When the debate was last adjourned I was engaged in pointing out that I was not opposed to the abolition of civil imprisonment, but I feel none the less that something should be substituted for it, and until such time as that is done we cannot abolish civil imprisonment in the way now proposed. This Bill, to say the least of it, is a half baked Bill, and I am sorry having to say here that the Minister of Justice has not given it his proper attention. When I say that this is a half baked Bill which the Minister has not even considered properly I want to give the House proof of my contention. First of all the Minister of Justice appointed a committee, the personnel of which—we have to say that about them—are men who are not only men of authority throughout the country, but are men who have had experience of matters of this kind, and who are therefore able to speak from experience. For instance, we had a man there like Mr. Maynard Page, the magistrate of Johannesburg, a man of great experience in these matters. On that Commission, too, there was a man who now is a judge of the Supreme Court, a man of high repute and experience, a man who also used to be the Government Attorney. The other members of the Commission also were men of authority and experience. The Government therefore appointed a Commission best able to give it advice, and what do we find now? We find that the Minister of Justice, in spite of the advice given him by this Commission, comes here with a Bill which is in conflict with the recommendations of that committee. I do not know his reason for doing so. He told the House, however, that this is legislation which must be introduced immediately and that the matter is one of urgency. I want to point out to hon. members that the Bill which has now been introduced still does not abolish civil imprisonment entirely. It is retained in part, and the principle of abolition therefore is not watertight so far as this Bill is concerned. That is the result of legislation introduced in a hurry. It is neither the one thing nor the other. In addition to that we have the statement made by the Minister of Justice that he intends introducing consolidating legislation shortly. He told us that he would go into the whole matter during the next six months and that he would introduce a consolidating Bill at the next session to deal with the whole subject. That being the case, everybody will agree with me that there is no need to force this Bill through the House in this manner and at this stage. I say so for this reason: we know that a few years ago civil imprisonment was abolished as a result of the agitation which was set on foot throughout the whole country. It was abolished, and a proper experiment was made with civil imprisonment not in force, and nobody less than the present Prime Minister, who at the time was Minister of Justice, put it into operation again. He introduced a Bill in this House to restore it, after having taken proper advice from people who had gone into the whole matter. If that was his opinion at the time, after the experiment that had been made—if it was his opinion that civil imprisonment had to be restored and placed on the Statute Book, everybody will agree with me that it is not just and fair on the part of the present Minister of Justice at this stage detrimentally to affect certain sections of the population by the introduction of a Bill of this kind, which he has now hurriedly introduced into this House. I do not know whether the Minister of Justice has read the report of his own Commission, but if he looks at the report he will see that the Commission says this about civil imprisonment—

That is the report and it is very clearly stated that civil imprisonment is not an improper method of forcing people to meet their obligations. And it is further stated that any judgment obtained is practically valueless without there being a method available to give effect to that judgment. This is not a majority report of the Commission. It is not merely a part of the Commission which feels like that, but it is a report adopted by all the members—it is a unanimous report. The commission makes certain recommendations, and for the information of this house I can say that there are no fewer than 19 recommendations of various kinds which are of considerable importance to the business man as well as to the farmer outside. May I say here, while I am on this point, that the farmers of this country will also suffer as a result of this Bill, and I say for this reason. Our farmers are sometimes induced by fraud or other means to lend money to townspeople who are unable to obtain any money, and who then approach the farmers and try to borrow the farmer’s savings. The farmers often lend amounts of £20 or £25 to such people, and if this Bill is passed, unless something is put in the place of civil imprisonment, we are going to find that those people, the farmers, will afterwards be in this position, that they will lose their money, because they will not be able to enforce a judgment sentence. We shall find that the people who we should support and whom we should assist to get their money back in such cases, will actually be detrimentally affected by this Bill. We are going to do harm to them, because, as this report says, a judgment will mean nothing if there are no means of enforcing it. If we create that position in the country it means that we are not protecting our people, but that we are protecting those people who intend committing acts of fraud. I say that that definitely is the case, and that that definitely will be the case in future if we are even going to force this partial abolition of civil imprisonment through the House in this hurried manner, without substituting something effective in its place. The Minister of Justice cannot get away from the fact that this Bill constitutes hasty legislation—and he is asking us to pass a Bill like this. He has not read the report of his own Commission. That is something unusual which does not often happen —we do not often find a Commission appointed by the Government with a certain object in view—we do not often find that a Commission of that kind fulfils its duty at considerable expense, that men of experience take the trouble to present a report to the Government, and that the Government then—not that it does not use the report, because that often happens—but that it introduces legislation directly in conflict with the recommendations contained in that report. That is what the Minister of Justice is doing in this case, and I feel therefore that he owes this House an explanation as to why he is in such a hurry with this Bill. If his intention is to protect the soldiers who have gone to the front, then I want to point out to the Minister of Justice that there already is a moratorium for them, and in any case no judgment can be taken against a soldier or an officer. If that is the case, he must have some other object in view. I don’t want to ascribe any motives to the Minister of Justice, but he must have some other motive in introducing legislation of this kind which he wants to force through so hurriedly, legislation which surely is not so urgent and which could wait until such time as he has his consolidating measure ready. If the Minister had come here with legislation aiming at the total abolition of civil imprisonment, we could perhaps have understood it, but he is not doing so, and he does not deal with the question as a whole. He simply comes here with halfbaked legislation which he has not studied carefully, and to which he has not given sufficient attention. I defy him to tell me that he has carefully studied the report of his own Commission, yet a report like this costs the country a lot of money. The taxpayer is already suffering great hardships, and if. Commissions of this kind are appointed and their recommendations are not considered, it will be an indication to the taxpayers in future that their money is being wasted on these Commissions. A cry has already gone up about Commissions being appointed in the country, and about Commissions being nothing but a waste of public money, because the Commission’s work leads to nothing. If the Minister treats this report in that fashion it will be a further indication of the waste of public money, because the work which such Commissions do mean nothing to the State if the Government takes no notice of them. In spite of that, considerable expense is incurred which the taxpayer has to pay. Now, I want to reply to a few of the arguments used by some of the members. They said that civil imprisonment was a mediaeval measure, and that it should be abolished in a modern civilised country. Let me point out to the Minister of Justice and hon. members there that civil imprisonment has not yet been abolished in England, and that in part it is also in existence in Wales. There are a great many countries where it still exists. In England the position is more or less identical to what it is in South Africa at present, and the Minister of Justice, who always tells us what is going on in England, and who likes to put England up to us as an example to follow, now introduces legislation here which is not based on the example of that country. I thought that he would have been the last to have introduced a Bill here which departs from the practice in force in England and Wales. I thought that everything in force in England was exemplary so far as he was concerned, and that he would not have departed from it. I don’t want to ascribe any motives to the Minister, but I do feel I am entitled to say to this House that the Minister did not read the Commission’s report as it should have been read. We are told that civil imprisonment is a mediaeval practice. Why, then, does it still exist in England, which is a democratic country, and which would surely not retain a mediaeval measure? That whole argument falls to the ground. There are other countries, too, where that practice prevails. In France, a kind of civil imprisonment still exists. It is applied there in certain cases. Now the Minister says that in this country under the Bill now before the House it will continue to exist in certain cases. Well, those cases which he makes exceptions of in this Bill are the cases specially referred to in the clauses of this measure. For instance, there is the question of the maintenance of children. I do not know why the Minister has put that in. There is a legal procedure in regard to people who in that respect fail to observe their obligations to maintain their children. That being the case, I say that the Minister is not helping the people whom he wants to help by this Bill, because the Criminal Law can be resorted to in cases of that kind. Some of our judges have said that they are of opinion that it is not desirable that such an individual should be forced under the Criminal Law to pay maintenance for children. It should be a civil procedure, but the law is still there in spite of the views expressed by the judges. It is still on our Statute Book, and I definitely say that the Criminal Law provides for those cases and assists the sufferers in cases of that kind. As we call it, there is a quasi criminal procedure to enable those people to obtain their dues. That provision in itself proves to me that the Minister, and I say so with all respect, has not given careful attention to this Bill, and I want to express the hope that after this debate he will come to the conclusion that he should wait with this legislation until he has reviewed the whole matter next year and until we can find something as a substitute to civil imprisonment. I want to express the hope that he has now been convinced that he should not force this Bill through the House, but that he should rather wait until he can introduce a comprehensive and effective measure which will include all the existing laws dealing with civil imprisonment and also the existing Magistrate’s Court Act, so that everything that is undesirable will be cut out, and we can reconsider the whole system. There is another point I wish to raise in this connection. The position in this country so far has always been that the High Court has its own procedure and that the Magistrate’s Court has its own procedure. It is only right that that should be so, but when the last Bill was introduced here dealine with the question of civil imprisonment, when it was abolished, we found that it was abolished in the Magistrate’s Court, but that it was retained in the High Court. They had the jurisdiction there and they could use their jurisdiction and apply it. Now the Minister of Justice comes here with this Bill and he also removes that discretion from the High Court. He prescribes to the High Court what it is to do. I think every hon. member will agree with me that if there is one thing we can be proud of in this country it is our High Court. We know that if we go to the High Court we receive justice, and it is a very good thing that that confidence does exist in this country. That is why we also want to maintain our High Court on a certain level. As soon as the Minister starts interfering with the High Court it will be detrimental to the citizens of our country and I therefore say that the Minister should not lightly and in a hurry take a step like the one he proposes taking here. The Minister has already tried to interfere with the sentences of the Magistrate’s court by prescribing to the Magistrate what sentences they are to impose, and by prescribing that certain judgments are not to be given effect to. If there is one thing which has rendered the Minister of Justice suspect in the eves of the public it is this, that he has interfered with the powers of the Magistrates’ Courts. It is a principle which we have always maintained so far that our courts must not be influenced by a Minister, and now we find that a Minister is trying to interfere with the discretion of the High Court. That is a dangerous thing. In dealing with this Bill we are not dealing with a political matter but only with a matter of general importance to the country, and that is the reason why this Commission was appointed. That is why we want to appeal to the Minister not to allow himself to be influenced by political motives, and I want to appeal to the Minister, and also hon. members on the other side of the House before voting for a Bill of this kind, to think very carefully over what the Commission has stated in its report. Surely the Minister of Justice himself has admitted that this measure is not going to be effective, because he admits that next year he proposes introducing legislation to deal with the whole subject involving certain changes, and I say that before we know what is going to be put in the place of this system the Minister should convince the House and inform the House, why he considers this measure to be so urgent that it should be passed immediately, especially in view of the fact that there is considerable difference of opinion about legislation of this kind in the country, and in view of the fact that his proposals are in direct conflict with the report of his own Commission. It has been said in this House, among others by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip), that the system of civil imprisonment has been abused on the Witwatersrand, and that a great deal of trouble has been caused by it in Johannesburg: the hon. member said that we should consider towns like Johannesburg because things were done on the Witwatersrand which should not be done, and we should specially pass this Bill to meet the needs of the people of Johannesburg because in Johannesburg particularly they are suffering from the present system. I say that this Bill is very definitely going to make things difficult for the rest of the country because this is the kind of legislation which deprives other people of their rights, certain sections of our business people as well as the farmer —it is going to cause them a lot of trouble, and I say most definitely that we should protect those people, and particularly the farmers. People come to the farms and by a lot of smooth talk induce the farmer to lend them £10 or £15 and then later when he tries to get his money back the farmer finds out that he has been deceived. We cannot only take Johannesburg into account when we are passing legislation: there are many abuses in Johannesburg. They abuse everything they have and they cannot expect the Government to pass legislation in this House simply in order to protect them there. We should also think of other parts of the country. I hope we have convinced the Minister that he should not go on with this Bill. If next year he comes forward with a consolidating measure I shall assist him and I shall help him with my experience to make that Bill as practical as I possibly can. We are anxious that our law in this respect, and also in regard to the Magistrate’s court, shall be effective, and we want our legislation to be such that it will not be necessary to amend it continually. It is unsound to keep on amending one’s laws at frequent intervals. I therefore hone that we have been able to convert the Minister, and that he will not press this Bill.

The House recently passed a Bill abolishing civil imprisonment with regard to hire purchase agreements. It seems to me that in that Bill they have accepted the major principle that civil imprisonment should be abolished. It always seemed to me to be rather difficult to distinguish between different articles of commerce which should be subject to C.I. and which should not. When you find so many articles in commerce sold under hire purchase agreement, articles even of clothing, and if in regard to these articles it is not possible to have civil imprisonment proceedings instituted, whereas, if they are sold on credit it is possible, then obviously the whole civil imprisonment procedure should go.

What about the evils?

What I am concerned about is this: I am rather sorry that this measure abolishing civil imprisonment for hire purchase articles was introduced and passed, because I do not think that sufficient steps have been taken to try out the recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee of Enquiry on Civil Imprisonment. In that report the whole question is very exhaustively dealt with. They dealt very exhaustively with what steps should be taken, and what steps it was possible to take for the recovery of debt, if civil imprisonment was not in force. And they came to the conclusion that there was no other step which would adequately meet the position, and therefore they recommended in Clause 129—

Now, that is a very strong statement, indeed. But in this report the Committee also deals with the fact that there were other sections and other measures which could be taken to remove the C.I. evil. Certain other measures could be taken to remove the repugnant part of civil imprisonment proceedings. They pointed to the difficulties that existed, not with the debtor who had no means at all …

You cannot put him in gaol if he has no means.

But with the debtor who had the means, but refused to pay. It always seems to me when I hear this cry of civil imprisonment that you are going to put in prison innocent persons, but I feel this, if a person has the means to pay and he refuses to pay for goods which he has bought, it is very akin to obtaining goods under false pretences—and that, of course, is a criminal offence.

Abolish credit.

Well, if you abolish credit, let us go right through and abolish it for everything; but, of course, it is physically impossible to do so. You have to have credit for many items, although I agree that if you could abolish it, it would be a very sound thing, but there are such items as groceries and other things which you need credit for. There is your morning milk, your bread, your meat—it would be very difficult to abolish credit altogether, but I do not want to go into an argument about credit. It exists and it has played a very great part, indeed, in helping the poorer sections especially to build up their homes, and get articles which they would never have been able to get except through credit, which existed through hire purchase and through other ways. Now, let us look at the report of this Civil Imprisonment Commission. If one looks at the reforms suggested there, I think it is very unfortunate that during these last two years, since this report was submitted, no steps were taken to introduce any of these measures, and to see whether, in fact, some of these abuses which are said to exist could not have been rectified. I think that very considerable steps could have been taken. I believe that if steps had been taken on this question the practice of running people into court for very small debts and piling up costs would have been done away with. The other evening the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) gave us a very extensive address on this Bill. I think if he had applied his analytical mind a little further he would have supported the continuation of civil imprisonment. I read his speech—most of it consisted of extracts of the report showing the advantages and disadvantages of the system, but his speech created quite a different impression. At least it gave a wrong impression to the House when he gave some of the figures and led hon. members to believe that civil imprisonment today was actually putting into prison more than 40,000 or 50,000 people per year. The impression which is created when you talk in these globular sums of persons affected by civil imprisonment, and when you say that in 1938 some 50,000 people were summoned for civil imprisonment—the impression in the public mind is that that is the number who had been imprisoned for debt. Now, what is the actual position? Let me say this about the hon. member’s speech—and I notice it in another of his speeches too. I am sorry that in this speech the hon. member did not lay the blame where it should be laid.

He is responsible to these people.

On a previous occasion there was a Bill introduced into this House dealing with attorneys. I think the hon. member could find very little good to say for the malpractices of trust companies and the persons to whom that Bill applied. Only a few days after that he was somewhat scathing in his references to the building societies with regard to another measure before this House—he spoke of the way they had not fulfilled their part, and in this Bill the hon. member spoke of the abuses of the system. But he never said a single word about the persons, the members of his own profession, who were responsible for the abuses under the civil imprisonment system. He gave figures as to the numbers of persons affected. I also want to give some figures today, I want to extend these figures, and I have gone rather further into this matter. He quoted the number of decrees issued in 1931, and he said that some 24,000 had been issued— that was for 1939. But the actual commitments to prisons in that year numbered 1,735. For 1938 he gave the number of round about 40,000. The actual number of decrees for all districts in the Union for 1938 was 47,044. That was the actual number of decrees during the year 1938. The actual committals in that year were 1,684. In 1939, the following year, the actual number of decrees was 43,190, a decrease on 1938, the year in which the hon. member stated that the abuses in the system are growing; and the number of committals was 1,512. For the year 1940, unfortunately the report of the Department of Justice is not out, and therefore I cannot give the number of decrees, but the number of committals for 1940 was only 1,155.

Only?

Yes. I say only because after all the courts have decreed that these people have the means to pay and they refuse to do so. If you bought goods in the same way, you would be guilty of obtaining goods by false pretences. Then the hon. member went on to use the argument that this abuse is growing. But let me take, for example, even Johannesburg, his own district. In Johannesburg in the year 1938 the number of decrees issued was 11,972. In 1939 it had gone down to 10,747, i.e., by 1,200. In Springs the number of decrees issued in 1938 was 1,729 and 1,174 in 1939. In Brakpan, his own constituency, it was 967 and 865 the following year. There again we see that it went down by 100. In all these places you see that owing to the measures which it is now possible to take and the examination the court makes into the position of each of these debtors, not only the number of committals are definitely decreasing but also the number of decrees. How then can the hon. member say that these abuses are increasing? After all, the hon. member belongs to one of the most closely-guarded professions in this country, a profession which is very very jealous of its membership and its right and the behaviour of its members. Not long ago there was another profession, the medical profession, which had up before its council certain doctors who were charged with overcharging their clients, and they were hauled before that court and were suitably dealt with. The hon. member has told us that he is a member of the executive of the Law Society, and that the Law Society was definitely in favour of civil imprisonment being abolished. I want to know why has he not been jealous of his profession; he told us that his profession wants civil imprisonment abolished; why has that profession not itself taken steps to clean up and to cut out this rotten appendix which is in its midst? What does the report say about this thing? Let me make it perfectly clear at this stage that whatever remarks I make are not to be taken as applying to the legal profession as a whole. The figures show that it is only in certain of the larger areas that these things prevail, and I know, too, of my own experience, that the bulk of the attorneys and lawyers in the country do not like this system, but there are certain members in the profession who are responsible for bringing this system into discredit. Dealing with the question of costs the Commission said this—

I think the House would have thought much more of the hon. member in view of the attitude he has taken up and in view of his strong condemnation if he had quoted these sections of the report. This matter of costs is one of the main abuses, and it is a matter that could have been dealt with suitably by the Hon. the Minister of Justice. I would have liked to hear from him what other effective measures could be introduced to deal with this. It is perfectly clear the Commission has said that they could not see any way out of this, and one admits that it is difficult to find a way out; but I think it would be far better if we had these proceedings before us to judge for ourselves what measures should be taken. But I would like to say this, there is one thing that has helped to bring me round to the fact that this should be abolished. I am referring to this question of returned soldiers. I hope in this regard the Minister will make the section retrospective in regard to people who are on active service. It seems to me that once we have started with this thing, we should go the whole way. I cannot conceive of anything which can be more unfair, more harmful to the community than that any soldier who has been on active service should come back with the threat of civil imprisonment hanging over his head. I have actually knowledge of a case where civil imprisonment was granted against a soldier who was on active service and is now outside this country.

They can’t.

My hon. friend says they cannot, but let me tell him that I actually know of a case where it was done. The court knew that the man was on active service, but they issued a writ of civil imprisonment against him. I do not for a moment excuse this particular debtor, because he could have found the money to pay. It so happened in that particular case that the man could have paid, but it may have happened in another case where the man could not pay and then this threat of civil imprisonment would have been held over his head when he came back. I feel that the Minister is perhaps right in this measure of abolishing civil imprisonment. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) stated that the legal position in this report was unduly stressed. I can only say that this matter was broadcast very widely, and if he had wanted to he could have given evidence on the social aspect of the matter. The Minister will have to take very strong measures to deal with the debtor who can pay but who refuses to pay and feels that he can get away point blank. You have to take strong measures to compel him to pay otherwise sell his goods. May I say, finally, that all the figures show that there has been a steady decline in the number of decrees; there has been a very definite falling off in the number of committals; and there is one serious thing in this civil imprisonment, and it is this, that out of the number of persons committed to gaol each year a very large number are natives and non-Europeans in this country. The figures in this report show that out of the total numbers practically a third belong to the native and non-European population, and one cannot help feeling that there is something radically wrong with the position.

It seems to me that with the exception of the laywers very few people have an idea of what the position really is. As the law stands today a man tries to pay his debts if he can pay, and if he cannot pay one cannot do anything to him; one cannot put him into gaol if he is unable to pay his debts. No one can get a writ against any man who is not in a position to pay his debts. That is the law as it stands. The repeal of this law therefore does not help the poor man but the man it will help is the scoundrel who is able to pay his debts but who refuses to do so. I want to tell hon. members opposite that if a man has contracted debts and he is sued and be has property which can be sold then it is sold. This Bill will not make any change there. If he has nothing to sell one has the right, after what he has had has been sold, and if one does not get enough to pay the amount he owes—then one has the right to sue him for civil imprisonment, but one cannot get a writ if he cannot pay his debt. It is only if he has money and is able to pay but refuses to pay that he can be arrested. I would like to mention a case which I was concerned with a few years ago. It was the case of a miner with a fairly large salary who came to spend some time in the town where I am living. He hired a large motor car, he drove around with girls, and contracted debts to an amount of about £10. That gentleman disappeared without paying. A year later he came on another visit but in the meantime judgment had been taken against him; when they wanted to sell his goods it was found that everything he had belonged to merchants from whom he had bought on the H.P. system. Nothing belonged to him, so nothing could be sold. Next year he again came on a visit and he was sued for civil imprisonment. He got up in court and said that he could not pay and that for that reason no order for arrest could be made against him. He pleaded for a long time but unfortunately for him the magistrate was a man who had been a Crown Prosecutor in Johannesburg and who therefore knew the kind of salary that man was getting. The magistrate thereupon said to him: “Your stories do not help you, you can pay and you have to pay.” When the magistrate gave judgment the man took the money out of his pocket and put it on the table. He had the money in his pocket all the time but would not pay his debts. No, it is not the poor man who is unable to pay whom you will protect. One cannot sell the poor man’s property up to a value of £50. One cannot sell a poor man’s draft stock up to a value of £100. His food and his clothes and the clothes of his family cannot be sold. I am not talking of rich but of poor people. Hon. members opposite who represent the towns know very little about poor people. On the platteland one gets many people whose furniture altogether is not worth £50. The townspeople do not know anything about that. They talk of a poor man if he earns £20 or £25 per month, but on the platteland one gets hundreds of people who do not earn £5 per month. One cannot do anything to them, and they know it, but they are honest people and they pay their debts; there is no need to take them to court. I quite realise that this Bill is popular in many circles. Nobody likes to put people in gaol. I do not believe that attorneys are anxious to put people in gaol—if there are any who do, the sooner they themselves are put in gaol the better.

They even sue for costs.

Provision has been made in regard to costs. If this Bill only aims at dealing with abuses that are prevalent in regard to costs let the Minister make special legislation for that. That surely is easy, and then this objection falls away. The honest creditor now has to be deprived of his rights because here and there is a dishonest attorney. They talk of mediaeval barbarism and all those things. It is barbarous to put people in gaol. If the Minister were to spend a little time on his gaols where people, especially internees, are treated so barbarously, so that they have to eat worms in their porridge, he would do more good than by introducing a Bill like this. To me the Minister is an enigma. He says that he realises something has to be done in order to compel people who are dishonest, and who are able to pay thendebts, to do so. He admits it, but now he comes here and he wants to repeal the existing law without putting anything in its place. Why? There can be only one reason, and that is that there are three by-elections in the offing, and they need something to make propaganda. So far as we on this side are concerned, the Nationalist Party Government abolished civil imprisonment, and the United Party re-introduced it. I spent the whole morning reading speeches in the Hansard of those days. I should like to quote what the Prime Minister said when he introduced his Bill in 1938. It is most interesting to read it. The position is that the present Minister of Justice has promised to introduce a Bill next session to deal with magistrate’s court procedure, and when he does so, and changes the present procedure, he will also do something to enable honest creditors to force dishonest debtors to pay their just dues. That is what he holds up in prospect, and for that reason we simply have to pass this Bill and do away with civil imprisonment. So far as I am personally concerned, I do not like civil imprisonment, unless a man is really a scoundrel or does something wrong. But the Minister goes further and says that he wants to help the poor man. He is not going to help the poor man by this Bill, because only in cases where a man has a salary of £30 or £40, or something like that, and he refuses to pay, will it be applied. No, the poor man will suffer in consequence of this Bill, and the scoundrel will be assisted because the poor man will not be able to get any more credit. The Minister perhaps has the towns in view more than the platteland. The people who live there get such salaries that they can pay cash, or they are allowed to get into arrear, but on the platteland they will not be able to get credit. There the poor people often cannot pay cash; they have to live on somebody else’s pocket, and they try to pay later on. But now credit will be curtailed, and the very people whom the Minister wants to help are going to be detrimentally affected. The position simply is that if the Minister, as he tells us, wants to introduce a different system under a Bill which he is going to introduce next year, then he should wait until then. I am not in favour of civil imprisonment as such; I would not put anyone in gaol, not even a native, if I could help it, but it is foolish to talk of mediaeval measures in regard to civil imprisonment. In the Middle Ages the creditor was able to make a slave of a man to all intents and purposes, if he did not pay. All imprisonment, practically speaking, is mediaeval, but the position has changed considerably. The creditor can no longer make a man his slave if he does not pay. I don’t really want to say anything about the report, but I fail to understand the Minister’s attitude. Here we have a Commission which was appointed by the Prime Minister, when he was Minister of Justice, a responsible and important Commission. I don’t know Mr. de Vries, but I assume that all the members were men of experience. Anyhow, all the other members were very responsible people, and they put up a unanimous report, in which they said that a scheme should be devised to combat the evil, and they said that we could not abolish civil imprisonment at this stage. There is no doubt about their opinion in that respect. They say this among their recommendations on page 49—

1. (a) Main Principles:
   1. (i) That civil imprisonment be retained;
   2. (ii) That there be no limitation of civil imprisonment in respect of cause of action.

This Commission which was appointed was a responsible Commission, and they presented a very interesting report in 1940. The Commission was appointed after this self-same Government in 1935 had re-introduced civil imprisonment after it had been abolished in 1930, or about that time, by the old Nationalist Party Government. It is interesting to note what the Prime Minister, then Minister of Justice, said in 1935 when introducing the Bill to re-introduce civil imprisonment. It was an amending Bill dealing with all kinds of matters, and he said this—

That is the Prime Minister who spoke there about civil imprisonment! Now, after ten years—in 1935 the United Party Government reintroduced civil imprisonment—or after nearly ten years, they want to abolish it again. It is naturally a very popular thing to abolish it, but it is doubtful whether it is wise. The Commission which was appointed went carefully into all the objections to civil imprisonment, and the first objection they dealt with was the charge that civil imprisonment was a relic of barbarism. They went into that question and their finding was that it was not so. The second charge was that hardships under the existing law fall for the most part, and with particular severity, on the working class. The Commission found that that was not so. The third indictment was that the system imposes a double burden on the community, inasmuch as it has not only to maintain the debtor in prison, but also, in many instances, to support his dependants as a public charge during his incarceration. The finding of the Commission was that that happened seldom, if ever. A further indictment was that its effect in many cases is to screw money out of the debtor which he frequently has to obtain by borrowing. The indictment amounts to this, that a man is arrested and his family comes and helps him to get off. If a man has stolen or has committed some other crime and he gets into gaol and his family comes and pays the fine, is it a crime no longer? And if a man has incurred debts, should one not expect him to pay those debts? A further indictment was that imprisonment for debt is the mainstay of excessive credit. It is a good thing to avoid excessive credit, but if a man does not pay once he has run up debts, and he is able to pay, there should be a remedy. I am only thinking of the dishonest man who evades payment of his debts. The Commission say that they have also investigated that argument, but that they find it is not well founded. During the period 1930 to 1935 it was found that it did not make the great difference which people pretended—

That is another excuse which has been put up, and it has been clearly proved that there is nothing in it—

This is a question which the Commission went into very thoroughly, and it has been found that there are cases of that kind where dishonest attorneys have abused the position.

Are there people such as dishonest attorneys?

Yes, we get dishonest people in every vocation, even among the farmers. There are such people, and if that is the position, and if the Minister of Justice wants to protect the country against those dishonest people, why then does he not accept the recommendations and why does he not take steps which the Commission proposes? They suggest what should be done in that regard. There are also people who buy up debts cheaply, and who then press the people for payment. That sort of thing can also be prevented. I want to say here that I still have an open mind about civil imprisonment. If some other means of getting debts that are owing paid can be suggested, I am prepared to accept it. Nobody likes to put a person in gaol for debt, but if we have no such remedy we shall get the position that the poor man will not be able to get credit and only the rich man will get credit. And as the Minister proposes taking the whole system into review next year, and as he intends introducing a Bill to deal with the whole position, and also to deal with the Magistrate’s Court Act, I want to know why he cannot wait with this Bill as well? Now we are to anticipate matters and we are to abolish this remedy before some other provision has been made. Why does the Minister want to deal with the whole position piecemeal? In 1935 the present Minister dealt with this matter. On that occasion he said, inter alia, that it had been brought to his notice that we should try to get payment of money owing, for instance, by salary earners, on the same basis as it was done in Rhodesia. But he had received complaints from the mines and from business people and also from Government people that it was difficult for them to deduct the amounts owing from the people’s wages and salaries. Hon. members can find it in column 1775 of the Hansard Report. I don’t want to take up the time of the House by quoting everything that is said there, hon. members can read it for themselves if they want to. I should like the Minister of Justice to read all the speeches for and against this system. In spite of what the hon. member for Pretoria, Central (Mr. Pocock), has said here, that he is opposed to this system, I assume that he and others opposite are going to vote for this Bill, although quite a number of members opposite are opposed to the Bill, unless they can induce the Minister of Justice to put off this Bill until next year. I think that will be the best thing to do, because we shall then know what we are going to put in its place if we abolish the old system. Now we are asked to give up this system without knowing what we are going to put in its place, and possibly the Minister may not come along with his Bill next year, which will mean that we have abolished the system and will have nothing to take its place. The Minister must not imagine that he is going to score any political benefit by this measure. He will achieve nothing by it, because the poor man who is honest has no objection to paying his debts. People know perfectly well that nobody likes putting anyone into gaol for debt, and they also know that if they cannot pay their debts they will not be put in gaol. Most of the poor people are honest and they know what their rights are; they are honest and that is why they are poor.

Are you also poor?

Yes, I am very poor. The position is this, that the Minister of Justice does not realise what he is doing here, and what is more, the Minister has inserted certain provisions in the Bill to indicate in which particular cases civil imprisonment can be resorted to. For instance, a man may be put in gaol for debt if he fails to pay maintenance for an illegitimate child, if he does not maintain his wife or his children. The woman who is able to summon a man for civil imprisonment does not require that man’s assistance. If she puts him in gaol she has to pay for his keep, and the easiest thing is to go to the police and get the police to put him in his place. Then there are other cases as well. If I have a row with my neighbour, and I slang and slander him, I may be sued for civil imprisonment in respect of the debt which may arise from that case. The principle is that both sides have not had a say about the matter. The man has been slandered without his having had anything to do with it, and because both have not had a say, this provision is put in the Bill. Make it a criminal offence if one man slanders another. If I do it in writing I can be prosecuted, but if I do it verbally I cannot be prosecuted unless I use un-Parliamentary language in public against another person. I do not think it is right to insert this provision, that a man can be put in gaol for a case of this kind. If one man slanders another, there are usually two sides to the story. In a case of maintenance of an illegitimate child or a wife, well, it is only the woman who can get on without the support of the man who can afford to sue him for civil imprisonment, because, if she puts him in gaol, she has to pay 1s. 6d. or 2s. 6d. per day for his keep. If she is poor, she can go to the police. It is provided in the Bill that debts incurred before the passage of this Bill will not come under the provisions of this measure, but it seems to me that the Minister wants to go back on that. That is not fair. If, for instance, I gave a man credit before the passage of this Bill I knew that I had recourse against him for the debt, and that remedy is now being taken away from me. The man has incurred a debt with me; I sold him goods, or I gave him money on the understanding that I would be enabled by the law to get payment of that debt. This Bill is now going to deprive me of that right, if the Minister gives in on that point. One’s existing rights are being taken away in this manner. That is not fair. I want to say again that I have an entirely open mind on this subject. I don’t want to put anyone in gaol for debt, but we must have a system to punish the man who can pay but who won’t pay; otherwise we should declare the credit system entirely illegal. Then we would all know where we stood. I want to say again that I do not plead for the right to put people in gaol for debt. I don’t want to give the Minister of Justice a political stick to beat me with. He is in that difficulty himself today. He must not imagine that the poor people are as stupid as hon. members opposite appear to imagine. Hon. members opposite are so prone to talk about the backveld; they are so prone to talk of the people far away on the platteland who know so little. If I listen to what happens here in the towns, and if I notice how little the people in the towns know about their rights, and how they allow themselves to be cheated, then it is an eyeopener to me, as people say. The people on the platteland know what their rights are, and they insist on their rights. They know that if they owe money and they are unable to pay, they are not going to be put in gaol; they thoroughly understand the position. The complaint in the towns is that people buy up debts, issue summonses, get consents, and thus get judgments against people. That type of person should be put in his place. We don’t get that kind of thing on the platteland, but my main objection is that we are busy here with a “pig in a poke”. We are abolishing the one system and we are in the dark as to what we are going to put in its place. We are exchanging something which we have for something we don’t know anything about. And it is only for a year. Next year the consolidating Bill may be introduced, and we can then discuss the whole principle, so I don’t see why we should get this bit of legislation in advance. I also want to know why this Commission was appointed by the Prime Minister when he was Minister of Justice. It was a pretty big Commission. The members were not politicians. The Chief Magistrate of Johannesburg was chairman, and then we had Mr. Van den Heever, the Government Attorney, who was also a judge. Then there were representatives of the Salaried Staff Association of the Railways and the Secretary of the Trade and Labour Council. It was an impartial Commission.

It is not Mr. van den Heever, the judge.

Very well, I accept that. I understood so from the speech of the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenbuys). Anyhow, all those people are men who had experience of this matter and they know what is going on in the country. This Commission represented the general public and put in a unanimous report. They travelled through the country, they took evidence and observed matters. They went into the whole testimony of civil imprisonment, and I may point out to the House that there is not a single country in the world where civil imprisonment has been abolished without something having been put in its place. South Africa is the only country where we are going to do so. I say that this Commission was appointed by the Prime Minister.

Do you say that the old Nationalist Government made a mistake?

I am not arguing that point at the moment. My point is that no country so far has abolished this system without putting something in its place. We are now also told by the Minister that he will make provision next year for something to take the place of civil imprisonment. Why cannot we wait until then? The only explanation I can find is that this is being done for political purposes. It is popular. There are elections in the offing and the Government wants to use this as a stick to beat others with. That may be the position. I only want to say this in that connection, that we have never yet had a Government in this country which has oppressed the poor man and the middle classes more than this Government has done.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot remember any subject of internal policy upon which there has been so many choppings and changings in this Parliament as civil imprisonment. Let us go back to 1932. In that year Mr. Tielman Roos abolished civil imprisonment totally throughout the land.

It was Mr. Pirow.

Well, it was Minister Pirow who abolished civil imprisonment throughout South Africa except where the debt had been introduced by misrepresentation of the debtor. Right throughout the whole field he abolished it. What followed was this, that there was such an orgy of debt-dodging that representations were made to Parliament that a perfectly impossible state of affairs had come into being, and the Select Committee on the General Law Amendment Bill of 1935 of which I was Chairman, received representations both through Government departments and from outside that it was impossible to continue the commercial system of South Africa without some form of civil imprisonment. It was also represented to us that the major evil of civil imprisonment was not the imprisonment itself, but the system of costs which attended it, and which played right into the hands of the unscrupulous attorney. We recommended, and I believe Parliament accepted that recommendation in the law of 1935, that we limit those costs, except where it was just that the debtor paid the full costs. What did we provide? We provided that costs should not be payable in the case of loans of money, in the case of proceedings under the hire-purchase system, and in the case of a sale of goods except necessaries; in cases of that sort we provided that there should be no costs except messengers’ costs and no attorney should get advantage out of it. That was accepted as a fair compromise, but then those who disliked the system and who, like the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) regarded it as a relic of barbarism, and not as a means of compelling the unwilling debtor to pay, continued their agigation and finally the then Minister of Justice, I think the present Prime Minister, set up this Commission. The Chairman was the Senior Magistrate of Johannesburg—and Johannesburg is the commercial centre of South Africa where there are more civil imprisonment proceedings, probably, than in all the rest of South Africa—the Chairman was Major Maynard Page, and the other members of the Commission were Mr. van den Heever, the Government Attorney; Mr. Keegan, a well-known commercial man, and the other two members of the Commission, and I want you to mark this, Mr. Speaker, were what you may call Labour men, or representatives of the working classes. One of them was Mr. de Vries, who is well-known to South Africa as a member of the Trades and Labour Council; he is, in fact, the Secretary, and Mr. Banks, who is the Secretary of one of the working-class Railway Unions. These two men out of five were put on this Commission to represent the interests of the working or poorer classes of the community. The point that strikes me about their report is that it is unanimous, and in that report in Section 129, they say this—

Now, here we have the Minister of Justice bringing forward this Bill right in the teeth of the recommendation of the Commission appointed by his predecessor, and not providing any alternative proposal, not saying: “Very well, I feel we must abolish the system, but I now propose such and such a method of compelling a debtor to pay.” No, sir, coming forward with the purely negative proposals contained in this Bill, he abolishes civil imprisonment almost completely, except in cases of judgments in delict which do not amount to 1 per cent. of the judgments in our courts. Now, sir, what is going to happen in South Africa? I can speak with knowledge as chairman of that committee of 1935 about what is going to happen in the future, and that is what happened in the past. There will be an orgy of debt-avoiding by persons who really can pay their debts and should be compelled to pay. The underlying theory of civil imprisonment is not to send a man to gaol because he cannot pay; if it amounted to that, of course, I would vote for its abolition tomorrow, but the underlying theory is this, that a man who can pay and will not make any reasonable offer to pay,—that is the point,—is compelled by a threat of civil imprisonment to meet his debts. It is easy to say, it is easy for members of this House to say: “Abolish the credit system,” but is it possible to enforce that? Take the case that I suggested when my colleague, the member for Pretoria Central (Mr. Pocock) was speaking, the morning milk. Then your dairymen throughout South Africa may say: “We will not supply the morning milk unless we got a deposit or payment in advance.” Take the case of the ordinary professional man, the doctor in particular. You know, Mr. Speaker, the howl of execration that there is when a doctor is called in to attend a strange patient and will not do so unless he gets his fee in advance. He is stamped up and down the length and breadth of the community in which he lives as a heartless being whose conduct should be reprehended by every decent member of society. Well, Sir, you say to him in this Bill, or the Minister of Justice says to him: “If you attend people and send in an account for your services, it is dependent entirely on their honour whether they pay or do not pay.” Medical bills are now reduced to the level of a debt of honour. The same with an attorney. I do not put the attorney’s case as high as the doctor’s, because most people can get on without the aid of an attorney whereas they could not get on without the aid of a doctor. A doctor is essential under our present system for the well-being of the community, and the doctor should have the same right to be paid as any other member of society. You go to the average general practitioner in South Africa, and he will tell you that probably a third of his book entries become bad debts because even under the present system he does not like to sue.

The remedy would be a garnishee order.

Well, yes, but the hon. member, who is a lawyer like myself, knows how very limited that remedy is, he knows that in practice it means very little. This commission, two members out of five of whom were working men, after investigating civil imprisonment and possible alternatives, said: “We can see no alternative to the present system.” I am all for remedying the abuses that have arisen, that was my attitude in 1935, and that will always be my attitude—but I want to suggest that it will be a grave error to abolish the system in its entirety as is proposed by the Minister in the present Bill. I was dealing with cases where credit is almost a part of our social system today, and I mentioned in particular the case of the morning milk, but I want to quote another instance. Do you realise that under this Bill, if it is passed, I can walk into a restaurant, I can order and consume a meal, and as I walk out I can say: “Send me the bill” and, Sir, the only remedy left to the restaurant keeper will be to send that bill. If I do not pay, and I have no property upon which he may execute a Court judgment, he has no remedy.

Is there not a criminal remedy?

As far as I know, none. If I have money in my pocket and I walk out of the restaurant and say “Send me the bill” there is no criminal remedy. The criminal remedy lies in a case where you represent by your conduct that you can pay when you cannot. I am talking of a case where I walk in with my pockets full and walk out saying “Send me the bill.”

You try it, and you will get into trouble very soon.

Perhaps the worst case of all is the man, no, let us take the proverbial widow—we always mention the widow when we bring a hard luck story before the House—let us take the widow who has a little inheritance and has invested it in one or two cottages. By custom rent is payable in advance, but, sir, if the tenant does not pay in the first week or two weeks all that you can do is to give him notice to leave. You can, of course, attach his property, if he has any, but you will find that the tenant who cannot pay his rent is the class of tenant who has no property upon which you can levy execution, you will find that all his property is under hire purchase agreement, that is to say all that is worth anything, and don’t forget there is a margin—I speak from recollection—but there is a margin of £50 worth of goods which is protected from execution. So it comes to this, that if this Bill is passed, the landlord or landlady is placed entirely at the mercy of the tenant, and will never be able to enforce a judgment for rent. I repeat again that if the tenant has property or goods, he can pay, but if he has no assets beyond his wage, then this Bill will have the effect of depriving a landlord of the right of being paid out of his wages. You talk of abolishing the credit system. Is it realised that in nine cases out of ten the benefit of the present system is received by the person who gets the goods? A man is out of a job, and who keeps him during the period he is out but the small storekeeper? In the case of strikes again and again it has come to my notice that the storekeepers as a body have kept the strikers during that period on credit. I would hate it if I were a man who had a good name. I could not walk into a store and get credit. This Bill will probably have the effect of compelling the merchant class, the storekeepers to say “Under no circumstances whatever will we allow a single debt to be written into our books.” If that is the case, the person who will suffer will not be the storekeeper, the person who will suffer will be the small man in temporary difficulties, who will not be able to get the necessaries he wants. I ask the Minister what is the reason for the introduction of this particular Bill?

The Mineworkers Union, amongst others, asked for it.

I am not aware of that; I have no interest in this matter, but I was quite unaware for any popular clamour for this Bill, and I have hundreds of miners in my own constituency.

The mine workers approached us officially.

If they did, they approached the Minister in the teeth of the considered findings and recommendations of his own Commission. That Commission presented a most elaborate report, and the size of the report and the amount of work put into it would justify a subject of ten times the importance of civil imprisonment. On that Commission the workers were adequately represented, and Mr. De Vries, as a matter of fact, though not actively connected with the Mineworkers’ Union, is secretary of a body to which the Union is affiliated.

He sent me a telegram congratulating me.

Well, sir, we are living in a wonderful world. Mr. De Vries signs this report in which he says, in black and white, that it is his considered opinion this system must be retained, and now we have the word of the Minister of Justice that when he introduced this Bill he received a telegram of congratulation from Mr. De Vries. It only shows you, sir, how opinions may differ in this matter. I would appeal to the Minister not to make this a party vote, not to put the Whips on, but to give members a free opportunity to express their feelings as they wish in regard to it. My own feeling is this, that the step in the wrong direction has been taken. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside), whose return to this House I welcome, has said that this is a relic of barbarism. Well, let me say this to him straight away—if it is, abolish it root and branch, be logical. But no Parliament has yet taken that step. In 1932 it was not completely abolished, it was abolished, except in certain reserved cases. And subsequently again, and under this Bill it is still being kept in respect of certain classes of cases. If my hon. friend is logical, he will say: “Away with the whole system. Under no circumstances must a man be imprisoned for civil debt.”

In those other cases it is not civil; it is really a criminal offence.

If my hon. friend standing on his platform in Durban were to use un-Parliamentary language, say, about the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren), and if he were sued for damages, and damages were recovered against him, and if he said: “I won’t pay—” he will go to gaol under the Minister’s Bill. I won’t go into the other classes referred to under this Bill, because I might become too personal. I say again, if the system is a bad system, abolish it altogether. But if it must be kept in certain respects, then I plead that it should be kept in respect of professional fees, rent, and the other classes which I have mentioned here.

This Bill is simply another bite at the cherry which we have been nibbling at in the Hire Purchase Bill. There civil imprisonment is completely abolished, and there I took up the attitude that I could not accept that principle by which we deprived one class of creditor of a remedy open to others, and that we should deal with the matter as a whole. If hon. members will look at this Bill they will see that there is so little left of civil imprisonment that one may almost take it that it is abolished entirely. The only cases for which civil imprisonment can still be relied upon are delicts, in which I include actions for seduction, and claims by wives, children or parents for maintenance. Now if you look at the report of the Commission hon. members will find that damages are taken as a comprehensive term. On page 19 of the report it will be found that the cases in regard to which action of civil imprisonment were taken are specified in detail. Damages there show 1.6 per cent. of those actions for which a summons for civil imprisonment was issued. That includes delicts and actions for seductions. So if you take away the action by a wife or a child—for which there is already a remedy under the Criminal Law in cases where they have been left destitute—and if you take away from that 1.6 per cent. actions arising out of damages, there is nothing left of civil imprisonment at all. May I say as a member of the legal profession that there is no person who is stronger in his disapproval of the abuses by dishonourable members of our profession than those who are members of the profession themselves. We have our Law Societies in every Province not only for the protection of our own interests, but in order to deal with those members of our profession who forget that they are members of an honourable profession, and if there is any member of the profession as an attorney who is acting in a manner improper or in a dishonourable manner, or one who brings dishonour on the profession, action will be taken against him by the Law Society if the facts are brought to their notice. So that in order to legislate for a few persons who may have abused their profession is wrong, although in a minute I am going to put certain suggestions to the Minister for his consideration to see whether perhaps one cannot assist him in the difficulties with which he is confronted. It has been said before that no attorney wants to put a man into prison. No man has the desire to put another into gaol, but the matter has been raised here in this House as though the intention is to put poor men into prison. That is not the case. The poor man is already protected. We are losing sight of the trees for the wood. Let me read what the position is today so far as civil imprisonment is concerned, and we shall see that the poor man is protected. It is the dishonest debtor against whom civil imprisonment proceedings can be taken, and I shall deal at the same time with the question of costs which has been raised here by some hon. members. Under Section 69 of the Magistrate’s Court Act as amended from time to time, hon. members will find—

And then here comes a proviso under which the decree may be granted—

1. (1) The court may at any time suspend the execution of or altogether discharge any such decree or warrant upon such terms as may appear to the court to be fair and reasonable;
2. (2) no such decree shall be pronounced and no such warrant shall be issued if the judgment debtor prove to the satisfaction of the court that he has no means of satisfying the judgment debt either wholly or in part and either out of present means or out of future earnings or income, unless it appears that the judgment debtor either—
   1. (a) has wilfully made away with any property in order to defeat or delay payment of the judgment debt; or
   2. (b) is able to earn sufficient to satisfy the judgment debt by instalments or otherwise to settle the same, but in order to defeat or delay payment of the judgment debt wilfully refuses to do so;
   3. (c) is squandering his money or is apparently living beyond his means.

Now, so far as the poor man is concerned, he need have no fear, so long as the court is satisfied that he is not wilfully doing away with his property in order to defeat or delay payment, or is able to earn sufficient to satisfy the judgment and pay it by instalments, and that he is not wilfully trying to delay payment, and so on. Therefore, the honest debtor, who is poor and who is unable to pay, need have no fear. Now, I want to come to the question of costs, and this is what the Act says—

1. (4) a judgment debtor shall not be liable for any costs incurred by the judgment creditor in any proceedings in connection with a decree of civil imprisonment against such debtor (other than fees or charges which accrue to the State, or to the messenger of the court).
   1. (a) if the judgment debt arose from the purchase on credit of goods other than foodstuffs or medicines or from any liability to pay any money under a hire purchase agreement, or from a loan of money, unless it is proved that the seller of those goods was induced to grant such credit, or the lessor under the hire purchase agreement was induced to deliver the asset let by him or the lender was induced to lend the money, as the case may be, by wilful misrepresentation made by or on behalf of the judgment debtor; or
   2. (b) if the rights of the judgment creditor against the judgment debtor, accrue to the judgment creditor by virtue of a cession.

In other words, no costs are due by a judgment debtor, except under certain conditions which are made clear there. Now the question has been raised here in regard to two matters which are intended to influence the decision of members. The one is, what is going to happen to our returned soldiers? I want to take the opportunity to say that I hope our Moratorium Act will be amended so that the period of three months after the conclusion of war is extended for a longer period. The returned soldier, the man on active service, is already protected, but not sufficiently. And the period of his protection should be extended. When a man comes back, it takes him some time to get back into civilian life and civilian habits. And he should have protection under the Act, and I urge upon the Minister to extend the period of three months after his return—which is all he is allowed—to a period of twelve months, because it will take him the greater part of twelve months before he can slip back into ordinary life again. May I again turn to the report of the Commission? There is an interesting note on the system of credit which was not overlooked by the Commission. On page 24 of the report, section 112 says this—

It has been shown by the last speaker that there are certain cases of credit which you cannot avoid. There, is no system which can avoid it. Professional fees have been mentioned—then, there is the case of the man who lets his property. Even though there may be provision that a man must pay in advance, he may very quickly get in arrear for a month or even two months before an ejectment order can be obtained. I come back and I say that, while no person wishes to have any other person imprisoned, I think it is wrong to abolish a system which is intended not against the poor man but against the dishonest man without being able to substitute something in its place. And that is the very difficulty which the Commission itself had because although there can be no question that the Commission wanted to find ways and means of avoiding this system of civil imprisonment, on page 49, where they summarised their recommendations, they laid down as the main principle “(1) that civil imprisonment be retained.” I am going to make certain suggestions to the Minister which I think he might give consideration to in order to avoid some of the abuses without removing the remedy of civil imprisonment in those cases where there is no means of enforcing payment. I suggest to him, and I think it can be done under the rules of the Magistrate’s Court, that a debtor who has been sued for a debt may be allowed to appear before the magistrate and make an offer of instalments. At present that remedy does not exist. A judgment creditor is entitled to say “I wish to have my writ issued, I want to see whether this man has any movable property which I can dispose of.” I think you will be able to save costs that way and avoid a great deal of unpleasantness if the Minister will allow a debtor to appear before court on a summons in the first instance and offer to pay the amounts by instalments, tender evidence in support of his circumstances, thus placing him in the same position as he would be if he were sued for civil imprisonment. The second suggestion is this: where a man comes to the Clerk of the Court and wishes to make an offer, he may be allowed to bring all his debts at that stage. The Clerk of the Court or an attorney will write to all the merchants he owes money to and place the man’s position before them, and say: “This man cannot pay otherwise than in instalments of so much per month.” The total amount of his liabilities is X pounds. By monthly instalments we shall make contributions to you and we shall notify you if the debtor fails to make payment.” I think that would be one way out of the difficulty and provision can be made to prevent the creditor who still wants to go to court from getting costs. That will act as a deterrent and it will work back to the old system of assignments in the Free State, under which a proportion of creditors can avoid action against a man being taken and costs being incurred by concerted action being taken and by an offer being made of regular instalments in the way I have suggested. In that way the piling up of costs by summonses and by writs will be avoided. A third suggestion I make is this: when once a summons for civil imprisonment has been issued, either the debtor himself can appear before the court and tender his evidence, or a consent paper can be filed offering certain instalments. Such a consent paper must be signed before and filed with the clerk of the court. In that way you will be able to avoid the multiplicity of postponements under which costs are piled up, and you will be able to give the debtor relief, and you will avoid a number of abuses mentioned in the debate. You will be able to avoid the possibility of the dishonest attorney—I am not prepared to admit that there are many of them …

Oh, no, there are none.

You will be able to avoid the possibility of the dishonest attorney taking advantage of a debtor’s ignorance. If a consent paper of that kind is signed and filed a lot of present unpleasantness and indignation against civil imprisonment can be avoided. You will avoid the man having to undergo the indignity of being cross-examined in open court. Those are certain suggestions which I put forward but of course they only deal with a man who is honest. I cannot make any suggestions with regard to the abolition of civil imprisonment. The Commission could find no remedy and I submit that the best thing would be to leave things as they are at present—it is only the dishonest debtor who is affected, and I don’t think any great injustice is done to him. I think the best thing is to leave the law as it stands until such time as the Minister can conceive of something which can be substituted for the present civil imprisonment procedure, because unless you substitute something you put a premium on dishonesty.

I am glad that this Bill which we are now dealing with does not touch any political principle, so that everybody can decide for themselves. This Bill touches one thing and it is in the interest of the poor man. It is the poor man’s interest which is at stake here, and as is well known, we in South Africa have a large percentage of poor here. Who is the protector of the poor man? Nobody else but this House, and I am convinced that this Bill is intended to promote the happiness and the good of the poor man, and that being so I feel at liberty to support this measure. The old Nationalist Party Government did away with civil imprisonment. The Nationalist Government felt convinced that civil imprisonment was unjust and pressed unfairly on the poor man, and I believe that the old Nationalist Party was animated by the well-being of the poor man. The United Party Government in 1938 thought differently and repealed the Act. They gave reasons for the repeal which I don’t want to go into. Today that self-same government comes here to restore the principle of the old Nationalist Party Government. I am glad that the present Government has got so far that it realises the old Nationalist Party Government was really right and that the principle of the old Nationalist Party Government triumphs today. I am glad about it and that is why I heartily support this Bill. I have listened to the facts which have been mentioned here, facts which do not hold water. Civil imprisonment opens the door to malpractices, and a good deal of exploitation has been going on. There is an English saying, “The proof of the pudding lies in the eating.” The country has had a taste of civil imprisonment and it knows that it has contributed nothing to the uplifting of the poor, but that on the contrary it has further impoverished the poor, and that it has made the position of the poor even more difficult than it is. Civil imprisonment impoverishes one section and enriches another section. Consequently, as a result of these malpractices the rich have become richer and the poor have become poorer. I don’t want to mention any names, and I don’t want to cast any reflections on members of this House, but it is a fact that law agents have made fortunes out of civil imprisonment. I think the object of this Bill is to do away with the shameful practices which aim at plundering the poor man. And that that is why the Government has been induced to introduce this measure. There are some people who set themselves out to exploit, emaciate and rob, and then to leave their prey to the mercy of the State. This Bill will put an end to the terrific stream of the credit system. Credit has been the cause of the ruin of thousands in the past, and this Bill will curtail the indiscriminate credit system somewhat, because if a man knows that he cannot sue the debtor for civil imprisonment he will be a bit more careful in giving credit. The poor are pressed to buy; they get the impression that they need not pay, but as soon as they have bought they have a rope round their necks, and that rope is pulled tighter and tighter as time goes on. The man who has given credit knows that the friends, children of the buyer, his brothers or parents, will not allow him to land in gaol, and he knows that they will pay. Then the son or the brother, or the parents, come along to pay the blood money to keep their son or their brother out of gaol. Those are the reprehensible methods of civil imprisonment. We know that if a poor man is sued for £3 the costs will probably amount to £6, and if the brother of somebody else wants to help he does not have to pay £3 but £9. It is all those vultures who prey on the victim.

It is blackmail.

Yes, and that is why I describe it as a shameful practice. We know that even children are being encouraged to buy on credit. It happens at the universities and in the schools, where children are encouraged to buy on credit and the creditor knows that the father will not let his child land in gaol. Possibly the father has had to borrow money for the child’s education and he is now compelled to borrow further money to get the child out of trouble. If the son were indemnified from civil imprisonment the creditor would never have gone to the extent of inducing the young fellow to incur debts. I listened to my, hon. friends also on this side of the House, We appreciate the way they have defended the case from their point of view. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) said that there was no desire to put people in gaol. He does not want to do so; I quite believe it. I also believe the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys). I really believe that they do not want to put any poor people in gaol; they are honest, and I respect their point of view, but if that is so they should first of all prove to me that other people will not do so either. How many others don’t avail themselves of the opportunity of putting people in gaol? They won’t do so, but they want to leave the way open for unscrupulous individuals to put the poor man in gaol. They themselves will not do so, but they keep the door open for others to do so. It is generous on the part of the Government to introduce this Bill; it is generous to curtail this indiscriminate practice to a certain extent, and for that reason I say I heartily welcome the Bill, and I do feel that the Minister is not going to put off the operation of the Bill indefinitely. There is a demand in the country for it—distress is very serious throughout the country—and I should like the Bill to be passed this session. I hope the Government will stand by it, and that it will not allow itself to be deterred by members on the other side or on this side. The poor man is looking forward to it. He wants protection, and if we want to restrict poverty and if we are out to make this a country of happiness, a country that will be blessed by Providence, then this evil practice of civil imprisonment should be completely done away with.

In the last two and a half years it has not been possible very often in this House to find a measure of agreement between speakers on the Government and on the Opposition Benches. It does seem to me rather a pity that it has been left to a Bill which seeks to restrict civil imprisonment, to find that measure of agreement. It does seem to me rather a pity that we find the hon. member for Pretoria, Central (Mr. Pocock), and the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) lining themselves up with some of the chief reactionaries on the Nationalist Party side. It gives point to a remark I made the other day that so often in this House we are far more concerned with money and property than with human beings. I look upon this Bill as a very considerable step forward, because it does show that the Minister and the Government generally are at last beginning to introduce legislation into this House which concerns itself with human beings, whether or not it may have an adverse effect on property. That seems to me the only reasonable way in which we can examine this Bill. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central), the hon. member for Kensington and the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Friedlander) are all terribly concerned with what is going to happen to the creditor if we restrict civil imprisonment, as it seeks to do in this Bill. The whole of their outlook seems to be an outlook which is concerned with seeing that this money which represents goods bought on credit is repaid to the creditor. They don’t seem to be concerned in the slightest degree with the debtor, except that the hon. member for Wynberg did say that no man wants to put another man in gaol. I gather, however, from what he said subsequently that he did not go the whole length of that, he was prepared to cut that down, because what he ought to have said was that no man wants to put another in gaol unless he is interfering with private property. So property is of more importance than the individual concerned. I still contend that this system is a relic of medieval times. Civil imprisonment is a punishment meted out by the State, which in modern times cannot be justified, and it certainly cannot be justified on the grounds that the creditor ought to be protected. We are not here in this House to give particular protection to the creditor, neither do I consider that we are here in times such as this to give particular protection to private property. It seems to me that the legal profession is always prepared to look after its own vested interests, and when any Bill is introduced which seeks to restrict the amount of work which the profession is likely to get from the general public, the legal profession, irrespective of the merits of the case and the effects which the Bill may have on the individual, are prepared to get up and uphold the rights of private property. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) took pains to tell us how every year the number of people committed to civil imprisonment is coming down. If that is the case, his whole argument falls away, because if commitments are decreasing, why is he worrying about it? Obviously, creditors are finding some methods by which to deal with this question of credit. It has been pointed out that in one particular year there were 47,000 decrees granted. If we average out the legal expenses of these decrees of £4 per decree, which is a very low estimate, we find that in that particular year these decrees cost somebody in this country £188,000; legal expenses purely for the issuing of decrees for civil imprisonment, irrespective of how many people were subsequently committed. So, in that particular year, I can see why the legal profession are so intimately concerned. If the legal expenses in connection with decrees are in round figures £200,000 a year, I presume I may say that they are voting in support of this Bill in their own vested interests. I think we are getting too much of that. I do not think that in a democratic Parliament individual members who are intimately concerned, and whose private pockets are affected, should get up and plead a cause. I do not think it is the purpose of a democratic Parliament to allow these individual members to get up and plead a cause which is intimately concerned with their own pockets. As I see it, we are here to look after the welfare of the people of South Africa, and not to look after private enterprise, or our own vested interests. I am quite sure that the constituents of the hon. member for Kensington did not send him here to look after the interests of creditors or private property, and I am quite sure that the constituents of the hon. member for Wynberg did not send him to look after the lawyers, but they sent him here to look after the interests of South Africans as a whole. There is no justification for the argument that because a Commission could not find a solution of this question of the existence of South African credit, we should continue this civil imprisonment system. If there is this difficulty of giving too much credit, it will have to be solved in another manner, and there is no logical reason why we should continue to indulge in this medieval vice of committing people to gaol until the problem is solved in another way. We are actually making men criminals, although we call it civil imprisonment; we are putting on these individuals an indignity which the law of this or any other country has the right to do. The fact that firms and individuals who sell goods on credit have some difficulty in getting their money is no reason why this democratic House of Assembly should refuse to remove from the Statute Book something which I say is definitely a relic of the middle ages. That, I think, was brought out by the hon. member for Wynberg, in what I consider to be a most extraordinary speech, because he is not prepared to agree with the Minister that civil imprisonment should be restricted to the decree envisaged in this Bill, but what he is prepared to do is to suggest to the Minister that he should draft another Bill with about five or six very abstruse and far-reaching provisions in it which would make it almost impossible for anyone to get a civil imprisonment order. If he is prepared to go that length, it does not seem to me that there can be any point in objecting to the restrictions which the Minister proposes in the Bill. The hon. member for Kensington again says that if I contend that civil imprisonment is a relic of medievalism, then I should be prepared to go the whole hog and abolish civil imprisonment altogether. I personally am quite prepared to go the whole hog and abolish it altogether. As a matter of fact, if I had time to go through the whole of the statute books of this country, I would probably find thousands of things that I would be quite prepared to completely abolish. One of the troubles in this country is that we have far too many crimes, both criminal and civil, we rush people into gaol at the slightest pretext, and unfortunately we do not get the assistance of lawyers when we are trying to eliminate some of these things. But there is justification for the Minister here. I want to suggest that in the clause where civil imprisonment still remains, the debt owing there Should not really be considered in the nature of a debt, but should be considered a justification for punishment for some crime previously committed. If in the case which the hon. member suggested I were landed in a large sum for damages for committing libel on the public platform, then those damages are in the nature of punishment for either an indiscretion or crime as the case may be. That is proved by the fact that if I go far enough I can be criminally prosecuted and put in gaol. Similarly, in the marital relationship where a debt is incurred it is a case of avoiding one’s responsibility, and I do not think that point can be argued on the lines which the hon. member for Kensington adopted. I want to add my word to that of the Minister in regard to Clause 4, which creates a possibility that it can be made applicable to soldiers who return from the war. I am quite sure the Minister will see the propriety of deleting that at the Committee stage. I trust that the Minister is not going to pay any attention to the request of the hon. member for Kensington that this should be made a non-party measure. That is the kind of request, that one could hardly have expected from a member who holds such a distinguished position on the front bench, a member who at times feels called upon even to make himself into the mouthpiece of the Government. I think it comes ill from him to make a request in regard to a Bill which quite obviously must have the approval of the Cabinet. It is the kind of request which comes ill from a member of the legal profession, who is now in agreement with the reactionaries on the other side of the House. I say that this measure is long overdue. The Government has now realised the inequities of civil imprisonment, and that South Africa, in this respect, is very much behind many other parts of the world. However, the Government due to the pressure of private interests, and the legal profession, have not been prepared to go the whole hog, but I feel that the present Minister of Justice, in spite of that, is to be congratulated on removing from the statute book something which has been not only the cause of malpractices on the part of certain unsavoury members of the legal profession, but something which has been in reality a blot on our statute book.

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) has directed some scathing attacks against the legal profession, and in doing so he has questioned the right of hon. members who belong to that profession, to participate in a debate of this character on the ground that they have an intimate interest in the subject matter under discussion.

A financial interest.

Mr. Speaker, if there is one justification for any hon. member participating in a debate it is that he has an intimate knowledge of the subject, and it would be regrettable if those who can speak on this subject from a practical experience of the working of civil imprisonment, were discouraged by the scathing attacks of the hon. member for Umbilo from doing so. The hon. member loses sight of a very simple truth in regard to the case which he complained so much about, and it is this, that if you are to provide an alternative as the hon. Minister has promised, the debtor will still be mulcted in costs, whatever that alternative is, provided it is going to be effective, and provided the alternative is not some moral restraint as against legal sanctions. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have been astonished at two things I have heard in the House this afternoon. One was the statement of the Minister by way of interjection that a member of the Commission, Mr. de Vries, who had been a party to the unanimous report of that Commission had now sent the Minister a telegram congratulating him on introducing this Bill. It looks very much, Mr. Speaker, as if Mr. de Vries has now got cold feet. Another remark which astonished me fell from the hon. member for Pretoria, Central (Mr. Pocock). He said that he knew of a case of a soldier up North who had been made the subject of a civil imprisonment order. Either the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, has been misinformed, or this is a case where the Minister should make the fullest investigation, because if it is a fact that a man on active service has had a civil imprisonment order made against him, then all the officials who were party to the making of that order, the magistrate, the clerk of the court, and the messenger, have all been responsible for a gross dereliction of duty. They have in fact displayed palpable ignorance of a primary rule of the magistrate’s court in relation to civil imprisonment summonses, which is that there must be personal service on the debtor. If the man were up in the North, how could the summons have been served upon him? That is a fact which the messenger must have known and the clerk of the court must have known, and it is something upon which the magistrate should have satisfied himself before making the order. I would ask the Minister to ascertain from the hon. member the facts of this case, and to investigate them fully, because if the facts are as alleged, these officials should be answerable for a distinct wrong. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would welcome this Bill and support it enthusiastically if it were, in fact, what it has been paraded to be, namely, a piece of progressive social reform. But it is not, and I think the House ought to take a realistic view of this question of civil imprisonment. The Bill before the House still makes it possible to issue C.I. summonses in respect of delictual liability, and the explanation which has been forthcoming to explain that away and to justify it, I think came from the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip). It was this, that the State, just as it has an interest in criminal offences, has some sort of interest in seeing that delicts were either not committed or that damages were paid in consequence of their commission, and the corollary follows that in respect of contractual liability, the State has no interest, but takes the view that this is a matter of concern purely as between one party and another. That, Mr. Speaker, was as a matter of fact something to which the Commission directed its attention, and the Commission, in point of fact, stressed the interest of the State in seeing that there was honourable fulfilment of contractual obligations. I should like to refer the House to the ipsissima verba of the Commission in relation to this very point. In paragraph 117 the Commission says—

So that the distinction, Mr. Speaker, attempted to be drawn by the hon. Minister’s lieutenant is not a valid one, not merely because the Commission says so, but because the Commission said something which is substantially and fundamentally sound. I am not bound hand and foot to every word the Commission says. But if the Commission has exhaustively analysed the question, and has made certain findings, it is my duty to direct my mind to those findings, and if I accept them I accept them because they are sound, and not merely because the Commission so found it. Now, the justification for the introduction of the Bill at this stage could only be that the problem has suddenly become pressing, and cannot wait to be dealt with in terms of an amended Magistrate’s Court Act, which the hon. Minister has promised the country. The Minister told us that during the recess an amended Magistrate’s Court Act is going to engage his attention, and logically one would expect to find this question of the abolition of C.I. dealt with as part and parcel of such an amended Act. If the matter must be dealt with before that Bill can be dealt with as a whole, it must be because there is pressing need and that the Minister is satisfied beyond doubt that the time had arrived when we should not tolerate civil imprisonment for another day. Is that the attitude of the Minister? In introducing the Bill the Minister said that one of the reasons was that we shall have six months to see how it works, and, if during that time it appears that there are cases which bear heavily upon creditors, we can immediately apply a measure to deal with them. To quote the exact words of the Minister, he said—

Now, Mr. Speaker, two points emerge from that. One is that quite obviously the Minister is in some doubt as to whether the abolition should be a permanent feature of our legal system. He is prepared to find out; he gives the House the assurance that it may well be that in six months’ time we shall have to go back to it. The second point is, the Minister says, if we find that the abolition of civil imprisonment bears heavily upon certain creditors, a measure can be applied immediately. I ask—and I think it is a reasonable request—what is this measure which can be applied immediately? We know from the report of the Commission that they were unable to conceive an alternative remedy for civil imprisonment. They said a satisfactory alternative was a matter of considerable difficulty, and the Minister tells us that during the course of the next six months, if it is found that the abolition of civil imprisonment bears heavily on creditors, he will apply a measure immediately. That will only be possible if he has a measure now available, and one that can be applied at any given moment. I should like at this stage to say in regard to this report that it is almost a literary document, and I should like to pay my tribute to the industry and painstaking conscientiousness of the Commission which produced a report both comprehensive and helpful. Now, the Minister in a very cursory introduction said that there were two reasons for introducing this Bill—one was that civil imprisonment was a survival of mediaeval times, and the other that it affected the poor man. Those were two reasons among several items which were investigated by the Commission, so that the Minister can hardly claim that he has given any original reason for the abolition of civil imprisonment. He has taken over two of the several reasons advanced before the Commission as good grounds for the abolition of civil imprisonment, and both these grounds were fully investigated and rejected by the Commission. It is perfectly true that civil imprisonment does not touch the rich man or the middle-class man—the man who has assets. It is true, the poor man is affected, but he is not affected because he is a poor man; he is affected because in the opinion of a magistrate he is a man who is able to pay a debt, but is unwilling to do so. Only in those circumstances is he affected. He is not touched merely because he is a poor man. I want to make this further point. This remedy does not lie in the hands of the creditor. A creditor can be most anxious to imprison a man who owes him money. It does not rest with the creditor; it rests with the magistrate. The magistrate will not have a man arrested unless he is satisfied that a man can pay, but refuses to pay. Then it is said that this is a survival of mediaeval ages. That is perfectly true, but the mere fact that it is a survival of the mediaeval ages does not necessarily make it bad in itself. There are many institutions, and I am not sure that this august Assembly is not one of them, which are a survival of the mediaeval ages. That does not make them bad. The Commission investigated these matters thoroughly and came to the conclusion that in all circumstances it would not be right and proper, having regard to all material factors, to abolish civil imprisonment. The Minister says that he will provide through the medium of this Conference to be held during the recess an alternative for civil imprisonment —that Conference will evolve some alternative. Surely that is putting the cart before the horse, more particularly in view of the fact that an alternative is going to be exceedingly difficult to unearth. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) said that this Bill had the support of the Associated Law Society. I accept that. But if that statement is designed to give the impression that the Bill has commended itself to the legal profession as a whole, or indeed to the four Law Societies, then I say that that is not a correct statement of fact. I want to read a telegram sent to me by the Natal Law Society, and it is in these terms—

The Minister has said that the Commission made recommendations which are now altogether ineffective. The House has not been told why these very sound and carefully thought out remedies for removing the defects in our civil imprisonment administration are not ineffective. And I would make this suggestion, that if the Minister has in mind certain grounds for regarding these proposals of the Commission as being at present ineffective, it will not be a difficult matter to collect together this self-same Commission—it will no doubt be necessary to induce Mr. De Vries to stick to his original views—but the problem could be referred to the Commission which has all the facts at its finger tips, and it could be asked to consider whether in the light of the objections which the Minister now has to giving effect to these proposals, what other suggestions it can put forward. And I make that suggestion as meeting what is in point of face the one point on which the Minister has founded his whole case for neglecting to adopt the recommendations of this Commission, which in my view would remove what are undoubtedly objections in our present system. The hon. member for Brakpan says that there are abuses on the Reef. I have yet to learn that the proper way of dealing with a section which indulges in malpractices is to legislate for the whole Union. The fact that there are certain Reef attorneys who abuse the system is no justification for altering the whole system. The Minister has founded his case on his statement that the recommendations of the Commission are ineffective, and if that is his view he should invoke the assistance of this very able Commission to help him out of that difficulty.

The degree to which soldiers who are on active service are at present affected or will be affected by the continuance of the existing state of affairs in connection with civil imprisonment orders must surely influence the Minister of Justice considerably in bringing forward this Bill. It might almost be looked upon as a war measure, to grant relief in advance to the most deserving section of the community— those who are fighting for the country— and who are thereby offering up as much as it is possible for any man to sacrifice. I support this Bill because I look upon it as a war measure. I know of many cases in which creditors are willing to pursue the soldier right up to the front line in an endeavour to recover their debts. I should prefer that there should be a complete moratorium in regard to debts of that kind. I have recently received a letter from a personal friend of mine who has a considerable number of men under his command and this is what he says—

I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to see how incongruous it is that a man who is prepared to lay down his life for his country should be pestered to within a moment of his death by one of these gentlemen for 25s. He goes on to say—

I hold the same view. I think that Section 4 should be deleted so as to make the provisions of the Bill applicable to cases that exist at the present moment, and the effect would be to grant a moratorium for men who are fighting for the country. I know that many creditors are prepared to wipe out their claims against soldiers on active service. I know of men who have had property stolen by men, who have subsequently gone to the war, and the complainant has withdrawn the case. They take up the attitude: “This man is now fighting for his country, and we shall leave it at that.” I hope the Minister will not be discouraged by the entreaties put forward in this House not to pass the Bill because a large class of creditors will be affected thereby. There will be time enough to consider creditors when all the difficulties of the war are over. Let the soldiers have a long moratorium from their debts. I should be more pleased if the Government claims were also treated in the same way, because I am aware of the extent in which pressure is still brought to bear on men who either directly or indirectly are indebted to the Land Bank or other institutions, and who are fighting for their country. I know of men who are heirs to property being in this position, that while they are fighting for their country the persons who hold the property today, either their widowed mothers or fathers, have been served with notices that they have been put on the sales list, and are about to be sold up, while their sons—four out of five—are at the front. I welcome this Bill, and I hope the Minister will stand fast by the principle which he seeks to make legal, and that he will withdraw Section 4 so as to make the moratorium more complete.

I heartily welcome the abolition of civil imprisonment. Hon. members will recollect that I fought the re-introduction of civil imprisonment in 1935 tooth and nail. I said it would be abused, and within a year there were already 42,000 victims of this system. It is a peculiar thing that many of our friends who do not quite support this Bill come here with all sorts of pious suggestions—they want something different to be introduced—they do not want this Bill to be put on the Statute Book—and then they will be prepared to go into the whole question, but at the time when it was proposed to put this system into operation again no pious suggestions were made on their behalf. No, they assisted the creditor to insist on his pound of flesh. The pound of flesh had to be taken from the worker, whether he could pay or not, but today those hon. members come here with all kinds of pious suggestions. At that time when the system was re-introduced, they were entirely indifferent to similar suggestions. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg) contended that it became legal men to discuss this matter, because they know a lot about it. That is all very well, but the hon. member will agree that there are very few legal men in this House who know anything of the way in which this business is abused, because I take up the attitude that in this House we have the honest type of lawyer who does not abuse this system. Consequently, none of them can speak about the abuses in connection with civil imprisonment from the point of view of an authority. That is my position, and that is my answer to the hon. member for Umlazi. I do not think that any of them have ever been guilty of the malpractices and the inhuman practices indulged in by some of those so-called law agents, so-called lawyers, who are nothing but glorified debt collectors. I don’t think any of them have ever been guilty of the practices which those people indulged in. I do not know of a single lawyer in this House who has been guilty of that kind of thing, and I am prepared to go so far as to say that I think the profession, as a whole, is an honourable profession. The best evidence of that we find in the fact that the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) stated here that the legal profession supported this Bill of the Minister’s. That is the best evidence we can get for the fact that the legal profession disapproves of the practices indulged in by that type of legal practitioner whom I describe as glorified debt collectors. But may I be allowed to put a few questions to those hon. members who are still so indefinite on this subject? Have they ever gone to Johannesburg and personally watched the type of people who sit in court and giggle while the most insulting questions are put to the poor people who are unable to pay? Have they ever taken the trouble to go and sit in court and listen to the insults, to the contumely and contempt, to which those people are subjected? That sort of thing is not done by honourable members of the profession, but it is done by those who are unable to make a living out of their profession, and who as a result become glorified debt collectors. And if they are deprived of that opportunity then they won’t be able to make a living unless they go and work on the roads. That is the type of man who abuses this system. I don’t know whether any hon. member has so far given any instance of the way the system is being abused, but I should like to give an example. Such a glorified debt collector secures the books of a certain business. He does not know where to find the people whom he wants to screw money out of, but as soon as he finds the name of a man like that in some other district—a man of more or less the same name — he becomes suspicious and he sends such a person a demand calling on him to pay the account. The individual knows nothing about such an account, and in most cases he does not reply. He does not know the people, he has never been in their shop, so he simply tears up the letter. After a while he gets a summons. Then he wakes up with a start, and he probably in turn goes to one of these cheap jacks, he does not go to an honourable attorney, but he perhaps goes to the same type of attorney as the glorified debt collector. And that attorney then writes to the other one: “My client does not owe you a farthing,” and it costs him 10s. 6d. Do hon. members of this House want to ignore that type of malpractice? I can assure the House that this system is being abused. The one cheap agent plays into the hands of the other one. Indirectly he puts money into the other one’s pocket, and whose pocket does it come out of? It does not come out of the pockets of people who have something and who know better, but it mostly comes out of the pockets of the less privileged classes, out of the pockets of people who are by no means able to pay. That is the way in which money is screwed out of people, and they have to pay 10s fid. to an attorney for writing a letter to the effect that “my client does not owe you a farthing.” Those things have been going on on an extensive scale, on a disgraceful scale. I myself have received letters of that kind from business concerns which I have never seen in all my life. What are we to deduce from it? Will an honest business man who has sold an article go to an honest agent and say: “Collect money from somebody whom you have never seen.” No, that is not the type of work done by honest people, but it has been going on on a big scale, and that is why we find that 42,000 summonses for civil imprisonment have been issued in one year. In the majority of those cases those people had never been anywhere near the business places of the people who demanded money from them. Now it is said in this House that all we have tot see to is that the dishonest man pays his debts. Why should the State subsidise those people? Why should the State help and support people who have forced others to get into debt? We heard the other day about the high pressure salesmen who is appointed by business concerns to sell certain articles to the public. They come along with all sorts of nice talk until they get a signature, and once they get that signature they are perfectly satisfied because they know whom they can hand the case to in order to screw every possible penny out of the person who signed. There are people in Johannesburg who have never yet made a penny in any other way except through this civil imprisonment system, since it was reintroduced. We know the way the costs of the debtor are forced up. Let me give the House an example of a man who owed £14. He was put in gaol, and later he was again put in gaol, and in that way his debt was increased, until in the end the £14 had become £128. Does not that show the way the system is being abused? And if there is only one such case it should induce us to do away with this system. Let the business men be a little more careful whom they sell goods to. They engage unscrupulous people, the most unscrupulous people they can get hold of, to palm things off on to people, to get signatures, and they leave the rest to the glorified debt collectors who have to collect the money for them. Those members who have suddenly become so kind-hearted, and who have put forward all kinds of pious suggestions if only the Minister will withdraw this Bill, were as cold as ice in 1935 and they did not show any kind feelings for the debtors when the system was reintroduced. It was because of the hard-hearted attitude they adopted at that time that none of the sound suggestions which we proposed in the form of amendments were adopted. They simply would not give in. They wanted their pound of flesh and I warned the House at the time what would happen, but the Opposition and the Government side at that time stood like one man for the restoration of civil imprisonment. Only we few were against it. I told them that they would rue the day they had taken that step, and hardly had the system been put into force again when all those abuses restarted. If the Minister has ever done a thing which thousands of people will be grateful to him for it is this abolition of civil imprisonment. If we can reach the stage that no business man will sell an article unless he knows that he is selling it to an honest man, there will also be an end to this practice of people employing unscrupulous individuals merely for the purpose of obtaining people’s signatures and inducing people to buy things which they don’t want. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) made a remark which I cannot allow to pass. If this Government abolishes civil imprisonment merely as a war measure then I say that it is the meanest thing that could ever be done. To do it as a sort of a bait to bring people in in time of war, well, I am convinced that that is the last thing we could ever accuse the Minister of Justice of. To come here and say that we should pass it as a war measure is the most foolish thing I have ever heard.

He did not say that.

Well, I am glad to hear it. I understood the hon. member to say, “As a war measure I am prepared to vote for it.’’ No, I am going to vote for this Bill because it will put an end to a system of exploitation which has served so far to enable certain people to make a living when otherwise they would not have been able to make a penny out of their profession, people who are nothing but glorified debt collectors. That is why I want to see this system abolished, and I hope it will never reappear on this country’s Statute Book. We have noticed hon. members taking up an undecided attitude. We have heard them talk about the dishonest man who refuses to pay his debts. Let the business man find out whom he is dealing with. Today they have their commercial travellers all over the country and we know how things go. Before the Hire Purchase Bill was passed we knew what was going on, and I am sure that things are still being carried on on a big scale and that people are being induced to buy certain articles. Let me give one instance of what is going on on a big scale. Some of those people travel all over the platteland; they get hold of the wife of a man who is fighting up North, and they ask her if she has anything to show what her husband looks like, if he should happen to be killed. They put it to the woman that she is committing a crime if she has not got a large photo of her husband and that she should be ashamed. They ask her to give them a tickey to make an enlargement, and they very soon have her signature. I have caught some of them there and I have asked them what they were doing. They replied that they were carrying on their business. When I asked them why they would not go and fight they replied that they were keymen. Yes, they are keymen to get the signatures of women and so get them into trouble. That is the type of people who co-operate with those glorified debt collectors. They are the people who are responsible for these abuses in South Africa, and there is no idea, as some hon. members want the House to believe, of our condemning the legal profession as such. The legal profession is one of the professions which wants to maintain its honour, and I think I can give them that credit. I believe that they despise this sort of thing as much as I do. Hon. members say that we should not call this a mediaeval system. Whether it existed in those days or not I don’t know, but to my mind it is a system coming as close to barbarism as anything one can find in the world. I only want to ask those hon. members who are in doubt whether they have ever seen the misery and the distress which one comes across in a home sometimes when the father, the breadwinner, is in gaol, or when he is forced to pay the last penny he has got to keep out of gaol. Have they no feelings for those people? Why are they so much concerned with the sellers and not with the buyers? A man often sells under these high pressure methods in order to get rid of his goods, and hon. members only want to protect the seller and not the poor man, the breadwinner. It is a peculiar thing that the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) is asking the Minister to allow this Bill to be treated as a non-party measure—he wants members to be free to vote as they please. He did not say that when civil imprisonment was re-introduced. At that time he was perfectly satisfied and quite content to let the Bill go through as a Government measure, but now that the Government, after having made an experiment, has seen the bad results of the system, now he does not want it to be regarded as a Government measure. That sort of thing is wrong. In regard to the report of the Commission of Enquiry into the matter of civil imprisonment I need not quote that to the House. I don’t know whether the members of that Commission have had the experience which I have had, whether they have seen what I have seen happening under this system. For that reason I am not even asking what their findings are. I have seen quite enough of the abuses under this system. There are two ways of abuse, the one is to force money out of a man, whether he can pay or not, and the second is to plunge the man into fresh debts so that when he has finished paying the one debt they can start pressing him for his fresh debt. Apart from what the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Friedlander) has quoted from law books, I am quite convinced that he and other members have not explained the full procedure of civil imprisonment to the House. I am not going to do so again. I have done so on previous occasions, and I have quoted from numerous authorities, but I am quite convinced that hon. members will not render a service to their electors and to the country if they adhere to this system. I hope the House will unanimously reject the system. This is not a party matter, in spite of what is being said by a few hon. members on the other side, and I hope the Opposition will also vote for this Bill so as to put an end to this barbarous system. This is the first time in my life that I have heard members argue that the farmers will also suffer if there is no civil imprisonment system. This is the first time I have ever heard of farmers lending out money right and left, and of it being necessary for them to use civil imprisonment to get their money back. The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) tried to show that the farmers would lose lots of money if there were no civil imprisonment, because they lent out money and they could not get it back in any other way. I do not believe that the hon. member spoke on behalf of the farmers. I feel that if we analyse his speech it will make us think more that he is a champion of the glorified debt collectors of Johannesburg, Cape Town and other places. I hope the Minister will not allow himself to be influenced either to delay or to water down the Bill. He has my hearty support and he has the support of the Labour Party, and of thousands and thousands of workers who will welcome the day when they find out that civil imprisonment is a thing of the past. Let us again put the onus on the so-called business man.

I think it is a great pity that those who support what I consider to be in many respects a good Bill, should have made an unjustified attack upon the legal profession as a whole, and upon members of that profession who are in this House. I would remind my hon. friend from Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) of an old saying, that a “spoonful of honey will catch more flies than a whole bottle of vinegar.” I am going to support this Bill, but for very different reasons from some which have been advanced. In fact, I am going to support it for two principal reasons. In the first place, I regard it as a first step towards the abolition of the criminal sanctions now applied against the African people in regard to civil liabilities to the State. Secondly, I approach this question from the point of view of my own experience of civil imprisonment which is virtually applicable only to the wage earner and particularly to the very lowest paid of the wage earners. I need hardly comment on a legal system which permits a man who owes you £5 or £10 to be imprisoned while another man who carries on business and incurs debts amounting to thousands can slide through the insolvency court, and then is able to start all over again. I agree with the hon. member for Umbilo that civil imprisonment is a relic of barbarism, and I feel that the time has come when we must do away with it once and for all. I agree that this course may and probably will for a time lead to commercial chaos, and as far as I am concerned that is all to the good, because I feel that there are other ways of meeting the position. I have said that this is a matter which principally affects the lower paid worker, and I am convinced that if he were better paid he would be able to meet his debts and would not need to subject himself to the indignity of civil imprisonment. It may be true that there are men who deliberately avoid paying their debts, but against these is a very large number of people who cannot pay, and it is with these I am principally concerned. Another aspect of this matter which I ask the Minister to consider is this. I want the wage earner to be paid more on a cash basis. I would like a law introduced whereby every wage earner (including servants of the State) who earns less than a certain sum per month should be paid weekly so that he can obtain the benefit of cash purchases and in that way get the best value and at the same time avoid incurring debts. It is obvious that in that event the merchant would be able to sell his goods at lower prices because he would have no risk of bad debts to cover. I am quite satisfied that the curse of this country, and the reason for all this C.I. procedure is our credit system. I know that a man could start from Cape Town and travel to Pretoria and get credit in every town and village he passes on the way; and that is a state of affairs that is utterly wrong. Unless we are going to take steps to improve the position of the lower paid wage earner and ensure that he can be paid on a semicash basis, then this particular Bill will be of little value. I hope the points I have mentioned will be taken into account, and for these reasons I am going to surprise the hon. member for Umbilo, because although a member of the legal profession I am going to support this Bill.

The hon. member for the Transkei (Mr. Hemming), who has just spoken, expresses the views of many on this side of the House. I represent, however, a large section of the natives in the Transkei who have been accustomed to the method of buying on credit for many years, and they are not wage-earners at all. They don’t earn wages up there to any large extent, and the only money they earn is on the Rand. I would like to ask the hon. member what he is going to do when a shortage of grain occurs and starvation faces the natives in those territories? I want to ask him how his constituents are going to get their grain? For many years now in the Transkei the system has obtained that when a native is short of food he goes to the trader and buys a few bags on credit. His son goes out to work, and in the course of a few months that money is remitted. Now, anybody who knows the native knows that he never realises he and his family are facing starvation until his grain is all finished. Then he wakes up and goes to the trader and says: “I have no grain.” It is not until his wife and children come crying to him to tell him that there is no grain that he realises the position. That position is going to arise unquestionably in the territory in a few months, and the hon. member should have considered that particular aspect, because it is going to affect his constituents more than anybody else in the country. If this measure goes through at this stage and the traders are told that the only remedy they have had for many years against the natives for refusal to pay their debts is no longer existent—well, I am afraid the Government will be faced with a position they were faced with years ago in Natal, of supplying these natives with food. We all know what happened then, that a very large sum of money was lost to the Government. I think in introducing any measure of this kind, you should consider how it will apply to that very large section of natives. The hon. member says he hopes the result of this will be that the Government will cease their present method of collecting their debts—by criminal action. As the matter stands now, if the native owes the Government £1, a writ of attachment is issued, and if he has no cattle the man is personally arrested and put into gaol. How does the Hon. Minister reconcile that with the Bill now before the House? Surely this is a most drastic and medieaval punishment, even a barbaric punishment, to put a man in gaol for owing the Government £1, while, on the other hand, the ordinary creditor has no remedy against the native at all. I would like the Hon. Minister to reconcile these two. It does seem rather a travesty to introduce a Bill of this nature when the Government takes the steps that it does in regard to its native debtors and refuses any remedy to other creditors. If this method of forcing people to pay debts by means of civil imprisonment had ever been felt to be a hardship in the native territories, I think there would have been many complaints about the thing. I have never heard any complaints; it is a method which is applied equally to Europeans and natives, and it is really the only effective method. I have before me the agenda of the Bunga which sits in a fortnight’s time. They have 127 resolutions on the agenda, which are to be put before the Government, and my experience of the native has taught we that if a native has a grievance, however small, he brings it before that Bunga. There is, however, no mention of any grievance here in connection with civil imprisonment. That, to my mind, shows that the system, as it has been applied in the native areas, has not been unfairly applied. I know very few instances of natives who have not paid when this particular method was employed. The Hon. Minister, when introducing this Bill, proposed that during the recess he would hold an enquiry to see whether some improvement could not be brought about in the method of debt collecting. I agree whole-heartedly with that. I do not believe in the system of credit, but I want to ask him, why not have the enquiry first? Let us see what can be done before we remove the only efficacious way of enforcing these debtors to pay their debts. Let me tell the Minister what happens. You have a man with 30 or 40 head of cattle, the trader advances him grain to feed his family. After six months the trader wants his money and issues a summons. The cattle are seized, and then it is said the cattle belong to the sons, and the original debtor escapes payment. In this type of case the only remedy is civil imprisonment. If civil imprisonment is done away with the trader will refuse credit, and that will then encourage the natives to look to the Government. Time after time the traders have asked the Government to introduce a method of registering cattle in the name of the true owner. For the life of me I cannot understand why that has not been done. If that were done we should not have natives running up credit when they know their cattle can be seized. There may have been a great deal of abuse of civil imprisonment in the larger centres, but in rural areas we do not have these abuses. I have not practised for twenty years, but I know what happens there, and I do not think there has been abuse. The effect of this Bill right through the country should be considered, and not its effect only in one or two urban areas, where apparently there is gross abuse. I suggest to the Minister that in this matter he might consider allowing the system to continue in rural areas, where there is no abuse.

I agree with the statement that this is a most effective method of collecting debt. I approach this matter from a very different angle to that of most members and agree with that adumbrated by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside). Out of 49,000 summonses issued, 38,000 decrees were actually granted and 1,700 people were imprisoned. My objection to civil imprisonment is that the man who has nothing that can be taken in execution and has only his wages on which his family depends for support, is threatened with the loss of his livelihood. In 97 cases out of 100 the threat is effective, and the man pays to the detriment of his wife and family and the maintenance of his home, and possibly to the detriment of other creditors that he may happen to have. It is the unscrupulous creditor who threatens the unfortunate debtor that unless he pays he will be sent to gaol. We are told that it is the unscrupulous lawyer that does this; it is nothing of the sort. There is nothing unscupulous in putting into effect the ordinary civil process. If it is unscrupulous the fault is not with the lawyer, but with Parliament, which permits the maintenance of the system. It is because I am opposed to the maintenance of this threat in the hands of an unscrupulous creditor, that I am supporting the Minister in the abolition of the civil imprisonment system.

This matter hase been very fully discussed, and as I am very anxious if there is going to be a Vote, to have the division before 6 o’clock, I will be as brief as I can. With regard to the first point that I want to make, it is in reply to the hon. member for Kensington’s suggestion that this be not made a Government measure. It is, however, a Government measure, and I am afraid I must maintain the position. I will accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) and also the suggestion of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). I have not used the argument in relation to the returned soldier, which is nevertheless a powerful argument in favour of this Bill. It would be inconceivable that we should apply this remedy to men who have done their duty up North, but as I say, I do not want to use that argument. The other arguments I used have not been dealt with in the debate. They were principally that this is a remedy against the poor man only; secondly, it is ineffective as a debt recovery agent, and thirdly, it is grossly abused. After the speech of the hon. member for Krugersdorp, I think that is clear, and I think there is a general desire that we should abolish this. When we have abolished it, we can consider how to make the wilful defaulter pay. No one has any sympathy for him. The six months’ delay will give us ample opportunity for considering that point.

I move—

That the following be a new Clause to follow Clause 5—

6. No Court shall have the power to order the civil imprisonment of a debtor, if the rights of the judgment creditor against the judgment debtor accrue to the judgment creditor by virtue of a cession.

I should like to ask a question. I moved an amendment to delete all words from a certain place.

I was just busy asking something when the House adjourned at six o’clock. I proposed an amendment to omit certain words, but in the event of my amendment being rejected, I want to move that certain further words be omitted. Will you allow me to do that if my amendment, as already proposed, is rejected? The amendment which I will then propose will really clash with my original amendment, because I shall propose to omit all the words.

I should like to put a very clear question to the hon. Minister in connection with Section (1), and I hope he will give us a very clear reply. He proposes in this section to take away citizenship from 5,000 to 6,000 good South-West people, together with all their children. He is not only going to take away their citizenship, but he is going to take away the vote from them. Now, I want to ask the hon. Minister whether he is going to stop at that, or does he propose further to submit to the pressure which is exercised from South-West, not only to rob these citizens of their citizenship and of their vote, but also to rob them of their possessions which they built up in 30 to 40 years? We are doing here what we did not do in the war of 1914-1918, and I should like the Minister to tell us clearly whether there is any danger of making use of the Emergency Regulations in order to rob these people whom he disfranchises and denaturalises here, of the possessions which they built up in South-West. I ask this question because all sorts of reports came from South-West—lamentations—a few months before this Bill made its appearance. There are people who say in South-West that they have to go and fight, while the Germans remain on their farms.

They are making money.

They are making money and we have to fight. I would like the Minister to know that the Germans of South-West gave South-West an industry which laid the foundations of prosperity in South-West, not only for this generation, hut also for posterity. I refer to the karakul industry. I think that is the only section of the farming community in South Africa who did not experience a depression during the past few years. They owe that to the karakul industry, and we owe the karakul industry to the German population of South-West. It has seemed to me latterly that there are Union citizens in South-West who are jealous of the Germans because they made such a success of the karakul industry, and the fear which existed on the part of a certain section of the people and the blind hatred with which they and the Government are possessed, gave rise to the Germans being deprived, not only of their citizenship, but also of their possessions which they built up in South-West. I would like the Minister to give us a clear reply on this question. Is there more behind this Bill than appears to be the case outwardly? We would very much like the Minister to give us a reply to that question.

I am very glad to see that the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) no longer bases his objections this evening on the point that these Germans are being disfranchised, because, I suppose he realises that they are not worthy of being Union citizens, but his objection now is that their possessions may be taken away. I would be the last person to vote for a Bill which aims at confiscating their possessions. But in so far as the first point is concerned, I notice that the hon. member now tactitly agrees that since they can no longer be regarded as worthy citizens, their citizenship should be taken away.

What an awakening on the part of the hon. member who has just spoken! We spoke here of the highest right which anyone has, namely his civic rights, his vote and his citizenship; that one cannot deprive him of. But I am glad to see that the hon. member now realises what the consequences will be if that section of the House agrees to the Bill being passed. Deprive a man of his manliness, and what is he?

A coloured girl.

A hamel.

He is an S.A.P.

Then he will be an S.A.P. I am very glad that the hon. member has now been disillusioned. It is to be remembered that it is only a manly man who can produce anything, and for that reason the vote was created and given to South Africa. These people produced something from which we all derive benefit today—that karakul industry. I am glad to see this awakening.

Disillusionment.

The disillusionment, then, of my hon. friend who has just spoken. That makes me think that he is not yet altogether a hamel, but that he still has a small grain of personality. For that reason I support the thought, and we demand that the Minister should state how far he will go with this Bill. I feel that we must necessarily oppose every step of this Bill, and I hope that we shall get the support of that side of the House.

I have already moved an amendment which will make the effect of this clause that there will be no automatic denaturalisation, but that the Minister will have the right to deal with each case on its own merits, and then he can denaturalise any person who makes himself guilty of any contraventions mentioned in the Act. But now I want to point out a very wrong and a cruel provision in this clause. That is the provision which appears in clause (b), that where certain persons are disfranchised it shall also include their widows and their divorced wives, and in the third place, their minor children. I cannot understand why the Minister now indiscriminately denaturalises women, divorced women who no longer have anything to do with those men. Why must the widow or the divorced wife of such a person be included? They may be Afrikaans women who were themselves Union citizens and who married such persons. Once she is divorced from him she has nothing more to do with him. Now the Minister is denaturalising them too. It seems so strange to me. It may be that they were divorced for the very reason that they could not get along in that respect. Now the woman is divorced from that man; she was born an Afrikaner; she is a Union subject, and nevertheless she is also denaturalised now. I do not know what the reason is for that. Why should this provision be made so stringent in the case of women? The Minister will have an opportunity under this Bill, with the addition which is proposed, to denaturalise such a woman if she works against the interests of the country; but why does he denaturalise someone who no longer has anything to do with that person, or the widow whose husband is already dead? The husband is either dead or divorced from his wife, and why should she suffer now? And then in the third place the child is denaturalised. The child is a Union subject by birth. It is not a naturalised person. It is a born Union subject. The Minister now denaturalises this minor child. It is very unreasonable to denaturalise a small child who has done nothing against the interests of the country. That child is a born Union subject, and now he is made a foreigner, and in the future he has to make application to become naturalised. I would have proposed an amendment to delete that, but unfortunately I cannot move it because it would clash with my previous amendment. I hope that another hon. member will move this amendment. It is true that the wife follows the nationality of her husband, but to let a widow and a child suffer too is very unreasonable.

The hon. member who has just sat down has drawn the attention of the Minister to the unreasonableness of Clause 1, paragraph (b). I hope that the hon. Minister listened carefully to what the hon. member said here, and I would like to move a further amendment to Clause 1—

Perhaps I should reply to these new points which have been raised. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) has quite unnecessarily read into this Bill intentions which have never entered into the mind of the Government or of the department. This Bill is a Bill to denaturalise certain persons who obtained Union nationality, British citizenship, by virtue of automatic naturalisation. The Bill automatically denaturalises such persons. Of course, as a consequence these persons lose their franchise rights in South-West Africa. The Bill does not purport to go any further than that, and it is certainly not the intention of the Government to deprive persons owning property of their property or to do any of the other things which the hon. member has suggested. If the Government wishes to do that sort of thing it would not be necessary to pass this Bill, it would be competent to do so under the Emergency Regulations.

Why do you make them aliens?

I give that assurance that it is not the purpose of this Bill to deal with anything but matters pertaining to citizenship.

Will their property be placed under the enemy custodian?

As far as I am aware the position will not be altered. The steps necessary for the security of South-West Africa have been taken in the course of the past two and a half years and this Bill is not introduced as a security measure, but as a measure to deal with citizenship rights which have been abused by certain persons: and as far as I know it is not the intention of the Government or of any Government officials to interfere with any of the property of these persons in South-West Africa. Let me remind my hon. friend that many of these persons and many others who are not naturalised either automatically or otherwise have been able to carry on their vocations in SouthWest Africa. There are many people there who are carrying on their business.

Now it will be different, now they will be aliens.

Today many people who are aliens are carrying on their business. In the Union, too, there are many enemy aliens who are able to carry on because they have behaved themselves properly and are not considered a danger to the State. They have been placed under a certain amount of control— nothing more than that. But we have not adopted a policy of a hundred per cent. internment of enemy aliens. My hon. friends forget that fact, they forget the comparative leniency with which a large number of persons in South Africa are treated.

Is it the only object to deprive them of the vote?

The object of this Bill is to get rid of the anomaly of dual nationality, the experiment of dual nationality which has proved to be a failure.

A hopeless failure.

That experiment was started in 1924 and after nearly twenty years it has been proved a hopeless failure.

Hear, hear, after twenty years.

And the Government is not prepared to tolerate the state of affairs which has been existing in South-West Africa, and the manner in which many of these persons, the vast bulk of these persons who have obtained automatic naturalisation, have abused their privileges. As it is the object one and for all to do away with dual nationality, it has been necessary to legislate in addition in regard to the wives, the widows and divorced wives of the persons concerned. That is the reason for the inclusion of Section 1 (b), and each of the subparagraphs. If the divorced wives and widows were to be omitted from this legislation we would still have a class of person in South-West Africa who, according to international law, would hold dual nationality. The Government feels that it is essential to deal with the subject, to eliminate this dual nationality, once and for all, and the advice of the law advisers …

What are you putting in its place? You are making these people aliens.

You are taking everything away from them.

Yes, we are making these people aliens.

You are taking everything away.

These people are South African born.

They are not all South African born, they were born of German stock; they were automatically naturalised and we are automatically denaturalising them.

Some of the wives may have been born here.

The hon. member as a lawyer knows that the wife takes the nationality of her husband according to international law, and there can be no objection to that. The wife knows the position, or is in law presumed to know the position. If one is to make an exception in regard to the class pleaded for by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart), we would not be much further than before the Bill was introduced. It is necessary now to make a clean sweep. Those who genuinely want South African citizenship have their remedy. There is the machinery of the 1926 Act. Those who genuinely want naturalisation can avail themselves of that procedure. Why the vast number of these persons have never done so, although they could easily have, is difficult to understand. Certain of those who were automatically naturalised availed themselves of the procedure of the 1926 Act and they, of course, are not touched by this Bill. But there are the vast majority who did not do so, and obviously, because they knew that while they stood outside the provisions of the 1926 Act they were recognised in Germany, within the German Reich, as still having German nationality. The German Government always adopted the attitude that as long as these persons did not avail themselves of the 1926 Act, they were still considered citizens of the Reich when within the Reich territory. They had their election in times gone by, they had their election in times of peace. They did not avail themselves of that opportunity, and they must not complain now if the Government takes the only logical action it can; and it would nullify the whole of this Bill if I were to agree to the amendment of the hon. member for George. There can be no hardship because the persons concerned can, if they wish, avail themselves of the machinery of the 1926 Act. That is the test. Let them do that, then their bona fides will be tested.

The hon. Minister spoke here about the question of property, but his reply is altogether unsatisfactory. The fact remains that without this Act the Minister has not the right to place the property of these people who are mentioned in this Bill under the control of the Custodian of Enemy Property. Now he gets this right, and we ask him whether he is going to use that right. That was the point of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), but the Minister simply says that many of these people are carrying on with their businesses; we would like to have the assurance from him, however—he is making these people aliens now and this legislation therefore enables the Government to take away their property from them—we want to know from him what he is going to do with this property. We would like him to tell us what his plans are. It is no use evading the issue. The Minister says now that these people can be naturalised. I would like to know from him whether the Government is going to grant naturalisation during the war. I think that I read that the Government has put a stop to naturalisation, even the naturalisation of Hollanders. What will it avail these people to make application if that is the policy of the Government? We are dealing here with divorced women and widows who are affected by this legislation. Will the Government open the door of naturalisation to them, if they desire it? The Minister says that he is making a “clean sweep.” He advances the excuse that these people did not avail themselves of the opportunity they had under the Act of 1926. But it is not their fault. The Government allowed double nationality. It is this Government of the Union which, through the Acts of 1924 and 1926, placed those people in the position of having a double nationality, with the result that it was not necessary for them under the Act of 1926 to make application. The fault is ours as much as theirs. For that reason I say that this is not a “clean sweep,” but a dirty trick. It is the first time that the Minister comes forward with this idea that dual nationality is a terrible thing, and that we should only have one nationality under the Act of 1926. Those people are not, however, being given the choice now. The Minister gives them no choice but simply robs them of their citizenship. That is our objection.

If the Minister of the Interior has ever spoken a true word, it was when he made the general statement that dual nationality has been a failure in South Africa. To abolish dual nationality in South Africa will meet with the approval and support of this side of the House. For years and years we have suffered in South Africa under this dual nationality, and we agree with the Minister that dual nationality has been a hopeless failure in South Africa. It is only necessary to cast one’s eye over the other side of the House to see the hopeless failure of dual nationality. Members on the other side have never yet become South Africans. The fact that they are Union nationals and at the same time British subjects has resulted in them becoming hopeless failures. I am convinced that if the Minister will act in accordance with his convictions as far as this point is concerned then he will, if he bends all his energies in that direction, receive the support of this side of the House. Obviously he will not receive the support of British subjects on the other side.

But you are also a British subject.

Yes, I am in the same difficulty as the hon. member. But I realise that it is wrong, but the hon. member does not realise that, because he only sees the Empire before him. If the Minister of the Interior will assist us to abolish dual nationality all round, I want to give him the assurance of our unanimous support for such a measure, and as a matter of fact, he will never yet have had so much support from this side for any measure. I say to him: Come with such a measure and you will get the support of this side of the House in order to have only South African citizenship, as every other country with self-respect has, and I say that every individual with self-respect also only desires one nationality, so that when he goes to another country he may know that he is a Union national and that he enjoys the advantages connected with his citizenship. This dual nationality has caused very great difficulties in our country, I now come to another point. The Minister of the Interior goes so far as to deprive minor children of their nationality. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) has pointed out what the position will be in respect of several women and widows who fall under the ordinary international laws. As far as the minor children are concerned, the Minister cannot take refuge under international law. If the parents’ nationality is taken away, the children are, ipso facto, also deprived of their nationality. Most of these children were born in South Africa. Now, I want to put this question to the Minister: If they become aliens in this manner, do they have to wait another five years before they can again apply for naturalisation? I think I am entitled to put the matter in this form. Those children will now become aliens. An alien in South Africa is not a British subject. A British subject, after two years, without spending a penny, can become a Union national. That is one of the injustices which should be removed, that a man without loyalty to the Union, without putting his signature to a document professing his loyalty to the Union, simply becomes a Union national.

That is still an Act which was introduced by your leader.

That has been the position since 1910.

He confirmed that position.

That has been the position since 1910, and in the face of the strongest opposition of the Minister and members on the other side of the House, he managed to get his Bill passed. He got something, because he could not get everything. They only grudgingly gave him the little he got. In any case, I want to ask the Minister of the Interior whether I am putting the matter correctly that born Union nationals are made aliens in this manner, and whether it is not correct to say that they will remain aliens for five years before they can again apply for naturalisation? I now proceed to deal with another point. The parents of these children also become aliens. The children themselves cannot apply for naturalisation before their twentyfirst birthday, and I want to ask whether their parents who are aliens, or their guardians who are foreigners, can apply for naturalisation on their behalf. I hope the Minister will give us an assurance on this point.

What about orphans?

Yes, the same applies in their case. My first question is whether these children will have to wait for five years before they will be allowed to apply for naturalisation. My second question is, that if they want to apply, who has to sign such an application where they are minors or orphans? Can the parents sign if they are denaturalised or not naturalised persons, and can the guardians sign in cases where they are not naturalised? The Minister is doing an injustice here, and I fail to understand why he goes out of his way to insult these people. He is looking for trouble. What harm can be done by minor children to this country? They cannot even vote against the Minister, but he wants to deprive them of their rights. All the coloureds in the Cape Province can retain their votes, but these white people are not allowed to retain their vote, because possibly they might oppose the Minister’s policy. But surely the Minister need not be afraid of children. It will be a long time before they can vote against him. This Bill is one of the most insidious pieces of legislation which has ever come before this House. It amounts to stabbing in the back. I hope the Minister will reply to the questions I have put to him.

We have the assurance from the Minister that this measure is not a safety measure. As he said, it is not “a security measure.” In other words, national security does not demand this measure. That is the admission which we have now got from the Minister of the Interior. We have the further admission from him that the real purpose of this is to remove the anomaly of dual citizenship. Well, the correctness of that argument can be tested easily. This is not the only form of dual citizenship which we have; it is not the only anomaly of that nature which is on our statute book. The principal Act which is amended by this Bill also confirms that principle of dual nationality. But apparently it is only an anomaly in certain cases; it is only an anomaly in the case of those persons whom we invited to become Union citizens, and whom we not only invited but on whom we brought every pressure to bear to become Union citizens. The present Prime Minister exercised all possible pressure on those people in order to make them Union citizens. They did not want to be Union citizens. We gave them dual citizenship; we practically forced it upon them, and now the Minister wants to remove that dual citizenship. The Minister does not take any action in all the other cases of dual citizenship. That position remains undisturbed. With regard to the position of women, I specially want the hon. member for Jeppe (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) to take notice of the injustice which is committed here against the woman. The Minister very glibly said here that a woman goes into the position with open eyes, that if she marries she adopts the nationality of her husband. That is true, but according to our law if she has married a British subject and that person later loses his British nationality, she has the right, if she was a British subject prior to her marriage, to make a statement that she again wants to be a British subject. That is the principle contained in Section 12 of the Act. Now the Minister takes away that proviso in the case of Afrikaans girls who are married to persons who were naturalised under the Acts of 1924 and 1928. In other words, those women no longer have the right to make the usual statement, as I have indicated, a statement which the Minister is compelled to accept, that she again wants the Union citizenship which she had prior to her marriage. The Minister of the Interior goes even further and makes the Bill of retrospective effect, so that if the woman was originally an Afrikaans girl who was born in South Africa and who then married a person who was naturalised under the Acts of 1924 and 1928, and her husband had died in 1930, for example, so that she is now a widow, she is automatically robbed of her Afrikaans citizenship, because this Bill is of retrospect effect. The widow of a person who was naturalised under those Acts and who has died, is also deprived of her South African citizenship under this measure. I do not know what principle the Minister of the Interior can advance in support of this. This measure is not a security measure. The Minister admits that. He cannot say that these people of whom I am talking are people who have shown by their actions that they are unworthy of being Union citizens. He made the admission that there are many of them who are innocent. Now I want to tell him this, that the only real reason for this measure is that it is a penal measure. It is a penal measure and not a security measure. It is a penal measure, and in addition to that, a penal measure which does not only punish the guilty people. If it had only punished the guilty people we would not have raised all these objections against it. But the plan which the Minister has adopted here and the manner in which this measure was introduced, makes it a penal measure which is also applicable to innocent persons. That question has already been put to the Minister, and we got the Minister so far as to admit that there are many people who will be punished by this measure, and against whom he has absolutely no evidence, people who have never done anything to show that they are not worthy of being Union citizens. They are also punished under this measure, and we want to know from the Minister why these innocent people are being punished. The amendment which has been proposed by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) gives the Minister all the power which he requires in order to punish the guilty people. But he is not satisfied with that. He wants to go further and also punish the innocent people. Now I should like to know in connection with this point with regard to women, whether that would not also apply to minor children. This point has already been mentioned by another hon. member, and I want to put this further question to the Minister. He says that these persons can be naturalised by making application afresh under the Act of 1926. Now I should like to know this from the Minister: These people who live in South-West, can they get full naturalisation under the Act of 1926, or only local naturalisation; in other words, if they make application for naturalisation, assuming the Minister is prepared to grant it, will that give them something more than local naturalisation, or will it give them protection throughout the whole British Empire? I should like the Minister pertinently to reply to these questions.

The Minister told us that this measure is not a security measure, but that it is only proposed because he wants to do away with dual nationality. What about those people who fall under subsection (2) of this clause; what about their dual nationality? The person who goes to fight in the North does not fall under this Bill.

He has only one nationality.

That person is good enough, but not to get full nationality; he goes to fight and retains his dual nationality. The Minister’s argument does not hold water, therefore, and in order to give effect to his argument I want to move the following amendment—

This sub-section (2) reads as follows—

For the sake of the Minister’s own argument, I want to ask him to accept this amendment.

I think that this measure is proof of panic on the part of the Government. It is nothing else than weakness and lack of confidence in itself. They do not believe in themselves and in their own cause. They are weak, and they have no confidence. I want to remind the Minister, and he knows it, that the English and the Germans particularly liked each other, especially before the World War, and I believe thereafter also. There was never such a liking between the Germans and the Afrikaners, but there was definitely a liking between the Britishers and the Germans. The fact cannot be disputed. There are families with a German father and an English mother; the children are so loyal that they are fighting in Libya. The German father does not object. He feels that he is a South African. He has no German friends, but only English friends. Does the Minister, since those children are fighting for England, really want to humiliate their father and put them to shame by depriving him of his vote? How are those sons and daughters going to feel about such an insult? He is going to insult that English woman. They are Government supporters. They are not only fighting for the Empire. When they have to vote, this German, together with his English wife and children, vote for the Government. The Minister cannot make fish of one and fowl of another. He must treat them all alike. I merely mention this to show how ridiculous and petty this measure is, and how panicky the Government is now becoming at this time.

The hon. member must stop repeating himself.

No, Mr. Chairman; I am not repeating myself.

The hon. member is repeating what other hon. members have already said.

I shall bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman. This measure is intended to take away the vote from Union citizens. It takes away the vote of Union citizens, and, as I have already said, it will go further just now by robbing them of their possessions.

The Minister gave the assurance that he would not do so.

I say, what guarantee have we got that the Minister will not go further and further? The first step has now been applied to them by robbing them of the vote, and therefore of their Union citizenship. He cannot rob Union citizens of their possessions, but if he robs them of their citizenship, then he is going to rob them of their possessions, and later put them into camps, without exception. Is that reasonable on the part of a strong Government? If the Empire had had successes and had gained victories, then they would not have made themselves guilty of such pettiness. It is simply because they are losing. It is a desperate effort, a measure of vengeance. For that reason I said at the beginning that it shows a state of panic, and therefore weakness. They are doing nothing on the battlefield to deliver hard blows, but they are hitting at peaceful Union citizens, where there is no war; they are fighting with Union citizens, with wives and orphans. Is that manly? Is that not evidence of cowardice? If it is not cowardice, then I do not know what constitutes cowardice. I say that if this were a strong Government which had hit hard and gained victories, they would never have thought of this petty measure. For that reason, together with my friends on this side, I want to protest strongly against this unmanly act. It is evidence of weakness, and nothing else but weakness and pettiness. This is the brave work of the so-called home front!

I want to make an appeal to the Minister to bear in mind that we are dealing here with mandated territory, and it reminds us of the reasons which were given after the last war as to why South-West Africa should be treated as a mandated territory. The great reason which was advanced at that time was that South-West Africa should be a mandated territory, and that those people should come under the Union so that they could be protected. It was not the object that they should come under the Union, so that we could later wreak vengeance upon those people. I say that this section which is embodied in the Bill makes this Bill a measure whereby the Minister is wreaking vengeance and nothing else. I also want to remind the Minister of this. During the last war there were even demands that the German Kaiser should be restored. When the war was over, those people felt that they had simply made themselves ridiculous. To take steps of this nature, as the Minister is now doing, is nothing but a measure of vengeance which does not become this Government. The members who have already spoken on this section explained that the Minister’s defence with regard to dual citizenship completely collapsed. The Minister cannot shield behind that, because Section 2 retains dual citizenship. The Minister cannot shield behind that, and there must be another motive for this action. The amendment of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) gives the Minister an opportunity to deal with any person who is hostile to the State. If it is the Minister’s intention to safeguard the State, then he has all the power which he requires under that amendment. But why is the Minister now going to treat all these people alike, guilty as well as innocent? Innocent Union citizens who are married to Germans are now going to lose their Union citizenship. There is no justification for it, and I hope that the Minister will realise that he ought to accept this amendment. If the Minister does not do so, then we hope that he will comply with the request of the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) to take away dual citizenship altogether.

I am fairly surprised to hear from the Minister that he regards dual nationality as a failure in this country. I really hope that he will go further and abolish dual nationality.

I want to draw the attention of the hon. member to the Speaker’s ruling concerning the subject matter of the Bill.

I specially want to confine myself to Sub-section (2), wherein it is stated that the Germans can be naturalised if they join the army. The Minister regards dual citizenship as a failure. The Minister bases his whole argument on that, but in Sub-clause (2) he says that if they join the army they can retain dual citizenship. What becomes of the Minister’s whole argument? He says that dual citizenship is a failure, but then he makes exceptions so as to perpetuate the failure. Why these exceptions if it is a failure? The argument that dual citizenship is a failure is either true or not true. If it is true what the Minister says, why then the exception in the case of the person who joins the army? The Minister is either right or wrong. If he is right, why then the sub-section? No, there must be other motives behind this matter, and why the Minister does not clearly want to say that dual citizenship is not a failure. He must abolish dual citizenship altogether or not abolish it at all. The Minister says that dual citizenship is a good thing if anyone joins the army. It is clear to me that the Minister is not telling us frankly what the section really embraces. He must tell us why dual citizenship was a failure. Did these people abuse it? Why does he not give any reasons as to why it is a failure? Why does he make exceptions in connection with the failure?

I want to reply to the point raised by the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) and the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie). It is the only fresh point that has arisen in the course of the debate this evening. The hon. member for Gordonia has charged me with inconsistency. He says I have based the Government’s case for the Bill on its desire once and for all to do away with dual nationality so far as these South-West African Germans are concerned. He then pointed to the provisions of subsection 2 of Section 1, in which we exempt from the automatic denaturalisation terms of the Bill those persons who have joined the military forces, and he said therefore there is inconsistency and that that cannot be the root cause of the Bill, the desire to do away with dual nationality. If that was the motive of the Bill then one should make no exemptions at all. If hon. members will just bear in mind the facts they will see that my hon. friend, if he asked me not to exempt these people, would be doing a great injustice indeed. These men who have joined up for military service admittedly have dual nationality.

Well, what about them?

They, by virtue of their automatic naturalisation, are British subjects, now Union nationals. These persons might fall into the hands of the enemy. Under present conditions, if they are still subject to dual nationality, the Reich Government cannot reasonably, cannot justifiably, prefer any charge of high treason against them. They cannot be charged with high treason by the German Government because they admittedly have dual nationality. But if the Government were to say to them, “Well, you have joined up for military service, but we are afraid we cannot allow you to have a dual nationality any longer, we are going to take away your British nationality, we are going to make you Germans,” then, if they were to fall into enemy hands, the enemy, the Reich Government, would say to us: “You have denaturalised these people, you have thrown them to the wolves, you have taken away their dual nationality, which would have protected them, we are going to treat them as traitors”. The difficulty about dual nationality is this, that there are a large number of people who have not respected their obligations. There is no obligation on these people to fight, but there has been an obligation on them to cast themselves adrift from Nazi influences, and not to become involved in these intrigues in which they have been involved. And if those who were automatically naturalised show7 that they realise their obligations to their new homes by joining up for service, then we are justified in making exception by upholding their nationality. It is the least we can do, by not throwing them to the wolves, and not placing them in the danger of being charged with treason. That is not a matter of inconsistency. It is a matter of natural justice.

That argument on the part of the Minister of the Interior surprises me. Here you have a person who will now retain his dual citizenship if he goes to fight. He can remain a German subject if he fights for the Union, and the Minister now argues that if the Germans capture that person, they cannot charge him with high treason. But, says the Minister, if he gets full citizenship of the Union and he falls into the hands of the Germans, then they will charge him with high treason. Of that argument I really cannot say anything, but that I feel that it has been manufactured now. If the Minister is well disposed towards these people, why does he not provide that as a, result of their joining the Army, the Act states that they are now getting full citizenship? Why does he not do that? Why does the Minister not insert a clause to the effect that when these people go and fight they will receive full citizenship? That is the only thing to do. His argument does not hold water. What is the position now? A person with dual citizenship is captured by the Germans. For that very reason he can be charged with high treason. I ask the Minister to drop that argument and to go to the root of the matter. The Minister wants to do away with dual citizenship, and he can do it merely by inserting the provision that in so far as these people are concerned, they will be getting full citizenship. Otherwise the very thing will happen to them which the Minister fears, and against which he wants to protect them. It will be said that the Germans joined up while they were still Union citizens, and that therefore they were still regarded as citizens of Germany, and then they can be charged with high treason. The Minister put his case very weakly. He tries to make us believe in support of his attitude, that that is the position, but his argument does not hold water.

The hon. the Minister has told us that people who are naturalised under the 1924 and 1928 Acts have only got local naturalisation. In other words, they do not enjoy any protection outside the Union and outside South-West Africa. But now he wants to tell us that, none the less, they enjoy protection if they go up North. He said that they do not have general naturalisation here, but purely local naturalisation, and I should like to know now what assurance the Minister has that if a man has only local naturalisation he will, when he goes outside this country, be regarded as a Union citizen. This excuse of the Minister’s that he wants to protect those people from a possible charge of high treason is not very sound to my mind. There are no sound legal grounds for that argument, but I want to go further: The Minister is concerned about the charge of high treason against those people, but he is actually advising those people to commit high treason.

Where?

He says that the people whom he is now disfranchising, and whom he is depriving of their citizenship can make application under the 1926 Act to become Union citizens. But does the Minister not know that according to international law it is considered an act of high treason if, at a time when one’s country is at war with another country, one tries to become a citizen of that other country? It is high treason, according to international law, and that is what the Minister is now advising those people to commit; people, who, he says, are innocent. He says: “As a test of your innocence, go and commit high treason against your country.” That is what he advises them. “We, first of all, make you German citizens and aliens in South Africa, and then, as aliens, you can make application for Union citizenship, and when you do so you commit high treason against Germany.” That is the advice he gives them, and then he comes here and he tells us that he is so concerned with the possibility of those people being found guilty of high treason. I want to put this point to the Minister. Why does he come here now with a Bill of this kind when the people who fall under this Bill are actually dying out. There is no continuous increase in the number of people obtaining Union citizenship under the Acts of 1924 and 1928. That stream has been stooped and the people who have obtained citizenship under those Acts are gradually dying out. The Minister himself said that the original number was 7,000, but as a result of deaths and otherwise, the total has now come down to 4,000 or 5,000. An act of injustice has now to be perpetrated on that dying number, an act of injustice which will be nothing short of a blot on our Statute Book. Why cannot the Minister wait until those people have died off? He can thin out their numbers very considerably if he accepts the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart); then the 4,000 or 5,000 who are left can, through the guilty ones being cut out—he says that more than half of them are guilty—be reduced to 2,000 or 2,500. Cannot he wait rather than perpetrate such an injustice? Cannot he wait until they have all died out? Every day we enter this Chamber we hear Mr. Speaker pray that we may be blessed with wisdom and intelligence to do right and justice, and I ask the Minister also to pray for wisdom and intelligence so that he may make sure that right and justice are done. This is a blot; it is not merely a personal blot on the Minister, but also on the Legislative body which is not keeping its word but treating its written promise like a scrap of paper.

Poor Germans!

It is not the poor Germans but the poor Afrikaners who have this stigma put upon them, and if the hon. member has no feeling for our honour and our pledged word, well, it is a matter for deep regret. This is a blot on our Statute Book.

But surely we have to protect ourselves against subversive activities?

The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) joined in the debate this evening and said that the Minister had given an assurance that those people’s property would not be touched. I want the Minister to state deliberately that that is the position. I believe there is a misunderstanding. I believe that the position is this, that if I am a Union national my property can under no circumstances be placed in the hands of the Custodian of Enemy Property, but if I am an alien— and those people are now being made aliens —I run the risk—and I don’t say that this Bill is going to do so—that tomorrow or the day after tomorrow my property may be placed in the care of the Custodian of Enemy Property. Now I want the Minister to tell us whether the hon. member for Rustenburg is correct when he says that he has given his word of honour, for what it is worth, that the people who are made aliens by this Bill will in no circumstances have their property placed under the Custodian of Enemy Property. Let him give us that assurance, because that is what the hon. member for Rustenburg understands the position to be, and as the hon. member told us in his speech, he will not vote for this Bill unless the Minister gives that assurance. Now I want the Minister to give us that assurance and I also want a reply to my question whether under the 1926 Act people who are citizens of South-West Africa can ever obtain full naturalisation?

Any member of the police retains his dual nationality under the provisions of Sub-section (2). The Minister now adduces the argument that those people have to retain their dual nationality because otherwise if they fall into the hands of the enemy they may be charged with high treason. But surely the police in SouthWest are not in danger of falling into the hands of the enemy. Does that argument also apply to them? As the Bill stands a member of the police force will also retain his dual nationality. Consequently, the provisions are not as narrow as the Minister wanted us to believe. Under Sub-clause 2 “volunteers” are people who are defined in terms of the Moratorium Act of 1940 as “volunteers,” and the Moratorium Act of 1940 says that volunteers include members of the South African Police. In other words, the provision is much wider than what the Minister wants us to believe, and his argument falls away. Surely the police are mostly people employed in South-West, not exactly people of who can be expected to fall into the hands of the nemey? The Minister therefore says that dual nationality must be destroyed, but here we have a whole class of people who will fall outside it. I want to point to that anomaly, and there is another anomaly. The minor child of the policeman—the policeman being one of the people included under the terms of the Act—remains a Union national. Everything is in order so far as he or she is concerned. The widow of such a policeman also remains a Union national—everything in order. But if an individual is not a volunteer or a member of the police force, he does not come under the provisions of the Bill and his dual nationality is taken away. If this were a recruiting measure there might perhaps be something to be said for the Minister’s attitude, that if people join up they must be protected. But because the police are included in the definition of volunteers he changes the position entirely. I therefore want to ask the Minister to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie).

I move—

That the question be now put.

Upon which the Committee divided.

Ayes—57:

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Goldberg, A.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, D.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

To thill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—40:

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, O.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Tellers: J. J. Haywood and P. O. Sauer.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Question put: That the word “or” in line 12, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—58:

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Goldberg, A.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, D.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Bvl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—40:

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F, C.

Fouche, J. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst. B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, O.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Tellers: J. J. Haywood and P. O. Sauer.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. C. R. Swart dropped.

Question put: That paragraph (b) of subsection (1), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—59:

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Goldberg, A.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys. W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, D.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—44:

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

De Bruyn. D. A. S.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, O.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. J. Haywood and P. O. Sauer.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Dr. van Nierop negatived.

Question put: That sub-section (2), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—59:

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Goldberg, A.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, D.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Colter, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—44:

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J.

Liebenberg, J. L.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, O.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. J. Haywood and P. O. Sauer.

Question accordingly affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Mr. J. H. Conradie negatived.

Question put: That the word “not” in line 33, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—59:

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Goldberg, A.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, D.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—44:

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, O.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. J. Haywood and P. O. Sauer.

Question accordingly affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Dr. Dönges negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—59;

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Goldberg, A.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, D.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—44:

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, O.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Rierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. J. Haywood and P. O. Sauer.

Clause as printed accordingly agreed to.

On new clause to follow clause 1,

I want to move—

That the following be a new clause to follow Clause One:

We asked the hon. the Minister this evening whether minor children, whom he now makes aliens, will also have to wait five years before they can make application for naturalisation, or whether they can make such application immediately. If the Minister says that they can make application immediately he will, of course, have no objection to this amendment. I am putting his intentions in this clause, that a certificate of naturalisation can be granted under the principal Act at any time to any person who in terms of Clause 1 is an alien. The Minister should therefore accept this amendment. I move.

It is quite clear that in terms of the 1926 Act all persons who have been in the territory of South-West Africa for a period of five years will be entitled to apply for naturalisation. It is therefore unnecessary to include this suggested clause in the Bill. Whether an application for naturalisation will necessarily be accepted depends upon circumstances, but the clause as moved by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) is quite unnecessary in view of the specific provisions of the 1926 Act.

What section are you referring to?

Section 2 of Act 18 of 1926. That sets out the procedure in regard to applications for naturalisation, and that procedure will be applicable to those persons who are deemed to be aliens in terms of this Bill. In these circumstances I regret I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member.

I should like a reply from the hon. the Minister to the question I have already put twice. It is this: If an application is mads for naturalisation under the amendment of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) whether that naturalisation under the 1926 Act will mean full naturalisation for a person from SouthWest Africa and will be valid throughout the British Empire, or whether it will mean naturalisation only of a local nature.

Under the 1926 Act it is valid throughout the British Empire.

I am afraid the Minister has not grasped the point. The Act says so, but I want to know what its application is outside South Africa. The Imperial Act says that it can only be granted to people who have lived in a part of the United Kingdom for a certain period. And mandated territory is specially excluded. As far as I have been able to trace it, there has been no amendment of the Imperial Act. A proposal was made at the Imperial Conference of 1926 but that proposal was apparently not agreed to, and the result is that people who were domiciled in South-West Africa and who were naturalised under the 1926 Act obtained a purely local naturalisation. In other words, if two people applied under the 1926 Act and the one was domiciled in South-West Africa and the other in the Union, then the one who was domiciled in the Union will have got a naturalisation certificate which would be valid throughout the British Empire and in the other case his naturalisation certificate would only be valid in the Union and in the mandated territory. I should like the Minister to tell us whether that is the position.

The position is quite clear; it is true that in the British Act an amendment has not been made which will recognise residence in a mandated territory for naturalisation purposes. I think the hon. member referred to a resolution of the Imperial Conference where it was suggested that residence in a mandated territory should be recognised for naturalisation purposes. It is true that the British Act was not so amended. We have no such specific provision in our own Act, but what is in our own Act is that an application coming from any applicant in South-West Africa is deemed, by virtue of the definition of Union in the 1926 Act, to be an application made in the Union. And, as a matter of practice, naturalisation under the Union Act 18 of 1926 is recognised by every member of the British Commonwealth and has been so recognised. That is the information that I am given; that in actual fact naturalisation under the 1926 Act of the Union has been recognised by other members, other member States of the Commonwealth, as affording persons naturalised what is known as the “common status.” The hon. member may know, I tried to point it out during the second reading debate, that the Reich Government itself, when considering the position of Germans in South-West Africa, drew a clear distinction between those automatically naturalised and those naturalised under the 1926 Act. It adopted the attitude that those who were automatically naturalised maintained the dual nationality.

There was no 1926 Act then.

I am referring to the attitude of the German Government since 1926.

There were no negotiations with them. The negotiations were in 1923.

I am referring to what the attitude of the Reich Government was to those persons in South-West Africa who might be affected by automatic naturalisation and those under the 1926 Act. A clear distinction was drawn —that distinction was drawn in the consular documents and other documents. In regard to automatic naturalisation the German Reich still recognised the German citizenship, but those who had applied under the 1926 Act forfeited their citizenship. In other words, other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations accepted the view that naturalisation under the 1926 Act conferred upon the person naturalised the common status. That has been the practice I can assure my hon. friend of that. That practice has been recognised throughout the British Commonwealth.

If that is so in practice then I should like to know from the Minister why the Imperial Act has not been amended Our Acts depend on that Act. If that is the case in practice then all we have is a “permission” and it is not based on law on light, so that it can be withdrawn tomorrow.

That is the position in terms of an agreement.

If there is an agreement between the Imperial Government and our Government that they will recognise that status I shall be glad if the Minister will lay it on the Table of the House. I have never heard of such an agreement.

It has never been doubted yet.

It was doubted at the Imperial Conference of 1926. If hon. members will look at the minutes of that Conference they will notice that the legal advisers of all the States of the British Commonwealth of Nations expressed the opinion that until such time as the Imperial law was amended the fact of a Dominion passing a provision such as ours had absolutely no effect. It is no use our Parliament, or the Parliament of New Zealand or Australia passing such a provision, because reciprocity depends on the Imperial Act and until such time as the definition in the Imperial Act is amended, we, so far as the legal position is concerned, cannot make a law granting common status to an applicant domiciled in South-West Africa. If there is an agreement between our Government and the British Government I should like to see it, and I would ask the Minister to lay it on the Table of the House.

I just want to point out to the hon. member that he is labouring under a misapprehension, and I think the Leader of the Opposition will bear me out. If he will cast his memory back he will see that originally the Leader of the Opposition introduced the Act of 1925 in the same form as the British Act. And when certain amendments were suggested by a number of persons, including myself, where the provisions of the British Act which had been passed just after the last war contained some illiberal provisions—when these amendments were suggested, the then Secretary for the Interior took the view that you could not pass the Act except in the exact form in which it was passed by Great Britain, otherwise you could not get reciprocity. That view was disputed by myself and others. The Leader of the Opposition, then Minister of the Interior, referred this question to the legal advisers to find out whether if we adopted these amendments we would not get reciprocity, and the legal advisers reported that my contention was correct, that you could adopt these amendments, which were matters of procedure, and still get full reciprocity, and if you compare the second schedule to the Act of 1926 with the Act itself, you find that this Parliament passed a number of important provisions which did not occur in the British Act. In those circumstances I do not think the hon. member need fear that because something did not take place in England our Act as regards residence in South-West Africa would not be recognised in Britain. On the contrary, it was decided that we had the right to follow our own procedure. And still our Act is entirely different from that in Australia and Canada and any of the other Dominions, because they accepted the ipsissima verba of the Act in Great Britain. We did not do so because we were advised that we could adopt our own procedure. The other Dominions were not concerned with how we made Union nationals or naturalised aliens. They were ony concerned with their own nationals and they took up the attitude “If you naturalise aliens and make your Union nationals we shall give the same recognition to your naturalised aliens and Union nationals as you give to ours.” We did not ask how Australia made its people Australians, but we give them the same reciprocity as we ask them to give us. I don’t want to detain the House, but I could refer to quite a number of clauses where important amendments were made by this Parliament. Our Act is not the same as the British Act, yet we get exactly the same reciprocity. There is no doubt that any person naturalised by virtue of residence in South-West Africa would be recognised throughout the British Commonwealth. There is no doubt about it. Our conditions of naturalisation are not examined in other parts. Otherwise we would have had to pass our Act in the same terms as in the other Dominions or in Great Britain. If the question were ever raised, if an attempt were ever made to say that South Africa could not decide who could become nationals here, reciprocity would at once be withdrawn by us. They are not concerned with the way persons are naturalised or Union nationals are made. They are only concerned with this, that if a man gets a certificate he is given recognition all over the British Commonwealth. And the same with a man naturalised in Canada or Australia. Our conditions are only concerned with South Africa and therefore the point of the hon. member is raised under a misapprehension. There is no doubt about it. A person who was resident in South-West Africa will get the same rights as a person resident in the Union.

The hon. member is somewhat confused in his argument. It is not a question of how we make Union citizens. It is dealt with in Act No. 40 of 1927 which deals with Union citizenship. We are dealing here with naturalisation under the 1926 Act. It is quite true that amendments have been made and that our law is not identical to the English Act. I do not know what the effect of all the amendments is. If the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander) gave his opinion at the time, then that opinion was upset by the legal opinion of the legal advisers of the various Dominions at the Imperial Conference of 1926. The hon. member apparently knows nothing about that. The Dominions took up the attitude that domicile in a mandated territory was identical to domicile in the Dominions. That was brought to the notice of the Imperial Conference and it was submitted to the legal advisers and the advice given was that domicile in a mandated territory did not confer common status, and that that could only be achieved by an amendment in the Imperial Act to the effect that domicile in a Dominion would also include domicile in a mandated territory falling under that Dominion. The Imperial Conference of 1926 actually drafted an amendment on this question to be inserted in the Imperial Act. But that amendment was never effected in the Imperial Act. The position therefore today is still what it was at the time of the Imperial Conference of 1926, namely, that if a Dominion grants naturalisation on the ground of domicile in a mandated territory, it is a question of local naturalisation and not of general naturalisation. This is not merely my opinion—that was the opinion of the legal advisers of the Imperial Conference of 1926.

I again want to draw the Minister’s attention to my amendment and I more particularly want to draw his attention to what he is doing here. I want to point to an anomaly. If the Bill is passed as we have it before us, it means that minor children are made aliens; how then does their treatment compare with the treatment of a British subject who comes here, say, from Timbuctoo? The British subject who comes here becomes a Union national after two years without moving a hand. If he does not commit a serious crime he becomes a Union national after two years without moving a hand and without it costing him a penny. But a born Union national is made an alien by the Minister, and then he has to comply with certain drastic requirements if he wants to become a Union national again. That definitely is an anomaly. There is no such thing as a person who is a born national of the country having to be naturalised again.

No, that is not so.

The usual conception of naturalisation surely in terms of international law is that it refers to an individual coming from another country and becoming a citizen of the country of his choice.

What happens to a woman who marries a Frenchman if that Frenchman dies?

That is an exception. I assume that there are exceptions, but the Minister should not refer instances of people not born here.

She is born here. She lost her citizenship when she married a Frenchman, and if he dies she has to apply again for naturalisation.

The Minister is now citing an instance for which special provision is made under international law. The general rule is that naturalisation only refers to people who are not born in the country, but want to become citizens of that country. The children whom the Minister now makes aliens in South Africa are children who are born Union nationals. They are born nationals. They are citizens of the Union of South Africa and I want to show how the Minister is treating them in comparison with the way British subjects are treated who have never seen South Africa before. They are made Union citizens almost at once so long as they have been here for two years and they need not pay a penny for it. But these children who are born Union nationals are made aliens and then they have to pay money and comply with certain drastic requirements before they become Union citizens. I don’t think we have ever had such a far-reaching and such an unjust Bill in this country. I am surprised that the Minister who is a South African can introduce such a Bill which puts a stigma on the country. The Minister quoted the case of a woman in South-West Africa married to a person of another nationality. She does so voluntarily. It is her choice, and if her husband dies she has to apply for naturalisation. These children have no choice, they are born Union nationals and they are now by force and violence deprived of their Union citizenship and they are treated as aliens. They have to comply with drastic requirements if they want to become Union nationals again, while other people who have never seen South Africa can become Union nationals almost at once. This Bill covers us with shame in the face of all the nations of the world. When we are dealing with British subjects, with foreigners, with uitlanders, such as these British subjects who have never seen South Africa before we find that they become Union citizens very easily and they receive preference over these Union nationals. Aliens and uitlanders, like British subjects, automatically after two years become Union nationals, and if we treat the uitlanders in this way we should be all the more careful not to deprive born Union nationals of their citizenship. I move my amendment to draw attention to that fact.

Proposed new clause put and negatived.

On Clause 3,

Here the Minister comes and he adds a new section to the clause of the principal Act which defines how people can be deprived of their naturalisation certificates. The first thing is that if an individual promotes the interest of a foreign State which is at war with His Majesty to the detriment of the interests of the Union his certificate can be with drawn. If an individual does so it is high treason. If it can be proved that a person in time of war serves or promotes the interests of a foreign State to the detriment of the interests of the Union, then that person is guilty of high treason and high treason is provided for in Clause 7 of the principal Act. That is one of the reasons for which an individual’s certificate of naturalisation can be withdrawn. I don’t know therefore why the Minister comes here with this new clause. If it can be proved that a person in time of war serves the interests of the country with which we are at war, to the detriment of the interests of the Union, then that person is guilty of high treason and his certificate of naturalisation can be withdrawn, and then the Minister comes with the second provision—“Or is prepared thus to serve or promote those interests.” What on earth does that mean? How can anyone put a thing like that into a law, and how can we punish a man because he is prepared to do so? And how are we going to define it? Is the Minister simply going to say that he believes the man is prepared to do this or that? There are two provisions here, the one is that if a man does this or that the certificate can be withdrawn, and the second one is that if he is prepared to do so it can also be done. How are we to determine what is going on in the man’s mind? The Minister now has to enquire what is going on in the man’s mind, and the Minister must be familiar with the old axiom that the devil himself does not know what is in the mind of man. If the devil does not know it how can the Minister know it? These words sound very strange to me.

We can judge by a man’s actions.

But then he has done something. If the man promotes the interests of the country with which the Union is at war, to the detriment of the Union, then he is guilty of high treason. I very badly want the Minister to explain why this provision is necessary. The Minister says that the actions are there and therefore the intention is there. But then the Minister cannot take up the attitude that we can only judge his intentions from his actions, and that we only want to punish him if he has certain intentions. We need not look at his intentions at all if the actions are there. I completely fail to understand why the Minister also wants to punish the intentions. In the first place it is superfluous, and in the second place it is an extremely dangerous thing to punish a man because he is prepared to do certain things. How are we going to know it? How can we say, for instance, that a man is entitled to a divorce because the other party intended committing adultery? Or how can we say that a person must be hanged because he intended committing murder? I am afraid many people may be found guilty if that were the position. I am very anxious that the Minister should explain to us how this clause is going to be applied and why there is a need for it.

The argument put forward by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) may be quite logical but we have had experience in this country of people who were naturalised immediately before the war, and who today do not go to the extent of overtly committing acts which would render them liable to prosecution for high treason, but there is ample evidence of what they are prepared to do. There are people in the internment camps and there are a great many going about freely in this country who actually promote the interests of our enemies. In other words, the evidence is there that those people are prepared to harm the interests of this country, and this clause aims at providing for such cases.

But how can we prove that a man is prepared to do something?

The evidence is there that those people are going through the country and are making propaganda on behalf of the enemy.

But then they are committing acts.

They are not committing any acts which enable us to apprehend them in terms of the law. We have to have this provision, that they are prepared to commit such acts. They promote the interests of the enemy directly and indirectly. No, I think that this clause as it stands here is quite right, and I think it will answer its purpose very well. I am quite prepared to support this clause.

A new sub-paragraph is added to Clause 7, that is, paragraph (e). If we look at sub-clause (1) of Clause 7 we find paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) dealing with certain circumstances which may involve an individual’s certificate of naturalisation being withdrawn, (a) relates to people who have already been sentenced for certain things which are mentioned, (b) deals with the case of an individual who within five years after the date of his certificate having been granted has been sentenced by a court within His Majesty’s territory or within the mandated territory to imprisonment of not less than twelve months or to a fine of not less than £100. (c) refers to people who since the date of the grant of the certificate have for a period of not less than seven years been domiciled outside His Majesty’s territory or the territory of South-West Africa, and (d) relates to people who in terms of the law of the State with which His Majesty is in a state of war remains subjects of that State. According to sub-section (3) we find that people mentioned in (b), (c) and (d) may be deprived of their certificate of citizenship provided the Minister does certain things. The clause says this—

It is further stated that at such an enquiry the holder of a certificate or the naturalised person may appear personally or be represented by an advocate or an attorney. Further provision is also made for such an enquiry in sub-clause (4). Now I want to ask the Minister whether he will not put this new paragraph (e) on the same basis as (b), (c) and (d). Here we have a case where there is no sentence. Apparently the Minister now wants to get the power to act as a court and the persons who will fall under this will not have the right to demand an enquiry. I would therefore like the Minister to amend this paragraph so that provision can also be made for those other people to demand the right of an enquiry. I therefore move the following amendment—

I move as an amendment—

I should like to ask the Minister to tell us what his intention is. Are we going to revert to the old French days when the intentions of an individual were enquired into without any act having been committed, without there being any proof that he intended doing something? How is the Minister going to prove what a man intends doing? Will he explain that?

The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) has pointed out that experience has shown that a number of persons who were naturalised under our 1926 Act have not been prepared to fulfil their obligations. In many cases their applications were not made sincerely but were made for business or political reasons. That happened both in South-West Africa and in the Union itself. There is a large amount of evidence to show that certain people, naturalised under the Act of 1926 in order to attain the common status, had no intention whatever of shedding their allegiance to Germany but were becoming naturalised purely to serve the interests of Germany under the guise of Union nationality. The Government has a large amount of evidence to that effect.

This is not confined to those people.

I realise that, Mr. Chairman; the hon. member is perfectly correct. But I am giving the hon. member the type of case which it is intended to deal with in terms of this new Sub-section (e) of Section 7. There is abundant evidence of the type of case I have mentioned. Many persons who have been interned, naturalised Union nationals who have been interned and who have not committed high treason in the sense understood in our law, but who have made it manifestly clear that, given the opportunity, they would have acted in a manner inimical to the State. If a former German, a naturalised South African, says openly or writes quite openly that he looks forward to a Hitler victory and that if he gets a chance he will do his best to further a Hitler victory, and would fight for Hitler if German forces came here, and would do everything to hinder the Government—surely it may be presumed that he intends to act to the detriment of the interests of the Union, and in the interests of a foreign State at war with His Majesty. Surely my hon. friend knows, as a lawyer, that the doctrine of intention is frequently invoked. An individual is presumed to intend the reasonable consequences of his act.

Of his act.

Well, what are the acts in this case? The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) is also a lawyer, and knows that if a man expresses an opinion verbally or writes an expression of opinion, that is an act on his part. And if as a result of his statement or his writing or his conduct generally he indicates that, given the opportunity, he would act in a certain way, then he must be presumed to intend the consequences of such statements and such acts which follow logically from what he has said.

That is foreign to our Roman Dutch Law.

No, my hon. friend knows that that doctrine is deeply rooted in our system, and has been so interpreted by the Appellate Division.

If a man intends stealing a sheep you cannot do anything to him.

No, sir, if a man says “I intend to steal a sheep” you certainly cannot do anything to him; but you can deduce from his statement that he is a man who is likely to steal a sheep.

You cannot do anything to him under our law.

Of course not. That is why in present circumstances one has to legislate for these cases. There would be no reason to legislate if you could deal with this under the ordinary law. It is because we have this type of case that we have to legislate in this fashion. I am sorry I am unable to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg for the reasons I have given. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) has asked me to allow the procedure set forth in Sub-section (3) of Section 7 to be applicable to a case to be dealt with under the new paragraph (e). In other words, this procedure of holding an enquiry, the same cumbrous procedure involving, as it may, a delay of six months or more. He wants that procedure made applicable to these cases. I am sorry I cannot agree to that. These cases will have to be dealt with expeditiously, and to bring new Subclause (e) into the provision of Sub-section (3) will nullify the whole effect of the new section. I appreciate the point that the hon. member makes, namely, that there should be provision for some sort of enquiry. The section itself does not state who is to be satisfied in regard to the facts alleged in the section. In Section 7 of the 1926 Act you have (a), (b), (c) and (d). If these facts of (a), (b), (c) and (d) are established, denaturalisation can take place. Now we come with a new Clause (e), and it is true that that new Clause (e) does not specifically lay down who is to decide as to the intention. It does not specifically say the Minister of the Interior or some other tribunal. I think the intention is that it is the function of the Minister of the Interior. I am prepared to consider that point, and if necessary to have some specific provision in the clause as drafted as to what should be the tribunal in the case of persons to be dealt with under (e). I am not, however, able to agree to the suggestion of my hon. friend that we should adopt the tribunal and system set out in Sub-section (3).

The Hon. the Minister continues to make it appear that this particular provision only applies to Germans who are being denaturalised, but it does not apply to them because they are automatically denaturalised, and consequently they are no longer Union nationals, so that it does not apply to them at all.

It does not apply to people who are automatically denaturalised.

Only to volunteers.

Yes.

Does it apply to anyone who used to belong to a nation with which we are now at war?

Yes.

So it is not intended for Germans who are now being automatically denaturalised. They do not come under this. I feel that this clause is altogether too vague. If the Minister is suspicious about a man being prepared to do something he can be punished. The Minister said a little earlier on that it would apply, for instance, to people who say they want to help Hitler. Very well, put that in the Act. If the Minister does not want to accept an amendment and instead of saying that a man is prepared to serve or promote the interests of the enemy, will he not say “by any deed, word or in writing shows that he”? Then it is an act, then the man has done something or said something or written something, but at the moment it is much too vague. This says that if I, the Minister of the Interior, am convinced that the man is prepared to do something— without there being any manifestations whatsoever, then I am going to punish such a man. I feel that the amendment I am proposing is a reasonable one, that a man must show by deed, act or writing that he is prepared to promote the interests of the enemy, before coming under this. It is very wide and covers the whole position. I want to withdraw my first amendment, and I therefore move—

I am prepared to accept that amendment with this reservation. I should like to look into it. The hon. member has sprung this on me, and I want to have an opportunity of seeing its effect. As far as I can gather, he is merely clarifying what I have in view, and if that is so I will accept it for the moment, subject to the condition that, after consultation with the law advisers, I may have it referred back.