When the debate was adjourned I was busy explaining how officials who in the first instance were transferred to the new pension fund had twelve months in which to decide, while this Bill only allows the men one month in which to decide. I then asked for an extension of time, and the Minister gave me the assurance that he would be willing in the Committee stage to accept such an extension. I am satisfied with that, and from our side there is no further objection. While I am on my feet, I should like once more to repeat a question I put last year and the year before, as to whether the Minister cannot give us consolidated legislation for all the Railway Acts. It is so mixed up that it is difficult for any official to know precisely what the Railway law is, because there have been many changes in the course of the years. The Afrikaans text is also written in Nederlands and very few of the younger officials are au fait with that language. Very many English-speaking officials who have learnt Afrikaans cannot understand the Nederlands text. We are now living in a period where Afrikaans has been the official language for twenty years, and has been taught in schools for thirty years. Cannot the Minister consolidate the legislation and have the Afrikaans text brought up to date, so that the 85,000 officials in the Railway service can read the Acts in Afrikaans? I shall be grateful if the Minister would do that, and if during the following session we should hear that he is introducing consolidating legislation. For the rest we support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Minister on introducing an amendment to the 1925 Superannuation Pension Bill, because he is the first Minister since 1925 who has not turned a deaf ear to representations made by the staff. I feel that this is a valuable concession towards social security, for the reason that in addition to the 1,100 members affected, it means that their dependants will also benefit, and I feel certain that the members of Parliament who have to follow us in years to come will be very pleased indeed with this legislation, because these servants, when they become pensioners, will not worry them for an allowance to their pensions like pensioners are worrying us today. I am not certain whether I understood the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) correctly, to say that the Minister has agreed to extend the options from one month to six months. If that is not so, I want to appeal to the Minister to take into consideration extending the option, because otherwise we will find that in years to come members of Parliament will again be worrying him as the member for Roodepoort and I have worried him to introduce this amendment to the 1925 Bill.

They have had fifteen years.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) states that these members have had 15 years. I admit they had an option over 15 years ago, but not for 15 years. They have been trying for over fifteen years for a further option, and it is only now the Minister has introduced it and allowed an option of one month only. I would like to remind the hon. member for Green Point and the Minister that when this Bill becomes law the various members affected will only have one month’s option to transfer. I would like to remind the hon. member and the Minister further that an employee who may be ill or on holiday might not be at his station to avail himself of the opportunity within the month. Therefore I would ask the Minister to favourably consider extending the option to at least three months; also, in view of the fact that the staff had 12 months’ option under the original Bill of 1925. I plead with the Minister to give them that concession, otherwise I am quite sure that many of the 1,100 members affected will miss the boat once again if the matter is not brought to their notice in time.

I agree.

I would ask in conclusion that every one of the 1,100 members are advised of this option when it becomes law.

There can be no question about it that the railwaymen who are affected by this measure, and I understand there are more than a thousand of them, will be tremendously grateful to the Minister for offering them an opportunity to reconsider their position to improve their pension privileges. Whether he gives them one month or one week or six months option really can make no difference to him. But unless the Department takes steps to see that every member who is affected is given sufficient notice and the matter brought to his attention directly, there is a possibility of their missing the opportunity. If one is merely going to say that there is a time limit and issue instructions to that effect in railway magazines, and if the Minister does not see to it through his Department that every man who has the right to exercise the choice to go from one pension fund into the other pension fund shall have that option brought to his personal and individual attention, a lot of the criticism which has been directed against the matter will not be vitiated.

I just want to say a few words. The other day, in introducing the Bill, the Minister said that he was such a good employer. I agree with him that in many respects he tried to do for the people what he could. Therefore I want to direct representations to him now in connection with a certain class of official. Just before leaving my constituency, two deputations from different towns in my constituency came to see me, consisting especially of railway officials. They came to see me in connection with the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1943. That Act, as the Minister knows, is of benefit to the railway workers, but unfortunately there are people who were injured before the coming into operation of that Act and they are not really pleased with the measure, because they now see that a man who is injured after that time receives an increased allowance, but he who was injured eight days before that time does not fall under that provision. I do not know how it will affect the financial position, but I shall be glad if the Minister will investigate how it will affect the position. Perhaps it is not a large percentage, and he can make concessions to them. Possibly the Minister in the Committee stage may be able to add a special clause which gives general satisfaction.

I want to direct a different appeal to the Minister. As he knows, the New Cape Central Railways were taken over by the South African Railways, together with the officials who worked for the New Cape Central Railways. Only a few of those who worked for the old company and who were taken over by the South African Railways are still living. Seeing that the Minister has been so kind-hearted as to help other Railway workers, I should like to see him give some attention to these few people who are still in his service. They are good workers and did good work for the old company, and for the South African Railways. I know of one case of a person who performed good services in the New Cape Central Railways and filled a fairly important post. He was in the service of the N.C.C.R. for twenty years, and he was prepared, when he went over to the South African Railways, to contribute towards the pension fund the payments which he should have paid for those twenty years. I do not know whether the Minister is able to amend the Bill in this respect, but I just want to ask him to use his influence so that justice may be done to these few people. They performed good service to both concerns, and they ought to be given a chance now, if they are prepared to pay the contributions which they should have made if they were in the service of the South African Railways, to be included in the pensions scheme.

To deal with the last point first, I will go into the point raised by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren), to see whether it is possible to do anything in this matter. I do not know anything about the matter at present, but I will undertake to look into it. There are just one or two points I would like to deal with. One hon. member, or it may be two, wanted to know what the cost would be to the pension fund of this amendment. It is a little difficult to know what the actual cost will be, because we do not know how many will avail themselves of the option, but presuming that everyone who is entitled to do so avails himself of the option, then the Railways will require to pay £150,000 as their £ for £ contribution against the contributions of the staff who come in. Thereafter it will probably result in a cost to the Railways of £3,000 per annum. That is, the actual contribution in respect of the new members, as far as the Railways are concerned, will be £3,000 per annum. In regard to the point made by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper), I would like to make it clear that there is only one fund. There are not two funds. There are two pensions, but it is the same money and comes from one fund. It makes no difference to one fund or the other. It is all safe. As far as the soundness of the pension fund itself is concerned, the position is that we are now just about to receive the quinquennial valuation of the pension fund from the actuaries. They have been at work on it for some time, and I feel that we should not attempt to say anything about the fund or do anything with the fund until we get that report. When the actuarial position is disclosed by his actuarial examination, we can decide what it will be. The assets of the fund, I may say, at the moment amount to £35,500,000. It must also be borne in mind, of course, that the new members must pay up their contributions and must pay any interest charges on anything outstanding at 4½ per cent. compound interest. Regarding the suggestion that we should give a further option to members to contribute on service not now recognised as pensionable service, that is a matter which has been represented to the Administration by the staff associations. We find, however, it impossible to commit ourselves to anything in that direction until we know what the position will be. We cannot know what the cost will be without an actuarial investigation, and we do not want to put that investigation up to the actuaries until they have finished with their quinquennial examination. But we are going to examine the point, and when we see what it involves, we will go into the question of whether we can manage it or not. With regard to this question of one month’s notice, I would like to make the position clear. Actually, nearly twelve months ago when it was mooted that we might go ahead with this Bill, we approached every possible new member and asked whether, if we were to promote such a Bill, they would avail themselves of the opportunity. We did that in order to ascertain whether there was a considerable demand for the Bill or not. I made it quite clear that I was not going to bring in a Bill just for a few senior officials, but that I would do so if there was a general demand. We then found that there was a very general demand. Twelve months ago every possible beneficiary under this Bill was advised that this was what we had in mind. Whenever this Bill becomes law, therefore, they already know that they can exercise this option, but they cannot exercise this option unless they get a statement from the chief accountant’s office showing exactly what their financial position in relation to the fund is, and exactly what contributions they have to make, and in general giving them full details of their particular case. It will probably take another six months to do that work, sb that in effect before we can really give them the option there will have been an interval of nearly eighteen months, during which they have had an opportunity of thinking the matter over; and incidentally, in between times, if they wished it, they were given a rough idea of what it would cost them, without giving exact figures. That is why we do not regard this as being one month’s notice, but a month’s notice subsequent to the statement issued by the chief accountant.

And if they are away or on holiday?

We put it at one month, but that is not all. I am quite agreeable to amend this period. It makes very little difference to me. But I do not want to leave it over indefinitely, and a period must be set, otherwise we will be in a state of uncertainty. I have no objection to making it three months, which in effect will be 21 months’ notification to them. Then they will know exactly what their commitments are. I am quite willing to move an amendment to that effect in the Committee stage.

In regard to the question of consolidation I would like to see that done very much, but the hon. member, I am sure, sympathises with me on the question of manpower and any other kind of power.

You must really do it now. You have enough manpower and you promise that every year.

As I say, the hon. member does not have to try to convert me to the desirability of consolidating our legislation, and I shall certainly not lose any opportunity of doing so. In regard to what the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) has stated concerning workmen’s compensation, it will be quite impossible to amend this Act in respect of the cases referred to by him. Making the provisions retrospective in an unknown field would be quite impossible. If the hon. member is interested in the point, I will have it looked into, but I cannot accept an amendment which will increase the liabilities under this Act. With these few explanations I would like to thank the House for the very generous welcome they have given to this Bill and to say that I hope the staff will now feel that their pressure for many years has after all not been wasted.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill now.

House in Committee:

On Clause 2,

I move—

I just want to put a question to the Minister with regard to this option, namely, to ask whether any consideration will be given to those who were asked in the first place whether they would exercise the option if an opportunity were afforded, and who have since retired on superannuation. Will any consideration be given to these people?

I do not think that is possible under the arrangements we have now made.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with an amendment.

I move—

I object.

Amendment to be considered on 18th March.

I move—

1. (c) establish, maintain, and conduct observation centres for the temporary detention, diagnosis and classification of persons ordered to be committed under this Act prior to their transfer to appropriate work colonies or retreats or their discharge.

The need for that new clause is the intention of this Bill to achieve thoroughly the aims set out in clause 4, namely—

1. (a) Developing and improving their physical condition by means of physical training suited to their particular capacities and needs, and where necessary by appropriate medical and mental treatment;
2. (b) Training them in habits of industry and work;
3. (c) Correcting, under suitable psychiatric or psychological supervision behaviour disabilities which impede proper social adjustment;
4. (d) The application of any further measures which may be necessary to remove or overcome particular disabilities, and
5. (e) Generally training them in habits of proper social adaptation in the community and of good citizenship.

This clause has created a good deal of interest throughout the country, and in regard to the principal organisations concerned in social welfare, considerable pressure has been brought to bear for an amendment of this nature. The amendment asks for a special classification centre, where experts would diagnose the men committed before they are sent to any particular colony. I know that in the second reading of the Bill the Minister did indicate that this diagnosis would take place in one of the existing colonies, but the objection to that obviously is, that as conditions develop and the number of colonies are increased, that would be quite an impossible position; further it means that the diagnosis will be done after the men are committed. I would remind the Minister also of his own very definite statement, made one year previously, when this question arose. He pointed out that such a clearing house as is now envisaged and not magistrates would decide the type of institution to which the person would be sent. I hope it will be possible for the Minister to accept this amendment. I believe the whole success of this measure depends on the scientific approach to the treatment of the victims of maladjustment, from the very time they are taken in hand by the authorities. I move accordingly.

I am sorry to say I am unable to accept that amendment. I attempted to give my reasons on the second reading debate. It seems to me this amendment is unnecessary in view of the provisions of clause 7. In terms of that clause it is competent for the Minister of Social Welfare to set aside a particular work colony as an observation centre, or he may set aside a portion of the work colony for observation purposes. We have this provision in the Bill as it stands at present. My hon. friend wishes to make it compulsory that all persons who are sent to work colonies should pass through a central observation centre. I attempted in my reply on the second reading debate to give my reasons for rejecting that request. Briefly, my objection to that suggestion is that it will lead to unnecessary expense, and that it will not be necessary in every case to send a person to an observation post. There are several safeguards in the Bill at present. The matter was thoroughly threshed out by members of the Select Committee and they feel the Bill, as drafted, is very adequate to meet the needs. In these circumstances I regret I cannot accept the amendment.

We hope still the Minister will reconsider this particular point. It is obviously just, before any man suffers loss of liberty, which will happen in every case under this clause, that it shall definitely be ascertained by people competent to decide whether this loss of liberty is justified or not. That can only be done, so far as psychopathic cases are concerned, by a competent psychiatrist or psychologist, or doctors versed in matters of this kind. We say that this opportunity should be presented to every person; first of all, as to whether he should in fact be committed to any institution at all, and secondly, if so, as to which particular kind of retreat or home or colony he shall be despatched. We understand and we sympathise with the Minister in that a certain amount of extra cost will be involved, but we suggest that this is obviously important, and that it is right that the expense should be borne. To make it easy for the Minister, we are prepared to make further suggestions, and one is this, that each case will necessarily arise in some particular locality, and instead of a permanent institution possibly the Minister will permit that each person it is proposed to commit to a colony or retreat shall, before being sent, be brought before a suitable local psychiatrist, who shall certify whether such a course of treatment is likely to be efficacious in that instance; and if not, the man is left to his own resources. But if there is medical and psychological authority for the man being subjected to this treatment, then it should be done. There is just one other point. We do not want to be obstructionist in any sense of the word, but we feel very few magistrates will be willing to take the responsibility for committing patients unless they are fortified with a certificate such as we suggest. Therefore, I am trying to help the Minister and not to hinder him. I do not think the average magistrate would be prepared to commit a person to one of these institutions as an inebriate or a mental case without medical evidence; he would say he had no knowledge on which to base his judgment. How could any layman say the person should be committed? Nor do we think it is fair to the citizen who calls attention to the case to send the maladjusted person straightway to a controlled camp or any other form of restraint. Our case is that expert and qualified examination should be made before the committal, and not after, as suggested in this Bill.

I am aware there is a great body of opinion in favour of what is proposed, but regard must be had to the fact that the principle has already been embodied in the Bill. The only difference is in regard to where the observation shall take place. My point of view is this, that under the Bill we propose to bring relief to many deserving sections of the community, and our object is that relief shall be given at as early a date as possible. The Bill provides for four separate work colonies, one for Europeans, one for coloureds, one for Indians and one for the African people.

All separate types, and not necessarily only four.

As the Minister states, and separate types. But we have to bear in mind this main provision of this Bill, and that it was a provision made by the Select Committee. If this amendment is agreed to, it will fall upon the Government to establish an observation centre at once.

The magistrate is not an expert.

The magistrate has not the say, he merely commits to a work colony.

He merely commits to a work colony.

Not a specific work colony.

And it is provided that in the work colony provision shall be made for what is tantamount to an observation centre. Under the amendment to be proposed by me in relation to staff appointments, it is definitely laid down as an instruction to the Government that due consideration shall be given to the objects of the institution. In other words, it is the object that the staff of the work colonies shall be qualified to give effect in principle to what it is proposed shall be carried cut at the observation centre. The principle in the Bill is that in the carrying out of its objects the Government can itself establish a central observation centre at a work colony at such time as it considers it necessary. We do not, I take it, visualise a large number of work colonies all over the Union, or for the various races to be dealt with under this Bill. We rather visualise that the condition of the people will be raised to such an extent that we shall not require a considerable number of work colonies. But my main object in rising is to state that while the principle of the amendment is sound, provision is made in the Bill for it in the work colonies themselves, and that that provision should enable us to establish at as early a date as practicable the four types of work colonies that are visualised under the Bill.

At 3.10 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on 31st January, 1946, he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again.

House to resume in Committee on 18th March.

The House thereupon proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

When my remarks on this subject were interrupted by the automatic adjournment of the debate, I was dealing with the proposition put forward by the mover that the Union possessed complete internal and external sovereignty over South-West Africa, and in order that the rest of what I have to say may perhaps be clearer, may I be allowed shortly to state the essential difference between my amendment and the motion before the House. The motion pre-supposes first, that the Union has heretofore possessed this complete sovereignty; that the Union has now the power to annex South-West Africa and that it can, in exercising that supposed power of annexation, do so as to make the Mandated Territory a part of the Union of South Africa, as if it were a part of the British Empire, to which this dominion belongs. My amendment is designed to controvert those propositions and to demonstrate, also, that if the motion were adopted and acted upon, the Union would be acting in positive defiance of UNO and involving the rest of the Empire in the inevitable clash and conflict of principle that would follow.

And, first, on the extent of the sovereignty possessed by the Mandatory, may I refer the House to the judgment of the Chief Justice of this Union, the late Sir James Rose-Innes, in Christian’s case (in 1924) concurred in by two others of the five judges who heard it. It was there laid down that the Government of South Africa was not possessed of external sovereignty: in other words, it was not fully sovereign: I quote the words—

Naturally, this issue raised great controversy among international lawyers, and without quoting the arguments both for and against I refer to the summary of them to be found in Prof. Quincey Wright’s “Mandates Under the League of Nations,” which, incidentally, I might observe has since its publication in 1930 until this date been taken out of our library eight times. I quote from pages 338 and 339 as follows—

This extract indicates, I venture to say, that the mover has, in propounding his theory, “rushed in where angels fear to tread,” though I would not, in repeating this line, like it to be understood that I hold the view that international lawyers—I do not softly impeach the hon. gentleman as one of their number—are to be numbered among the angels. I think we can take it, from the quotations I have given, that the hon. member has failed to prove his first contention.

I have already dealt to some extent with his second point, i.e., that the Union has a power of annexation. That power, Sir, was once the sole prerogative of the Crown, but in the United Kingdom has come to be regarded as lying solely within the competence of Parliament. In South Africa, (apart from the annexation of the former Republics), it was exercised from time to time by the Government of the Cape Colony in the case, e.g. of the Transkeian Territories, but this was by virtue of the special power conferred upon it by the Earl of Carnarvon’s Federation Act of 1877, which on its lapse in 1882, nevertheless left this power of annexation still effective.

It may be appropriate here to recall the words in which the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in his work on the proposed League of Nations (1918) outlined the scope of a mandatory power as he envisaged it. On page 21 he writes—

Thus the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister condemned beforehand the misuse of a mandatory position as an office of profit, or position of private advantage for it or its nationals—

He said—having already reminded his readers in the earlier part of his book of the general formula then current in Peace Conference circles—

But, Sir, what have been the precedents in the League of Nations in this connection since 1920? The Permanent Mandates Commission has had occasion to object to expressions used by the Union legislation or to administrative actions which might imply the exercise of sovereign rights in the territory by the Mandatory power. In 1925 the Commission commented upon the administrative separation of the Caprivi. Zipfel from South-West Africa and its administrative union with the High Commission territory of Bechuanaland, but an explanation was received from the Union Government, that as they had under the mandate full legislative power they could properly delegate the Government of that part of the territory to the High Commissioner, who was at that time the Governor-General of the Union. The Commission noted that there was no separation of territory, and desired that the annual report on the Caprivi Zipfel should be rendered at the same as the report on the rest of the territory under the Mandate.

An actually conclusive instance of the assumption of sovereign rights is the one to which I was referring when my previous speech was interrupted. I refer to the action of the House in 1922, when by an Act passed in that year, it declared that the railways of South-West Africa were vested in Sovereignty in the Union. The Mandates Commission objected, and the Union, by Act of Parliament, conceded the point. I refer to the Act of 1930, and I should like to be allowed to quote some extracts from the debate on the Bill when it was before the House. I read first the speech of the then Minister of Railways—

I want to quote also from a statement made by the last Prime Minister (General Hertzog) in column 66, i.e.—

Let me emphasise the words of the late General Hertzog: “… but not by annexation!” In July, 1927, the proceedings of the Permanent Mandates Commission show that they drew the attention of the Council of the League to the second paragraph of the preamble to one of the agreements concerning the boundary between the mandated territory of South-West Africa and Angola, according to which the Government of the Union declares that, subject to the terms of the mandate, it “possesses sovereignty over the territory of South-West Africa, lately under the sovereignty of Germany”. The Commission added that “because of the fundamental importance of this question the Commission felt obliged again to bring it to the attention of the Council… The Commission notes that the accredited representative of the Mandatory Power was not able to give the opinion of the Government of the Union on this question, and it hopes that that Government will be so good as to explain whether in its view the term “possesses sovereignty” expresses only the right to exercise full powers of administration and legislation in the territory of South-West Africa under the terms of the mandate and subject to its provisions, or whether it implies that the Government regards itself as being sovereign over the territory itself. These instances, I submit, Mr. Speaker, dispose of the pretence that the Union had or has a power of annexation of any part of South-West Africa. When this House is now requested to endorse the claim that it possesses a power of annexation it is asked to belie its own previous declarations and to present itself to the world as a violator of its own oaths and conscience. I do not believe that the House will descend to that level, especially after its adoption of the somewhat grandiloquent words of the preamble to the Charter of which it is generally understood the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister was the author; I will read them to the House—

I therefore trust that the Rt. Hon. gentleman will be in agreement with me on this point.

I come now to the third point of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw), namely, that this supposed power of annexation can be exercised by this Union as if it were a sovereign independent state and so as to make the territory a part of the Union irrespective of the Empire. There is, of course, no power in this Union to add to the territorial possessions of the Empire without its consent, any more than it has a right to annex the High Commission Territories. The very mention of this point, however, shows how careful we must be in regard to the precedent which the mover would like very much to create. No such power can be found in the Constitution of the Union; and surely express power would be required for that purpose in that Great Covenant as expressed in the Act of Union, which it is the main object of the party to which I have the honour to belong to preserve.

The records of the League of Nations show that the claims of the Union Government to exercise sovereignty have always been repudiated, and it would be interesting to know why they were not pressed before the Court of International Justice, if they have any legal foundation. In December, 1922, Mr. van Ries, Vice-Chairman of the Mandates Commission, wrote a comprehensive report on the work of the Commission. In dealing with the question of sovereignty, he came to the following conclusion—

And if it is suggested that the territory, when annexed, if that could ever occur, would become part of the Empire, I ask: Have the Government of the United Kingdom and the Governments of the other Dominions been consulted? There is not a shade or a shadow or a scintilla of evidence that this has been done. It is an agreed principle, laid down last at the Imperial Conference of 1930, that no Dominion can involve the other parts of the Empire in active obligations without their assent. If we annexed South-West Africa the Empire would become responsible for its defence and all other matters incidental to a transfer of ownership. I will not elaborate this point (with the limited time at my disposal). I come, finally, to the effect of a purported annexation on our relations with the rest of the Empire and with UNO. Only recently our High Commissioner in London attempted to lay the foundation for a refusal to submit the administration of South-West Africa to the new Trusteeship Council. So at first did France in respect of its mandated territories, and I need hardly remind the House of the storm that was aroused What would have happened if Mr. Heaton Nicholls had boldly asserted the existence of a right of annexation in the Union? The latter would at once have come into conflict with Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand, and as far as I can tell with every other member of the United Nations Organisation. [Time limit extended.] And where should we then stand? Despite all the attempts in the last two years to overtly and covertly isolate South Africa from the remainder of the Empire, it is increasingly clear that the Union, and indeed every Dominion, without the backing and assistance of the Empire as a whole, will be in danger of being a mere cypher in that great organisation. And at the very outset of its career, to place the Union in conflict with its partners, in face of the evident dangers of the times, seems to me to be mere “midsummer madness”, in fact, an utterly suicidal policy.

I would also remind hon. members that under the mandate, disputes were to be referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice, and by Article 37 of the present Charter the Court of International Justice was substituted for the Permanent Court. It is not beyond the bounds of conception that the Chief of the Bondelswart tribe might apply to that tribunal for a declaration of rights, laying down that his tribe was entitled to insist on the preservation of the mandate free from bombs and annexation.

Whatever may be the future of South-West Africa, I am convinced that the method proposed by the hon. member of dealing with the question is entirely wrong, and it is because of this conviction, Mr. Speaker, that I now move my amendment.

There was one point that was mentioned by the hon. member for Beaufort West that I should also like to refer to, and that is where, towards the end of his speech, he referred to our being in possession of the South-West African territory, and he emphasised that “possession is nine points of the law”. This old 17th century saying has many variants, and one of the truest of those is the one that says that it means “being in possession of every advantage a person can have short of actual right”. If we are relying upon our being in possession, Sir, we are relying upon having every advantage a person can have short of actual right. It is not very far removed in meaning from the old German proverb that “a handful of might is better than a sackful of right”. There are two or three matters of considerable importance in dealing with this question. The history of the League of Nations shows that in most of the territories under mandate there have been no important disturbances except in South-West Africa, where the Bondelswart disturbances occurred in 1921 and the Rehoboth disturb; ances in 1923. Both were the subject of extensive investigation, and the majority of the permanent Mandates Commission found that the fault rested in the first place with the South African Government. That, I think, is a matter that in ordinary circumstances, had the country been differently placed, would perhaps have led to more severe measures being adopted in connection with some of these disturbances. I can remember a feeling of great humiliation when I read the report of the Administrator of South-West Africa of that time. He was dealing with the criticism levelled at the troops with regard to their treatment of the prisoners, and this is what he said—

God’s blessing, forsooth, upon the bombing of tax defaulters! Personally, I think even at this stage we must feel that there was a good deal of harshness in the bombing of persons whose vilest offence was that they had not paid their tax, that they were in default.

It was only dog licences.

Their attitude towards authority was never truculent. It was the attitude of people who were living under very distressful conditions—they relied upon their hunting-dogs to provide them with food —and many of us in this House at that time felt that this matter could have been settled as the late Major Manning suggested in his report, published in the same Blue Book, without any disturbances at all. It is apparent that certain features of the work done by the Union of South Africa under the mandate in South-West Africa seems to have been guided by a mistaken sense of what is due to the native tribes. I want to refer in a few words to the fact that in two separate cases the native tribes who had been confirmed in the possession of their native areas by a law of 1919 have been dispossessed of those areas, not on the ground of their alienation. The approval of the Union Parliament for any alienation is provided for in the 1919 Act. I refer to the fact that where alienation was contemplated the authorities in South-West Africa were entitled to agree to alienation if the approval of this House had been given. Act 49 of 1919, Section 4 (3), provides—

But in two separate instances the alienation had not been properly submitted to this House Approval was sought for an Act of “disestablishment of the native area” instead.

Order. Is the hon. member referring to a statute passed by this House? If so, I must refer him to Rule 73.

I am not reflecting on this House, Sir, but merely suggesting that what was recommended by the Department of Native Affairs there was not what the original Act passed by this House intended. The original Act deals with the alienation. Alienation is lawful if approved by this House. But there has sprung up a practice of disestablishment which is a means of dispossessing the natives of their land without putting before the House the Act of alienation under which it is done. I wish to point out that by repeating acts of disestablishment in respect of native areas, ownership can be transferred from the native tribes to the Crown, and the land can be subsequently sold by the Crown, the dispossessed natives being transferred to a waterless area. A case in point will be found in Union Act No. 44 of 1945, referred to fully in Union Hansard of June 6, 1945, column 9129.

Mr. Speaker, the matter which has been raised by the motion of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) is one of major importance, and one on which I believe every responsible citizen in this country ought to have a point of view. I wish to express mine as briefly as possible, because I know the whole House is anxious to hear what the hon. the Prime Minister is going to say to us on the matter, and I am as anxious as anyone to hear it. I propose to gather together my case on the points which I think the hon. member for Beaufort West made. I think that will probably be my briefest approach. The case which he made, as I understand it—and I hope he will correct me if I am wrong as I have no desire to mislead the House—is that there is every justification for our annexation of South-West Africa because in the first place we probably always have had sovereign rights in regard to South-West, and might have incorporated it at any time since the mandate was handed over to us; secondly, if there was any doubt in the past as to whether we had full sovereign rights in regard to South-West Africa and therefore the power to annex, now that the League of Nations is, as he says, defunct, there is no body to which we could possibly have to answer for a limited sovereignty, since with the demise of the League any possible restriction on our sovereignty has been removed; thirdly, that in all the circumstances, it would be extremely foolish of us to place ourselves again in the apparent position of a mandatory power, that is, it would be unwise of us to accept any limitation on our sovereignty, and that we would in fact be accepting a limitation on our sovereignty we have no need to accept if we put South-West Africa under UNO and receive it back from them. I want to say quite emphatically that I do not agree with any of those points made by the hon. member for Beaufort West. I do not accept the hon. member’s contention that in the past we have had full sovereignty in respect of South-West Africa. I am not going to attempt to argue the case on juridical lines; I think we have heard enough of that from the hon. member for Beaufort West himself. I can only say that I do not feel that he made his case in that regard. He certainly did not make it with me. I could not help feeling that the whole argument as to recognition by our courts of the full sovereignty of South Africa was simply based on the fact that our sovereignty was never challenged outside this country. I accept the fact that the courts accepted the sovereignty of this Parliament within this country, but I should imagine that it would be quite competent to argue that our right to make laws and have our laws administered through our courts in South-West Africa could have been challenged by the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations, and could have been submitted to the International Court at The Hague, and that we would then have accepted that authority. But that is not the matter which I wish to argue. The point I wish to make is that in effect we in South Africa assumed that we held South-West Africa not under full sovereignty, but in trust from what we accepted as a superior authority. That is implicit, in my belief, not only in our actions and the whole of our outlook, but in the statement of the case, as it was put from year to year in our Year Book for the world to see. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) says that the territory could have been taken back. That question was put to the hon. member for Beaufort West, and he said that no provision had been made for the resumption of the mandate. That again is a matter which I think the lawyers could argue. I myself should have imagined that it would have been perfectly competent for the mandate to be resumed if it had been proved that we were not administering it to the satisfaction of the international authority which we accepted and recognised. The Year Book, as I say, has year by year stated in regard to the mandates that these territories inhabited by people not able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world were but placed under the tutelage of advanced nations who could best undertake responsibility for the well-being and development of such people, the tutelage to be exercised by such advanced nations as mandatories on behalf of the League of Nations. Certain territories, owing to sparseness of the population and the geographical adjacency to the mandatory, were to be administered under the laws of the mandatory “and in pursuance of the terms of the treaty, the Government of the Union of South Africa was entrusted with the mandate of the territory formerly known as German South-West Africa.” My contention is simply that whatever the legal position was, we in South Africa accepted that we had no ultimate and final sovereignty over South-West Africa, but that we were administering it as a trust from an international authority to the establishment of which we had been a party, and whose authority we accepted, and to which we were prepared to adhere. The hon. member’s second point is that since the League of Nations is now defunct, any suggestion of an overriding and final sovereign authority has lapsed, and therefore we are now in effect the de jure as well as the de facto sovereign power in respect of South-West Africa. That again is an arguable proposition, perhaps more so than the hon. member’s first proposition. Here I admit we are in a very difficult position. I am talking now for myself, and in this regard I only know what the Press have told me. I know that I cannot say what has in effect happened to the League of Nations. We have not yet been told whether the League of Nations has wound up its affairs and vanished into thin air. We have had no explicit statement as to the connection between the League of Nations and UNO, but here again I suggest that the basis of international law is not what the lawyers may say it is, it is what the people think it is. I see the hon. member for Beaufort West laughing, but we have had ample evidence in the course of the last six years that international law is the most fluid thing in the world, and in the last resort its obligations are obligations simply on the conscience of the people who accept those obligations. Now, in this very confused situation in which we are trying, after a second world debacle, to create a new world authority which will uphold the principle of law, the rule of law, in international affairs, where we who were prepared to defend the principle of international law as distinct from the law of the jungle, are striving to create a new instrument to that end, we must accept that UNO is taking over the authority of the League of Nations. Let me put it this way, that the authority which we assumed to be in the League of Nations we now regard as being vested in UNO. We believe that those who have acted for us in laying the foundations of UNO have transferred that authority to the new organisation known as UNO.

And who gave them the power to do that?

Who gave us the power to make any agreement to behave like civilised people, instead of adhering to the law of the jungle?

That is no reply at all.

That is the situation in which we have to make decisions and as reasonable people to make choices. If we are going to talk about who gave us the power, we are going back to the beginning of creation, and I rather fancy the hon. member’s ideas of the purposes of creation will be very different from mine, and we therefore have no common ground on which to discuss the matter. I am assuming that we have handed over to UNO implicitly the authority we recognised in the League of Nations. At least I can say for myself that when I voted for the acceptance of the United Nations Charter and all it involved, I did so assuming that UNO was going to exercise that international authority with a stronger force behind it than the League of Nations ever had, that we tried to establish after the last war, and on which our one hope of peace in this new era now opening depends. In this regard we are, I admit, in a peculiarly difficult position. We are building up an organisation to which we hope to give strength and force of sanction without as yet being able to define all its responsibilities and without being able to see clearly the machinery that will be necessary to administer those responsibilities. One of the difficulties which arises is in regard to this very discussion; it is that the acceptance of the principle of trusteeship is apparently limited by the power to refuse the trusteeship system; or rather not to refuse the trusteeship system, because we have accepted that in accepting the Charter, and that is where I think the hon. member’s argument was so shaky, as I thought it was shaky in many respects. One of the points where I thought it was very shaky indeed was the suggestion that our representatives in London were quite wrong in discussing the trusteeship system, since that implied, he argued, the possibility of our handing over South-West Africa to the Trusteeship Council. I do not accept that. The very fact of our accepting UNO on the basis of the United Nations Charter commits us to the establishment of an international trusteeship system.

It was accepted with a reservation in regard to South-West Africa.

That is another matter—that is the point I am coming to. I merely say that the fact that we have accepted the Charter means that we have accepted the trusteeship system as a system. Now it is perfectly true, apparently, that when we accepted that system there was some reservation in regard to South-West Africa. But we do not know what the terms of that reservation were. We would, I am sure, be extremely grateful if the Prime Minister would clarify that situation for us. I am in the same position as everyone else in this regard. I am wondering what is going to happen to South-West Africa if we do not agree to place it under the Trusteeship Council of the new UNO; and I wonder why we reserved our right to put it under the Council. But as I read the terms of the Charter which, as I have emphasised, we have accepted, and accepted unanimously, it is perfectly plain that whether we put our mandated territory under the trusteeship system of not, we will continue to assume that it is a trust, that it is a mandate, and not to assume that we have the right to annex it And it is perfectly clear from Article 80 of the Charter that until we put the mandatory territories under the control of the Trusteeship Council, the terms under which we hold these territories shall remain unchanged. Also as I read this clause it lays down that if we do hand over the mandated territories the conditions under which they will be held will be subject to agreement. I just want to draw the attention of the House to that fact, because the hon. member for Beaufort West made great play with the fact that if we accept the control of the Trusteeship Council, we shall be forced to accept the principle of the open door. I do not wish to accuse the hon. member of misrepresentation—far be it from me to suggest anything of the kind—but he did stress to this House that in respect of the “C” mandate, we were not forced to have the open door, but that if we accept the control of the Trusteeship Council, under UNO, we will have to ensure equal treatment in social, economic and commercial matters with all members of the United Nations. He asked significantly what that would mean to us in South Africa who want to build up markets for our local industries. But he forgot to read Article 80 which says—

But all this is merely by the way. The point I am making at the moment is simply this, that even in spite of the fact that there is apparently some reservation in regard to South-West Africa, behind that reservation there is no assumption of our right to annex in terms of the UNO Charter so far as I can see. [Interjection.] In fact, as my colleague (Mr. Molteno) (Cape Western) suggests, it is explicitly contradicted by the terms of this article.

On a point of explanation. The hon. member suggested that perhaps unintentionally I mislead the House in connection with the matter of the open door. I have just looked at the Hansard report of my speech and I see that I there pointed out as I again point out that one of the objectives laid down for the trusteeship system is to ensure equal treatment on social, economic and commercial matters for all nations of the United Nations. I pointed out, as the hon. member correctly states, that if we agreed to place South-West Africa under the mandaté system, we would then be subject to these objectives laid down as the basis of the new system. The matter to which she refers, Article 80, refers only to actual existing international instruments, which is a different matter. That refers to actual trade agreements, entered into between South Africa and some other country. That cannot be disturbed. But that is an entirely different matter.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I have read the article and that is not the interpretation I put upon it. In that regard we must agree to differ. I shall leave the argument to be continued by the lawyers who are more competent than I am to deal with it. I am making the case simply as a non-legal member of the community facing what I regard as our responsibilities in the matter, and I think every member in the House should be as careful about what we are committing ourselves to as I hope to be myself. I believe that whatever our obligations are to UNO the people of South Africa still believe that they hold South-West Africa under a mandate, that they are not full sovereigns in that regard and that they have not full sovereign rights. I believe that the people of South Africa with few exceptions feel that there has been no change in the situation through the demise of the League of Nations, if the League is in fact finally extinct, and the formation of this new organisation. I am reminded by the hon. member for Pinetown that the League of Nations is having a meeting on 8th April next to wind up its affairs and to dispose of its assets. I think we must wait and see what will happen then. I do not know whether the hon. member knows more than I do about the future of it. But I still maintain that we in South Africa still believe that we hold South-West Africa in trust for the world, and that we are under an obligation to administer it as a trust. It is for that reason that I do no agree with the hon. member for Beaufort West when he says that we would be foolish and wrong to place South-West Africa under the Trusteeship Council of UNO and that we would be making the gravest mistake if we accepted the authority of the Trusteeship Council in that regard. My own approach to this matter is that we would be doing ourselves and South-West Africa and the whole case for which we fought the very gravest wrong if we did not put South-West Africa under the Trusteeship Council. I say that with all the conviction of which I am capable. We have accepted UNO. We accepted it with all its obligations unanimously in this House. As the Prime Minister himself said yesterday we are already extremely anxious about the future of the world. We are absolutely convinced that there is no future for civilisation unless by some or other means we can establish the rule of law in international affairs as we have succeeded to some extent in establishing it in our national affairs. But the moment we are not prepared to accept the rule of international law in our own affairs we throw overboard entirely the principle of the rule of law; and that is why I am so gravely concerned about this reservation of the question of our rights over South-West Africa. I feel that the question of the future of South-West Africa is the real challenge to our intentions with regard to UNO. Either we believe in international authority or we do not. Either we believe in it for ourselves or we do not believe in it for anyone at all. I believe we have a very special obligation towards UNO. That obligation lies in the first instance in the circumstances of the original mandatory system and in the original League of Nations, which was largely the creation of our own Prime Minister. That in itself puts on us the obligation to support the principle of an international authority establishing the rule of law in international affairs.

Why? Do you want us to support everything the Prime Minister does?

No, but I think in this regard we are under a moral obligation to support him. The idea of an international authority is one of the finest emanations of the civilised mind. I think it appeals to the best in everyone, and for that reason we are called upon to support it. But we have a second reason for supporting it. The preamble to this new organisation was again the work of the Prime Minister, and once again instinct and our sense of permanent values made us endorse the terms he laid down in this new endeavour to create an international authority and a rule of law in international affairs. With these two responsibilities, with these two claims on our loyalty, how can we turn round the very first moment that our own interests are involved and say that it does not apply to us? If we do that how are we ever going to reach the level of civilised nations and not constantly return to the law of the jungle? To me there is no more reason now for annexing South-West Africa than there was in 1918-1920. The principle is the same, there is no difference whatever. One last question has been raised —supposing the people of South-West Africa said that what they wanted is full incorporation in the Union of South Africa, would that change the situation in any way? I think it is a very pertinent question. Let me take the practical issue. I am not in a position to say whether the people of South-West Africa have said this or whether they are capable of saying it. I wish simply to deal with the general issue. If the people of South-West Africa said that what they want is full incorporation, would that change the circumstances? So far as I can see it only changes the circumstances to this extent, that I would still support with all my strength the submission of South-West Africa to the Trusteeship Council, and I would then place before the Council the claims of the inhabitants of the mandated territory to become full citizens of this country and to pass over to South Africa as part of the Union.

What do you mean by submission to the Trusteeship Council?

I mean we should accept the mandate over South-West Africa. We should say to the Trusteeship Council what Britain has said in regard to her mandates and what France has said in respect of hers: We accept you as the final authority in place of the authority of the Mandates Commission; we accept the fact that you have inherited the authority of the Mandates Commission.

There was no “submission” to the Mandates Commission.

I am not going to be side-tracked by a quibble about words. The House understands what I mean. The machinery is perfectly plain, and I propose that we should submit to that machinery. I propose that we should accept the authority of UNO in terms of the Charter, as we must do, and that then we should go to the Trusteeship Council and place before them our case for the full absorption of South-West Africa, for their conceding to us full sovereign rights over South-West Africa. I have not the slightest doubt that if we can make our case effectively, that right will be granted. But whether we can make the case effectively is quite another matter; and that of course, is the essence of the argument of the hon. member for Beaufort West. He does not believe we can really make our case; he does not really believe we can prove to the Trusteeship Council that all the people of South-West Africa are prepared to be part and parcel of the sovereign state of the Union of South Africa. But that is quite a different issue. My submission to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister is that that is a separate issue. We shall have to prove now or some time that the world can trust us to take over and to administer South-West Africa on the basis of the principles we have accepted in the United Nations Charter.

Including the open door.

I am not concerned about the open door. I think I have established my views in that regard. But let me remind the hon. member for Beaufort West that the principles laid down in Chapter 12 of the Charter in respect of the obligations of trustees in regard to the territories entrusted to them are no different from the obligations we have undertaken in respect of all nations and of all peoples in Chapter 1.

You will admit there is a big difference in the application of these obligations in a mandate.

I feel that in the application of the principles I have no common ground with the hon. member. Principles are exactly the same wherever they apply. We are committed under the present terms of the Charter to encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction of race, sex, language or religion, whether in respect of the trusts or of our neighbours, and I hope the people of South Africa will apply those principles equally whether in respect of trusts or of neighbours. In fact this should apply with much greater force where people are your trusts, and it is because some people fail to realise that we have this obligation to our trust that there is a danger of people fearing to allow us freedom in this matter, but I am not afraid of the future. If we endorse the principles of the Charter without mental reservations, as most of us I know have done in accepting that Charter, on the basis of that acceptance I feel we should place our claims in regard to South-West Africa before the Trusteeship Council and say that we shall stand or fall by their decision. But we should make it plain that it is our intention to work steadily for the recognition of our right to absorb South-West Africa as part and parcel of our sovereign state. I am convinced that there is no other way in which we can be true to the principles we have accepted in setting up the United Nations Organisation. I feel very strongly in this matter. I feel the honour of South Africa is engaged in it. Do we really intend to establish an international authority? Do we really intend to establish the principle of international law? Here is our first challenge. In the way we react depends to a large extent the whole future of the United Nations Organisation and everything that it stands for. But I cannot be in any doubt as to an answer with the Prime Minister in charge of this situation. Our line of action cannot be in doubt. He has helped to build up this machinery we are called upon to recognise. He must support it. I am confident therefore that we shall be able to meet this challenge in the right way.

Mr. Speaker, this has been to me a very interesting debate, very interesting indeed. We have listened to four speeches, each of which has been a considerable contribution to this debate. I wish to thank the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) for the painstaking care with which he has assembled the material to put the case before us from a legal-international point of view, as he sees it.

Essentially, the matter before us is a simple one, but it can be made a most difficult and an almost insoluble problem. The trouble is this, that we are arguing round what is essentially a new concept in international law, that is mandate status. It is something which was never found in the old books, and it was a new concept, and in trying to understand what this mandate status means you can embroider the subject, you can introduce almost insoluble questions. You can raise the most difficult legal phenomena. I am not going to be drawn into these discussions. I think I would be making a mistake if I got drawn into all the legal conundrums in dealing with this subject. It is too difficult, it is too intricate to be discussed in this House, and it is not necessary to do so. Besides, I have to be very careful, because this is not the end of the discussion so far as I am concerned. This question will have to be argued before other tribunals. Therefore I am going to confine myself to the factual position, to the real position as it is in fact, and not so much to the legal theories, the legal conundrums and technicalities you can weave round the subject. I am going to confine myself to the subject itself and the facts. To me it seems there are three questions we have to deal with here, and I am going to deal with them. The first question is: What was the position under the League of Nations in regard to mandate status? I am going to deal with that. The second question is: What is the new position under the charter of the United Nations Organisation? The third question is: What are the plans of the Government, what do I propose to do about the position that is before us?

In regard to the first question the facts are simple; the theories that you may weave round them are difficult, but the facts themselves are simple, and the facts are these. Germany renounced her right to her colonies in the Peace Treaty in favour of the principal Allied and Associated Powers. Some question has arisen as to why the word “renounced” was used. It was used deliberately. So far as I remember it was used because Germany had already lost her colonies; she had lost her colonies by conquest; they had gone. South-West Africa had been conquered by the forces of the Union. Other German colonies had been conquered by other forces. She had no colonies anywhere. There was no question then of cession. All she could do was to renounce any future claim or any future right to these colonies. She had lost. That is why the word “renunciation” is used in Article 119. And she made this renunciation in favour of the principal Allied and Associated Powers; there were five of them, Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan and the Associated Power who never called herself an ally, the United States. These were the five powers in whose favour this renunciation was made. The League of Nations does not come into this picture at all except as holding a power of control and supervision in respect of certain rights, but the renunciation of territory, the renunciation of sovereignty was made in favour of these five powers. What happened after that? The next stage was that these five Allied and Associated Powers distributed these colonies under mandate to other countries, and one of them was distributed to South Africa under what was called a “C” mandate, and we today hold South-West Africa under that mandate from the principal Allied and Associated Powers, not from the League of Nations but from the principal Allied and Associated Powers, under the trust that we shall observe certain conditions, that we shall make reports, and that we shall be accountable to the League of Nations or the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations, for the carrying out of these trusts That is the only point at which the League of Nations comes into this matter at all The principal transaction was between Germany, the principal Allied and Associated Powers, and the Mandatory States, and the League of Nations comes in as a party to see that certain conditions, certain trusts are observed Let us leave it at that.

The question now may arise: Is the sovereignty of these areas in the principal Allied and Associated Powers, or has the sovereignty passed to the Mandatory States? I am not going to argue this question at all. I am not going to argue this question of sovereignty at all because I do not think it is necessary for this purpose, and once I get into that argument I may get bogged. We have listened to the authorities quoted here. We know there is a considerable diversity of opinion. If I had to go to the next meeting of the United Nations Organisation and get bogged in this argument of sovereignty I do not know what will happen and what will happen to my argument, so I am leaving that alone.

Is not that a very essential point?

Let us take the “C” mandate. German South-West Africa was given to us under a “C” mandate, and that mandate said that the Union as the mandatory power had full power of administration and legislation over that territory as an integral part of the Union. That seems to me to go pretty far. I know the first formula was “as if an integral part of the Union”. But we raised at once a very strong objection to that word “if”, because it meant introducing an element of doubt into the position of the Union; and “if” was struck out, and the clause as it stands now in the Peace Treaty is we have full power of administration and legislation over South-West Africa as part of the Union. I do not want any more. [Laughter.] I do want more. We always want more.

Like Oliver Twist.

We are always like Oliver Twist wanting more. But I must say that this formula was settled after a very serious and prolonged debate. It was argued out by General Botha and myself, and the representatives of the other Dominions who got mandates. We argued it out before these five Great Powers, and when this formula was settled I was satisfied. That is the position, and do not let us boggle over theories of sovereignty and get lost in the lawyers’ world to which the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) has referred. I leave that alone. We have that power. We have exercised part of it. We have dealt with South-West Africa under our Union authorities. We have unified the public services, the railway services and the police services. In fact, we have exercised the fullest measure of power over it, and as a matter of fact we have done it and there it is. We have not annexed it. We have never found it necessary to annex because our authority was so very wide. There it is. I think that we need not discuss that position any further. Under the League of Nations, under the terms of the Peace Treaty, we have the fullest authority and we have exercised it, and whether you call it sovereignty or not it seems to be just a juggling with words, introducing lawyers’ technical language into the matter. The facts are quite clear; we had the power.

We come to the next question. What is the position under the United Nations Organisation? It is a new position. The United Nations Organisation, and the Charter as it stands now, deals with this question anew. There is no derivation of authority from the League of Nations that would have raised, and that does raise again, all sorts of legal questions. Had the League of Nations the power to give transfer of this territory? Had it the authority to transfer? The United Nations Organisation, therefore, in its conference at San Francisco side-tracked this whole question about transfer and dealt with the position anew. And what does it say? The settlement it came to is this; it is embodied in sections 79 and 80 of the Charter. In section 79 it says a mandatory can come under the Trusteeship Council, that is under the United Nations Organisation, by agreement with those concerned, which means first and foremost the mandatory power. There must be a new agreement; they did not go back to what was done at Paris in 1919. They say there must be a new agreement between the mandatory powers and the others concerned. That is the one stipulation it makes. Then it goes further and in section 80 says this, that until a new agreement is made the status quo under the old mandate shall be maintained. These are the two terms. You see therefore, Mr. Speaker, that the new position under UNO is also perfectly clear. There must be an agreement between the parties concerned, and the principal party is the holder of the mandate; and until such an agreement has been concluded the old position holds, the status quo remains.

To whom is a report to be made?

The question of to whom a report is to be made may be one of detail, because Article 80 deals with the rights of the people, the rights of the mandatories and so on.

Does that mean you are obliged to enter into an agreement?

You are a free agent. There is no compulsion.

But sub-section (2) states that nothing in paragraph 1 of the article shall be interpreted as grounds for the delay or the postponement of an agreement.

That was to prevent a situation where the mandatory says: I do not want to make an agreement at all. It is very much the position held by the hon. member for Beaufort West. He takes this position, that the League of Nations having disappeared we are now free, that we can do what we like.

Yes.

Yes; that position is in conflict with Article 80, sub-section (2).

That means you must enter into an agreement.

No, you must take steps to enter into an agreement. You must be serious about it, but there is no compulsion laid on you to accept the terms. To my mind the position is quite simple. What sub-section (2) of Article 80 was intended to prevent was that a mandatory should say: The League of Nations is dead; I am in this position, I do not want to come under UNO at all, and I do not want to come under the Trusteeship Council at all. That position is precluded. That is how I understand it.

The mandatory proceeds to say: All right, I will enter into an agreement. But he later refuses to enter into an agreement afterwards. What then?

That question is dealt with here.

Is it merely a moral obligation to take steps?

You are morally bound not to take up a recalcitrant and non-possumus attitude, and say: I am not going to make an agreement with UNO, I am not going under the Trusteeship Council. That was the object of sub-section (2) being introduced, that there might be Powers who would take up that attitude. We never took that attitude. We entered into this charter wholeheartedly. We supported the United Nations Organisation We looked upon the United Nations Organisation as a safeguard for the future peace of the world, and we are quite frank and quite clear about it. We want to come to an agreement. Of course, we are going to negotiate as free agents. We are not going to be forced into accepting an agreement of which we disapprove.

Once you enter into an agreement you have submitted to the authority of UNO.

Yes, once you have done it you submit to UNO on the terms of your agreement; it depends on the agreement.

What about Sections 75 and. 76?

What about the words “others directly concerned”?

The State most directly concerned is the mandatory State itself. There is no question about that. The question that arises is whether the principal Allied and Associated Powers are not also directly concerned, because there the question arises whether there was residuary sovereignty in the original principal Allied and Associated Powers in whose favour Germany renounced her rights. We know, for instance, the United States has always taken up the position that although they stepped out of the League, although they refused to sign the Peace Treaty, they were among the principal Allied and Associated Powers who gave away these mandates; and the United States has repeatedly taken up this position, has officially taken it up, that they consider themselves as having some locus standi in regard to those territories.

Would you mind replying to this question? In case we should enter into an agreement, can we contract ourselves out of the basic objectives laid down in Article 75?

Article 75 lays down the general objectives of the trusteeship system. It does not settle what are to be the clauses of any particular trustee agreement that has to be made. It simply lays down, just as the first chapter does— it is called Purposes and Principles—the general objectives, the general outlook, the ideals towards which this organisation will work; but they are not matters of contractual obligation. When you come to matters of contractual obligation such as we are discussing now under a trusteeship agreement, there is much wider scope for particular provisions. To my mind, although questions can be raised about details, there is quite a clear position under the new UNO system. It is not a derivation from the old League system; it is something new laid down in particular clauses.

The third question I want to raise is this: What are the plans of the Government? The plans of the Government are as follows: At San Francisco the Union Government gave notice to the New Organisation that they were going to plead their case, and in the meantime they were reserving their case for full incorporation of the territory of South-West Africa into Union territory. That is the reservation that the hon. member for Cape Eastern refers to. Our reservation was this, that we claimed in the interests of the Union and in the interests of South-West Africa that it should be incorporated as part and parcel of Union territory and that we are going to plead that case. We were not going to act unilaterally, off our own bat, and we were going to argue the case.

What more does it involve than the powers we had under the mandate system?

Under the mandate system it was quite a question whether we could annex the territory. I am very doubtful whether under the terms of the old mandate …

We could incorporate.

The word “incorporate” is a vague term. The hon. member has used the word “annexation.” I am doubtful whether in terms of the mandate we had from the principal Allied and Associated Powers we could annex the country because annexation would mean at once that there would be no necessity to report in future.

I agree. But what is the position today?

He has held that we have had sovereignty in the sense that we could annex the territory and the mandate, but I am doubtful about it because I think the chances are the other way. But now under the new system we have reserved our right to plead before UNO for full incorporation and annexation. That is the whole point. So that if this plea succeeds, then in future we shall be absolved from the duty of reporting to UNO as we have been making reports to the League. That is the matter we are going to argue. We are not going to act unilaterally as if we can dispose of the matter whichever way we want to. We will argue it, and I hope we shall be able to make out a very strong case indeed for complete annexation.

And if your case is not accepted?

I will come to that. I think that we have the strongest case for it. If ever there were a territory which was part of the Union from every point of view, it is South-West. It is not a distant island or some outlying portion over which we want to exercise authority. The Orange River does not divide it from the Union. The territory is united, and it was only the neglect of the old Cape Government which left the door open for the Germans to step in at Walvis Bay. It was really the territory of the old Cape. Both historically and from the point of view of the defence of South-West Africa, it is an integral portion of South Africa. We have twice had to fight wars for South-West, and although there was a dispute in the House over the rights and wrongs, there is no doubt that we were in grave danger in both cases, because we had no real authority in South-West. From the defence point of view it is part and parcel of our whole system here, and from the administrative point of view there is no question about it at all. Administratively it is already a part of the Union. We have such a strong case that I am prepared to plead it to the best of my ability, and I hope to succeed. If I do not succeed I shall fall back on the status quo. The status quo is here, and unless a reasonable agreement can be come to, unless the conference recognises that it is essential to the Union to incorporate this territory, I will think that they are acting unreasonably and I will say that I stick to the status quo; I do not want to flout them, and I am prepared to make an agreement, but in that agreement I want to stick to the status quo and continue as before to make my reports, in the same way as I used to make them. I will stick to the position as laid down in article 80. If my friends in UNO agree that the Union has an exceptional case, a case quite unlike that of any other mandated territory, then we can come to an agreement. Even then one may be prepared to render reports. The British Government has informed UNO that they are prepared in respect of their Crown Colonies, to render reports as to what they are doing to develop the territories, even though they do not come under UNO or the trusteeship system and I am prepared in the interests of this country, if I can carry the incorporation of South-West, to tell UNO that I will give them all the information as we gave it to the League, about the progress of the territory, and the steps taken for improvement. But it will not be a matter of contractual obligation; it will be a matter which we freely undertake to do as our contribution to the new system. That is the position. There are two alternatives. Either UNO may agree to our annexation of the territory as an essential part of the Union with full freedom on our part to govern it as part of the Union in which case I may be prepared to give them reports …

Why give them reports? It detracts from our sovereignty.

They may not accede to my proposition at all. I wish my horn friend had been at UNO, at thé first meeting in London, and had been in the shoes of our High Commissioner there. No, it will be a difficult and tough business, a rough fight. I am very anxious indeed to have complete incorporation and annexation of this territory.

What obligations will you accept, apart from reporting, if they are not satisfied?

I am only bound to stick to the status quo in the absence of our coming to an agreement.

A status quo minus the old League?

Yes, we had an obligation under the League to render reports, and if no agreement can be come to, then under Article 80 it is our obligation to continue to render reports.

Does not your reference to a status quo rather suggest that the League still exists? Do you mean a status quo without a League?

Yes.

Will you give the people there an opportunity of expressing their views without the status quo?

I have been sketching the ideas of the Government and of myself personally in regard to this matter, but the final decision will lie with this House. Any agreement come to will be laid before this House for ratification. It is not the sort of agreement which can simply be made behind the back of Parliament and of the country. Any agreement made with UNO one way or the other, will have to be ratified by this House.

Is it not then too late?

No, I hope not. I think that should be done. I do not like the proposal of the hon. member for Beaufort West that a resolution should be passed by this House which binds us down to any definite purpose. Some of the terms which he has introduced into his motion are of such a character that I think they will be negatived there. If you discuss the question of sovereignty you are at once in deep water, and I want to by-pass and side-track the question of sovereignty altogether. I do not think it is in the interests of the country to pass a resolution in advance. I am stating to the House what the intentions of the Government are, and the line we propose to take in dealing with this very difficult and important question. I am further giving the undertaking that if an agreement, is come to, that agreement will come to this House for ratification.

Will you consult the electors of South-West Africa?

I will come to that. I think in any case, whether we come to a new agreement, or continue under what I may call the status quo, the League system, it will be necessary for us to give representation to the people of South-West Africa here in this House. To my mind you cannot run that territory as part of our system without giving them representation in the proper place, and whatever result is arrived at, whether it is annexation or a continuance of the status quo, I think we shall have to do that. There is no question about our right to do so. In fact, we could have done so before. We have not done so because we had so many other problems and this matter stood over. But great progress has been made. The German population there who were relentlessly opposed to incorporation in the Union and identification with this country, have either disappeared or waived their claims. We have a unanimous resolution of the legislative assembly there for incorporation in the Union. The position has changed completely, and I think it is such that whatever course is adopted, we shall have to give representation to these people and they will be consulted. But the final authority will lie with this House. Parliament will make the final decision, but the people there will be consulted. And consultations have already commenced. We discussed matters quite amicably, and with a great deal of harmony. Other steps of progress lie before us in any case.

Can we take it that the use of the term “continuance of the status quo” is equivalent in your mind with annexation?

No, it is a continuance of the present regime, of our full government and administrative and legislative power plus the obligation to render annual reports.

To whom?

To UNO. UNO is the only authority to which reports can be made.

Does that mean that as under the old mandatory system the people of the territory can send petitions to UNO? In other words, can the natives there send petitions to UNO?

Yes.

Are you agreeable to that?

Yes, I am because the word “peoples” is specially mentioned.

Then you are willing to submit to petitions being sent to UNO by the natives of South-West Africa?

Yes, in this sense that we make the reports which were customarily put before the League of Nations to UNO.

And what about Article 87 (c) which provides for—

Does it mean that UNO can send out people to inspect the territory?

That is not the status quo That breaks new ground. So far I have referred to the territory generally and to the legislative position. I just want to refer also to the native aspect of this question, which is very important. There is no doubt that the interests of the natives of this territory rank very high with the other members. The concern of UNO is not so much with the settlers, with the new European population of that area They are mostly concerned with the native inhabitants. They talk about “inhabitants of the country”, which really means the native inhabitants. There is no doubt that we have a fair case, although I do not say that our record is quite clean. Things have happened as quoted by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick), but there is no question about it that on the whole our policy in South-West was a very great advance on the policy which was pursued before and that it has been immeasurably more in the native interests. There has been development in education, in social matters, in justice and in all the fundamental human rights, and I think we shall be able to make out a very strong case before UNO in that respect. In the northern territories, Ovamboland, etc., we have really native self-government. Under the direction of the local magistrate, the chiefs through their councils govern their people, and there is the same system which is in vogue in the most advanced parts of the country. The Rhehoboth Bastards have unanimously petitioned in favour of their being incorporated, provided that the council system which we gave them shall be continued. We are only too glad to continue with the council system. Under the chairmanship of the magistrate of Rhehoboth there is a council of these people, just as you have the Transkeian Council, and they have the fullest right to develop along their own lines, whilst all the time education and other improvements are pushed forward as fast as our means allow us to do. I think we have a good case to make out, and the position is such that we may look forward to conspicuous improvement in future in that territory if it becomes part of the Union. I think we have a fair case. Although the Bondelswart business was not one of which we need be specially proud, on the whole we can make out a good case to prove that the relations between the European population of the territory and the native population have been very good. In fact, we have conversations taking place with the native tribes there now, and I am told that the great bulk of them whose memories go back for generations are only too anxious to come into the Union. That probably applies to the majority of the natives there. The hon. member for Pinetown has raised the question of whether we are going to consult with our friends in the Dominions; but, of course, this matter is bound to be discussed. I would like to have the support, if possible, of my friends in UNO, the support of the British Government and of the other Dominions, in our deliberations. The hon. member may be sure that we are going to discuss this whole question and our future plans most fully before any action is taken. That is our system. Things that concern us in common, such as mandates, which do not merely apply in our case, but also apply to other mandates like New Guinea and Samoa, are discussed amongst us, and that will be done most fully in this ease also.

Are you going to consult Rhodesia?

I am always consulting Rhodesia. We are bedfellows. I do not know what the hon. member means exactly and how far his ideas on consultation go, but we keep in close touch on all matters which are of common concern to all of us. There is a spirit of friendship and of common consultation and of comradeship growing up in Southern Africa which is one of the most hopeful signs for our future development. I think I have covered the ground fully; I have sidetracked the knotty problems which lawyers must deal with. I have dealt with the facts, and I think the House is now fully in possession of the views and plans of the Government.

I agree with the Prime Minister that the discussion of this important and involved matter was very interesting. I also listened with great interest to all the speeches, and also to the Prime Minister, who has just spoken. Let me now say in connection with the matter of the incorporation of South-West Africa that as far as the aim for which we strive is concerned it is very gratifying that with few exceptions in this House, and more especially with reference to the Native Representatives, there is no difference of opinion. That fact overshadows the involved legal questions raised in connection with this matter and the difficulties which have to be surmounted in connection with international organisations. The important fact which emerges is that this Parliament, the European population of the Union and the population of South-West are ad idem in connection with this matter. I think that is a matter which should be stressed, and I think that this discussion in the House in connection with the matter, in connection with this motion which was proposed here, has the advantage that the unanimity of South Africa has been brought to the notice of the nations of the world. I think that that is the most prominent advantage emanating from this discussion. But the major portion of the discussion, both by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) in stating the case, and his seconder, and also to some extent today, turned on the question of the Union’s right to annex South-West Africa. The Prime Minister evades that question. He is afraid of those people of his own profession, which he formerly exercised, namely, the lawyers. Those people get involved in all sorts of difficult questions and become confused, and he does not want to venture into the legal sphere. I do not want to expand on that, I am not a lawyer, and therefore I cannot be blamed. But in any case I do not think it is correct of the Prime Minister to evade the legal aspect of the matter in this way. To a large extent it is a legal question, and as we all know, it contains difficult points. But it is a matter which affects our right of acting one way or the other. The Prime Minister seems to think that if he attended the UNO gathering when that takes place later in the year, inter alia to discuss this matter there, he will be in a stronger position if he leaves this legal aspect of the matter completely alone, and if he only confines himself to the merits of the case, the desirability of our incorporation of South-West Africa or not. If he himself is in doubt as to whether we have-the right to do it or not, I think he will be in a much weaker position than he otherwise would be. Why not discuss the matter on its merits from the point of view of the desirability of it, but at the same time—it does not conflict with it— insist that it is the definite opinion of the Union based on legal advice it has received from the best legal advisers in South Africa, that we have the right to do so. I do not think he will be in a weaker position if he does that, but a stronger, and by doing so he need not necessarily step on the toes of other nations or of UNO in adopting that point of view. I therefore think that when the Prime Minister tells us how he is going to handle the matter overseas, that shows a definite weakness. He should consult the best legal brains he can find in South Africa, and if that advice is to the effect that we have the right to incorporate, let him then stand by that right and express no doubt and least of all abandon that right directly or indirectly. It is of the greatest importance that we should state our case as strongly as possible also in that respect, because the danger we are in if UNO were to put its finger into the pie is very great. We have already heard an inkling today which points in that direction. If the United Nations Organisation puts its nose into this question, whether ab initio, or whether the status quo remains, but in any case as the Prime Minister stated, if we are forced to report to the new United Nations Organisation as we did in the case of the old League of Nations, it would undoubtedly create a great danger. This UNO, the guardian which will be brought into existence and to whom that report will have to be delivered, is quite different from the old League of Nations. The old League of Nations included only a certain circle of nations. That circle of nations included in it nations which were more or less all sympathetic towards South Africa. They trusted us, and it was a comparatively easy matter to lay a report before that Commission of the League of Nations in that period. They put a few questions and were satisfied, and that was the end of the matter. But if you have a trusteeship council in which, for instance, Russia with its views on the coloured question has a seat—and already you find a verdict given about our colour policy in South Africa as you have already found it in “Pravda” which condemned it from first to last — and if they are going to adopt that point of view with regard to South-West Africa and UNO has any say in the matter and you then want to act in the way you said you would act, namely to give South-West Africa representation in the Assembly and in the Senate, the question will at once be put as to who the voters are. Are the voters the Europeans in that area just as the voters in the Transvaal, Natal and the Free State are Europeans; what about the rights of the natives and other coloureds in South-West? And they will simply insist that those rights or supposed rights shall be recognised and put into practice. The Trusteeship Council of UNO is a different and a more dangerous body to us than the old League of Nations was, and therefore if it is possible to insist on our legal right to annexation, as the matter stands today, and we can by that means eliminate as far as possible UNO’s dealing with the matter, that is much better and much safer for us. Just a word about the amendment put by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) and the reply given by the Prime Minister to him. The hon. member for Pinetown wants that the Imperial Conference, I take it, should be consulted in this matter. It all depends on how far such an Imperial Conference will be recognised or consulted in the matter. To do so on the basis that it is in the interests of England and of the other Dominions, just as it is in our interests, I think, is wrong. What would be the good of it then that we were given the right under Mandate “C” to administer South-West Africa as an integral part of the Union? Except for the old condition that we have to report on our actions to the League of Nations, we can administer South-West Africa as portion of the Union just as we can administer Natal.

Certainly.

But if the question arises whether Natal will remain a province, or whether you will abolish the provincial system in Natal, one does not consult the Imperial Conference about it. That is not their business. It is a different matter if the Prime Minister were to say there: “We regard it as our right to incorporate the territory and we want to plead it before UNO and are you not prepared to support us? You are also members of UNO”. And if you Want to do that with other nations also, with Holland, Belgium and so many others who can understand our position here in South Africa, if you would consult them all and get them to co-operate, we shall all be glad, but do not allow any mention to be made here, as the hon. member for Pinetown stated, of a constitutional convention which is binding upon you. In regard to what was said by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) I just want to say that I am glad of the reply given to her by the Prime Minister. The attitude adopted by her is that the League of Nations is really the principal; we are the agent of the old League of Nations in applying the mandate to South-West Africa. But that is not true. The principal is the Allied Nations who took part in the war and the League of Nations was the agent. That agent has now disappeared. That creates the difficulty and uncertainty which exists at present, but the League of Nations was never entitled to withdraw that mandate which was given to us, and rightly given to us by the Allied Nations in the Treaty of Versailles; they were never entitled to withdraw that mandate or to give it to any other country. They were not able to do so. I think the explanation given by the Prime Minister in this connection was quite correct. The question at issue is that of incorporation and how far we can go in that direction. We think that we have the right to annex. If we do not have the right to incorporate and should go to the limits in the exercise of our right to administer South-West Africa as an integral part of the Union, the question arises as to what is the difference between the two. Then the changing over from the one to the other, the changing over to incorporation, is practically just a bare formality, and I should say that in any case the Prime Minister should exercise the rights we have at present. He says he is going to do so in any case, whatever UNO might decide, but I do not know whether it will not be better just simply to proceed with it and to ask, seeing that this is the case, and that practically there is already incorporation, for what reason UNO or any other foreign power should now insist—they cannot deny that we in fact have the power to do so—that we may not annex. Mandate “C” is quite different from the other mandates. This is the only case falling in that category. About the merits of the case, we all agree unanimously, as to the desirability of incorporation, so that it is not necessary to devote much attention to this. I just want to say that we regard the incorporation of South-West Africa from the point of view of the Union and we can also regard it from the point of view of South-West Africa — we should really regard it from both points of view. If we incorporate South-West Africa in the Union, it is a step towards rounding off our territory, not only economically, but also territorially. As the Prime Minister indicated here, South-West Africa belongs to South Africa, it is part of South Africa, and if it is annexed, it will be a proper step towards rounding off our territory. We would certainly have been against—and I think rightly so—its being done by force, whether force applied to the inhabitants there, or international force. But if it can be done, as it now can be done, with the goodwill of the Union and with the goodwill of South-West Africa itself, I say it must be done, because the rounding-off of our territory is in itself a good thing. I want to add to this that I am of opinion that it has become high time further to round off our territory by the incorporation of the British Protectorates. It is high time, and I think we all agree, that we do not want South-West Africa under the control of a foreign Power which does not understand our problems of colour here, and which can make enormous difficulties for us by following a different policy in South-West Africa. If that is true of South-West Africa, it is also true of the British Protectorates which border on our territory and partially lie within our our boundaries. The same arguments and considerations apply there. Just let me say this: I may be wrong, but I regret that it is my impression that the point of view of the British Government during all these years with regard to the transfer of the Protectorates is based on this: they gave a solemn undertaking to the native populations in those areas that their territories would not be transferred to the Union without their consent.

They did not ask for consent, but for consultation; that is the undertaking.

I fear that that undertaking approximates very nearly to their not doing it unless the natives consent. I just want to state in this regard that when this matter was discussed in the British Parliament in 1909, there was a definite amendment both in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords that transfer would not take place unless there were prior consultation, and unless the native population consented. In the House of Commons that amendment was withdrawn after discussion, but in the House of Lords the amendment was rejected after the House had divided on the point. I now think that it would be wrong for the British Government in effect—not exactly in word but in deed—to adopt the attitude that if the natives do not consent, they cannot effect the transfer. That is just from the point of view of rounding off our territory, but as far as South-West Africa is concerned, I just want to say this: We have already progressed far on the road to unity, and now it is only the completion or consummation of if that we should have We should not forget that not only is South-West Africa territorially and economically one with the rest of South Africa, but there was a time when practically all persons in South-West Africa, whatever their origin might have been, were Union nationals. In 1923 mass naturalisation took place of the Germans then living in the territory, and the most satisfactory part of it is that those mass naturalisations were approved of by the German Government at the time. They expressed their agreement with it, and there was even an undertaking at that time that they would go so far as to advise the Germans living in South-West Africa to throw in their lot with the rest of the population of South Africa. We have progressed far on that road, and it is only a question of the completion of it. There was a period of great difficulty on this road to incorporation, quite apart from the question of the legal position. In the minds of the people of South-West Africa itself there were differences. There were three possibilities in their minds. That resulted in an intense internal struggle. The one section said: Let us remain in the present position. The other section said that they were in favour of incorporation, and the German section, after the actions of Hitler in Germany, after the possibility had dawned on them that South-West Africa might once more be returned to Germany, because a claim had been made to that effect, expected that that territory would again be handed over to their mother country, and for that reason they wanted to be nothing else but Germans. They refused to throw in their lot with the rest of the population of South Africa. If we had been in their position, we would probably have done the same thing. Therefore, one can hardly blame them for having adopted that attitude in those circumstances. But those conditions have ceased to exist, and I think that the German population in South-West Africa are more inclined, or will soon be more inclined if we treat them well, than ever before in history, now to throw in their lot with South-West Africa and the rest of the Union. Seeing that that is the position—I think it cannot bé denied; circumstances are now in favour of it—I feel that we should now act so that not only in the interests of the Union and in general in the interests of South-West Africa, we should incorporate that territory in ours, but we should also create inside that territory the greatest possible unity amongst the population. Only in that way can we make that territory strong, and make the Union strong, and for that reason I just want to ask that there should not be relentless action in South-West Africa in regard to the steps now being taken by the commission of enquiry and the decisions which may be taken to deport those people. Do not act mercilessly. Show as much consideration as possible. I say that if we were in the same position as those people we would have acted likewise. Therefore do not blame them for the fact that under those previous circumstances they felt themselves to be Germans and wanted to remain Germans. Do not act relentlessly. It will just let the others who remain in South Africa—and an important proportion of them will remain—feel hurt, but act so that they will be reconciled by humane treatment which respects their feelings, and as soon as possible their civic rights should be restored to those people. As an emergency measure, they were deprived of their civic rights. They were Union nationals. I say we should give their civic rights back to them. In that way we shall have unity and strength in South-West Africa, and we shall also strengthen and unify the population of the Union to a greater extent. I think that we—and the Prime Minister agrees with us—deplore the spirit still being exhibited in Europe after this war. I think the Prime Minister also deplores it. His previous statements indicate that he deplores it. Let us in South Africa exhibit another and a better spirit than there is amongst the nations of Europe who took up arms against each other.

I do not propose at this late hour to deal with the question as fully as I had intended, but I think there are a few points that should definitely be mentioned in connection with this discussion. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has dealt with the matter from the international point of view, without going into the legal question, because he realises that this is not the occasion and the present is not the time to go in for anything which smacks of unilateral action, whereas the amendment of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) if it were adopted by the House, would imply unilateral action and would make the position of the Prime Minister almost impossible when he goes to UNO to discuss our point of view. The hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) urged upon the Prime Minister that he should not be satisfied merely with placing before UNO the factual position, but that he should place our legal claims before UNO. I think the only legal authority who has put forward a view that we have the right to assume domininium over South-West Africa, has been the hon. member for Beaufort West, and even he, in the course of his very lengthy speech on the subject, in the preparation of which he had made a great deal of research, had to admit that whenever the question came before the Mandates Commission they avoided coming to any decision as to the international rights in connection with this matter. The Van Zyl Commission also avoided coming to any decision on that point. They dealt with the question of incorporation but they avoided giving any definite opinion on the legal position from an international point of view, as regards annexation or as regards making South-West Africa a fifth province of the Union of South Africa, and the hon. member’s main argument was based upon the judgment of the Appellate Division in the case of Rex vs. Christian, and he put before the House the suggestion that because of that judgment of Sir James Rose-Innes we had complete majestas and that we were able to do what the member for Beaufort West suggested. In that particular case the judgment of the late Sir James Rose-Innes and of the late Judge de Villiers, and of Judge Wessels, indicated quite clearly that they only dealt with the position as it affected the case of high treason that was before them. They were not discussing the question of external majestas at all. They were considering the question whether within the rights which the Union had in so far as South-West Africa was concerned, we had internal majestas to enable us to take action against a person who had committed high treason against the State, and they came to the conclusion that we had that right, that we had internal majestas and that therefore a charge for high treason lay against Christian. But the hon. member for Beaufort West seemed to try to create the impression in this House that that judgment indicated also that we had external majestas and that is not the case, and all those who were consulted in connection with the matter are clear that there is a complete absence of definite international law in connection with this matter, and that to the extent that lawyers have been discussing the matter there is a complete division of opinion in connection with the matter. And I think that the Rt. Hon. gentleman when he goes to UNO, if he were to carry out the suggestion of the hon. member for Piketberg and base his claim not only on the factual rights we have not only on our factual interests, not only on the fact that South-West Africa is virtually a part of the Union of South, but also on the legal position, then I venture to say that he would very materially weaken his case. He would probably find himself faced with a conflicting legal position and so prevent a decision in our favour being arrived at by UNO. And I take this further point in that connection: What does the hon. member for Piketberg want? He has evidently departed from the point of view expressed in the resolution of the hon. member for Beaufort West. He says that these things should be put before UNO. Well, if that is the position then he is accepting the principle of multilateral action and not unilateral action, and I think he is perfectly right that we must not even contemplate the idea of unilateral action in the matter that is before us. Then I think there is one other point that the country ought to know. The Rt. Hon. gentleman dealt with the matter in a very broad sweep from the international point of view, but there are certain impressions that are being created in the Union of South Africa and in Soúth-West Africa by the resolution and the lengthy speech of the hon. member for Beaufort West. There is an impression being created that we have full rights to act unilaterally, that we have full rights to pass a resolution virtually taking over South-West Africa, and that the Government is not prepared to do it. That will be the impression created in the country, and the position is just the reverse. It is the Government, it is the members of this side of the House who have always advocated the incorporation of South-West Africa, subject to negotiations. We have always advocated incorporation, and it is our friends opposite—and they are continually changing their stand from day to day—it is our friends opposite who in 1939 bitterly opposed it when the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, then Minister of Justice, took action in order to maintain law and order in South-West Africa. Not only did they bitterly oppose the Police Bill brought before the House, but they raised the argument that it might be implied by the action taken by the Rt. Hon. gentleman that we are pursuing a policy of annexation. Under our rights there is no question of annexation as the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister rightly said, but at that time in 1939, when this matter was being discussed, the hon. member for Piketberg made a very strong attack upon the Rt. Hon. gentleman and upon the late General Hertzog on the assumption that the Government aimed at annexation—he suggested that the late General Hertzog was trying to commit this country against any policy of neutrality. As it transpired, the late General. Hertzog stood for neutrality even when this great war started, and, therefore, it showed again that the hon. member for Piketberg and his following judged quite wrongly in connection with the matter, as they have been judging wrongly in connection with so many other matters. The hon. member for Beaufort West on that occasion, when the debate in connection with the police arrangements was before the House, very definitely opposed any action by the Government which might even imply incorporation and any action which might imply the slightest suggestion of majestas over South-West Africa, and what was the argument in those days? They argued then that they did not want to do anything which might in any way create friction with Hitler. Hitler was then on the up-surge and they wanted to co-operate with Hitler, and they said that we should not do anything which might create a feeling in Europe, and particularly in Germany, that the Union of South Africa is trying to annex South-West Africa. The whole policy at that time was a policy of appeasing Hitler and trying to co-operate with Hitler, so much so that when a deputation from South-West Africa came to the Union, the United Party saw that deputation but the Opposition refused to see the deputation. That is the position. I would quote to the hon. member for Piketberg a statement which he made then and which is applicable to an even greater extent at the present moment. The hon. member, in volume 34 of Hansard, in column 3197, speaking on that very debate, said—

That was his attitude then and his reason for objecting to the police legislation then being passed by Parliament. He said we are in such a serious position we must not do anything that might cause friction and interfere with the peace of the world. Surely if that was the position in 1939 when Hitler was in power, how much more is not that the position today, especially in view of the speech he made two days ago when he dealt with the international position? Are we entitled at present to do anything which might create the impression that we stand for unilateral action, and to create friction and probably break down the peace of the world? No, Sir, our policy, and the Prime Minister has pursued that policy right through, is to fight for co-operation, and to fight against unilateral action, and to fight for the maintenance of the peace of the world; and it would ill become us, after the part the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has played at San Francisco and elsewhere since the war, that we should do anything in the nature of unilateral action and disregard the principle of international co-operation in connection with the matter. That is the position today, and there are various other aspects in connection with the attitude of the Opposition which one should raise. But at this hour I do not think it would be right to detain the House. I was going to move that the debate be adjourned, but I understand the hon. member for Beaufort West wants to close the debate, and under those circumstances, and to give the hon. member for Beaufort West an opportunity to reply to the debate, I shall resume my seat.

I am glad of the opportunity of being able to reply briefly to the answer given by the hon. the Prime Minister to my motion. A speech was also made by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) on behalf of the Dominion Party, and on behalf of the native representatives we had a speech from the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). The speeches we had from them were what we expected from them under the circumstances, and for that reason the House will certainly not expect me to reply to their remarks. I will therefore confine myself briefly to the speech of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister’s whole speech is characterised by a few words which he used right at the beginning of his speech when he said: “I have to be very careful.” We can well understand that under the circumstances he must take heed of his words. We are dealing with an international situation, and we can understand that the Prime Minister has to be careful, just as all of us must display caution. But let me add at once that as we are dealing with such a very important matter, as the whole future of South-West Africa hangs in the balance, and as the future of South Africa is so closely connected with that of South-West Africa, I think we could have expected a little more clarity on the part of the Prime Minister than we received from him today. The Prime Minister said that he would confine himself to what he termed “the factual position” and that he would not discuss the juridical position. He said that the juridical position was difficult and he left it alone. I want to suggest that when dealing with this particular matter we cannot simply leave the juridical position alone. In this particular case it is of the greatest importance, and I am convinced that when the Prime Minister goes to London and later on to New York to discuss the matter with the UNO, he will find that the juridical aspect of the matter will most certainly be taken into consideration there. He cannot leave the juridical aspect of the matter alone. I do not intend to go into the matter again. I did so in detail when I introduced my motion. The Prime Minister, especially towards the end of his speech, confined himself to the question of what he termed the status quo. As soon as he had stated his standpoint in connection with the status quo, quite a few juridical questions arose. I submit, with all respect, that the status quo is definitely a juridical question, and that under those circumstances he cannot leave alone the juridical aspect. He said that there was a great divergence of opinion over the question of sovereignty. I reiterate that when the question of South-West Africa comes up for discussion before the UNO, the question of sovereignty will most certainly be discussed there, and the Prime Minister can therefore not merely leave alone the question of sovereignty. That it is a complicated question I will admit. If the Prime Minister will not discuss it now, it is his affair, but he cannot say that it has nothing to do with the question of South-West. And so also the question of the authority of the League of Nations. We had an interesting admission from the Prime Minister. He told us that at the time the mandate was granted—and this also relates to the question of the status quo—it was a transaction between the Allied and Associated Powers and the Mandate Holder. He said that in reality the League of Nations “did not come into the picture”. There we have a most important aspect of the matter: That admission from the Prime Minister is of itself an acknowledgment that the juridicial position cannot be left alone in connection with this matter. We had another interesting admission from him. He spoke of the difference of opinion which arose at the Peace Conference over the use of the words “if” and “as an integral part of the Union”. He said that he and his friends insisted that the word “if” should not be used, and that is why the words “as an integral part of the Union” appear in the League of Nations Agreement. I take it that when he speaks of his friends, he means the Prime Ministers of the Dominions. Furthermore, he said that the use of these words went pretty far, so much so that in his own view “annexation was unnecessary”. I have his words here—

With the support of the then Prime Ministers of the Dominions, he brought about the insertion of the words “as an integral part”, and in their opinion it was practically tantamount to annexation. You will remember than when I introduced my motion. I also made a point of the fact that in the opinion of writers on the mandate system, the use of these words—as I expressed it in English —was “tantamount to annexation”. Now we also had that acknowledgment from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister today laid emphasis on the fact that he would revert to the status quo, and thus his admission that the words “as an integral part of the Union” go so far as to be tantamount to annexation is of the utmost importance. Thereafter the Prime Minister came to an important part of his speech, namely the new position under the UNO. Once again we had a most important admission from the Prime Minister. He admitted that there was no transfer of authority from the League of Nations to UNO. It is a very interesting and important admission. That admission from the Prime Minister is virtually the basis of our motion, for our motion is based on the standpoint that the League of Nations is defunct. It no longer exists; and as the League of Nations does not possess the right, under Article 22 of the treaty, to make over or transfer its powers, South-West Africa is virtually in the position that the authority over it belongs to nobody, and that we have the right to annex South-West Africa, more so than we ever had before, as a result of the decease of the League of Nations. The Prime Minister lifted the veil somewhat over what took place in San Francisco—“UNO side-stepped the question of transfer of authority”. That is what he said. That is to say, it was not decided whether the League of Nations had the right to transfer its power to any other organisation.

Now I come to that portion of the Prime Minister’s speech where he found himself on uncertain ground. It is the question as to whether South Africa as mandate holder is obliged to enter into an agreement with the UNO or not. The Prime Minister will remember that I put a few questions to him by way of interjection. At the outset his standpoint was that we had an absolutely free hand. It was for us to say whether we wanted to enter into such an agreement with the Trusteeship Council or not. But within a few minutes he put the question as to whether South Africa was not under a moral obligation to enter into such an agreement. This is the outstanding characteristic of the Prime Minister’s speech, namely, that he adopted a certain standpoint and made definite statements, and within five minutes or two minutes or three minutes, he adopted another viewpoint on the same matter. The Prime Minister said that article 76 was not binding. I will not quarrel with the Prime Minister over what happened at San Francisco. He was there and I was not there, but I am going by the words as they appear here. It is very clear, and it seems to me that article 76 is definitely binding, for I read in that article—

And then follow the basic objectives. The Prime Minister created the impression that there were certain general principles laid down only as a general guide. But in this article the words “shall be” are used. Then follow the basic objectives, and inter alia—

Here I differ also from the hon. member for Cape Eastern. I say that those provisions are binding under the UNO Trusteeship system. They are basic objectives. The word “shall” is used. If, therefore, we should agree to South-West Africa falling under the authority of the UNO—the hon. member for Cape Eastern used the word “submission”, and that was the word which I used in my interjection to the Prime Minister when I asked whether we would then keep South-West Africa under the authority of the UNO, and he said “yes”—I say that if South-West Africa falls under the authority of the UNO, it means only one thing, namely, that those basic principles or basic objectives will then be applicable. As soon as we agree to placing South-West Africa under the authority of the Trusteeship Council, that will be the position.

Then we come to the Prime Minister’s statement as to what the Government’s policy is going to be. The Prime Minister gave to us and to the House the assurance —and I may say that it is an assurance which is appreciated—that he is going to fight to obtain control over South-West Africa for South Africa. First of all, he used the word “incorporate”, and then he said “and annexation”. I think the hon. member for Cape Eastern was alarmed when he used the words “and annexation”. That was the possibility against which her whole speech was aimed. Because it was striking to me to hear the Prime Minister use the word “annexation”, I immediately interrupted him, and I did so a few times, in order to peg him down to the use of the word “annexation”. He confirmed it time and again. Thus we on this side were very hopeful, and thought that the Prime Minister was on the right track. With him it was not a question of incorporation, but of annexation. That was our impression. Let me say in passing that we must be very clear on this point, namely that there is a great difference between incorporation and annexation. I do not think that the Prime Minister used the word “annexation” as being the equivalent of “incorporation”, for he knows better. There is a difference between the two. He himself admitted that at any time in the past we could have incorporated South-West Africa if we had wanted to On that point there is no difference of opinion. Even the hon. member for Cape Eastern admitted it. The object of my motion is that we must go further than we have had the right to do in the past—that we must go over to annexation— and the Prime Minister raised our hopes by using the word “annexation” and repeating it two or three times. He said further—I jotted down his words—

I said at the beginning of my speech that the striking characteristic of the Prime Minister’s speech was that he did not keep to his standpoint. He said one thing and within a few minutes he again said something else. He said: “There will be no need to make the usual reports”. Then I was perfectly satisfied. That was the very thing, annexation in the fullest sense of the word! He also said: “we are going to argue the right of annexation”. He did not speak of “incorporation”. “Annexation” was the word he used. There would then be no necessity for submitting reports. I was then delighted. I thought that all was well. He was going to fight for consent to annexation, and if he did not get his way, then he would simply go over to annexation. But then it seemed as though a thought struck the Prime Minister. He suddenly said: “But all the same we are prepared to make a report”. Within ten minutes he had this new idea of making a report. That is the unsatisfactory portion of the Prime Minister’s speech. I said that at the beginning I appreciated the Prime Minister’s attitude. I was glad to see him displaying a certain tendency which coincided with our attitude. But then it was disappointing to see how he adopted one standpoint, and then departed from it within a few minutes.

The standpoint of the Prime Minister was further that if he could not persuade the U.N.O. to give us a free hand, then he would keep to the status quo. He will remember that I asked by way of interjection not once, but three or four times, what he meant by the status quo? I asked: “Do you mean the status quo minus the League?” And first he said: “Yes”, and then again: “No”. It was very difficult to obtain an explicit statement from the Prime Minister of exactly what he meant by the words “status quo”. And then apparently, while he was speaking, other thoughts began to occur to him. I asked whether South Africa would still stand under the authority of the U.N.O. with relation to South-West; “whether there still will be submission to U.N.O.?” He said: “Yes”, and then all the wonderful expectations which the Prime Minister had created, that if he could not come to an agreement, he would go over to annexation, were gone with the wind. What is the status quo going to mean if it must be under the authority of the U.N.O.? He also said that the U.N.O. would then take the place of the League of Nations. Where are we then? We want to know where we will be then, and my supposition is that we are then going to be much worse off. If he places the UNO in the place of the League of Nations and he acknowledges the authority of the UNO in respect of South-West Africa, then I say with all due deference, but emphatically, that as soon as we acknowledge the authority of UNO, we are subject to the trusteeship provisions to which I referred. The Prime Minister can argue this way or that way, but as soon as he acknowledges that we are subject to the authority of the UNO in relation to South-West Africa, then we are also subject to Articles 75, 76, 79, 80, and also to parts of other articles, such as 87 and 88. The Prime Minister will remember that I made an interjection when he discussed this point. I thought that I would put him to the real test. I put the question to the Prime Minister as to whether the inhabitants of South-West Africa could then send petitions to the UNO, and he replied that they would most certainly be able to send petitions to the UNO. I must admit that I was disappointed towards the end with the Prime Minister’s attitude. If the position is that there will be a submission to the authority of the UNO, in case he does not get his way, where are we then? Then it amounts to this. Even should they say that we can incorporate South-West Africa as a fifth province, but that we must still make reports and stand under the authority of the UNO, then I say emphatically here today, and I hope the Prime Minister will remember it, that our last position is worse than the first. Then there is no improvement in the position. Then the position is weaker. It does not help the Prime Minister to tell us that he will come to Parliament for approval. We know those things. When he comes to Parliament, he will already have signed his name. He has a majority behind him and we know that the Prime Minister will push his plan through. If no election takes place, and he still has his large majority, then he will force it through. He will already have signed his name and the die will be cast. We on this side naturally hold that such agreements should be submitted to Parliament, but I say that if the Prime Minister has already signed his name then the die is cast.

Our standpoint on this side is as set out in the motion. We say that as the League of Nations no longer exists, the meeting which will be held shortly will be nothing more than a meeting of the executors of a deceased estate. According to Article 22 there is nothing in the whole Treaty of the League of Nations, even should such a decision be taken at the forthcoming meeting which permits them to make over their powers and authority to another organisation. The Prime Minister will not find it in Article 22. The UNO has therefore no say. If the Prime Minister cannot get his way to annex South-West Africa, and only goes over to incorporation, and agrees to South-West Africa standing under the authority of the UNO, and that we must make a report, then I say that we are not only where we were, but we are in a much worse position than before. It is no longer only the status quo, but it is the status quo, plus the new obligations to which I referred. In all seriousness I want to suggest that then we will not only have the status quo, but also these additional new things which are mentioned in the Charter. I wish the Prime Minister every success in his mission to endeavour to convince the people that it is in the interests of South-West Africa and of the Union to annex South-West Africa, but we say to him that if he returns and says to us that he has obtained incorporation (which he could always have had in the past 25 years), but that we are still standing under the authority of the UNO, then he has achieved nothing, and our last position will then be worse than the first.

Our motion is on the agenda. After consultation with my Leader, we decided not to put this motion to the vote. The motion is intended chiefly to clarify and set out clearly our standpoint in respect of this matter. In the future reference will be made again in this House to this motion and to this speech, if the Prime Minister returns merely with incorporation under the authority of the UNO. I say, therefore, that we will not put this motion to the vote. We admit on this side that the Prime Minister has a difficult task to perform, and we do not want to do anything to make his task more difficult. We do not want it to be said that the matter was discussed in Parliament and that there was a divergence of opinion. Under the circumstances we are satisfied that we have put our standpoint clearly, not only for the information of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, but for the information of the world and of UNO, and I venture to say that the standpoint as embodied in the motion also carries the approval of the large majority of hon. members on the other side. I think that many of them were perhaps disappointed—or no, I will not say that, for it is practically impossible to disappoint them in the Prime Minister—but many of them were nervous when the Prime Minister was speaking. I am convinced that their standpoint, in broad outline, is the same as our standpoint. They agree with us. I know that the Labour Party agrees with our standpoint. They told me so this afternoon. We wish the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister every success in the task that lies ahead of him, but we beg him not to return with a mixed status, a new status under which UNO’s Trusteeship Council will have a voice over a country which borders on ours. I therefore withdraw my proposal, not unprovisionally, but in the spirit of what I have said.

An amendment has been moved to the hon. member’s motion. Therefore, the motion can only be withdrawn with the permission of the proposer of the amendment.

With the permission of the House, I will withdraw my amendment.

With leave of the House, the motion and amendment were withdrawn.