the “Police” vote, and the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) cannot, therefore, go on with these details.

I do not know whether I actually had a chance of explaining that I only wanted to debate a question of policy, and I want to confine myself to the policy. I received a letter from the commissioner of police, and he states in it that he considers the establishment of one-man police stations as unsatisfactory. That is clearly a question of policy. The commissioner of police, whose head is the Minister of Justice, says that such stations are unsatisfactory, and I want to point out that we cannot treat the whole country in the same way, because in some parts things are very different. Where there are districts with distances from two to three hundred miles it is absolutely necessary, in the interests of the public, to bring the police post closer to the public, so that the people where offences are committed are able to go to the police station, and not first have to travel 40, 50 or 70 miles to get to the nearest police station. [Time limit.]

The practice of holding circuit courts in northern Natal has been discontinued for a considerable time. I think the people in northern Natal are entitled to some consideration. Having to attend sitting of courts at Pietermaritzburg puts business men and others in the country districts to considerable inconvenience and financial loss. I am aware that the reason for discontinuing circuit courts is based on expense, but I do think due consideration should be given to the convenience of witnesses and legal practitioners.

I hope that I am in order in saying something about the Transvaal Attorney-General. I want to say at once that I do not agree with the motion to reduce the Minister’s salary. I would rather move to reduce the salary of the Attorney-General by 1s., and increase that of the Minister by 2s., but that would be out of order. I would like to bring an important matter to the Minister’s notice, viz., a grievance I have against the Attorney-General, and which the public have, at any rate a large section of the (population, and I will quote an example to prove that there is truth, in it. The grievance is that people are sometimes unjustly and unfairly prosecuted. Recently, in my neighbourhood, a person was brought before the court, a very respectable farmer, by virtue of sworn statements that he had voted twice in the recent general selection. One affidavit was made by a polling officer, who sat by the ballot box, and the other by someone belonging to the South African party, and they declared that the person had voted twice. An application was then made to the supreme court for leave to examine the voting papers, which was granted. It then appeared that the man had not voted twice, because his name was Badenhorst, and Mr. Badenhorst’s name was not found twice. There was, in fact, a letter from a Mr. Bant. I do not think that anyone can take the name of Bant for Badenhorst. The Attorney-General knew the facts, and the police rightly refused to prosecute, yet the Attorney-General gave instructions to prosecute the person. He is one of the most respected farmers in the district, and had to appear in court. The magistrate of course discharged him, and even said that he was astonished that the matter had ever come before him. I think the Minister knows about the case, because I told him about it, but nothing more has been heard of it. Such incidents occur, and they are dangerous. We know that sometimes there are two, three, or four people with the same name in a constituency, and persons think that if their name is on the voters’ roll they can vote. It may be that they are voting bona fide, but that it appears later that a man’s name only appears once on the roll, hut that two or three persons of that name had voted. Why must the people be prosecuted? Why is enquiry not first made? The people are taken to court, and caused great inconvenience, and a charge like that hangs over a man’s head for a few months before it comes into court, and when the court deals with it—magistrates are usually very sensible —the man is discharged, but the inconvenience has been caused. The wife and children suffer in consequence, because such a thing is a serious offence, and if a man is convicted he can be given eighteen months. Then he is merely discharged as “not guilty.” I say that it is unfair, and that proper enquiry ought first to be made before a man is prosecuted.

I want to refer to the matter mentioned by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) namely, the Native High Court. The hon. member correctly expressed the opinion of the people of Natal that it was desirable to continue—

Under Vote 27, the hon. member may discuss policy only.

I think it is the intention of the department to make the native high court a branch of the supreme court. If the native high court is to function as it should do, in order to give the best results, it is desirable that the officers responsible should have some knowledge of the native language; and I think hon. members will have to consider the desirability of raising the emoluments of that court. I know that is a dangerous thing to urge in these times of financial stress, but the most desirable people to put on the bench of the native high court are not at present available because the salary is not sufficient to induce them to accept such posts and the Minister must seriously consider increasing the emoluments to induce the right people to take these positions. I personally have never practised before that court but I think I am expressing the opinion of those who do practise there.

I would just like to call the Minister’s attention to the exploitation of poor people by legal practitioners who behave in a conscienceless manner. They often buy up a large amount of book debts and then see how many summons they can issue. In Johannesburg alone last year about 30,000 summons were issued. In Pretoria a small matter of 10,000, and in Benoni 3,000. This is out of all proportion to what ought to be the case, and therefore I think something ought to be done in the matter. The Minister must do something to curtail activities of those people. Perhaps the best method would be to lay down in the case of summons that civil imprisonment orders can no longer be granted. My feeling is that civil imprisonment is a reminiscence of the barbarian past.

It will require legislation, and the hon. member cannot ask for legislation here.

The reason I mention the matter is because the Minister said that a conference of judges would be held to consider certain questions of judicial procedure. I only want to suggest that the Minister should also put this matter before them. More particularly in the case of women I think civil imprisonment ought to be abolished. I know of a case where a woman was summoned for civil imprisonment by an Indian. This is a thing that ought not to be tolerated in our country. The second way of reducing the number of summons is the following. At present £15 worth of a debtor’s goods are exempt from execution, when the Minister discusses the matter he can consider whether the amount should not be increased to £100, so that the debtor will anyhow retain his furniture and bed. If that is done then many of the summons against our poor people will no longer be issued. There are lawyers who are speculating with them. They speculate with the debts that they buy, and the costs are very high against the poor people. The letter of demand, summons, writ of execution, etc., soon run the costs up to £4 for each debtor, so that in Johannesburg £150,000 is paid in this way to the lawyers, especially, chiefly by the poor class of the population. In Pretoria the amount would be from £40,000 to £50,000. These are things we cannot tolerate in our country, and therefore I want the Minister to give his attention to them.

There are a number of points which have been raised to which I would reply very briefly. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) asked me whether I agreed with the principle that circuit courts should be held over as extended an area as possible. I certainly agree. It is in the interests of justice that the local population should have the supreme court by way of circuit court at least once a year, but, unfortunately, circuit courts are reather expensive luxuries. That was recognized in Natal years ago when circuit courts were abolished, and I am afraid in the present condition of financial stringency it would be idle to hold out hopes that circuit courts may be restored to Natal.

made an interjection.

The moment any official and his staff start squabbling, expenses go up.

Why should Natal be excluded and not the other provinces?

Natal has not been deprived of anything it has not had. It is asking for something to be returned to it which was taken away many years ago. The hon. member is making a request involving expenditure in a year when we expect to make savings. In regard to the native high court and the question of detaching it from the Supreme Court, I can see no good purpose to be served by such a change. Unless very strong grounds are made to me why it should take place, I am not prepared to entertain the idea. As regards the personnel of the native high court I do not think it is necessary that a judge at that court should necessarily be an expert in native laws and customs, because the civil side of the court has disappeared, and the ordinary criminal jurisdiction deals with the same class of cases that we are dealing with right throughout the Union. What we want is a man, and I am glad to say that in the person of the present president we have such a person, who is a good criminal lawyer with an extended experience of circuit court practice throughout the country.

*The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) under difficult circumstances put a question to me about the creation of new magisterial districts, or rather the division of a large district into smaller ones. It is a matter of expenditure which we cannot afford this year. He is wrong if he thinks that a permanent justice of the peace costs less than a periodical court. Although we concede this where we can, we must be very careful in this time of depression. If he mentions the matter again next year we will see what can be done to press the matter upon the generosity of the Minister of Finance. He also objected to the reply he received from the Commissioner of Police. I must say that I agree with the commissioner about the one-man police posts. A much better system is to provide motorcycles, motor-cars, and motor-cycles with sidecars. That is the policy we have introduced, and which we will extend further. On last year’s estimates there was £21,000 for motorcars, motor-cycles, and the maintenance thereof. During the course of the year, the Minister of Finance gave us a further £10,000 for that purpose so that £30,000 has been spent in that way. This year £27,700 has been put on the, estimates, and the greatest part of that is intended for the purchase of motor-cars arid motor-cycles. The hon. member for Heidelberg (Mr. S. D. de Wet) brought up the matter of a prosecution under the Electoral Act, the only assurance I can give him is that the Attorney-General acted bona fide. He had affidavits before him. Those affidavits were incorrect, but yet they were made in good faith, and although the prosecution failed he could do nothing else.

But why were not the people prosecuted for making false declarations?

I believe the Attorney-General is going into the matter. An affidavit may be incorrect, and yet be bona fide. The hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. Potgieter) raised the important question of civil imprisonment, as also the increase of the value of property which cannot be executed against. These are matters of great importance, and I will refer them to the congress as he suggests.

I should like the Minister to show a sympathetic feeling with regard to the blind. Not so long ago a case was heard in Johannesburg, which in my opinion was a case of persecution of the blind for begging in the streets. I know that begging is a crime, but I do think that prosecuting the blind should not be instituted against such an unfortunate person. I appeared as “amicus curiae” before the magistrate, who felt very strongly for the accused whom he had to find guilty in the circumstances, but discharged with a caution. The reason I now appeal to the Minister and the committee is because I feel sure the whole of South Africa feel deeply for the blind. These unfortunate people do not ask for anything. They simply stand there with their hands in front of them and sympathetic persons put something into them. I hope the Minister will go into the matter, and I will tell him more privately about the case later on. I hope he will see if something cannot be done whereby these poor people will be left unmolested and their unfortunate lot alleviated. Nothing worse can befall a person than to lose his eyesight. Their plight is indeed hard, and I hope the Minister will express sympathetic feelings towards these unfortunate people and will cause something to be done whereby these harmless people can be left undisturbed, so that they can eke out what after all is a most miserable existence.

I think the committee appreciates the fair way in which the Minister has replied to the points put to him. I want to come back again to the point raised by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper) in the hope of getting something more explicit from the Minister. I refer to the practice of detectives and other members of the force interrogating prisoners who are awaiting trial. Two instances have been given by the Minister to show that these visits took place at night. I do not see any particular point in stressing the words “at night.” Surely the Minister will agree that a prisoner who is awaiting trial should not be visited in his cell or in any way interrogated by a detective or any other member of the police force. If the Minister agrees that that is so, then the subject need not be pursued further, except to ask if this practice is to be stopped, then the police should be instructed on the point. The Minister also said something which leaves me in some doubt as to the position of the police force. If a member of the railway service is tried before a criminal court the Railway Administration reserves the right, and perhaps rightly so, to try him departmentally. Take a case which came under my own personal observation. A checker is charged with theft and he manages to get off before the jury of the magistrate. The Administration has the right, or say that they have the right, to say that this person is dishonest and they will not keep him in the service as a checker. What is the position of a member of the police force who is charged with a crime and acquitted, but in regard to whom his superior officers feel reasonably convinced that he was guilty, or whom the circumstances show that he was not really a desirable member of the force?

The same position.

Then I have nothing more to say on that point, but I want to ask a question about the Government attorney, a position that used to be filled by Mr. Pienaar, who is now Secretary for Justice. He still, however, retains the position of Government attorney. Why has the practice been departed from of having, as head of the law department, a Government attorney who will be responsible for that branch? For six years we have made a present of from £4,000 to £7,000 a year to the Railway Department by reason of the fact that the Government attorney does the Railway Department’s legal work gratis. Originally we were told that this was done as a sort of sop to induce the Railway Department to leave the private practitioners, and to employ the newly-established Government attorney’s office. We have been informed that the Minister is now perfectly free to put the matter on a business footing. The Minister is a business man, and not so easy-going as his predecessor was. The Railway Department, on the other hand, is pretty sharp, and usually gets 20s. in the £ for all it does. The Minister stated that he intended to call a yearly conference of judges. I have a certain amount of doubt as to how the judges are likely to receive that proposal to stay here in the long vacation when some go overseas.

They have agreed to it.

When the Minister calls the conference of judges he might put this point before them. Mr. Roos did some very valuable work in the codification of our laws. The Minister should ask the judges whether the time is not ripe for the appointment of a semi-judicial commission on our common law, and whether they do not recognize that much of our common law is obsolete or obsolescent. We are enfranchising women, yet the law relating to women, particularly married women, dates back to the very early days of our Roman-Dutch law. Then there is much of the statutory law which dates back to pre-Union days which differs in different provinces, such as that dealing with wills and prescription. Twenty years after Union we have different laws of admission for advocates, and I believe for attorneys in the four provinces. If I have been admitted in the Transvaal and want to practise in the Cape I have to pay another £20. The other day I went to Natal, and it cost me £50 to practise at the bar there. The laws for the different provinces should be placed on a consolidated basis, and it is absurd, for an organic Union, for one to have to pay for admission in another province; it is the same supreme court, and a man admitted to one branch of it should be allowed to practise in all branches. There is also much to be done in securing uniformity in our civil procedure code. [Time limit.]

I would like you, sir, to let us know our position. In the past there has been a tendency for hon. members to bring up matters which might involve policy under the vote in which the Minister’s salary appears. We have brought up many matters this afternoon, and it has been suggested to take them under another vote. In all deference to you, sir, you represent the sterner type, the Judge Jeffreys type. When we bring up matters under the other votes we may be told we should bring it up under the vote in which the Minister’s salary appears.

Hon. members can bring it up under the vote.

I was very sorry to hear the Minister of Justice say that precisely the same obtains in his department as on the railways, because we on these benches strongly disapprove of the system of double trials. If, and when, an individual is charged with theft and proved not guilty in the courts of the land, does the Minister say it has his approval that that man should again be tried by a superior officer—presumably on prejudice—because you cannot have any more evidence; and is that man dismissed? Does that meet with his idea of justice? It does not meet with mine. I regret that the Minister of Justice seems to agree with that idea.

It depends entirely on the facts of evidence; a man may not be guilty of theft, and yet the facts may show a different offence.

As I understand the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) it was on the same case, and on the same facts, that that man was going to be tried by somebody else.

The same evidence, the same facts, but a different offence.

Then my hon. friend should not have given up practising at the Bar, because if he brings that far-fetched frame of mind to bear upon his duties as Minister of Justice, justice is going to suffer. I wish to refer to the Minister’s responsibility for the “insufficient efficiency” of magistrates. The whole training of magistrates is, unfortunately, tending in that direction. The only source from which you can draw your magistrates is the public prosecutors. There is built up a tendency to view everything as a case of guilt on the part of an individual. Everyone who appears before him is guilty until the individual proves himself innocent. Arising out of that there is a matter which has been before the committee on many occasions, and that is the appointment of a public defender. We pay for a public prosecutor, and citizens have no other means of defending themselves but the private professional man.

I do not think the hon. member can discuss that. It involves legislation.

It only involves putting him on the estimates.

If it does not involve legislation, the hon. member can discuss it.

It is a matter that requires the earnest consideration of the Minister and the House and we should realize our responsibilities to the poorer sections of the population. If the public prosecutor acts as against a citizen of the country, that citizen has a right to expect the state to provide him with a defender. What is the magistrate there for? Not to secure a conviction, but to get the facts. If you are concerning yourself with presenting the facts against the man, it is only justice and common sense to provide a man to present the facts in favour of the individual charged. The prosecution undertakes to get all the evidence, subpoena all the witnesses and pay all the costs in connection with the matter, and does not allow an equal facility in regard to the man’s defence.

No.

But I have proved it. Take my own case when I appeared in a case a little while ago. As a matter of fact I appeared as an unofficial advocate for somebody else. When I went to the public prosecutor and asked him what was to be done about getting the witnesses required for the defence, the record of whose addresses must have been in the possession of the police, he said, “it is not our business to get witnesses for the defence.” I asked what could be done about getting them. He said, “I must first deposit some money and I asked him whether it was also necessary to deposit some money in order to subpoena witnesses for the prosecution. He said, “No: as to the prosecution, that is part of our business.” All we are concerned in doing in our court of justice is proving our own citizens to be criminals. We are not concerned in getting the facts and that is a state of affairs not to be tolerated. If the Minister requires precedents he will find his precedents in America where a defender is appointed to work up a case and go into court for a man, present the facts in his favour, with the net result that the magistrate has the case presented to him from both sides and is able to arrive at a true finding.

I would like to discuss the one-man police station.

The hon. member cannot do so now. I ruled at the commencement that police matters could not now be discussed, and can allow no one to do so.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) referred to the position of the Government attorney. I would like some information as to the amount provided for the Government attorney’s division. In 1924-25 a sum of £8,200 was provided for the costs of legal proceedings. Since that year the staff of the Government attorney has grown considerably, and for the ensuing year provision is made for a staff of 19 persons. In 1924-25 there was not a staff of anything like that. These 19 persons cost £7,200, yet notwithstanding that, the provision for legal expenses has risen to the sum of £15,000. There has therefore been a very great growth in the expenditure under that head during the course of six years. I would like the Minister to say, if he can, what the increase is attributable to.

The cost of litigation.

Naturally, but why is there such an enormous growth? The hon. member referred to the question of the codification of the common law.

It was a reference to obsolete law.

It would be an admirable thing if our common law were brought up-to-date and codified, and I should like some information on another matter of the same nature. I understand that for some time now, an official of the department has been going through the statute books of the various provinces, with the object of removing from those statute books a number of obsolete laws. If that work is carried out, and properly carried out, I think the Minister will earn the gratitude of the profession and of the public for having put that work in hand. I should now like to ask how this matter stands. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) raised a point of some importance. It is this. A person standing his trial wished to have some witnesses subpoenaed for the defence, and the hon. member who was acting unofficially for him was required to put down cash before the subpoenas were issued. I should like to have some information as to the policy adopted in matters like that. In the old days of the Cape, if a person had to stand his trial and was without funds, and reasonably required witnesses to be called, the Crown issued the subpoenas and had those witnesses called at no cost to the accused.

That is still the practice all over the country.

I am glad to hear that is the position, and that there has been no change.

Following the points of the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper) I understand it is the intention to bring out a new edition of the principal Union statutes after they have been thoroughly revised.

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

I move—

I rise to move the rejection of this Bill, even at this late stage. I think this Bill is a dangerous departure, and should not be passed by this House. It is a break with our existing system of jurisprudence, which is undoubted and admitted. So far our system of law has followed the well-known precedents of western civilization, that is to say, it is based on general law, which is administered by the law courts. The Government is there not to administer justice, but to administer the country. You have the legislature, the law courts and the Government. Their functions are carefully separated, but the whole security of justice, of right, is based on the law impartially administered by the law courts. Well, now, as the House will see, and as has been already fully argued—I do not want to go into the matter very deeply now, but I may repeat what I have said—this Bill contains certain features which are a departure from the system which has existed so far. Let me just summarize in a few words the main points and principles embodied in the Bill. In the first place, power is given to the Government of the day to prohibit public meetings if these meetings are in the opinion of the Government likely to engender hostility between the races. That is a very far-reaching principle, but the circumstances of the country may justify it, and I am prepared to accept it. But it is not the most important or the most dangerous provision of this Bill. The next provision is to the effect that the Government get power to prohibit newspapers, periodicals, books, pamphlets and publications of all sorts which they may think in their discretion as likely to lead to racial hostility. This introduces a censorship in a most extended form into this country, and there is no safeguard except this, that the party whose book or newspaper of pamphlet is suppressed has the right to go to the court and to prove the negative, namely, that his publication will not have the effect of stirring up racial hostility. The onus is put entirely on the writer to prove the negative. That is the only safeguard here, and I submit to it a censorship in the widest and most dangerous form is introduced. People may discuss the native question or the coloured question in what seems to them in impartial and sincere manner, but the Government may think the tendency of the book or the article or the newspaper is to cause racial hostility, and they may summarily suppress that book or that newspaper. That is the second arbitrary power conferred on the Government. Then the third power conferred on the Government, without any right of appeal to any law court, is the power to confine any person, whose activities they may think are likely to lead to racial hostility, to any area. There is no right of appeal. He may not go here, or he may not go there, and he has to abide by the decision of the Government. Then there is a fourth power given to the Government under which any person who commits any breach of the provisions in this Bill in any way, if he is not born in South Africa, may be deported by the Government. He may have been here for a lifetime. He may be in the position which I suppose one-third of the population is in, not born in this country, he may have identified himself with this country in every way. Yet he may be deported from this country, perhaps for quite a trivial offence. But even were it a most substantial offence, I submit that no such power should be given to the Government without the most example right of appeal. We are now going to have a law in this country such as is, I should say, unprecedented in the history of South Africa, and unprecedented in the great commonwealth to which we belong, and a law which takes us back perhaps for hundreds of years to the time when security of law and justice had not yet been built up. I assume that the Minister has taken this power to himself quite sincerely, but without appreciating that he is doing here a thing which should never be done. There are fundamental principles of law, justice and security which should never be attacked. There is no justification, and there never can be a justification except in time of revolution, or in time of war, for the exercise of such powers by the Government. But here we have now a permanent measure of martial law of the most far-reaching character put on the statute book of the country. There are fundamental principles which should never be questioned. I wonder what people will think of South Africa when they see that we are at this time of day passing legislation of this kind. We have had great troubles in the course of our history, but no Government I believe has ever thought of taking to itself such arbitrary powers as those which are now sought. I think we are making a very grave mistake. The Minister says we have a grave situation to deal with. I admit that there is a state of affairs which is unwholesome, but it is a case for patience, and it is not a case for scrapping the fundamental principles upon which our civilization has been built up, and upon which our liberties and security rest. I would rather counsel patience, and we know that in regard to the native question and the coloured question similar troubles have happened before. They have their phases. They increase, they rise to a climax, and they subside again. We have had these troubles time and again in the history of South Africa, but surely this Bill is not the remedy. Let us be patient. Let us deal with these matters upon their merits, and let us imbue the people with the sense that the law shall prevail. But what example shall we be giving to the natives and coloured people of this country when they see the Government and the Parliament of this country themselves trampling on justice and departing from fixed principles of law and order and security such as existed here before. I think we are making a very grave mistake, and that we shall regret it. This Bill will be a blot on the statute book, whether it will be put into force or not. I suppose it will only be put into force under the most exceptional circumstances, but even if the Minister were to give us the assurance that these powers will only be exercised under the most exceptional circumstances, I say that these powers should not be taken. We have warned the Government on previous occasions. Some years ago they introduced what was tailed the Colour bar Bill, and we warned them that there was much more harm in that sort of legislation than in the lack of such protection of the white workers of this country. It has now been on the statute book for some years, and I suppose the Government have convinced themselves that it was an impolitic measure. No regulations have been framed under it, and it has no working force now. But the harm has been done. The psychology of that disastrous Act survived; although the Act itself has not been applied, the spirit in which it was framed has survived, and has produced, and will produce, an untold crop of mischief in this country between the races. Here we have another Bill which may not be applied—or may be applied only in the most isolated cases. But here is the Bill. The harm that will be done is out of all proportion to the good which the Minister may intend. I can only say this: I regret this step has been taken. The Minister’s predecessor also gave this matter his serious consideration. He preferred to follow quite a different course. A genuine attempt was made, and can again be made, to frame a law of sedition which can be submitted to the law courts, which will be effective in preventing the evils which we want to do away with, without this extreme measure which the Minister has proposed. The Minister is short circuiting the process of justice. The law courts are too cumbrous; the application of the law will be too difficult a procedure. He sees too many difficulties on that path, and makes a short cut to his objective. Well, that short cut—as short cuts aften prove—may be a disastrous one. Far better for him to stick to the law with its rights and duties impartially administered by the law courts. I, from this side of the House, can only express our strong conviction that this Bill is of vital and far-reaching effect, and it should not be passed without this solemn protest from this side of the House. I move, as an amendment—

seconded the amendment. !

I am very glad that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has now expressed himself clearly on this Bill. It is undoubtedly a very important measure, and a very serious effort is being made to supply a need in the country. I may be wrung, but I believe that this is the first positive utterance of the hon. member on the Bill.

No, I said the same thing on the second reading.

However that may be, I think that it is a very good and sound thing for us here, even if it is for the second or third time openly and frankly to learn the feeling of the Opposition, and the feeling of the Government. It is sound because in that way we Know how far we are faced by two opposing views, and which come into conflict in the House; we shall, in this way, get a proper solution of the dispute which is being thought out here. Bet me first of all again point to me circumstances which make it necessary to pass this Bill into law. In my opinion there cannot be the least doubt that at least 80 per cent, of the white population of the Union feel that it is necessary for a measure of this kind to be put on the statute book of the country, and I would be prepared, if this Bill is rejected, to go to the country, and test the feeling of the country. My friend seems entirely to forget that as a fact during the past three or four years meeting after meeting has been held in the country urging the Government to pass remedial legislation to supply the defects in the existing laws, in order to deal with mischief makers who are engaged in setting fire to the country. For the last few years I have hardly been to a single place without being urged by the public that the Government should take the necessary steps, or, if it cannot do so, that the necessary legislation should be passed. I am prepared, if the Bill is rejected, to go to the country on it. I only mention this here because I want to bring it home to hon. members that we shall not be doing our duty to the people if we do not pass this measure. We are not here to express philosophical views on ethics, or on justice. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) stated here, “we are trampling on justice.”

The system of justice.

Very well. Let me tell him that he is wrong. I suppose he means that it is a departure from the existing laws of the land. I will show him how wrong he is, but then I must first revert to the need that is felt, and to what the people want. We are not here to play the professor, and to decide what ethics or justice in the abstract sense demand, but we are here to ascertain what the circumstances of the country demand, and I have never yet understood anything else from legislators than that what is just is what is required by the necessities of the country, and the needs for the proper existence of the inhabitants of the country. Show me any rule of justice, or of whatever you like, which lays down that the people are not entitled to provide for its self-defence. Show me one. The basis of all right and justice is the right of self-defence, and I say, even of ethical propositions. The question is what is necessary for the existence of mankind. Here we have to do with a community that are in a very special position on account of the circumstances by which they are surrounded. Here we are a small handful of not even 2,000,000 whites; everywhere they are surrounded and penetrated by millions of natives, of whom 98 per cent, are still barbarians or semi-barbarians. The 2,000,000 whites were here, or rather their ancestors took possession of the country without any of the existing native tribes of to-day being able to claim the largest part of what the Europeans possess. The European came here, worked and made a living for himself after years of struggling, and he was even in the position of being of great importance to the natives, in assisting the natives in their progress. The European saved the native from himself, from destruction. What the European was to the native is too often forgotten when we come to these matters. Whatever the European has done for the native in the past, I now want to ask what will become of the native if the European were to leave South Africa tomorrow? And there cannot be the least doubt that what is going on to-day is that a number of the greatest mischief-makers which have ever yet—I would almost say cursed—God’s earth, are living in our midst in South Africa to-day as they live in other countries, and they are engaged in ruining the white men here, as they themselves openly state. By stirring up the natives they want to ruin the Europeans. These are not little things that we have invented, or that exist in our imagination, but facts, and, as practical men, we ought to look the facts in the face. Is my hon. friend prepared to allow these criminals to effect their purpose, and to stir up millions of natives, and intentionally poison their minds as they are engaged in doing?

Put them in gaol.

Exactly, put them in gaol, and we cannot get them into gaol, because the law is not what it ought to be. Now my hon. friend says that it is trampling on justice. Yes, hon. members opposite cannot get away from it, but I repeat that I am ready to challenge them to go to the country any day and to let the country decide. I know what the answer of the country will be. But to come back to the incitement, are we going to permit it? Always during the debates on this Bill—I do not know whether it is intentional, but it is done so often that in spite of the denial I cannot do otherwise than think that it was intentional—this Bill has been represented as if it was meant to apply expressly to the natives.

Is it not?

Precisely, that is what hon. members say, but then I ask my hon. friends to put forward their proposals. However much they want to represent it as an oppressive measure against the natives, the greatest offenders against whom the Bill is directed are not natives, but those miserable Europeans who are so far separated from anything that can be called white that they do not mind, if necessary, to throw South Africa into a blood bath, and to let the Europeans go under if they can achieve their purpose. Everyone knows that under the existing law the necessary steps cannot be taken to stop this evil. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) admitted that here, and if I mistake not the hon. member for Standerton admitted it last year, and said that legislation should be introduced. The hon. member for Standerton had the opportunity of doing so. May I ask him why he has not introduced the amendments?

We have had no opportunity,

Do hon. members understand that? The Bill has been debated step by step in this House, and does the hon. member now dare to say that they have not had the opportunity to improve on the Bill? I must say that it makes me feel very much that the Bill is not so bad, but that it cannot be passed according to the view of hon. members opposite, because it was not introduced by them. I have already on former occasions said that as soon as the hon. member for Standerton has no actual good ground for opposition—he will forgive me for saying it— then he resorts to moralizing. As for justice, it is all very nice what the hon. member has said, but when he comes to facts he goes wrong. I just want to refer him a little to his facts. The hon. member takes up the attitude that this Bill completely departs from everything which has hitherto been accepted as the basis of our legislation, and justice. The hon. member said that it was a complete departure from the law of our country, but I want to ask him whether he was really serious when he said that. According to him this Bill would conflict with our previous legislation in South Africa, and which all countries in the world have accepted as the basis of their legislation. Just let us examine our own laws a little. Did our ancestors know, did the legislators before us—I would not even speak of our ancestors—follow any other law than what is being laid down here? I ask the hon. member for Standerton that.

Our legislation is entirely different. The cases are taken to the court.

No, that is not so. Let us see. My hon. friend said that there were four respects in which this Bill differed. The first departure is that meetings can be prohibited. Is there no other legislation under which meetings can be prohibited? Of course there is. Our legislation is full, and has always been full of the right to prohibit meetings which might be dangerous to the country. The second departure, according to the hon. member for Standerton, is the exile, i.e., the removal of an offender, or supposed offender, and to keep him out of a certain part of the country. Is it the first time that we have heard of such a thing?

It is the first time that the Government possesses such a power.

That is not true; the Government in Natal, through the Governor-General, has always had the right, and it happens at last once an month that the right is exercised. And what happens in the Transkei? My hon. friend apparently does not know the law. Let me go further; the next alleged departure is the right of deportation. My hon. friend knows that he is wrong when he says that that is a departure from the existing law. It is, indeed, true that he did it contrary to law in 1913, but does not our law provide for it?

After conviction.

Is this not also to be after conviction? No, on three out of the four points it is clear that we do not in one respect depart here from our existing law, but that what we here propose is in full harmony with it. In what then do we depart from the existing law? It is very plain that we do not depart in any respect. But what we actually do is to create another ground on which those powers can be exercised, on which each of those three things can be done. That ground is mischief making and the stirring up of race against race, and class against class. If the hon. member for Standerton had kept to that and had restricted himself to the consideration whether legislation of this kind ought to be passed, because and by reason of the stirring up and inciting of race against race, then I would have heard him gladly. Then he could have given us his moralizing, because then he would have to base it on hard facts. What justification can there be for allowing the blackguard and criminal to stir up the natives against the Europeans? What justification can there be for them being allowed to stir up Europeans against the natives? We should like to learn from hon. members opposite what reason they can give why such an offender should not be punishable. Is it not a crime of the most serious nature which requires legislation? I say again here where we stand a small European population in the midst of a large barbarian people, so that the white man must necessarily suffer in consequence, but I assure you if there is one thing that I have feared of recent years it has been that we shall have circumstances in South Africa, if we do not take steps to prevent them, by which a state of affairs will come about which will be disastrous to the natives. It is very clear to me that if we do not take wise measures the population will subsequently take matters into their own hands, and we shall have a state of affairs here which will go much further than lynching. Has my hon. friend read what took place at Worcester? Do they know our farming population? I say it does not require twelve more cases like that before we shall have a state of affairs which you will deplore, and we, who are called upon to look after the welfare of the population, are now told by hon. members opposite to do nothing. It is said that we must allow things to develop, but where will that end? We require a feeling of responsibility here, and we are called upon to fulfil a responsible duty. I would rather quit politics tomorrow before I would allow the evil that I see coming to occur. My hon. friends can throw out this Bill, but the moment they do that I am prepared to go to the country with it. The fourth point which the hon. member for Stander on mentioned is that the publication of certain books would be stopped. Now I ask you, this Bill must not be passed because the effect will be that a book of a doubtful nature, and which is condemned because it will make mischief, will not be allowed to be published, and appear in the country! Therefore, in order that a writer, whom I consider is, himself, a kind of criminal, or a person with criminal inclinations to write such a book, in order to give that writer an opportunity of publishing his proposed offence, should be protected, this Bill must not be passed. I put the matter mildly. I say that the offence is intended, and because such an offence cannot be published, why does the hon. member for Standerton not want the Bill to be passed? To put the matter in this way rather than to prevent the publication of such an intended offence, we must allow the whole of South Africa to be set on fire. Is that a policy which ought to be adopted by a sensible person who is called upon to do his duty to the people of South Africa? Is it possible for us to adopt such an attitude? I am very sorry, and I think anyone of us who thinks over these matters cannot but deeply deplore that in connection with a measure of this kind, which has to do with the stirring up of natives against whites, and similarly of Europeans against natives, which is equally applicable to both sections, we are not able, while we all admit that something must be done, even to agree with one another on something to oppose the harm, and to prevent South Africa being made into a hell. I deplore it still more because during the debate here at the former stages things were said which can only be interpreted in one way, and that is that this Bill is intended to oppress the natives. If the white men in South Africa are still to go to the natives to-day and say in connection with a matter of this kind, “take care the white man wants to cut your throat,” well then we must all see where it will lead to, and I feel that we shall deeply deplore it.

I fear that if anything can do more harm to the country than the passing of this Bill it will be a debate such as that on which we have just now entered. What is our position? In the face of this situation and difficulty and even of danger which we all admit exists in this country; a difficulty with possibilities of danger, what is our attitude? What is the attitude of the white population of this country? A confession of weakness. Panic. We say the time has come when you must throw aside all the safeguards of liberty we have had before and which meant so much to us who went before, but means apparently very little to some of us, who throw this aside. Why? Because our very existence is threatened. But by whom? By a few agitators amongst the native people.

Working amongst millions.

And you want to protect these.

I do not want to protect those agitators, but want to protect our own standards of liberty and justice. I want to deal with these people without throwing away all these things which do mean something to the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. M. L. Malan), if he thinks about it. I suppose he thinks there is some value in the security a man has that he will not be made a criminal by the Minister, but by the properly constituted courts of the land. He is prepared to throw that away because a few agitators are at work stirring up the natives. Once you leave the path of law and order, you are on a path which leads you very far and fast. This little Bill dries not take us very far. It will give far more trouble than protection against these agitators. We will have to go very much further than this, if we want to leave the principles of law and order and go to the principles, of arbitrary action. All this talk about justice, law and freedom, the Prime Minister says, are mere pious platitudes when you come face to face with reality. He is going against the whole course of history, and says “self-preservation is what we have to look at,” but is a people ever to preserve itself except by those laws; is a people to save itself by those arbitrary methods and by lynch law? The Prime Minister tells us if this Bill is rejected he will go to the country. Of course if the Prime Minister went to the country and put the people in a panic, as he did at the last election, he would get his way. But why need we consider these things in a panic? Why need we raise a storm? All that we ask is that you deal with this situation along the lines upon which we have hitherto succeeded in dealing with the troubles we have had. We have had troubles in South Africa, and we have declared martial law, but we have never put martial law on the statute book as we are doing now.

Martial law is no law

The hon. member has got to the stage when martial law is law. Martial law is a state of things where an officer of the executive government like the Minister of Justice can, by a stroke of the pen, take an ordinary citizen by the neck, pull him away from where he lives, and confine him to some other place. This will apply to Europeans.

Apparently the principle is all right for the black, but not for the white.

Your objection is that this applies to Europeans.

That is my main objection. I do not think that the white people of this country need be put under a state of government such as the natives are under their chiefs. I do not think that we should he ordered to go back to our kraals. I am not yet prepared to accept the Minister of Justice as the supreme chief of South Africa, and to be ordered about by him in this way. But I do not like this talk about the native population of South Africa being a menace, as if we were living in daily fear of the natives who are around us. The white man since he came into South Africa has established and maintained his supremacy and sovereignty among the barbarous people around him partly by force but in the main by his superior civilization, and by the confidence that he inspired in them that, under him, they would get justice, and that they would be allowed to rise in civilization. Now when they begin to come within the pale of civilization, we are told that they are a menace. I say it is a pitiable confession of weakness on the part of the white people of this country. Fear begets the very thing that it tries to get away from, fear begets the very evil that it flees from. For the Parliament of South Africa to say that we stand so much in terror of the native menace that we are going back to the arbitrary rule of force, is, I say, a misfortune. My chief criticism of this Bill is that it is going to embitter feelings in this country, and that it is going, to a large extent, to accentuate the very evils it is trying to deal with. It is not going to be a rock of salvation for us. I say we ought to think twice or three times before we depart from the principles of justice and law, the principles that ensure that, if a man does wrong, he is going to have an opportunity of defending himself, and he is going to be brought before some judge who will hear both sides, and not merely the police side. We should think twice or three times before we depart from those principles. It may seem a little thing that we are merely giving the Minister the power to take a man from his dwelling place and order him to live somewhere else without any chance of hearing what the charge against him is, or of securing a trial before a properly constituted tribunal; but it opens the door to departure from the principles of law and justice, and once we open that door, we shall never know where we are going.

There are a few points I would like to deal with in connection with this Bill. In the first place the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), when I interjected and asked him if his objection to this Bill was because it applied to Europeans, said it was his main objection. That disposes of the principle which the hon. member has so strenuously pleaded. It also disposes of the argument put forward by the other side of the House that this Bill is one of repression of natives. I think it is necessary to draw the attention of the House to what the powers of the Governor-General and of the Minister are under the Native Administration Act of 1927. I may say that in Natal the Governor-General—and formerly the Governor of Natal—as supreme chief, has supreme power without any process of law, merely by his order to remove a native from one part of the country to another. He still has that power, and as the Prime Minister has stated it is exercised very frequently. Under the Native Administration Act of 1927 we have in section 5—

So that a native under the Native Administration Act of 1927, if he disobeys an order of the Governor-General is liable to be found guilty by the court and sentenced to imprisonment. What is the difference between that and what is proposed in this Bill? If you look at sub-section 12 of section 1 of the Bill—

and sub-section 14 provides—

I take strong exception to what the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has said. His remarks must lead people to think that the Minister by his order makes a man a criminal. That is not the case. The man is brought before the court, and if he disobeys the order of the Minister, that is the offence for which he is punished.

Is he brought before the court?

Of course he is brought before the court. It is not the order of the Minister which makes the man a criminal, but the decision of the court. Hon. members are much concerned in regard to the people who will fall under the provisions of this Bill. They have apparently no regard for the bulk of native people who will be the chief sufferers. They forget that it is the Government who are responsible for maintaining good order, and the welfare of the native. Where natives have had a say, in the Transkei and territories, they themselves have asked that steps should be taken to deal with this position. It will be interesting to the House to learn what they think of this kind of thing. In the discussions which took place in the Bunga last year, one counsellor said—

Another counsellor said—

You may go through all these discussions and see that the natives take a sane reasonable view in regard to these matters. They realize what the consequences will be if these people are allowed a free hand to say things calculated to bring about trouble. They realize it will bring trouble on themselves.

You told them you had the power under the law to deal with these men.

Yes, we have the power under the Native Administration Act. But if we are dealing with men like Bunting—white men—there is at present no provision. The only difference so far as this law is concerned and the power given under the Native Administration Act is that by this Bill we should also be able to deal with Europeans. Under this Bill the man being charged has more rights. Under subsection 13—

Do you agree with that?

Yes, I agree with that entirely and for that reason I support this Bill.

Will you explain why?

Yes, I will. Unless the people who sow dissension between Europeans and natives in South Africa are dealt with, the time will come when there will be no question of our rights and liberties at all. We are now not only dealing with our own rights and liberties, but with those of the natives, and we must protect the native also against this kind of agitation. I want to say this, that these fundamental principles and the rights and liberties which are spoken of by hon. members, remind me of the story of the surveyor sent to survey certain land. It is a story frequently told and I expect hon. members have heard it. When he came to the farmhouse, the owner of the land protested against his doing the work he wanted to do. The surveyor produced a number of papers and said: “These authorize me to do what is necessary so far as surveying is concerned.” The farmer let him go. After a time he saw the man rushing along with an ostrich chasing him. The man shouted for protection and the farmer told him to show the ostrich his papers. That is the same kind of thing that is taking place here. It is no use talking about fundamental principles and the protection of our own rights and liberties, when we allow things to go on which we know are calculated to undermine the whole foundation of these fundamental principles and those rights and liberties. I do say this, that unless power of this kind is given to the Government in the times that we are living in it will be very difficult to deal adequately with the position which threatens in the future. I do not think it is right for the hon. member for Yeoville, or for any other hon. member, to say that we are doing this at the dictation of fear. It is nothing of the kind. It is the dictation of commonsense when we say that certain things have to be done and we are prepared to do them and take the responsibility.

I should like to register my protest against this astonishing Bill. I have listened very carefully to the remarks made by the hon. Minister for Native Affairs, and if anyone else understood him, I certainly did not. I do not know what he was talking about. To me the most astonishing thing about the Bill is that it emanates from the party on the other side of the House. The party on the other side is always talking about “love of liberty”, and their idea of liberty is to deny the precious gift to everyone else but themselves. This Bill is the negation of liberty. Under this Bill, leaving aside the native point of view—for apparently he has no point of view at all in this country —under this Bill no white man is safe. Why, the other day the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. M. L. Malan) called me an agitator. [Interruption.] I merely mention this as proving the dangerous course upon which we are embarking. I staled the other day that we were not giving the native a square deal in this country. I am called an agitator. Here are half-a-dozen gentlemen who will vote for the Bill and they are calling me an agitator, merely for having the moral courage to say what I think. Am I, or any other white man who states his views in this country, to be deported under this Bill? At any rate, we are giving the hon. Minister the right to do it if he thinks we are a menace and agitators. While we are legislating apparently for men like Bunting and others, I would point out that this Bill is going to last for all time. Throw your minds forward 20 years when you have a Communist government in charge, or a Labour party government in charge, with all the powers we are handing over to them. If I had been the Minister of Justice last year when the Prime Minister issued his “Black Manifesto” I should have put him under this Bill. Now we are told not to talk about morals and principles. The Prime Minister, the first citizen of the State, spoke contemptuously about morals and principles, he said that we have nothing to do with morals and principles, we are practical men and we have to use brute force. This law is naked force; might is right! If this Bill would do away with the few agitators I have seen, and I have seen very little of them, I might vote for it, but how is this Bill going to suppress agitation? All these things which are aimed to suppress agitators merely drive them underground, and you will increase the very evil you are trying to destroy. Do you think that you are going to catch the agitators under this Bill? I say that you will drive them underground and they will plot behind your backs. I said the other night, that if you give an agitator a legitimate grievance he is twice armed. I think that by passing laws of this kind, you are merely feeding the flame. What will be the result on the native mind? In the old days in this country, we taught the native that politically, socially and intellectually, he was our inferior, but we meant well by him. To-day we are telling the native that he is an enemy and a menace to the white man. You do not want him, and you are introducing a regime of brute force. The hon. member for Heilbron grunts. But I say that I look with apprehension upon the future of this country. I ask myself what sort of a country this will be for our children and our children’s children when, in years to come— there are 7,000,000 natives and 2,000,000 whites —seven out of nine citizens in this country are desperate and disgruntled. That is the sort of country we are building up here. We are creating rebels, men who must be sullen and resentful and who will hate the white man. The Prime Minister said, “Do not talk to me about morals and sentiment.” I will quote to the House what the Prime Minister said on an almost identical question in 1914 when it was necessary to deport certain people. I will read what the Prime Minister said upon the subject of debarring citizens from the law courts and doing away with the rights and protection of the law courts and of the laws of this country and doing away with the liberties of the people. Principles and justice are eternal.

Theirs are infernal.

The principles of justice cannot be varied from year to year. We are building up a day of wrath and we are teaching the natives that we are no longer their friend’s but their gaolers and oppressors. The whole atmosphere has been ruined during the last few years owing to the attitude of the Government. I am not a mawkish Exeter Hall sentimentalist with regard to the native, for I belong to the old school. [A laugh.] “The hoarse laugh that marks the vacant mind” comes from the hon. member for Heilbron. In the old days the burghers left their farms in charge of the natives, knowing that their wives and families were safe, because there was a feeling of friendship between Europeans and natives, but to-day that feeling has gone. That change has been brought about by the type of speech which the Prime Minister delivered to-night telling the country not to prate to him about principles and morality; he sneered at our talking about morality and principles; he said there was only one law, the law of self-preservation. But the native, too, has his law of self-preservation. I want to come back to the Prime Minister’s own words uttered on a similar occasion in 1914 when the then Government suspended the law for a purely temporary period. If those were the Prime Minister’s views then, what has happened since to make him alter them? In the debate on the deportations the Prime Minister said “he had been brought up with high ideals of justice.” He told us this evening that he believed in brute force and in being a practical man. It any rate, that is the impression he gave us. I am glad to see that hon. members opposite are beginning to be ashamed of their leader’s opinion and that they have the grace to try and draw a veil over his utterance. The Prime Minister has a dual personality—one of good and one of evil. But at times his better self supervenes. Let me show how, on occasions, he rises to greater heights than he did this evening. In the speech to which I refer he said: “It was not pleasant to find that Government was forbidding access to the courts of justice and he could not but express his astonishment at the then Minister of Mines speaking of the Bill as if it would bring the whole communist movement to an end.” The then Minister of Mines had apparently stated that the deportation of the communists would bring the movement to an end, and the present Prime Minister proceeded: “If the Minister knew so little of what had happened and so little of the effect of violent measures, could he quote a case where communism had been suppressed by these means. Not in the history of mankind has a movement of this sort been suppressed by unjust methods.” I wish the Prime Minister would be more logical and consistent in his utterances. He went on to say “history was full of these cases which South Africa would have to learn—that violence succeeded in suppressing any movement with conviction behind it.” I hold no brief for communism but I agree with every word the Prime Minister then said.

What are you to do then?

Take the offenders to the law courts. Martial law is the abrogation of all law, and here we are permanently placing on the statute book a law giving the Minister the right of deportation. I am going about with a ban on my head as an agitator. We have a proud history and have fought for liberty. Our forefathers, Dutch and English, are the greatest protagonists of liberty ever seen, but they would be ashamed of their descendants of they saw this Bill. I will quote the Prime Minister still further. He said, “South Africa would have to learn this lesson that you cannot suppress this sort of thing by injustice.” I fear South Africa will learn a very bitter lesson in the future. The Prime Minister also said that those who appealed to the sword would perish by the sword. I ask again what must people think when they realize that their appeal to their last refuge, to the courts, has been denied them? The Prime Minister also said—

I say to-night the Minister has been blowing up the fire and not extinguishing it. This Bill I submit will not extinguish it, I honestly believe a Bill of this sort will do an enormous amount of harm and more harm than any of the oppressive and suppressive Bills the Nationalists have passed. It will achieve no good, and it will leave a feeling of bitterness and unrest, not only amongst the natives, but amongst a large section of white men, who, however wrong they may be, hold their views with conviction. It has been one of the great qualities of white civilization that, however much you may disagree with a man, let him have fair play and have his say. We have disagreed on both sides of the Mouse, but we have not sought to deport people, and deny them access to the courts because we disagree with them. Do you want to make that sort of thing permanent? This law will be one of the worst blots on our statute book. The white man has been fair-minded and tolerant to those who disagree with him. I disagree profoundly with the views of Mr. Ballinger, but I have always found him a sincere and honest man in every word he says. Have I the right to deport him and suppress him because of that?

made an interjection.

The hon. member who has just spoken is a perfectly honest bigot, and would burn at the stake if necessary for his convictions. He would have adorned the Spanish inquisition. I am not opposed to a man coming before a court and being convicted, I do not say there should be no means of curtailing a man’s activities, but the law courts are the foundation of our libertes. We are now abrogating the law courts, and in such wide terms that no man will be safe. We are living in a time of comparative political calm, but we know how combustible mankind is. If we had such a law in 1914 or 1922 when men’s minds were excited—

You imposed martial law.

Yes, but we had to come to Parliament, and we did not make martial law permanent. There are times of crisis when you must abrogate the laws temporarily, but no hon. member will tell me that we are in a time when there must be a permanent abrogation of the law. If a crisis comes along, as in 1914 or 1922, when men are apt to think abnormally, as in times of war and sometimes in times of peace, temporary measures may be taken. We find this Bill is meant for a few agitators. Let us consider what might happen. Men are apt to go to excess in times of stress and public agitation. What might happen to anyone of us in a time of public heat and agitation? Anyone may say wild things and do unreasonable and foolish things. I personally have done things in the heat of action which I would not do in my calmer moments, and I see hon. members opposite who have done foolish things. I am not saying it is anything to be ashamed of. But what would happen to us, if a Minister were in charge who also lost his head? He is given the power to do the most extraordinary things under this Bill which probably he would not do in his calmer moments. It would be a blot on the statute book of this country and on the good reputation of South Africa if we pass this.

Because I belong to no party and am not therefore obliged to do what I am told in the caucus I should like, in a few words, to express my convictions with regard to this Bill. The convictions may, of course, be quite wrong, but they will be honest. When one reads some of the newspapers in the country, and hears some of the speeches one would almost say that the Minister of Justice was a tyrant to introduce such a Bill. If we examine the Bill carefully, at least that is my view, it appears that the Minister of Justice is not a tyrant, but a great philanthropist. He shows here that he is one of the greatest statesmen in our country, because he has not only exhibited a mind as clear as crystal, but a great philanthropic heart. This will possibly appear strange, but I will prove it. The old Hebrews used to say that a tree would be known by its fruit, and the English say, “the proof of the pudding is in the eating,” and if the question is asked what the effect of the Bill will be then the answer I give myself is that the natives in our country will feel happier than they do to-day. Why? Because those riotous assemblies make the natives feel more unhappy, because at those meetings the natives are told that they are deprived of a great number of privileges that they would otherwise enjoy. At those meetings all are told that they are the oppressed in South Africa, and anyone whether white or black catches hold of a straw in the water like that when he feels that he is being oppressed. If we had had this Bill before then we should not have had a Bulhoek when the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said, “let things develop”, They did develop in such a way that it left a stain of blood on his earner. I want to mention what I heard myself in Cape Town. Some days when I go to my patients I pass the parade, and see large meetings there, and as I hear natives speaking there who are very earnest and eloquent I stand to listen. I can see the unhappiness, the most terrible things which are reflected on the faces of the audience, are said in connection with the Europeans. I heard the speaker saying how the natives were oppressed. Only the day before yesterday I went along there and I heard the natives say when a motor-car was passing, “do you see that motorcar, do you see that European in it, do you see him in his tailored suit [on a portion of his anatomy which I shall net mention], do you see that we cannot do it?” What was the result? A groan of bitterness went up. He did not tell them that the native himself had the opportunity of possessing such a tailored suit, and of driving in a Cadillac. He did not tell them about the laziness of the natives, he only said that they were being oppressed by the Europeans and that was why they did not have all the privileges. My father employed many natives, and I remember how they sat at night round a big fire. It was a large fireplace eighteen feet long because it was built in the old slave days. They sat there in the evening and ate their food, and the workpeople chatted, and the children were busy roasting little things in the fire. It was so companionable that as a child I more than once went among the children to be near the fire, and more than once I came away from there with lice in my head. Those natives remained in my father’s service to a ripe old age. Then came the second war of independence, and the policy which was followed after it when the natives were told that the farmers wanted to make slaves of them. From that day I noticed dissatisfaction and unhappiness amongst the workers. One after the other left my father’s employ all with nice groups of stock, but shortly afterwards they had nothing left and they died in poverty and misery.

Must we go back to the slave days?

You are the last man to talk. You assisted in putting me and others into gaol under a law like that. I think of the proverb that prevention is better than cure. If I have patients whom I cannot cure then I often think of the Chinese doctor, they are not called in while a Chinaman is sick, but while he is in good health, so that he can give prescriptions to prevent the man getting sick. The Minister of Justice is an excellent Chinese doctor. He wants to prevent misery in the country; he wants to prevent a second Bulhoek, and he wants the country to develop on sound and happy lines as it developed under our ancestors.

My friend the hon. member for Namaqualand (Dr. Steenkamp), because he has listened to some speeches which he thinks should be suppressed—and possibly they should be—therefore comes to the conclusion that it is time for this Parliament to pass a Bill which will apply to all the citizens, and a Bill which will take away the rights of citizenship and the force of law. I think he is very illogical. I feel that this Bill should not go through without some final protest, and it seems to me that time is playing very strange pranks with this Parliament and with this country. I listened to the quotations given by the hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitzl from speeches delivered by the hon. the Prime Minister in this House in 1914, when he protested in most eloquent language against legislation by no means as drastic as the Bill which is at present before us, legislation introduced at the time by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), and when he said that no movement which has conviction behind it can possibly be suppressed by measures such as this. I would not like to apply the test of the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech to the republican movement. To-night it is the right hon. member for Standerton who rises to protest against the usurpation of the functions of the courts by a Minister, and against power being given to a, Minister to act arbitrarily and capriciously, and perhaps one feels that the objection of the right hon. member for Standerton deserves to be listened to a much greater extent than objections which come from these benches, because one feels that probably the right hon. member in objecting to this measure is speaking as a protagonist of right and of justice to-night because of his own experience when he found that legislation which he was responsible for was not effective, and did not bring about anything in the nature of peace and happiness in this country. The Minister of Justice will also find that the powers he desires to take to-night, and the exercise of those powers, will never solve problems such as we are confronted with, but on the contrary will create and intensify bitterness. If he is afraid of agitators, let me remind him that the whole history of mankind proves that the powers which the Minister desires to take will not do away with agitators, but will drive them underground and make them subterranean and more dangerous. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) who has introduced and exercised powers under martial law, has referred to this Bill; he thinks that the Bill seeks to make martial law the permanent law of South Africa. Anyone with any regard for our judiciary should oppose any attempt to make martial law the permanent law of the country. As far as the reasons for the Bill are concerned, I am at a loss to know what the reasons are. The Government has spoken tonight with two voices. The Prime Minister made an energetic, almost excited speech, in favour of the Bill, and what was the gist of his argument? He said, “we must pass this Bill for the preservation of the white races of this country.” A few minutes later, the Minister of Native Affairs spoke and he did not speak of the preservation of the white races of South Africa, his view was the very antithesis of that of the Prime Minister. The Minister of Native Affairs said we want the Bill in the interests of the natives, not for the preservation of the whites. He said there is already on the statute book a law which gives to the Governor-General the power of a supreme chief. Under the old law of Tshaka and others, the native chief had the right to deport natives from place to place. The Minister of Native Affairs says it is only right that the white people of the country should be placed in the same position as that, and the new supreme chief will be Pirow Tshaka, and he says why should not the white man be subject to the same disabilities as the native? The Minister of Native Affairs speaks as a negrophilist in connection with this Bill and he flatly accuses those in Opposition of being negrophobes.

You did not follow the Prime Minister correctly.

I want to know in the light of the speech of the Minister of Native Affairs, whether 80 per cent, of the white people would support the Bill if they knew the object of the Bill is to place the white man under subjection as the native is at the present time. If you went to the constituencies of this country and told them as the Minister did in his negrophilist speech that this Bill is designed to bring white men under subjection, would you get 80 per cent, of the votes? I want to know whether hon. members are in favour of the views of the Minister for Native Affairs, or the views of the Prime Minister in connection with this Bill. I go further. If the people of this country knew the implications of this law; that they will be subject to the Minister of Justice who will be able at his pleasure to deport them from place to place—

They will behave themselves.

Does he mean the Afrikaans-speaking people of this country will have to behave themselves because they are afraid of what the Minister will do to them?

What do you know about them?

I go further. The Prime Minister told us that this Bill will only be exercised against white people. Very well, what class of white people? Who is going to be the judge as to what constitutes good behaviour’ Will it be exercised against white people who preach the colour bar—against those who preach a white South Africa? We are entitled to know. If Afrikaans-speaking people preach a colour bar are they to be deported without trial? Will you tell the country that? I do not think you will get 80 per cent, of the people of this country to support a measure which places them under such subjection. This Bill has graver dangers for the Afrikaans-speaking people of this country than for any other section of the community. Poverty and unemployment is increasing and the majority of the sufferers are Afrikaans-speaking people. These unemployed starving people may be divided into two categories, those who think the solution to their problem of poverty and unemployment is the colour bar; the replacement of native by white labour. And the other section, a small, but growing one, 90 per cent, of whom are Afrikaans-speaking, whose secretary sent an appeal to the Soviet Government because they say the Union Government refuses them assistance. I think the hon. Minister of Justice has very great contempt for the intelligence of his own people. I have greater respect for the intelligence of the Afrikander people than my friend over there and his supporters have. There are those two sections and I venture to say that, as time goes on, it will mean that the members of the race of Afrikaans-speaking people will be much more subject to and in danger of the operation of this law, than any other section of the population of this country. Therefore, I submit to the hon. Minister and to this House that the most effective method of dealing with the trouble, of dealing with the complaints and grievances that we are speaking of, is to investigate and redress those grievances, instead of attempting to suppress them. It is those grievances which make the fertile plain upon which agitators grow. Therefore, the most effective way is not to introduce legislation of this kind, but to remove the causes and the opportunities of agitation. By doing that, you will be doing good for the well being, the contentment and the happiness of the people in South Africa. This Bill indicates the growing evil which we are being subjected to in this country and in other parts of the world Unfortunately, it is an evil which is exemplified by a continual reduction of the rights of the people, a continual minimizing of the rights of Parliament and of the functions of the judiciary. The powers of Parliament are being encroached upon and the functions of the judiciary are being usurped by legislation such as we have at the present time. In the olden days, if an autocrat wanted to usurp the rights of Parliament, he adopted the means of force. To-day we are in a position that it is possible with docile majorities to apply them to Parliament which means the filching of the rights of Parliament and the substitution of the power of legislation by the administration. Having got Parliament to that docile stage Ministers and Governments come along and say that having taken away the powers and rights of Parliaments, we want the right and power to usurp the rights and functions of the judiciary.” I submit for the House that if such powers are given to the Minister and he should exercise them unchecked as he would be able to exercise them unchecked it naturally follows that he will exercise them to the disadvantage and the harm of all sections of the community. So I submit for that reason that this Parliament should not pass a Bill of this kind. But we are told that after all the Minister will really not use this Bill except on rare occasions here and there. Let me say this that in my opinion that argument is a more dangerous one than the statement that we are going to exercise those rights, because by that argument or unduly exercising the powers of a Bill of this you are incurring greater danger than by the regular exercise of them because people will become less vigilant and their rights will be more and more filched away from them. In the interests of Parliament and of the Afrikaans-speaking people in this country I submit that this Parliament should refuse to pass this Bill and so save Parliament and the country from placing a blot upon the statute book of this country.

I have a difficult and unpleasant task before me to-night. The task of speaking in opposition to my friends and my leader who regard the Bill from a different angle. I think I have never known a Bill passed in Parliament on which we have had such convincing and sincere opposite expressions of opinion. In expressing the opinion I wish to express to-night I am doing so because it is my deep conviction that in supporting this Bill, I am acting in the best interests of the country and carrying out a mandate placed upon me by the people I represent. Various points of view have been expressed during this debate. They arise very largely from the difference of our experience and the different attitudes that we assume towards native affairs in general. We have, on the one hand, the lawyer attitude which sees everything through the courts of law in connection with our conduct of native affairs; and, on the other hand, we have the administrative view which realizes that the good government of the natives can be carried out only by administrative methods. But there is common cause amongst all parties that the situation is serious and something must be done to put it right. There is no doubt about the fact. To take one instance alone. A little while ago a riot occurred in Durban, and I have here the report of a commission which investigated that riot. The sum total of what occurred there is shown in this small paragraph—

The commission goes on to state the cause of the riot as follows—

The commission goes on to state what I think is perfectly true, that probably nothing would have happened had the European mob not got out of hand—

This is the regrettable effect of all the seditious agitation which we have permitted under the rule of law. It is necessary that something should be done. Opponents of the measure say that in adopting it we are selling our birthright, and that we are establishing a new precedent entirely opposed to all the principles of British justice. The impression has been created that this Bill is introduced for the purpose of suppressing the natives. I do not believe that. As a representative of that part of the country where so much trouble has occurred, I shall endeavour to refute some of the arguments which have been advanced against the Bill. It has been said widely thoughout the press, particularly in the Cape, that the Bill aims at the suppression of the natives and has been conceived in panic and is oppressive in its very characteristic. There are, no doubt, to-day many natives who believe that the Bill is aimed against them, that it is a tyrannous abuse of the power of the European in Parliament. I am afraid an utterly false impression has been created in the mind of the native. I do not think this Bill is in any way aimed against the native, any more than a policeman on his beat is a menace to the sleeping householder. On the contrary, I consider the measure is one for the protection of the law-abiding native. It is a weapon to be used entirely against the Europeans who are stirring up trouble amongst the natives. The arguments against the measure are all based upon the assumption that there is one general system of law in South Africa. But there is not only one law in this country; there are two laws. The lawyers are concerned only with the European system of law which has been operating in Great Britain and Holland for centuries. But there is another separate and entirely distinct law in operation; that is native law. One law is the statute law and common law of our ancestors developed by us; and the other is something entirely opposed to it. Our European law divides the legislative and executive power from the judiciary, and our laws are administered by the courts. When the opponents of this measure criticize it, they have in mind only the principles of our European law, when there is complete separation of the judiciary from the executive. They forget, however, that five-eights of our population are ruled directly by native law. We can here form no comparison whatever with other countries, for we are almost unique in the world. Administratively, the natives are governed under the powers vested in the supreme chief. There is no definite separation of the functions of the legislature and the executive and the judiciary in the native law. They are all combined in one. The supreme chief has both the power of legislation and of administration and of judgment. If we separated those powers, they would not be understood by the mass of the native people. Let me be more specific and come to the matter which the Minister of Native Affairs dealt with. He stated that by an Act passed in 1927, the House decided to invest the Governor-General with the powers of the supreme chief which formely existed in Natal. The first clause of Act 28 of 1927 states that the Governor-General shall be the supreme chief of the natives in the provinces of Natal, the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, and shall be vested with all such powers and authorities as are at the commencement of the Act vested in him in the province of Natal. As far as three provinces of the Union then are concerned, the Governor-General has complete power.

What about urban areas?

In urban areas too.

Can he deport a native from an urban area without an enquiry?

He can. As set forth in the native code of Natal which was adopted in our Administration Act, as the Minister of Native Affairs pointed out, the supreme chief exercises all political powers in these provinces of the Union.

He could not stop this meeting at Cartwright Flats.

Not because he did not have the power. As a matter of fact the magistrate did stop a meeting there—

Clause 39 of the native code reads—

Section 40 reads—

An absolutely despotic power. If the argument is that that despotic power is wrong, that we should abolish all native law and bring the natives under the law of Europeans; that is an entirely different matter; if we smash our native law we smash with it our native administration. And what is going to be the result? A catastrophic future which no-one can bear to view without dismay. Now this despotic power is not confined to the north; it exists also in the Cape—a fact we should particularly notice. In the Cape Act 29 of 1897 is says—

Here then is full administrative power given by the Cape Parliament to the Governor—to the Minister—power which still remains on the statute book. The Act goes on—

That is the despotic power which is possessed to-day by the executive Government in the Cape; and it goes much further, even than the Natal native code. It is provided that any person so arrested and detained may, after three months, but not before, apply to the supreme court of the colony for his release. He has not even got the right to appeal for his release until he has been in prison for three months. That is the despotic power held by the executive in regard to the Transkeian territories. It will be perfectly clear from that that there is not one single power which the Minister is asking for in the Bill which he does not already possess in regard to the Cape native territories. Not only, as I have said, has the Government full administrative power, but it also has full legislative power. How then does the Cape stand with regard to the “rule of law” when such executive power exists on the Cape statute book? What becomes of all the arguments about the liberty of the subject? Where is there any oppression of the native in this Bill? It must be perfectly apparent to any person who considers this Bill impartially, that it cannot be aimed against the natives, since all the powers necessary to deal with the natives in the most despotic manner are already contained in the statute book Against whom is this Bill aimed? It is obviously aimed aginst two classes of people. It is, in the first instance, aimed against those native agitators who are exempted from native law and who have abused that exemption when addressing meetings. But the power exists in the statute book to unexempt the natives who have been exempted from native law, and a clause in the Native Administration Act of 1927, sub-section 4 of Section 31, provides that letters of exemption may at any time be cancelled by the Governor-General without any reason being assigned. So the executive of the country has power over every native, even though he has been exempted from native law. It would be an easy thing to cancel the letters of exemption of native agitators. The Government does not seek to do that, and I think it would be an unwarranted hardship on the particular natives concerned. It seems to me that it is much more in their interests to merely have a ministerial prohibition with regard to addressing meetings. Once we start to cancel letters of exemption it will be a process difficult to arrest. I therefore think that even for the exempted native this Bill is in his own interest. But there are places in the Cope Province outside the Transkei where the Government cannot operate in that way, because the powers contained in the Administration Act regarding the supreme chief do not apply to certain parts of the Cape. The Native Administration Act did not apply the powers of the supreme chief to the Cape. In the Transkei, however, the powers already existed, and still exist, as I have shown. But in this portion of the Cape, outside the Transkei, there is no such power, so that this Bill is apparently aimed at natives in the Ciskeian Cape and certain other classes. Those other classes are obviously Europeans. We now approach a region where European law ends and native law begins. If native law were suddenly to disappear it would produce a political and social earthquake, the effects of which we could scarcely conceive. Nobody, therefore, would dream of destroying it. I entirely agree with the Minister that it is quite impossible to deal with the border line cases by “rule of law” as though native law did not exist. We have to deal here with that dim border line case, a kind of no-man’s land, where the greatest harm may be done with comparative immunity. Here is a case where if a man is a native he will be summarily dealt with and because he is a European all the involved processes of the law have to be invoked while the harm is going on under our noses. We have heard a good deal about the liberty of speech. But it is not liberty that is here required; it is licence. Licence to trade upon an immunity granted by European law upon the mass of natives subject to native law. There is another factor. All those who have argued that this is a violation of British and Dutch justice have failed to remember that there is not a single governor or administrator throughout the whole of British Colonial Africa who has not that power. Northern Rhodesia, Nyasa land, Tanganyika, Uganda, the Gold Coast and the other west, coast protectorates have power to deport any European from these territories if they feel he is a menace to the public peace. Does any person in this House suppose that any responsible ruler of those countries would permit the seeds of disaffection to be scattered throughout the country while he waited for the courts to decide whether a stray sentence could be interpreted to have a seditious meaning? Europeans can be, and they are, deported. Revolutionary propaganda, published either in book or pamphlet, is also suppressed in these territories. British administrative justice does not only have regard for the feelings and the liberties of the fomentors of discord; it has regard also for the probable consequences upon the ignorant and the innocent natives, who ultimately pay the cost. If there is one single argument that can be used that this Bill contains oppressive measures to be used against the interests of the natives, then this argument would apply a thousand times more strongly to the powers of the Governor-General as supreme chief. The arguments used, if they were logical, ought to be for the abolition altogether of all native laws. Would anyone argue for that, and ask that the system of native administration should be done away with? Does anybody suggest that the powers of the supreme chief are abused? That they are not exercised in the best interests of the natives themselves? The Cape points to the Transkei as a model of what native administration should be. Yet, as I have shown, the Government of the Transkei is completely despotic. There is nothing, therefore, in this Bill which, in my opinion, is contrary to the accepted principles of justice in this country, with a large subject population, and as practised by the British race, not only in Africa, but throughout the world. The trouble is that there are a few European agitators referred to by the Minister. We are to rend our hearts because a chance injustice may be suffered by one of these individuals whom the Minister prohibits from addressing a public meeting. Now it is unnecessary to read any more into this Bill than it actually contains. One would imagine that it herein proposed that the Minister should put into gaol any individual who opens his mouth if the Minister did not like him. What are the facts? Unless the Minister has prohibited a person from talking at a meeting he can make the whole Union ring with the most seditious and revolutionary utterances of which he is capable without it being possible for the Minister to raise his finger against him. All that the Minister can do is to prohibit him from addressing a meeting, or order him to leave the area in which he is creating disaffection, and if he does not comply with the ministerial command, he will be committing a crime upon which he can be convicted in the courts of law. Well, I have no sympathy for the individual who wants to address native gatherings with the object of sowing hostility. Of course, the objection is not against the executive possessing the power. The objection is to the possible abuse of the power by an irresponsible Minister. Well that is a difficulty which I fully realize. But I cannot see how in a country such as South Africa, where the mass of the people are still emerging from barbarism, it is possible to avoid giving executive power to somebody. If it is admitted to be right and expedient to be able to clap a native into gaol in the Transkei if the governor is satisfied that the person is dangerous to the public peace if left at large, then surely it ought to be possible for the governor to prevent a person from addressing a public meeting if his address is likely to be dangerous to the public good. Democracy is at all times completely unfitted to deal with the subject races. The world everywhere is teaching us that lesson. We have ourselves recognized it in maintaining native law and custom. One of the worst features of democracy is its unwillingness to regard even the Minister of the day as being capable of exercizing administrative justice and discretion. We all know that Ministers do abuse power, but we have to take risks. The Minister of Justice may be particularly hard on individuals— he may be hard on me.

You will be quite safe after what you have said.

I am not saying this in order to save myself, but to do my duty; I am very sorry, but it is an unpleasant duty, and it has to be done. As I said on the second reading, I would infinitely prefer to see an injustice done to a few individuals in South Africa than by administrative weakness to allow the whole of the native population to get out of hand as they are doing. I am not one of those who expect to see this Bill achieve wonders. I do not suppose for one moment that the agitation throughout the country will cease with the passing of this Bill, but I do think that it will enable us to cut out a few of the cancerous growths which are eating the heart out of native respect for law and order. And it is because I believe that it will effect some useful purpose that I am voting for the third reading of the Bill. Now I would like to take this opportunity of saying, on behalf of the people I represent in this House, that we are just as keenly desirous of securing the truest welfare of the native people, as any of those who live under the shadow of Table Mountain. We are situated here a thousand miles away from the native reserves. The people I represent spend their lives in the midst of them. The whole of Natal and Zululand is a chequer board of black areas and white areas. Forty-two per cent, of the whole of the land of Natal and Zululand is occupied by natives. Both races desire to pass their lives in harmonious co-operation. It seems to me that under the shadow of Table Mountain the real Africa appears as a dim background, and in the haze of distance the true perspective of our racial contacts, the true realities of the African scene, is a little out of focus. We, who hail from Natal, have been subjected to a considerable amount of criticism because of our support of this Bill. But if any unctuous bayard of the Cape thinks for one moment that he has a finer regard for those sacred principles of liberty than we have, or that he has in him some particular quality which gives a truer appreciation of the virtues of truth and justice and good government of men, then I thoroughly disagree with him. Natal is very proud of its native people, proud of their traditions, and fully conscious of its duty towards them. It is assisting their advance without any degree of self-advertising. The natives of Natal are better fed, better housed and better paid and—if we can believe the testimony of a recent investigator, who, on behalf of the American authorities, recently travelled to South Africa—better educated than the natives elsewhere in the Union.

Then you have nothing to fear.

In supporting this Bill, we are adopting a course which we believe to be in the truest interests of both natives and Europeans; and our support is tempered by the knowledge, gained from a first-hand experience of the problem of administrative control, which is dealt with in the Bill.

I think that it was a great pleasure to-night to us Dutch-speaking Afrikaners to listen to the speech of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls). I want to point out that he, who knows the natives, makes his voice heard, and points out to us that this Bill is not directed only against native inciters but also against European inciters. I am convinced that his speech will bear good fruit in the future of our country. We have also listened to the self-styled apostles of freedom and justice. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) said that he, as one of the great protagonists of freedom and right, had to protest against the line that was being adopted in this Bill. I should like to quote to him what he, as a member of Lord Milner’s Government in the Transvaal, himself did. He, as an able member of that Government, issued the Peace Preservation Ordinance in which the following occurs—

That was an ordinance by the Milner Government in 1903, of which the hon. member for Yeoville was such a brilliant light in those days. But I go further. In 1907 an Immigration Act was passed, and in Section 6 of that Act the following provision occurs—

Yet the hon. member for Yeoville now tells us what sinners we are to pass a Bill which makes provision for the deportation of persons. We are condemned because we want to pass a measure of this kind. I want to put the matter mildly, but to me this is a revelation which I cannot understand. I would like the hon. members for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), Mowbray (Mr. Close) and other hon. members opposite who are such dazzling lights in legislative matters, who are all advocates, to understand what was done in the past because it was considered necessary. Here then we have one of the measures which was passed by one of our so-called great statesmen, and our people are at present following what was done there, but only for those who want to cause enmity between European and native. This Bill is intended for both sections in the country. It applies to Europeans as well as to natives, and those of us who know the natives know that the large majority of them will be thankful to the Government for protecting the population against those who come to agitate amongst the natives. The natives are children, and it is necessary for us to prevent those agitators from inciting them. There is another thing I want to quote, and it is a quotation made by the hon. member for Standerton when he was Minister of Defence. He said—

I will not read further. But we must clearly understand that Cole was deported because he shot a native, although he was acquitted. The view was taken that the incident would stir up the natives. A petition was then sent to the British Prime Minister, it was, inter alia, as follows—

Here we see what the position is. To-night hon. members opposite with pious faces come and dictate to us about what we are proposing to do in the Bill. Their attitude is inexplicable to me. When one has a past then it is very difficult in later years to dictate to other people on such matters. Let us understand each other. On the opposite side as well as on this side of the House there are men who learnt to know the natives in the past. I concur in what the hon. member for Zululand says with reference to the people who live under the shadow of Table Mountain. There are people here who have never yet got into touch with the natives, but yet they condemn those who have devoted their whole life to a study of the natives, and who have done a great deal for them. We, who know the natives, do not want machine guns to be used after the damage is done. We want to prevent things getting to that stage. It is a matter of peace with us. We want to have peace in our country, and, therefore, we want to have the opportunity of deporting those who come from America or England or Russia or anywhere else to stir up our people. If that is done there will be peace in the country. I have already spoken on the Bill on a previous occasion and do not want to do so again, but I appeal to hon. members opposite to understand what the Minister’s object is in introducing this Bill. His object is a noble one because he thinks that the powers he is asking for are the only way of bringing peace into our country, and of preventing conditions happening necessitating our some day shooting the people. We have had experience of that. We know what it is and therefore we ask hon. members opposite to assist in passing this Bill in the interests of peace in South Africa.

The hon. member who has just sat down has informed the House that the object of this Bill is to ensure peace between the black and the white people of this country. Everybody wants peace between the two peoples. The only question is whether we are going to secure it by this sort of legislation, or whether we are going to make the position more difficult than ever. Ministers who have spoken have absolutely ignored the point of view which members on this side of the House have put forward. Two Ministers have spoken as if our object was to let things drift. The natives know that evil results will ensue from the work of native agitators, if these agitators are not dealt with, and yet hon. members on this side are treated as if our object is to let the evil-doer work his wicked will. The Minister of Native Affairs and the Prime Minister have not acknowledged what our argument is throughout. We have admitted that there are agitators; people stirring up strife and brewing mischief, but we do not stop there. We said that the way to deal with these people is not by the method of this Bill. But the Minister of Native Affairs and the Prime Minister have led the country to believe that we are deliberately letting these people go loose about the country to work mischief. If our argument is to be conducted on lines like this, it is almost impossible to arrive at a solution, and it makes things almost intolerable in this House. One of the most interesting things to listen to has been the desperate search to find precedents for these powers; to have people representing those views, holding out that these powers of the Bill are justified because the native chieftains had those powers—Tchaka and M’silikatse; the power of the native chiefs—the power of the despot—the rule of barbarism. The Minister of Native Affairs said that his desire is under the Bill to see natives and Europeans dealt with along lines of equal responsibility. Everyone admits that is right, but we say it is better that you should deal with them alike on the principles of civilized communities rather than on lines of despotism and barbarism. Reference was made to the powers contained in Clause 1 of the Native Administration Act, 1927. They took over one evil and bad precedent in order to make a further precedent which is worse and they quote what was contained in the native administration law as if that were for all time sacrosanct, and that the Government can extend the principle in any way they choose. The hon. Minister for Native Affairs, if he will look at the divisions taken on that particular clause, which he quotes as if we were bound by it, and as if we acquiesced in it, will find, if he will look at the division in the select committee and the divisions in the House, that we on this side of the House, to a great extent voted and spoke strongly against this particular provision, which is now held against us as if we had acquiesced in it. That is an intolerable and unfair argument and one we did not expect from the Minister after the experience you have had of him in other capacities in this House. That is the first precedent created. The next refers to the despotic powers contained in the Cape Acts dealing with the Transkei, wholly ignoring the fact that there we were dealing under the old Cape legislation with the principle of registration by which we were to encourage a gradual change over from the barbaric state to the state of civilization in the Cape Colony which had annexed the native territories. The fruits of that policy by the powers of which the Government of the day were able to effect an enormous change in the state of civilization of the people in the native territory has been testified to by all sorts of able administrators and experienced investigators. They have shown that in the Transkeian territories the results have been simply remarkable based upon that policy. But we have the extraordinary thing that the member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) follows the lines of the Minister of Native Affairs and talks of exceptional legislation which is only intended for dealing with areas in which the great mass of population were barbarous natives, and attempts to justify it by extending the principle containing that legislation to the Bill now before the House. When I listened to the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), I could not help wondering how it was that the grave riots which occurred at Durban could ever have taken place and why they were not prevented by the powers already in existence, powers which are even greater than those contained in the Bill. How is a repetition to be prevented under this measure? The Minister of Native Affairs and the hon. member for Zululand were singularly silent on that very important point. I regret that the hon. member for Zululand marred part of his speech by a reference to what he called the “lawyers’ attitude on this subject”, but I will say that in the fights for liberty which have taken place here and overseas, no body of men have played a greater part in those struggles or have done more to secure those rights and liberties than those whom the hon. member described as “lawyers”. I challenge anyone to go through the history of the struggle for freedom in England, Holland and South Africa and disprove that lawyers played a great and gallant part in those movements which have secured the freedom of the subject which is now the custom of some people, they themselves lawyers, to sneer at. We want a little more in the way of useful argument than sneers at liberty—

You are wrong. They are aimed only at your justice.

The Prime Minister does amaze me. I never thought that my ideas worried him, but what I am concerned about is that we should have heard from the mouth of the Prime Minister sneers at justice, ethics and the principles of liberty. Then we have the hon. member for Zululand claiming that, because five-eighths of South Africa are subject to native law, we should have that law extended to us.

Most of us have been subject to that law. I have been.

The Minister knows perfectly well that the measure he has referred to, the Peace Preservation Act, was purely a temporary measure to deal with exceptional circumstances. I do not care what precedents the Minister may quote; if the precedent is a had one it does not make the case one iota stronger, and we are entitled to object just as much. We have heard the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) speak of the involved principles of law, but that is the law by which hundreds of lives and the liberties of the people have been protected. When he says that democracy is unfit to govern subject races, I challenge that entirely. His only alternative is to resort to autocracy, and that is why he accepts the Bill. To-night we are asked to take a step which may be a fatal step in the history of the country; pray God it may not be a fatal one.

Whether one supports this Rill or not, there can scarcely be anyone in this House who does not view it with at least a good deal of misgiving. After all, the right of free speech and the ultimate protection in the courts of justice which every man has, or ought to have, are things so precious to all of us, that we must all view with concern any measure which tends to restrict the one or to tamper with the other. Some of us apparently are convinced that the situation is so serious that the extreme measures of this Bill are justified. I am not one of those, and perhaps I may be permitted to express the apprehensions which a layman, without a technical knowledge of law feels when he considers the lines upon which the Minister of Justice is proposing to proceed and the dismay with which he views the tendencies of this Bill. We are all agreed that certain measures are necessary. The question is first are such extreme measures justified and, secondly, will they achieve their object? The professed object of the Bill is to prevent the uncivilized native and the uneducated coloured people from being led away by unserupuloys men whether European or non-European. We had a case at Robertson not long ago where a semi-educated native got among the servants of a certain farm. We do not know what he told these poor coloured peasants, but we do know that he made them pay a subscription, and he gave them a button, and he promised them that if they wore that button eventually they would each get a free farm. There, we have a case where it is clearly our duty to protect our people from being led astray to their own undoing. This Bill is intended to deal with the political agitator who endeavours to create discontent among non-Europeans by preaching doctrines which they do not understand and encouraging them to actions the disastrous consequences of which they cannot foresee. It seems to me we are in great danger of becoming obsessed with the word agitator. What is a “political agitator”? He is a man who endeavours to stir people into working for a certain political or economic object. There is always opposition to the agitator, Generally he espouses the cause of the “have nots” against those who have and naturally he meets with opposition and hostility. The history of South Africa and of every country is the history of men who were at first regarded with scorn, and who ended up by being regarded as national Heroes. If an agitator’s cause is unjust the people will eventually realize it, but if his cause is right, he will consolidate opinion in its favour. In dealing with the political agitator we must be very careful how we tamper with the right of every man to speak and work openly for a cause which he honestly believes to be right and just and calculated to benefit the people. This Bill will give one man the sole right to decide whether an agitator is to be allowed to agitate or not. His decision is final, and the grounds upon which that decision is to be made are so vague as to be valueless. We are placing in the hands of one man the right to deprive any citizen of this country of the right of expressing his views in public or of working openly for any measure of reform which he may honestly believe to be necessary; and to deprive him of the protection of the courts of justice if he thinks he has been unjustly treated. That is the method which it is proposed to adopt to deal with the situation. Now what is the situation we have to deal with? It is common cause that the non-European people and more especially those who have come into close contact with European civilization, both in the urban areas and to a certain extent in the native territories of the Cape and Natal, are in a restless state. There is no doubt that the spread of education, the increasing contact with European life, the growing realization of the possibilities of life, are all having a profound effect upon our native people. They are beginning to think, to have ideas and in some cases ambitions and aspirations both cultural and economic. And nothing is more certain than that these ideas and ambitions for cultural and economic development are going to grow. As they grow there will be agitation for the realization of at least some of those ideals. If they are not realized; if deliberate attempts are made to suppress them then grievances will arise. We have heard from the Minister of a revolutionary movement amongst the natives, which aims at upsettting the Government of this country. I accept that. We all accept it, and the whole House is ready to back him up in dealing with it, but I would remind the hon. Minister of the words of Burke who said: “A rebellion arises not from a desire for change but from an inability to suffer more.” I would suggest that even more important than the scotching of a few individual sowers of the seeds of revolution is it to see that the soil upon which those seeds will fall is kept unfavourable to their germination. And I am afraid that this Pill will do more to render that soil favourable for germinating those seeds of the revolutionary than to keep it clean and healthy. I ask the Minister—it is an important question—if the non-European is going to agitate; I think one has to admit that; he will agitate for more and better education. He is going to agitate for an economic wage upon which he can live decently and he is going to ask that in return for the material contribution he makes towards the welfare and progress of South Africa, that he shall be allowed to enjoy at least some of the material benefits of that progress. He is going to combine in trades unions and sooner or later he will demand adequate political representation. I ask the Minister and the Government, under the powers conferred upon them, how will they view agitations, peaceful, constitutional methods of agitation, whether by way of public meetings or the distribution of literature or other of the usual means by which agitations are usually carried on having for their object any of the questions to which I have referred? Does the Minister admit the right of the native to press by any constitutional means for better education or to combine for the purpose of obtaining better wages or better living conditions, or will he regard such agitations as calculated to arouse feelings of hostility between black and white and endeavour to suppress them with the powers which he would have under this Act. Those are questions which are exercising the mind of the intelligent and thinking section of our non-European population to-day. I feel that any attempt to suppress the desire of the non-Europeans for legitimate progress, cultural or economic, will in the long run be fraught with disaster to South Africa and I feel we dare not give arbitrary and unlimited power to the Minister as we are doing in this Bill. Unfortunately, our task is the more delicate by reason of the fact that non-European opinion to-day is puzzled and suspicious as to the intention of the white people. Certain public utterances during the past eighteen months have not been calculated to reassure the non-European that his fears of oppression are groundless. They are puzzled by events which have occurred in different parts of the country. They are alarmed by the Wellington case. I do not refer to the trial or the result of the trial, but to the judge’s remarks in addressing the jury in the second trial, and I do earnestly ask this House to consider the effect of what he said upon the non-European mind. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, his remarks, to the lay mind, can only have one meaning; and it is calculated to increase the nervousness and the apprehension with which the non-European is watching events to-day and it goes to show how easily this restlessness can be created and how very careful we have got to be in considering legislation of this kind. If we pass this Bill, the powers which will be placed in the hands of one man may so easily be abused to the ultimate harm of South Africa: the political influence, to which, under pressure of some passing incident or other, he may be subjected to make him abuse those powers, is so probable that I cannot understand any man asking this House to place them permanently and unrestrictedly in his hands as a weapon, not only of defence, but of offence. We have not only to refrain from suppressing the legitimate progress of the native towards European civilization, but we have got to avoid even the appearance of wishing to do so: it is not enough to have the intention and the desire to do justice to the native, we have to convince the native of our good intention and to satisfy him that our policy in regard to him is dictated by a genuine desire for his welfare and progress in the scale of civilization. I cannot reconcile those sentiments with the Bill as it stands and I ask hon. members how, if they were thinking non-Europeans, they would regard the powers contained in the Bill. Would they not be bound to regard those powers as calculated to be a perpetual menace to the progress of the natives? We are all willing to give the Government power to deal with a problem which all responsible opinion, both European and non-European, is agreed must be dealt with, but in doing so let us not place an Act on the statute book which, I truly believe, will cause a deep feeling of resentment amongst our non-European people, and which will prove a barrier against the development of those harmonious relations between European and non-European which are essential to the welfare of South Africa if we are to continue to govern with the consent of the governed, and which so far from being calculated to protect our native people from the unscrupulous agitator, is the one thing needed to make it quite certain that agitations will increase and become more intense and which will, I believe, do more than any number of agitators could do to promote that very feeling of hostility between black and white, which it professes to aim at preventing. For these reasons I support the motion of my right hon. leader for the discharge of the third reading of this Bill.

I would not have intervened in the debate but for the attitude of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls). I disassociate myself entirely from his attitude, and I can only say that men like Maurice Evans and Shepstone, who knew native tradition in Natal, would turn in their graves if they could have heard the hon. member to-night. They understood the natives, not the theories about natives, and they laid the foundation of native rule in Natal. We have these statements made and persons speaking for provinces, but we doubt whether they are speaking except for a few people, and they are so imbued with fear that they can see only a black cloud descending upon them. The Minister of Native Affairs said that the natives of the Transkei wanted this Bill. I was there the other week, and they thought the Bill was aimed at them. Does that not prove what the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has stated, that, although the Bill may be harmful in itself, it is the psychology it has created which has made it seriously harmful to the natives. The Minister also said that the white people wanted this Bill, but the trade unions in Natal do not want it, which represents a large section of the white people organized. Why then all this loose talk of the natives of the Transkei and the white people wanting it? I want to know where the white agitators are, whom the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) said the Bill was aimed at. Who are these agitators?

Bunting.

Bunting never came to Natal until trouble had started. What was the commencement of the riots in Durban? The boycotting of the Durban beer halls, and the agitators who commenced that were natives, not white men or communists. As the Minister of Justice knows, the police interfered with the pickets, and that was the beginning of the trouble.

I read out to the House the report of the commission, which reported on the riots. Is the statement of the commission false?

It did not say white agitators commenced these riots. For three years meetings were held at Cartwright’s fiats, and were addressed Sunday after Sunday by native speakers. It was these meetings that led to the natives becoming organized. The trade union called the I.C.U. becoming very powerful in Natal. The meetings continued, and they led up ultimately to the riots. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) stated that these people are under native law, and under the supreme chief. Then why, when the magistrate asked the Minister of Justice to help him by stopping the holding of these meetings, were the meetings not stopped? These meetings at Cartwright’s flats could not be stopped because there was no authority to stop them, and yet we are told that this law to which the hon. member referred exists, and that the meetings could have been stopped under its powers. He says the Bill is aimed at the white communist. I say that the white communist does not exist in Natal as a menace. The hon. member for Zululand says that under native law you can prohibit the publication of seditious literature, and yet the hon. member has dramatically waved a pamphlet in this Hiuse this session as an illustration of the publication of this kind of literature emanating from native agitators. Why does not the supreme chief, under the Act he quoted, stop that sort of thing? But then the hon. member on that occasion said the Bill was against native, not white, agitators as he now holds. The truth is that when it suits the hon. member he changes his ground. The people in Natal are not enamoured with this Bill. Enligtened opinion in Durban does not want it. If there are interests behind it forcing certain people to speak in a certain direction, I want to disassociate myself from them and take the consequences. The people of Durban know that unless you are going to deal with the native agitators who have proved themselves irresponsible, then a measure of this kind will not meet the situation. The hon. member for Maritzburg waxed eloquent about the tombstones at Greytown that were knocked down. He said the terrible agitators responsible for this outrage belong to the I.C.U. Surely the supreme chief should have been invoked if his powers are so extensive. The people of Natal want to deal with the native agitator; if you can do it with existing legislation by all means do so, but they do not want a measure of this kind to deal with a few nondescript white agitators.

I must express regret that I cannot support the Minister in the Bill before the House. I regret it all the more because I am entirely with the Minister in trying to prevent the native mind being poisoned by people going about the country. But will this Bill meet the case. I do not think the Minister has made out a very good case for such a departure as is contained in this Bill. I believe the object he had in view is going to be defeated by it. He is creating the very soil in which these revolutionary movements can grow. I do not know whether the Minister has noticed how these communistic movements are growing in Europe. There are repressive measures there. These men are being shot and imprisoned. But in the British Isles, where a man can get up and say anything he likes, the communistic doctrines gain no ground. But repression is the soil in which revolutionary movements grow, and I believe the Minister will create greater difficulties in South Africa than will be created by these revolutionaries. The Minister may arrest Kadalie, but he will scarcely cause a ripple in native opinion because Kadalie is a discredited man amongst the natives to-day; but if there is some trusted leader of the natives who indiscreetly makes a speech and is forbidden to attend a meeting if he should disobey the order and he is arrested, then that will cause trouble. We may arrest Bunting and deport him and 20 Buntings will arise to take his place. Repression is only going to help these movements to grow more rapidly. There is another serious aspect. The time is most inopportune for the introduction of such a measure as this. We have reached a stage in the history of the country when the best brains inside and outside this House are to-day considering the relationship between black and white and trying to adjust that relationship on a satisfactory basis. This is the time when we need not only the influence of the white man and his advice, but when we require most the goodwill of the natives. That is the time the Minister has chosen to introduce such a measure. A more inopportune time he could not have chosen. Every step he has taken will tend to defeat the object he has in view. A good many members of this House do not believe in native trade union organizations, and probably much of the support on the other side is because they see or think that there will be a definite brake put upon native trade union organizations if this Bill is passed. Why should there be? We have for generations been bringing in natives from their tribal areas and making them part and parcel of our industrial system. They have seen that we are endeavouring to bring about feelings of reconciliation between employer and employee. We have Acts on the statute book based on the principle that there should be organizations both of employers and employees. They say that if these laws are based upon collective bargaining, why cannot they organize and try to arrive at some decent form of living in the country. Why should we stop them? This Bill will effectively stop them. I am a trade union leader, and in my own union we have non-European members as black as the ace of spades. If I go to one of our branches, and urge these men to organize themselves and insist that their employers give them such and such conditions, I can be accused by the Minister of stirring up feelings of hostility between Europeans and non-Europeans. If my union asks me to assist in any native trade union in the Cape Province to organize, I shall do so and put myself within the law. Who is to judge what is a feeling of hostility between Europeans and natives? I saw in this evening’s paper a resolution passed by a farmers’ organization urging the prevention by legislation of natives organizing by means of a trade union. If this Bill becomes law those farmers have brought themselves within it. The question bristles with difficulties and it is impossible to carry the law out impartially. We have seen cases where Europeans have taken part in meetings in the Cape and in Durban, and those meetings stir up the natives. The whole thing is bristling with difficulties, and the Minister has set out on a course which I am sure he will regret. The Bill is a very great departure from what we have been accustomed to. The native races have been taught since the white people came into contact with them, that there are courts of law to administer justice, and that if they do wrong they will be punished severely, but that, if they are innocent, they will not be punished. Now the natives are to be told that they can no longer rely on the white man’s justice. The Minister, by the introduction of this Bill, is lighting a tire, the effects of which we shall see for many years to come. I am against the minds of the natives being poisoned, but I am satisfied that the Bill will create greater difficulties than those with which we now have to contend.

I cannot allow the third reading of this Bill to pass without entering a protest against the principle which it embodies. I have moved various amendments to the Bill, but none of them would have reconciled me to the principle of the measure. I proposed my amendments in order to soften the blow which might fall on the victims of the Bill. This is an amazing measure and we have heard many amazing arguments advanced in its support. The first amazing feature is that four lawyers in the Cabinet whose function it is to uphold the rule of law should have conspired together to substitute for the rule of law the rule of despotism. Our courts of law are not powerless. The Minister of Justice said it was impossible to draft an amendment which would give the courts power to deal with the evil he had in mind, but I refuse to accept that. The rule of law has not broken down, and the supporters of the Bill have failed to put before the House the real point at issue. It is not whether agitators should be suppressed, but the means of suppressing them. The case the Minister puts up is that the courts are unable to deal with agitators, but we who oppose the Bill say that if the definition of sedition is amended, the courts will be competent to deal with any agitator who comes into the country. If the position is clearly put to the people in Natal, I am quite convinced that they will accept the position that the best course to adopt is to strengthen the courts and not the administration. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) told the House that democracy had broken down because a gentleman named Bunting, who was charged under a detective statute and was convicted, successfully appealed against that conviction. But it has been shown that the reversal of Bunting’s conviction was due to defective draughtsmanship, and that could have been put right without the smallest difficulty. The hon. member for Zuiulaud urged that the power of the supreme chief should be extended throughout South Africa. Those powers were in force in Natal, but they were powerless to stop the recent disturbances so what is the use of extending them throughout the Union? No one is proposing to break down the administrative system in Natal, and I cannot understand the hon. member’s argument. We have had some extraordinary arguments in the course of this debate. We have had the hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen) arguing in support of the Bill from an ordinance passed under the Milner régime and from a shooting incident which took place in East Africa. To say that the Bill is in the real interests of the natives shows an altruism I had not expected from that quarter of the House. For that the whole of the white population will be subjected to a despotism wholly alien to their nature. The extraordinary argument adopted by the Prime Minister is one put up by every despot, dictator and tyrant in the history of the world. The hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen) said the Bill was in the interest of peace; that is what every dictator says. This Bill is going to set back the clock, and not advance this country. The position now is that descendants of Adam Tas and Pringle, who fought for liberty a century and more ago, are prepared to throw away the liberties fought for by their forefathers in circumstances which are more difficult than to-day. They would have laughed at Worcester, and would not have flown into a panic. In a moment of unjustified panic hon. members over there are throwing away what was gained by the British and the Dutch a century ago. The House should refuse to pass a Bill of this sort.

I have tried to discover the real reason for the introduction of the Bill, and have not yet found it. I wonder if the Minister had a chance of introducing it a year hence whether he would still have the same opinion. I have not seen anything of a grave danger justifying such drastic control. Have we ever traced carefully the cause of the troubles in Durban and Port Elizabeth? The cause of these agitations needs remedying and not the results. Cannot we start propaganda against the agitators? We have good native speakers who could put up a good case against them if our case is a good one. I look upon the natives as children who can be easily guided. They regard this Bill with a sense of injustice, and that is proved by a protest received from the New Brighton natives, who feel that the Bill is aimed at their liberty of speech, aimed at redressing grievances. We have two classes of natives to deal with, men just emerging from barbarism, and in other parts of the country we have men who have been born and bred in our urban areas. The latter class regard this measure as a repressive one, and I make bold to say that this Bill will make for more agitation and of the worst kind, that is, underground agitation. This Bill is conceived in fear of some myth which has never been explained. I had hoped that in the committee stage the clauses defining “sedition” which were put forward from this side of the House would have been accepted. They were very clear, and the last clause was wide enough to cover this mysterious menace of which the Minister is afraid. The Bill, in itself. I do not look upon as being so very dangerous, because I believe it will be carefully applied, though I do not like to give such powers to one man. But the effect created in the minds of the people will be serious. The native regards his right to the courts of the land as a sacred right, and once that is taken away from him, feelings of hostility to the Europeans will be the outcome. The safety of a mere handful of whites among millions of natives does not depend upon force or oppression, but rather on a wise guidance and that sense of justice which has characterized British rule throughout the world.

The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) referred to the unctuous Bayards of the Cape, which sweeping challenge might extend to one whose constituency lies within the shadow of that mountain shrouded in the mists he referred to. We may have our faults, but if there is one thing of which we can be proud, in connection with the administration of native affairs in the old Cape Colony, it is that we were able to govern the natives without recourse to the violent methods which at times past have appeared to characterize in part the administration in Natal of native affairs. What happened in the old Cape Colony seems to me a matter of some importance to-night, because so far as the Cape Province is concerned, this Bill asks as to take a step of profound importance, and to depart from the policy of the rule of law which has characterized the whole of our administration ever since it was worthy of that name. I think it might be of advantage if I went back to a time when the Cape Colony was faced with something in the nature of a panic similar to that apparent on the other side to-night, and when those responsible for the Government had to make a choice between the rule of law and the rule of the bayonet and the bullet, as the alternative may be called. This instance I refer to occurred about 1875-’17. The circumstances seem to be worthy of reference, because they may serve to indicate how the foundations of the old Cape policy were laid. About 1875-’77 the annexation of East Griqualand took place I do not think there was any actual lighting then, although some fighting took place very shortly afterwards. The Government found that there were certain persons, and one person in particular called Kok, who were threatening to interfere with the peace and good government of that part or the country. Kok was what the Minister would call an agitator, and they proceeded to arrest him without warrant. The Government justified this act in court and I suppose in Parliament by suggesting that if this man were allowed to be at large he would be a danger to the peace and good government of the country. The matter came before the courts of law, and it gives me an opportunity to endorse what has been said by the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close), that if we have had peace in our administration of native affairs, it is due very largely to a famous exponent of Roman-Dutch law—the late Lord de Villiers. Sir Henry de Villiers (as he then was) dealt with this case of Kok. I want to call to mind the circumstances surrounding this case because they go to show what an incalculable effect can be created upon the native mind where he finds there is an authority prepared to protect him if need be against an abuse of authority by the highest in the land. At that time the Government of the day were taking over a territory where no law at all had been administered. Very largely it was a country of barbarians. When one of them was arrested, and found that in spite of the mighty power of the Government which had placed him under arrest he could come before a tribunal which would order him to be released, what far-reaching consequences must it have had upon the native mind? Only a year before there had been conflict between that authority and these uncivilized people, yet they found immediately after annexation there was an authority to which any man could appeal with confidence. When the case came before the courts an appeal was made to the chief justice to refuse to release the applicant because of the unsettled state of the country. He said that it had been suggested that the country was in such an unsettled state that the court should not use such a power which might be properly and usefully employed in other circumstances and release the applicant. It is the duty of the court to preserve justice and not to preserve the peace of the country. [Rest of judgment read.] There is an example of the rule of law. Not for the first time our law courts vindicated the liberty of the subject even when there were serious risks in doing so.

We want to preserve the peace of the country.

But you are doing it in the wrong way. So far as that territory was concerned there were no more disturbances. In 1894 we sent troops into Pondoland and annexed it. Shortly afterwards it was reported that Chief Sigeau was likely to disturb the peace of the country. He was what the Minister would call an agitator. He was arrested by proclamation and on an application to release him, the case came before the same learned judge and the same arguments were used. The Government of the day begged that an order should be made to detain the chief under arrest. The judge referred to the case of 1877 and said that the civil courts had one duty to perform, and that was to administer justice.

There were no communists in those days.

We need not worry about the communists of those days or these days. To make it clear that the rights of the citizen must be respected at all costs, must have had an effect on the minds of the natives that was incalculable. The hon. members for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) referred to this system of administration as the system of the supreme chief. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) pointed out, however, that it is far better if one desires that the law should be respected to see that persons should be entitled to respect at the hands of the law. If the court once admitted the principle that administrative policy justified taking away the liberty of the subject, then the courts themselves would be prevented from dealing out justice. The hon. member for Zululand spoke of the powers of the supreme chief of Natal as if that justified the powers sought by the Minister of Justice. I have yet to learn that it was competent for the chief to expel any particular native from his location without his hearing the charge against him.

The hon. member should read his case law; that is the worst of people venturing on the ground of law.

This is the superior attitude we have come to expect on the part of the Minister; an attitude of contempt towards those who disagree with him. A man of such immoderate temperament is the last man to be entrusted with the power he asks for. I grant he is the proud possessor of a unique knowledge of the law but that does not add to my confidence in his discretion in matters of this kind. One wonders what would be the position of the unfortunate agitator who in the Minister’s opinion is promoting feelings of hostility. Under this Bill for instance, it is competent for the Minister to prevent a member of this House exercizing his functions. Although freedom of speech is allowed, if the Minister felt that someone here was making speeches which tended to promote feelings of hostility what is there to prevent him from restraining that member from giving his opinion. I can imagine a speech being made with which the Minister disagrees. He might in his judgment believe that this speech had in some way created feelings of hostility towards Europeans on the part of the natives. Although the author of the speech may be a member of Parliament, the Minister could say that he should not make any further speeches in his own constituency. I rose chiefly to show the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) that his interpretation of the method of administration in the old Cape Colony was not correct. I ask him to remember that in 1897 or thereabouts, those responsible for the government of the Cape Colony were faced with a similar situation of panic or fear and uncertainty in the administration of the affairs of the native, and they had to make a choice on this question, and decide whether to take the line of government by bullet and bayonet or government by rule of law. If the hon. member will bear in mind the results that have proceeded from that Cape policy, he may feel that his attitude to-night was not correct so far as the Cape Colony administration was concerned.

I wish to take exception to the speech made by the hon. member for Durban (Country) (Mr. Eaton). By what right does the hon. member rise in this House and speak for Natal? He does not even speak for Durban. He has made an incorrect statement and I will prove it. He said that Bunting was never in Durban. I will read from a report of a commission which investigated the Durban position and it is signed by Justice de Waal, proving that Bunting did visit Durban—

The hon. member said that Bunting was never in Durban. The hon. member also asked the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) to “name one European agitator who addressed the native agitators in Durban.” What is the value of his remarks in view of the statement I have quoted? He also said that the boycott of the beer shops in Durban was entirely due to native agitators. That is far from the truth. Europeans inspired the natives to create that boycott, so that they, the Europeans, could get a sale for shimeyana and other liquor. Trade unionism is automatically excluded under this Bill. A trade union meeting is not a public meeting and this Bill applies to public meetings. The object of the Bill is to get at native agitators who are creating all this trouble. Do we want to have the state of affairs that now prevails in India repeated in this country? Ninety per cent, of the European population of Natal and, I should say, 100 per cent, of the Europeans of Durban are in favour of this Bill It is all very well for hon. members who live under the shadow of Table Mountain to sneer at our fears, but Durban was very near the edge of the precipice last December. It is useless to contrast South Africa with Europe, as our natives are controlled by superstition and that circumstances makes them a fertile ground for the poisoning of the agitators. The proof that the Bill is in the real interest of the native is furnished by the fact that the Natal chiefs support it. They know what evils will befall their people unless the Government remove the agitators. This Bill will act as a deterrent and maintain law and order and will save the native population from serious trouble.

As it is now nearly one o’clock J hope the Minister will accept the adjournment.

No.

The Minister owes the House an apology for keeping the Bill under discussion at this unreasonable hour. Almost every member who has spoken has exhausted the dictionary to find adjectives to show how vastly important the measure is, and it is very remarkable that a Bill of such an unprecedented nature should be rushed through the House as it is now being. Even now some hon. members express their inability to discern at whom the Bill is aimed. That shows that we have not debated it enough. I am not convinced by any argument I have heard of the necessity of this Bill; my flesh refuses to creep at any argument I have heard. I was surprized at the absence of the Minister of Labour during this debate, because in times past he took a keen interest in this matter. I wonder if he would repeat what he said on the original Bill in 1914—

What does he say now?

Apparently he retired hurt, as they say in sporting circles. We are ostensibly introducing a measure to cure certain defects, and it is an elementary principle that if you want to do that, you make certain investigations as to the cause, and what investigations have been made here? The Minister of Labour, in times past, had very clear ideas about it when he said—

What unrest there may be is due not to political or racial causes, but to economic causes. The Minister of Defence in 1914 said—

He went further and said—

Is not that, what we are doing?. There is not one who has listened to the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) who has not been impressed no; less, by his eloquence than by his sincerity, but these do not carry all the way in legislation, and you must have a little logic behind it. He is on the, horns of a dilemma, “If we are a democracy we are unfit to govern backward races,” and therefore this Bill is automatically condemned. It is not the view of the country that we are not a democracy. There is another point. Are we justified in putting this legislation on the statute book, and in consequence being subjected to the criticisms of the whole civilized world? Because that will happen. Here we are in this country looking over the world to find markets for our superabundant products, and there is no doubt about it that what we are doing will be observed. We have people among us who point out the dumping of articles in this country from countries where the conditions of labour are not as favourable as our own. It does not require much imagination to see that others will point to our conditions. Our ambassadors and trade commissioners may be called upon to explain the conditions which obtain in South Africa. It will be ascertained that there is no wage determination applied to the native, and that the people who do the bulk of the work in this country get no economic protection. That fact will be used against us when we try to dispose of our products elsewhere. Member after member has stated that the natives are not getting a square deal, and when that fact is known it will operate very powerfully against us, because no nation can afford to go against the definite opinion of the rest of the world. We cannot afford to take that risk. Again, what is the danger? Does the hon. the Minister fear violence on the part of the natives? It may come to that, but if it does, it will only come through mismanagement of the worst description. I do not fear any great outbreak on the part of the natives, but they may take other action that may be disastrous. I do not think it is much use speaking any further. I suppose the result will be the same no matter what is said. Still we have a duty not only to the House but to the country and to our constituents, and I do not think it is right that a Bill of this nature should be passed without protest.

I am not for one moment likely to be deterred from speaking by the interjections, cheers and shouts of intolerant members on the other side of the House. It is indicative of the general feeling that underlies and evidently has promoted the introduction of this Bill. Except in the committee stage, I have not yet expressed myself on this Bill. I suggest that no member of this House has the right to find fault with any other hon. member who conceives it to be his duty to take up an attitude opposed to the hon. members who interject. I want to say that the attitude of the Minister himself, to my mind, is a condemnation of the Bill that he seeks to pass. Very carefully has the Minister and his colleagues and other members on his side of the House created the necessary atmosphere to make it appear to be warranted to have a Bill of this description introduced. In all their election speeches and in their propaganda during election time, their views were based, with few exceptions upon a desire to create in the minds of intolerant people such as their supporters usually are unfortunately, the impression that the natives were fast becoming a danger in this country, due, as they asseverated, to the influence of white agitators. What is an agitator? I have vivid recollections of things being expressed in regard to the present Prime Minister of this country. A very few years ago he was regarded as an agitator and quite correctly too. He was agitating in this country very much indeed and causing feelings of hostility between various sections of the population of South Africa. He was an agitator and if we had a Minister of Justice then with the powers conferred upon him that this Bill seeks to confer upon the present Minister of Justice, he would have put the present Prime Minister away for all time. I do not know where he could have deported the Prime Minister, but he would probably have shifted him about from place to place to make it impossible for him to continue his agitation in South Africa. The Prime Minister stated that 80 per cent, of the white people in South Africa wanted this measure. I charge the Prime Minister with Having caused 80 per cent, of the white prejudice and white vindictiveness in regard to this matter, because he led the whole of this agitation, and again he was an agitator, in the direction of making the people of this country, those who follow him politically, believe that the native was a menace and is a menace, and was, and is, a danger. I hope the hon. member with the backveld mind will not interject any more.

What is a " backveld mind"?

One which is ignorant of the developments which are taking place. This Bill is an example of the mental attitude of hon. members on the Government benches. Natal members have stated that the natives under the leadership of white agitators have become a danger; but the arch-white agitator was the Minister himself when he went down to Durban in that theatrical fashion by aeroplane and turned out the troops with rifles, machine guns and tear gas bombs and let them loose on the poor, unfortunate natives whose only crime was that they could not afford to pay the poll tax. I support the view expressed by the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) that the more you have suppression the more agitation you cause. The right way to deal with this question is to delve into it and to remove the causes. I happened to be in Durban at the same time as the Minister. He was there agitating so I did not meet him.

That was an exceptional occurrence.

It was clear that the whole cause of the trouble in Durban was economic and unless you remove the cause, it is useless passing repressive measures dealing with results. Even the boycott of the beer halls was due to economic causes. The women decided that the wages of their husbands, already too small, were further depleted, and that influenced them to institute the boycott. I went to the natives themselves—not the 1.0.11.—I saw the mayor and many other people, interviewed the police and every sort and shade of opinion which might know the circumstances, and the sum total was that they admitted that fundamentally the cause was economic. You drag these people from their tribal institutions, force them into industry and give them a wage on which they cannot live, and because they resist, you come along with repressive legislation like this which will not do any good, but rather increase the possibility of their becoming a menace. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) is by no means representative of enlightened opinion in Natal.

They get the best pay in the Union.

If they do, God help the rest of the natives. Hon. members opposite are living in the mental stone age, and their only idea of justice is that administered with a club. The Minister sneered at the opposition of the trade union movement to this Bill on the ground of the secretary. He is the secretary of the Trade Union Congress, started at the behest and request of the Minister of Labour, who apparently repudiates it by his present attitude on the Bill, and considers that of no account because Mr. Andrews is a well-known communist. Mr. Andrews has been secretary of the trades union congress ever since its inception, and he has had the imprimatur of the present Minister of Labour. He put the seal of approval upon that interesting gentleman when he sent him to Geneva to represent South Africa. The Minister also referred in almost opprobrious terms to one Sachs, who collaborated with Mr. Andrews in drawing up the statement to which the Minister has referred. The Minister was entirely wrong and very unfair, and I think the Trades Union Congress were entitled to resent and did resent the aspersions cast by the Minister of Justice upon the officials of the congress. But since the Minister has passed these strictures upon these officials, the trades union representatives in conference assembled have not only repudiated the remarks of the Minister of Justice regarding these gentlemen, but they have re-affirmed their confidence in Mr. Andrews by a unanimous vote requesting him to remain in office. Despite the sop thrown to them by the Minister in deleting what he claimed to be the obnoxious clauses as far as the trades unions are concerned, they have, on the higher ground of principle, recorded their unswerving opposition to the Bill, and they have stated that they regard this Bill as a blot upon the statute book. Hon. members opposite, with the dead weight of their majority, have decided that the Bill shall be carried. They will rue the day. You can only get the true effect in anticipation of legislation if you in your own mind apply that legislation to yourselves, and for hon. members to appreciate the real effect of this legislation they want to project themselves to the Opposition benches. The hon. member for Germiston demonstrated to my mind most conclusively that this legislation, designed to do something, would not accomplish that something by any means whatsoever. It will have entirely the reverse effect. Tell a man that he must not do a thing, and you immediately create in his mind the desire to do it. This is our experience all through our own lives and it is the experience of nations throughout history.

In other words if you tell a man he must not steal—

My hon. friend must be in a comatose condition. I cannot anticipate the effect it would have on the hon. gentleman, but I will not tell him that he must not steal. If you endeavour to force natives or white men you are going to create resistence. It is not only panic legislation, but it is to deal with one man. Will the Minister tell me it is directed against Mr. Andrews, because he has certainly never been amongst the natives preaching communism? My hon. friend ramped through the land preaching nationalism. It cannot be directed against Mr. Andrews because he has never actively preached communism. And even if he had, communism is only a doctrine. This House is asked at this early hour in the morning to consider legislation which jettisons all our conceptions of justice and legal control in order that we may cope with the machinations of one single individual in South Africa. What a complete confession of weakness that is; what a confession of danger to the future of South Africa. By repressive and oppressive legislation you will work more harm than good, and you will make the name of South Africa stink throughout the whole of the civilized world.

After listening to hon. members speeches on the third reading it seems to me that that reading may be giving the most trouble to hon. members opposite, because we are now far into the new day. There is an expression in English which we also translate into Afrikaans to the effect “prevention is better than cure”, and this Bill suggests what the prevention should be. However we may differ upon the Bill, I think we all agree that there is a certain amount of unrest in the country, and that there are undesirable conditions which are growing and becoming worse. I ask myself what the opponents of the Bill suggested in order to end them. No one suggested anything except the Leader of the Opposition (Gen. Smuts). No one did anything except abusing the Bill, and nothing was suggested that was better than the Bill. What the Leader of the Opposition suggested was, “exercise patience.” This is exactly the same as he said recently during the debate on appointments in the public service, viz., that we must be blind to race, that we, like children, should play at “blind moles.” And when hon. members opposite then keep one eye open they know that in the territory of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. The matter appears to me that we must first of all ask whether the Bill is intended to injure the natives or the Europeans, because those are the two classes of people affected by the Bill. Does the Bill injure the natives. Some hon. members opposite oppose the Bill because according to them the natives are opposed to it, and we ought to consult them. They add that the natives are children; are we then to ask children what they think about the Bill? If some natives say that they are opposed to the Bill, is it then necessarily wrong if we take action in spite of their opinion? On the other hand, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) says that we do not need to go so far for the sake of a few agitators. But that is not looking at the matter in its entirety, and the hon. member for Yeoville disregards the great problem. We have not only to do with the match which is put to the large heap of inflammable material, but also with the fire that may result. 6,000,000 are concerned, and not merely a few agitators. We must bear in mind the effect which they may have on the great mass. When we think of the 6,000,000 natives and not even 2,000,000 Europeans, then I think we will appreciate the danger of the agitation. The danger is not so much in the towns, but on the countryside, where an insignificant number of whites live amongst the natives. It is one of the most dangerous things in those circumstances to say, as the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has done, that we must be patient. The question to me seems to be whether in the past since we came into touch with the native, we have ever done the native any harm. No, we can show in history that we have helped the native in spite of himself. We saved him from superstition owing to which the natives murdered each other. We saved them from starvation which threatened them from time to time, and we saved them from death from drink. We have in certain respects given them our civilization and protected them against the evils of it. According to our law the Europeans can get as much drink as they want any time of the day, but the native is protected against the liquor danger. Europeans are allowed to have weak children, but we have so protected the natives that they only bring strong children into the world. The natives have much to thank us for, and, in my opinion, our history shows that the natives cannot say that the Europeans have oppressed them. I listened to the interesting speech of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), and hon. members opposite can say what they like, but that hon. member submitted facts to the House which are irrefutable. It seems to me that the opposition to this Bill is of the same kind as the young advocate followed in defending a case. The judge remarked, “the facts are against you”, and he answered, “so much the worse for the facts”, Just like the advocate hon. members have never touched upon the facts. The Bill on the one hand has to do with the interests of the natives, but on the other hand it is also concerned with the interests of the Europeans. We do not like using force, we want to prevent shooting, and if people in the country threaten that they will use arms we become afraid. When we see that things are going in a wrong direction we stand by the principle that prevention is better than euro. In this Bill we are now taking action against the agitator, whether he is a European or a native. Those are the people who want to put the match to the fire. I am a peace loving man and I shall never do harm to anybody, but when we consider what the results of the activities of these mischief-makers may be, then no punishment is too severe for them. The harm they can do is so great that I, personally, will even vote for a Bill which provided that if they were caught red-handed at that job they could be hanged by their feet until they were dead.

Question put, that the word “now”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.