I move—

Agreed to.

In Clause 1,

I move—

I particularly wish to emphasise that part of the amendment in which it is proposed to insert the following definitions: “Compulsory military service means military service south of the Zambezi River,” and “South Africa includes all territory south of the Zambezi River”. I feel that the time has come when we should know exactly where Union citizens may be sent. I hope, therefore, that the Minister of Defence will accept this amendment, especially that part which I have read to the House. I can assure the Minister that on the platteland there is a considerable feeling of uneasiness and dissatisfaction owing to the present state of uncertainty. People may be called up and they will not know where they are going to be sent. Let us arrive once and for all at a definite decision so that we may know where we stand. So far as this side of the House is concerned, I can assure the Minister that we shall always be prepared to defend the Union, and so far as I myself am concerned, I also include South-West, as I feel it my duty also to defend South-West Africa. So far as I am concerned, I promised my constituents, when giving an account of my stewardship after I had voted against South Africa taking part in the war, that so far as the defence of the Union was concerned, I would always be prepared to assist the Government. If the Government needs my services. I shall always be prepared to offer my services to the Government. I also promised my constituents, so far as the defence of the Union and of South-West Africa is concerned, that I would be prepared to help there. We are able to appreciate the fact that if we want to defend the Union, it is out of the question for us to await the arrival of the enemy on our borders. That is a fact which we fully appreciate because we had experience in the Second War of Independence. The Prime Minister knows all about that; I as a young man served under him — we were in that war together, and we have to apply the experience gained in that war, namely that we cannot wait until the enemy is on our borders; we have to go ahead and intercept him. But although we are prepared to take up that attitude, we still say that we have to say how far we may have to go — there must be some limit — and we have to know where a Union citizen may have to be sent, and when the day comes for those people to be called up, they should know where the Union Government may want to send them. For that reason I consider the Prime Minister should accept this amendment, so that we may once and for all have the position made clear to us, so that we may know once and for all how far we shall have to go if we should be called up for war purposes. But as I have said, this applies only to the defence of the Union. We notice that preparations are being made, but we do not know what those preparations are for. We have not yet heard who the enemy is whom we may have to meet, and where we are to meet that enemy. If we are to take it that England’s enemies are our enemies, if it is stated that we have to go to the north in the interest of the Empire so as to conquer other countries for the sake of the Empire, then the position is an entirely different one. But I say again that so far as the defence of this country is concerned, we are quite prepared to assist. At the same time, the Prime Minister must not expect us to go to Northern Africa. We do not know what his intentions are — possibly he may want to conquer Abyssinia and other countries. The Prime Minister must not expect us to waste our efforts for the purpose of conquering other states on behalf of the British Empire. I want to say that if there are hon. members opposite who feel that they wish to go even to that extent, well, I think the time has come for them to go — the war has been on long enough now for them to join up. If the Minister wants to send those people, not only members of this House but people outside as well, to go and do that work for the Empire, I shall have no objection to their going, but we on this side of the House, and our supporters, who feel differently, do not want to be compelled to go there. We are told that the Prime Minister is enjoying a considerable amount of support on the platteland. That may be so, but I want to warn him that the support which he is receiving is to all intents and purposes the support extended to him as the leader of his party, due to the confidence which people have in him, but if he departs, if he deviates from the promise made on the 4th September when he moved his resolution in this House, and when he stated that the people of this country were not to be sent overseas, he will lose all that support. I can tell him that practically all his supporters in my constituency shelter themselves behind this attitude — they say: “We have no objection so long as nobody is sent overseas, and it is because of that that we support the Prime Minister.” I want to warn the Prime Minister that the confidence which his followers have in him rests on the resolution proposed by him on the 4th September. The public of the platteland adhere to that resolution, they adhere to the Prime Minister’s statement that they will not be sent overseas. I do not propose saying much more on these amendments, except that I hope that the Prime Minister will accept them, and I particularly wish to emphasise the amendment which determines where a Union citizen can be sent for the defence of the Union. I hope the Prime Minister will accept that amendment especially.

I am pleased to have the opportunity of saying a few words in support of these amendments. The hon. member who has just sat down has told us that we actually do not know who our enemies are; but if we try to make a guess I think we can come to the conclusion that our enemies to-day are Great Britain’s enemies. We have not yet seen those enemies, but the time may come when we shall have to make very close contact with Great Britain’s enemies. The hon. member who spoke a few minutes ago also referred to the sunport which the right hon. the Prime Minister enjoys in the country districts. It is true that the Prime Minister has a greater amount of support than is justified by the actions of his Government: but what are the grounds for this support which is extended to the Prime Minister? The grounds are two-fold, and the one is that the Government is conducting a war which I can only describe as a “sit-sit” war. It is a very pleasant war, and the people in the country have not yet appreciated what South Africa’s participation really implies. When the day comes, however, for them to realise the terrible effects of our participation in this war, their support of the Government will fall away. The other explanation for the support the Government is enjoying is that thousands of Knights of the Truth have been let loose on the country. I do not know whether they always proclaim the truth, because we have just heard that in Carolina the name of a prominent person in this country was most scandalously abused.

The hon. member must confine himself to the amendments.

Yes, this amendment proposes—

What are British troops?

If the hon. member does not know it, I would tell him that he is one of those who should be with the British troops.

This is British territory here.

That is the mentality of hon. members opposite; this is British territory and for that reason they support British policy. This amendment has been proposed with the object of preventing soldiers from other countries being taken up in our Defence Force to enjoy the privileges provided under South Africa’s defence system; we do not want soldiers from elsewhere included in our Defence Force, because South Africa is not able to undertake those great financial burdens involved by having to pay troops coming to South Africa to fight on South African soil—South Africa cannot pay for that out of the pockets of the people of South Africa. When peace is concluded—if this Government by that time should still happen to be in power with its supine supporters—it would possibly come along and tell us that we must pay for pensions for those people and all that money will have to come out of the pockets of South Africa’s taxpayers. That is the first ground on which I support this amendment, and the second ground on which I support it is because the pernicious principle of equality between whites and coloured people is contained in this Bill. We know that one of the Allies, France, is already mobilising Moroccan troops, and if we do not accent this amendment it will imply that we are giving our approval to the principle of equality for white and coloured troops.

I want to point out that there is a printed amendment to the first eleven lines of this clause, and for the time being hon. members will have to confine themselves to the amendment to be inserted in line 5, namely, the amendment in regard to compulsory military service and confiscation. We shall have to dispose of that before we proceed with the other points. Will hon. members please confine themselves to that part of the amendment?

I take it that I must confine my remarks to those two points, compulsory military service and confiscation. We are asking here that compulsory military service shall be restricted up to the Zambesi. There will be no need for the Prime Minister to proclaim emergency regulations, or to have any special rights granted by Parliament if he accepts that amendment. So far as the people of South Africa are concerned everybody, whether he be a supporter of the Government or not, will do his share for the defence of South Africa. So far as this side of the House is concerned we are willing and prepared to do our share for the defence of South Africa up to the Zambezi. In regard to the second point, the confiscation of goods, we ask that such confiscation shall only take place in the event of a crime having been committed. South Africa is a young country, we are busy making trade contacts, but unfortunately, as a result of the war, the trade of other countries, with whom we might have entered into trade agreements, has been lost to us. Germany has been lost to us as a market for our goods, but we have in the Union to-day people who may possibly be Germans, or who only have German names, and although they are not Germans, we are afraid that there may be people who may be interested, and who may induce the Government to confiscate the goods of those people, and for that reason we ask that only then, when these goods are made use of for the purpose of committing a crime, will they be confiscated, because we feel that this provision may otherwise be abused by any scoundrel in the country.

May I ask, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we have to confine ourselves to the two points mentioned by you, whether we shall be given the opportunity later on of reverting to the other points?

Yes, certainly.

I want to confirm briefly what has been said here about the necessity for a closer definition of the words “compulsory military service,” and of the conditions under which confiscation of property may take place. So far as I am concerned I would restrict compulsory military service to an area considerably to the south of the Zambesi, but I am prepared to support this amendment. The Zambesi embraces part of Central Africa and what we have to do is to fit ourselves for the defence of the Union of South Africa, our mandated territory, and the Caprivi strip, an area which recently came under our control. We require a definition so that our Defence Force and our defence institutions shall be confined to military service in those areas; at the same time I am prepared to agree to this amendment. If the area which I have mentioned are attacked, we shall be prepared to defend those areas, and for that reason we want a clear definition laid down here. It would reassure the people and it would certainly bring about better co-operation between all of us if the Minister of Defence would accept such an amendment. As regards the confiscation of property, I have on a previous occasion stated that the state may take the property of enemy subjects under its protection, but we should only consider the question of confiscation if such property is used for the purpose of committing a crime against the state. Surely it is not a crime for people to be German subjects? We are all of Nordic descent, and it cannot be regarded as a crime for a man to be an enemy subject. For that reason I support these two amendments.

I need only point out that the two definitions contained in the amendment are quite superfluous, for the following reasons. The questions of compulsory military service and also of confiscation of property, which this amendment seeks to define, are mentioned only in clause 2, and clause 2 is the very clause which it is proposed to delete. It will be deleted, and that being so it will be a mistake to have a definition in the Bill which does not apply to anything, seeing that the clause concerned is to be deleted. In those circumstances it is quite superfluous and it would be wrong further to define these two terms.

What about the regulations?

So far as I know these terms are not mentioned in the regulations either, but only in clause 2. Now may I say a few words on what the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Brits) has stated? He has asked for clarity and he stated that the defence borders of the Union shall be clearly defined, and that there should be an explanation in regard to the defence of the country outside the Union.

May I interrupt the right hon. the Minister of Defence and point out that this is a matter which will be dealt with later?

Then I only wish to say that these two definitions are unnecessary.

Amendment put and the House divided:

Ayes—24:

Badenhorst, A. L.

Bekker, S.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

De Wet, J. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Hugo, P. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Olivier, P. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Theron, P.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T. J.

Van Nierop, P.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Verster, J. D. H.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob. Z.

Wolfaard, G. v.

Tellers: J. S. Labuschagne and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—51:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

Bawden, W.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

De Wet, H. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hooper, E. C.

Jackson, D.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Moll. A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Stuttaford, R.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: J. G. Derbyshire and J. W. Higgerty.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Mr. SPEAKER put the amendment in clause 1, which was agreed to.

I move—

I second, and I also want to propose my own amendment. We support that part of the amendment because we feel that South Africa is not in a position to undertake unlimited financial burdens so far as this war is concerned. We do not know how far this war is going to go, and consequently we have to be very careful in spending the money of South Africa’s taxpayers. For that reason we want these words to be included—

We move these words because we know that if these people come under the South African Defence Act a request will be made to the people in this country to compensate those men for their services, and the day may also come when this House will be asked, in view of the fact that these people will have rendered service, supposedly for the defence of South Africa, to contribute partly or in full to, the pensions of those people who have been wounded in the war. Another reason why we ask for our amendment to be agreed to is because we feel that this pernicious system of equality is contained in this clause. If we have to go and fight alongside the Allies, who are already making use of black troops in the same way as they did in 1918, our young fellows will have to fight shoulder to shoulder with those troops, and in view of the social conditions existing in South Africa, and in view of the fact that we stand for the maintenance of a white South Africa, we see here the thin end of the wedge which may result in our having to fight side by side with those nations which are in favour of equality between black and white, and we feel that we may have to fight side by side even with their black troops. We do not even know yet who are going to take part in this war. There may be other coloured races who will take part in the war, and who will then under our Defence Act obtain the same privileges as our white citizens. We know what happened in the days of the old Transvaal Republic; the position was that anyone who had rendered services to the country in the field was automatically given the franchise. We also know that the present Government is out to secure as many votes as possible. If we look at hon. members opposite, we see a Government there composed of all different elements and parties, with the exception, of course, of one party in this House — and heaven only knows whether the Government may not also come along with a proposal that foreign troops which have taken part in the war shall be given the franchise in South Africa. We have been told that South Africa is British territory, and we do not know what the Government may do. As there is a possibility of all kinds and all sorts of elements being put under arms we feel that we have to be very careful. Nor do we know who our enemy actually is. In any case we do not know what we are fighting for, and consequently we do not know to what extent this Government may possibly extend the franchise. Then our amendment also proposes to add after South-West Africa, “But excludes all other territory which may in future be added to the Union.” We in South Africa are not desirous of any extension of territory. Our population is too small to undertake any burdens which may result from the acceptance of possible further Mandates, as the outcome of this war—the addition to our country of new territories which we shall have to defend and protect, and where we shall have to maintain law and order. Our population is too small to maintain another permanent force for the defence of such territories. We require all the available men in South Africa for the protection of our own country. We cannot afford sending away people to heaven knows which far distant parts of Northern Africa. If Italy should by any chance allow itself to be induced to take part in the war, and if Abyssinia has to be conquered, we may possibly become the mandatory power over Abyssinia, and we have neither the men nor the money to undertake such a Mandate. We require all our money for the necessary services of our own country, and also to deal with the relief of distress which has already been caused by this war. In this amendment we further ask after the word “war” to insert “war means the present war between the Allies and Germany, but shall not include any extension of that war.” The Allies, neither England nor France, have a war objective, or rather they dare not proclaim their war objective openly to the world. Is it not desirable in the circumstances that we in South Africa should know where we stand? Or have we to follow England and France blindly in this mad war? No, we must restrict it as far as we can. We know what the great object at the moment is—it is to extend the war theatre. The Allies are looking for further theatres of war. We have seen the efforts which were made in Finland, and possibly the same sort of thing is being tried on to a certain degree in Norway and Sweden, although apparently those efforts have not vet met with any success. If the enemy should be so stupid, a further theatre of war might possibly be created for the Allies in South Eastern Europe. In any case the Allies are busily engaged trying to find a theatre of war, and they are not going to be restrained by love of South Africa, or love of any other country from obtaining another theatre of war if they are able to find one. The extension of the war is being expected by the great statesmen of the world, and if this war is extended, it surely is not a matter of honour and duty on the part of South Africa to take any further part in it? We know what honour and duty are, but only towards our own country and towards the people of South Africa. Possibly other arguments will be brought to bear if the extent of the war should be further increased, and if even South Africa should become one of the theatres of war. Possibly it may be argued then that it is our duty to protect the country for democracy, because we ourselves are a democratic country; but how can we fight on the side of democracy when we have a Government which is not a democratic Government. Hon. members over there are laughing, but they do not even want to allow the people to decide on this matter.

That is not a question falling within the scope of the amendment.

We want to restrict this to the war between the Allies and Germany. South Africa does not intend taking part in a war of which no one knows how far it is going to extend. I am speaking in support of these amendments simply for the reasons I have mentioned, or if the war should extend beyond its present limits. It will not be for the protection of South Africa, that we know. We know that the great country, which we are called upon to support so loyally to-day, is not able to extend any protection to us beyond what it can give along its own coasts, and even there things often go very badly as we have seen in connection with the attack on the Scapa Flow which, according to the British contentions, was invulnerable—yet the German forces have broken through there on a couple of occasions. We therefore find that England is unable to extend any protection except along her own coasts, and it is for that reason, we can take it, if the war is extended, that it will not be for the protection of South Africa. On the other hand if other countries take part in the war we should not follow Great Britain blindly simply because we want her to protect our trade. We know that there are members in this House who are of opinion that if we fail to follow Great Britain’s lead if she extends the war, Great Britain will be so “fed up” with us that she will no longer carry on trade with us, and will not protect us any longer. We are continually being told that Great Britain protects small nations: yet hon. members over there say that we must maintain our trade with Great Britain and that if we do not follow in Great Britain’s wake if the war should be extended, England will no longer buy from us. Can any right-minded person conceive such a position? We heard recently from the former Minister of Defence of Great Britain (Mr. Hoare Elias Belisha), that England is in such a precarious position that she can only feed one-third of her popualtion — the balance of the food has to be obtained from outside; so England is obliged to look for trade elsewhere in order to keep the two-thirds of her population going — and not only is England obliged to look for trade elsewhere, but she has to do all she can to retain what she holds to-day. South Africa is one of her best customers and I for one can never believe that England will ever say that she will not do business with South Africa, but that we must go and deal with America or Japan henceforth. No, this being an economic war, I believe that England wants to strengthen and expand her trade, and for that reason whatever the extent of this war may be, England will want to preserve her trade with South Africa. England cannot afford to let the trade, which she has with South Africa to-day, which amounts to about £40,000,000, go by the board, but if we have to plunge ourselves blindly into England’s wars,’ as some people here want us to do, it will mean that South Africa will incur a financial burden of such dimensions that it will be doing something unjust to generations to come. If we go through this country and we see the way in which prices have gone up, if we notice the manner in which the prices for farming requirements have gone up, we can only come to one conclusion, and that is that the present position is unjust. And what will happen if this war is further extended? Prices will go up still further and the result will be that we shall be wasting millions of pounds on this mad war. No, I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister. Even if the Allies do not want to be honest to the rest of the world and proclaim their war objective, South Africa at any rate should have the honesty of purpose to tell the world what it stands for. Do not let us unnecessarily cast our money and throw the lives of our sons in the holocaust of European quarrels.

I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier), and I should like to support the proposal to have the words “present war” inserted in this clause. We joined England in this war against Germany on the 4th September. I do not think that I can add anything to the views set forth by the hon. member for Kuruman. On the 4th September we found a condition of affairs which had been created as a result of Great Britain plunging herself into this war, and declaring war on account of the attack made on Poland. Since that time, however, we find that Great Britain and France are unable to carry on a war with those against whom they have declared war. That is the position of the Allies, and what is their policy? The policy which is being pursued aims at dragging the whole world into the war. South Africa is in this war in order to maintain Great Britain’s position of domination: Great Britain has never yet been able to wage a war on her own, she has always had to carry on a war with the help of others.

The hon. member must coniine himself to the amendment before the House.

I am mentioning this because we are asked to join in England’s wars, and for that reason I want it to be laid down definitely that we shall not take part in any further extension of the war. It is all very well to say that we should make sacrifices, but for whom should we make those sacrifices? Are we to make sacrifices for the sake of a war which may possibly extend beyond the Zambezi? A war for whose protection? For our own protection? No, for the protection of Great Britain, which is unable to defend her colonies and possessions. For that purpose we in South Africa have to shed our blood and that is where South Africa refuses to join in. The clause which we have just deleted will be applied all the same, even though the Prime Minister has told us that that clause has been withdrawn. Proclamations which have been issued subsequently contain the same provisions as those that were contained in that clause, and we shall no doubt get further proclamations of the same kind. For that reason we want to demand that South Africa shall not be dragged into any extension of the war which was started on the 4th September, in which we have no interest. This war is being waged over matters with which we have no concern — an empire is being built up at the expense of another — the war is a war for power. But there is a greater power than military power, and that is the power of self-preservation, the strength for which the nation can live — that is the ideal for which we are prepared to sacrifice ourselves and shed our blood. But that is not what we are in this war for. It is fitting and becoming to our international position that we should express our views about this war into which we are being dragged, and it is for that reason that I heartily support this amendment, and that. I say again, we do not wish to take part in an extension of this war. If we do not determine this, I say that we are entitled to repeat what an hon. member said on a previous occasion: “Oh, Lord, whence now?”

I really rise in a spirit of enquiry to say a few words on these amendments, because I find here that the Nationalist Party is becoming even more comprehensive than it is generally. They are now asking the House to say that South Africa includes all territories south of the Zambezi River, and I deem it my duty to interpose a word or two on behalf of Terra del Fuego, because I am satisfied that Terra del Fuego, which is a sovereign independent state, will have the most decided objections to be included….

Order. The hon. member should not continue in that strain.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that is how the amendment reads to me — South Africa includes all the territory south of the Zambezi River. Although I am not a legal man, I do suggest to you, sir, that if that amendment were included by any chance in this particular Bill, the courts would be in duty bound to hold that that amendment did, in fact, mean what it says, in other words, that South Africa includes all territory south of the Zambezi River, and I spoke in the facetious manner in which I did because I am satisfied that these amendments are moved in a similarly facetious manner, in a manner which has no bearing whatever on intelligent legislation, but in a manner which I feel is put before the House merely to delay the passage of the Bill. It shows us how much thought the Opposition has given to the matter and how much consideration when they actually frame an amendment of this description. And I want to suggest to you, sir, that the amendment is out of order, because it is impossible for this House to legislate in a fashion which says that South Africa includes all territory south of the Zambezi River. We cannot intelligently discuss an amendment which may possibly lead us, if the House were stupid enough to include it in an Act of the South African Parliament, to a statement that we in South Africa include territory anywhere in the world south of the Zambezi River. It does, as a matter of fact, include a very large portion of a neighbouring territory, Portuguese East Africa, and if that were included in an Act of the South African Parliament, it might quite easily lead to a rupture of the very friendly relations which we at the moment have with that neighbouring territory. So I do not think I am being unduly facetious, or treating the House with any lack of consideration, when I suggest that possibly Terra del Fuego as well might object. On the second amendment, Mr. Speaker, here again I would suggest that it has been framed not with the idea of bringing before this House any intelligent alterations in the Bill as it was put before us by the Prime Minister, but merely for the sake of talk. We know what the world situation is to-day, and we know that even the most able of the world’s statesmen have not been able to forecast what is happening almost from month to month, but I am quite satisfied that not even the monumental intelligence of the leaders of the new “Of/or” Party are in a position to say that it will be definitely in the interests of South Africa at this moment to insert a clause which could say that the war means the present war between the Allies and Germany, and shall not include any extension of the war. I can visualise the position where the war may extend in certain ways, and the members of the present Opposition party would possibly be the first to come to this House and say that the Union of South Africa should participate in the extension of that war. I can visualise quite a number of possibilities in that direction, and I do not think it is a sensible proceeding for the members of the Opposition to attempt to hamstring us beforehand with reference to the possible development of the war. None of us know how long the war will last. There are many intelligent commentators who think that it will be a lengthy war, and there are many people who believe that it will last for 20 or 25 years. That might not be too long a period to put to the present conflict, particularly if the war is to be fought in the manner in which it is being fought at the moment. The Opposition may have sources of information which are not at our disposal. One knows, for instance, that the hon. the Nationalist Socialist deputy for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) has been in close collaboration with the gentlemen who are mainly responsible for the present conflict, and one knows of certain other hon. members of the Opposition who must be in close collaboration with those gentlemen, because they have been from time to time treated with great deference in the German Press, and they have told us precisely where they stand.

I am afraid that all that is irrelevant.

I am merely exploring….

You are exploring nothing.

I am inclined to think that the whole amendment is irrelevant. I am exploring the possibility of the Opposition having more information than we have. When the Opposition comes forward with an amendment which is designed to say that the best interests of South Africa are to be served, and will be served, by confining the restriction of the war to the present conflict of the Allies and Germany, they should be in a position to forecast with a fair degree of accuracy what the probabilities of the extension of the war are, and who may be embroiled in the extension of the war. But they have given us no information of that description. They, apparently, fear that there will be an extension of the war, and that the extension of the war will be of such a description that South Africa will be brought into it in a more vital manner than it is at the present moment. If they have any information, I assume that that information does not give us an intelligent reading of world affairs, or an intelligent analysis of the war situation, but rather of some inside information from the gentlemen who they hope will win the war.

That is Daventry talking.

I am sorry, but I think the hon. member is more acquainted with news which comes from another place.

I have listened to both.

I feel that the Government should be given the greatest possible latitude in the position such as we are in at the present time. If the war does extend, in all probability the war will extend suddenly, and the Government will be faced with the position where they have to make decisions very quickly.

Is Great Britain going to protect another country?

I shall not be led astray in what I am saying by senseless interjections of that description. If Great Britain had not protected the Union of South Africa with its navy for a considerable number of years the hon. member may have made the acquaintance before now of the concentration camps, which he, apparently, in company with the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow), is anxious to keep in store for some of us. Decisions may have to be made quickly, and it is necessary in circumstances of that descriptoin that the greatest possible latitude should be allowed to the Government of the day, and they should definitely not be hamstrung or restricted in their possible actions by the insertion of what, after all is said and done, is a meaningless amendment such as this.

The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Burnside), who has just sat down, has spoken here like a man who knows nothing of what is actually going on here. First of all he displayed a lot of suspicion of the amendment proposed here. That amendment reads “excluding any territory which may in future be embodied in the Union.” He forgets that the Minister of Defence himself told us that he was engaged on the concentration of troops to go and fight somewhere. He wants to use South African volunteers to go and annex some other territory, and, it is because a feeling of great uneasiness has been caused by those statements that we have proposed this amendment. We want to make sure that South Africa’s troops are not going to be used in the service of any other country except South Africa itself. Furthermore, we are anxious to define where the borders of South Africa are going to be, and for that reason we have moved this further amendment that our borders from a defence point of view shall not include other territories which in days to come may be added to the Union. We further say that South Africa shall comprise only the territories to the south of the Zambesi. In explaining the Defence Act the Prime Minister on a former occasion said that the Act had been deliberately made elastic so that we should be able to make “South Africa” smaller, but also that we should be able to extend it, whichever might suit us. We know that that statement of the Prime Minister’s caused feelings of uneasiness among the people outside and for that reason we want an assurance that our borders, so far as defence purposes are concerned, shall be definitely determined. We want to know definitely how far our borders may be extended. It is the Prime Minister himself who spoke of the elasticity of our borders, and we now want him to tell us where and how far he proposes to go with those volunteers, of whom he already has 50,000, according to his own statements. We have on a former occasion had experience of our defence forces being used for the purpose of annexing another country, and by this amendment we want to try and make sure that our forces shall not be used for other territories which at the moment are not part of the Union of South Africa. This has to be done because otherwise the Prime Minister may possibly come along later on and tell us that those territories are part of South Africa and fall under the Defence Act, and that consequently there is no need for him to ask for volunteers to go and fight there, but that he can commandeer the defence force to go and fight there. The Prime Minister is a warrior himself, and he must realise that if he goes to fight in the north, in those fever-stricken areas there, in areas which are unknown to us, and if he takes 50,000 or 75,000 men there, many of those men are going to succumb to fever, and if they die or are killed in some other way he will fall back on the Union to get more troops in order to carry on the fight. As a warrior the Prime Minister knows that that is what he will do. That being so, we are afraid that if we allow this Bill to pass as it stands now, the Prime Minister will take the Defence Act as his authority for commandeering our young fellows to go and fight beyond our borders. Now I come to the final amendment to his clause. “The present war between the Allies and Germany, but will not include any extension of that war.” So far as that is concerned I want to say that it is quite bad enough that we should be involved in any war at all, and we do not want to be plunged in any further wars if more countries are going to be dragged into this war.

I wish to say only a few words in reply to the amendments which have been proposed. I believe these amendments are seriously meant. I must take them to be so because they were discussed fully in Committee and we now find that the same amendments are being raised again. I wish in a very few words to show why these amendments are either unnecessary or impossible. Let us take the first amendment. Clause 1 of the Bill provides that the Defence Force of the country consists of the land forces, the sea forces and the air forces of the Union, and includes every force or service instituted under the Defence Act. Now it is proposed to add this, “But shall not include any British or other foreign troops which may render military service in South Africa”. It is perfectly palpable that this amendment is quite unnecessary. The clause at issue refers only to forces established in terms of our Defence Act, and cannot, therefore, include other forces, either British or foreign forces, which may be rendering military service in this country. It is quite unnecessary to make such a provision as the Bill is perfectly clear and definite on this particular point. So the first amendment will have to drop. Then the second amendment says this. The clause states that the Union of South Africa also includes the Mandated Territory of South-West Africa. And then we have this amendment, “But shall not include any other territory which in future may be incorporated in the Union”. Surely this is quite impossible? Assuming for a moment that to-morrow or the day after in the natural course of events Basutoland or Bechuanaland are incorporated in the Union.

Or Rhodesia.

I am only mentioning those areas which are intended eventually to be incorporated in the Union. If any rising should take place in such an area which may be incorporated, we have this provision….

But then they are part of the Union.

It seems to me the greatest nonsense to say in this Bill that territories which may become part of the Union, which may be incorporated in the Union, shall not be defended by the Union. It is not only nonsensical, it is more than nonsensical to say such a thing. Then we have the third amendment, namely. “South Africa includes all territories to the south of the Zambezi River”. I think there is a great deal in what the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Bumside) has said. Under that amendment the whole of the country to the south of Africa, the whole of the South Sea area will be included. Technically, we would include the whole of that country in the South Seas, a territory already annexed by other countries, and with which South Africa has no concern. We would define that as part of South Africa. It is said that there is nothing definite, that there is vagueness in respect of the meaning “South Africa”, but if we have to say that everything to the south of the Zambezi is included in South Africa, technically that would include the whole of that territory in the South Seas. I do not want to say that the amendment is childish, but if we see what it implies, we must realise at once how nonsensical and impossible it is. Then I come to the last amendment, “War means the present war between the Allies and Germany, but shall not include any extension of that war”. Assuming — and it is quite possible that that may happen — that Germany has allies in the war, or that Germany gets allies. Germany itself does not attack us here, she cannot do so, or has not the power to do so. Our present enemy is unable to attack us. But assuming that one of her allies attacks us.

Would Germany have allies?

Possibly. Now it is proposed that we shall be allowed to fight Germany, but not one of Germany’s allies, who may endanger us, and possibly may attack us. I need only refer to the nonsensical effects of these amendments to make the House realise that it is quite impossible for me to accept them.

Amendments put and the House divided:

Ayes—24:

Badenhorst, A. L.

Bekker, S.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H. T.

De Wet, J. C.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Olivier, P. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Theron, P.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Verster, J. D. H.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. S. Labuschagne and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—56:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B,

Baines, A. C. V.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden. W.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

De Wet, H. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Van den Berg. M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: J. G. Derbyshire and J. W. Higgerty.

Amendments accordingly negatived.

Mr. SPEAKER put the omission of Clause 2, which was agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER put the amendments in old Clause 3 up to line 17, which were agreed to.

In old clause 3,

Before I move my amendment it would be well if the Government would realise that we are not moving these amendments in a spirit of frivolity. I am pleased the Minister of Defence made the remark that he believed us to be in earnest with our amendments. The reason why we are nutting a number of these amendments again is because his Press has done its utmost to try and get away from the merits of the case, and has tried to create the impression outside that we have only moved these amendments in order to waste the time of the House. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) also made the allegation this afternoon that we were not in earnest with our amendments.

May I interrupt the hon. member. He should only move the first part of his amendment. He will notice that there are other amendments coming in between his first amendment and his second amendment. There will be an opportunity for him later on to move his second amendment.

Then I want to move the first part of my amendment—

Another reason why I think that we should propose these amendments again is because hon. members during the Easter holidays have had the opportunity of thinking over what is being proposed here. Possibly hon. members opposite had not had the opportunity previously, in view of the number of amendments, to consider the whole matter carefully and quietly. I therefore want to move this first portion of my amendment as printed in the Votes and Proceedings. The reason why I move this is that as it appears here at the moment, any person may be arrested whether he has done anything wrong or not, and if more exemptions are made, which happens very seldom, one may still say that the amendments are unnecessary. But let us look at the replies given by the Prime Minister and see what actually did take place in this country. On the 6th February we put a question to the Prime Minister as follows—

1. (1) Whether the existence of any organisations, societies, etc., in South Africa, considered to be a danger to the Union, has been brought to the notice of the Government; if so,
2. (2)
   1. (a) how many such organisations;
   2. (b) since when have they been considered a danger by the Government;
   3. (c) whether any steps have been taken against them; if so,
      1. (i) what steps, and
      2. (ii) when were they taken;
3. (3)
   1. (a) what are the names of these organisations; and
   2. (b) what propaganda do they make that is considered to be a danger to the Union; and
4. (4) what are
   1. (a) the names of persons, if any, arrested on account of their membership of such organisations;
   2. (b) the dates of such arrests; and
   3. (c) the organisation of which they were members.

If there is anything secret, or if anything has happened which cannot be proclaimed, the Prime Minister should admit it, he should admit that conditions are entirely different to-day and that things are happening which do not happen under the ordinary law. Now listen to the Prime Minister’s answer—

Things are being done here in secret — things are being done here under which people are being put into camps without their knowing the reason, they do not know why they are arrested. And for that reason I want to move my amendment so that every citizen shall have the opportunity of defending himself, or at least of knowing what complaint there is against them. Now we go further and let us see the extent to which these regulations are being applied in South Africa. On the 30th January I asked the Prime Minister—

The Minister’s answer was 928. Tn this small enuntry of ours in which we live in which there are hardly two million people, up to the 23rd February, 928 people had been interned, and not only do none of them know why they have been interned, but none of them have had the opportunity of defending themselves, and none of them know what complaints have been made against them. Here in free South Africa — because I say that we are free in South Africa — in spite of the fact that the hon. member opposite said that this is British territory — I think the Prime Minister will admit that we are in a free South Africa, and here 928 people have been interned, 928 people have not had a chance to defend themselves, 928 people do not know why they have been sent to these camps, 928 people do not know what the complaint made against them is. Among those 928 people there are “out-and-out” Afrikaners, not Germans as I shall prove just now. I put the following question to the Prime Minister—

And to this the Prime Minister replied—

When the Prime Minister is being criticised in this House, and rightly so, being severely criticised, he yet has the opportunity of defending himself. Even the lowest criminal has the opportunity to defend himself, but these people do not even know what complaint there is against them — never mind about having an opportunity to defend themselves. I also asked the Prime Minister how many citizens of this country have been interned, and hon. members will admit that we have to be very careful when interfering with the liberty of the citizens of the country. I asked how many Union citizens have been interned, and the Prime Minister’s reply was that 84 Union citizens had been put in camps because the Prime Minister had dragged us into a war with another country which had never yet done us any harm. I further asked—

The Prime Minister’s reply was as follows. This is not a reply invented by us on this side of the House, or emanating from the Hertzogites or the “Of-party.” This is the Prime Minister’s answer—

In other words, all you do is to arrest a person and put him into a camp. It is not stated who the proper authorities are, and it is not stated who is making the charge against those people. On the question as to who makes the charges, I received the type of reply which we so often get when the Prime Minister is unable to give an answer, namely that the question falls away. Then I have this question—

Now I want hon. members opposite, especially those hon. members who know the law, like the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) who talks such a lot about justice, and says that we must be just and fair,—I want those hon. members to have the opportunity of giving us their views on this point. I asked the hon. member for Vereeniging whether it is an unfair request to ask that those people shall be given an opportunity of repudiating the charges before the courts? I think the hon. member for Vereeniging will agree with me that even the lowest criminal in the land who is accused of any offence must be given an opportunity to defend himself. The hon. member for Vereeniging pretends not to hear me, but I shall tell the hon. member what the Prime Minister said in reply to my question. The hon. member is looking up and he cannot pretend that he does not hear me. I want to ask him again whether he agrees with me when I say that not the Germans but Union citizens in this country, whatever may be the reason for their internment, should be given the opportunity of defending themselves before a court of law.

Why do you ask me?

Because the hon. member always talks such a lot about honesty. The hon. member is not going to answer me, but I know that he agrees that Union citizens should have the opportunity of defending themselves. The Minister’s reply was—

Has there ever been an occasion in South Africa where it has not been practicable to bring a person before a court? Of course not—

I want to repeat that that reply creates a wrong impression, because if one visits the internees in the camps and asks the great majority of them what the charge against them is, they do not know why they have been put in a camp except because they are of German descent, or they have some idea that certain people have made unfair and unfounded complaints against them. I put a further question to the Prime Minister—

The Minister merely replied “Yes,” and I want to tell him that this also creates a wrong impression because so far as the majority of those people in the camps are concerned, nothing is being done for their dependents. In those circumstances we cannot give the Government the power to act under these regulations, and it is for that reason that I have moved this amendment. But so as to see the large scale on which this is going on I want hon. members to enquire into the question whether citizens of the country are not being treated unjustly. On the 2nd February I asked the Prime Minister—

To this the Minister replied—

I wish to express my satisfaction at the fact that people have been released from the internment camps, because there are people in those internment camps who have done no harm whatsoever to South Africa, and who will not do any harm in future either. There are people in this House who will do more harm than Union citizens locked up in these camps.

That is quite true.

The hon. member knows this party and I am pleased he admits it. The Minister’s reply was that up to the 26th January, 1940, 72 people had been released. Why had those 72 people been put in the internment camp at all? There can only have been two reasons: they were either not guilty and because of that they were released, or otherwise the Prime Minister is not doing his duty and he is releasing people who are dangerous to South Africa. If those people have not done anything wrong and they have been released because of that, then I can talk till Doomsday about our so-called freedom in this country under which seventy-two people have been put into a camp, although they have done no harm whatsoever. They were simply put into the camp so as to create the impression in the world that we are very busily engaged carrying on this war, to show the world that we want to wipe out Germany and the Germans, and that the Government Party over there is going to do all it can to scare Hitler and Germany out of their wits. The hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howard) is laughing.

Do you think I could cry?

It would perhaps be more fitting if the hon. member could cry about the way in which they are waging war in trying to beat a country like Germany. The Minister further stated in his reply—

Seventy-two Union citizens were put in the camps without knowing for what reason, and without having been given an opportunity to defend themselves, and without knowing who had brought a charge against them. I again want to point out that the Minister stated that if it were practicable and desirable the charges made against such persons would be made known to them. I want to say here what the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé), has already said, that if that is a democratic system and if this is a democratic country in which people can be placed in a camp without any charge being brought against them, and without their being given an opportunity to defend themselves against the people making charges against them, there must be something radically wrong with the democratic system as carried out by this Government. I therefore move my amendment.

I second this amendment, and I hope the Minister of Defence will appreciate its fairness. If we look at the regulations we see that provision is being made here under which it depends on the opinion of an appointed official whether a man will be put into a camp or not. I think the Minister of Defence will admit that not only an injustice may be committed here, but that people have already suffered in consequence of unnecessary internment owing to the fact that this official has acted wrongly. The Minister agreed that regulations 20 to 23, in regard to the courts not functioning in these cases, should be withdrawn. Well, he will agree with me that it is all the more necessary in the circumstances to add something to the regulations in order to ensure justice being done. I submit that we are entitled to request that when such an official wants to arrest a man in order to place him in the camp — in other words, when he wants to deprive him of his rights and liberties — this should only be done on the ground of proper information and after such an individual has been given the opportunity of defending himself. It is no more than right that where such an official carries out his work on information received, such information should at least be given in the form of sworn statements submitted to him. We all want right and justice to be done and we do not want people to be put into camps without a proper trial and without their having had the opportunity of defending themselves. That being so, it would surely give general satisfaction if an amendment were agreed to, that when the control officer deprives a man of his liberty he shall only do so on the receipt of information submitted to him in the form of a sworn statement. This will also have the result that people who want to abuse the present situation with a view to getting other people into trouble will not act irresponsibly because they will know that they are liable to prosecution if they make false statements in an affidavit. They will be very much more careful in regard to the information they supply to the control officer. I make an appeal to the Minister of Defence on the grounds of right and justice, and I ask him to meet us in this matter. The Prime Minister has already admitted this principle, and we know that many of these regulations have been hurriedly drafted, so we can understand these regulations may possibly also relate to cases where there is no need for action to be taken. The Minister of Defence has already realised this in connection with the jurisdiction of our ordinary courts in respect of these matters, and I feel that he will give general satisfaction by meeting our views in this respect. It is only fair and just that if an individual is arrested he shall have the right to defend himself, and it is only fair to demand the production of affidavits. We all want people who do anything against the interests of South Africa to be interned. If anybody wants to harm the country he should be interned, but why should we not give satisfaction to the country by demanding the production of affidavits before a person is arrested? I hope the Minister will meet our views in these circumstances, and that he will accept the amendment. I can assure him that in doing so he will reassure the country. People will know then that they cannot be deprived of their rights and liberties at any time without affidavits being sworn against them and without their having the opportunity of defending themselves. In that respect at least the Government should satisfy the people. I can assure the Prime Minister that he will not regret it if he accepts this amendment, because he will create general satisfaction and he will reassure the people, and that, after all, should be our main object in present circumstances.

Many of our juridical principles and juridical conceptions are based on those of England. Since our earliest days we were taught at school that Magna Charta constituted the guarantee of the liberty of the citizen. To-day, however, we find that when the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) shows that 72 Union citizens have been placed in internment camps without trial, the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth), who is of British descent, laughs about the violation of the elementary principles of Magna Charta and the liberty of the subject. It is that kind of hypocrisy of which we have had such a lot since the 4th September last year. They fight for freedom, but when we speak of freedom in our own country members of the type of the hon. member for Rosettenville laugh at what we are saying. The amendment proposed here by the hon. member for Mossel Bay and supported by the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) is one which to my mind the Prime Minister himself should acknowledge as a reasonable amendment, that is to say where a person is sent to a camp he is deprived of his freedom because of information given to the control officer or to some other responsible person, and the amendment proposes that that information should in any case be contained in a sworn declaration. Questions have already been asked in this House whether the Prime Minister would state in specific cases on what grounds people have been interned, but the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice replied that it would not be in the public interest to give this informaton. Let us admit that that is a sound argument, but I still say that there is not the slightest reason….

May I point out to the hon. member that the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) has only moved the first portion of his amendment. The hon. member should therefore confine himself to the first part.

Then I want to say a few words in connection with the figures. I take it that that is a matter coming under the first part, because the hon. member has quoted these figures. In regard to the number of people interned I should like to repeat something I stated on a previous occasion, because it is a matter of great importance. It is strange that the figures given by the hon. member for Mossel Bay deal with a period up to the 19th January. The question put was, how many people in South Africa since the beginning of the present war up to the 19th January had been interned, and the Minister’s reply to that question was 928. Strange to say, in The Spectator of the same date we obtained the information that in England up to the 19th January 486 people had been interned, just over 50 per cent. of the number interned in South Africa up to that date, and that while England was actually at war. Now we come to the question of trial. Here in South Africa there is no trial. True, a man is given the opportunity later on to appeal to a certain official but that is only after he has been put into the camp. In England, however, according to the information contained in The Spectator, 112 special courts sat in connection with internments, and up to the 19th January instructions were given by them that 486 people were to be interned. In England, which is actually at war, people are not sent to the camps without trial, but they are first sent to special courts to be tried. Every man is given the opportunity of submitting his case.

I think the hon. member can discuss this more appropriately under the printed amendment which I shall put later on. At the moment the debate should be confined to the amendment which has been put, the amendment which says—

Then I shall confine myself to the question of the condition of emergency. I recently referred to a judgment by the Chief Justice of England who in a well known case laid down the doctrine that emergency regulations should only be issued in times of serious emergency. Here in South Africa we have no condition of emergency. The Prime Minister and his Press have never yet succeeded in proving to us in South Africa that there is a condition of emergency here. The only condition of emergency which exists is that created by the Minister and his Press and his knights of the truth, and that is a condition of emergency which I contend does not justify the application of regulations which in actuality, if compared with those of England, appear to be more drastic than the regulations issued in England, a country which is actually at war. The Prime Minister in applying such drastic regulations, first of all did not take into account the fact that in this country there is no emergency condition, and secondly, he did not take into account the existing juridical conceptions of England on which our juridical conceptions are largely based. I want to repeat this, and I make an appeal to the Prime Minister, and I ask him especially where citizens of South Africa are concerned to lay it down that those people supplying information shall be called upon to make a sworn testimony before our own citizens are deprived of their freedom.

I only wish to say a few words on this discussion which is taking place on the question whether there is an emergency condition and the necessity of proving that regulations under the emergency conditions are justified. It would appear to me that there is a considerable amount of misconception in this regard. We all admit that in ordinary times, and under normal conditions, civil rights must be protected and that one has to act in accordance with definite rules laid down in our laws. That, however, is not the position at the moment. We are, even though technically, in a condition of war, and during a state of war the rights of citizens and inhabitants of the country have to give way to the interests of the state. The interest of the state is the only measure, or at least it is the principal measure. In time of war when the state, when the proper authority says that something has to be done in the interest of the state, that is sufficient. If the state says that internments have to take place, the courts are not going to interfere. Hon. members will recollect that the internment question was tested in our courts in a few instances, and the courts gave a finding and stated that they were not concerned with the regulations, but they went into the question whether a state of war prevailed. Where such a sate of war prevails it is the state which has to decide whether certain steps in the interest of the state are required, and when the state says so the courts remain silent and do not interfere. That was the verdict given by the court. We have a legally declared state of war, and the state authority says that it is in the interest of the state, whatever the reasons may be, that certain persons shall be detained. In such cases the courts do not intervene. Hon. members who have discussed this matter have assumed and taken up the attitude that we are living in normal conditions when the ordinary rules apply, and when the question as to whether a matter is in the interest of the state or not is not raised. But we are in a state of war, and it is the authority of the state which counts.

Did not the court say that the matter did not fall within its province, and that it did not wish to express any opinion on the question whether the regulations were necessary or not?

The court does not function. The court says that as a condition of war prevails and the state regards certain things as essential, therefore, it does not function.

Are we more at war than England is?

That is the general law in regard to war existing in the world, and all we are doing in these regulations is to apply certain restrictions to the unbounded powers existing in times of war, so that people shall know more or less what conditions are. Hon. members will realise that in time of war it is impossible for the state to proceed in the ordinary way so far as individuals are concerned. It has been stated in this House that certain things have taken place, have been done secretly, that no charges are being made against individuals. But that may be in the highest interest of the state, that may be demanded by the interests of the state.

But if an injustice is done?

This is a matter of state interest. It may possibly be that publication will do harm to the state, and for that reason the authorities in such instances cannot be required to publish reasons, because the information may possibly be made use of against the state. In times of war the state must have the power, and now this amendment asks that the state, before it exercises those powers, shall prove that there is a necessity for this or that regulation. This may be entirely in conflict with the interest of the state, if that has to be done. If the state has to produce such proof, it will naturally be necessary to bring facts before the court, and it may be in the interest of the state to keep such facts secret. For that reason it cannot possibly be in the interest of the state to have to prove that a particular regulation is necessary. Certain facts cannot be published, there is evidence which cannot be published, there are secrets which have to be preserved, because they may otherwise be used against the state. That being so, the demand made, that the state must prove the necessity for the steps it is taking, is an impossible one, and I am unable to accept the amendment. It has been stated previously that the regulations in connection with these internments do not originate with me. Those regulations were drafted by my predecessor (Mr. Pirow), who prepared them before the declaration of war, with a view to using them later on. I have accepted them without any amendment.

Are you prepared to accept everything he has drafted?

In certain instances where I was of opinion that they went too far, I watered down the plans of the hon. member for Gezina, and I modified the regulations. But that was because there were cases where I did not think it was necessary to go so far. But hon. members must realise that there are cases where I have to go as far, where I have to go to the same extent as my predecessor wanted to do. One has to go that length, because if the state has to determine that all steps taken by it must be justified publicly, and that proof has to be produced of the necessity of any step taken by it, it means rendering these war measures nugatory. The interest of the state in cases of that kind is what matters. In those circumstances I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment.

Amendment put and the House divided:

Ayes—24:

Badenhorst, A. L.

Bekker, S.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

De Wet, J. C.

Hugo, P. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Olivier, P. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Theron, P.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Verster, J. D. H.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A J.

Wilkens, Jacob

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. S. Labuschagne and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—56:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

De Wet, H. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Pocock. P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford. R.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach. I.

Wares. A. P. J.

Tellers: J. G. Derbyshire and J. W. Higgerty.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

I should like to move my amendment….

The hon. member can only move his amendment after the House has disposed of the other amendments. The hon. member has moved an amendment to sub-clause (2), and that comes at the end.

This amendment concerns certain debts and claims by enemy subjects. If you will read the previous paragraph, paragraph (2), you will see that if anyone in connection with trade or otherwise has money belonging to an enemy subject, he has to give notice of this fact.

Which amendment is the hon. member discussing?

The amendment to paragraph (8).

The hon. member has an amendment here to clause 3, but until such time as the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Wolfaard) gets on the right track, the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) can move the amendment which he, I understand, wants to move on behalf of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer). But before he does so, I should like him to explain what is the difference between this amendment and the amendment which this House has negatived.

We are dealing here with the question of the maintenance of order, while the amendment of the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) went considerably beyond that. The regulation does not deal solely with the preservation of public order, it deals with other matters as well, and for that reason I consider that although the amendment of the hon. member for Mossel Bay would have covered everything, this amendment only covers part.

But it includes it.

Yes, but that is not the same, this is only part of it. It may be that hon. members were not satisfied with the whole, but with only part of it. It is not the same thing. I think I am entitled to move this amendment on behalf of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet.

I shall leave it to the House. The hon. member can move it.

I think that even the Prime Minister will agree with me when I say that the regulations which are now being made into law and which deal with the preservation of public order, are fairly wide, and go rather far, so far that I can say up to the present time some of those regulations have never yet been made use of. For instance nobody has yet been summoned to appear before a court to answer a charge under these regulations. It may be that the Prime Minister will say that these regulations were illegal because they had not yet been legalised, and that for that reason he has come to the House to ask the House to legalise them. I just want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that when persons who had been interned applied to the court, his department stated that those people had not been arrested under the regulations, but that they had been arrested in consequence of the general emergency condition which prevailed. I take it therefore that so far as the preservation of public order is concerned these regulations have not yet been applied. The Prime Minister has also admitted that although we have declared war we are not yet actually taking part in the war; we are not going to send any troops overseas, in accordance with his promise to the House, and in those circumstances we are living in a state of peace and quiet in this country. Well, the ordinary laws of the country provide for all conditions which may be created at meetings and gatherings so long as those conditions of quiet and peace continue to prevail. We have our laws to deal with ordinary conditions in ordinary times, and these regulations are only necessary when extraordinary conditions arise, when a real emergency condition prevails. But if that is not the case, if peace and order prevail in the country— which the Prime Minister himself admits is the position to-day—we have our ordinary laws of the country in connection with riotous assemblies and gatherings, and the object of this amendment is to ensure that these regulations in connection with the maintenance of public order shall only apply when and if extraordinary conditions should require them. Clause 3 reads as follows—

Now I wish to add a few words. It may be necessary for the Government to have these regulations in connection with public order in extraordinary circumstances, but I want to say again that we do not want to apply them in ordinary times for which we have our ordinary laws of the country. If a person wants to hold a meeting during ordinary times, a meeting which becomes riotous, there are a large number of laws in force under which he can be dealt with, and there is no need to make use of these extraordinary powers. I therefore move (for Dr. Bremer)—

Who has to prove it?

The onus of proof rests on the Crown; the Crown does not only have to prove the crime, but crime as defined in the circumstances. I think it is a reasonable request that the Minister should accept this amendment. As we have a condition of peace and order in this country, and while we have laws in this country providing for ordinary times, we must lay it down that these extraordinary regulations shall only apply to extraordinary conditions of emergency. Because these powers can very easily be abused. After this clause there is another clause which grants indemnity to people who have taken excessive action under these regulations. As they are to get indemnity it seems no more than fair that these regulations shall only apply if and when conditions justify their application, namely, should a real condition of emergency arise in this country. If the Minister is not prepared to accept this amendment it means that the Government wants to punish people under these regulations for offences in ordinary circumstances for which we have a large number of laws, which aim at the maintenance of public order. That is all we are asking for, and I feel that the request is a reasonable one, and that we are entitled to move this amendment. If the Prime Minister is really in earnest when he states that he only wants to maintain law and order, and that he does not want to use violence to make and break things, he should accept this amendment.

I cannot accept this amendment because if I were to accept it quite a number of the regulations would lapse or it would be impossible to issue them. The hon. member here makes a condition for the issue or the confirmation of all regulations. A general restriction is being imposed here on the authority of the Minister for the issuing of regulations.

They have already been issued.

The hon. member moved a restriction against their confirmation. The confirmation is withheld because evidence first of all has to be produced that they are necessary for the maintenance of public order. We have a large number of regulations here which are absolutely essential in the interest of the state, although they in no way concern public order. Take for instance the regulations in connection with excess profits.

This statement only applies to regulations in connection with public order.

No, the hon. member will see that his amendment refers to all regulations. In clause 3 authority is given for the confirmation of regulations, and he is now trying to place restrictions on the confirmation of the regulations. He wants it to be proved first of all that they are necessary for the maintenance of public order, and there are quite a number of regulations which have nothing at all to do with public order.

They are not affected by the amendment.

Yes, they are affected, because unless it is first of all proved that they are in the interest of the maintenance of law and order they are not confirmed. I mention the regulations in connection with excess profits, fixing of prices, trading with the enemy, all the regulations of an economic nature which would then not be confirmed. The hon. member has not considered the point that there are a large number of regulations here which have nothing whatever to do with public order, but with totally different matters, and if I accept his amendment none of those economic regulations can be confirmed. In the circumstances I am unable to accept the amendment.

Amendment put and negatived

The amendment I want to move in regard to clause 3 reads as follows—

The words which I wish to delete are the following—

Here we are concerned with certain debts and claims by enemy subjects. In subregulation (2) the authorities suggest that if someone owes money to an enemy subject, or to an institution of enemy subjects, or has custody of the money of an enemy, he shall give written notice to the Minister of Finance. And then we come to sub-regulation (2)—

The Government comes along here and says that if I have money belonging to an enemy subject in my custody, or if I owe him money, I must hand that money over to the Government, and the Government can take that money to pay someone else who has a claim against an enemy subject. That is confiscation of a man’s property. I may have the money in custody for him, and return it to him after the war, but because we are at war with that country the money belonging to that enemy subject has to be taken away. If the money were to be deposited with the Treasury and kept there for him there would be something to be said for it, but now it is proposed here that in every case where somebody else has a claim against an enemy subject that money may be taken and paid over to him. This is nothing but theft. We take this man’s property without turning a hair and we give it to somebody else. Then we have subregulation (5), which says this—

Imagine! The money is deposited in the Union Treasury and the Union Treasury pays that money to somebody else. I have carried out my obligations and I have deposited that money, but that other man had never received the money; that money has been used in order to pay out a third person. I think this is most unfair. Why should we act so unreasonably, even towards an enemy subject? If there is a war let us shoot, but why should innocent subjects who, on the authority of their Government are at war, have their possessions taken away from them? We might just as well confiscate the money of Union subjects and use it to make payments to other people. This sort of thing is unfair, and I hope the Minister will accept my amendment.

I second. I want to ask the Minister to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Wolfaard). So far the arguments used by the hon. the Minister of Defence in connection with the question why the regulations were necessary were that those persons might become a danger to the state, and that for that reason they had to be put into camps. But now we are dealing with a totally different matter. Here the Minister comes along with regulations which mean nothing but that money is being obtained in an illegal manner, as the hon. member for Worcester has already stated. If a man comes to this country from Germany he usually comes for the same reason that many of the English-speaking members on the other side of the House have come to this country. The principal reason why an individual usually goes to another country is not that he has a greater love for that new country, but because he wants to make a living, because he was unable to make a living in his own country. If such persons come here and make a living here, surely it is not a danger to the state to have legitimate debts paid to them? I ask in all reasonableness that this amendment should be agreed to.

I rise to support this amendment. Hon. members will notice that the proviso, the deletion of which is now proposed, says—

In other words, this House is asked to approve of a regulation, and to enforce a regulation, before it has been issued. Those regulations were issued on the 14th September, but we are now asked to declare that they were already in force on the 6th September. Regulations (3) and (5) deal with the setting off of certain debts and claims. It is the usual thing when a war breaks out for the one state not to assist the other in regard to financial matters, and for mutual debts not to be paid. Now, however, a penalty is to be attached to an offence against the regulations issued on the 14th September — and that offence might even have taken place before that date. How can we possibly approve of anything like that? The regulation says—

I do, not believe that any debts have been paid in that way between the 6th and the 14th September. Nor do I believe that information was asked from anyone during that period. If any person was asked for information such a person would have been entitled to refuse to give that information because prior to, the 14th September the regulation did not exist. What is the position now? If he refused to give the information which he was illegally asked to give he is now to be found guilty under a regulation which was only issued on the 14th September. I cannot conceive how the Minister can expect us to approve of anything like that, how he can expect us to make a man liable for an offence which he committed before it had been made an offence under these regulations. Surely we cannot carry on in that way. It is not only unfair and unchristian; it is absolutely wrong. I protest against this sort of thing, and I make an appeal to the Minister to withdraw this.

I should like to support what the last speaker has stated here. I cannot conceive either how we can lay it down that a man shall be punished for something he has done before these regulations were issued. From the very start I pleaded that these regulations should be applied in a reasonable way. If we must have regulations in a time of war, let them be applied in a good spirit, and in the right manner. When this war, into which we have been dragged, is over, we shall have to live together again in South Africa, and that being so things should be made as easy as possible. In line with what I have said I wish to associate myself with the improvements urged for by this side of the House in respect of the regulations. I want the Prime Minister to meet our requests, and I want him to realise that it is totally unnecessary to place these hard and drastic regulations in the hands of people who are only too pleased to obtain powers so that they may abuse them. The rt. hon. the Prime Minister in his speech at Bloemfontein said this—

The Prime Minister said this when feelings were running very high in the country, and he added that notice was not to be taken of the subterranean rumblings which had made themselves felt before, and that the condition of affairs was thoroughly sound. How does this accord with the actions which were taken shortly afterwards? After that, like a swarm of bees, people went through the country with a view to sending innocent people to the internment camps. Conditions in South Africa were perfectly quiet, but suddenly, towards the end of the year, a sort of internment mania set in; a persecution campaign made itself felt. I want to ask the Prime Minister now, in view of what he said on that occasion, to help us amend these regulations so that they will no longer be applied by people who will abuse the powers entrusted to them. On previous occasions I told the rt. hon. the Prime Minister, and hon. members of this House about certain occurrences. I told them of occurrences during the rebellion of 1914 when certain people who had powers placed in their hands gravely abused those powers. I do not wish to take up the time of the House by repeating these things, but nobody knows better than the Prime Minister that if he wants this condition of peace to continue in this country….

You cannot have it without the right spirit.

That hon. member lives in dreamland. He imagines himself in Great Britain’s lap. Hon. members on that side of the House are making one great error—and I cannot see eye to eye with them there—they do not realise that we are living in South Africa, a country cleaned up by our ancestors, a country in which they are being well treated, where many of them have grown rich—many of them who came to this country with a pack on their backs.

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion before the House.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your reprimand, but hon. members over there are inclined to interrupt us. I want to assure the Prime Minister that we have a condition of peace and quiet in South Africa to-day, and although we are living in a world in which conditions of darkness and sorrow prevail, the Prime Minister should not try to govern here by means of drastic regulations; he should let the people of this country feel, and realise, that they can have confidence in the state of affairs prevailing here. If I may be allowed to I should now like to move the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Moorreesburg. First of all, I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether I shall be in order in doing so.

What amendment is the hon. member referring to?

I am referring to the amendment which my colleague on my right, the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus), who is unable to be present here to-day, has on the Order Paper.

No, the hon. member can move that later.

Then I shall avail myself of a later opportunity, and I shall content myself with asking the Prime Minister to give particular and favourable consideration to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren).

I appreciate the appeal made by the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne). If, during the difficult times through which this country is passing, we are able to guide the public in a spirit of good feeling, it will be in the interest of the country as a whole, and the hon. member may rest assured that I am doing my utmost to carry out the words which I used in Bloemfontein as far as possible. Naturally, things do happen during times of war, during a most abnormal time, which may hurt people here and there, but the hon. member and the House will admit that where things have gone wrong, everything possible has been done to put them right as quickly as possible. Now, let me come to the amendment before the House. I have listened to the discussion very carefully, and having done so I have come to the conclusion that the amendment is based on a misapprehension. Let me explain what the position is. The hon. member has proposed that the date should be altered because it is proposed here that the regulation which was proclaimed on the 14th September should apply to the 6th September. That is because a particular system was established in regard to payments to enemy subjects. As hon. members know, no transactions are allowed to take place between Union subjects and enemy subjects, and no money is allowed to pass from the one to the other. That is definite. And that was laid down on the 14th September, but in the meantime eight days had passed and before this regulation was proclaimed the Treasury had taken it upon itself to notify the banks that no money was to be paid out to enemy subjects, but that such payments should be made to the Treasury. That was the procedure from the 6th to the 14th September, and all we are proposing now is to confirm that procedure. No such instances as mentioned by the hon. member took place, and nobody got into any trouble. The hon. member can take it from me that everything took place quietly and orderly from the 6th to the 14th September, but no payments were made to enemy subjects.

In that case is not the right clause for this provision that which deals with indemnity?

No, the hon. member may take it that it is practically a declaration of indemnity in respect of the notice given by the Department of Finance under which no money was paid out between the 6th and the 14th September. That position is now being legalised.

Would it not be better to put this in the regulation dealing with indemnity?

No, it is more convenient to make this provision here. It is a question of legal draughtsmanship. This matter is being put in order and nobody will suffer under it. The only object is to legalise a condition of affairs which for a matter of eight days was illegal.

Amendment put and negatived.

Amendments in lines 23 to 49 put and agreed to.

When I resumed my seat I made an appeal to the Prime Minister asking him to make these regulations as reasonable as possible. Now I want, on behalf of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus), to move the amendment standing in his name, and it reads as follows—

1. (2) In respect of the regulations promulgated by the proclamation herein set out the following provisions shall apply:
   1. (i) Regulation 2 of Proclamation 201 of 1939 shall in respect of any act or omission after the commencement of this Act be construed as if the following sub-regulation had been added to follow sub-regulation (5):
      1. (6) By “order” in the previous sub-regulation is meant an order written or printed in the home language of the person to whom that order is directed or in both official languages;

Is the hon. member moving all the amendments? And does he wish to read them all?

Yes, I should like to read them to the House because I am convinced that many hon. members opposite have not yet read those amendments, and I should like them to hear them so that they can support us. This amendment which I have read simply asks that instructions communicated to people, or claims made upon people, shall be made in the home language of those people. Otherwise we may have a position under which documents may be sent to people in a foreign language. Say, for instance, there is an Afrikaans-speaking man on the platteland who does not know any English. He may receive a document in English. Such a person will not have the slightest notion of what is contained in that document. This is one of the instances where we ask the Prime Minister not to make the regulations more stringent than necessary. I shall continue to read these amendments—

1. (ii) Regulation 2 of Proclamation 201 of 1939 shall in respect of any act or omission after the commencement of this Act be construed as if the following sub-regulation had been added to follow sub-regulation (6):
   1. (7) By “request” in sub-regulation (6) is meant a request written or printed in the home language of the person to whom the request is directed or in both official languages: and by “demand” in the same subregulation is meant a demand written or printed in the home language of the person to whom the demand is directed or in both official languages;
2. (iii) Regulation 3 of Proclamation 201 of 1939 shall in respect of any act or omission after the commencement of this Act be construed as if the following sub-regulation had been inserted to follow sub-regulation (1):
   1. "(1) bis. By ‘notice’ in sub-regulation (1.) is meant a notice written or printed in the home language of the person for whom it is intended or written in both official languages”;
3. (iv) Regulation 5 of Proclamation 201 of 1939 shall in respect of any act or omission after the commencement of this Act be construed as if sub-regulation 6 (a) (ii) had been omitted and the following had been substituted in the place thereof: “which were disposed of by the farmer who produced them”;
4. (v) Regulation 6 of Proclamation 201 of 1939 shall in respect of any act or omission after the commencement of this Act be construed as if—
   1. (a) the following proviso had been substituted for the last proviso in sub-regulation (1):
      “And provided further that if any goods taken and appropriated as aforesaid are hypothecated, the mortgagee shall be paid out of the purchase price a sum not exceeding the amount due to him and the balance thereof (if any) shall be paid to the owner”;
   2. (b) the following sub-regulation had been added to follow subregulation (2):
      “(2) bis. In the event of there being a dispute between the Government and the owner of any land as to the amount of compensation to be paid in terms of the subregulation (2) aforesaid, then the amount of such compensation shall be settled by arbitration, each party to appoint one arbitrator and the arbitrators to appoint an umpire at the time of their appointment”;
5. (vi) Regulation 8 bis of Proclamation 201 of 1939 (as amended by Proclamation 334 of 1939) shall in respect of any act or omission after the commencement of this Act be construed as if the following proviso had been added to sub-regulation (4):
   “Provided that the person so seizing any such goods, book or document shall at the same time furnish the person from whom he seized the same with a written receipt signed by him for such goods, book or document”;
6. (vii) Regulation 9 of Proclamation 201 of 1939 (as amended by Proclamation 205 of 1939) shall in respect of any act or omission after the commencement of this Act be construed as if the following proviso had been added to subregulation (1):
   “Provided that the Minister of Justice shall not appoint as a control officer any person who is not bilingual or any person who holds or held the rank of chairman, vice-chairman, secretary or organiser of any political party”; and
7. (viii) Regulation 29 of Proclamation 201 of 1939 (as inserted by Proclamation 252 of 1939) shall in respect of any act or omission after the commencement of this Act be construed as if the following subregulation had been inserted to follow sub-regulation (1):
   “(1) bis. The words ‘buildings or premises’ in sub-regulation (1) as amended, shall be deemed to have been omitted and ‘property’ inserted in the place thereof”.

My hon. friend behind me says that he does not yet believe that members opposite have listened to the amendment. What I regret more than anything else is that hon. members who should support this amendment have left the House. The hon. the Minister of Defence will agree with me that these amendments which I am moving jointly are all useful additions and small amendments which greatly improve the appearance of the emergency regulations or of the Bill. Take for instance the question of bilingualism; it is provided here that only bilingual people shall be appointed to control-positions. This amendment is of the very greatest importance and I hope the Minister of Defence will tell me that he is quite prepared to accept this amendment. The two races in this country, should respect each other. If a man goes to Durban he will not dream of speaking Afrikaans there—unless he is a person who knows nothing about South Africa. But it may so happen that on the platteland there are Afrikaans-speaking people who will be in a hopeless position if documents in high-faluting English are placed before them. Assuming a mistake is made, and an Afrikaans document is submitted to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs or to the Minister of Labour. I can imagine this leading to great confusion, and for that reason it is essential that this amendment should be made. I think it is necessary for me to read part of the proclamation which I propose amending. Regulation No. 3 concerns the regulation of dealings in certain goods, and it reads as follows—

1. (a) fix the maximum price at which certain specified goods may be sold (and in doing so he may fix different maximum sale prices for such goods in different areas);
2. (b) prohibit the purchase, sale or exchange of certain specified goods, unless the person acquiring those goods is authorised by a permit issued by a person mentioned in that notice, to acquire those goods;

I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to the word “uitgeriek” in the Afrikaans text. I do not know whether this has any connection with the smelling out that is going on, but anyhow this is another example of the manner in which Afrikaans is being fobbed off. I take it that the word should be “uitgereik.” The proclamation goes on—

1. (c) prohibit the supply, during any specified period, to any one person or for the use or benefit of any one person, of any specified goods in excess of a stated quantity or number;
2. (d) prohibit any one person from acquiring, during a specified period, any specified goods in excess of a stated quantity or number;
3. (e) prohibit the importation or export of any specified goods except on a permit issued by the board or any person or authority mentioned in the notice;
4. (f) control and regulate, in such a manner as he may think necessary in the interests of the public, the supply to the public or to any particular place or area, of any goods mentioned in the notice.
   (2) Any person who sells or offers for sale any goods at a price in excess of the price fixed as aforesaid for those goods or who contravenes a prohibition under paragraphs (b), (c), (d) or (e) of sub-regulation (1), or who acts contrary to any measures taken by the said Minister under paragraph (f) of sub-regulation (1) shall be guilty of an offence.

We see here how every item can be provided for under the regulations, and for that reason I say again that it is absolutely essential for these regulations to be handed in both languages to the public, so that everybody will be able to understand what is meant. I want to plead with the Government to accept the amendments which I have moved because it will greatly help to bring about confidence and a feeling of assurance among the public. I further ask the Minister of Defence to see to it that only thoroughly bilingual officials shall be appointed under these regulations. I cannot conceive how a control officer can possibly be appointed in a particular area if he is not bilingual. These may appear to be minor matters to some hon. members, but I can assure them that if we do not look after those things we are going to have trouble. We must put these things in order, and I hope the Minister will realise that these additions which I am proposing will be useful. The Minister of Defence expressed certain hopes in connection with the emergency regulations a little while ago. May I point out to him that it is just as necessary to have a good spirit in order to enable the country to pass through these difficult times, and he is not going to promote that good spirit by making appointments which have such a strong political colour, as in the case of the chief control officer. I should have thought that he would have taken one of the competent officials from the Department of Justice, or from some other department; that he would have taken someone who was not associated with any political party, and whose history in this country would have given the public confidence in him.

I do not think that the hon. member can discuss that matter in connection with this clause.

May I point out that part of my amendment refers to that?

The hon. member may proceed.

I am only pointing to these matters because I think it essential for the Prime Minister to realise that he should appoint a control officer who will be able to help us through these times of war in a good spirit. He must even obtain the co-operation of the Opposition, and I say that the Prime Minister may still be able to appoint the right person. We are not short of competent men in our departments, and I want to express the hope that the Prime Minister will see his way to meet our wishes in regard to these small concessions we are asking for. I quoted earlier on what the Prime Minister had said at Bloemfontein, namely, that a condition of peace and quiet prevailed in this country, such as we had not had for months, and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister now has a large number of knights of the truth at his disposal I feel that if discontent should be created in this country it is the knights of the truth who have been let loose on the country who must be blamed for that state of affairs.

No, it will be the storm troops.

We cannot sit here and allow ourselves to be menaced by a curse in the form of those khaki knights, without doing something from our side. It would be weakness on our part, and it is the honest duty of Afrikaners in this country to create an Afrikaner front in this country against these knights of the truth. I would call it….

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

When the House adjourned this afternoon I was just pointing out that the so-called knights of truth of the present day are menacing the country. The Prime Minister, by way of interjections, said that he did not think that the knights of truth, as such, would disturb the peace, but that that was more likely to be caused by the storm troops. I think the Prime Minister was thinking of a statement which, according to the newspapers, was made by the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow). If that is so, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would be satisfied if we were to establish an organisation which called itself the “Afrikaner Front” or whatever it might be, established on the same lines as the knights of truth, which have been created by the other side. To allow them to go into the country without any defence on our part would be fatal. I do not want to call them knights of truth, because I do not think that is the right name for them, but if the Government side establishes something of that kind, we shall have to create a counterorganisation to protect what is Afrikaans and what belongs to the Afrikaners against the so-called knights of truths.

We do not need any help.

You will not get any help from us either, but correction. And even that will not be necessary, because we can just leave it to the Afrikaner mothers of South Africa to settle accounts with the knights of truth. I put my case clearly before the adjournment. Now, however, there are a few representatives of farmers on the opposite side, and I want to invoke their aid in connection with my amendment—

What I am asking here is very fair, namely, that when a farmer’s property is expropriated under the regulations, he may get fair compensation, and I think that hon. members will support me. The farmers ought to get adequate compensation, and if they do not get it from the Board of Control, they should have the right of making an appeal to an impartial court of arbitration. I assume that the Prime Minister will accept it in a spirit of love and good will, because I only want justice to be done. I can foresee that if one of the members of the Control Board should be a strong opponent, or a person who possibly is jealous of the man in whose case he has to sit and give a decision, that he would take the man’s property causing great loss to such person. I therefore make an appeal to hon. members over there to regard the matter seriously, and to support us, so that when there is an expropriation, reasonable compensation will be paid. That is very necessary, because we know this kind of thing. Firstly therefore I ask for the introduction of bilingualism. The request is a reasonable one. We are living in a bilingual country. Why should not the Prime Minister accept this little amendment which is so well intended? It only asks that when a warrant is issued or a demand is made it shall be done in the home language of the person. It surely is reasonable to make sure that the man against whom the claim is made will understand it. In the second place, I ask that if a man’s property is expropriated in the interests of the “see the war through” policy of the Government, that the farmer shall then have the right to get value for his property. Another very important claim that we make is that the chief control officer in the Union shall be a man whose hands are not stained by blood, a man who has not taken such an intense part in the political struggle as is the case with the present chief control officer. If the object of the Prime Minister is what I expect it is, then I want to suggest for his consideration whether it is not the right thing to appoint a man who has stood outside of politics, a man who, if I should be complained against, I could approach freely and from whom I could expect to receive fair and just treatment without party prejudice.

I second the amendment which has been moved. There are similar amendments which are standing in my name, and I therefore second these amendments. The first deals with bilingualism, the application of the principle laid down in the Act of Union. It may possibly be that the Prime Minister will say that in any case it was the intention to address the notices to people in both languages, but I want to point out that a different interpretation has already been placed by certain sections in South Africa on section 137 than the one we give to it. There is a difference being drawn between “bilingualism” and “equal rights to both languages.” I had an instance recently in the railway service, which I brought to the notice of the Minister of Railways, where an official in one of the railway services suffered an injury, and the document which was laid before him was only in English. The document was practically a contract by which he had to sign away his rights, and I received the assurance of the man that he could not properly understand the document, and that he did not know what the document meant. The Minister of Railways had the matter inquired into. Unfortunately that individual was an ignorant man who did not stand on his rights. It shows that such things do actually happen. But here we are not dealing with ordinary notices, but with notices which, when they are not obeyed, involve a penalty. What is now being moved is a reasonable amendment. It is an attempt to rectify certain flaws which were possibly overlooked, and I hope that the Prime Minister will be prepared to give his serious consideration to the amendment, and to give effect, as far as possible, to the request which has been made from this side of the House. As this matter affects bilingualism, we are concerned with a big principle in our constitution, especially as penalties are being provided for here. The hon. member also moves an amendment in connection with the question of usury, and it is proposed to delete sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph (a) of sub-regulation (6), and to replace it by the following words—

We have industries in South Africa to-day which are manufacturing goods from products of this country, and there is the danger that that industry might make unnecessarily large profits. It is not only the man who imports goods from overseas or imports in part from overseas, but also the man who obtains his raw materials in South Africa, who will be tempted to make big profits at a time like this when there is a general rise in prices. In the case of the farmer the prices are fixed, or the prices will be fixed by fluctuations in the markets. They can therefore not make excessive profits by saying that they want so and so much for their product, because they are dependent on the fluctuations of the market. Accordingly, it is proposed also to include in the amendment that factories which are not subject to the existing provisions in connection with profiteering will fall under it, but that the farmers will be exempted. Then the next point that I want to deal with is the amendment in connection with Regulation No. 6 of Proclamation 201. Regulation No. 6 deals with the question of commandeering articles or things which may be required for public purposes. In that case we also bring up a very reasonable request, namely, that when a man has his property expropriated, that it should not be left to the Government to say what compensation he should receive. We are living in a time of war; the ordinary laws of the land are abrogated, and therefore it is necessary to lay down here that if there is actually a difference of opinion between the Government and the person whose possessions are being expropriated, provision should be made for arbitration to settle the dispute between the Government and that person. This is a generally known custom in commercial life and other branches of society. I think it is a reasonable request, that not the officials of the Government alone should say what a farmer or other owner should get for his land if it is expropriated. Then there is another amendment, the one in connection with regulation 8bis., of the amended Proclamation 201, as amended by Proclamation 334. We ask that where an attachment is made on the books or documents of a person, such a person can demand a receipt for the documents or books that are being taken away. Unfortunately I have not had time to go into what the existing provisions of the Statutes of the Union are, and I speak subject to correction when I say that under the existing law, that if an attachment is laid on books or documents, then a receipt is given for them. Here again we have a very reasonable request. We are living in extraordinary times, when feeling possibly runs high. A policeman or other official can, under the regulations, lay an attachment on books and accounts which are possibly documents of the very greatest value to the person, and it may be found later, when the documents are given back, that some of them are missing. The Prime Minister will admit that when an attachment is laid on a man’s books or documents, he should at least be able to demand a receipt. Then there is another amendment, and I say again that it is very reasonable. It has reference to the control officials, to wit, that persons who are concerned in politics should not be given such appointments. Here you are not dealing with appointments to some non-political body or other, such as the farmers’ relief boards. The participation in the war is a political question, about which a change of Government took place. It has become what the English call “a political issue.” As, therefore, this is a political matter, we can reasonably ask that those persons to whom such extraordinary powers are being entrusted, should have nothing to do with politics. There is good reason for this amendment, because we know that Sir Theodore Truter was directly connected with politics before he was given the appointment. As it is a matter affecting the performance of such extraordinary powers, the Prime Minister should see that such officials take not part in politics, like magistrates and others. Then we are concerned here with another amendment in connection with regulation 29 of Proclamation 201, as incorporated by Proclamation 252. This deals with the question of the establishment of a special corps for necessary services to be of assistance to the South African Police for the protection of buildings and landed property, etc. Now the amendment asks to insert the word “property” instead of the words “buildings and terrains.” I think the Prime Minister will admit that this is a reasonable amendment. We have already had cases during this war where, for instance, a motor-car was left in a street and damage was done to it because it was of German manufacture, although the owner might have been one of the knights of truth. I think that the word “property” is more comprehensive and states the object better for which this corps has been established. I am sorry that the rules of the House do not allow me to move that the corps should consist only of Europeans. Well, those are the amendments which we move, and I hope that the Prime Minister will debate these amendments in the same spirit in which they have been introduced, namely to improve, in any case as far as it is possible to improve, this Bill which we do not like.

I also would like to make an appeal to the Prime Minister, in the first place in connection with the language question. There are some of our young people who are undergoing training, and they complain that at Tempe all the words of command are being given in English alone. I feel that, if the Prime Minister is aware of that, he as an Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaner should put his foot down, and say: See to it that both languages are properly upheld. When recently we had the parade of troops in Adderley Street….

This has nothing to do with the amendment.

If you object I will abandon the point, but on that day one heard nothing but “left, right, left right.” I waited in vain for a command in Afrikaans. I think that if the Prime Minister will consider the matter, he will allow this amendment. It is surely not quibbling, it is a position that arises over and over again. From my constituency a major who is entirely unilingual was appointed with a high salary to Roberts Heights, and we feel that our citizens surely have the right to receive orders in their own language. They regard it as a grievance and it causes friction.

The hon. member cannot debate defence matters now.

There is a question of bilingualism involved in this amendment, and I am only pointing out how we are from time to time hurt in connection with this matter. I make an appeal to the Prime Minister to accept the amendment for the reason I have given. Another request is in connection with the expropriation. Justice ought to be done to the man whose property is being expropriated, and I feel that inasmuch as the Prime Minister is taking full power in this proclamation, and he can dictate and do anything he wants to, and as he has given the interned persons an opportunity to appeal, although we do not agree with the arrangements and personnel for the appeal, I feel he should also grant arbitration in this case. We are under a dictatorship in this war, and it may happen that the Prime Minister may not even consider it necessary to summon Parliament. Give such a person an opportunity of appealing, when he has no court to which he can go. I really think that the Prime Minister can meet us and accept this amendment.

I would like to move the amendment which appears on page 482 of the Order Paper in my name, to wit, the second part of it. The amendment reads as follows—

1. (2) Sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 15 of the regulations promulgated by Proclamation No. 201, 1939, shall in respect of any act or omission after the commencement of this Act, be construed as if the following words had been inserted at the end thereof, viz.:
   “Provided that such opinion be based upon the sworn statements, in writing, made separately, of at least two persons, of which statements the person arrested or to be arrested is entitled to obtain certified copies.”

One begins to wonder whether it is of any use to move these amendments. It seems to us that in this democratic country we are only able to plead, but we can accomplish nothing so far as our amendments are concerned. I want, however, to ask the Prime Minister to yield, to a certain extent, in connection with this amendment, because if he does not agree to it there is none of the persons sitting behind him who will vote for it, even if they do agree with it. We have to speak from hearsay about the reasons why people are arrested, because everything is kept secret. I mentioned the great Afrikaners this afternoon who are interned at Leeuwkop, and what we are now asking here is that there should be sworn declarations by at least two persons before a person can be arrested for internment, and in addition, that that person should receive certified copies of that sworn statement. We shall be glad if the Minister will meet us to that extent. I have referred here to the way in which persons are arrested and put into the camps, without their receiving the slightest information as to the reason for that course being taken. I would now like to read out here what those persons have to undergo after they have been arrested. I put a question on the matter to the Prime Minister, and I want to read out that question and answer. I asked him, in the first place—

To this the Minister replied—

My second question was—

Now hon. members must take note of the reply which the Prime Minister gave here. In my question I put it in such a way that I asked whether some of the people were put into cells, and we received a reply from the Minister on the lines that we usually get—

My next two questions were as follows—

The answer to the first question was “no” and the answer to the second was that every attempt was being made to prevent persons who had to be interned undergoing any humiliation. I want especially to call attention to Question No. 2, which I put, whether the people were taken to the gaol and detained in cells there, and to the answer which the Prime Minister gave me. The Minister in the first instance, said no, the people were not put into the gaol there, but at the end of his reply he nevertheless admitted that the people were detained at Marshall Square. They were not kept in the office, but they were kept in cells in the prison, and if the Minister got different information from his officials, then I shall be glad if he will enquire into the matter again. If necessary I am prepared to give him the names of these people. The Minister will probably now say that the people were subsequently released if they were wrongly arrested, but in the meantime they were put into gaol, and had to remain in cells. By releasing them the Minister admits that they were not a danger to the state, but nevertheless they were in the interim treated in an undignified way in consequence of false complaints which were made against them. I do not blame the Minister; he did not know about it personally, but I want him to prevent enemies of the Afrikaners bringing them into trouble with false complaints. The Afrikaners actually have enemies in their own country. If they stand up for their rights here, then they are regarded as enemies by fellow-Afrikaners and other people in the country. When the Prime Minister was the leader of the rebels in the Cape Colony, he had that experience himself. We want it to be necessary to have two sworn statements by individuals, and also that certified copies of them should be handed over to the person concerned. As a lawyer the Prime Minister will admit that that is fair. We are not arguing here that there is no war, nor that the court should intervene in all cases. We only say that the person who has been arrested ought to know what the complaint against him is, so that he can defend himself against those complaints in some way or other, even if it is only by going to the Minister himself. My hon. friend opposite (Mr. Hirsch) laughs. He is one of those who are persecuting the Afrikaners. When one of his friends is put into the camp, then they all stand together to get such a man out again, even if that person were a danger to South Africa. Whether he laughs or not, I am doing my duty to plead here for right and justice for every Afrikaner who have come to make his home in South Africa, and that does not include that hon. member, because he has one foot in South Africa and the other in Great Britain. I appeal in all seriousness to the Prime Minister to meet us by accepting this amendment in connection with the sworn statement.

I second this amendment, because of all the regulations this one, in my opinion, causes the greatest trouble. We find that these regulations are left by the Minister of Defence to the control officer, police officials, officers, etc. to arrest people arbitrarily. I doubt very much whether hon. members opposite have taken the trouble to read these regulations, and for their sake I want to read this one here now. Regulation 15 (1) reads as follows—

Where is there a more far-reaching regulation to be found than that? An ordinary policeman has the power, without any warrant, to go and arrest a person on nis own account, if he has suspicion, and all the other persons who are named in this regulation can also do so with or without a warrant. What security is there then for any citizen in the country? He can be arrested with or without a warrant by the whole series of persons who are mentioned here. Take the chief control officer—we surely know very well who he is. He is a man whose past is black and melancholy in the eyes of the Afrikaners. We know how Sir Theodore Truter persecuted the Afrikaners in the Boer War; we know what traces he left behind in the rebellion. I have no time to go into that now. But that man is now being entitled to arrest anybody without a warrant. Then we go further and we get the question of the police, of officers in the permanent force—they also can do so. The Prime Minister boasted about the state of peace and order which prevailed in the country, and every citizen and member of this House was glad about it. But what is happening now? I came back recently from my constituency, and it will possibly interest the Minister of Defence if I brought a few cases to his notice. I am glad that the Minister of Justice is also in his place, and when he has finished his jokes then I hope he will listen to me, because his police also are concerned in the matter. There are farmers in Indwe who were warned by the police about their conversations. That in itself is nothing special. I have another case of a person in Indwe who was warned by the police to go to the magistrate, not of his district, but of the adjoining district, 70 miles from there. He therefore had to travel a distance of 140 miles there and back, because the magistrate appointed by the Minister of Justice in his district was apparently not good enough to deal with the matter. He had to go to Queenstown. We know very well that Queenstown is usually “blood ted.” He has to go to the magistrate of imnerialistic Queenstown, because the magistrate of Indwe was probably not good enough. Are these not things which disturb the peace and quiet in the country? And on whose shoulders does the responsibility rest? It rests on the shoulders of persons who cannot exercise their discretion properly, and who disturb the peace and quiet of the country. I want heartily to support this amendment and to do so because if there are to be sworn statements by at least two persons before a warrant is issued, then there will surely in the first instance have to be well-founded reasons, because otherwise sworn statements will not be made. But to give the right to these four persons, the Minister, the chief control officer, a control officer or an officer in the permanent force, to arrest a man with or without a warrant, is going too far to my mind. I would like to bring that definite matter to the notice of the Minister of Justice. If he cannot put it right, then I want to ask the Minister of Defence, who is so anxious to preserve peace and order, to see that such things will not happen again. We find that in Great Britain, the country which the Prime Minister is so anxious to aid, there are no less than 112 special courts which sit on such cases of internment, but in South Africa they are interned with or without warrant by the persons whom I have named. According to the figures, 928 persons were interned here, of whom no less than 84 were Union nationals. That gives the impression that people have gone to work in a great rush, or that erroneous and false declarations have been intentionally made, whether they were due to business envy or intimidation or other reasons, but in each case people have been interned on wrong grounds, as the Minister of Defence himself had to admit. No less than 72 out of the 84 cases of Union nationals have already been released. That proves that it was not necessary to intern all the Union nationals. I make an appeal to the Minister to be more careful, especially in connection with Union nationals. I agree with him that if there is an enemy in the country who is not behaving himself, then he must be interned. But if 72 Union nationals who were interned could be released then it proves that the Minister was too hasty in trying to justify the war here, a war which, as the Minister has himself stated this afternoon, is only a technical war so far as South Africa is concerned. In Great Britain, where you have a real war, where the people see that they are fighting, where they realise that they are at war, there are no less than 112 courts which go into and deal with these cases. I hope that the amendment will be agreed to.

One of the strange and also unpleasant aspects of South Africa’s participation in the war is that people like the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Hirsch) and others, who are constantly talking about freedom and about democracy for which forsooth they are fighting, consider it a joke when something is actually done here for the protection of the liberties of the citizens of South Africa. They laugh, although they say that they are prepared to fight for freedom and democracy. The amendment is very reasonable, and I just want to quote to the Prime Minister what the position in England is, where they are actually involved in war. I am quoting from The Spectator, a journal which probably is treated with the greatest respect by the Prime Minister. The following appeared in that paper on the 1st December—

That is the position in England. There they are prepared to listen to criticism.

What kind of an Opposition have they got there?

The Opposition in this House have the interests of South African citizens just as much and more at heart than some hon. members on the opposite side. We are not now dealing with the question whether South Africa should have gone into the war or not, but we are dealing with the freedom of the citizens of South Africa, and with regulations which are intended to cripple that freedom in certain ways. We protest, and we suggest amendments of the regulations in order to prevent the kind of things happening which have happened; and when we do that it is regarded as a joke on the other side of the House. I want to say this in honour of the people in England, that they have a better idea of the liberty of the subject than the so-called knights of truth in South Africa. I also want to make a quotation of what the position in England is—

That is the position in England. They must be certain that a man was concerned in certain hostile acts, and even then, as I explained this afternoon, there are special courts before which the people can appear before they are put into the camps. What does this amendment ask for? All it asks is that before a man is put into an internment camp on the grounds of information given against him, that the information must be contained in a sworn statement. When on a previous occasion we asked the Prime Minister on what information certain persons were interned, he replied that it was not in the interests of the state to publish the source of the information. I am prepared to admit that, but a sworn statement of that kind need not be published. It can be submitted to the Prime Minister before he takes the serious step of depriving a South African citizen of his liberty, so that he may be certain that the man’s liberty is being taken away on good grounds. In other words, the sworn statement will give us the assurance that the man will not be deprived of his liberty simply by virtue of “news” and of gossip which is repeated. In the case of the brothers Arndt the Prime Minister was manly enough to admit that they were interned on false information. I asked him then whether any steps had been taken against the people who had given the false information, but he did not reply to that question. To prevent that kind of thing we are moving this amendment. We say that freedom is a thing which is of great value, and we ask that before a man is put into gaol — because it amounts to that —that before a man is deprived of his liberty the Minister of Justice or the chief control officer should make certain that the liberty is only being taken away on the ground of serious information, and not on the stories circulated by enemies or business competitors. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept this reasonable amendment, and that he will exhibit the same spirit as the Home Secretary in England did, when he said that the Government was prepared to listen to criticism, and that the Government was looking for an agreed solution.

An agreed solution.

The hon. member is now grasping at that. The main thing is that they are prepared to listen to reasonable criticism, and when we ask for a sworn statement before a man’s liberty is taken away, that is a reasonable request, and reasonable criticism. We who are sitting here as representatives of the people, have the right to ask it and to demand it, so that a man’s liberty shall not be taken away lightly on the gossip of spies and other persons. I hope the Prime Minister will get up and honestly say why he cannot insist on a sworn statement. Suppose certain information is brought in, then such person against whom statements are made can be watched and kept under observation until the sworn statement is obtained. Even a man, a former member of Parliament, who is well known and respected in Parliament, Mr. Swart, was kept under observation by the police wherever he went. That is denied by the Minister of Justice, but I want to say that after the Minister of Justice had denied it, Mr. Swart personally gave me the assurance that wherever he went he had been followed by detectives. If the Government has reason to believe that some person or other is engaged in doing something to the injury of the state, it is possible to keep such a man under observation, and in the meantime a sworn statement can be obtained. If it is not possible for the Minister of Defence to accept that part of the amendment of the hon. member for Moss-el Bay (Dr. Van Nierop), where it is asked that a copy of the sworn statement should be shown to the accused, then he surely can in any case accept the first part of the amendment. Let the Prime Minister act in the spirit which he exhibited when he gave that address at the St. Andrew’s University in Scotland, when he said that freedom was something which no one would give up except with his life. That was the text of the Prime Minister on that occasion. Let him show the same spirit, exhibit the same concern about the liberty of the citizens of South Africa that he exhibited to the Scots in Scotland. Let the Prime Minister show that he really is concerned about liberty, and that it is a serious matter to him. The sworn statement need not be made public. He can keep it in his office, and not a soul will know about it, but it will be a guarantee against a repetition of the Arndt case, so that the Prime Minister of South Africa will not have to get up again and publish to the world that two South African citizens had been put into gaol on false information. We have heard of late how people are being released from the camps. Why are they being released? Have they suddenly been converted, or is it a fact that the Government has in the meantime learned that they also have been put into the camps on false information? I am not now referring to Germans but to some of our own people who have been deprived of their liberty, and I want to ask the Minister to show that the liberty of the subject is really a serious matter to him. We do not want to have a Gestapo or an Ogpu in South Africa. Let things be done in the open, and let us know why these people go to the camps. Let us know that if a man is interned, he has been interned on well-founded information.

I would like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop). If there is one thing about which we have always boasted in South Africa, it is that the liberty of the subject will not be violated by us. But we find that during the last seven months we have had a kind of “keep your mouth shut” law, and before you know where you are you find yourself in an internment camp. I hope the Prime Minister will see the unfairness of the existing regulations, and that he will realise that before such a person is interned, there should be two sworn statements made. Let me give the Prime Minister an example of what has happened in the past. We had the case of Wiesner, who was in the employ of the Broadcasting Corporation. Without any complaint that person was interned, and subsequently released when it was found out that there was no reason for interning him. But he lost his job and did not get it back again. Now that man was told that he could not get his job back again, because he had not been there to carry out his work. But in the meantime he was in the internment camp, without any sworn statement having been made against him. We find that we have now for seven months been in a kind of war, but the only thing we are doing is to make war against women and children. With regard to the persons who are in the internment camps, it amounts to this, that we are making war against their wives and children. I do not believe that South Africa is keen on having a reputation like that. I want to request the Prime Minister, when there is a complaint against a person, to provide that such sworn statements must be made. What astonished me in connection with this debate was that the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe) made the remark that the dangerous people were sitting on this side of the House. If those are dangerous persons, who tell the people what in their opinion is the best thing for South Africa, then I am happy to be associated with those dangerous people. Then I prefer to sit amongst dangerous people rather than amongst the bywoners of John Bull. The bywoners of John Bull, in other words the knights of truth, go to the Prime Minister with irresponsible tales, and then people are interned by reason of those tales. I cannot see that this is an unfair request, and when the Prime Minister reconsiders the matter he will see that it is unfair for South Africans to be arrested in their own country, and to be put into camps without sworn statements having been made against them. I think that even a murderer will not be arrested if there is not certain evidence of there being a case against him. Therefore I support the amendment of the hon. member for Mossel Bay and I hope that the Prime Minister will consider whether it is fair for Afrikaners to be interned in our country without there being anything against them. When we see that persons are being released every day now, then that is the proof that if in the past action had been taken on the lines asked for in the amendment, it would not have been necessary for numbers of persons to be interned. The fact that they have been released shows that there is no proof against those persons. If the amendment is not agreed to, the same sort of thing will be happening again in the future.

I would like, by a few words, to support the amendment of the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop). It states who the persons are, namely, the Minister of Defence, the chief control officer, the control officers or an officer in the permanent force, who can arrest anyone at their discretion in the interests of the state or in the interests of such a person himself. I would like to know from the Prime Minister in what cases a person can in this connection be arrested in his own interests. We know that when a person is mad, then he can be arrested in his own interests. But how a man can be arrested in his own interests in this case, I cannot understand. Now I would not have minded if this clause had remained as it is if the person who was arrested could go to a proper court and defend himself before the court, but that opportunity is entirely taken away. They do not appear before a court, and if a control officer gets it into his head not to release the man, even if he is innocent, then he cannot get his release. It is not possible for him to go to a court to defend himself. But it is not, in the first place, these officials who do harm, but those knights of truth who try to get their fellow-men into trouble. I have heard about the knights of truth, and I have met with their work, but wherever I found it, I found that it was not truthful work. They are hired, and sometimes even mix in respectable society, because they come from respectable families. But we find that a man who does that kind of thing — when we examine his character — we find that he is not a respectable person. Those are the people who have to report the news, and an officer or control official then makes the arrest by virtue of that news, and sends such a man to the internment camp. This is a matter which the Prime Minister should consider. He cannot possibly, as Prime Minister, give his attention to all the cases. Even the chief control officer and the other control officers cannot give adequate attention to each case. We had experience from 1899 to 1902 of that kind of person who allowed himself to be used for this kind of work. It has never yet been a respectable man who did this kind of work. Here we are dealing with people, even if they are called knights of truth, or khaki knights, or lying knights, they are people who are a poor kind of knight. I ask the Minister not to allow this class of person to disturb the peace of the country. We have already heard from the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) about the peace and quiet which prevailed in the country, and it was the Nationalist members who went through the country and spoke persuasively to induce the people to remain calm, and to do nothing to cause any trouble in the country. That brought about the peace in our country, and to-day legislation is being passed that we should allow unrest to be caused amongst the people, by a certain class of people from whom we may expect the worst, until ultimately it may possibly lead to riots, and, who knows, ultimately they may possibly be executed, as has happened in the past. I want to ask the Prime Minister, let us have a court of justice where these people can properly defend themselves before the court, or if he is unable to do that, then let him accept the amendment of the hon. member for Mossel Bay.

I think that the Prime Minister will surely agree to this amendment, because he knows what took place in the Transvaal, how charges were made against the teachers on the Rand of having spread Nazi propaganda and having influenced the children. Complaints were also made to the Administrator and the Executive Committee, and the newspapers on the Rand, under the lead of the great khaki knight, George Heard, stressed the fact that Nazi propaganda was going on in the schools. Such an attack was made against the Afrikaans schools and the Afrikaans teachers, that a commission of enquiry was appointed to institute an enquiry into the alleged irregularities on the Witwatersrand. You know what the result was, that there was no truth in it, and that the intention merely was to stir up feeling under the lead of that Mr. Heard and a certain Robertson. The Prime Minister knows very well what the result of the enquiry was. I want particularly to point out that when rumours are spread about, a man may suffer a great deal owing to those rumours, and it may be that the whole of his future is involved. It may be that the man who has assumed obligations may not be able to fulfil those obligations, because he is dismissed from his office. We have the instance of Mr. Wiesner, who was mentioned here, but there are many other cases. If a complaint is made that a person is a danger to the state, then let the Prime Minister say: Bring sworn statements to me, and I will investigate the matter, and if we on this side of the House know that he will only act on sworn statements, we will not carry this matter any further. If we are to judge by what has happened in the past then many of the people who have been tale-bearers would to-day be in gaol for perjury if they made sworn declarations. The Minister of Justice was misled by information which be received. That appears from the number of people who were interned and subsequently released. We are not pleading on behalf of Germans in this country, but we are pleading on behalf of our own citizens, and we think that a chance should be given them to plead their cases. I do not like the chief control officer at all. I think that be ought to be a person with a legal training, so that he can serve as a kind of appeal judge, and when the case is properly conducted with sworn statements and the rest, then he can go into it and give his decision. We talk so much here about freedom, and here we are dealing with a case where the freedom of our fellow-citizens is being interfered with, and it is being endangered, and from what we know about conditions on the countryside, we know that there are numbers of cases where people are being interned by virtue of false information. I am convinced that the Minister does not want to have that on his conscience.

I want to say a few words about the unilingual words of command. The amendment has not yet been drafted, but I want to point out that the Prime Minister, in his speech at Bloemfontein, said the following—

One of the works which the United Party did was this bilingual policy which it developed. Clause 3 of its constitution reads—

I hope that inasmuch as the Prime Minister said that, namely, that his work was to a great extent that of the founding of the United Party, and as that statement occurs in the constitution of the United Party, that he will actually carry out that bilingual policy of the United Party in practice during this war period. He says that it was to a great extent his work to build up that party, and that constitution, and we hope that he will now carry it out in practice in respect of those who are under his control. We hope that the Prime Minister will make this concession to us, because he tells us that the constitution of the United Party was one of his ideals, and that he will give us the opportunity of having those commands given in both languages. I do not think that we are asking too much of him when we ask here that those commands should be given in both languages, because I am thinking of the confusion which it may cause even to prominent persons like the Minister of Mines, and quite a number of hon. members opposite, if commands were only given in one language. What would happen to them if commands were only given to them in Afrikaans? Not only from the point of view of the party, but also from the angle of the importance of the circumstances in which we are, it should be the right of every individual to be spoken to in the language which he can understand, for otherwise there is going to be great confusion. Another matter that I want to touch upon is the question of the chief control officer. I want to point out that if already 72 people have had to be discharged from the internment camps, then it does not say much for the confidence we should put in the chief control officer. Nor does it say much for him that the Prime Minister himself has to come and tell this House that persons were interned on false declarations. What can be the respect and the confidence of the public in the future if, during this state of emergency, such things are occurring in the country? Can we look up to a man like that? We have moved this amendment because too much power is being given to such a person in this Bill. Well, the time has gone by to move those amendments again, and all we can now do is to ask the Prime Minister to appoint someone who will have the confidence of the public, and who in the first place does not concern himself with politics. A human being remains human, and if a person gets into circumstances when he is threatened with internment, then he immediately remembers that the chief control officer is the vice-chairman of the United Party, and he asks himself the question whether it is not for political reasons that he is being arrested. The Prime Minister himself suffered from that suspicion when he had a man arrested in Wakkerstroom, and had him interned on the day when he was to hold a meeting there. One of the greatest difficulties in connection with this matter is that the man who is the chief control officer has interested himself in the political course of events in South Africa, and it was the first duty of the Prime Minister to see that that man kept out of politics. His second duty was to see that he should be a person in whom we could have great confidence, and for whom we could have great respect, and unfortunately we cannot say that in connection with the person who is now occupying that post. His past has not proved to us that we can show that respect for, and confidence in him, and even in the circumstances we are now in, the very short time that has elapsed and the large number that have been released, 72 Afrikaners out of 84 who were interned, proves to us very clearly that we can have no confidence in him. We are pleading with the Prime Minister particularly in regard to the last amendment, that the persons who are being interned should not be interned, as the Prime Minister himself put it, by virtue of false declarations, and accordingly we ask that there should be sworn declarations made before people are plunged in this way into such distressful circumstances as to be interned. We find that people occupy responsible posts, and although they are subsequently released, they do not get their old jobs back again. They are thrown on the street, and are in miserable circumstances. In South Africa we do not care for concentration camps at all. They have a very bad odour in the nostrils of the Afrikaners, and in the circumstances we are now living in, we hope that the Prime Minister will see the fairness and justness of our amendments and that he will yield to our plea.

hon. members opposite are now pleading so very much for the liberty of Union nationals that tney are apparently themselves beginning to believe in the pleas that they are making here.

We do not have one foot in England.

Leave that alone now.

We do not want to leave it alone.

I have given my explanation of that on a previous occasion.

You probably have as many feet as a centipede.

If the hon. member will give me an opportunity, then I would like to show those hon. members that they are needlessly afraid in regard to the procedure which is being followed in internment. We must not forget that we are now living in an abnormal time. Whether hon. members opposite want to admit it or not, and rightly or wrongly, we are at war, and we must bear in mind that we are dealing with a state of war in our country. They themselves admitted on the opposite side that it would be undesirable for the Government to make the source of its information public when it takes the course of interning people. Well, as soon as sworn statements are demanded, and in addition that those sworn statements must be made known to the person concerned, then we can be certain of it that hon. members opposite will within a short time have them in their possession. They already have sworn statements in their possession now, and some of them have not yet been read in this House. No, as soon as those sworn statements are put into the hands of the accused they will come into their hands, and then the source of the information of the Government will be known. They themselves admitted that that was not in the interests of the state. I just want to tell them that they are needlessly afraid about the procedure of enquiry which is being followed, because it is nothing else but the procedure which is being followed in ordinary criminal cases. When anyone makes a charge—sometimes he does not even make a charge but simply notifies the police that a theft, for instance, has been committed, and what is the procedure which the police follow then? The police institute an enquiry; they are instructed to go to work in the best possible way, and if their enquiry shows them—they also possibly take sworn statements—that there is a sufficient reason for arresting the person, then he is arrested. We cannot say that that is wrong. It may happen to any citizen in connection with a criminal case.

The persons who make charges have to make sworn declarations.

How does the hon. member know that the procedure which is now being followed does not also involve the making of a sworn declaration? No. Hon. member opposite can say that that is not the procedure which is being followed. That brings me to this point. How many people are not arrested in the ordinary course of criminal cases and put into gaol? The case comes up and after it has been fully threshed out in the court, it happens in most cases that the accused is found not guilty, and he is discharged.

We are not dealing with criminals here.

I only want to point out the procedure which is daily followed in connection with such matters, and I want to emphasise that many persons in consequence of that procedure, are arrested, and therefore they are often found to be innocent. Then they are released, and precisely the same thing is being done here. There is an investigation by the police, and if the police with the information which they have, which possibly includes sworn statements, come to the conclusion that a man should be interned, then it is submitted to the officials concerned, and after further enquiry it is possibly found that the man should be interned. He is interned, and if when the matter is further gone into it is found that the reasons are not sufficient, or that the circumstances have changed, if such a person is then released, then he is in no different position to the person who was arrested under the criminal procedure. These are cases where the people are released after they have been arrested. There has been a reference to the considerable number of people who have been released after having been put into the internment camps. I want to point out that that was necessary at the time. The country was in danger, and no one knew what would happen. But after the Government which came into power, got things properly under their control, and took them over, the Government took up the attitude that so-and-so, who in the circumstances which had previously prevailed, was actually a danger to the state, was now no longer a danger, and in consequence that he could be released. What is wrong with that? Does it not happen every day in our criminal cases that a person is released, although he was arrested on good grounds?

Why then did they arrest these people?

I have explained that at the start there was uncertainty, and that there actually was danger existing, so that the Government had to be careful.

What was the danger?

At the start there were references to the danger existing in the country, and I can point out to the hon. member that it was not only on this side of the House that mention was made of the existence of danger in the country. It came from both sides.

It only came from that side.

No, there were also persons on the same side as the hon. member who said that there was danger in the country, and that being so it was no more than the duty of the Government to be careful. If the Government thinks that there is a danger in the country, even if the danger is really not existent—and in this case we know that there was unrest at the beginning—then they must take the risk, and persons who make themselves guilty by committing acts or behaving in such a way as would increase the danger to the state, have to be arrested. It happens in everyday life in the ordinary course of police duty that persons are arrested when they are suspected of having committed a criminal act. In this case there are extraordinary circumstances prevailing, and if persons conduct themselves in such a way as to come under suspicion, then it is the duty of the Government to arrest them, and if subsequently it is found that they are innocent then they can be given their liberty again, and that is nothing else than what happens every day in the ordinary course of legal procedure.

But compensate them by giving them their work back.

I do not know what the hon. member means by the statement that compensation should be given to those people. If a person is arrested because the ordinary criminal investigation has produced evidence against him, and he comes before the court and the court finds him innocent, then there is no duty resting on the Government to compensate him. There is no such law in our country nor, as far as I know, in any other country either, and why are hon. members opposite so much concerned about these persons having to be compensated in such circumstances?

It is not a question of compensation, but the man loses his job.

The position is in no way different from the case of an ordinary criminal enquiry and prosecution.

Here we are not concerned with criminals, but with a marionette war.

I must honestly and with every respect for hon. members opposite say that the way in which they are debating this Bill and moving their amendment gives us the impression that they are playing the fool. I do not think that they really intend to do so, but the way in which they are debating the matter gives us the impression that they are playing the fool.

What is your objection to the amendment?

I am now dealing with the point which was raised by the hon. member opposite, that the people are arrested and subsequently released without being paid any compensation. If people are released it does not exactly follow that they were in every case arrested innocently. But let hon. members opposite show us that in the case of interned people they were so differently treated to the way people are treated in criminal cases. What is the difference between these cases and ordinary criminal investigations? The Government regards the persons as a danger to the country in certain circumstances. In our country, just as in other countries, as soon as the country is at war, the minority in the country ought to stand by the majority, but in our country that is not the case. We are all in the same danger; there is a common enemy, and it will undermine the defence if we do not all stand together. In our country, however, that point of view is not taken. The minority in our country fights the Government foot by foot in all its action in connection with the defence of the country.

The defence of our country!

The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) said that in England the Government accepted every suggestion for the improvement of the regulations and legislation, but what is the difference in our country? There they stand like one man behind the Government so far as the war is concerned, and when they meet together they discuss any measure for the improvement of existing regulations, they know that the suggestions come from friendly disposed people, but here in our country we have fault-finding from morning till night, and the impression is created as if the Government was acting unfairly and dishonestly in connection with the internments.

That is so.

It is not so. There are thousands of cases where people are being arrested for ordinary criminal investigation, and where they are subsequently released by the court. Has the Government in that case also acted dishonestly? hon. members over there assume that everyone who gives evidence, who gives information to the police does it in a false way, and they assume that the police, to whom the enquiry is entrusted, also handle the matter in a false manner. The police are given instructions and make an enquiry, and it is on their responsibility that they themselves finally get orders to take action.

How then did the Arndts get into gaol?

You intern first and then you make the enquiry.

Many people have already been released after a proper enquiry by the police. Here, therefore, we have the same procedure, namely that the police investigate the matter before they come to the conclusion that internment is necessary for the safety of the country. Subsequently further enquiry takes place, and possibly they find that it is no longer necessary to keep a person interned.

Will it not assist the police to get sworn statements?

I just want to draw attention to the fact that the procedure which is being followed here is not unfair to anyone.

How do you know all the facts that you are telling us? From the Minister of Justice?

It is not necessary for me to get the information from him.

What about the 64 who have been released; was no injustice committed there?

How many of those who were released were interned on false information? If things had gone wrong and hon. members opposite had come into power, they would possibly have interned other people.

Have you no sympathy for these people?

Of course, just as much as you have. No, one wants to do an injustice to anyone. The Government do not want to do any injustice, but hon. members over there are creating a wrong impression, as if the procedure which is being followed were unfair. It only arouses unrest and riotousness.

What about the Arntds?

I would like the hon. member to tell us what other procedure in connection with ordinary criminal investigations he can suggest, and how that course is being deviated from, and how it differs from the procedure which is being followed in connection with internments.

I am really astonished at the explanation by the last speaker of what has taken place here in connection with the internments. He is a lawyer and knows just as well as I do that no criminal or anyone who is suspected of a crime, is arrested without there having first of all been a thorough investigation by the police. He knows that sworn statements are taken not merely one or two, but sometimes a hundred or more. He knows that a case is completely investigated by the police before a person is arrested because he is suspected of having committed a crime. The hon. member knows just as well as I do that the matter is not only enquired into beforehand, but if a man is arrested there is read out to him the reason for his arrest, and the reasons are given why he is suspected of the crime. The hon. member also knows that after he is arrested such a person is brought before the court as soon as possible, and there the question is threshed out whether he has committed the crime or not. Now the hon. member wants to come here and tell us that the persons who are sent to internment camps have the same privileges. The hon. member knows that that is not true. He knows that everything is done in secret, that a man does not know who has made the complaint against him, nor what the complaint is. The hon. member knows that the man is not brought before the court, but now, after we have complained ad nauseam, there has been an officer, appointed forsooth, to institute enquiry after a man has been put into the camp. Nevertheless, the person gets no opportunity to learn who has made the complaints against him, everything is secret, he is told what the complaint is, but he does not know what the statements are, and he gets no opportunity of cross-examining the complainant. The hon. member also knows that the war policy of the Government has become a political matter, and that there are people who are politics mad. There are people who are so mad in regard to politics that they do not hesitate to take any step, with the result that people can be put into the camps. If that is so, how dare the hon. member get up here and try to make out that because people who have been arrested for crimes are sometimes released, the interned persons get the same treatment as persons who are being criminally prosecuted. He knows just as well as I do that that is not so.

Do you think that it is desirable in time of war to make the information public?

Our complaint is that there is no reasonable procedure in connection with the arrest of persons and their internment. If a man is a danger to society, put him in gaol. If a man is proGerman and wants to cause trouble or threatens to cause trouble, I have no objection to his being imprisoned if he is a danger to the safety of the country, but it is quite clear that the war policy has become a political question, and you find people who make complaints when they are not normal, as the result of political propaganda. Then I also want to say plainly here that because the Jews had trouble with the Germans, and because there is hatred and envy against Germany, it is felt that while there are poor Germans in the country, the Jews are able to take vengeance by handing in secret complaints, on which people are arrested. They cannot defend themselves.

Are you referring to Fine’s case?

I do not know that case, but the feeling exists in the country that people are interned in that way. What, however, I cannot understand is that the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood), as a lawyer, is trying to make out that the same things are going on under the ordinary law. He knows as well as I do that when a man is arrested for a crime they sometimes get hundreds of sworn statements, and are practically sure of their case. The person who is arrested is entitled to demand to be informed what charge is made against him, and who has laid the charge against him. All those privileges are taken away from people in these cases. It is our duty to point out that conditions are not satisfactory and to demand that right and justice shall be done.

If you will allow me, I would like to read out this clause as it stands with the amendment to it, which has been moved by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop), so that we shall hear it again—

Then the amendment—

If this debate to-night was not founded on party politics, then I am prepared to say that this amendment of the hon. member for Mossel Bay would have been passed without a single dissentient. I have reason enough for believing that in this country, and in this House, there is still a sufficiently strong feeling for right and justice to get such an amendment passed unanimously, if it were not that in this case you had to deal with party political circumstances. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) said here this afternoon that opposition was being made in this House with the object of preventing the passing of this Bill. I want to say that if there were no people here who were prepared to move amendments to this clause, then even the stones would be ready to cry out. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) put up a plea in opposition to the amendment. In addition to what the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) said, I want to add this, that the difference between an ordinary criminal case and a Bill such as the one we have here, is that in one case you have the police to decide, after they have got sworn statements, but in the other you have the knights of truth or khaki knights, to collect news. These people are enabled by the Bill to make scandalously false statements by way of suggestion, merely in order to do an injury to certain persons. The Prime Minister himself admitted, as we have heard to-night and before, that people of reputation and position in our country are arrested, and they have been arrested upon false charges. This amendment is actually intended to prevent these false charges. It will require those persons to make sworn statements, and then if they make false declarations then they know that they can be charged with the crime of perjury. Now we have learnt this afternoon from the Prime Minister himself that you cannot in time of war, keep to the ordinary courts of the country. You have an extraordinary state of affairs, and the state must take action instead of the courts. We are prepared to concede that, but then we want to say this, that even if the state has to take action in these circumstances instead of the ordinary courts of the country, then the charge, the punishments and the procedure of the state must be based on the golden rule of right and justice. You can only bring about peace and quiet in the country when everything that is done is based on right and justice. Your treatment must be right and honest towards every citizen in the country. This matter is not so simple. The people are being interned here on false pretences, and their good name is involved in it. A man gets into discredit, and as long as he is interned, the people do not know whether he is guilty or not. A person is presumed to be a loyal citizen of the country, and all the time the impression is created that he is not abiding by the law of the land. His good name is involved in it, while subsequently it appears that notwithstanding the fact that he was interned, the accusations against him were false. But it is not only the man’s good name which suffers in consequence, in many cases the person’s existence is involved in the matter. The families of those people suffer in consequence. But that also is of no account, according to the Government. Even if the charge was false, it makes no difference that they were only released after three or four months. Then it is further represented as such a benefit that they have been released. In the meantime their wives and children have to suffer, but that again does not amount to anything so far as the Government is concerned. Nor do they get any compensation for what they have suffered. But that is not all. The people have lost their jobs and we know of such cases, but there are also cases where a man’s business has been ruined. I know of a case where a man is still in the camp, the wife remained behind, and it is expected that he will be released, but the evidence of the wife is that his business is going to ruin and when the man comes out he will have to start from the beginning. We say that it is not true, but even if it were true that we are engaged in trying here to prevent the passing of this Bill, then it surely is true that we are very anxious to have peace and quiet in the country, but we can only have peace and quiet, and make the calm permanent, if everything that takes place in the country is based on right and justice. Accordingly. I cannot strongly enough express the desire that the Prime Minister may be induced to accept the reasonable amendment of the hon. member for Mossel Bay by demanding sworn declarations in respect of every item of information or report which is handed over to him or his officials.

I did not intend to speak on this amendment, but I heard the speech of the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood). I understand that there was a time when he had a knowledge of law, that he was an advocate, but apparently he has forgotten all his knowledge of the procedure of the courts. To my mind it is deplorable that citizens of the country should be treated on the lines which he laid down, and that he should want to accuse us of pure obstruction, and that we are not honest in the matter. We on this side are honestly trying to uphold the law of the land, and to see that justice is done in South Africa. The hon. member lives in Vereeniging and he knows what happened at Vereeniging. We do not want to rake up old quarrels, but the word “camps” still has a bad aroma in South Africa. Now the Prime Minister has plunged us into the war, and we know that he is having difficulties, and that he cannot allow the people who are undermining his war policy to wander about the country. We expect him to lock up those people, but what happened? There are people imprisoned in the camps to-day who according to the admission of Ministers, have been put there on false information. People have given information out of jealousy or from business reasons. We know that this war is a question of jealousy, just as I, possibly, am jealous of my neighbour who has a better harvest. It is the same in business, and it is the same also with nations. We know that Germany saw that England had all the trade of the world in her hands, and that Germany wanted to have a part of it. Now the hon. member for Vereeniging comes here, and I want to say with all respect that if you tell us that the ordinary procedure of the court is being eliminated, then I want to point out, even if I have not got so much knowledge of law, that if a man is brought before the court, then he has to appear before the judge within 48 hours, and then the case can be adjourned.

I was referring to the enquiry which is instituted.

But in this case there is no enquiry at all; a man is detained as long as you wish, and then a kind of enquiry is instituted.

You know that is not true.

I believe what I am saying to my hon. friend.

Order. The hon. member must address the Chair.

It is a pleasure for me to address the Chair and not the hon. member, because he talks nonsense. The Prime Minister wants to see the war through, but then he should not make unnecessary enemies, because he is making many enemies on the countryside by these regulations. The people come to me and say: Mr. Strydom, that man has been arrested. Where does the information against him come from? The people are getting excited. The people tell me that they cannot understand why a man cannot come before the court, why he cannot hear the evidence in connection with his alleged communications with the Nazis, and where he has acted contrary to the policy of the Government. Lock up the whole crowd on this side if they act wrongly, but owing to the procedure which is being followed in this matter, the people are becoming much disturbed and they feel afraid. Do not now say that we are obstructing. We mean it quite honestly when we ask for that procedure to be stopped, and for the ordinary procedure to be followed.

We have heard a great deal about the fear that exists among the people, but my experience is that there has never yet been a case where a man has been put into gaol or into the camp when he has not done something wrong.

What did the Arndts do?

Very possibly they gave expression to things about which you and I know nothing.

What did the Prime Minister say?

That is my opinion, but I am not speaking about the Arndts, and I want to point out to the hon. member that wrong things can even be done in peace times. But I do not want to go into it any further. There were many hon. friends of mine who had something to say about the knights of truth or the khaki knights, or whatever they may be called. I am one who is taking an active part in the knights of truth movement, and I am proud of it. It is not being done for the purpose that they say, but in order to fight the Nazi propaganda.

To oppose your own Afrikaners.

Now I want to make a fair offer to them. I am prepared to lay all the books and everything connected with the knights of truth before them.

And the Christmas cards?

We are not concerned with the Christmas cards. If they were issued by us then we shall find it in the books. I am prepared to place all the books open to inspection, but then they, on their side, must do the same with the books of the Broederbond and of the Ossewa-Brandwag, and then we shall see who has been guilty of treason and who not. We are not afraid to do so, and if it is then—if both sides open up their books—we can see who are committing treason and who are the spies in the country.

I would just like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop). The request which is made in this amendment is very fair, and I think that the Minister of Defence is convinced that it is an honest attempt to affect an improvement in these regulations, namely, that there should be at least two sworn statements before the Government allows a person to be interned by virtue of the information that is supplied. I think that that is the most reasonable request that could be made. Proof has been given here that 72 out of the 84 Union nationals who were interned, have been released, and what better proof can we have that those people were arrested by virtue of wrong information? Insult and injury have been committed against those people by imprisoning them in the camps, in the kaffir compounds, and in the gaols, and we say that the Afrikaner deserves something better than that in his own country. On the opposite side there are aliens sitting who came to our country, and they were received here hospitably. We give them the run of the country, and they do well for themselves here. I want to ask them not to commit any abuse, in the present circumstances, of that kindly disposition, the tolerance and the long-suffering with which the Afrikaners have received them in this country. I am not now speaking of a certain section, but I am speaking of all who, out of their troubles and anxiety had to flee from their own country to a more spacious country like South Africa, to come and enjoy the elbow room of our country. When I say this then I do not expect hon. members over there to make a joke of it, especially when we are dealing here with the liberty of the citizens of our country, and asking that they should be protected in the present circumstances. When we do this then it does not befit hon. members opposite to make challenges to us by telling us that our books should be thrown open, and things of that kind. I know nothing about the books of the Broederbond, nor anything about the books of the knights of truth. I will, in company with the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Brits) say that we already have one devil in the country, namely, imperialism, and may heaven defend us from importing a second, whatever “ism” it may happen to be. When we advocate things of this kind, our friends on the opposite side should understand that we are speaking about things which are based on right and justice, and if our friends opposite point the finger at us and tell us to take care, then they must remember that to-morrow or the day after we shall be sitting there and they will be on this side. I also want to warn them that we are gradually becoming tired and bored with being threatened over the floor of the House by the most obscure and unknown individuals in the history of South Africa, and of their coming here and menacing us in our own fatherland. This side of the House represents the people who colonised the land. There are also some of them sitting on the other side, but this side of the House does not need to stand here and beg for a position in the ranks of Afrikaners. I am not looking to anybody for a position. My ancestors bought the country for me and others, and I must only appreciate and develop it alone. I must uphold what I have received, and send it on undamaged to posterity. When I plead with the Minister of Defence to give Union nationals honest and just treatment, then I do so as an Afrikaner, but I also do it in the full knowledge that we shall be sitting on the other side of the House to-morrow or the day after, and that those friends will possibly be sitting on this side, and they must take care that they do not pass Acts here which may to-morrow be more applicable to them than they are to-day to this side of the House. I want, in all seriousness, to ask the Minister of Defence to accept this small amendment. We have tried to do our best; we have tried to put up a fight against the superior force in order to keep it off, and in order to prevent these unfair regulations being applied to the citizens of our country. Our time will be up in a few moments. The guillotine will fall and our vote will be smothered in this House. Arguments, facts, law and justice and honourable action on this side of the House will not succeed here now. Numbers of speakers of all languages, nations and creatures will drown our voices here, but we shall lose to-day in order to win to-morrow, and then we will sit on the same benches where our friends opposite are now sitting, and belittling us in this way. No, those friends of mine must not think that they can cast up things against us in a servile manner over and over again, and that they will succeed in putting this side of the House off. We will stand where we are standing, and we shall ultimately obtain the victory for the Afrikaners.

I listened carefully to the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) and if I understood him correctly, then he has made the case of this side of the House stronger instead of weakening it. He said that under the ordinary law of the land people were prosecuted criminally, and why could they not in the present circumstances be prosecuted with the same procedure. That is precisely what we on this side of the House are emphasising, namely, that in the ordinary criminal procedure sworn statements are taken. In this amendment we are simply asking that the people who make charges should make those charges in the form of sworn statements. That is all we want, and if the hon. member for Vereeniging is satisfied with that, then I hope that he will, stand by us and vote for this amendment. He used that as an illustration, and we therefore ask the Minister of Defence to accept this amendment, that people should make sworn statements when they make charges against any persons who, in their opinion, ought to be interned. We go further, and we also support this amendment for the sake of those people who make the charges, so that they cannot make sworn statements against innocent people, with the result that they themselves later on will find themselves not in the internment camp, but in gaol. Perhaps they mean it well—I do not know whether the people who made the charges are knights of truth—but many do it out of prejudice, and for their sake and in order to protect them against doing things which will subsequently get them into trouble, we ask the Prime Minister to allow this amendment to be passed. If those people make accusations against a person because they think that he ought to be interned, then they ought to do so by way of a sworn statement. Then one can take notice of those statements, and when some day we come into office, we shall be able to go into those statements, arid if those persons have been guilty of swearing false affidavits, then we can settle accounts with them. We know that under the usual legal procedure a person has to be prosecuted within a definite period, if there is a charge against him, and he must also be told why he is being prosecuted. At the moment we have a person who has been appointed, and to whom an appeal can be taken, but we do not know how things may go in the future, and we would prefer to have this provision in the Bill, so that it cannot be departed from. We know that those people had unfair steps taken against them, because 72 out of the 84 were discharged. The Prime Minister himself said here that the information in connection with the Arndts was misleading. I do not believe that he said that the information was false. But if information is misleading then it is nothing but false inmation in such circumstances. I really think that they should agree to this request of ours. It sounds very fair, and the public ask that this amendment should be passed. What objection can there be against it if we already have it in the ordinary criminal procedure, and why cannot we also make it applicable to this procedure? As I have said, the people are arrested and they are not only arrested but it is done in a way as if they were criminals. We had the case of Wiesner. We read about it in the Rand Daily Mail—and that, of course, is gospel— how the detectives were standing round the corner waiting. Someone said: There he comes. They rushed at him and caught hold of him. I did not read any further, but I imagine that they took him away handcuffed, and why should people act in that way towards our own Afrikaners? Even if it was an alien who had not conducted himself properly, why should he be waited for round the corner and arrested in such a way? If there are people who have been guilty of misconduct in our country, then they must of course be arrested, but we must treat them justly and honourably, and we must see to it that we do not put people into gaol in an unjust manner. I consider this a very reasonable request which is being made to the Government, especially after what the hon. member for Vereeniging said here. If that can be done when people are arrested in connection with an ordinary crime, then I cannot see the reason why we cannot insist on sworn statements when people are arrested with the object of sending them to an internment camp. We can quite understand, and we justify it, if the Government already has sworn statements in its possession, they will keep them secret. It is done in criminal cases, and why cannot it also be done here? I am pleading with the Minister of Justice. He is the Minister who has to look after matters of law and justice in the country, and I am convinced that he appreciates the fairness of our request. Just let him promise us that he will agree to this amendment, and that he will see to it that no one in future is arrested and interned unless there are duly sworn statements by at least two persons.

I move the amendment standing in my name—

1. (2) In respect of the regulations promulgated by the proclamations hereunder set out, the following provisions shall apply:
   1. (i) Regulation 3 of Proclamation 201, 1939, shall, in respect of any act or omission after the commencement of this Act, be construed as if the following new sub-regulation had been added thereto:
      1. (3) For the purposes of this regulation the Minister of Commerce and Industries shall act in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry where it concerns or applies to any agricultural products or agricultural requirements; and
   2. (ii) Proclamation 309 of 1939 shall, in respect of any act or omission after the commencement of this Act, be construed as if the following proviso had been added to paragraph (1):
      Provided that no such disqualification shall be enforced until the Minister of the Interior, after consultation with the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Justice, and after having obtained sworn declarations and given the person to be disqualified opportunity to disprove any accusations made against him is fully satisfied that such person has been guilty of serious misconduct subversive to the security of the Mandated Territory of South-West Africa.

The effect of the amendment is that certain provisions shall apply to the regulations under Proclamations 201 and 309. The first provision that I move is in connection with Regulation 3 of Proclamation 201 of 1939. Under that regulation the Minister of Commerce and Industries can, with the advice of the Board of Control of the country’s supplies, fix the prices of goods, prohibit the purchase or sale, also prohibit that persons during a fixed period may acquire more than a fixed quantity of particular goods, he can prohibit the importation or export of particular goods, unless permits are issued for the purpose by the Board of Control, etc. Now we can see that so far as agricultural produce is concerned, the provision may have a very injurious effect on the farming community, and therefore I move that in connection with these powers under the regulation referred to, the Minister of Commerce and Industries shall act in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, where the stipulations are applicable to any agricultural produce or agricultural requirement. What I am asking for here is that the Minister of Commerce and Industries should not act on his own initiative, but on the advice and in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture, and as we are dealing with agricultural produce or agricultural requirements we must bear in mind that we already have many control boards in connection with agricultural produce, and the control boards have a hampering effect on the prices of agricultural produce. Those control boards work under the supervision of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, and as we are dealing here with regulations in regard to farm produce the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry should be recognised in the matter. The regulations may have a very detrimental effect on the farming community in South Africa. As already stated, the Minister of Agriculture is in charge of the control boards, and of any resolution which they pass in connection with the fixing of prices, and therefore it would be proper for these regulations also to be applied with the consent of the Minister of Agriculture. It will not be right for the farmers of South Africa to be hit in two ways in connection with the fixing of prices so far as their produce is concerned. To prevent that I move that the Minister of Agriculture should be recognised in the matter. If it is not passed in that form, and if the Bill passes in the way it now stands, then the Minister of Commerce and Industries may, in future, if possibly he is called to account in connection with the fixing of prices of agricultural produce, shield behind the board of control of the country’s supplies, but if my amendment is passed then we shall be able to call the Minister of Agriculture to account, and that is a protection for the farmers in South Africa. I move that the responsibility be also thrown on the Minister of Agriculture, who will advise the Minister of Commerce and Industries in connection with the powers which are being given to him. I think the Prime Minister will admit that this is a very fair and reasonable request. The second part of the amendment is in connection with Proclamation No. 309. Under that proclamation we notice that certain disqualifications can be placed on persons in South-West Africa. Any person under the proclamation who is a member of Parliament in South-West and who is interned, is deprived of the right of being able to vote for the Legislative Assembly there, or if he is a member of Parliament, he ceases to be a member of Parliament for South-West. He cannot vote for a member of Parliament, be cannot be a member of Parliament nor a member of the Executive Committee or the Advisory Board. But even if he is released on parole he is still deprived of his vote. Is such a step just; can it be justified? No, and accordingly I move my amendment. Seeing that the powers are here being given to the Minister of the Interior of placing disqualifications on persons in South Africa, and as the disqualifications are so drastic, it is no more than fair that in this case the Minister of the Interior should act in consultation with the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Justice, and only after sworn statements have been obtained. Only then will it be possible for the discrimination to be made under my motion. I further say that a person who is disqualified should have the opportunity to rebut charges against him, and that the Ministers whom I have named should be fully convinced of the fact that such a person had been guilty of serious misconduct which has undermined the safety of the mandated area. We must remember that the disqualifications can be imposed on Union nationals. Those persons in South-West who can be disqualified under this proclamation can vote for the Parliament or other councils, and they are Union nationals. That being the position, a resolution of that kind can with equal right be passed in regard to Union nationals in South Africa, because the people in South-West are also Union nationals. It is scandalous to impose such disqualifications simply because persons are interned. We have already heard how people who are quite innocent have been interned. We have had cases mentioned in the House of that kind, and in the case of the Arndt brothers the Prime Minister himself admitted that they had been interned on false information. If this Bill goes through as it stands it may easily happen that when, for instance, a member of Parliament in South-West, who is a member of the Opposition, and who is a hindrance to the Government party, this Bill might easily be used as a handy way of getting rid of him. Then complaints can be made without sworn statements — merely loose stories — and then such a person may be interned. When once he is interned he ceases to be a member of Parliament and he cannot vote or be re-elected. In that way they get rid of a person of that kind, without there being well-founded complaints against him. I want to obviate an abuse of these powers being made in this way. Not because such a person is undermining the security of the mandated territory, but only because he is a troublesome political opponent, he can get rid of him in that way. Therefore I move the amendment standing in my name. If the Prime Minister would try to take similar steps against persons in the Union there would be a tremendous noise, but what is the difference between taking steps against persons in South-West, who are also Union nationals, and against persons in the Union? It is obvious that the Prime Minister would hardly venture to take steps like that against Union nationals, but why should it be possible for him to take such steps against persons in South-West who are Union nationals as well? There he would be greatly exceeding his powers. I therefore hope that the Prime Minister will accept the amendment. We have already had a great deal of criticism in connection with the ordinary internment of people. They are, without a proper trial or without their having an opportunity of rebutting the charges that are made against them, put into gaol, but when they are released again they have the same civil rights that they had before. In South-West, however, they cannot regain those rights so long as they are released conditionally. They are then deprived of their civil rights. Do not speak about democratic rights when we are prepared to pass such legislation which encroaches on the sound civil rights of individuals. But not only that; we are here creating machinery in order to get rid of political opponents, without their having the opportunity of proving that their franchise and their right of being members of Parliament in South-West have been wrongly taken away from them. I therefore move that they will have the right of proving that they are innocent, and that the Minister of the Interior shall not act independently, but after consultation with the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Justice, and that he must make certain that those persons are guilty of serious misconduct which is undermining the security of the mandated territory. That request is very fair and reasonable. If he will not accept it, then he makes himself guilty of a crime against the citizens of the country, against Union nationals, in a way which is unprecedented in history, not only that of South Africa, but I think of any democratic country in the world. It will not suit him very well in future when he sets himself up as the champion of democratic rights. He has shown here that he has not the slightest respect for democratic rights. Accordingly, I want to make a last appeal to him not to allow the injustice which he is proposing should be done to citizens in the mandated territory, to be committed.

I second the amendment moved by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux). So far as the last portion is concerned, I want to point out that the Minister said this afternoon that as there was a state of emergency in existence, it was impossible to allow the courts to function, or otherwise he would have to act under martial law. I would just like to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that this amendment can only relate to eighteen persons. The Parliament of South-West consists of twelve elected and six nominated members, therefore if a person makes himself guilty of a contravention of the regulations or has taken injurious action against the state, then it is very simple to take action by means of the procedure which is being laid down in the amendment. Such a case will not require so much haste, and the procedure is very simple. It reads—

I do not see why the Prime Minister cannot agree to this provision. If he does not want to apply it to the ordinary citizens of the country, why then cannot he make it applicable to the eighteen possible cases of members of the Legislative Assembly. With regard to the other point of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn in connection with the fixing of prices, I think that the farming members on that side ought to support us when we make a proposal of that kind in connection with the highest prices which are fixed, at which certain stated articles may be sold, in order that when we are dealing with agricultural produce, the Minister of Agriculture should be consulted. If that is not done then he can throw the onus on the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Commerce and Industries. I think that the Minister of Commerce and Industries has very little knowledge of the circumstances of the farmers. It may be that the cost of their production, their working costs have gone up, and that their prices are being fixed at a level which is uneconomic. There is a danger in that connection because most of the supporters of that side of the House are consumers, and it is clear that they want to keep agricultural produce as low as possible, and the agricultural population will suffer in consequence. They will not consider the interests of the farmers, and that is why we want that, when the prices of agricultural produce are fixed, the Minister of Agriculture shall have a say in it. If it is not agreed to, it is a dangerous precedent that the Minister of Commerce and Industries can, with the assistance of that board, fix the price of the produce of the farmers, of which the costs of production have possibly gone up a great deal without the Minister of Commerce and Industries taking the rise of the costs of production into consideration.

I would like to support the amendments of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux), and the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie), but I would also like to put in an amendment which refers to Section 15 of these regulations. I want to insert it in such a way that there will be added, after paragraph 1 of Section 15—

The amendment has already been put.

Very well. Then I would like to say a few words about it, because it stands in my name. We have the case here that when a person is arrested we know that the Government has secret persons who have come and made the complaints, and I am now asking that when such a person is arrested, or when a charge is made against him, the person who makes such charge should have to make sworn statements. I am not asking for anything unreasonable. The Prime Minister is an advocate and he knows that when anyone is being brought before the court, he knows what he is being charged with. But in this democratic country, we find that a person can be put into gaol or the internment camp to-day, and he does not have the least idea of what he is being put into an internment camp for, and he is not able to defend himself either. It is a very reasonable request that the people who make the charges should make sworn declarations, and that the man who gets put into the camp will know what he is charged with. We have the cases of the brothers Arndt and Mr. Wiesner, and we know that the complaints that were made against them were false. We know that they were innocent, but there are others who still think that they were guilty. To prevent such things in the future, we ask the Prime Minister to accept it. But I have not the least hope that the Prime Minister will accent it. If the Prime Minister, who says that we are carrying on war against a dictatorship, were in Germany, then we would make a very good dictator; quite possibly Hitler would have to go to him for lessons. I have no hone that the Prime Minister will accept it, but I want to ask him at least to keep an eve on the position. We see here that the Minister or an official has the right of arresting a person whenever they think that it is in the interests of the state or that person. Now I want to ask him a question, and I hope that he will reply to it. I have a pamphlet here which was published by the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. Steenkamp) and which says that if we remained neutral England would have come with ships and troops and would have destroyed us. The name of the hon. member for Calvinia is subscribed to it, and the hon. member is by it engaged in stirring up two countries against each other. Is it not in the interests of the country that the Prime Minister should arrest the hon. member for Calvinia? If it is not in the interests of the country, then it is in the interests of the hon. member for Calvinia himself to be arrested. I know that the Prime Minister is not going to accept the amendment by me in any case, but will he tell us whether persons who stir up one state against the other in that way, will be arrested, or is it necessary for them merely to be sitting on this side of the House, for the Prime Minister to arrest them? The hon. member for Calvinia says here that he has it on indisputable information that England would have attacked us with ships and troops if we wanted to remain neutral, and if the Prime Minister says that he cannot arrest the hon. member for Calvinia, then he did make the statement by virtue of incontestible facts, and then the Prime Minister knows that it is so.

I think that it is a good thing for me to say a few words before the debate comes to an end, in order to reply on the amendments which have been brought before the House. I will reply briefly on the amendments. Now let me commence with the amendment of the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne). On behalf of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) he moved three amendments to Regulations 2 and 3, in which it was asked that orders, commands or requests, or demands which were made in connection with the control board, should be given or made in both languages, or in the language which was the home language of the person who was addressed. Well, it was not necessary to pass an amendment for that purpose, because I want to assure the House that that policy is being carried out. Such commands are issued in both languages, and in the home language of the person who is spoken to. It goes without saying that all documents of that kind will be issued in both languages. Then there is a further amendment which asks that goods produced and sold by farmers shall be exempted from the profiteering provisions. But the provisions made in Section 5 (6) (a) (2) cover the whole of the case. I agree with the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) that it goes further, in any case the proposed provision that farm produce should be exempted from the provisions with regard to profiteering, is already provided for. It is, therefore, not necessary to pass the amendment for that purpose. Then there is a further amendment in which it is proposed that the word “mortgagee” will be used instead of the word “creditor”. Well, the regulations show that the mortgagee is the creditor, and the creditor is the mortgagee. It is not necessary to make the amendment. Then there is a further amendment on Section 6 (2), in which it is proposed that where goods are commandeered by the state the compensation to be paid for them must be settled by way of arbitration. It is laid down that compensation shall be paid, and it is left to the persons concerned to prove in court what the amount should be. In many cases arbitration is an expensive proceeding.

Not dearer than the court.

That is not always the case in the Supreme Court. We are only settling that there is to be compensation, and the persons who are entitled to it can go and prove their claims in the magistrate’s court or in the Supreme Court. Then there is another amendment, that for the books and documents which are attached under Regulation 1 bis 4, a receipt will have to be given. That is being done, and if possibly it is not done, then the Minister of Commerce and Industries will give instructions that it must be done in every case.

Signed by the owner?

Yes, properly subscribed. Then there is an amendment to Regulation 9 (1), which lays down that the chief control officer and other officers shall be bilingual, and shall not be connected with any political party, and this especially so far as the chief control officer is concerned. As to bilingualism, there is no difficulty. Apart from the chief control officer, the control officers are all magistrates, and under the law they are all bilingual persons. With regard to the question of party connection, many attacks have been made on the chief control officer, which to my mind have gone too far, and were not justified. The chief control officer is a highly placed person who was for years, for the greatest part of his life, a magistrate, and an outstanding magistrate, who subsequently became commissioner of police. It will, therefore, be difficult to find a person who, owing to his personal knowledge, capacity and qualifications, is better suited for this particular work than Sir Theodore Truter. The objection is that he was for a time connected with the United Party.

Is he no longer so?

I think not.

Is he not the vice-chairman?

I believe that in all cases where people are appointed to such an office, they resign from all their political connections. I cannot, however, say this definitely. Let me say that I think that I was responsible for the appointment of Sir Theodore Truter, and I have the fullest confidence in him, as I have known him for almost a lifetime, as magistrate, as official, as police commissioner, and I have every confidence in his uprightness, his knowledge and his competency to occupy this post. His actions during the months that he has filled that post, show how competent he is. Hon. members will understand that a man who is responsible for a number of internments, and who in so many cases can undo his own work, as has been proved, shows by that that he is a man who will do his duty, even if he himself is affected. I do not believe that the criticism which has been made on Sir Theodore Truter is justifiable. I return to other points, but allow me to say a word about the amendment of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, an amendment of some importance. He moved in connection with the fixing of the prices for agricultural produce, that it should be done after consultation with the Minister of Agriculture by the Minister of Commerce and Industries. The House will see that considerable care has been taken in constituting the control board so that the Department of Agriculture has a representative on it. It means that the Agricultural Department will be consulted, that they will give technical advice in connection with the fixing of such prices. But I can quite understand that there may be a certain amount of unrest amongst the farmers in this connection, and the Minister of Commerce and Industries gives me the assurance that he will always, before he fixes the price of agricultural produce, consult with the Minister of Agriculture.

He will only stop the export.

It is not a matter which it is necessary to lay down in the Bill. It is an administrative question, and we have the assurance of my hon. friend that his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, will be consulted beforehand. There is another part of the amendment of the hon. member which deals with internments in South-West Africa, and is connected with certain other penal clauses. I want to point out that we are dealing here with very serious matters. There are few cases of that kind in South-West, but there are nevertheless cases where persons have been naturalised under the general law, and represent to-day that they have nevertheless remained German nationals, and have played a fairly large part in the Nazi movement, which has given rise to all the troubles in South-West. In view of the seriousness of these cases, it was considered necessary that they should no longer remain members of the bodies with which they had been connected. These cases in South-West are exceptional cases where people have abused their position, and to a certain extent have been disloyal to the law of the land. They were naturalized citizens, and they nevertheless continued to behave like German citizens, and used their influence to bring about troubles in the country.

At 10.55 p.m., in accordance with paragraph (4) of the resolution adopted by the House on the 29th February, the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker and the amendments proposed by Mr. Labuschagne, Dr. Van Nierop and Mr. Le Roux dropped.

Question put: That the Bill, as amended, be adopted.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—55:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander. M.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

Bawden, W.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside. D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Deane, W. A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steyn, C. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach. I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: L. D. Gilson and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—24:

Bekker, S.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Fagan, H. A.

Hugo, P. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Olivier, P. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. I.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Verster, J. D. H.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. S. Labuschagne and P. O. Sauer.

Question accordingly affirmed and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Third reading on 1st April.