I move as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice—

I second.

Agreed to.

When this amendment was moved I expressed doubts as to whether, by the addition of the Municipality of Parow, it did not increase the scope of the Bill and require an instruction. Since then I have had an opportunity of examining the position more closely and find that at the time the Bill was drafted Parow was a Village Management Board fully covered by the terms of sub-section (1). Since then it has become a Municipality, and it is only because of this change in its constitution that the proposed amendment has become necessary to sub-section (3). In other words, neither the number nor the area of local authorities affected by the Bill are increased and under the circumstances no instruction is necessary.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Before you put the clause may I ask whether you are still on clause 1?

Yes.

That being so I should like to ask the Minister something in regard to this clause in which, as the Minister knows, provision is being made for local authorities also to be responsible for certain expenditure ordered by the local magistrate under the original Act or by a local body. What I want to explain to the Minister is that such financial burdens being placed on local bodies press particularly heavy on the smaller local bodies on the platteland. I want to ask him whether it is not possible for something to, be done to meet their position. Such expenditure is sometimes of such a character that the local body is unable to afford it, as the Minister knows. For instance, in the event of an epidemic of some kind or other breaking out on a large scale; in such a case the local body, which is responsible for the expenditure which it has to get from the taxpayer, cannot afford it. It may be possible for the large towns and the larger Divisional Councils to bear expenditure of that sort, but I feel that provision should be made for relief to be given to the smaller Divisional Councils, especially where such Divisional Councils have not got full say in regard to such expenditure. That is the danger. The magistrate may instruct the local surgeon to go a long way out in connection with the outbreak of a disease; he has to be paid 1s. per mile, and the cost may run up to £50 or £100. In certain instances that may not be very much, but in cases where the revenue of a local body is small it is very hard. Congresses of local bodies have lodged protests against this provision of the Public Health Act under which the local bodies have to bear the expense if the local doctor has to go out of town to attend to a patient, although the local body has no say in connection with the matter at all. I want to point out that I am now referring particularly to the Cape Province, because the other provinces have no Divisional Council; in the other provinces the Provincial Councils themselves are responsible in cases of this kind. In the Cape Province, however, where we have vast areas and where expenses are high, this is a very heavy burden for the taxpayer, and I hope the Minister will do something towards providing relief for the local bodies. I do not want to say anything against the principle, but our objection is that the local bodies cannot afford this expenditure. We have repeatedly discussed the matter in this House and I hope the Minister will do something towards providing relief to those bodies.

I shall certainly bear in mind the remarks made by the hon. member in regard to future legislation, but I must point out that the matter which the hon. member has raised is not germane to clause 1 of the present Bill; it has no connection with that at all. In those circumstances I repeat that I will bear the hon. member’s remarks in mind, but the matter raised has no relation to the present Bill.

I quite realise what the hon. minister has said, but I should like to impress upon him the matter which I have brought to his notice, especially as it is a grievance that we have in the country districts.

I have already stated that I will take note of what the hon. member has to say.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I move—

The position is that these words were put in through inadvertence. The clause reads—

The words “to the board” are quite meaningless in connection with the present clause and were put in through inadvertence.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Amendments to be considered now.

Mr. SPEAKER put the amendments in clauses 1 and 3, which were agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

This Bill has been accepted by the whole House and I appeal to my hon. friend the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) to allow the third reading to be taken now. I move—

I have no desire to object to the third reading of this Bill going through now, but I want to make a point at the third reading, or rather to elaborate a little more fully at this third reading of the Bill to a point I made on the occasion of the second reading. I want to take the opportunity of this third reading debate to make that point again, because it seems to me to be a matter of real importance. But before I do so, to give it a background, I want to remind the House very briefly of the findings of the Nutrition Conference and also of the nutrition survey as far as it has gone. There was a very representative Nutrition Conference held last year. At that conference there were representatives present of every welfare body in this country. There were representatives present of the various medical associations and also the Social Welfare Department, and the findings of that Nutrition Conference were unanimous. The findings they came to were these, and these were the findings equally also, and very largely, of the nutrition survey. The results of both findings, the findings of the Nutrition Conference and of the nutrition survey were these, that so far as the Europeans were concerned, so far as the white people were concerned, they did get enough to eat. That is that the quantity of the food available as a whole was fairly satisfactory. There is enough of it to feed the stomachs of the adults and children even although the diet in the vast majority of cases is of a dull and monotonous nature. The first point then is that the quantiy has been found by the nutrition survey and the Nutrition Conference to be adequate. But, sir, it is equally clear that that diet is not adequate in quality and that it has deficiencies which produce a C3 nation. I do not propose to detain the House very long but this point from two reports of the Secretary for Public Health must be quoted. He has repeatedly emphasised the malnutrition existing in South Africa. He says—

And I particularly draw the attention of the Minister of Defence to this last quotation—

That is one remark I desire to quote. The secretary further goes on to say as regards natives—

That is the conclusion come to then — that the quantity of food is adequate but that the quality is inadequate, and it is inadequate simply because of the vitamin deficiency. That therefore is the question that this Nutrition Council, which the Minister is setting up, will have to meet, the question of how to provide against that vitamin deficiency, and how to provide adequate vitamin content in the food of the people and of the children at a price which the vast majority can pay. That is the vital question which I want to stress. In an ideal society where people would have enough money to purchase adequate foods, that would be an easy question, but in a country such as this, with its vast number of poor whites it is another story, yet that is the problem that the Nutrition Council will have to tackle. Sir, I would most earnestly draw the attention of the House to the answer to the problem supplied by the Medical School of the Witwatersrand. The Medical School has issued a memorandum on the emergency feeding of the people of South Africa, and it seems to me that the House should take note of that memorandum. This is what they say—

And the answer which the Medical Council gives is that the necessary vitamins can be manufactured and can be fed to the children and to adults too very cheaply indeed. They go on to say that most people regretably still think in terms of quantity rather than in terms of quality, and they say that on present market quotations every adult could be supplied for one year with an adequate amount of vitamin C at 7d. per month and of calcium and of vitamins A and D for 1s. 7d. I shall quote from their remarks here—

Now this memorandum is signed by half a dozen eminent doctors and the principal of the university. You have there the following names: W. H. Craib, Raymond A. Dart, T. W. B. Osborn, John Phillips, Ellen M. Radloff, H. R. Raikes, Dighton Stammers, Henry Stephen. The memorandum finishes up by stating that it is earnestly requested that in this time of emergency the Government should take steps to improve the man power of the country and safeguard the civilian population by improving the nutrition on the lines indicated in the memorandum. Now, sir, at this point let me say that the suggestion made by the Medical School is neither fanciful nor new. If members are aware of the idea of “Tabloid Feeding,” I would remind them that much research and experiment both in Europe and here have proved that this method is sound, practical and cheap. Further, the fact that the memorandum is sponsored by such eminent names and by a responsible medical school demands that it should be considered by this House and by the Minister, and should be referred to the Nutrition Council for immediate consideration, and for action along the lines indicated. Sir, it is obvious that the ideal solution to this question is to bring about an improvement in the economic conditions of the people. That is the most desirable thing, but there is no doubt also in my mind that this short cut by the pharmaceutical method should be decided on. Meanwhile, sir, I even feel that this malnutrition of children could be dealt with and largely ended in one generation if the Council would set its mind to it and spend the necessary funds. Nor is my optimism without foundation. The nutrition survey has found that approximately 40.4 per cent. of the European children examined are suffering in a greater or smaller degree from malnutrition. They are suffering, i.e., through not receiving an adequate amount of the necessary vitamins. Now from the figures given by this memorandum it seems quite clear that these children who have been examined could be given the necessary vitamins, say in the form of sweets or in the form, for instance, of fish liver oils which are greatly wasted to-day in this country or in various other ways, and if that were done it is clear also that in the course of two or three years by a systematic method of distributing the stuff through various existing agencies such as charitable organisations, welfare societies, the Public Health Department itself, these children now suffering from the lack of essential vitamins could be put on their feet, and at least a beginning made to put and end to our terrible poor white problem which in my view is largely caused by a lack of proper feeding. Sir, I cannot sufficiently stress the necessity of this pharmacological approach in the time of war and emergency. We are at war and this country needs all its citizens; it needs them fit, and it needs them now; and, sir, on behalf of those children of this country who are so badly suffering from malnutrition, I would plead with the Minister to give me some assurance that this Council which he is setting up will undertake as its first task action on the lines suggested. I am pleading with the Minister, i.e., that his Nutrition Council should take action, should do something. We have had enough of words, surveys, and investigation. This new council must try another way. We should now try this method in addition and I shall be glad if the Minister will give me some assurance that action will be taken on the lines suggested.

I have not got up to object to the third reading of this Bill, but I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to bring to the notice of the Minister of Public Health the fact that the Public Health Act is being amended from time to time, and we now have this position that part of this question falls under the Department of Public Health, part under the Provincial Councils, and a further part under the local bodies, such as Town Councils and Divisional Councils. This legislation has become so complicated, and so mixed up that it appears to me that the time has arrived for the introduction of a Bill to consolidate these laws. If a person is indigent and requires help he does not know where to turn. He is sent from the one authority to the other. The magistrate sends him to the Town Council or the Divisional Council, and between the three of them no assistance can be given to him because there is no proper definition of the word “indigency.” The result is that that individual does not get the aid which he should get. We should stop making these amendments from time to time, and a consolidating measure should be introduced to bring about a proper coordination so that every authority may know what his duties are and what he is expected to do.

Due to unforeseen circumstances I have unfortunately been unable to avail myself of an earlier opportunity to support the creation of a National Nutritional Council, for which the Bill before the House makes provision. It is yet another example of the energetic manner with which the hon. the Minister of Public Health is tackling the various problems in connection with his department. If, as I hope, this House passes this measure it will mean that the Union of South Africa will have aligned herself with a great many other countries in the world who have enacted similar legislation and who have formed similar bodies. We must realise at the very commencement that malnutrition is not a problem specifically South African. For many years now the entire world has been confronted with the peculiar paradox of overproduction on the one hand and increasing wants of the necessary foodstuffs by a large section of the population on the other hand. Millions of people in all parts of the globe are either suffering from inadequate physical development or from disease due to, malnutrition or are living in a state of subnormal health which could be so easily improved if they were able to obtain more or different food. This state of affairs is an outstanding challenge to constructive statesmanship and international co-operation. The Minister in his introductory speech emphasised the international nature of this problem and dealt with the participation of the League of Nations in its solution. The public in this country has in recent years become very concerned about this grave problem. Thus we find representations made for action to be taken by the Medical Association, the Universities of the Witwatersrand and Cape Town, the National Council of Child Welfare, the Race Relations Institute and other social welfare and public health bodies. In short the public of this country have become “nutrition-minded” — national consciousness has been awakened. The urgency of the problem in this country has been referred to, by previous speakers, and is being revealed by the statistics which are becoming available as the result of the nutritional survey which is still continuing. Its findings have been abundantly emphasised in the debate which has already taken place on this Bill. These may be summarised by stating that the general impression gained leaves no doubt that both gross undernourishment and malnutrition exist amongst many communities in this country and especially amongst the native populations. This state of affairs is confirmed by evidence from other sources. A large number of young men examined for recruiting for our active forces show evidence of under-nourishment during childhood. This manifests itself in various degrees of body deformities. The outbreaks of scurvy and pellagra in native territories are examples of gross malnutrition. Due to dietary deficiencies certain groups of the population are becoming more susceptible to attacks of certain diseases. Thus malaria has its most devastating effects upon the malnourished Europeans and Bantu natives. Leprosy, typhus and typhoid flourish where insanitation is combined with inadequate nutrition. The rapid increase of tuberculosis amongst the poorer sections of the community, white and black, is the most striking evidence of the effects of undernourishment. This physical and mental deterioration and greater susceptibility to disease consequent upon malnutrition has resulted in a rapidly increasing demand for more hospital, medical and nursing services. Add to the cost of these the potential loss due to unfit citizens and we find that the state is paying very heavily for the malnutrition which exists. We cannot as a nation stand calmly by when such a condition of affairs stares us in the face. There are primarily humanitarian reasons for our active intervention, but there are also present economic reasons. South African industries depend to a very great extent upon the easy access of plentiful native labour, but because of the state of affairs described it is found that labour must now be drawn from neighbouring territories. In view of these findings it is gratifying to note that the Government is not being soothed into inactivity by virtue of the fact that it has a national survey in operation but that it is going forward with an active policy as outlined in this Bill before the House, namely, the creation of a National Nutritional Council which will aim at the alleviation of the evils which the survey has already exposed. It is not enough, however, to establish a National Nutritutional Council without appreciating quite fully its intended functions and its possible demands. To be efficient it must be courageous. It is to be advisory, but the House must realise, and particularly hon. members who are farmers and who are to-day supporting its creation that the advice which this Council may give from time to time may be unpopular. Immediately upon its creation the National Council of Nutrition will be faced with diverse and important problems involving various departments of state. It will find itself confronted with the following questions:

1. (a) Is the bulk of our population, European and non-European, so placed economically as to be able to obtain these protective foods?
2. (b) Is our agricultural production of these protective foods sufficient to supply our national requirements?
3. (c) Do our people possess sufficient education to enable them to utilise these foods to the maximum advantage if they can procure them?

This, in turn, will compel it to consider carefully our nutritional requirements. We require in our foods various types of substances for various reasons. We require fuel food which we obtain from fats and starches. We require foods which are known as tissue builders. These we get in our meats. Finally we require foods which are referred to as protective foods. Hidden away in them are extraordinary substances minute in quantity but gigantic in effect. These are essential for the health and normal functions of our body and for its defence against infection. These protective foods consist of dairy products, eggs, meat, vegetables and fruit. It will be found that the answer to each one of these questions is in the negative. The survey is showing that vast numbers of our population are so placed economically that they cannot afford the more expensive protective foods. An agricultural survey will show that—that our farming industry, as now organised, produces an entirely inadequate amount of dairy products, eggs, vegetables and meat for ideal health to be attained by all sections of the community. For the Union’s population of 10,000,000 we require at least 10,000,000 pints of milk daily; a mere fraction of this amount is at present available. The butter available for consumption in the Union per annum is 37,000,000 lb., that is to say about one ounce per individual per week instead of two ounces per individual per day usually recommended. This means, of course, that thousands of poor children taste no butter or for that matter no dairy products from one year’s end to another. In answer to the third question we find that the preparation of food is often wasteful. Valuable vitamin and mineral containing outer leaves and rind are discarded. Overcooking with waste of fuel and destruction of vitamin C is an exceedingly common fault. Civilisation has also resulted generally in the greater “purification” of our starches so that it tends to be deprived of even the small amount of protein, vitamin and mineral it originally contained. The Council will therefore be called upon to supply recommendations for dealing with each one of these important aspects of the problem. It will have to recommend means whereby everybody should be well enough placed economically so as to enable them to buy these products. This means increasing their purchasing power. In order to increase the purchasing power of our people, the Council may be called upon to advise on a general increase in wages and, in doing so, lay itself open to the criticism with which such a recommendation may be entailed. We are told by economists that a raising of wages will result in increased cost of living and thus militate against the very object we have in mind. It is pointed out further that by such procedure our nutritional aims will not be achieved because the recipients of higher wages will not spend their increased earnings on food but on amusement. On the other hand it may have to recommend the subsidising or giving of free food and lay itself open to attack on the grounds that such a procedure undermines the independence and self-respect of the recipient. This is an argument which, of course, fails to convince the hygienists whose aim is to ensure that every child in the Union receives daily sufficient protective foods to balance a possible preponderant cereal starch diet. In order to increase the availability of the present grossly deficient protective foods, the Council may be called upon to make far-reaching and, perhaps, unpopular recommendations to our agriculturists. It may have to make recommendations with regard to farming improvements which will include amongst others:

It will have to realise that the first essential in any national food policy is to adopt our agriculture to national needs. Agriculture is a greatly assisted industry in this country and assistance from the State in the way of duties, subsidies and other relief can be reckoned in many millions. It is therefore not unreasonable that the State should direct the incidence of this assistance so as to ensure the production of the materials essential to national welfare. We find that our own agriculture does not produce nearly enough protective foods for our national needs, although our conditions of soil and climate are not adverse to their production. The lesson has been taken very seriously to heart in Great Britain where a striking change has come about. There, there has been a complete reorientation, with the result that the area originally under cereals has been enormously reduced whilst that utilised for the production of dairy products and other protective foods has been vastly increased. It is of course important to emphasise that every effort must be made to avoid getting at cross-purposes with the farmer. The latter’s job of course is not only to produce certain kinds of foods in abundance but to farm the land in such a way that his successors will be able to continue to take their full share in feeding the nation. It will have to see to it that agriculture should be given its rightful place amongst public health services, and that the agricultural policy of the future should be part and parcel of a national policy of nutrition or as it has been more than once criptly stated a marriage must be effected between agriculture and nutrition. Because of the important place therefore which agriculture has to take in our nutritional policy it is fitting that the Secretary for Agriculture should automatically be a member of the newly contemplated National Nutritional Council. In order to combat the gross ignorance at present in existence with regard to food values and food preparation, the newly constituted Council will have to embark on a wide-spread educative campaign. There obviously it will have as its guide the Department of Public Health and for that reason and many others it is essential that this Department should be the leading factor in the new organisation, and the Minister of Public Health should be Chairman of the Nutritional Council. We must remember that medical research has in recent years discovered a great new “gold reef” of knowledge with regard to protective foods. The Department of Public Health will also have to undertake the educative campaign. This it is now particularly well-fitted to do by virtue of this National Committee for Health Education which was officially inaugurated by the hon. the Minister of Public Health a short time ago. The Council will be expected also to encourage the research into the value of certain protective foods found in various plants and leaves. A great deal of valuable work in this connection has already been carried out at the South African Institute for Medical Research. There exists in this country a great number of mineral and vitamin rich indigenous and other freely growing plants. Here is obviously a field requiring exploration. Dietetic education and propaganda in the use of these very cheap food substances would go a long way towards coping with this evil. Whilst hammering out the long range policy which will take many years to achieve, the newly constituted Council will be faced with the urgency of immediate action in order to relieve immediate distress. To some extent an effort in this direction has already been made. It consists, as it does in other countries as well, of providing free or cheap milk and other foodstuffs. But this method is a negative one. It is at its best only a palliative. It benefits only a certain section of the community — school children. The Council will also have to consider the present operation of this scheme (free or cheap milk) under the Department of Agriculture, and the necessity for its transfer to the Department of Social Welfare. It is suggested also that there should be provided at the cost of the State to all school children without discrimination, a well-balanced, ample and sociable midday meal. Valuable as such a scheme would be for school children it still leaves us with a programme which will help a selected group of the total population. It will have to consider also, amongst other palliative measures, a pharmaceutical attack on malnutrition. On present market quotations every adult can be supplied for one year with an adequate amount of calcium and of Vitamins A and D for 1s. 6d. Vitamin B is supplied by yeast and wheat germ. Both articles are very cheap. Every individual can be supplied with adequate intake of Vitamin C for 7d per month. By suppling dried separated milk, which on present world quotation should be obtained at 2d. per gallon, the protein deficiency can easily be made good, It is gratifying to rote also that the Secretary for Native Affairs will be a member of the contemplated council. Such representation is more than justified by the fact that the grossest type of malnutrition is found amongst the native population. Moreover in planning the agricultural needs for the non-Europeans many other factors will have to be taken into account. In their case it is essential to recognise tribal systems of production and co-operation as well as their methods of storage and distribution; the difficulties regarding the seasonal shortage of food; the present effects of the chronic uncertainty regarding future supplies; the lack of any organised system of exchange; transport difficulties; sex and other taboos, and finally the effect upon agricultural production of the absence of a large proportion of the younger male population at the mines. A truly national effort designed to deal with this great problem of malnutrition is therefore now called for, which will aim at producing a better fit, better housed and better educated population which in turn will mean more efficient labour and therefore greater national prosperity. It is never more necessary than at the present time of emergency, for at the moment it is of the highest importance that there should be a healthy reserve of able-bodied men. Severe malnutrition, which at present prevails, will presumably be made worse by conditions of emergency. In times of national stress malnutrition is as real a danger as starvation. I wholeheartedly support the Bill introduced by the hon. the Minister of Public Health, because I consider that a national nutritional policy requires the guidance of some central authority with special responsibility in order to utilise to the best advantage the teachings of science, interpret them in the light of national conditions and suggest means for its practical application. I am more than ever convinced that the time has come for bringing together scientists, economists, agricultural experts, consumers representatives, teachers and administrators in a body such as the National Nutritional Council which the hon. the Minister intends to create.

Amongst a number of quite ordinary clauses in this Bill, one comes upon clause 7. sub-section (1), with a sense of shock. The sub-clause says—

I wish the Minister would explain that section to me. It seems to me that a subsection of that sort is quite extraordinary, because I cannot conceive that anyone who has any document or any thing which the council wants, would not produce it. It will be quite easily got at without all this suspecting. I would like the Minister to kindly explain that sub-section.

There are one or two points in this Bill that I want the Minister to take into serious consideration. First, we must realise that the object of the council must be first to see to what extent malnutrition in this country is due to faulty diet, and secondly, we must consider the means by which it can be improved. Thirdly, and this is the most important point, the council will have to see exactly what is the relationship between adequate diet and purchasing power. I do feel that with these objects the council will not only be in a position to give us ideas but will give us a factual basis, from an authoritative source, for whatever political measures may be found necessary, upon which this House can take action. I think it is recognised generally that malnutrition is definitely due to poverty, in fact 90 per cent. of malnutrition is due to poverty, and that being so, the centre of interest must pass on to economics and politics, with the result that very soon we in this House will have to decide upon one or two points. First, whether we are going to reduce the cost of protective foods, or whether we are going to increase wages and so raise the standard of living to a level at which every person may attain his fullest inherited capacity for health and physical fitness. If we do increase wages I do want to put it to the Minister that I hope the heads of departments, or the secretaries of departments, will take into consideration two principles. The first is if it is found necessary to increase wages or to reduce the cost of protective foodstuffs, the secretaries of departments on this council will be absolutely fearless in their recommendations and will not take into consideration any policy of their particular department which they happen to be representing and which policy may be in direct opposition to the policy they may have to recommend to the board. The second principle is this: it has been held in certain quarters that if we increase wages that the people who benefit from these increased wages will not spend the money in the right direction. I hope no member of the board will consider this standpoint, and what is more I hope no member of this House will share that view. I go so far as to say that I cannot believe that any noor man will neglect his own child. Does the privilege of love belong only to the rich classes? Nobody in this House has any right at this stage to say that if it is found necessary for an increase of wages that the actual monies will not be properly spent. Of course, if at a later stage wages have been increased in this country and if we find that the money is not being spent in a manner which the council think it should be spent, there and then can we decide exactly what action we can take in the matter. But for the time being it is a question of principle. The second point I want the Minister to consider is this, I hope this council will see to what extent the Foods and Drugs Act of South Africa can be enlarged. We have legislation now which ensures that drugs shall be of a certain standard, and in regard to foodstuffs, such as in the case of milk, we have legislation to ensure that no milk can be put on the market unless it comes up to a certain standard. I feel that the time has arrived when the Act should be extended so as to ensure that no manufacturer of any foodstuffs shall be allowed to put his product on the market unless it has a definite food value. I believe there are quite a number of foodstuffs on the market to-day which have no food value whatsoever. I realise that if the council look at the question from that angle, they will be up against vested interests. But I hope that the members of the council will not regard vested interests at all. I hope that the Minister will take these points into consideration and may I reiterate them. The first is that the secretaries of departments on this committee will be absolutely fearless to make recommendations irrespective of whether such recommendations are against the policy of their department, and, secondly, that the council will consider extending the Foods and Drugs Act so as to provide that no foodstuffs shall come on the market unless they have a definite food value.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

When the House adjourned last night I was engaged in explaining in connection with this Bill that I should like to have money provided for industries on the platteland as well, and I therefore asked to have a provision inserted so that co-operative societies would also fall under the definition of “companies.” I want to proceed with this point, and I want to say this, that I feel that if such a board is appointed one of its duties should be to extend industries as far as possible to the platteland. I feel that in ordinary circumstances when proper railway tariffs are laid down by the Railways, it will be cheaper to establish industries on the platteland than in the towns. I further want to say a few words in respect of the £5,000,000 which is to be placed at the disposal of the board. I believe that all of us, not only on this side of the House, but on both sides of the House, must realise that £5,000,000 is not sufficient. That amount is not payable as it is required, but when the Government renders it available, provided that the full amount shall not be paid before 1943. We now have this peculiar provision that the Government need not provide that money. The Government can provide it in the shape of Iscor shares, and can give those shares on an assessed valuation. First of all if those shares are put in, and I take it that they will be put in at an increased price, then, if a drop in Iscor shares should take place, the amount available for the board will immediately be less. What looks most strange to me, however, is that the Minister told us that the existing banks are unable, or rather prefer not to provide the money for the encouragement of industries. That being so he was compelled to come along with this scheme. But now he is going to give the shares, and on the security of those shares they will be able to get money from the banks. This would mean that the banks which have no money for industrial development will be prepared to advance money on those shares. That means that the Government is not going to give the money, the money will have to be borrowed. The result will be that the shares will be lost to the Government, and will get into the hands of the banks. Now the policy of those banks, or the business principles of those banks, whatever one may care to call them, are not determined in this country, but in the country where the management holds its seat, that is in England. Great Britain is constantly looking for markets for its products and if the directors of the banks are in England, why then should they encourage the establishment and development of industries in this country? It seems quite wrong to me that if the Government wants to get rid of Iscor shares it should do so by handing those shares to foreign banks. They should deal with this matter in a different way. At this stage I want to move that the debate be now adjourned. I move therefore—

I second.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 1st April.

The object of clause 3 is to allow that members of Parliament who accept military appointments, and who are absent from Parliament on military service, whatever it may be, shall none the less be entitled to draw their parliamentary salaries in addition to other salaries which they may receive as remuneration for their military service. This is a provision which we on this side of the House strongly objected to during the second reading, and we cannot allow the third reading to be passed without objecting to it again, and we cannot even allow this stage to pass without moving an improvement to clause 3. The reason why we want to move this improvement is because we are first of all opposed to these double salaries being paid to members of Parliament by the state. The position would be that a member of Parliament, drawing £700 per year as a member of Parliament, would be allowed to draw any further salary from the state in connection with his military appointment; a member would be allowed to draw such additional salary in addition to his salary as a member of Parliament. We ask ourselves what sort of jobs the Government contemplate providing for members of Parliament. I cannot conceive that any man, if he really wishes to risk his life for his country and for what he regards as just, would worry about a double salary, or even about a single salary.

You need not worry your head about that, because you will not go anyhow.

If he feels called upon to do his duty he will do what the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) did in his youth but what he will not do now any more, namely, place everything he has on the altar for the sake of what he regards as just and fair. I am opposed to an hon. member like the hon. member for Kimberley (District) receiving a parliamentary salary and in addition being appointed, for instance, as a recruiting officer to encourage other people to sacrifice their lives for another man’s country. I am opposed to the hon. member for Kimberley (District) drawing a double salary — one salary as member of Parliament, and another salary as assistant information officer — and then walking about Cape Town and swanking in a uniform which he used to despise at one time. I am opposed to the hon. member for Kimberley (District) being appointed as chief of the ordnance service, or as a censor official, or to one of the thousand and one posts and new positions which are always created when a war breaks out. I am opposed to that, not because the hon. member for Kimberley (District) and his friends who always have such a lot to say about war and about what is right or wrong, are so anxious to do their duty, but because they want to retain their parliamentary salary and at the same time they want to occupy cushy jobs to which no danger is attached but to which a high salary is attached. We cannot allow those people to do two jobs, because they are not competent to carry on both jobs satisfactorily. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) is not even able to do his work as a member of Parliament properly, and if he takes up another job in addition, how can we expect him to carry out his duties properly in both cases? If he wants to remain a member of Parliament let him do so, and if he wants to go and do his duty, let him do so, but he should not expect to keep his parliamentary salary and at the same time get a cushy job with a fat salary attached to it. For that reason I want to move the following amendment—

The object of this amendment is that if anyone wishes to vote in Parliament he shall not draw a double salary. He shall do one of two things. If he draws his parliamentary salary he has to do his duty here, and if he wants to take up another duty somewhere else, and neglects his duty here, he cannot expect us to pay him here.

I think it would be desirable if I replied to the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) at once, and make it quite clear that I regret that I cannot accept this amendment. I want to appeal to my hon. friends on the opposite side of the House to deal with this matter reasonably and to try, if possible, not to import any political considerations into the debate. The Bill before the House has reference to the future. It has reference not merely to the war in which South Africa finds itself engaged at the present time, but it has reference to any future troubles which may befall this country. We all hope — it may be a vain hope — that these wars which have been recurring in recent generations will cease one of these days.

Yes, as soon as you are free from Great Britain.

This Bill has relation to a state of emergency in which this country may find itself in future, apart from the present emergency. I, therefore, ask hon. members opposite to view it in that light. I ask them to view it in the light that they themselves might feel that their duty demands that they should take part in the war. Let me emphasise to my hon. friends opposite that it is not the intention of this Bill to enable us to create what are called “soft jobs” for members of Parliament. To suggest that, is an easy debating point, but it has no basis in truth, and I do not think it is worthy of this House. It is not the intention of this Bill in any case to provide for such soft jobs.

We saw it in 1914.

I can assure the hon. member that that is not the intention at all. The intention of this Bill is to enable such members of this House who may be physically fit, if the real need arises, to go on active service and do their duy. I am perfectly certain that hon. members who are fit to do their duty, will do so whether this Bill is passed or not. But this House owes a duty to its members at the present time, and, as we legislate for the future, we owe a duty to those who may become members of the House in the future. The Government has laid down, sir, the principle so far as the Public Service and the Railway Service are concerned, that those persons who go on active service, who volunteer for military service, should not suffer financially for doing so. Hon. members know the terms of the Treasury circular under which any loss of salary through military service is made good. The ideal would be to say that when a man goes on active service he should not lose through it. Take the case of members of this House.

Why do you not make it that the total salary should not be more than £700?

I will explain why we do not do that. It is quite inappropriate in a Bill of this sort to lay down any conditions in regard to military salary and emoluments. This Bill deals with the status of members of Parliament. A man is either a member of Parliament or he is not. You cannot have a hybrid member of Parliament who can talk at one time and not at another time, or who will receive salary at one time and does not receive it at another time. If the principle is that a man should not suffer from going on active service let us see how it works out in practice when applied to a member of Parliament. A member of Parliament receives his emolument of £700 a year. The hon. member for Humansdorp argues on the basis that that is the total income which that particular member obtains. Let me give a very simple example. Supposing a member of this Parliament has a private income of £800 a year, whether through business or professional practice, or through some other source of revenue, and he receives £700 a year as emoluments as a member of Parliament. His total income would be £1,500 a year. If that man volunteers and goes on active service he loses £800 a year, and if the hon. member for Humansdorp has his way he will also lose his £700 as a member of Parliament. Such a man is then reduced from an income of £1,500 by which he has been living and keeping his family, to nothing at all, apart from his military pay, which may be only £200 or £300 a year.

If you have an income of £600, say from a butcher shop, then you would lose £1,300 if you went to the front as a member of Parliament.

The Government has laid down the principle, and hon. members, I think, approve of it, in relation to the Civil Service, that where a civil servant goes on active service he should not suffer thereby. Any loss of salary or wages due to military service or to drawing a smaller military salary is made good by the Government. Hon. members opposite are now seeking to lay down the principle that a member of this House, who is young enough and sufficiently physically fit to go on active service, should make a total sacrifice.

You are paying him a double salary.

In order to go on active service such a man would lose not merely his private income, but his emoluments as a member of Parliament in addition. The hon. member opposite wishes him to lose the emoluments as a member of Parliament, and he has to live on his salary as a unit in the Defence Force. I have no doubt whatever that those who feel sufficiently strongly that they should go on active service would be prepared to make that sacrifice. I can assure hon. members opposite that the Government has not been approached in this matter to get this Bill through. Certainly, it has not been approached by any members on my side of the House. The Government is bringing it forward, because it is in duty bound to do so, and I think this House is in duty bound to pass such a Bill to secure that future members of this House, who do their duty on active service, should not be penalised for so doing.

Was that not what was said at Boksburg by the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Klopper)?

No. The difficulty is this, that if hon. members on this side of the House or hon. members on the opposite side of the House were to join up they would be in danger of forfeiting their seats because they cannot accept an office of profit under the Crown.

Such a member need not accept the profit.

That is so. He need not be paid, but there is a legal point in regard to the question.

It is that, if he does not accept remuneration, whether he still is not technically accepting an office of profit under the Crown. For that reason this Bill has become essential. I want to make this appeal to my hon. friends opposite. It is not the intention of this Bill to create soft jobs and to put people into uniform and appoint them as censors, and so on, if they happen to be members of Parliament. If they are members of Parliament their constituents, no doubt, would have something to say and criticism could be left to them. I hope that hon. members opposite will look at this matter from a broad, national standpoint, from the standpoint that they themselves might be involved in the war. Hon. members know that overseas, in France, in Great Britain, and in the other British Dominions, members of Parliament are allowed to go on active service and retain their privileges as members of Parliament. It is the right and logical thing that they should be allowed to do so. I do not suppose that a great many members of this House will be able to avail themselves of the opportunity to go on active service.

Why not?

hon. members opposite have made a great deal of capital out of this. There are a great many members on this side of the House and certain hon. members on the opposite side of the House who have had military service. I myself have not. I am one of those who have not had military service, because of my age, but there are some of us who may have to go on active service before this war ends, and who will be prepared to do our duty if the need arises. I ask hon. members not to make these cheap and unnecessary sneers against people like the hon. member for Kimberley (Mr. Steytler), whose bravery and valour are unquestioned. It is silly to do these things, and it is stupid to make remarks about the hon. member for Kimberley (District) whose record is so well known as to be a household word, not only in South Africa, but throughout the world. It is stupid to do these things. It is stupid to do these things, and you do not expect your man, who has done his duty 30 or 40 years ago, to be the first to go forward again to-day. These men have shown by their deeds that they are not afraid of danger, but there are some members in this House, some of our younger men, who have not undergone fire and who may feel it their duty to go when the need arises. I ask members to view this Bill in the spirit that we are doing this bona fide, with the sole object of doing the correct thing to this House, in the spirit of saying that this House will treat its members properly if they should feel that they have to go forward. For that reason I cannot accept the amendment.

The hon. Minister of the Interior should rot talk nonsense and be should also be a bit more careful. He made a great point just now about people being asked to make a dual sacrifice. He said that the position was that a man had an income from his business or his profession of £800 per year, on top of which he received a salary of £700 per year as a member of Parliament, which he would lose if he went to the war. It would mean that he would lose his income of £800 as well as his income of £700 per year as a member of Parliament. If that argument is an argument which counts in favour of the man being compensated because he loses his private income, then that principle should be applied to every man with a private income who goes to war; it would mean that every man would have to be compensated for the income he loses up to a maximum of £700, if that is the maximum which has to be laid down in principle.

We do it in the case of the Public Service and of Railway employees.

No, but the Minister did not refer to that, he mentioned the case of a man making £800 out of his business or profession, and he said that it would not be fair for the man to lose that amount. If that is the principle which has to be applied to members of Parliament, it would have to be applied to every individual having certain earnings from his business, or calling, who would lose that money if he went to fight. The Minister would then have to say that all those people must be compensated for their losses.

That is not the point.

If that is the ground on which the Minister bases his argument, then there is very little left of it. But look, the Minister said just now that we should try and recognise the position, and I want to try and meet him in a spirit of recognition. He tells us that he is quite unable to accept our amendment. I want to meet the Minister, not that I feel that his objections to the amendment have any force, but because he is apparently in a conciliatory frame of mind. Let us meet each other half way. We shall be satisfied then, and he will be satisfied half way. It would be better to meet each other half way than for all of us to be dissatisfied. Would he be prepared to arrange that a member of Parliament should be paid the amount of money which he would draw as a member of Parliament, and not the money which he would get for the two posts. The Minister’s argument is that people should not suffer financial losses. He says that we cannot send people to the front and then allow them to suffer financial losses by depriving them of their Parliamentary allowances. Let the man get his allowance, as a member of Parliament, for the two posts. He can then be an officer and a member of Parliament, and he will not get less than he is getting now as a member of Parliament. Is the Minister prepared to accept that?

The hon. member’s suggestion is interesting, but it is not applicable to this Bill.

It is quite applicable to this Bill, and it will also be very interesting. It is naturally not half as interesting as the Minister’s proposal to hon. members on the other side who want to go and fight. To them the proposal that they should get a double salary is very much more interesting. But the Minister’s point is that we must not allow those poor people to suffer any losses. Very well, I am prepared to meet them and not let them suffer any losses. But why should they get a double salary? Just let us meet them in so far that they will not suffer any losses, and grant them their Parliamentary allowance. That, I think, would be very reasonable. The Minister is deeply affected by his sense of justice, and I believe that he means it quite sincerely, I think he is quite in earnest about there being no question about cushy jobs, or jobs for pals. Such a thing would never happen. I know that the hon. the Minister will not do so. Never, but it is not the Minister’s department which will be distributing those jobs. He is only busy creating the opportunity for the Department of Defence to provide jobs for those people. I would not imagine for one moment that the Minister would give cushy jobs to people. He would not do it in all eternity. But other people would do it. We know the history of 1914. In those days the same thing was done. In those days, too, people put up their hands in indignation—in holy indignation—when it was said that cushy jobs would be distributed. I know of one member of Parliament who became a recruiting sergeant—no, he even became a recruiting major. In the midst of the rebellion—imagine, in the midst of the rebellion he took his life in his hands to go as close to the front as Maitland.

Church Square.

No, let us give credit where credit is due. In the midst of the rebellion he went as far as Maitland, and that sort of thing is going to happen again. They are going to appoint recruiting officers. Surely those people have to be paid. If I look at the other side of the House and I see the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) there, for instance, it is quite clear that he can hardly hold himself back in his desire to encourage other people to go to war. And he is not going to do it for nothing. He has done very little for nothing throughout the whole of his life. He is only human like all of us. It is not the Minister of the Interior who is going to appoint him, but the Minister of Defence, and he will be given a cushy job, so cushy that not only he, but many other hon. members opposite as well, will be keen on getting such a job.

Dr. Steenkamp!

Yes, he has been wounded twice. It is true that he was wounded on that side of his body where a brave man is usually not wounded, but when one is in danger one sometimes gets very hurried. That is the position which we had in 1914 and it is no use the Minister protesting now. In times of war there will always be cushy jobs and pressure will be brought to bear on the Government, political pressure, to provide cushy jobs for certain people. This Government is human, they will do exactly the same as the Government did in 1914 and they will also give way to pressure. No matter how honest and straightforward the Minister may be in his protestations, cushy jobs will be created, and we object to those people occupying those nice jobs being paid double salaries. I say again that I am prepared to meet the Minister and to say that the maximum of £700 per year will be paid for the double position. Then one will get something material on the one side, on that side, and something ideal on the other side, on this side, and if one gets materialism and idealism together, one gets something which appears to be almost impossible, a conciliation of Imperialism and idealism.

I would like to say a few words of kindness to the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) and I would suggest to him that when he wants to pick out examples of people whom he wants to accuse of looking for cushy jobs, he should begin with his own side, and he should not always look to this side of the House, and he should not always pick out the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) who, as the Minister said, has rendered greater services than any man on that side of the House, and when the hon. member wishes to nick out certain individuals who have shirked the hard work and taken up cushy jobs, even as far back as the Anglo-Boer War, let me remind him of one nr two members of his own party. I heard it stated in this House that one member of the purifieds, when the present. Prime Minister rode into the Cane Province, was found under a bed —he was hiding there for fear that he might be called upon to defend the Cane Province. He was dragged out from underneath the bed amid a tremendous clatter of crockery.

Mention his name.

No. I advise the hon. member to look up Hansard.

Now you want to pay £700 to other people who may want to get under their beds.

Let me give another instance. I have seen a photograph with another member of the purifieds, who figured largely as a member of the Town Guard during the Anglo-Boer War.

Were you not a member of the Town Guard?

No, I was out. Perhaps I was chasing the hon. member, or possibly he was an unborn babe at the time. Anyhow, that hon. member who figures as a Town Guard, did not do much for his country. I am not speaking of these hon. members who have so long sat on this side of the House—we had good fighters among them, but there are not many good fighters among the purifieds. And let me say this— where was the leader of the purifieds in those days? I hear that he wrapped himself up in the Union Jack when the Anglo-Boer War was on. He was of fighting age, but he stayed under the shadow of the Union Jack. And then hon. members jeer at men who did their part in that war, and did their part for the nation whom hon. members over there tell us that they and they only represent. I have no objection to fair criticism, but I do not think there is any necessity for hon. members over there to try and pick out men who have shown the calibre they are made of. Let the hon. member look closer at home and let him tell the House something about those instances which I have just referred to. I have only got up to put forward this point of view, and I do suggest that we should discuss this measure merely from the point of view of the Bill, and that we should not introduce personalities in the way hon. members opposite have so constantly been doing.

I think it ill becomes my hon. friend, the hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Gilson) to talk sneeringly of a man who was a “town guard” in the Second War of Independence, because if my memory serves me correctly the hon. member was one of those people who would have heartily welcomed people who had become “town guards.” No, if my hon. friend were to leave it to me and to the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) to criticise the “town guards” of those days I could understand it, but I cannot understand the hon. member doing so.

Why not?

Because the “town guard” of those davs fought for his cause. But I was surprised at the Minister having introduced such a Bill to give members of Parliament the right to go and fight and to pay them double salaries, to pay them for their services as soldiers and to pay them their remuneration as members of Parliament as well. I should have imagined that by this time the Government would have found out that they had committed a fatal error in declaring war so quickly. I imagine that by this time they must have found out that in all probability there will be no war in South Africa and when war has been on for five or ten years not a shot will have been fired in South Africa. But by that time they will discover the hopeless financial condition in which they will have plunged the country. If I had voted in favour of war on the 4th September I would have considered it my duty to go and fight voluntarily without any special remuneration. I fought in two wars, and I did not get anything for doing so. On the contrary, the Government has taken away what I had, and on top of that I was put in gaol. I did so, however, because I considered it my duty to take up arms on behalf of my country. What are we going to get now? When it comes to it we shall find that not 5 per cent. of hon. members opposite will take an active part in the war; but they will be put into uniform and they will go from platform to platform and ask their constituents to join up and go to the front.

[inaudible].

I do not want to criticise now because the hon. member did do his duty in those days, but if he attacks me I can also say things about him. I do not want to be bitter but I want to discuss this matter on its merits. I say that if this Bill is passed very few hon. members opposite will go on active service, but they will get their uniforms and they will get pay, and they will go to their constituents and encourage them to go to the war. What right have I to plunge the country into war and then not go myself to fight? What right have I to tell other people to go and fight if I do not go myself? No, I consider it should be below their dignity to introduce a Bill of this kind. Now, the Minister tells us that nobody asked him to introduce this Bill, but why then did he do so?

In 1914 a Bill of this kind was also introduced.

The only object is to get pay for hon. members over there; very few of them will go and fight, but they will become officers here for the purpose of recruiting others. I say, let them go and fight for their country, and if it should be necessary to defend our country we shall also be prepared to do our duty. I therefore want to move this amendment—

Do you not get double pay as a member of the Native Affairs Commission?

Order, order!

I am sorry that the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) is not in his seat, because he made a personal attack on me, and he stated that this Bill has been introduced — as the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) also stated — with the object of putting us into uniform, and he said we would then travel about the country for the purpose of recruiting people. I am not afraid and I do not run away like the hon. member; he is the kind who runs away.

He will return.

We on this side of the House are not cowards. Anyone holding meetings to recruit people will go as well, and I want to say that if it should be my lot to recruit fellow-Afrikaners I shall join with them and go to the front myself. I never received any pay for taking part in a war, but we have a Defence Act here and our soldiers are paid under the defence system which is in force in this country. Why should hon. members object to that?

That does not mean double pay.

I ask what they are afraid of. They are the same kind as the hon. member for Humansdorp and others. There are some good men too on that side, men like the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) and the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy), and we are prepared to raise our hats to those people, but people like the hon. member for Humansdorp will not go and fight. This side of the House will go. Even the three ladies on this side of the House will go if it should become necessary; but the day will come when the hon. member on the other side will hide underneath the benches, and we shall ask the lady members to give him one of their skirts.

Order! I do not think the hon. member should be so personal.

Yes, possibly it is a little too personal, and I withdraw what I said. But it is also personal when the hon. member comes alone here and insinuates that we want to travel about holding recruiting meetings for the purpose of making money. It is not right for the hon. member to make remarks like that. The hon. member for Vredefort has also left the House, but I want to tell him that he too, is in receipt of a double salary, one of £700 and one of £1.000. Why should he get a double salary, and why should people who are prepared to sacrifice their lives for the freedom and for the national existence of the Afrikaner people not be allowed to have a double salary? I believe that the hon. member for Humansdorp was a member of the delegation which went to India. He got his salary at that time plus £3 3s. a day.

No.

Well, then other members on that side were in that position. Why did not they object then? The whole of this business is nothing but political propaganda. The hon. member for Humansdorp talks about soft jobs, but I want to remind him that his leader stated that the propaganda indulged in by the Purifieds had only one aim, namely to get nice jobs. That is the reason for everything they do.

When did he say that?

He did not say it only once; he said it repeatedly. The Leader of the Opposition said it on more than one occasion; he said that theirs was not a fight for principles, but a fight to get jobs. But naturally, people who do the wrong things themselves are always suspicious of others, and for that reason we are not prepared to take much notice of all their talk.

I wish to second the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy). We have now been listening to an attack from the other side of the House, and the Minister comes along with a Bill, and quite right. I feel that the time may come when the country may be called upon for every able-bodied citizen to defend it.

I always expect you to be there.

The hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Gilson) stated that not one of the Purified members had ever done his duty; but I have done my duty.

I did not mean you.

The Minister is keen on defending the country and he is quite honest in his intentions with this Bill. He is a good Afrikaner, and he was born here. He is not going to fight for money; he fights for love of his country. But that being so, there is no need for this Bill. I do not want to insult anyone, and I do not want to mention any names, but we are at war, and we have to take account of the fact that we may need every man if our country should be attacked. I am not talking about members opposite who voted in favour of the war. They assumed a greater responsibility than we did, and the people are looking up to them to see that they do their duty and that every one of them who is able-bodied goes to the front.

I expect them to go, because surely they cannot start a fire and then stay behind. We heard from the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) that they are all brave and courageous people. I agree. Surely they are not going to make war and then not join up. But I imagine the time will come when this lot of cowards, the Purifieds, who have not fired a shot for their country, will do their duty, when the country has to be defended. Hon. members will find out then that this side of the House will do its duty. Not one of us will sit here when the country is in danger; not one of us who is able to defend the country will stay behind. Now let me get to the amendment. I want to put this question to the Minister. My experience in time of war has shown me that a man who fights out of love for his country is a brave soldier. There are quite a number of members in this House, like the hon. minister of Agriculture over there, who fought for love of their country — they fought for the Republics. I was only a humble musket bearer, but I did my duty, and I can show my war wounds which certain hon. members over there cannot do. Now I ask the Minister whether hon. members over there who have set an example, and who have plunged us into war, are not going to make the sacrifice now which the ordinary man in the street has made. Let us look at the World War of 1914. There are people who fought to the bitter end; they lost their positions and they are walking about the streets to-day. Those people sacrificed everything, the same as many of our people have done in the Anglo-Boer War; now the Minister comes along here with a Bill which aims at giving financial protection to members of Parliament. The Minister has not the right to do so, he has not the right to send people to the front and say: “Look, we stay behind and we want to protect ourselves financially.” Members who do that have not got the support of the people of the country. Most of the people of South Africa say that they are anxious to defend their country. But against whom have they got to defend their country? Where is the enemy? Now the Minister comes along here and he wants to give members of Parliament additional pay as well as their parliamentary salaries. When this Bill was before this House in Committee I moved an amendment which was negatived. After that I met a number of soldiers who had fought in the World War, and this is what they said: “Look here, the members of Parliament are now busy looking after themselves, and they are the people who voted us into this difficulty.” Those members who are now walking out and who are treating us with such contempt will see who the people are who will eventually Trave to defend the country. Not many of them will take up arms when the day comes. I have had a look at hon. members opposite and there are only about ten of them who are physically fit to take up arms and go into the field. They have the brain to vote us into the war, but physically they are not fit to go and fight. If one makes war one requires a man who can stand up for himself. He must be physically fit and with the exception of the Minister himself, there are only a few others among members opposite able to go into the field. During the World War I was busy in the Castle, and I had experience here as well as in the field. If we pass this Bill and vote ourselves double pay we cannot go and tell other people that they must go and fight. We do not give the right lead, but if we give the lead here by saying that every member of Parliament is willing to go and fight and is willing to sacrifice his life for his country without pay — if we do that we give the right lead, and only then are we allowed to ask other people to go and fight. If we should be attacked and our liberty is threatened, we shall defend our country like one man. But if we are going to make this sort of exemption, and if we go on to the platforms throughout the country in order to recruit people, we shall get the same sort of thing again as we had in 1914. In 1914 there was a Union Jack on every ricksha in Durban.

The hon. member must now come back to the clause.

I am dealing with the clause. The Minister is still a young man and he has not had experience of these things, and I should like to give him a little advice. In 1914 there was a Union Jack on every ricksha in Durban and people there sang “God Save the King.” It sounded very fine and it looked very nice, but did those people go and fight when the real trouble started?

That has nothing to do with the clause.

We have moved an amendment to this clause to the effect that we must go and fight for love of our country, and not for money. I support that amendment which means that we should sacrifice ourselves without pay when our country is in danger.

This clause refers to members of Parliament.

That is the difficulty, it is the members of Parliament who are responsible for our being in this difficulty, they have voted us into the war and now they want to make provision for themselves. We have to be very careful. We do not know who the enemy is with whom we shall have to deal, and if we are now taking up this attitude of wanting to look after ourselves as members of Parliament, hon. members opposite cannot expect us to look up with respect to those who have plunged us into this war. They have stated that we must be on Great Britain’s side, and that we must be loyal. But to-day things are rather different. They want to be loyal, but they want to be paid for their loyalty. That is what they want in preference to other people who want to go and fight, and that sort of thing is unfair. I may possibly not go, but there are members who are younger than I am, and if there is the slightest sign of any danger to South Africa I am quite convinced that we on this side of the House will be ready immediately to defend our country. The papers ridicule us when we say that we are prepared to shed our blood for our country. That is not the sort of thing one should make fun of when we talk about making war. With all respect for members opposite I must say that things do not look too rosy, and if many of them had realised it last year they would possibly not have decided to drag South Africa into the war.

That question has been disposed of, and the hon. member cannot discuss it again.

Yes, I realise that it has been disposed of. [Time limit.]

I am anxious to show that same spirit of fair play as mentioned by the Minister, and I want to answer his arguments against the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Humansdorp. I first of all want to ask him how he can argue that any person in receipt of a salary joining up with the military forces and losing that salary should have the difference between his pay as a soldier and his former pay made up by the State? He now interjects and tells us that he was only referring to railway officials and public servants. But that is not what he said in his speech. He definitely said that it was the Government’s policy to make up losses of salary to people who joined up.

I only referred to civil servants and to officials in the Railway service.

That is what the Minister said in an interjection and I accept his statement. It means that officials at any rate will get the same pay as they are drawing now. If they, in their capacity as soldiers, get less, the Minister will make up the difference. Why should not that also apply to members of Parliament? Why should they receive their Parliamentary salaries as well as their military pay?

Because most members of Parliament have private incomes as well as their military emoluments.

When I resume my seat just now the Minister will have the opportunity of replying. The hon. member for Humansdorp told us that during the last war soft jobs were handed out to members of Parliament. Nobody knows that better than you do, Mr. Chairman. You know that certain positions were given to people to go and recruit. You know that they induced the mothers to let their sons go on active service, while they themselves remained at home and did not go and fight. There were members of Parliament who went to the front. Now we have a bigger war and a more serious war going on to-day. This war has been going on for almost seven months, and I want to know whether any member of Parliament has joined up yet. Why have they not joined? Is this Bill the reason? I made the offer to members opposite that if they want to go and fight and are afraid of the Government being in trouble through losing their vote, I would be prepared to pair with such a member.

That is very cheap.

The hon. member must not try and run away now. We are going to test their honour and duty in practice. I make this offer to any of them. But this is not the point which they are concerned with. This motion before the House is not a temporary measure, it is not a temporary arrangement to give additional pay. It is a permanent measure as the Minister of the Interior stated, and it has no other object but to create soft jobs for pals of the Government.

It has been very interesting to listen to the hon. member for Wodehouse (Mr. Bekker) following his captain the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer). The hon. member for Humansdorp introduced the subject in this House this afternoon, in regard to this bill of “Cushy Jobs,” and he gave a due lead to the hon. member for Wodehouse. The first attack which came from the hon. the member for Humansdorp was against the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler). I was surprised. Immediately that attack came from the hon. member for Humansdorp, the hon. member for Wodehouse at once supported him in all his attacks and interjections. I was surprised to hear that attack and to note that support came from two non-combatants in South Africa. That is all they are. They are non-combatants. They always have been and always will be. Now we hear from the hon. member for Wodehouse that he is prepared to pair with any hon. member on this side of the House who is prepared to go away to the front. I suggest seriously to the hon. member for Wodehouse that instead of pairing and remaining here, if one hon. member on this side of the House joins up will not he too join up? That is a sensible sort of pairing.

If it is in the defence of South Africa, certainly.

If it is in defence of South Africa. I have tried to drill it into the heads of some hon. members, but it takes a lot of drilling to get horse-sense into their heads. I tried to tell hon. members last time that the best defence of South Africa is attack. I said we should not wait for the enemy to cross the border and then to ask them for their passports, and to say, “You cannot cross this line, it is South Africa. If you do cross this line we shall fight you.” The enemy will not come here with passports, but the hon. member for Wodehouse does not realise that. If the enemy do intend attacking us, our best plan is to go north and meet them. If there is ever going to be trouble in South Africa, then for the love of Heaven let us adopt the proper tactics and not what the hon. member for Wodehouse nor what the hon. member for Humansdorp say. They say, “Stay back here.” I suggest that we should accept what the experts say and it is what every military expert in the world says, namely, that attack is your best means of defence. However, to come back to the bill in front of us. I am pleased and I congratulate the Minister on having set a lead to the whole of our country in giving the civil servants full pay if they go and serve their King and country. I wish to offer my hearty congratulations to the Minister.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I should like to know on which clause he is speaking?

In your absence, sir, hon. members made statements which I would like to reply to and I ask for your leniency in the matter.

I would point out that the House is now in Committee and that hon. members should confine themselves to the details of the clause before the Committee.

Shall I be in order, sir, in discussing what hon. members’ pay will be? Certain suggestions have been made by hon. members and I should like to be allowed the same latitude to reply to them. I realise that possibly there is a little bit to be said in favour of some of the arguments put up by members of the Opposition. I want to suggest in all seriousness to the Minister that we should possibly adopt the scheme which was adopted in the last war by the Chamber of Mines with regard to all their employees. The Chamber of Mines offered married men who went away in 1914-18 half-pay, and they gave single men one-third of their pay, and allowed them in addition to retain all the military pay which they received. I suggest to the Minister that if possible we should make that apply so far as this House is concerned to members of this House. Unfortunately in your absence, sir, an interjection was made by the hon. member for Wodehouse when the Minister was speaking. The Minister said that he hoped one day wars would cease and that we were making provision for that. The hon. member for Wodehouse interjected and said: “When we get away from Great Britain then our wars would cease.” I take the gravest possible exception to that statement made by the hon. member for Wodehouse. To think that he used to, be a United Party man, and the United Party principles are to try and fuse the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people and to build up a united South African nation. We try and see each other’s points of view. Now, sir, the hon. member for Wodehouse has been put into his right place. He has left the United Party and joined the Opposition, and I am very happy that he has gone, and I am quite sure that nobody on this side of the House is at all sorry that he has gone. Just one final point. We are hearing a big disturbance from the opposite side of the House because members of Parliament who are joining up are going to get paid. It has run through my mind that quite recently we were debating the question of pensions for members of Parliament. I remember, looking across at the Opposition, at those members who are now holding up their hands in horror at the thought of any member of Parliament getting paid when on active service, when this pension scheme was before the House they did not hold up their hands in horror then; most of them supported it. Why did they not object in the same way then as they are doing now?

Any hon. member who listened to the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) this afternoon must have been very much surprised. What I always thought came out here this afternoon. I am more convinced than ever that I was right when I said that an English-man in this country only wants to use the “loyal Dutch” to do his dirty work, and after that he will come along and ridicule them. The hon. member for East Griqualand ridiculed an Afrikaans-speaking member who is sitting on this side of the House to-day because he assisted him in 1914. The hon. member poured contempt on this other man to-day and said: “Look at the low type of fellow you have on your side; he helped us in the war in those days.” I want to tell the “loyal Dutch” on the other side of the House that the very same sort of thing is going to happen to them. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) is sitting over there. In twenty-five years’ time the English-speaking people will also be talking about him, and will be saying that he fought for them. I really felt aggrieved at what the hon. member for East Griqualand said. I never thought that that sort of thing would come from an Englishman. I always suspected it, but I never had any evidence, and now we have the evidence. And then the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) gets up and attacks the hon. member for Wodehouse (Mr. S. Bekker). I am pleased that the hon. member for Wodehouse is on our side; he has found out that he could not remain with such a lot of fire-eaters, and that he would be more at home on this side of the House. He felt that we Afrikaners could not agree with those people over there, because hon. members on the other side of the House work in the interest of the Empire and not in the interest of South Africa. And then the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) comes here and tells us that we are “papbroeke” and that none of us will ever fight. Well, I for one refuse to fight for England. He declared war against Germany but South Africa is not in danger. Why does he reproach us, why does he call us “papbroeke” for not joining up? On the other side of the House there are hon. members who on the 4th September voted in favour of the war. Let them join up, but let them do so without pay. Let them encourage their children to go to the front, but why should they expect double pay?

That has nothing to do with the clause.

I now come to this question of pay, the question of double pay. If a member of Parliament wants to go and fight let him go voluntarily and show what he can do, but as the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has said, they will not go. They will not take up a rifle themselves or go into an aeroplane and fight in the cold, but they will go and fight on the platforms in this country. I am not too old to go on to a platform myself and work the people up.

What has that to do the clause?

They get pay as officers and that is what we object to, and we say that these people should not get any double pay. We have no objection against their going as volunteers to render service to the Empire. I support the amendment.

The hon. member for Aliwal North (Capt. G. H. F Strydom) told us that he was quite prepared to fight for nothing, but he would not fight for pay. He also said that any member on the Opposition side of the House would be prepared to do his bit for the country. I accept the hon. member’s statement as being that of a true patriot, but immediately after be had made that statement he was contradicted by the hon. member for Wodehouse (Mr. S. Bekker). In what way does the hon. member for Wodehouse want to help in this fight? He wants to pair with other members. We cannot pair when we are fighting a war against an enemy. The enemy is not going to pair, and the hon. member for Wodehouse completely contradicted what the hon. member for Aliwal North had said. It would be very nice if the enemy should be prepared to pair off with us. There would not be much of a war left. We should keep on pairing until only the majority were left, and they would not go and fight each other. There would be no war then. This offer to pair is certainly a very easy way of trying to deal with the position. It is all very easy to make an offer like that. Is that the best the hon. member can do for his country? What he says amounts to this: “You go and fight and while you are on the battlefield I shall pair with you and I shall not do my duty in Parliament.” If that is the offer of the Opposition I must say that I am very sorry for South Africa. I believe that there are hon. members opposite who want to fight loyally and strenuously for their country, but this pairing off idea is not to their credit. I should like one of the hon. members over there to tell me a little more about these cushy jobs which they have been talking about. I am under the impression that if a man goes to war he does not get such a cushy job at all. I want to express my thanks to the Minister. He stated that if public servants went to the front they would receive full pay when they were on the battlefields on behalf of South Africa. If hon. members opposite want to go, they will not be able to live on fresh air either. Let us compensate those people who want to take part in a war, and let us leave out this question of pairing. Let us leave personalities out, and let all of us see what he can do for the country irrespective of whether we sit on the Opposition side of the House, or on the Government side. Let us all go and do our duty under existing conditions. I have no great idea of these promises and offers —it is no use people saying: “If you do my duty I shall do this or that. If you stay at home, I shall also stay at home; if you go I shall pair off with you.” That is not setting a good example to the people of South Africa, but the Opposition can do a tremendous lot to restore its lost prestige as citizens of this country by setting a good example. Let them do their duty as citizens of South Africa, as loyal citizens. We are not fighting for England as hon. members are trying to make out, but we are fighting for the salvation and the welfare of South Africa in the first place, and for the maintenance of the League of Nations to which we belong, in the second place. Let us all do our duty without imposing any conditions. The opportunity will arrive very shortly, and every member of this House will then be able to show how much he is prepared to do for the independence of South Africa, and how much he is prepared to sacrifice for the salvation of South Africa.

The hon. the Minister of the Interior tried to do the impossible this afternoon. He tried to mount a high pedestal in order to defend this Bill but he did not succeed. We cannot blame him for having failed because if one looks at this measure it is quite clear that it can never be defended. Any genius one might like to bring here would find it impossible to justify a Bill of this kind by any argument whatsoever. The fact remains, as the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has clearly shown by his amendment, that there are two courses open to members opposite. They must either accept the amendment, or they must stand condemned in the eyes of the people of South Africa as having tried to benefit themselves twice over out of the Exchequer of this country. Hon. members opposite voted for this war on the 4th September, and now they are trying to cast reproaches at this side of the House in connection with what a member did forty years ago. I adhere to my argument and that is that half of the members on the other side of the House on the 4th September doubled their wealth by getting this country plunged into the war, while the other half are now trying to enrich themselves by drawing extra salaries.

The hon. member should refrain from being so personal.

I regret having to do so, but you will remember the personal insinuations that were made by the other side.

I stopped hon. members from doing so.

Then I am pleased that you did so. It is a pity that hon. members opposite went so far. The picture which I have painted, however drastic and sharp it may be, is the picture which the people of South Africa will see in considering this position. I should like to revert to the remarks made by the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) who indulged in such a tirade here. He created a certain impression on me — and what was that impression? He made me realise what an Englishman thinks of a Boer who betrays his own nation. He spoke with the greatest contempt about people who want to do a thing like that. Nor can it be otherwise, and I am sorry for my fellow Afrikaners who are allowing themselves to be used in the same way as forty years ago some of them allowed themselves to be used by leaving their own nation in the lurch. In forty years’ time they will be looked upon with contempt and they will be spoken about in the way the hon. member for Griqualand East spoke here this afternoon. That is what an Englishman thinks of people who do not stand by their own people.

They fought against Afrikaners, but we are not fighting against Afrikaners.

I wonder whether the hon. member includes the Minister of Lands. We cannot get away from the facts, and we have a repetition here of what occurred forty years ago. The Minister says: “How can we allow members of Parliament to suffer losses? How is that; seeing that they have had other incomes in addition to their salaries, how can we expect them to suffer losses if they go on active service?” That was his argument. His argument was that a member of this House with a private income of £800 and a parliamentary income of £700 should be allowed to keep it. If that is to be the principle, is the Minister going to propose in this House that any member of the public going on active service is to be compensated for the loss he suffers as a citizen of the state?

The Government has appealed to private employers to do so.

I am a farmer, and say I make £800 out of farming; assuming I feel that my patriotism, or my love of the Empire compels me to join up. My patriotism compels me; what is the Minister going to do about me then? Rather let me say that my British love compels me to join up. What is the Minister going to do for me in such a case? This is another instance where we have to realise that the farmers cannot expect anything from the Government.

If you are in Government service you get the same treatment.

Am I to take it that two sorts of measures are to be applied? One for the farmers and one for the Public Service? I am of opinion that the day a man joins up and is prepared to sacrifice his life he should be given the same treatment, whether he is a farmer or an official, or whatever he may be. We should treat everyone alike. Hon. members on the other side of the House have plunged this country into war. We tried to preserve the country from this disaster, but we did not succeed. Now they come here and want us to provide them with soft jobs. I am sorry the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) is not in the House, because he was the man who said that it was time that pensions should be paid to members of Parliament.

The hon. member is going too far. We are dealing with Clause 3.

I only wish to say that it is impossible for a member of Parliament to accept an additional position and yet to remain a member of Parliament, and in order to prove this I want to point out that a committee was appointed here which came to the conclusion that it was a full time job for a man to be a member of Parliament.

The hon. member cannot discuss that now.

I am speaking in defence of the amendment in order to prove that an hon. member has to devote all his time and energy to his work as a member of Parliament, and that he is unable to take on other work as well. It is for that reason that we say that no one can be a member of Parliament and at the same time be a recruiting officer, or take on some other post for which extra remuneration is to be paid. No, the principle is wrong; on this principle we are going to look at everything only from the point of view of £ s. d. If the country has to be defended, it has to be defended irrespective of any question of pay. What right have hon. members to create jobs and draw higher salaries? This Bill will do the Government more harm than anything else. There is one other point. I feel that a man should stick to his business; during the last rebellion we found that there were people who had accepted such posts, posts which were not in their line of business, and they were people with political prejudices, which made it most undesirable for them to occupy such positions in time of emergency. I have in mind instances of people who donned officers’ uniforms and who day and night went about surrounding houses, chased the women out, and examined the houses.

If this debate had been conducted on the amendment proposed here in the beginning of the afternoon by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) I could have understood the objections that are being made. To me it does not seem quite fair either that a man holding certain convictions and being anxious to turn those convictions into actions, should be liable to the penalty that he would have to give up the position occupied by him. In other words, such a man would have to cease being a member of Parliament if he were to give expression to his feelings. I say that I feel this is a very drastic condition, but after the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Humansdorp, and afterwards moved by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy), to the effect that any member of Parliament who regards it as his duty to take part in the war shall be allowed to retain his position as a member of Parliament, but shall not be allowed to draw an additional salary, or whose salary shall not exceed £700—I say after that amendment I am surprised that the Minister and other members on the other side of the House did not fall in with the suggestion. The calling of a member of Parliament, so it would appear to me, and that is what we would find it to be if we were to listen carefully to the prayer that is read here every day, is to look after the welfare of the country and the people. What we have to be very careful about is to prevent double expenditure being incurred, expenditure which will be even added to if clause 3 is agreed to as it stands here. For that reason it would appear to me that this amendment is a very fair one, and it should be readily accepted by the Government side of the House. I hope that here in this House, and outside in the country, we shall once and for all stop assessing a man’s courage by the question whether he has taken part in one or other war. Reproaches are continually being made that so and so has not taken part in a war, while another man is called a brave man because he has taken part in a war. Sometimes, however, the man who, acting on his convictions, takes his side with the minority, is very much more courageous than the man who takes his place with the majority against his convictions. This war, like all other wars, will plunge this country into debt which will have to be paid by the taxpayers when the war is over. We object to unnecessary double pay being given to a man who wants to join up against his own convictions. That is our great objection.

I am surprised at the arguments which I have heard members opposite use. Their main objection seems to be against a man occupying two positions. May I be allowed to ask the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) to give up his farming activities because he is a member of Parliament? If he refuses to do so, he continues to be just as inconsistent as he has always been. But I want to say a few words to the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy). I want to ask him to resign his position as a member of the Native Affairs Commission. And then I also want to turn to the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé) and I must ask him to give up his position. And may I also ask the hon. member over there on the other bench, who is busy probably trying to split up his accounts, to give up his practice?

Just wait, I shall answer you.

I feel that hon. members who have spoken in that strain do not represent the views of the people. It is a fact that the statements made by hon. members opposite are contradicted by their own positions, and I do not blame them for getting somewhat irritable. I only want to point out that the hon. member for Delarey and other hon. members who object to members having two sources of income should give up either their farming activities or their professions, failing which they have no right to raise any objections.

I cannot sit still and listen to that sort of talk, knowing all the time that this Bill, and particularly the clause which we are now discussing, has only been introduced as a refuge for a number of members on the other side of the House who are only out to help themselves. That is what this clause aims at, and we protest strongly against this Bill being passed. I lodged my protest to this Bill on the second reading, when I spoke nicely to the Government and said that this Bill was not in their interest, and when I asked them not to commit the stupidity of going to the country with a piece of legislation like this which only had the object of creating jobs for themselves. I pointed out that we had incidents during the previous war where people sat here in Cape Town drawing salaries as officers, large salaries, much larger than many of us who for years had to sit in the forests of South Africa, and then we have to listen here to this sort of talk by people who do not even belong to South Africa. To-day they want to get an opportunity again to draw salaries while they stay in Cape Town or Pretoria. That is all they want, and then they tell the country that it is in the interest of the country, for patriotic reasons, for the defence of South Africa. This Bill has no other object but to defend the bank balances of hon. members such as the hon. member who a few minutes ago spoke out of his turn. I did my share in the past but I did not do it for the British Empire, I did it only for the world, or rather in the interest of humanity. I have received my reward but I want to point out to my hon. friend what that reward was — I want to tell my hon. friend who had such a lot to say about those who sit here and are probably making out their accounts. I do not know what sacrifices that hon. member has made, but at a time when I was drawing £150 per month I gave up everything and went to do certain work out of a feeling of humanity, for which I was paid £60 per month. I did not do that only for a few months, but for a few years, and what else did I lose? The whole of my practice, all my prospects, and when I returned I came back to this country without any income, physically weakened as a result of fever, and before I had even regained my health I was notified that I had to leave the hospital. What I am saying here is an actual fact. I went voluntarily, but many people, including members of Parliament, remained behind in Cape Town, drew large salaries and did not lose their health in that war. We do not want a repetition of that sort of thing. If there should be cause for South Africa to be defended we shall defend South Africa, in spite of all this clever talk by members opposite, by which they are trying to cover their own shame when they state that we do not want to fight for our own country, and that we are traitors of our country. They have their mouths full all day long about us as traitors of our country, and why do they take up that attitude? Merely to cover their own actions and to protect themselves while they are busy passing legislation by means of their own votes to protect their own pockets. We are faced here with something that is meaner than anything we have ever known in this country — people sitting in this House trying to protect themselves and to vote themselves high salaries which they know they are not entitled to — and the public outside know it too. The soldiers also know it. The people who make the real sacrifices know it, and they put the question, why members of Parliament are trying to look after themselves in advance. Those people know which section will look after them and attend to their interests when they come back from the war. The people who are looking alter themselves to-day, and who are taking more interest in their own salaries and in their own advancement, will not have time to look after those others, because they have not even the time for them to-day. I say it is high time that this Bill, together with clause 3 and all, is withdrawn, and hon. members opposite should be so ashamed of this Bill that they should say that they will not allow the Government to proceed with it. It is a disgrace to the country and it is scandalous for members of Parliament to vote things like this in their own interest. Hon. members who sit opposite and who call us names are trying to cover their own actions by attacking us. They are trying to put up a smoke screen — well, what shall I call it?

Commercialism.

No, that is not strong enough. I am not allowed to say either that they want to cover up their unworthy motives. Anyhow they are committing an unworthy action which they are trying to cover up, and I hope they will realise that the time has come to put an end to this attempt to pass this Bill, and that they will withdraw this clause and the whole Bill.

I should like to make an appeal to my hon. friends opposite, first of all, to get back to the clause and to remember that we are trying to discuss this matter in a dispassionate atmosphere. I am sorry that my hon. friend, the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer), who, is normally so unemotional and normally so moderate should have allowed himself to be led away this afternoon. I am sorry that the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet has done that, because he has allowed himself to commit an injustice.

To whom?

Both to the hon. member for North-East Rand (Mr. Heyns) and also in regard to this House as well. We have had the opportunity this afternoon for something over two hours of thrashing out this matter, and it is quite clear that there is a difference of opinion between hon. members opposite and hon. members on this side of the House. It is, however, entirely unnecessary to import these personal motives and personal imputations into the discussion. I regret them very much and I regret them whether they come from hon. members opposite or from hon. members on my side of the House. I think we should be able to discuss such a matter in a dispassionate atmosphere, calmly and collectedly and on the merits of the case. In order to bring the Committee back to the section of the Bill under discussion I want to re-emphasise that this Bill is being introduced by the Government because the Government feels that it has a duty to the House to introduce such a Bill. It is not at the request of hon. members on this side of the House or of hon. members on the other side of the House that we are introducing this Bill. There was a similar measure passed in this House in 1914, and I think the Government is only doing its duty, and it is only doing what is right, fitting and proper when it introduces a measure the effect of which will be to enable hon. members who are fit enough to serve, to serve without losing any of their privileges as members of Parliament. That is the whole effect of this Bill. Hon. members have talked about this Bill as a Bill which introduces double salary or double emoluments to members of Parliament. That is quite wrong. This Bill does not introduce either double emoluments or double salary. This Bill merely provides that if a member of this House or of the Senate, or of a similar legislature such as the Provincial Council or the legislature in South-West Africa, goes on active service he retains his privileges as a member of Parliament. It lays down nothing whatsoever with regard to his military pay.

Will you accept the amendment of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy)?

No. The reason why I am not prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Vredefort or the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) is that it will be most inappropriate to make provision for military pay in this Bill. This Bill says that a member of Parliament retains his parliamentary privileges and emoluments. What that member of Parliament will receive if he goes on active service is another matter. That may have to be regulated later, and it may be that certain conditions of service will have to be offered to such hon. member. In 1914 the present Prime Minister went on active service. He drew no military pay, but he drew his salary as a member of the Government. There is no Act of Parliament to lay that down and it was not needed. I say in all seriousness that it would not be in conformity with the dignity of this House to lay down what a member of this House should get while on active service. I, however, appreciate the points made by hon. members opposite. I am with them entirely in this, that no member of this House should make a profit out of this war, or anyone else. But, sir, the half-a-dozen members of this House who might go on active service will make no profit. They will lose. They will have to sacrifice their private incomes and emoluments and will lose by so doing. I think it is only right, and fitting and proper, that this House, when passing such a measure, should say that if an hon. member goes on active service he will be allowed to retain all his privileges, including his emoluments as a member of Parliament. May I appeal to hon. members opposite and say that they have expressed their views very clearly, very forcibly and very vocally this afternoon, and I do feel that perhaps the time has come when we may now take a vote on this matter. I appeal to, them to do so and to let us take the vote at this stage, but if they feel that they should talk, they should drop these personalities and personal allusions both on that side of the House and on my side of the House.

The hon. the Minister Said that it was unworthy of us to make certain remarks here, and also that it would be determined later on what salary a member of Parliament would eventually get if he accepted one of these posts. Let me tell the Minister that I am opposed to this Bill on principle, because I feel that it is unworthy of our position to allow a measure like this to go through this House, and I say so for this reason. What was the motive of our entering this war? We were told here that the motive was one of honour and duty and that for the sake of our honour and duty we had to make sacrifices in this great struggle. In this Bill, however, we forget all about honour and duty, and we want to be paid compensation for carrying out our honour and duty. Now I want to ask the Minister a question. We come here as members of Parliament and we are going to grant a member of Parliament who wants to go on active service this privilege. What is the ordinary man who has really suffered in consequence of his conviction that he has to be true to his honour and duty, going to think of this, and how is he going to be influenced financially? He will say that members of Parliament can quite easily vote for a measure like this; they have the power in their own hands to safeguard their position financially, or to ensure that they are not going to lose too much. The Minister has told us that there are members of Parliament who have private incomes of £800 in addition to their parliamentary income of £700, and if they go and fight they lose their £800. What about his own colleagues of the Cape Town Bar who are going to fight because of their convictions of honour and duty? Do not they lose their income? They get nothing except the salary attached to the military post they occupy.

That also applies to the farmer.

Yes, but I am also entitled to plead on behalf of the people of the towns.

Do not get cross.

We know that the hon. member over there is the leader of the hooligans on the Rand.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I understand that the hon. member called me a hooligan.

I am saying to the Minister that we are engaged here in passing a new principle, namely that if a man goes to fight he has to be compensated for fighting. The ordinary man would say now that he should be paid compensation because care is being taken that members of Parliament shall not suffer any loss. The man who goes to fight, and who suffers loss, because he goes to fight may come back at the end of the war and say that there is an obligation on Parliament to see that he is compensated for what he has lost. I consider that that is the most dangerous angle in his argument, and I want to ask the Minister not to imagine that we are raising objections simply because we want to object, but I consider that it will constitute a blot on members of Parliament if we pass a measure like this. If I had sat on the other side of the House, and had to vote to go into the war because of my convictions, I would have got up and said to the Minister, “I want to go and fight, but I do not want the provision in regard to double pay to apply to me.” I am surprised that not one hon. member over there has got up and has said, “Please, I do not want that to apply to me.” I recollect that there were such instances in connection with pensions for members of Parliament, but we have not had one hon. member opposite taking up that attitude on this Bill.

The issue before the House is a perfectly simple one, and there is not the slightest necessity for hon. members to wax hot under the collar, or to throw invectives across the floor of the House, or to make invidious comparisons as the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) has done. The hon. member has told us that if he had voted in favour of this country going to war he himself would have been the first to have volunteered for active service. Well, the fact is that the country has decided to go to war and the country expects its citizens to support that decision, and when the occasion arises to fight for the defence or protection of this country. The time will come either in the near or the distant future when South Africa will issue an appeal to her sons to fight. So far as members of Parliament are concerned there is at present a constitutional disability which prevents any member of Parliament from giving his services in the defence of this country. If there is this constitutional disability it precludes the hon. member for Gordonia and it precludes any member of Parliament who is physically fit from rendering service in defence of this cormtry. That being so, this House is in honour bound to remove that disability. There can be no question of what the attitude will be when the time comes, not only of members on this side of the House but of members on the other side of the House. When the time comes we shall all be prepared to take up arms for the defence of this country. Judging by the heat this debate has engendered, I feel that hon. members opposite have no object except to prevent the Minister from removing the constitutional disabilities which at present prevent members of Parliament serving this country. We know that hon. members object to the war; we know that they object to anyone fighting in this war—anyone belonging to this country; they have registered their objections. This Parliament has decided against them. It follows logically that Parliament is in honour bound to implement its decision taken on the 4th September to remove such disabilities as there are in the way of anyone in South Africa serving this country. Members opposite, I take it, will not be prepared to serve South Africa in this war.

Not this war for the Empire.

The hon. member has the Empire on his mind apparently.

So have you—you have the Empire Service League on your mind.

I am satisfied that I speak as a good South African. There are thousands of good South Africans who support that party and who will be prepared at any time when South Africa calls for their services to offer their services. There can be no question, the sons of South Africa on this side, or on that side of, the House, will be there when the call comes.

What about the Sons of England?

I am proud to be a Son of England.

What about the sons of Palestine?

Let me say that the sons of South Africa whether they be members of the Sons of England or of the Broederbond or of any other organisation will, when the call comes, show that they are only too willing to serve the cause of South Africa. There is no monopoly of patriotism on the side of the English-speaking people of South Africa, nor is there any monopoly of patriotism on the side of the Afrikaans-speaking people. And if the memorials put up in memory of our dead prove anything to us, they prove that it is the sons of all sections of the community who are willing to give their lives for the service of this country. All I am asking for now is that these constitutional disabilities shall be removed, so that members of Parliament who are physically fit shall be able to render service to this country when the call comes.

We shall watch them.

We want you to watch not only us but the rest of South Africa. The hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) who has a reputation for distinguished service in South Africa has made himself responsible for espousing the cause of old service men, and he does so most sincerely. He claims that any person called upon to serve the country should be able to go back when the war is over to the position he occupied prior to his service. He holds that any person in the Government service should be given the opportunity to go and serve, and at the end of his service should be able to go back to his old occupation. His objection to this Bill will have this effect only, that if this Bill is not passed, if the occasion should arise when the services of all able-bodied men are required, members of Parliament who offer their services will automatically be debarred from holding their positions as members of Parliament. It would be a reflection on this House if it failed to remove constitutional disabilities which preclude members of Parliament from doing what South Africa expects of all its sons. [Time limit.]

Broad, strong principles force one’s respect, that is to say, if hon. members opposite feel constrained, because of their love of the British Empire, to offer their services, I have no objection and I respect them for being so brave and noble that they are driven by their broad and strong principles to go and fight. I have no objection to their doing so, but there should be no suspicion then in my mind as to the motives of this Bill. Hon. members who want to go and fight should go without any extra pay, without any double pay. This Bill to my mind is not permissible, it is a measure which is in conflict with public opinion, and we have to take account of public opinion. Public opinion resents this Bill—as surely as this House is in session to-day. I must congratulate the Minister on this tactless measure. He is busy undermining his own party. I am pleased that the country and the people will now be able to see what kind of a party and what kind of a Government we have in power here. In the long run we shall profit from this Bill. It is true that the provisions of this measure imply a loss to the country, but eventually that loss will prove a gain. The public outside despises this Bill, they ridicule it, and they will ridicule it in future. It is a scandalous blot on this House. This measure has been deliberately introduced in order to benefit certain people, certain people who pretend to be patriots; in actual fact, this measure turns them into pocket patriots, and that word shows the contempt in which people like that are held. The economic sufferings of this country, the fact that people are starving is lost sight of, but the rich man is enjoying consideration, and is being further assisted by this measure. What does this measure show? It shows very clearly that some people are pocket patriots. The public outside will realise what is at the back of this terrible measure; they will realise that its motive is to create jobs for pals. Hon. members deny that, but there is no doubt that pressure has been brought to bear on the Minister and on the Government to introduce this Bill. In 1914 jingoism had a wonderful time, and succeeded when the Opposition was very small in getting a Bill like this passed, and they thought that on this occasion they would easily succeed in getting this Bill through the House. I say that the people realise what the Government is busy trying to do, and that this Bill is nothing but personal favouritism. This is a Bill to create jobs for pals, to create pocket patriots, and a very dangerous principle is being laid down here. This is a display of weakness such as we have never yet beheld in Parliament. My hon. friend over here says that it almost amounts to bribery. I do not want to go quite as far as that, but it certainly is not very far off it. It is patriotism with a very great query mark behind it, a wonderful type of patriotism. I take it that as soon as hon. members over there get this double salary the great majority of them will join up because it will be profitable, and if they are given active service outside Maitland and they break a finger, or become invalidated in some other way, a large pension will await them, and I am afraid that that is what most of them are aiming at.

Order, order! The hon. member must please get back to the clause.

This Bill is being so urgently and eloquently defended by hon. members opposite, but when we ask for legislation to be introduced in order to render aid to the platteland which is being seriously threatened with ruin, that side of the House has nothing to say; they are deaf to our pleas and they have no sympathy for the platteland. Then they are not prepared to use their eloquence on behalf of the unemployed who are starving in South Africa.

Order, order!

On behalf of this side of the House, and on behalf of the public I wish to lodge the strongest possible protest against this contemptible, dishonest and unworthy Bill proposed by that side of the House.

I am glad to have the opportunity of saying a few words first of all to the Minister, and then to the back bencher from Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth). But before doing so I wish to make a final appeal to the Minister. It is for the sake of the good name of this House that I am making an appeal to him, not to insist on this clause, to delete it, because by this clause the good name and reputation of the House of Assembly will be undermined. If the pay of members of the House of Assembly is inadequate in the opinion of hon. members, it should be raised, but if in the opinion of members £700 is considered to be adequate it should also be adequate for the people who want to be true to their honour and duty — which they prided themselves on on the 4th September. Why should members of Parliament have preferential treatment as compared with other people taking part in this war? I again appeal to the Minister to withdraw this clause. I know that there are many hon. members on that side with whom I sat for years who are sorry that this clause is in the Bill. The Minister has admitted that nobody has asked for it— surely hon. members opposite do not want to make money, they want to be heroes who go to fight. I am making this appeal in support of the amendment of the hon. member for Swellendam. Now I come to the hon. member for Rosettenville. He said that he was very pleased that I was no longer on his side of the House. I want to say that I am very sorry that I had to leave that side of the House.

Are you unhappy where you are now?

No, but I had imagined that the six and a half years which I sacrificed, some of the best years of my life, had not been sacrificed in vain, and that I might have succeeded in making Afrikaners of a certain class of Englishman. But it was a hopeless failure. I am sorry to say it, but those six and a half years have been wasted. I thought that we should be able to coonerate with the English-speaking people for the welfare of the nation, but if we have people like the hon. member for Rosettenville to deal with then it is quite hopeless. I am very sorry that he should be a poor successor of the hon. member for Rosettenville who represented that constituency before him. When we had the late Dr. Bauman to deal with we had a man there who worthily represented Rosettenville. That is what I want to tell the hon. member. The more speeches of that kind we get from him, the less chance is there for us in South Africa to co-operate. When we hear speeches like that, they make me feel pleased that I am on this side with my own people, because they make me realise that it is a waste of time to try and build up a nation with people like the hon. member.

The Minister who is in charge of this Bill made an appeal to us asking us to be reasonable this afternoon. Now, we understood him to say that it is not members of this House who have urged him to pass this Bill, but that this Bill emanates from the Government. Well, if it emanates from the Government I feel that I may make an appeal to the Minister. We are accepting a principle here which he himself admits to be a dangerous principle It has been said repeatedly in this House but we find the great difference to be this, that the law of 1915 was a temporary measure, and now the Government of the day comes along and wants to make this Bill a permanent measure. I want to ask the Minister whether he considers it the right thing to make such a Bill permanent for the future—I want him to consider whether the principle is not a bad one. It will lead to people remaining in the military service, and henceforth members of Parliament will have the right, while they are in the service, to come here and prescribe the policy of the Defence Force. They will naturally be regarded as men who have a knowledge of these things, and they will be able to steer the policy of the Defence Force in the direction they want it to go.

Order, order! The hon. member cannot proceed with that.

What I want to say on that point is that comparisons are being made with the Native Affairs Commission. Let me say that no comparison can be made; members of Parliament are members of the Native Affairs Commission drawing big salaries as such. This cannot be used as an analogy for saying that members of Parliament should therefore also be allowed to draw salaries while doing military service. I want to point out to hon. members that the appointment of members of the Native Affairs Commission is being provided for in the constitution, and it is in accordance with the constitution that this Parliament has passed the law for the appointment of such commissioners. At the same time I want to point out that those commissioners are free and independent people. They do not fall under a Minister or under the Government of the day. They have the right to make certain proposals or recommendations, and if the Government is not prepared to accept those recommendations they still have the right to pass over the heads of the Government and to approach the Governor-General and to get their views accepted as against the wishes of the Government of the day. I only want to say this—I think it is quite wrong for those comparisons to be made. If that analogy falls away it will be admitted that we are accepting a principle here which is radically wrong. That being so, I hope hon. members will change their views; I am entitled to make an appeal to the Minister, and to ask him to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer), so that at least members of this House shall not be allowed to vote while they are on active service. Is it not the right and fair thing for the Minister to meet us in this respect? I do not want to be personal, but I want to say that I disapprove of the House including such a provision in the Bill.

I really do not think that this Bill in any way elevates the dignity of this House, and after what the hon. minister said here I feel that the Government is placing its followers in a very difficult position. The Minister told us that none of the members of this side of the House had asked for legislation of this kind to be introduced. This side of the House has certainly not asked for it, and as the other side of the House does not want it, and this side does not want it either, I want to know why the Government should come along with a Bill like this which is only wanted by the Minister himself. Why is he introducing a Bill which neither side of the House wants? I feel, however, that the Bill must have been submitted to the caucus of the party on the other side, and that members opposite must have given their consent to the introduction of this Bill. Why then does the Minister tell us that those members do not want this Bill? The members opposite declare war, and surely they want to go and fight? It is members on the other side who tell the people and the country what they are fighting for, and now they are saying that they want to be paid when they go to fight for those things which they have stated as the causes of this war. The greatest reason we can see, when we listen to the Government’s information officer, is that we have to fight for the sake of Christianity. Well, other people have fought for Christianity in the past. Luther and Calvin fought for Christianity, and I want to know whether Luther and Calvin were paid £700 per year to go and fight for Christianity? If those members say that they want to, go and fight for the Christian religion, why then should they want £700 per year in order to go and do so? Another reason why they want pay to go and fight is because they are going to fight for the rights and liberties of small nations!

The hon. member must coniine himself to the clause; he must not deal with the general problem of the declaration of war again.

Hear, hear!

I bow to your ruling. Mr. Chairman, and I know that my hon. friend over there is very gratified at the fact that you stopped me, because it was my intention to have said a few words about him. I am pleased that my hon. friend, the member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler), is here. He mentioned some reasons this afternoon why he considered this Bill should be passed, and he stated that we on this side of the House were, as always, fighting this Bill for the sake of political propaganda. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) has a history behind him. He fought in the War of 1900 and I take it that when he fought in that war he did not concern himself with financial reward, but that he was out to serve his country.

We promised them all 5s. per day.

But you never carried out that promise.

We did not do it.

That was in the Free State. You must have been greater heroes than we were.

I said that the hon. member for Kimberley (District) has a great history behind him. He fought, but let me add this: I consider that in this House there is only one person, and that is the hon. member for Kimberley (District), who exploits his history for party political propaganda,. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) goes from one platform to the other and asks his constituents to vote for him because of the fact that he fought in that war.

I must ask the hon. member to come back to the clause.

If you will allow me I want to point out that the hon. member gave reasons why he wanted to support this Bill, and I want to analyse those reasons. I want to show this House that the hon. member was not entitled to adduce those reasons, and there was another reason mentioned by him.

Yes, but the hon. member must confine himself to the clause before the House.

I contend that hon. members who are to receive this salary will not go and fight, and that for that reason they will not get the additional salary. I contend that this clause provides for their getting money which they will not earn. I contend that this will be a repetition of the old story; they will do recruiting work for which they will he paid. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) in this connection stated that he would never ask people, and be would never tell people to go and fight if he was not going to fight himself. I want to put a question to him: When in 1914 he forced his constituents on the market square and asked them to go and fight, why did he return a few weeks afterwards? He said in 1914 that the country was on fire.

Order, order! I want to point out to the hon. member that I cannot keep on asking him to confine himself to the clause.

Were you there in 1914?

The hon. member lor Kimberley (District) stated here that he himself would be in the front line if he should ever ask recruits to go and fight. I want to prove that that is not so. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I want to prove that the very same thing is going to happen now as happened in 1914 when that hon. member tried to induce people to go and fight. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) told people that the country was on fire. It makes no difference who set the country on fire, we have to go and put the fire out.

Order! If the hon. member does not get back to the clause I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Hear, hear!

I can well understand that it is a relief to that hon. member and also to the hon. member for Kimberley (District) that you have given that ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I am not allowed to reply to them. I shall submit to your ruling, otherwise I would prove that the statement made by the hon. member here this afternoon is untrue.

Order, order!

If you will allow me I want to point out that this Bill not only applies to the present war, but it is a permanent measure which will also apply to other wars. That being so. I want to say that we have had the spectacle in this House of members opposite having voted against a motion in favour of pensions for “oudstryders,” but to-day they are voting an additional salary to themselves. The hon. member for North-East Rand (Mr. Heyns) said that our attitude was unbecoming in comparison with our attitude in respect of other proposals which have come before this House. He said that we were occupying double posts as members of Parliament and as farmers, or something else. But the position is this, that when a member is a member of Parliament and at the same time a farmer, he performs his duties as a member of Parliament. He does his work. That is the case so far as I am concerned. I have abandoned my profession and I come here to do my work. This clause, however, will enable members of Parliament to draw a double salary although they will not be doing their duty. They will not be able to go and fight because the Government majority is too small to allow them to do so. They will stay here and work here, and at the same time they will be members of Parliament. They cannot do their duty at two places at the same time, and the result will be that they will not do their duty anywhere. None the less they will receive remuneration for a so-called dual position. [Time limit.]

We have been listening for a long time to the arguments raised by hon. members opposite giving reasons why this Bill should be passed. Eventually we have now got a fig leaf with which they want to cover up their nakedness, and that fig leaf is to this effect, that constitutional anomalies have to be removed so as to enable members opposite to do their duty in this war. I feel, however, after the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer), hon. members over there will be shewn up in all their nakedness, if they refuse to accept this amendment. The hon. the Minister of the Interior told us that we should not be so unfair as to expect hon. members over there to go and fight and give up their salary of £700 as members of Parliament, and in addition possibly another £800 in private income. The Minister surely could not have been serious when he said that, because just as little as a member of Parliament gives up his private income by doing his duty as a member of Parliament, just as little will he give up his private income if he goes to do his duty on active service. Under the amendment proposed, if the Minister accepts it, a member of Parliament will get his salary, but he will not get anything in excess of the £700. I say that if hon. members opposite are not prepared to accept this amendment and if the Minister refuses to accept it, they will be shewn up in all their nakedness before the people of South Africa. But what is happening in the rest of the country? While members of Parliament are trying to obtain a double salary for services which they may, or may not render — and our contention is that they will not render those services because they will be given all the cushy jobs—they will stay at the base where the food is being distributed and where the women and children have to be looked after — while they are busy securing additional pay for themselves, what is happening in other parts of the country? We know how many people to-day owing to lack of income are compelled to go and join up so as to be able to make a living. I hope you will allow me now, Mr. Chairman, to quote from a letter which I have here. I take it that this is a letter from a countryman of the great majority of members opposite, and he writes to me in this letter to tell me what is actually going on in one of the depots in the country, where people are being trained to go and fight.

This clause only relates to members of Parliament and not to other people.

Yes, I am also dealing with members of Parliament. I only want to show that while members of Parliament are busy appropriating additional money for themselves other people in the country are unable to obtain the money that is due to them. I hope you will allow me to read this letter.

I am sorry but I cannot allow it.

I am sorry you will not allow me to read this letter. This letter is written in English and it comes from an Englishman, and it would have been a revelation to members of this House to see how money legally due to other people is being held back from them; how money and equipment due to them is not given to them while members of Parliament are busy here trying to get double pay for themselves, and that while they are not going to be the people who are really going to fight, but as I have already said they are the people who will be found at the depots where the food is distributed and where the women are looked after. I am sorry that I am not allowed to read this letter. Still, you have allowed me to refer to its contents and that is why I do not understand your not allowing me to read it. It would have been a good thing if members opposite and the country generally could have seen what is going on. I am very sorry that I am not allowed to read it because I should like the rest of the country to know what is going on in one of our depots at a time when members of Parliament are busily engaged voting themselves double salaries.

The hon. member can do that at the third reading stage.

I feel that it would not be right if we did not avail ourselves of every possible opportunity to protest against this Bill. This is the first Friday which has now been taken by the Government from private members.

What has that to do with this clause?

Will you give me the opportunity to develop my argument? You would see my point then. But you stop me before I have the opportunity of doing so. In that case I may as well sit down.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Sauer put, and the Committee divided:

Ayes—30:

Bekker, S.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Fagan, H. A.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Olivier, P. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel. J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

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

Noes—53:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Blackwell, L.

Bowker, T. B.

Bowen, R. W.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Fourie, J. P.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Sutter, G. J.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Conroy was put, and the Committee divided:

Ayes—30:

Bekker, S.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Fagan, H. A.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Olivier, P. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Van der Merwe, R A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob

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

Noes—54:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Fourie, J. P.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Sutter, G. J.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I should like to put a pertinent question to the Minister in regard to the next three clauses of his Bill. They relate to South-West Africa. Clause 4 relates to the executive committee of South-West Africa, clause 5 relates to the Advisory Council and clause 7 to the Legislative Assembly. I should like to ask the Minister whether these clauses have been inserted in the Bill at the request of South-West Africa. Has a request been made by South-West Africa to the Union for this provision to be made? I should like the Minister to give me a pertinent “yes” or “no” to that question. Did the Administrator ask for it, or the Executive Committee, or the Advisory Council, or the Legislative Assembly? ·

I can inform the hon. member that so far as I am concerned, I know of no such request having been made. The hon. member will realise that when we legislate on a matter of this sort, we have to bring all similar legislative bodies into line. The Bill deals first of all with members of Parliament and members of the Senate. It also, by implication, deals with the position of members of the four provincial councils, and by virtue of Clauses 4, 5 and 6 we are bringing the Legislature of South-West Africa into line. It would be anomalous if we were to legislate along these lines for our own Parliament and not bring the Legislature of South-West Africa into line. It is merely on the ground of uniformity that South-West Africa has been included.

If no request has been made by South-West Africa to the Union Government, I should like to say that the House should realise what this implies. The Executive Committee of South-West Africa is the Cabinet of South-West Africa. The Executive Committee being part of the Advisory Council has to deal with the expenditure in connection with the defence of South-West Africa. Now we are going to allow members of the Executive Committee of South-West Africa to occupy posts in the Defence Force, while at the same time they are the people who have to determine the expenditure on defence. Is that a sound policy? The Minister may say that this Bill is applicable to the Executive Committees of the different provinces, but they have nothing to do with defence, or with defence expenditure. The members of the Executive Committee in South-West Africa, however, have to decide on defence expenditure. Is this a sound policy? It amounts to the same thing as if members of our Cabinet here were to offer their services in the Defence Force, and were able to retain their salaries as Ministers. That is what it amounts to?

I can see nothing unsound in it. In the last war the Prime Minister was a member of the Cabinet and he took an active part in the war.

The Executive Committee of South-West Africa consists of four members. Assuming they all apply for service in the Defence Force. There will be no Government in South-West then.

Then you would be able to go there.

They do not want him there.

I am glad, therefore, to be able to say that when I left there I received a unanimous vote of thanks and appreciation from the Legislative Assembly of South-West Africa consisting of all three sections of the community. I only want to say this—the executive committee of South-West Africa is the Cabinet there, and if all four members should take up positions in the Defence Force, it would mean that with the exception of the Administrator there would be no Government in South-West.

But you were “His Excellency” when you were there.

Now, don’t be jealous. The German element had so much respect for me that they gave me the title of “Excellency.” hon. members opposite imagine that it is a title which can only be given to people from overseas, but I am pleased to say that the Germans in South-West on their own initiative accorded this honorary title to an Afrikaner. I want to say this to the Minister. Assuming all the members of the Executive Committee were to join the Defence Force, and went on active service, how would the work of the Executive Committee of South-West Africa be carried out? Which body is going to do it? Can the Minister tell us how the Executive Committee can meet under the Constitution of South-West Africa if the members go on active service? How can the Executive Committee meet and how can they do their work? I can well understand that if the Government desires it, it will be allowed to members of the Executive Council, but we are here dealing with the Government of South-West Africa, with the Executive Committee, and if all four members now offer themselves for the Defence Force, and are given posts in the Defence Force, who is going to act then on the Executive Committee? I should like to hear from the Minister how it is going to be done. [Time limit.]

I am sorry the hon. gentleman is seeing all these unnecessary difficulties in the clause. If his objection is sound it could have been raised in respect of the members of the Union Cabinet. This Bill is not an academic measure. It is a Bill meant to deal with realities, actualities, and I can hardly imagine a position arising in which all the members of the Executive Council of South-West Africa would find themselves in a position of being able to go on active service. It is conceivable that a position might arise where one of them might be able to go on service, one indeed might be a person whose military experience is of such a nature that it would be valuable, and the Bill is designed to meet a contingency of that sort. But it is not meant to force every member of the Executive Council to go on active service. That would be quite impracticable. I do feel that the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) is seeing unnecessary difficulties here, and under these circumstances I hope he won’t press his point, and will allow the clause to pass, as he allowed a similar clause in respect of the members of this Legislature also to pass.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and the Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

Bill to be read a third time on 1st April.