When the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) made certain statements here yesterday about our young men who have been transferred to the navy in England, the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. Steenkamp) and other hon. members, continually interrupted him and asked whether they were volunteers. Their impression apparently was that the resolution which they had passed on the 4th September meant that the Government would only send volunteers. Seeing that it was the proposal of the Prime Minister that we should not, as we did in the last war, send military forces overseas, they now want to make out that the resolution was to the effect that only volunteers would be sent. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) realised the point, more or less, and subsequently said “But they are not fighters.” What then do they belong to? They did not go to England to eat mince pies. We know, moreover, that some of our boys joined up with the Air Force in England, and if the newspapers are right the first man that was killed there was a pilot of a British aeroplane, a Transvaal boy, a Jewish son of the Transvaal. That shows in my opinion that they have already contravened the principles which they themselves laid down on the 4th September. Now I would like to know, seeing that it is known that the young men are being sent across for the Navy and for the Air Force, because they are required in England, is the danger not that as undoubtedly later on more men will be required in Europe, because the reinforcements will become exhausted, that the same excuse will be made for sending our infantry and cavalry across as well, calling them also by another name than “military force.” But I have a very important subject that I would like to submit again for the consideration of the Prime Minister. I have touched upon the point in passing before, but up to the present owing to circumstances, I have received no answer. Now I ask the Prime Minister urgently, in the interests of South Africa, in the interests of us all, not as a party politician, but as an Afrikaner—to reply to me in conection with the following subject. I have been informed, and I made enquiries amongst my colleagues, and they say that they also got the information, that before anyone is given a commission in our citizen force, he has to make a declaration that he will be loyal to the war policy of the Government. Now I would like to know from the Prime Minister whether that is correct. We know that the Act was drafted in such a way that everybody, that every citizen of South Africa, whatever party he might belong to, could enter the defence force. Every citizen will be prepared to sacrifice everything for the independence and liberties of South Africa. But what is the present position? The Prime Minister expressly laid it down that if he went outside of the Union, to the north, to the British territories, then the citizen forces would not be used, but only volunteers. That being so, I would like to ask what the reason then is why the question is put to officers. We know what the consequences would be. The consequences would be that the defence force gradually, and possibly faster than is expected, will become a political propaganda body instead of a defence body. The results of that will not only be fatal to the defence force, but to the whole of South Africa. I am sorry, therefore, that I must be a nuisance to the Prime Minister, and must request him to give a reply to that definite question. If the Prime Minister can deny that, it will get rid of the difficulties. Is the Prime Minister prepared or able to deny that the demand is made of officers of the citizen forces, before they get their commission, that they should declare themselves in favour of the war policy of the Government as laid down by the resolution of the 4th September, 1939? I hope, as I have said, that the Prime Minister will frankly deny that here and that it did not happen, because otherwise if the information which I have made public is true, then we know that the danger of his policy is greater than the danger from any foreign enemy could ever be, because then it may be said that we are using the defence force for party political propaganda purposes. [Time limit.]

I want to say something here about the remarks by the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Oost) this afternoon, and by the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Venter) last night. The hon. member for Pretoria (District) reverted to the lads who had gone across to England, and he wanted to create the impression that they were boys who were sent across by the Union Government. But hon. members opposite know that they were not sent across, but that ony volunteers went.

They were allowed to go over.

The hon. member did that in order to prove that it was in conflict with the resolution of the 4th September not to send military contingents overseas. That is positively wrong, because the hon. member knows that we have not sent lads overseas. The hon. member knows this, so why create the impression that we are departing from the policy of the 4th September. The hon. member for Pretoria (District) knows that we think a good deal of him and of his opinion, but he must not make himself guilty of distorting the facts, because he knows that that is not so. The hon. member for Wonderboom says that he wonders what the historians will say about the Prime Minister.

And about you too.

Yes, about me too. I can assure you that the historians will give such a place to the Prime Minister that prominent people on that side will absolutely be overshadowed by him. If hon. members would only be unprejudiced, then they would have to admit that the Prime Minister, 40 years ago, stood up for South Africa’s freedom and to-day once more he is the man we are looking up to to preserve our freedom.

When did you discover that?

It is not a discovery, and any person who is not obsessed with exaggerated political prejudice will have to say what I say. As, however, members on the other side look at everything through political spectacles, I say: Thank God that the historians will not be prejudiced in the same way as hon. members there.

What do you think of your own leader?

He does not think at all any more.

If they make seven interruptions then we hear eight different opinions. I hope that as this debate proceeds, hon. members will not give wrong interpretations to facts, as the hon. member for Pretoria (District) and his friends tried to do this afternoon. I think a great deal of him, and I hope that he will not continue to act in that way. So far as the other question is concerned, it is a direct question which the Prime Minister must reply to, but if hon. members try to distort the truth, then I am not prepared, and I hope that there will be other hon. members here who will not be prepared to allow it.

Two points have been raised about which I would like to say a few words. One is the point raised by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus), and touched upon again now by the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Oost) with regard to the volunteer naval reserve, the R.N.V.R. The hon. member for Moorreesburg yesterday made the charge in spite of the declaration of September last that no military forces were sent overseas as was done in the last war, that I, that the Government was nevertheless doing so, and that in consequence of that step about 150 members of that naval volunteer reserve were now doing duty abroad. To that I made the interjection that no one had in this connection been sent across by me or by the Government.

How then did they get there?

I will explain it. The Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve was established under the Defence Act, and the character of it is laid down in Section 22 of the Defence Act. That corps has not been established now, but immediately after the passing of the Defence Act in 1912. I may here give an explanation of the difficulties that we experienced at that time. They were that we were able to make provision to train our citizen force properly on land, and to equip them for war purposes, but we felt that if an opportunity were not given to a section of our young people of getting training at sea, there would be a great flaw in our defence system, and for that reason provision was made for a system which has been in force since that time. The arrangement was that young fellows who offer themselves voluntarily for service in connection with the British Navy stationed in the Union, can do so under the Defence Act. They were to be a voluntary corps and to serve as a reserve of the British Navy, and they would be available for service not on land, but on sea, in connection with the British Navy. It is a sub-department of our Defence Force under the Defence Act, and South Africa pays for their training. But their destination is to serve as a reserve for the British Navy, and that is clearly set out in Section 22 of the Defence Act, which says—

That was the object of the body of volunteers. They were to be trained to do duty in that body in connection with the Royal Navy in time of war. The section further says—

That arrangement was made as long ago as 1912. Shortly after the Defence Act was passed, the R.N.V.R. was established in terms of that section, and that section is still in force, and was never repealed, while the constitution of the body was never amended. The position to-day still is that they are a body under our Defence Force, but not for service ashore, but for service in connection with the British Navy. Now with regard to the position after the declaration of war. Some of the young fellows by their own action, owing to their association with the Royal Navy and their own free choice, went overseas, they were not sent by us. The whole administration of the reserve body rests with the naval authorities in South Africa. They went overseas; I do not know what number went, but I think that it was 150.

Without the consent of the Government?

They made their own choice.

Who is paying them?

I have already replied to that.

What would their position be if South Africa had remained neutral.

That is not the question now. That is another question. You see the complaint is that the promise not to send any forces overseas has been broken, and I say again that no forces in this connection or in any other connection have been sent overseas, as was done during the previous war.

And who is paying for it?

We are paying for that corps as provided in the Act. But they are in a special position, so that under the Act they can be used in connection with the Royal Navy. To say, under these circumstances, that we have broken our promise to send no forces overseas as was done in 1914, is really ridiculous. Then the hon. member for Pretoria (District) put another question to me. He asks whether what has come to his knowledge is correct, that officers before their appointment to the field forces are asked whether they concur in the war policy of the Government. That is so, it is correct. The war policy has been explained by me. We are not going to send fighting forces overseas, and we are not going to the far north except with volunteers. But when we appoint officers to our fighting forces who may say to-morrow or the day after, “We are not going any further,” then the whole force will be placed in an impossible position. That is why on the appointment of officers to the field forces who can be used not only within the borders of the Union, but also outside of them, the question is put to them whether they are prepared to carry out that policy. If they were not prepared to carry out that policy and we sent a force to the north, then an impossible position might be created if they could come and say to me and the Government: “So far and no further; we do not agree with the policy of the Government, and we go so far and no further.” If such a thing were to be permitted, then it would be impossible to carry out the war policy of the Government. It is in these circumstances that that question is put to the officers, and if they voluntarily join up on those terms, then they can be appointed as officers.

And the men in the ranks?

The young citizens who serve under the Defence Act of the Union are not asked that question.

They can, therefore, refuse?

They are only carrying out their duties under the Defence Act.

And the commandants of rifle associations?

Unless they are selected for the field forces to go and fight within or outside of the Union the question is not put to them. If they are elected as such, then we must know beforehand whether those men are prepared to carry out our policy. The young citizens who are called up for service are called up under the Defence Act, and no questions are put to them. They are obliged to serve in terms of the Defence Act. But in the case of the men who join the field forces and who can be sent further afield, it is not compulsory service, but it is voluntary service, and this question is put to the officers.

Not to the young soldiers?

No, because they are recruited under the Defence Act, and they are not recruited to go further. It is only volunteers who go.

I think it astonished the whole of the Committee to hear that the Minister of Defence is still back in the days of 1912 in connection with the naval reserve, and that he apparently does not know what happened since that time.

He is back in King Charles’ time.

Yes, nearly as far back as that. He referred us to the relative section of the Defence Act. I do not, at the moment, want to go into the quibble whether a part of the Defence Force of the Union was sent overseas, whether they were encouraged to go or whether they went voluntarily. During the last war no one went overseas, except as a volunteer. It seems to me a quibble to say that the people have gone voluntarily. They are a part of the defence force of the Union, as is stated in the Act. In 1912 it was laid down that men would be available as a reserve for the navy, and if the Minister of Defence does not know that, then the most junior clerk and his department know that since that time we have definitely departed from that section in the Act, and that it has become nothing but a dead letter.

Which section?

The section which provides that they form a part of the British Navy. It had become a dead letter. Pehaps I can just refresh the memory of the Minister a little, if I tell him step by step what happened in connection with the matter. In the first instance, we trained the men on the Sonneblom and the Immortelle. After those ships were abandoned, we made an arrangement with the British Government that they would take over the training on the conditions which I set out on the 21st February, 1939, when the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) put a question to me on the subject. That question was mentioned here yesterday, but I feel that it is necessary to quote that question and answer again. The questions which dealt with this point were as follows—

1. (4) Whether the British Admiral in charge of the Cape Naval Station is still solely responsible for the organisation, drilling and administration of the R.N.V.R.
2. (5) Whether the arrangement announced by the Department of Defence in its annual report of 1913, namely, that the R.N.V.R. of the Union will in time of war be wholly at the disposal of the British Admiralty, is still in force; if not, in what respect has it been altered.

The reply to question 4 was as follows—

It is therefore clear that we were in command. To question 5 the reply was—

The effect of that was this, that the King, in so far as he is reefrred to, is the King of South Africa, acting on the advice of his South African Ministers, and that was the reason why we definitely agreed with the British Government and with the British Admiralty that these lads would be used for our own mine-sweeping in South African waters. There was never any question of their going a mile outside of South African waters. They are under our own command; the Admiral acts on instructions of the Minister of Defence, and there is no right and no power of sending those men overseas. The Minister of Defence ignores everything which took place in the meantime, and also the special agreement with the British Government; he ignores the whole constitutional development, and the only excuse for the statement given to us that he can quote, is that we must refer to section so-and-so of the Act.

The Act remained in that form, and has not been repealed.

Now we know that in the future, whether there is a coalition or not, we must take things like that off our statute book. We now realise that there are people who are blind, deaf and dumb to any constitutional development, even if that constitutional development is followed by a special agreement between ourselves and" the British Government. We are back again to the attitude of the Minister of Mines. What is contained in the Act, notwithstanding the constitutional development, that Government is compelled slavishly to carry out! Now we know where we stand, and all that we shall have to repeal when we get into power again. Now just for a moment I want to occupy myself with the answer of the Minister of Defence in connection with the officers. This is the first time that I have heard that you have to ask an officer, when he is sworn in under the Defence Act, whether he is prepared to carry out his duties under that Act. This is the first time in history that an officer is being sworn in under the Act, and that in addition the direct question is put to him whether he will do his duty under the Act. The question whether he is prepared to carry out the war policy of the Government means either the policy of the Government under the Act, or it means something more. If it means the war policy under the Act, then there is no necessity to put the question. If it means something more, then those people should be enlightened as to what that something more is. One now gets the impression that by way of a subterfuge an attempt is being made to get people to give an undertaking which will ultimately land them in Egypt, or otherwise the object is to find out whether they are loyal supporters of the Government. The private soldiers can belong to the Nationalist or People’s Party, they are good enough to join up as private soldiers. But the posts for officers must be in the hands of people who are slavish subjects of the Government. It is one thing or the other. A third construction is impossible. I hope the Minister of Defence will say what the explanation is, and if there is a third, then we would very much like to know what it is.

I must say that I have not, for a long time, listened with greater astonishment to a speech in this House than was the surprise with which I listened to the words of the Prime Minister. I can hardly imagine that a responsible Minister, not to speak of the Prime Minister of the country, would take up a position in a democratic and free country such as he has taken up, and which is nothing else but this, that he was prepared to and did allow subjects of the state practically to be pressed into the service of another state. Just imagine that the Prime Minister of the country should rise and tell us that the subjects of this country, that a fighting force of this country, would be called up and sent, not by the authorities of this country, but would be called up and sent away by the British Government, because that is the only thing that could be inferred from his words, that they were sent by another power to go and fight and render service, instead of their being sent by and coming under the orders of the Government of this country. I must tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I believe if such a thing were to happen in any other civilised country with a civilised government, namely, that the Prime Minister were to say that such a thing were permitted, that that government would immediately be most sharply called to account by the people. What remains, then, of the liberty of the subject? He enters into the service of the defence force of this country; he is in the military service of this country, and the authorities who have the command over him are the authorities of this country, and not those of another country; yet the Prime Minister comes here and says: They were, as a matter of fact, in my service, but they then went over the border, and they are now under the command of another country. They are sent to certain parts of the world to go and fight there under foreign command. We have indeed to pay the cost, but, says the Prime Minister, we did not tell them to go there or to go and fight. I must tell you, not only was I astonished at the words which came from the Prime Minister, but I immediately felt that a very strong protest should be made here against what was nothing less than one of the greatest misdeeds which has been committed by this Government. The Government appropriated to itself the right, or rather allowed subjects of this Government practically by force, to be taken out of its power and placed under the power of another country over which we have no control. I can tell the Prime Minister that he will hear more about this later.

I can quite imagine that.

But the Prime Minister says something else as well. He has two classes of soldiers, one which says: “I want to fight here in my own country,” and the other, who wants to go and fight outside of it, and if I understood him correctly, he has placed the latter class generally under the obligation that if once they are outside they dare not say that they refuse to go any further or to go on fighting if he—the Prime Minister—or an officer in command were to indicate where to go and fight. I want to call the Prime Minister’s attention to this: Our Act, under which the men serve and are recruited and the discipline under which they are put, is in every respect connected with our Defence Act and our Defence Force, and they have no right to go and carry on a war which is not directly connected with the defence of the country. If he does do so, and the people who have undertaken to go and fight outside of the country, rebel and refuse to serve, then I want to see whether he will allow the people to be shot because they have rebelled.

He will do so.

I can assure him of one thing, that there will then be a settlement of accounts. With what right, under what Act does the Prime Minister want to send men of this country, who have been recruited and have undertaken to do their duty in defending the country, to go and fight beyond the borders of the Union except in connection with the defence of South Africa? Where is the Act? It is not in existence. I only tell the Prime Minister, I warn him, that if it is done and that time comes, then the people in South Africa will speak as they have seldom spoken before.

I would like to revert to the position of the naval reserve. I put the question to the Prime Minister last night, and again a moment ago by way of interruption, as to what the position of those lads would have been if South Africa had, on the 4th September, declared its neutrality. The Prime Minister did not answer the question, but I would like him to reply to it because it is an important point. He announced that the reserve were under the control of the British Admiralty, notwithstanding that it appeared from the discussion and the speech of the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) that they were Union nationals, in the first place, and were paid by the Union Government in the second, and that in the third place, they form a part of the Defence Force. If the construction of the Prime Minister is correct, we come to the unprecedented position that the citizens of a neutral country, whom they pay themselves, can be used by another country to render service to the other country. I cannot believe that the Prime Minister will defend a proposition of that kind. It would be a negation of our sovereign and independent status. I would like to know whether there is any example of a neutral country whose citizens can be used by another country, notwithstanding that they form a part of the defence force of such neutral country. It amounts to this, that a part of South Africa’s Defence Force, can remain out of a war and another part can be in it. If the Prime Minister can associate himself with that idea, I would like to know how he explains it, and how it can be done.

In answer to the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler) I just want to say that I thought that the question answered itself. If our country had been neutral, then no citizen of the country could take part in the war, whether on sea or land.

But you say they come under the British Navy?

It is the international law. Then hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) wanted to explain to us what has happened since 1912, and he referred to arrangements which he had made, but he had to admit that the Act under which the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve was established, that the service which they voluntarily undertook, has remained absolutely unchanged.

What about 1926? What about the Status Acts?

They are in existence, but they come into force when other Acts of our country are repealed, and effect is given to them.

Nonsense, that is a new doctrine.

The Status Acts are not in themselves a repeal of other statutes of the country, and I shall be glad if the Leader of the Opposition would give the matter a little consideration. The point has repeatedly arisen that other Acts can be repealed, or should be repealed to bring our position into conformity with the Status Acts. But in this case nothing has been done. The Act of 1912 on military service, and the constitution of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve continue to exist; the lads have since that time and for all those years voluntarily joined that body to do service with the Royal Navy here.

Why are you paying?

The money for that corps is voted annually by Parliament.

What for? For service elsewhere?

They cannot be used without your consent.

That is the position, and members of the force who have gone overseas in connection with this war, and who are serving elsewhere, were not sent away or sent abroad by the Department of Defence or by us, but they were called up as volunteers under their own attestation conditions in joining the force, and in accordance with the service which they had undertaken to perform. That has nothing to do with us. The charge has been made here that the Government sent this force abroad in conflict with their undertaking. The fact is that not one of them was sent abroad by us. They were called up as volunteers by the naval authorities to perform services under the terms of their entrance into the service.

Then our so-called independence is a farce, is that, not so?

Our independence exists. It is firmly established, but here an arrangement has been made which can be compared to the arrangement in connection with Simonstown. The hon. member says that it is a breach of our independence, but the arrangement was made years ago, and still exists and has not been changed. The arrangement in connection with this body will also continue to exist until it is altered, and up to the present it has not been altered by any government. With regard to the other point that has been raised, it goes without saying that if it is the policy of the Government to send troops, if necessary, to the north, for the defence of this country in territories which in the ordinary sense of the word you cannot say are in South Africa, then you may get into difficulties owing to private soldiers or officers subsequently being able to say “No, but we are not going to fight here, we are not going to cross the Limpopo, we are not going over the Zambesi, we are not going to fight here or there because it is outside of South Africa.” That is just the case where the policy of the Government comes into effect. The Government said that so far as South Africa is concerned, we can commandeer men, but with regard to service outside of South Africa, if men have to be sent cutside of the limits of South Africa for our defence, that in such a case it will be the work of volunteers, and the policy has been laid down and it has been debated in Parliament during the last few months. All we are here asking of an officer whom we want to use in the field force, is that he should not subsequently say “We are now outside of South Africa, we are now across the Zambesi, we are going no further.” We want to prevent any such mutiny breaking out, and we want now, in anticipation, to warn these people and to give them the opportunity of saying that they agree with the policy, or that they do hot want in an emergency, to be sent to Kenya for the defence of the country. They are volunteers, and they can be released in time, so that no trouble will arise later on. If they do not approve of the policy of the Government let them say so now, arid not get into trouble later on. What we are doing is not only right, but also reasonable towards these men, so that they will in advance have the knowledge, and possibly not subsequently get themselves into difficulties.

We have now heard from the Prime Minister that Act No. 13 of 1912 is still in force, with the specific Section 22 as well, and that the Status Acts have not in any way amended the letter of the existing Act. The Status Acts make it clear what our independent position is. We are sovereign and independent, but now the statement of the Prime Minister is that if there is anything during the years since the Treaty of Vereeniging, or in the Cape Acts since 1860 which gives rights to Great Britain, then we have absolutely no say in the matter.

The Acts must be amended.

Until they are amended then, Great Britain then has the rights, and if the King is mentioned, then it is the King of Great Britain, acting on the advice of his British Ministers. That is the theory which the Prime Minister has laid down here. It is an astonishing constitutional theory. In other words the Status Acts literally mean nothing, unless you follow them up with a kind of purification process, and amend all the Acts which have been passed since one or other of the colonies obtained self-government. All I can say is that the British Government and the British King himself would be astonished to learn that he had those powers. But now let us go further. Let us ask ourselves whether these members of the defence force could go without the consent of the Government. Certainly not. Any person who at the request of Great Britain, or on the command of Great Britain has left the country, could only have done so with the specific consent of the Minister of Defence. Therefore we have now got to the length that the Prime Minister has given his specific consent to those members of the defence force being commandeered by Great Britain. He cannot deny it, because he surely cannot say that they deserted in the night, or has it been done by his secretary without his knowing anything about it? Have they deserted, just as a coloured boy deserts from the farm? But then though they have deserted, they are nevertheless still being paid. Fortunately they have left their addresses behind, so that we can send their pay after them. If we look at the quotation from the Act to which the Prime Minister referred, then we find that it is provided in Section 22, paragraph 1—

That I can understand, but now the second part of that section says—

That was done.

Precisely. Now we have the facts. The Prime Minister not only knew about it, he sent the minute to the Governor-General, and the Governor-General was advised.

No.

It must have been done. It could not happen any other way.

It was done 27 years ago.

It says here expressly—

That was done 27 years ago.

The Minister now says that he did that wrong 27 years ago, and that all he is doing now is that he is confirming the wrong. If we may infer from the words of the Prime Minister that that minute was signed years ago, then that has nothing to do with the fact that members of the Defence Force could not go to England unless they deserted. To want to shuffle out of the responsibility in such a way is an attitude which the Prime Minister will yet hear more of, as the Leader of the Opposition has already said.

Yes, I know that, and I am prepared for it.

It looks as if when you want to see the world, you only have to join the naval reserve; sooner or later then you will see the whole world. Now I come to the reply of the Prime Minister in connection with the appointment of officers. Let us see what is happening here. During my time we sent out a circular, a form which officers had to sign whether they were prepared to join any regiment or reserve voluntarily for service on behalf of and in South Africa. All the 60,000 volunteers which the Prime Minister is now boasting about, joined up under that form. I have not heard of any other form, and unless they sign a form that they are now prepared to serve outside of South Africa and not on behalf of South Africa, but on behalf of the Empire, then not one of those people is bound to serve outside of South Africa or on behalf of the Empire. If the Prime Minister now says that it is a fact that they joined up to serve under those forms, and that that means that they can serve outside of South Africa, then it is, if anyone else than the Prime Minister were to say such a thing, an open fraud, in my opinion. They are now being asked whether they agree with the policy of the Government, but what does that mean? So far the policy has been one of wait and do nothing, and that therefore means nothing, until they actually come forward with a policy. I say that if these men are taken outside of the Union by virtue of those forms which they have signed, then it is a fraud upon those men. The Prime Minister will have to send out new forms, and in them they will have clearly to be asked whether they want to serve on behalf of the Empire outside South Africa. If he simply commandeers the so-called volunteers by virtue of the forms which they have signed, then he will meet with opposition, and the sympathy with the Government will disappear on the part of those people who have been deceived by the Government.

It is very nice for us on this side of the House to listen to the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) to-day. He has apparently got over the despondent fit which he had yesterday when the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) was speaking. I am pleased to see that the hon. gentleman has got his tail up to-day because I am sure there are a number of members on this side of the House who would be very pleased to ask him a number of questions. Mind you, it is very pleasant to see so many on the other side who have joined the P.P. Brigade. Don’t you know what the P.P. Brigade is—it is the “Protect Pirow Brigade.” They had a lot of hard work to do yesterday, but to-day apparently the hon. member for Gezina is going to stand up for his own rights. I have only a few minutes, but I have a question which I would like a little enlightenment upon from the hon. member for Gezina. He stated in this House yesterday, whether correctly or incorrectly, whether we understood him or not, he made a statement which we on this side feel is deplorable. He said that in the event of an enemy appearing on our borders the correct procedure would be to summon Parliament and amend the Defence Act. Mr. Chairman, I remember in the introductory stage of this Bill the first clause of which we are now discussing, the hon. member for Gezina said that he would have brought in the same regulations if the hon. member for Smithfield had been Prime Minister. Those are the very words the hon. member for Gezina used, and now, sir, he has the audacity to get up and criticise the Prime Minister who has brought forward the very thing that he himself wanted. And, sir, may I say this, that the deplorable feature about it is that he is trying to deprive South Africa of the very defence which we need.

Nonsense.

He was the one, Mr. Chairman, who offered 300 aeroplanes to help our northern states to defend themselves, he was the one that said Cairo was closer to Cape Town to-day than Pretoria was forty years ago. He was the one who always said in his capacity as Minister of Defence that attack was our best means of defence. He was the one who said to this House that he wants six millions to spend on defence and managed only to spend £150,000. He was the one also I remember who, when those manoeuvres were held in the Transvaal in the bushveld…

Which clause are you on?

I am on the clause you cannot understand. He was the man, Mr. Chairman, who wanted to make himself such a good fellow with the men on those manoeuvres that he said the men must all have a bottle of beer, he was the one who loaded the bushcarts with a bottle of beer for each man and when they asked where the rations were they were told there was no room on the bushcarts for rations. The men had to starve and were fed only on a bottle of beer. No, sir, we have now got a Minister of Defence that the whole country is very proud of. He has given the Opposition and the whole country the assurance that only volunteers will go outside the Union to defend it. The hon. member for Gezina said the best means of defence is attack. Sir, the most successful war that has ever been waged, irrespective of who won it, was the war which was waged on enemy territory. Are hon. gentlemen opposite sincere when they say that if war comes to this country then they will defend it? Do they want us to wait and have these battles on our own soil, do they want us to have our women and children drawn into it, is that the policy of the Opposition? We on this side of the House want to have our women and children kept in the right place, secure from all danger. Why should women and children be brought into the carnage of warfare which the hon. gentlemen on that side are laughing at to-day. They think that this war is a myth, but the day is coming, Mr. Chairman, when the laugh will be on the other side of their faces. I know then that we shall get their co-operation for this very policy which our present Minister is advocating. Coming back to the hon. member for Gezina I sincerely hope that he will stop this blather of his.

Order, the hon. member should not use those expressions.

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but that is a good old Scottish term. I hone the hon. member for Gezina will stop his very foolish talk. This foolish talk of his about if troops leave South Africa he will give a lead. What does he mean by that? That is another question I would like to ask. He asked the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) what he meant about civil war, now we would like to ask the hon. member for Gezina what he means by that little lead he is going to give. I am surprised. Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member used such words. Does he not know that 75 per cent. of the whole country don’t trust him, they know very well we are at war with Germany and they also know of his German connections. The hon. member for Gezina should be the last one…

You are most abusive.

I appealed to hon. members yesterday not to be so personal. I must ask the hon. member to refrain from personalities.

If he is not personal he will not be able to say anything.

I regret it, but may I suggest to the hon. member for Gezina that the country might interpret the peculiar remarks he has made as advocating—or rather as hoping—that this war will go against the British Empire; the country might interpret his remarks as an expression of his wish that South Africa would be one of the first colonies that Germany would have.

You say that South Africa is a colony?

If we went down in this war, if Germany won this war, one of the first colonies she would have would be South Africa. The public are saying that in that event the hon. member for Gezina would be the first prime minister. That, at any rate, is the talk which is going on.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Defence put and agreed to, and the remaining amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—69:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

Bawden, W.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Cadman, C. F. M.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet. H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare. W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Johnson. H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Moll. A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares. A. P. J.

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

Noes—59:

Badenhorst, A. L.

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Erasmus, F. C.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Havenga, N. C.

Haywood, J. J.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pieterse. P. W. A.

Pirow, Ó.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Theron, P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 2,

For reasons which I stated on the second reading, I move—

As I explained before, this clause goes a little far, and powers are asked for in it which make all my hon. friends opposite afraid, and possibly it is open to a wrong construction. I do not believe that it will be necessary, in future, to have the extended powers which are asked for in Clause 2, and in the circumstances, I want to move that Clause 2 be omitted.

The Minister of Defence himself admitted that this clause was of a far-reaching nature, and he said that it looked as if we were afraid of it. As the Minister is withdrawing it, we cannot feel very much at rest, because he stated on a previous occasion that he might possibly withdraw this clause, but he was nevertheless going to do what he would have done under the clause, and then he would introduce an Indemnity Bill later on. He expressly said that.

If it becomes necessary.

I, of course, do not wish to say much about the contents of the clause now. It is no longer necessary. But I just want to add here that the Minister of Defence, in the clause which he is now withdrawing, did actually tell us how far he wanted to go. He wanted drastically to curtail and restrict the rights and liberties of the people. Now I would like to make an appeal to the Minister, seeing that he has held out the prospect that notwithstanding the withdrawal of the clause, he would nevertheless be able to act in the spirit of it, I want to make an appeal to him, as we are dealing with a War Measures Bill, and with measures which are concerned with war conditions, whether he will not just consider a little not only the curtailment of rights, but also the liberties of the people, and certain things that he ought to do in the interests of our national life. He must not only, in time of war, want to see the war through, but he should also protect us. As the clause is disappearing, and he intends to appropriate so many powers to himself, it is right—in what way he must himself decide—also to think of the people who are suffering under the war conditions. He now wants to govern by the aid of regulations, and we have not succeeded in preventing him. But now I want to ask him, during the war, also to think of the workers and the officials. Will he not think of the question of giving them a war allowance, for instance? He has certain great powers which the law gives to him, some of which he is withdrawing under Clause 2, but he says at the same time that he will nevertheless act on those lines, and I make an anneal to the Government to think about a war allowance in view of the rise in prices. I only want to mention a few examples, for instance, clothing. All the things that are imported have already gone un considerably. Take damask. If we compare the prices of 1938-’39 then we find that the price of a yard of damask has gone up by 6d. The price of gaberdine, which is used for men, as well as women, has risen from 9s. 11d. to 11s. 3½d. per yard. Then I quote silk and I want to mention Assam silk and Fuii silk. They have gone up by 6½d. a yard. Where is it going to? If the Government thinks of seeing the war through. I want to ask the Government also to think about the other side, about other things. Then I want to point out that motor cars have also gone up tremendously. They may be regarded as a luxury, but in many cases they are a necessity, and big motor cars have already gone up £100 and more in comparison with last year. When saying a few words in connection with the officials in time of war, I also want to ask the Minister whether he will not do something to assist the farmers, whose costs of production have gone up so tremendously. I just want to mention a few things here in connection with that to let the Minister and the Government understand that the position of the farmers is very difficult. The cost of production has gone up, but on the other hand, the price of their produce has in many cases fallen. That may look like a strange position, but it is so. Take fencing wire. Up till last November the price had risen from 17s. 11d. per 100 lbs. tot 21s. Posts have gone up from 10s. 10d. to 12s. 3d. Bags have risen from 6.8d. to 11.9d., wool bales from 2s. 8d. to 4s. 3d. Those are only a few of the things which the farmers use, and as against that we have, for instance, the citrus farmers and the orange farmers, who are at the moment in the greatest distress. The export of oranges alone costs 1s. 5d. more. The price of wheat is down, the price of cheese is down, kaffir corn is down by 2s. 4d. per 100 lbs., onions are down from 12s. 7d. to 7s. 6d. per 100 lbs. When the Minister is appropriating to himself such unrestricted powers, this is the time to ask him to think of the other side of life as well, and if possible to assure a minimum price to the farmers in proportion to the rise in the cost of living, and in regard to export produce, of which the overseas price is so low, to assist them with a subsidy if possible. Our farmers are finding it more difficult to get native labour, and in proportion to the continuance of war conditions that is becoming worse. I am standing here with a letter in my hand which I received yesterday from a member of the Transvaal Provincial Council. He says that the farmers are losing heart because they cannot get any more labourers, and I am making an appeal to the Minister, if necessary, to provide compulsory native labour in time of war for the farmers and for minor industries. I want to make an anneal to the Minister and to the Government that seeing that people are being dismissed by the hundred and by the thousand to-day in South Africa, and quite a number of workers, and, alas, officials also are unemployed, that a court should be appointed — the Government can, take power to institute a court of officials—in cases where workmen and officials who have been discharged from service in an unjust way, or victimised in some other way under the “see the war through” policy of the Government, will have the right to appeal to the court. Such a court should also be allowed to impose penalties. I am not now talking of the post-war misery in connection with all kinds of financial measures and troubles. As the Minister is withdrawing the clause I make an appeal to him to assist the people in these difficult times.

The CHAIRMAN, in accordance with paragraph (3) of the resolution adopted by the House on the 29th February, put the motion, which was agreed to and the clause omitted.

I move—

I do so to facilitate business. The position, sir, is this. Under Clause 3 power is asked to validate the proclamations and regulations mentioned in the schedule, but as things stand we have not the full schedule before us. The House gave this Committee an instruction to add to the schedule, but that addition has not yet been made. The result, therefore, is that unless that schedule is complete, and the seven proclamations and regulations which were in the instruction are added, we shall not have the full schedule before us, and Clause 3 will not apply. If, ultimately, we come to the schedule and consider the schedule at the end of the Bill, then it will be impossible for hon. members to exercise their right of amendment because Clause 3 would have been passed. Amendments could only be made under Clause 3.

You are really doing this out of consideration for us?

No, I am doing it out of consideration for proper procedure. I do not want us to tie ourselves into a knot. Unless this procedure is followed, hon. members, when they get ultimately to the end of the schedule, will not be able to move amendments, and they will think that a wrong procedure has been followed, or a trick has been played on them, and they have not the right of amendment. It is with a view to having the whole schedule before us before we deal with Clause 3, and therefore we can move any amendments to the whole schedule, that I move this amendment. If this course is not followed hon. members may be in the position I have referred to.

If we accept the schedule now will we be able to amend Clause 3?

Yes, that we can do because the amendments are not to the schedule but to Clause 3. In actual form they are amendments to Clause 3, and that being so I think the proper course, for this Committee would be first to dispose of the schedule and then go on to Clause 3 which validates these regulations, and if there are any regulations or proclamations either oh the old list or in the list to be amended the Committee will have the power to do so. If we do not follow that procedure the Committee may afterwards find itself in a position in which the seven proclamations and regulations now to be added cannot be dealt with and cannot be amended.

On a point of order, we can now certainly assume that we shall be entitled to move our amendments to Clause 3. Shall we be able to move all of them in cases where we have approved of the proclamation?

The schedule is now being put.

But if we approve of the schedule now, does it merely mean this, that we are agreeing that the subsequent proclamations should be added, or does it mean that we approve of the proclamations?

No. The hon. member will be able to debate them under Clause 3.

On a point of order, shall we not be bound to the proclamations as they appear here? I can understand that we can amend the proclamations, but shall we also be able to move the rejection of a proclamation in its entirety?

Yes, on the schedule.

If we approve of this schedule now, shall we then still have an opportunity under Clause 3 of moving amendments to these proclamations and to the proclamations which are still to be moved?

Yes, that is right.

Motion put and agreed to.

On the Schedule,

I move—

To add the following at the end—

Agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, put, and the Committee divided:

Ayes—69:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

Bawden. W.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Cadman, C. F. M.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark. C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Wallach. I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Noes—57:

Badenhorst, A. L.

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Erasmus, F. C.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Havenga, N. C.

Haywood, J. J.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, O.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Theron, P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Schedule, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 3,

Before the Committee proceeds to consider this Clause I think I ought to say that there are a large number of amendments on the Order Paper which appear to be of a frivolous character and which in the ordinary course of events I would be bound to rule out of order on the ground that they are “offered in a spirit of mockery” (May, 11th ed., p. 485). Since they have appeared on the Order Paper, however, the House has agreed to a resolution limiting the period of the Committee stage to three days and providing that at five minutes to eleven o’clock p.m. on the last of these days any amendments which have been moved by private members, but not disposed of, shall drop. Under these circumstances I propose to allow such amendments as members themselves may consider to be of a serious character. In doing this I have the fullest confidence in members exercising that high sense of responsibility which is necessary to maintain the dignity and efficiency of Parliament.

I move—

I have a number of amendments to move but I do not intend moving them as yet. I would first like to say one or two things in connection with these regulations as a whole. I would like not to create the impression that I am against emergency regulations. Although we are not in an emergency yet, I wonder how long it will take the rt. hon. the Prime Minister to land us in an emergency. I am judging the future by the past, I have the right to say that. I don’t want to delve too deeply into past history, but I should like to refer back a little. I think, if I am right, in 1911, the rt. hon. gentleman took over the ministry for defence, and how long after that did it take him to land us in an emergency? If my memory serves me right, in 1913 he twice landed us in an emergency. There was that terrible railway strike which ended in bloodshed, and the very same year he landed us in a general strike which also ended in bloodshed. Then for a time there was peace, but for how long? After a year we had another emergency and that, of course, was the Rebellion. There are many people who believe that the rt. hon. the Minister of Defence precipitated that by commandeering….

Order. We are not now on the second reading but we are in the committee stage. The hon. member must confine himself to remarks on the clause.

I am dealing with clause 3 and discussing these emergency regulations and I am now wishing to put my view in connection with these. I am trying to explain that although I am opposing these regulations, I am doing so not because I object to emergency regulations but because I object to these particular ones and the way in which they are prepared. Surely it is relevant for me to say that because of the actions of the rt. hon. gentleman in the past I think it is very necessary for us to have some emergency regulations, but not necessarily regulations couched in just this form. However, I bow to your ruling.

The hon. member must not go too far. There should not be a repitition of the second reading.

No, sir, I won’t repeat a single word I said on the second reading. The rt. hon. gentleman is known as the stormy petrel of South African politics and I think we are well advised to have emergency regulations but as I say not just like these. The first point I would make is the bad way in which they are drawn. It is not six months since they appeared and we have already had 23 proclamations amending these regulations which were prepared less than six months ago. Surely that is an indication that there is something radically wrong with them? I would suggest to the rt. hon. gentleman that he do the correct thing and withdraw this Bill and the regulations and let us start afresh. I am prepared to give examples. I do not want to take up too much time.

Do you not want to become neutral—would it suit you better to “hands up?”

Oh, no, I anticipate an emergency.

You mean you are hoping for one.

I do not know how long it will take to provoke one.

You mean you are going to provoke one.

There is no one on this side of the House who will precipitate one.

Then who is going to give the lead?

That is what the rt. hon. gentleman intends—is it a matter of coincidence that all these emergencies have taken place while the rt. hon. minister of Defence has had charge?

That may be, but who caused them?

Is it not remarkable that the moment he relinquished control and the leader of the Opposition took over we had peace for nearly sixteen years in South Africa? Does that stand for nothing? I say that we must be prepared for an emergency.

The emergency always comes when you are in Opposition.

I say we must be prepared for an emergency but let us hope that it will be put off as long as possible.

But surely you want an emergency.

I want to say this, that these regulations have obviously been drawn up by someone who really does not know what we require, and I shall give one or two instances.

Do you know what we require?

First of all we have these emergency courts. Now the emergency court which is created under the original regulation has now been entirely eleminated, and it has been eliminated in breach of an undertaking which the Minister of Defence gave at the second reading. And I feel that in this connection I owe an apology.

You owe many apologies.

At a previous stage of this Bill I used language to which the Minister took exception.

And quite right.

And I feel that I owe an apology. I owe myself an apology. I should have used much stronger language.

I called the hon. member to order when he used that language. If he suggests that he should use stronger language I shall have to take stronger measures.

Oh, no, no, Mr. Chairman, you are anticipating. I was going to appeal to you not only as Chairman of this Committee….

As a sportsman.

I was going to appeal to you not only as a Parliamentarian of very many years standing but also as a fair-minded man, and I was going to ask you to assist me and tell me to what extent I could go.

Order! Order! The hon. member is now trifling with the Chair.

No, I am not; I am the last member in this House who would think of such a thing.

Quite. Butter would not melt in his mouth.

The position was that an undertaking was given in all seriousness by the Prime Minister of this country. It was a considered reply which he gave in response to an interjection by the Leader of the Opposition, and the ink was hardly dry on Hansard in which the report of that debate was printed, when he went back on that undertaking, and here we are faced with regulations from which have been deleted these emergency courts. These courts which would have tried offenders under these regulations, and that is a most serious matter. I for one feel convinced that when you set up regulations to be administered by military authorities, you must at the same time set up military tribunals to try the offenders under these regulations; you want tribunals which will deal with these matters not only expeditiously but with finality. And what will be the case now? Now you will have offenders tried by civil courts.

A good thing too.

You will have instances where matters will not come to trial for weeks and even months, and you will have cases where the offenders will be allowed to continue with their offence by their appealing from the magistrate’s courts to the high court, and then to the appeal court.

That will be very nice for you—you will be able to make snug.

No, that is more in the line of the Minister. I am not in that line of business. The position is simply this, that where you find the state is in an emergency, you want a tribunal which will be able to act with rapidity, and you will not get rapidity or finality when you go to these courts to-day. You know how slow the law is. A man will give notice of appeal and the thing will drag on for months. This is a most serious alteration, and I think every hon. member in this House has the right to demand an explanation from the rt. hon. the Prime Minister. After all, the rt. hon. the Prime Minister is not an ordinary member. He can’t make statements in this House without meaning them.

Is that what you do?

He is the foremost man in this House— I should say the foremost man in this country.

Hear! Hear!

He is grey steel himself. How can he bend in this way?

Very funny.

I hope if the rt. hon. gentleman deigns to reply to me he will explain this away if he can. Furthermore, these regulations seem to me to show all the signs of hasty construction, hasty preparation, and lack of consideration. Now I would like to refer to the powers of confiscation given to the authorities. I am now dealing with the original regulation as amended. It strikes me as strange that it should be necessary to give powers of confiscation because you already in the Defence Act, in sections 86 and 87, have provision for these powers. Why then should it be necessary to come along with almost similar powers to these?

I have an amendment to this clause which I would like to move. The amendment appears on the Order Paper, and I need not therefore read it. I only want to refer to a few points in connection with this amendment. Hon. members will see that under the regulations a board of control over supplies has been created under this clause, which consists of certain persons, and I want to draw the attention of the Minister of Defence to the point that there ought also to be a primary producer on this board of control. This board of control plays an important part, and I think that it is very important for the primary producers to be represented by one of their own people who is himself a primary producer, and who has had experience of their business, and who can serve the board of control with advice. I therefore move that one of the members must be a farmer who has been nominated by the Agricultural Union of South Africa. It is no more than fair and right, especially in the present circumstances, that there should be a farmer on this board of control to give the necessary advice. Another important amendment which I am moving is that in Regulation No. 7. The meaning of that amendment is this. When a business man manufactures certain goods, then the Government has the right, under this regulation, to serve an order on him, that he should deliver to the Government within a definite period, such goods that he manufactures and that the Government may want. The Minister of Defence will admit that that is a very dangerous thing. It is possibly necessary to have such a regulation, but at the same time it may operate very harshly against that person. As hon. members will see, a person can under that regulation be fined £200, and he can be sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine. There may be reasons why such a person is not in a position to deliver those goods within the time which he has been allowed to comply with the order, that has been served on him. I therefore think that the Minister will admit that it is necessary to give such a person an opportunity to give an explanation why he cannot comply with the order as set out in this clause. I want to bring this specially to the notice of the Minister of Defence for this reason, that the courts, in such cases, are very much inclined to say that they have no discretion, and according to the wording as it stands they do not have any discretion to allow the man to give an explanation. Accordingly it is no more than right and fair that he should accept this amendment to amend the regulation so as to give these people an opportunity of giving an explanation why they cannot comply with an order. Then I am also moving that Regulation 6 should be deleted. The Minister will agree with me that it is a dangerous regulation. As the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Rooth) has pointed out, a certain amount of right has already been given to the Government to expropriate certain property.

I want to point out to the hon. member that I can only put the first part of the amendment which he has on the Order Paper now.

Perhaps I may move the rest on a subsequent occasion. Here I merely want to hope that the Minister will meet us by accepting the amendments which I am moving here, and I think that he will admit that they are reasonable amendments. It is perhaps impossible for him to give attention to all the details of all these regulations, but when we point out to him that there are certain things that are wrong, then we hope that he will give his attention to them, and will agree to amend the regulations. I also intended to move the deletion of additional regulations, but I see that the Minister of Defence has already met my point by abandoning Regulations 20, 21 and 22. I am glad that the Minister himself noticed that it is very dangerous to take away the powers of our courts, and that he has seen fit to delete those regulations himself. I just want to say that I am very glad about it, because the Minister of Defence will himself realise that if you grant such far-reaching powers to certain persons, to assistant magistrates, who are possibly clerks of the court in the smaller places, and have not even yet passed their examinations, that it is then very dangerous. We have hitherto in this country always acted on the principle that our courts should be above everything, and we still have confidence in our courts. As therefore the freedom and rights of subjects can be taken away by proclamation or regulation, there should be an opportunity of appealing to the courts. I therefore move the amendment as it stands on the Order Paper—

1. (2) In respect of regulations promulgated by the proclamations hereunder set out, the following provisions shall apply:
   Proclamation 201, 1939, shall, in respect of any act or omission after the commencement of this Act, be construed as if—
   1. (a) the words “who shall be a farmer nominated by the Agricultural Union of South Africa and” had been inserted after the word “person” in paragraph (f) of sub-regulation (1) of regulation (2);
   2. (b) the words “for some good reason he was unable to comply therewith” had been substituted for all the words after “unless” to the end of sub-regulation (2) of regulation 7;
   3. (c) regulations 6, 20, 21 and 22 had been omitted.

I rise to a point of order. I want to raise a matter here as a point of order, and I will be as brief as I can. Clause 3 of the Bill seeks to validate certain proclamations mentioned in the schedule to the Bill. Numbers of these proclamations have been issued by the Governor-General, the first of which is dated 14th September, 1939. Certain regulations were also issued on the same dates as the proclamations were promulgated. These proclamations, and the regulations framed thereunder, acquired the force of law on their promulgation, and I presume that they have been in force since those dates, as the law of the land. Now, the amendments which are proposed by the hon. member, and which are now before the Committee, seek not only to amend the regulations themselves, but also the empowering proclamations. My submission is that you cannot accept these amendments where they modify proclamations or alter the regulations. I submit, as regards the proclamations, that these are issued only after they have been signed by the Governor-General. In other words, they are issued over the signature of the Governor-General, and the amendments now seek to modify the terms of those proclamations. That is, they seek to put something over the signature of the Governor-General which he has not signed, and further they seek to add something, or to take away something from a proclamation which has been in force since the date of its promulgation. I submit, with all respect, that the principle is the same when amendments or alterations have to be considered as regards agreements, or conventions, or schemes that are scheduled in a Bill. The general rule, so far as I can ascertain, is that when a Bill is introduced to give effect to an agreement or to confirm a scheme, and the agreement or the scheme is annexed in a schedule to the Bill as a completed document, amendments cannot be made to the schedule. Both in this House and in the House of Commons it has been ruled over and over again that there cannot be an amendment to the regulations or a convention, or that the terms of an agreement cannot be varied or altered. That it is like a treaty made between two negotiating nations which the House is called upon either to accept or to reject. I have been reminded, sir, and I wish to remind you too, that in the case of the Rand Water Supply Bill, which came before this House some years ago, you yourself ruled that you could not accept an amendment to a deed of agreement which formed the schedule to that Bill. I submit, with all humility, and with due respect, that this is a case which is on all fours, and that you, sir, should not accept these proposed amendments.

Of course we can understand the anxiety of hon. members on the other side to make use of this point of order, and the arguments employed by the hon. member, but in all modesty I want to say that quite clearly it would mean an infringement of the rights of this House. All the rights of Parliament could be abolished in this manner because it would be possible to issue a proclamation, and then when such a proclamation comes up for ratification before this House, all arguments in connection with the matter would be barred, and that proclamation would have to be accepted as the law of the land, a contract —as the hon. member said—between the Government and the Governor-General. Of course, there must be two parties to a contract. But what is the very foundation of democratic government? That such contracts are made, not as between the Governor-General and the Government, but they are made by Parliament for the people, and the hon. member’s suggestion is that that should be eliminated. I am not a lawyer, but if this contention should receive support, and if it is expected that this contention should be upheld on a point of order in this House, we may as well stop talking about democratic government. We may just as well suspend Parliament and accept the position that the Government may issue any proclamation it likes. In other words, the hon. member tries to prove why clause 2 is no longer required. Clause 2 is superfluous because the Government, according to the hon. member, can do what, in his opinion, can be done, even without clause 2. That perhaps is the reason why the hon. the Minister of Defence is prepared to withdraw clause 2, because the hon. member now comes along and says that it was never necessary. Any proclamation, when it is made, has the force of law. That is his argument.

The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) very kindly gave me notice of his intention to raise this point of order. The rule, as he rightly says, is that when an agreement or scheme such as a form, convention of contract signed and dated by the parties thereto, is scheduled to the Bill as a completed document amendments cannot be made to the schedule; “but,” as May (13th edition) on page 406 says—

On the same question being raised in 1897 Mr. Speaker Juta (V. & P., 1897, p. 195) ruled in the Cape House of Assembly—

Similarly in 1917 (Vol. 98, House of Commons Debate) the Speaker of the House of Commons said—

I would also like to refer to a ruling which I gave as Chairman of Committees in 1937 (V. & P. 179) on the question of amending a schedule to a Bill, which was a signed agreement. On that occasion I said—

From these decisions it seems clear that the type of amendment to which the hon. member refers has been allowed in the past and is in order.

I want to move the following amendment—

I move this amendment in order to save time. The amendment can take the place of all the other amendments which have been moved in respect of gatherings and processions. I believe there are some hundred or 150 amendments on clause 2. Now I am moving one amendment on the proviso which covers all gatherings and processions. Before discussing the amendment I want to say with all modesty that I regret that the Chairman read an instruction to us before clause 3 came under discussion. We know the stir caused by the different regulations and the amendments proposed to those regulations, and how the newspapers, which are antagonistic to this side of the House, made a song about these amendments and how it was said that politics were dragged in. The amendments are honest and have been moved with a sense of responsibility. Every member who has moved such an amendment, had in mind a particular procession or meeting which, in his opinion, should also be excluded, and that is the reason why the amendments appeared on the agenda. Now the Chairman read to us portions of a book and suggested that certain amendments had been offered in a spirit of mockery and that he reserved the right to rule those amendments out of order. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to belittle the Chair or the respect due to the Chair, but I feel that judgment is given here before hon. members have been heard. They are deprived of the opportunity to move their amendments and to explain the amendments; before they can be moved they are stamped as frivolous. I, therefore, ask in all humility whether hon. members are not entitled to think that they have been condemned beforehand, whether they are entitled to think that or not. I regret to have to say this. The original regulations prohibit certain gatherings and processions of more than twenty persons. But there are certain provisos exempting certain gatherings and processions even if more than twenty persons participate. As soon as you make exceptions in respect of certain gatherings, which cannot be prohibited, the regulations become farcical, or it is necessary to frame these regulations in a general way as I am doing here. If you do not do that the list will be very long, because every member is entitled to think that his procession or gathering is just as important as other gatherings. For that reason I put the matter in a general form and am pointing out that as soon as you coniine, for instance, gatherings for religious purposes to religious meetings in a building ordinarily used for such worship the regulation becomes farcical, because what about divine worship under oak trees, what about services in private homes? I myself have attended a service in a wagon-house. They will all be covered by the proviso moved by me. If I arrange a service in a wagon-house I am prohibited from doing so, under this provision. Then we come to funerals and cremations. Who would ever think of prohibiting a funeral or a cremation? And what does a cremation consist of? Is it the service at the grave, or the service in the church, or the procession or the funeral itself? In the same strain I could criticise all the provisos here, all the provisions excluding certain gatherings, and they could all be held up to ridicule. Where that is the position, I, and other hon. members, consider this proclamation in its provisions farcical, and we are of the opinion that other gatherings should not be affected. For that reason the amendments have been proposed. But we were only given three days and we cannot move and discuss all the amendments, and in order to save time I am proposing such a general proviso which will include all the essential gatherings which are held for a legal purpose, and the proclamation should not apply to those meetings. I can well imagine that a meeting held by a member of the Opposition will not be controlled by the chief control officer but by an ordinary control officer. [Time limit.]

I want to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren), but like the hon. member for Swellendam I find it very difficult to speak on the amendments standing in my name on the agenda, because, according to the instructions of the Chair, certain amendments, which have been placed on the Order Paper by some members, are considered to be frivolous. As a result you do not know what amendments will be ruled out of order by the Chairman, and what amendments he will allow to be discussed. Take the amendment standing in my name. It refers to a gathering held in connection with an historical commemoration or a public holiday. Such a gathering surely is desirable, and in certain cases highly essential. I have in mind the Ossewa Trek and the celebration on Dingaan’s Day, and my village, for instance, will soon celebrate its centenary. In connection therewith it is very difficult to say any more about my amendments, because the Chairman may rule them out of order. There is another amendment standing in my name, covering a meeting held to lodge a protest against the attitude of a municipality or a health committee. The other day in my village a meeting of taxpayers was held, approximately a month ago, to lodge a protest against an action of our City Council. Must we take it that such a meeting, where the city fathers are reminded of their duties, will be prohibited, or that people attending such a meeting may be prosecuted? To my mind that would be very unfair. I have another amendment I wanted to move, and that deals with meetings to protest against actions of the Government. Surely it is a serious matter to prohibit meetings of protest against actions of the Government. The Government might do something which is in direct conflict with public opinion, and then the people would be prohibited from lodging their protest against such a policy. That would be outrageous, and for that reason I intended to move the amendment’s, but I am quite prepared to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren), which covers all meetings held for legal purposes, provided the Minister then exempts all those meetings mentioned in our 150 amendments, because it will be of no avail to pass the amendment of the hon. member for Swellendam when a meeting to protest against the policy of the Government will be declared illegal. For that reason I want to ask the Minister, should he be prepared to accept that amendment, to make provision to legalise all gatherings mentioned in our amendments.

To my regret the Chair informed us that we will be limited and that certain amendments will not be allowed. I am of the old school and usually go straight ahead, sometimes arriving by a roundabout way. Therefore, I hope I shall be allowed to continue. I want to ask the Chairman when in the Chair to raise their voices so that we can hear what they are saying. I do not say this with any other intention than to inform the Chair that sometimes when pots and kettles are washed in the kitchen, it is very difficult to follow what is going on. I hope the Prime Minister will accept these amendments, because if he does not do so, we will have to repeat and repeat what, to our minds, are things which should not be prohibited. I have in mind the motions standing in my name, containing subjects which are just as important as funerals and gatherings in connection with cremations, or sporting events, or meetings of directors and shareholders of companies. They are definitely more important than races, athletic competitions and theatrical performances. The fact that those exceptions are made, makes it clear to us that numerous other meetings and gatherings, which to our mind are of the utmost importance, should also be exempted. In one of my amendments I mention meetings for agricultural purposes. It is truly sad to have to say here that it is necessary to move that an agricultural meeting should be permitted and to have to say that it is just as important as amusements and races. These gatherings should be allowed, because it is necessary for the farmers to meet and to discuss their vital interests. It is clear that the framer of the regulations only had one idea in mind. What, however, the idea was, I cannot understand. It definitely was not the national interest. I can think of many things which are just as important as these gatherings which are mentioned in the regulations. Take for instance the education of our people, in connection with which we should do everything in our power. I must see to it that when, in the near future, we want to open our hostel in connection with one of our bigger secondary schools, that we will be allowed to have an opening function. The Church and the whole community have made sacrifices for this hostel and we do not want to infringe the law by holding a meeting which is forbidden. Within the next few years, possibly still during this war, the Cape Town harbour will be completed, and as long as this legislation stands, we will have to get special dispensation for the Cape Town public and the fishermen whose interests are affected, to foregather and to celebrate the opening of the Cape Town harbour, because otherwise they will not be allowed to do so. At present such a gathering is not exempted. For that reason I fully support the amendment of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) which covers everything that is necessary. It reminds us of the Defence Act which has also been drawn up in such wide terms that practically any interpretation is possible. The amendments standing in my name cover certain points, and the amendments of the hon. member for Swellendam will include my amendments. The application of this regulation will then also be entrusted to responsible people. Then we come to that part of the motion, and I want to emphasise that. At the present moment we are dealing with gatherings and meetings which are permissible and such gatherings as sporting competitions, theatrical performances, and cremations are mentioned, but I hope that the other meetings mentioned in our amendments will also be allowed.

I want to urge the hon. the Minister of Defence to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren), and if he indicates to me that he is prepared to do that, I will sit down. As the hon. the Minister remains silent, it appears that however constructive an amendment may be, it does not meet with the approval of the Minister if it is suggested from these benches. We want to save the time of the House and the Minister and to do everything in our power to make these regulations as effective as possible. We are not out to waste the time of the House, because time is money. For that reason I want to know whether the hon. the Minister of Defence is prepared to accept this amendment, because it is generally felt that an amendment such as that moved by the hon. member for Swellendam, covering meetings of a religious nature, should be accepted. Where people meet for Divine Service, the Minister surely need not expect trouble. It is an old custom of our people to meet in that way, and we are now told by the Government that we are fighting for the preservation of Christianity. Under this regulation the position is that when our people meet in such a way the Minister will have the right to say where they should meet. Is that right towards our people? If the Minister indicates to me that he is prepared to accept the amendment I will not continue my speech. It seems, however, that we will have to continue stressing this point for the next two days, because no reply is forthcoming from the hon. the Minister of Defence to indicate to us that he is prepared to meet us. Therefore, I have to continue to discuss the regulations. We notice that a meeting of a religious character is permissible as long as it is held in a building which is ordinarily used for such purposes. On the platteland we know that very often a predikant and an elder go round to hold prayer meetings at places which are usually used for religious gatherings. Why should such prayer meetings be disallowed, and why is it not possible to amend this regulation in such a way that these meetings may take place without special permission from the Minister? We find that funerals and cremations are allowed. It seems to me extraordinary that these special exemptions are made. When a man dies, he has to be buried, and people gather for the purpose. He is entitled to a funeral, even if he is a supporter of this side of the House. Why then these special regulations and why should it be mentioned specially that where funerals are held, certain regulations will apply? In the bigger towns cremations take place. On the platteland that is not possible, and we find that in this respect the towns are more privileged than the platteland. We believe that if the towns are allowed to hold such meetings, the platteland should also be allowed to organise gatherings of a religious nature, etc., without asking for permission. We also see that meetings can be held of people who are interested in specific undertakings. I take it these are shareholders and directors of companies. But what is the position in respect of all these Boards appointed by the Minister of Agriculture. Some of them have more than twenty members and we should give them an opportunity to meet, without a special request to the Minister. There is one other person who is an important body in this connection, namely, the Commander-in-Chief, the man who is going to exercise these powers, and he is a man who is closely connected with the new United Party.

The new Dominion Party.

Yes, the new Unionist-Dominion Party.

The United Party.

Looking at them they are not a United Party. They are not united. How can you have a United Party in which the Minister of Agriculture is united with the Minister of Labour? How can the Minister of Agriculture, who does not work, be united with the Minister of Labour? I appeal to the Minister of Defence to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren). It covers all the 170 or 180 amendments which otherwise will become necessary. I ask the Minister to listen to this side for once. With the cooperation of this side, the country will be governed much better than is the case today. The hon. the Prime Minister knows how well he governed when he had such able men as the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) and the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) in the Cabinet. I want to move my first amendment—

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

It is customary for orders to be given in both languages, but with this Government we do not know what is going to happen, and we want, therefore, to make sure that all orders will be given in both official languages. Look at the Cabinet. If the Minister of Commerce and Industries were to receive an order in Afrikaans, I can well imagine what a quandary he would be in. He would not understand the order, and he might land himself in serious trouble, and he might be fined £200, or might even get twelve months’ imprisonment. I would not like to see the hon. the Minister imprisoned. Then we have the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. I know how he struggled for six and a half years to learn to understand Afrikaans. I had to interpret for him for weeks on end, and even then he could not understand.

The hon. member for Wodehouse (Mr. S. Bekker) has just advised the hon. the Prime Minister that if he had only followed the advice of hon. members on that side of the House, he would get on very much better. Unfortunately, the hon. the Prime Minister did follow the advice given by the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow). This particular regulation is identical with the regulation which the hon. member for Gezina drafted when he was Minister of Defence. As a matter of fact, it has been added to by the Prime Minister with regard to one or two clauses.

How do you know that?

How do I know that? I have already informed the House that a copy of this regulation was drafted by the hon. member for Gezina.

Where did you get that information from?

From the Minister of Justice, and it has already been disclosed before the House, and no doubt further information will also be disclosed. An extraordinary position has been taken up this afternoon by certain hon. members, particularly by the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Rooth). He has accused the Prime Minister of breaking faith, which is a very serious charge indeed. What does the charge consist of? It consists of an amendment being introduced to this particular Clause 3, whereas the Prime Minister stated he would not introduce any amendments. That is the charge of bad faith.

What do you call it?

Let me examine it. When the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) put that across to the Prime Minister the other day, everyone knew prefectly well in regard to the regulations made, that they were not going to impose any hardship on the people of this country.

That was a quibble.

It is not a quibble. What has happened? The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Fagan) the other day, when he spoke on the second reading of the Bill, protested very strongly against the fact that there was no right of appeal in these regulations. He said that one of the gravest defects in these regulations was that there was no right of appeal inasmuch as they dealt with matters affecting commerce, trade and industry, and he said there should be some right of appeal. His words were these—

And the hon. member asked, “What sort of justice is that?” He appealed to the Prime Minister to make some provision here that there should be a right of appeal under these regulations. What has the Prime Minister done? He has introduced an amendment referring these regulations back to be dealt with by the ordinary courts of the land, and giving the individual the right of appeal. He has restored the right of appeal under the amendment, and the ordinary procedure will be followed. He has, therefore, given the people of this country the definite right of appeal now with regard to those regulations. Under those regulations something has been restored which was previously taken away. Under those regulations this right has been restored, and because the Prime Minister has restored that right to the people of this country, the hon. member for Zoutpansberg accuses him of breaking faith. I ask, is that a fair charge, or a charge which any hon. member has a right to make? I say no, it is not. A good deal of criticism has been passed in regard to these regulations. It has been stated that they are very harsh, and that they are going to create a great deal of hardship. If one considered and went into the original regulations drafted by the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) one would find that some of the regulations were very much harsher than those included here. Let me refer to one item, the question of a penalty. Under those regulations persons can be fined and dealt with by the particular courts, and be subject to a fine or a penalty of imprisonment and so on. Under the regulations which the hon. member for Gezina proposed to propose, he went further than that. But I will read out the rule—

The hon. member was not only good enough to deal with the question of a fine or imprisonment, but he was going to give them 21 days on spare diet. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister will be accused of not having treated people fairly because he has cut out that regulation. All the way through these regulations the Prime Minister has endeavoured to modify the hardship which necessarily exists. The other day I put a question to the hon. member for Gezina, and I put the same question to him again. He stated that his intention was that these regulations should be carried out, or enforced by the Prime Minister. I want to ask the hon. member whether that regulation was modified in any way? I want to ask him whether that regulation was not modified so that it should be the Minister of Defence who would carry out those regulations? Do I understand the hon. member to say “No”? I would ask the hon. member to explain how in the regulation a pencilled amendment was found in those regulations on the typed document that was drafted.

A state secret!

It is no state secret. The original typed document was found, and in the typed draft the name of the Prime Minister was deleted and that of the Minister of Defence was substituted in his place. Was that not knocked out afterwards to the effect that the Minister of Defence should be substituted in the place of the Prime Minister? There were certain other minor amendments there, but otherwise these regulations, for the most part have been taken over from those drafted by the hon. member for Gezina. If hon. members opposite feel that they are too harsh, or bear too hardly on the individual, one can only say that the hon. member for Gezina was partly responsible, because they were taken over by the Prime Minister. I think the Prime Minister was almost wrong to follow the advice or the example set by the hon. member for Gezina, but after all he is generous in his interpretation of some of these acts, and perhaps that is the reason why, in this particular case, he followed the regulations set out by the hon. member for Gezina.

I also want to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren), but before doing so I want to say to the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) that he is anticipating matters. He comes here and tells us what regulations would have been introduced by the hon. member for Gezina if war had broken out. But these regulations did not yet come before the House, and possibly they would have been thrown out here; therefore, the hon. member cannot saddle us with the responsibility for something which never came before the House, and we cannot take notice of his accusations. I have also in mind certain matters which I consider of great importance and which should be excluded. I want to move, for instance, that a procession in connection with a sporting club or sporting venture should not be prohibited. In my constituency there is a place known as Klipkoppie. In the olden days it was called the Dardanelles of the Nationalist Party, and to-day it is the dread of the South African Party. On the site of those sports grounds big buildings may be erected one day and very often big meetings take place there. The hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) and myself addressed a big meeting there the other day and we were instructed, inter alia, to see to it that the rights of those people are protected. For that reason I feel that I should not only make this proposal for the sake of those people, but that other sporting bodies should also have the opportunity to organise meetings and to open sports clubs, etc. Then there are other occasions, such as the opening of a railway bridge. Only a few days ago we saw in the papers that a big bridge will be built over the Komati River. True, it is not a railway bridge, but I take it that in view of the fact that the Government has given instructions to the National Roads Board to expedite the making of roads which may be required in time of war, additional railway bridges will also be built to convey the necessary provisions and other war material to the scene of fighting. As far as this bridge at Komati Poort is concerned, I expect there will be a big gathering when the bridge is opened for traffic, and people will come not only from this side of the border but also from across the other side. Therefore I think the Minister should make provision that these people attending such a function shall not be imprisoned or put into an internment camp. Then we are expected to report on what we have done here or what we have not done. These are the political meetings I am referring to, and hon. members, who support the Prime Minister, will be the first to ask us why we did not support the proposals of the Prime Minister and then we will be prevented from informing our constituents why we did not support the proposals of the Prime Minister. The Minister should give us an opportunity to hold these political meetings when we return to our constituencies. Then I have in mind important meetings in connection with secondary education. When I was a member of the Provincial Council, we voted, inter alia, a substantial amount for a secondary school at Pretoria, North, and a school costing £10,000 is to be built there. My people in Pretoria North were deprived of secondary education for their children and a big meeting will take place when that building is officially opened. Only the other day an Afrikaans-medium school was opened and if I tell you that between 2,000 and 3,000 people were present it will seem an exaggeration, but that is the truth. I hope that the Minister will provide that when people meet to open such buildings or to lay foundation stones, they will experience no unnecessary difficulties. There is another matter of interest to my constituency. In my constituency we have an organisation which is known as the League of Mercy (Bond van Barmhartigheid). It falls under the supervision of the Salvation Army which started the movement. In my constituency where there are several branches of this organisation, we have a lot of poor people, and they meet every week to make blankets which they sell. Some 60 to 70 people meet and now there is a likelihood that that will be prohibited. The Prime Minister always says that the people should be independent, and where these people do not receive a war allowance, and where they have an opportunity to earn a little extra money, the Minister comes along and prevents the wives of these men to meet and make a little extra. I think the Minister of Social Welfare will agree with me that this kind of meeting should not be prohibited. I want to move the amendments standing in my name—

1. (2) In respect of the regulations promulgated by the Proclamations hereunder set out, the following provisions shall apply:
   1. (i) Regulation 10 of Proclamation 201, 1939, shall, in respect of any act or omission after the commencement of this Act, be construed as if the following paragraphs had been added to follow paragraph
      1. (e):
      2. (f) a procession held in connection with the inauguration of a recreation or other club hall; or
      3. (g) a procession held in connection with the opening of a railway bridge; or
      4. (h) a gathering held for political purposes; or
      5. (i) a gathering held in connection with secondary education; or
      6. (j) a gathering held in connection with child welfare.
   2. (ii) The following regulations promulgated by Proclamation 201, 1939, shall, in respect of any act or omission after the commencement of this Act, be construed as if the words referred to had been omitted, viz.:
      1. (a) sub-regulation (5) of regulation 15, the words, “or in default of payment of such fine confinement in a specified room, building or locality for a period not exceeding ten days;
      2. (b) sub-regulation (2) of regulation 17, the words “or to imprisonment during a period not exceeding one year or to both such fine and imprisonment”; and
      3. (c) sub-regulation (1) of regulation 20, the words “additional magistrate.”

I am anxious to move this, because when we refer to regulation 15, dealing with the arrest and detention of dangerous persons, we read that the Minister of Defence, or the chief control officers, or a control officer, or a commissioned officer in one of the forces, may come to be arrested or himself arrest without warrant or other order of arrest. It strikes me that even the Minister of Defence will have the right to arrest a person without giving any reasons for such arrest. [Time limit.]

I would like the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) to give me his attention for a moment. He referred, on a previous occasion, to the fact that most of these regulations had been framed by the ex-Minister of Defence, and he mentioned that fact as an excuse for the promulgation of these regulations under existing circumstances. Now I want to point out to the hon. the Minister, as I have done on previous occasions, that we do not object to the regulations as such but to the way these regulations are applied. The name under which these regulations go indicates that they are intended to deal with a state of emergency, but according to the Prime Minister everything is quiet and lovely in the garden, and there is no question of a state of emergency. For that reason we object to the application of these regulations at the present juncture. I now want to deal with clause 3, which covers regulations already applied and regulations to be applied in the future. As I said before, these regulations are very far-reaching and, therefore, I take it the Prime Minister will not take it amiss if we attempt to modify these regulations in their application. For that reason I want to move an amendment to paragraph 15 of regulation 201, 1939. The regulation reads as follows—

That is the clause to which I want to move an amendment. The Minister will find it in the agenda. It reads as follows—

1. (2) Sub-regulation (1) of regulation 15 of the regulations promulgated by Proclamation 201, 1939, shall, in respect of any act or omission after the commencement of this Act, be construed as if the following words had been inserted at the end thereof, viz.:
   “Provided that such opinion be based on the sworn statements, in writing, made separately, of at least two persons, of which statements the person arrested or to be arrested is entitled to obtain certified copies.”

That is the amendment. I have already read the regulation, and to my mind nobody can take it amiss when I say that this regulation is very drastic. It actually reminds one of the Gestapo. We find a position here where a control officer or other officer, if he thinks fit, may arrest a man without warrant or order of arrest. We know who the chief control officer is. He is a man to whom in certain circumstances one can entrust such responsibilities, but we do not know who the control officer or other officer is going to be; yet he is authorised to arrest a person merely on gossip which has been carried to the Minister or such an official. I, therefore, deem it essential that this amendment should be proposed. Then we will not have a recurrence of what has happened in the past when people were interned, although it appeared at a later stage that they were innocent. I want to point out to the Minister that when people are released from those camps it proves that they were interned on false accusations. We therefore have adequate reason to move such an amendment. What is the result of the arrest of a man who is found innocent at a later stage? He has been branded as a man who has done something detrimental to the interests of his country, but all the time he is innocent. Possibly he has suffered financially; we have already had cases of that kind. A man is put in an internment camp without warning; after a while he is found innocent and released, and when he returns the position formerly occupied by him has been filled, or he has suffered severely, with the result that he finds it very difficult to make a living. It goes without saying that such a state of affairs causes bitterness, and this all goes to create the suspicion, which we already find prevalent amongst certain sections, that certain people attempt to get certain other persons removed in order to benefit financially. I do not say that that is correct, but the Minister will admit that the suspicion has been aroused. Therefore it is his duty to protect those innocent people against whom accusations are made. We have had no proof that that section of the community has been guilty of a crime. I feel, however, that it is essential that there should be two sworn affidavits before a man is interned. That will curb the desire to run to the Minister or to an official with gossip, and it will create better understanding in the country. If the amendment is passed it will enable the Minister of Justice, in cases where false accusations are levelled against people, to take steps to prosecute the guilty parties for perjury. The Minister will agree that in essence these are very essential amendments. I do not ask for something to which the Minister can object, and I maintain that it will create a better atmosphere in the country and will remove the suspicion which has gained ground.

Unlike our friends opposite I am getting up to criticise one of the regulations on the ground that that regulation is defective and will not meet the purpose. The regulation is in regard to the question of profiteering. I know how difficult it is to put a stop to what the Government wants to put a stop to, namely profiteering, especially at a time like the present. The fact remains that as the regulations are framed now very frequently the wrong person is charged and the person who really makes the large profits is allowed to go scot free. I know of cases where a small retailer who may have made a few pence is charged, while the wholesaler, the big merchant, who is making the real big profits, is not touched. I hope it may be possible to amend these regulations to make them stricter in this connection. The second point I want to touch on is the rate of profit which has been laid down. The position is that if a merchant, or an importer, or a retailer has to pay more for the replacement of his goods he is allowed to charge a profit on the amount he spends in relation to the profit he was able to, make prior to the war. Now, in effect that means that because a merchant pays extra for the replacement value of the goods he gets a proportionately higher profit. The result is that he gets a higher profit, the retailer gets a higher profit, but the poor consumer, the really hard-working man, who, is earning very little, has to pay more. It is true that provision is made for an excess profits tax, but that still allows a considerable amount of extra money to go into the pockets of these people. I hope the Minister will consider the possibility, at any rate, of restricting the profit not to the proportionate amount of replacement, but to a profit not more than it was prior to the war. The Minister may find it necessary to take certain powers in regard to certain commodities, the distribution of certain commodities, so that instead of those commodities going through a large number of hands before reaching the consumer, they may go through the hands of the Government — the Government may have to act as a sort of distributor in order to limit the profits made on those commodities.

I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren). If his amendment is agreed to a great many of our objections will disappear, and even the Chairman’s objections that unnecessary amendments are being moved will disappear. There are so many things in life which are of general interest and in connection with which it is necessary to have public meetings and processions. We require that sort of thing almost every day of our lives, and if I mention a few of those functions I hope the Minister will have no objection to accept amendments in that direction, so long as these affairs are not such as to be in conflict with military provisions under the regulations. I first of all wish to mention public lectures of any kind. They are indispensible for the spiritual education of the public, and as the regulations read now such lectures cannot be held. Provision is made for public meetings and lectures of a particular kind, but those other lectures are just as essential, and they are not mentioned. Then there are meetings in connection with higher education. It is absolutely essential to bold such meetings continually, because they have the effect of giving the public a sound intellectual education, and according to the regulations such meetings will not be allowed to take place. Then there is another matter — the meetings of those societies which aim at the prevention of ill-treatment of animals. According to these regulations I do not believe that such meetings can be held, and it is essential that they should be held, especially in view of the proposed campaign to the north. When mechanical means of transport can no longer be used the Government will no doubt use donkeys to convey the troops through the sand deserts, and we can imagine how badly animals are likely to be treated. I hope the Minister will accept this. But I want to, get a little nearer home. A large garden party is to be held at Westbrooke to-morrow. Imagine, if these regulations were law today, what would become of all the fine dresses which so many of the ladies have already bought to go to that garden party? What consternation would there not be if the police were to say that those people were not allowed to gather in such large numbers. I realised that when these regulations were drafted it was impossible to remember all these small points but when a member reminds the Minister of matters like this, the Minister should accept the hint and he should start by agreeing to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Swellendam. There is another matter I wish to mention specifically, namely gatherings for physical training. In this country very little has been done in this regard so far, but it is absolutely essential to train our young people so that this may become a healthy and strong nation, and this is particularly necessary with a view to the proposed campaign to the Equator, where our young men will have to be able to resist malaria and such diseases—if they are not eaten up by mosquitoes. Another matter I wish to mention is processions held in connection with Freemason meetings. I am not a Freemason, and I shall never take part in any procession like that, but it is necessary none the less that this section of the population, too, shall have the right it is entitled to. I would not be surprised if among members opposite there were Freemasons—I would not be surprised if the Prime Minister himself were one. But that sort of Thing is secret and we do not know anything about it. But the fact remains that it is important and that it is essential for those people to have the rights they are entitled to. This society is as old as the hills. We can even find this society referred to in the Bible, but all the good and all the evil they have done are as hidden from us as the darkest refugees in the hills. I am not proposing any amendment, but I want to appeal to the Minister to go into these questions and to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Swellendam, because if he does so it will put an end to a great many of the complaints which we have against these regulations.

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

I should like to move the amendment standing in my name—

1. (2) In respect of the regulations promulgated by the Proclamations hereunder set out, the following provision shall apply: Proclamation 201, 1939, shall, in respect of any act or omission after the commencement of this Act, be construed as if regulation 14 and subregulations (3) and (5) of regulation 15 had been omitted.

This amendment first of all affects regulation No. 14, the deletion of which is proposed. That regulation reads as follows—

1. (1) The Minister of Defence may by means of a notice published in a manner which he deems most suitable to inform those for whom the notice is intended, prohibit any person whatsoever or any person belonging to a specified class from leaving the Union (except on official business) unless he has been authorised to do so by the said Minister or by a person mentioned in the notice.
2. (2) Any person who contravenes a prohibition under sub-regulation (1) shall be guilty of an offence.

As we notice this clause exempts nobody. Any person, any Union citizen, no matter whether his grandfather or his grandmother were born in this country, may be prevented by the Minister from leaving the Union. If this regulation only prevented enemy subjects from leaving the country one would be able to understand it. Such a provision would not be unreasonable, but why should the Minister interfere in this way with the private rights of citizens, as is being proposed here? I cannot conceive that the Minister has a category of persons in view here, I cannot conceive that the Minister is afraid that the Jews may form a strong Jewish regiment which may be sent overseas, at their own expense, to look up Hitler and to fight him there. We on this side of the House are stigmatised as Nazis, but let me give the Minister the assurance that we would have no objection whatsoever to such a Jewish regiment going overseas if they want to. I hope the Minister will not avail himself of the regulation to prevent that. On the other hand, however, we cannot allow the rights of Union citizens to be curtailed in this manner. My amendment also moves the deletion of regulation 15 (3). That subregulation is as follows—

This war has been going on for six or seven months, and we are still 6,000 or 7,000 miles away from the real field of battle. Everything is calm and quiet here, and yet we find that the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Justice are already asking for an indemnity for serious transgressions, for wrongful use of their powers, and they ask that we should also legalise action which may be taken against Union citizens in the future. We find that Union citizens, without even knowing who have made complaints against them, without knowing who the informants are, who their slanderers are, are being interned. I cannot call the informers anything but slanderers, because we find that the Minister of Justice had people interned and afterwards came to the conclusion that there was insufficient ground for keeping them in the camp, so that they had to be let out. We also find that a man like Pastor Wagner here in Cape Town would probably have been in the camp if it had not been for the intervention and the action of the police. Where did that information come from? Certainly not from responsible persons, because otherwise we would not have had the position of people being interned and released shortly afterwards.

Is your complaint that they are released?

It is strange that the hon. member is unable to realise the great injustice that is being done to a man — taking him away from his family and his work, and keeping him in a camp for weeks and then releasing him, without giving him any idea who his accusers were, and why he was sent to the internment camp. When he gets back he finds that he has lost his position. Does the Government intend paying any compensation to people who have been wronged in that way—are they to be paid any compensation for the injustice done to them? We feel that if it is found that they have been interned on insufficient evidence, without their knowing what they have been accused of, they should at least get compensation for the damage they have suffered.

Does it never happen that people are arrested on suspicion?

In such a case they have the opportunity, anyhow, of appearing before a judge, and of knowing what the charge against them is, and they are given the chance to defend themselves. We allow any native or coloured man who has stolen a sheep the privilege of defending himself, and if perjury has been committed the individual who has committed perjury can be punished.

But here we find that Union citizens, peaceful people, are interned without knowing why, and on what grounds, and then the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe) wants to excuse that sort of thing. My amendment further proposes the deletion of sub-clause (5) of Regulation 15. This sub-clause concerns rules providing for sanctions for the enforcement of such rules, and the Minister of Defence, or his chief control officer, is given the power of fixing the penalties. We do not even know what the rules are, and yet we are asked at this stage to give our approval to them. These people may be liable to a penalty of fourteen days’ imprisonment, or a fine of £10. [Time limit.]

These regulations which we have before us clearly show that what we have here is nothing but a dictatorship. I myself believe that democracy has passed away. I know that I am getting on to dangerous ground, but I feel honestly and truly, after what I have seen in the world, that dictatorships have been proved to be successful in Europe. If I were to vote for regulations of this kind, I would only do so—I would only give these rights to a dictator whose whole heart, soul and body would be in South Africa, but I would not give those rights to a dictator whose heart and soul are in the Empire, and only after that in South Africa. In those circumstances I am unable to vote for these proposals. If the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) were in power, and I were asked to vote for regulations of this kind, I would be quite prepared to vote in favour of them in every possible way. But it must be perfectly clear to us that we cannot vote for these regulations, and why not? First of all because of the officials who are being appointed. What kind of officials are we getting to-day as chiefs under the dictator? First of all the Prime Minister, of course, is the dictator, and then powers are handed over to a man described as the chief control officer, and after that to a control officer. Now who is that man—what did he do in the Anglo-Boer War? He was the man who chased the Prime Minister and myself for the sake of the Empire when we were fighting for our freedom and independence. How can I have any confidence in that man? He was the man who in the Anglo-Boer War chased and persecuted me; he is the man who was the murderer of Jopie Fourie. How can we give our vote in favour of regulations which entrust people of that type with these powers?

What does “Die Vaderland” say about him?

I am not speaking on behalf of “Die Vaderland,” I am speaking on behalf of my constituents. I do not, like the hon. member, speak in accordance with what the “Argus,” the “Star,” the “Rand Daily Mail” and the “Sunday Times” say. I speak on behalf of my constituents, and not on behalf of papers. I am a man of independence, and there are very few people on the other side who have any independence—they have to look at the papers; I fight my own battles but there are very few on the other side of the House who fight their own battles. This control officer is the man who can prevent me from holding any kind of meeting. Is it right that this type of person whose hands, as I have explained, are stained with Afrikaner blood, should be allowed to prevent me from holding meetings for the sake of my Afrikaner fellow-countrymen? I have suffered and I have fought, and I shall continue to fight to the very end. I am not going to tolerate any injustice—I stand for my fellow Afrikaners. I fought very hard, for instance, in order to secure the Skoonspruit Dam with the aid of the United Party. This dam will probably be opened this year—is this sub-dictator going to prohibit me from celebrating that occasion? That sub-dictator will allow anyone to hold meetings, if he thinks fit to give that permission, but at the same time he may also forbid the holding of meetings if he has a mind to do so. We shall not even be allowed to have any celebrations on the occasion of the opening of that dam, because he will prevent us from doing so. I have no faith in him, because he has persecuted me since the days of the Boer War until to-day. Our old United Party—they call themselves the United Party, although they are not the United Party—did good work, but to-day the United Party has been split up. I am also sorry that I went with them, but one must know a man well before joining up with him. Still, I have had experience now. And that sub-dictator, when the bridge over Skoonspruit is ready, will come along and prevent us from holding our celebrations, which have been organised not by men but by women. Is the sub-dictator going to give us the right to hold that function? No, he will refuse us that right. How can I, who represent my people, be expected to vote for regulations such as we have before us? I feel, and my people feel, that we can have no confidence, no faith in that sub-dictator. And what do they say further in these regulations? They provide that religious ceremonies will only be allowed in buildings generally used for religious services, or for religious instruction given in accordance with the law. Let us take the example of a new church. That church has not been used before for the purpose of religious services. Now what is going to happen to that new church which has been newly built? The parson may be prohibited from holding religious services in that church. My hon. friend here says that he can hold Sunday school services in the church, but that is not correct either. Under these regulations he is not even allowed to conduct Sunday school services. [Time limit.]

We have had numerous complaints against these regulations, and it may possibly be that in emergency conditions some of these regulations may be very necessary, but at the same time I feel that there are some regulations here which are quite unnecessary. I should like hon. members to look at the amendment standing in my name where I move “that Proclamation No. 201, 1939, shall, in respect of any act or omission after the commencement of this Act, be construed as if Regulation 12 had been omitted.” hon. members will notice that that regulation says—

Everything depends on the interpretation placed on these words. What will be the attitude of those in authority if a meeting is held and the Government is criticised at that meeting? May not some control official possibly interpret such a meeting as a plan to subvert the Government? We are in fact busy trying every day, when we hold meetings, to upset the Government. If this regulation is accepted we shall be prevented from holding meetings in our constituencies, and from criticising the actions of the Government. It will be said: “You are busy upsetting, or subverting the Government.” Provision is already made in the Riotous Assemblies Act, as amended in 1930, to deal with matters of that kind, and under that Act the Minister of Justice can take action at any time, and he has the power to prevent meetings being held. He has the power of preventing the holding of meetings which in his opinion are calculated to cause ill feelings between sections of people, as stated under (b), where it says that a person shall be liable to punishment if he incites other persons or categories of persons. In such cases the Minister of Justice can step in, and if the person concerned takes no heed, and the meetings are held all the same, he, the Minister, under the Act, has the power of applying to the courts of the country, so that such an individual may be duly charged; that person will have the right to defend himself, but under this regulation he will not have that right. For that reason I feel that it is essential that this regulation should be deleted from the Bill now before the House. The people in our country are getting panicky. We feel that we are being tied down on all sides, and one does not know when one is doing something in conflict with the regulations when holding a meeting. One may call a meeting with the best intentions in the world, a meeting at which one wants to report to one’s constituents and in doing so one may criticise the Government slightly more than hon. members opposite like one to do; a complaint may then be sent to the control officer, and the control officer may then say: “This man is busy holding meetings and inciting the people to subvert the Government.” Well, as a matter of fact we always try to upset the Government, to get the Government put out of power, when we hold meetings. But now we may be found guilty of a crime under this regulation. We want to retain our freedom of speech so that we may be able to inform our people of what is going on, as they have not the opportunity of hearing everything that takes place in Parliament. The Act talks of creating hostile feelings against a person or against a category of persons. If we should have a meeting resulting in an explosion of feelings, such as took place in Cape Town among the coloured community, the people holding such a meeting would be liable to punishment under these regulations. We have our amended Riotous Assemblies Act which deals with the subject of meetings and gatherings, and these regulations are unnecessary. We might at some of our meetings say something about the English-speaking people, and our remarks might be misconstrued by hon. members opposite, and although there may be no question of inciting anyone, feelings may be stirred up, and a report may be made to the control officer to the effect that we are causing disturbances. We may talk about our Jewish friends; they are panicky and touchy, and they may make a straight line for the control officer and tell him that we are busy creating ill feeling between the two sections. I do not think there is any necessity to render us liable to punishment under these regulations, while the Riotous Assemblies Act makes ample provision to deal with public meetings. Any serious occurrence in this country can be dealt with under that Act. For that reason I move the amendment standing in my name. I move—

1. (2) In respect of the regulations promulgated by the Proclamation hereunder set out, the following provisions shall apply:
   Proclamation 201, 1939, shall, in respect of any act or omission after the commencement of this Act, be construed as if Regulation 12 had been omitted.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand the attitude of the Opposition in regard to these regulations; it is entirely beyond my comprehension. We have a right to have these war regulations which hon. members are fighting against. They are just as much in favour of winning the war as this side of the House and yet they fight against these regulations. The Germans have their regulations; they have their regulations for concentration camps, and why should there be this serious objection to what the Government is doing? I should like to read a letter sent out by Dr. W. J. Leyds. I think that is a name which is most familiar to some hon. members. He is the former State Secretary of the Transvaal, and if hon. members opposite don’t know him the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) will tell them all about him. There are members on the Opposition benches who know him very well indeed. We ought to take very serious note of what he says in this letter.

Is it a private letter?

No.

Confidential?

No. It is a letter which he sent to a very old Free State family. It reads as follows—

I think that is a very important letter and I think great notice should be taken of it especially by the Opposition. Dr. Leyds knows this country so well, and what will he think of the Opposition and the attitude which the younger members are adopting? Surely, they ought to follow his example and join us in fighting to win this war and preserve our freedom.

I spoke this afternoon on a few of the amendments, and it appears to me that the Prime Minister refuses definitely to accept any amendments, but I am now going to propose an amendment which I am sure the Prime Minister will have to accept, whether he likes it or not. Yesterday the Prime Minister stated that he had entire faith in his translators. I now wish to draw his attention to a translation on page 8 in regulation 17. That regulation is very clear and reads as follows—

What does it all mean? Is it Afrikaans, or German, or what is it? This is the sort of Afrikaans which I referred to this afternoon in connection with the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. It is not grammatical and it has no meaning. I move an amendment—

We have to put up with this kind of Afrikaans. It is our mother tongue, and strange to relate it is also the Prime Minister’s mother tongue which is being despoiled in this way. Hon. members on this side are laughing, but if we look at the serious faces of members opposite, for instance, at the face of the Minister of Lands, it would appear that he does not like this at all, especially as he regards himself more as an Irishman these days than an Afrikaner. So far as the war is concerned, however, he is not an Irishman at all, because he does not want to remain neutral. The Government’s English is very good, and I shall quote the English text of the particular clause. It reads—

The translation is nonsensical, and if the Prime Minister will give me a hint that he is prepared to accept my amendment I shall be prepared to sit down. But we are not getting any indication from the Prime Minister that he is going to accept our amendments, even if we do show him a mistake in the translation. Now I want to revert to another proposal standing in my name, and I now want to move the final part of the amendment standing in my name. I move—

1. (2) In respect of the regulations promulgated by the proclamations hereunder set out the following provisions shall apply:
   Regulation (2) of Proclamation 201 of 1939 shall in respect of any act or omission after the commencement of this Act be construed as if the following paragraph had been added to follow sub-regulation (6):
   By “request” in sub-regulation (6) is meant a request written or printed in the home language of the person to whom the request is directed or in both official languages; and by “demand” in the same sub-regulation is meant a demand written or printed in the home language of the person to whom the demand is directed or in both official languages.

I am moving this out of pity for the Cabinet sitting on the other side of the House. I showed this afternoon how the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs would suffer through his being unilingual, and how the Minister of Commerce and Industries would be handicapped, and the Minister of Railways and Harbours as well, although I must say that I admire him for trying to learn Afrikaans. I was trying to, show how they would be handicapped by these terrible regulations in Afrikaans being placed before them, and I was pointing out that they were liable to a fine of £200 and imprisonment if they failed to carry out those regulations. And what about the Minister of Labour—if he did not have his friend from Central Africa behind him to interpret for him — what would he do if he had those regulations in Afrikaans in front of him? And what about the Minister of Mines? We know that he does not want to have any other language except English before him. We have an English Cabinet, and they will find things very difficult, because it will be impossible for them to understand the regulations if they only have them placed before them in Afrikaans. If the Prime Minister is not prepared to accept my other amendment I do ask him to accept my amendment in which I try to put the translation into grammatical order. If he sees a possibility of accepting it, I also want to ask him, for the sake of the English-speaking members of the Cabinet, to accept my second amendment. I am making this appeal to him and at a later stage I propose moving a few other amendments.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Wodehouse (Mr. S. Bekker) on the fact that after the large number of amendments his side of the House have moved, they have succeeded in finding a printing error.

O Absalom, o Absalom!

The labour was so arduous and now the remuneration is very, very small, but none the less I want to congratulate him on having discovered something at least. I have risen to reply to the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens).

O Absalom.

The hon. member was very much upset; I do not know why. He objected—not to a dictatorship. The hon. member told us that he would not be opposed to a dictatorship here provided the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) was the dictator; but he would not be in favour of a dictatorship if the present Prime Minister should happen to be the dictator.

South Africa does not want him.

The hon. member should realise that for that reason we shall never have a dictatorship here.

We already have a dictatorship here.

The hon. member for Ventersdorp would prefer to have the hon. member for Smithfield as his dictator, but the majority of the people of South Africa would prefer to have the present Prime Minister.

Let the country give its verdict now.

What other objections did the hon. member for Ventersdorp have? He went back forty years in his mind in discussing the man whom he described here as the sub-dictator.

Yes, Col. Truter is the sub-dictator.

That is his chief objection. But the hon. member knows only too well that whoever the official may be, the door is always open for him to approach the Prime Minister or any other Minister if anything should happen to go wrong. The hon. member speaks of a subdictator, but he should have sufficient faith in the Prime Minister, with the history he has behind him, to know that he can always approach him.

That is why we have no faith in him.

He will have to admit that the Prime Minister has always been the first to come forward after any difficulties in South Africa, to proclaim an amnesty.

We know that he always caused difficulties here.

But the hon. member also knows that his leader—the man he is so anxious to have as a dictator —has never yet given a lead in those critical days. It is very easy to choose a man who has never in the dark days of the past taken the lead. I can also play at being a big man in days of darkness, but we know that our present Prime Minister in the days of the deepest darkness came to the aid of the people. The Prime Minister in the most critical times ever experienced by South Africa always set an example. I know that we passed through serious difficulties when we had strikes here, but hon. members opposite should be guided by what the workers are doing… do not let us always harp on the difficulties of the past, and quote those difficulties of the past as a reason why we should not do our duty now.

I am not ashamed of my history.

I do not know what the hon. member wants to convey. I do not believe that the hon. member has any cause to be ashamed of anything in his past life, but I want to say this that the Prime Miinster’s past is as good as the past of any other person in the country. Surely the hon. member will admit that.

A past full of troubles and difficulties.

Efforts have been made here to discuss the various functions which are to be prohibited under the regulations now before us, but the hon. member for Ventersdorp will surely admit that many of those functions are often being exploited for other purposes. Surely the hon. member will be the first to admit that disgraceful propaganda is often being made even in our church buildings on various occasions.

Do you want to close the churches as well?

There is no need to close the churches, but it is necessary to do so in days when the churches are exploited for political propaganda; it is the Government’s duty to step in then.

Give us specific instances?

The hon. member says I must mention specific instances. On the 4th September, on that sacred spot which, from a religious point of view, is just as important as a church, great propaganda was made—the people who had gathered there at the “Volksmonument” near Pretoria were incited there—disgraceful political propaganda was indulged in there.

For the benefit of the Afrikaner people.

At the Paardekraal Monument disgraceful propaganda was made against the Government.

Also for the Afrikaner people.

I must ask the hon. member not to interrupt continually.

The hon. member asked me to mention specific cases, and I am not ashamed to mention these cases, and I say that the time has come for an end to be put to this sort of thing, and for these disgraceful propagandists to be…

O Absolom, O Absolom!

The hon. member knows that even at these functions which he wishes to celebrate, disgraceful propaganda is indulged in. He knows that these functions are often exploited. The hon. member should be reasonable, and he should admit that the Government cannot allow public feelings to be stirred up under the guise of public functions…

Is Dingaan’s Day not allowed to be celebrated?

If the hon. member interrupts again I shall be compelled to take drastic steps.

The hon. member will agree with me that Dingaan’s Day is often used as one of the chief occasions for political propaganda.

Are you not ashamed of yourself?

The hon. member asked me whether Dingaan’s Day should also be excluded. I only say that the Government should keep its eye on it, because we know that on the occasion of the celebration of Dingaan’s Day, after prayers have been said, and after the Bible has been read, the greatest possible political propaganda is usually indulged in.

Shame!

hon. members now say “shame,” but they will remember what happened in Natal last year. Imagine! At a celebration opened with prayer and the singing of hymns a political demonstration is made, and it is time that my hon. friend…

Judas, Judas!

I must ask the hon. member for Ventersdorp to withdraw from the House for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

I am here to represent the people, and I am not going to be told that I am not allowed to make interjections. I am entitled to say what I did say. I said “Judas,” and I say that Judas is over there.

Order, order!

You will have to drive me out with a sword.

Order! I ask the hon. member to withdraw from the House.

I am not going to be chased out.

Col. Wilkens, I name you by name.

Very well, at the request of members on the front benches I shall leave.

I have already named the hon. member. He must wait now. (Col. Jacob Wilkens leaves the Chamber.)

The proceedings of the Committee were suspended pending the resumption of the Chair by Mr. Speaker.

House Resumed:

Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

I have to report that it is my duty to name Col. Jacob Wilkens for having disregarded the authority of the Chair in Committee.

I move—

Mr. HIGGERTY seconded.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—65:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Cadman, C. F. M.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Moll. A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Noes—45:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

De Bruyn. D. A. S.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fagan, H. A.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Theron, P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and J. H. Viljoen.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER left the Chair.

House in Committee:

Maj. G. B. VAN ZYL in the Chair.

I find it very difficult to speak dispassionately and quietly. This sort of episode is unknown in the history of South Africa—it is an unknown thing for a son of South Africa, who calls himself a son of South Africa, to have the bad taste to exploit what is sacred to the people in this manner.

Disgraceful!

Order! The hon. member must not make such reflections on the rt. hon. the Prime Minister.

I am not making any reflections on the Prime Minister. The bad taste was on the part of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg). I am dealing with him. The Prime Minister will never sink so low.

That is the member for Bobbejaansberg.

Is the hon. member in order in saying that the hon. member sitting in front of me is the member for Bobbejaansberg?

I did not use that expression; it was an interjection made by another member. Allow me to say what I want to say, and do not put words in my mouth which I do not want to use.

Mr. Chairman, did, you allow me to use language that was in bad taste?

The hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. R. A. T. van der Merwe) may proceed.

We are discussing national affairs here, most important affairs, and the hon. member for Krugersdorp under the protection of his privileges, as a member of this House, has dared to exploit the most sacred things of the Afrikaner people. We on this side of the House resent this, and the hon. member who has been driven out of the House resented it just as strongly.

The whole party over there is like the hon. member for Krugersdorp.

This whole party is like him too. [Laughter.] What I want to say is this, that this side of the House is just as annoyed as I am,— we are just as annoyed and indignant as the hon. member who has been suspended. The hon. member for Krugersdorp tries to ridicule the bones of the past—but he is touching on what is most sacred in the history of our nation—and he is trying to exploit it. That is how low he has sunk. He is trying to exploit the Dingaan’s Day celebrations and the monuments in this House for his own purposes. For what? For things that are low, disgraceful, — away from Afrikanerdom—that is what it is. How far has he sunk? You will allow me, Mr. Chairman, to express myself here on behalf of the party. What happened on the 9th at the Monument? Thank God the Afrikaner nation is united again, and the Afrikaner nation again has a future. Look at history. Afrikanerdom has been given a mission by God.

Is your little lot the Afrikaner nation?

That is God’s will. But I wish to discuss some important matters. I had to express my indignation at this objectionable thing which has taken place here, and I thought that I had better devote my time to doing so. I believe that by doing so I have rendered a service to the Prime Minister and to the House, and I want to tell the Prime Minister that if he is dependent on those hangers-on (“drenkelinge”) of our people, he will find that they will do him more harm than good. Is that hon. member required to act here as the Minister’s mouthpiece and to defend him? If those are to be the pillars of his administration in the future, then indeed it will be a very sorry administration. Is the Afrikaner nation to be represented on the other side by such hangers-on? Talk of dictatorship—certainly! We would accept a dictatorship if it were established by the will of the people. That would be an attractive dictatorship, but if it goes against the will of the people no Nordic race and no democratic people will ever tolerate it. We have before us regulations to which we want to move amendments, because we feel that the Government cannot be trusted with the administration of this sort of regulation. For that reason we feel constrained to oppose these measures at every stage. I want to move he second portion of my amendment. This drastic regulation No. 15 deals with the arrest and detention of dangerous persons, and such arrest is entrusted to other people. It is a most serious thing to arrest people, but it is now proposed to place this power in the hands of other people. I move my amendment. I move—

1. (2) In respect of the regulations promulgated by the Proclamation hereunder set out, the following provisions shall apply:
   1. (i) The following regulations promulgated by Proclamation 201, 1939, shall, in respect of any act or omission after the commencement of this Act, be construed as if the words referred to had been omitted, viz.:
      1. (a) sub-regulation (4) of regulation 15, the words “or the chief control officer”;
      2. (b) paragraph (a) of sub-regulation (1) of regulation 17, the words “or alters”; and
      3. (c) regulation 19, the words “or a control officer”;
   2. (ii) paragraph (a) of sub-regulation (1) of regulation 17, promulgated by Proclamation 201, 1939, shall, in respect of any act or omission after the commencement of this Act, be construed as if the word “or” had been inserted after the word “removes”.

I am very much surprised, and I do not really know why hon. members opposite should get so excited. It would appear to me that they want to create all sorts of impressions in order to incite feelings in the country. What did the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) say? I understood him to say that at the Dingaan’s Day celebrations inciting speeches were sometimes made.

He said that that was always happening.

Well, why should there be such a strong feeling of resentment against the hon. member for Krugersdorp? The hon. member for Smithfield (Genl. Hertzog) said the same thing not so long ago. He said that the sacred things of the nation were exploited for party political purposes. Hon. members over there should have made themselves heard on that occasion and not now. Hon. members opposite are now trying to create the impression that a terrible wrong has been done to the Afrikaans-speaking section, but they should have got excited when the Leader of the Opposition went to Smithfield and made an attack on “Die Broederbond”. Who, shouted out on that occasion?

You shouted hurrah!

I was very sorry about it, but the hon. member for Humansdorp shouted in order to catch votes.

And I got them too.

I congratulate him, but that same man is his Leader to-day.

Do you not admit that the conduct of the hon. member for Krugersdorp was low?

Dingaan’s Day was mentioned here.

Such a Communist should not talk about Dingaan’s Day.

I do not take notice of a “hands-upper” like you.

Order, order!

On a point of order, the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) referred to one of the members behind me as a “hands-upper”. I wish to ask you whether that is Parliamentary language.

I called the hon. member to order….

But it is an insinuation made against that hon. member.

The hon. member did not allow me to finish. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) must withdraw it, and he must get back to the Bill.

I withdraw it. We are at war with one of the greatest powers the world has ever known, and a power which has been organising for twenty years in order to threaten our freedom. For that reason we want to give the Prime Minister all these powers so that he may help to bring this war to a successful issue. The one side was speaking about the monuments, the sacred possessions of the Afrikaner. We want to make use of this war in order to protect our sacred possessions.

Your political monuments.

That hon. member knows all about wheat speculation. He had better remain quiet.

On a point of order, I want to know whether the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) is entitled to refer to a matter dealt with by a Select Committee of this House, which reflected discredit on him?

The hon. member must not do so.

I am not allowed to deal with that question any further, but the hon. member is a good speculator.

I want to ask the hon. member to get back to the clause.

There has been a reference here to monuments which are sacred to the Afrikaner, but I want to point out to hon. members that on the 16th December, on Dingaan’s Day, a commencement was made with the building of the greatest monument in this country, which we can look upon as a sacred possession not of a section of the people, but of the whole people, and when the foundation stone had to be laid of that Voortrekker Monument, a number of hon. members on the other side of the House made it impossible for the Prime Minister of the country, a son of the people, to lay that foundation stone.

I want to ask the hon. member to get back to the clause now.

I shall get back to it, but I want to say that all these difficulties have been caused by hon. members….

Order, order!

I say that we must pass these regulations because if lawlessness is allowed to go unchecked the Afrikaner people will be ruined, and for that reason we must pass these regulations.

I had not intended taking part in this discussion, but I hope you will allow me to make a few remarks, and I want to say this. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) put a knife into the Afrikaner heart to-night, and I had hoped that the Prime Minister would have made an appeal to the hon. member to refrain from dragging his fellow Afrikaners through the mud. I would have expected the Prime Minister to have called the hon. member for Krugersdorp to order, and I think it is a disgrace that the Prime Minister failed to do his duty in a case such as this. I felt that I had to say these few words, but the people of South Africa will settle with the hon. member for Krugersdorp. I shall leave it at that. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) is now descending to the same level as the hon. member for Krugersdorp. He referred to a meeting addressed by the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), where that hon. member took “Die Broederbond” to task. “Die Broederbond” is an ordinary private organisation and anyone has the right to criticise it if he does not agree with it. There is nothing wrong with that, but what we are surprised at is that the most sacred possessions of the Afrikaner people should be dragged into the mud here. It is strange that the monument at Heidelberg should have been desecrated, and after that the monument at Harrismith. We have also had the other happening where the torch at the Pretoria University was extinguished, and not a word was being said about that in the English papers, or from the side of the English people. The Afrikaner may be insulted to the depth of his soul, but that does not matter. To me it is a deplorable thing to see that the Afrikaners on the other side of the House have become the henchmen to those English to such an extent that the sons of Voortrekkers may be tarred and feathered without a word of disapproval being spoken from that side. Is it not a disgrace that feelings should be allowed to be roused to such an extent, that later on it may not be possible to quieten them again. Under the policy pursued by the Prime Minister they are again “allowing matters to develop,” so that later on he will again be able to shoot our people down. I want to point out again that on the occasions the Prime Minister has been at the head of affairs, we have never yet been without martial law, and indemnity acts. No man has ever required as many indemnity acts as the Prime Minister. He has been at the head of affairs only six months so far and we already have before us a large number of indemnity bills which still have to be approved of. I want to go further and point out that the Prime Minister is here granting protection to anyone coming along with slanderous talk as a result of which others may possibly be put into gaol, or into the camps, although they may be perfectly innocent. The individual bringing information is protected, but I want to toll the Prime Minister this—he may protect those people as much as he likes. We, as Afrikaners, have broken down the dividing walls between Afrikaners, and we shall come into power again, and then we shall get to know the names of the people who have carried such false tales against people like the brothers Arndt and others. And I hope Afrikaners will not be soft-hearted again when that time comes, but that they will deal with, those people. If we cannot deport them, I hope at any rate that we shall take away their franchise. We cannot allow things in South Africa to continue as they are to-day.

*Mr. HOWARTH [inaudible].

The hon. member over there is one of the kind of English people who have lived all their lives in South Africa, but who do not know a word of Afrikaans. He is one of those to whom the words of the Bishop of Colenso are applicable when he said—

That same policy is again being pursued, and now the Afrikaner has to be employed for that purpose. We protest against it, especially as the Prime Minister is appointing black kaffirs and coloured people, and under these regulations which we are asked to approve of they have the right to enter my house and give me certain orders. Imagine, coloured people and kaffirs now have that right! Does the Prime Minister imagine that we are going to vote for that sort of thing? That we are goings to allow ourselves to be governed by a black South Africa, so that under these regulations of his we may be ill-treated by natives and coloured people? I hope the Prime Minister has so much sympathy with white South Africa that he will not allow natives and coloured people who are to be appointed under these regulations to come to the home of a white man, such as the homestead of a farmer, and make a search. It is not too late yet; there is still time for the Prime Minister to meet our objections. The Minister will notice the manner in which feelings are being aroused on this side of the House by members opposite who have no sense of responsibility. I hope an end will be put to that sort of thing, because if this is allowed to continue I am afraid that terrible things may happen in our country. The Prime Minister must cease trampling us down, because if he continues to do so the day will come when we shall feel that we have to hit back in some way or another. We have been trampled on for months, and by means of these regulations the Prime Minister is trying to drag the Afrikaner deeper into the mud than he has already done. I ask the Prime Minister to see to it that these things, which have occurred in the past, are stopped.

If there is one member in this House whom I blush for it is the hon. member for Kimberley (District).

Because he gets up here and, defends the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg)!

The man who tries to defile the most sacred possessions of the Afrikaner. My thoughts went back to days when the hon. member jumped off a ship, and this reminded me of the man who was swallowed by a whale. It is quite evident to me that no shark or frog even would touch the hon. member. The hon. member for Krugersdorp has insulted the Afrikaners here, but I do not think it is any use taking him to task. I am surprised, however, that the Prime Minister did not put a stop to it when he saw what the hon. member for Krugersdorp was getting at. Under these regulations processions are stopped, but there is one type of procession which the Prime Minister has not stopped—processions behind funerals, and there the Prime Minister has given Nationalists their opportunity, so that when the hon. member for Krugersdorp is being buried, they will see to it that he is well and properly buried. I was astounded to hear him attack the hon. member for Ventersdorp—the hon. member for Krugersdorp is not fit to walk in the same street. I would almost go so far as to say that the hon. member for Krugersdorp is not fit to live in the same province as the hon. member for Ventersdorp. And then he comes here and says that the hon. member should be suspended. It is a disgrace.

I must ask the hon. member not to become personal again.

We were told a lot about the north! Can anyone be surprised after what had happened that the hon. member for Ventersdorp was so furious and so upset that he had the impression that the hon. member for Krugersdorp had escaped from the forests of the north. I now come to my amendments and I wish to move the amendment standing in my name, as follows—

1. (2) In respect of the regulations promulgated by the Proclamations hereunder set out, the following provisions shall apply:
   The following regulations promulgated by Proclamation 201, 1939, shall, in respect of any act or omission after the commencement of this Act, be construed as if the words referred to had been omitted, viz.:
   1. (a) Paragraph (a) of sub-regulation (1) of regulation 17, the words “or without proper authority destroys”; and
   2. (b) sub-regulation (1) of regulation 18, the words “or a commissioned officer in any of the forces.”

We find in this regulation that if a notice is sent out and anyone despoils it or tears it down, he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of £200, or twelve months imprisonment, or both. Imagine a member like the hon. member for Krugersdorp committing such a foolish act as to tear down such a notice from a tree to which it has been posted—he would be liable to such punishment. Personally I would like to see that sort of thing happen to him, but there is the possibility that somebody else may commit an act like that quite innocently. A number of young fellows may go on a trip; they see these notices attached to trees and quite innocently tear them down. Those youngsters would be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of £200 or twelve months imprisonment or both. Now we come to another point. The regulation says that if this should happen, an officer of the permanent force may arrest a person. Why an officer? Is there no other work for officers of the permanent force? Why should it not be left to the control officer, or to the police; or has the Prime Minister no confidence in the police? Should it not be left to them to arrest individuals if it is necessary to do so? I can imagine a second lieutenant walking about like a rooster full of pride, having a grievance against his neighbour. The neighbour’s son tears down a notice. The officer arrests that boy and the father is liable to a fine of £200 and even imprisonment. I wish to make an appeal to the Prime Minister to go into this question, and to realise that this is too drastic, and I hope he will agree to this part of the clause being deleted. I would like to quote from the book “Grey Steel” which was written by Armstrong. He says, inter alia, in his book, that the present Prime Minister does not like accepting an amendment, and that he will sometimes refuse to accept an amendment although he may know that he is wrong in doing so. I make an appeal to the Prime Minister to assist us in this matter, so that we shall have no ideas in our mind about him such as the author of “Grey Steel” has—that he never gives in. Although the Prime Minister may know he is wrong, yet he does not want to give in. Bet me express the hope that the Prime Minister will allow himself to be persuaded this evening and that he will see to it that this difficulty is removed.

Listening to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) I was almost persuaded that this was an historical monuments’ Bill and not a war emergency Bill, because the hon. member’s objection to the clause under discussion appears to be, namely, what so and so said at a particular monument some months ago and what somebody else said at some other monument. I am reminded of the story of two scientific friends who were taking a stroll along an English country lane when a small dark animal rushed out in front of them. Said the one to the other, “A stoat.” Said the other one, “No, a weasel.” So the first one said, “Well, that is not my idea of a weasel.” “It may not be,” replied his friend, “that is God’s idea of a weasel.” It seems to me that the difficulty here is precisely that. These particular regulations which we are now seeking to condone are not the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow’s) idea of regulations, but if he had been in the position on these benches that we are, and he was seeking the assistance of the House to condone them, they would have been perfectly all right. Now, I do not think any of us, with the possible exception of the hon. member for Gezina and the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), are fond of this method of ruling this country. The hon. member for Gezina for many years now has made it quite clear to the country at large that this is his idea of how a country should be governed, and, as a matter of fact, we have it on record that he was prepared to go a great deal further. The hon. member for Smithfield has also for years been endeavouring to introduce regulations whereby the Press could be effectively muzzled in this country on the side of Germany. With these possible exceptions, none of us are fond of this kind of legislation; none of us are fond of this method of governing the country, but we are at war, though hon. members of the Opposition seem to have forgotten that fact. They talk enough about war, they talk about the Anglo-Boer War and the Zulu War, and I am confidently expecting the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) to go back to William the Conqueror before long, and, no doubt, when he gets that length back, he will be able to tell us that there was a Kemp even in that squabble. But, Mr. Chairman, that is not the point at issue to-day. These regulations are necessary, and it is becoming clearer and clearer every day that certain of them should be put into effect a great deal more stringently than they are. Only a few days ago we had a celebration at another monument at Majuba, which was organised by an association which, one understands, is in close contact with hon. members of the Opposition and this new hybrid party which they have brought into existence.

What is wrong with that?

The hybrid or the party? If the hon. member is a sample of the one or the other I don’t think it is very complimentary. At this particular celebration at Majuba we had an individual who gave it out that one of the purposes of this organisation, of which he is ostensibly the leader—incidentally leaders seem to be springing up on the Opposition side with every shower of rain—one of the objects of this organisation is to go into the question of the atrocities committed by the British during the Boer War. Here in the year 1940 a man, speaking on behalf of this Opposition which is supposed to concern itself with the welfare of the people—again let me repeat 500,000 of them being poor whites—suggests that it is in the interests of South Africa, whether English-speaking or Afrikaans-speaking, whether native or coloured, to delve into history in order to be able to produce the atrocities committed by the British in the Boer War.

Do they teach history in England?

Listen to my hon. friend the member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop). He knows very little about the Boer War and, incidentally, knows less about Mossel Bay; a carpet-bagger, Mr. Chairman, as most of them are, and not concerned with their own constituents.

But Afrikaners all the same.

He knows very little of the horrible, deplorable condition of the poor whites in his own constituency. I have always been under the impression that there is no, necessity to delve into history to find these stories about atrocities because they are always being handed out in this House as being well proven. Now we find it is necessary to form a powerful organisation in order to inaugurate an investigation into the so-called atrocities perpetrated by the British during the Boer War. And having found out all about these atrocities, what do they propose to do? I don’t know. In what way do you think they are going to serve their country; in what way does the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) think he is serving the interests of his country by reading some obscure references to the manner in which Great Britain captured the Transvaal? This is 1940, and I wish some of these regulations were imposed a bit more stringently. I hope the Government is going to see to it that during this war, period celebrations, such as we had at Majuba, shall be prohibited for purposes for which that was held. I feel as a good democrat that I am taking a right stand in asking that things of that description should be prohibited, because democracy, as well as other forms of government, is entitled to protect itself, and it is merely because democracy is democracy that people of this description are allowed to come in this House and talk the dangerous twaddle which they do talk.

You people are ashamed of your past.

It is because democracy is still democracy and we are still democratic that celebrations like Majuba are allowed to be held, and that kind of dangerous, seditious talk is allowed, not only to be spoken, but to be broadcast right through the country in the public Press. It appears to me, in a war period, it is time the Government not only had these regulations, but it is time they used some of them and against some of the hon. members of this House when they talk in this way.

You try.

The hon. member, the gallant captain, is now challenging us to try. He would be one of the last to use the kind of talk which is being spoken outside. That, as the hon. member knows, is usually reserved for those members of the Nationalist Party who first gained their political principles through the medium of earning their living preaching the principles of Jesus Christ from the pulpit. The bitterness of the Nationalist Party is reserved almost exclusively for those who probably learned it preaching the gospel of Christ from the pulpit and not from the hon. member who, when he talks about war, knows what he is talking about. The less they know about war, the more of that kind of stuff they talk. The hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow), for instance, is always telling us that he is going to give the country a lead. As a matter of fact the whole country is just waiting with breathless expectancy for this wonderful lead which is going to be given.

We will follow him.

And the hon. member has told us clearly, at least has hinted, that when he does give a lead something terrible is likely to happen. Surely if that is the case it is necessary to have not only 21 regulations, but because of the super-brilliance of the hon. member as exemplified in his recent handling of the Defence and Railways Departments, we should have 121. [Time limit.]

I want to move the amendment appearing in my name on the Order Paper. I do not propose reading it, but I shall coniine my remarks to subclause (3) where I refer to Regulation No. 9 and move the deletion of that regulation. Regulation No. 9 provides for the creation of a second dictator. We already have our first dictator. He is unique, unique but very sad, if one casts one’s mind back. He appointed himself without the people. Dictator No. 1 is the right hon. the Prime Minister. But now we come to the control officer with his subordinate officers. If we do not succeed in getting that post abolished the country will be very sadly disappointed. The second dictator who has now been created is Sir Theodore Truter. He is the man whose history was disclosed to this House to-day. What has his attitude been up to the present? He had the brothers Arndt interned on false statements, as the Prime Minister himself has admitted. The feelings of people in the country have been aroused by the defilement of our most sacred monuments as, for instance, the monument in the concentration camp cemetery at Heidelberg, which was desecrated by the Union Jack being put over it. This sort of thing has been going on at various places, but the people responsible are let off and are not interned. Nor has that same control officer seen fit to intern the people who desecrated our church in Pretoria. Has the chief control officer ever done anything to show his respect for the feelings of this side of the House, the Afrikaans-speaking people who sit here? He has never yet tried to do anything of the kind. We have a definite display of partiality here. Only the one side is to be protected, and the other side has to put up with all the hardships. And then we get the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg). We noticed the manner in which he behaved here—his conduct was most reprehensible and cannot be excused. I would advise the hon. member to go back where he belongs, to the Parade, where he can preach his Communistic doctrines instead of coming here to offend and insult the Afrikaners. His whole history has proved him to be a Communist, and the most astounding thing is that he still comes here with a smile on his face reminding one of Tarzan.

Go on, go on!

Why is not the hon. member with his communistic sympathies in Russia? He comes here and raises objections to us, the Afrikaans-speaking people, celebrating Dingaan’s Day. He tells the Government to stop the celebrations of Dingaan’s Day because incitement is indulged in. I say that because of the reasons which I have given there is no justification for the continuation of the position of control officer. We demand protection for every section of the population. The desecration of the most sacred possessions of the Afrikaner is tolerated to-day, and people committing those acts are not interned. We hear what is being done against Afrikaansspeaking people. We had the case of the brothers Arndt—no steps are taken to punish the individuals who made false statements against them. I ask the Prime Minister whether that sort of thing is right and fair? Has the Prime Minister no respect for the feelings of the Afrikaans-speaking section of the public? Will the Prime Minister see to it that the people who desecrated the monument at Harrismith are punished? No, we know that he will not do that. We cannot get any protection, but the other side can do what they like. They can trample on the most sacred feelings of the nation— and even the communistic feet of the hon. member for Krugersdorp are allowed to trample on our most sacred feelings. I remember the soap box speeches which the hon. member used to make on the Parade, which led to the crowds marching in procession to the House of Parliament.

On a point of explanation I was not even there.

Will the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Bezuidenhout) allow the hon. member for Krugersdorp to make an explanation?

No, I am not going to allow the hon. member. If there were a grain of justice and Afrikaner sentiment in him I would not object to his making a statement.

I only want to explain.

The hon. member has already said that he is not prepared to give way.

I have given my reasons why I am not prepared to give way. That hon. member has not got a grain of sympathy with anything that is Afrikaans, he has not got a grain of sympathy or feeling for anything that is sacred to the Afrikaner, he has degenerated to his soul.

Yes, call him names.

We knew him in the past, but we saw him to-day in his true colours. We know that he does not belong here, but Krugersdorp will settle with him. I ask the Prime Minister how long he is going to favour the one side over the other, how long he is going to continue to refuse to do the right thing by the other side, and to treat the other side justly? How long have we to go on being insulted, being treated with contumely and contempt? I want to get an answer from the Prime Minister. We have had enough of this sort of thing. We know that members on that side of the House are in agreement with the hon. member for Krugersdorp. We know what conditions in the country are like to-day. A man dare not drive about in a D.K.W. car to-day, unless he has a Union Jack on the car. That is the condition which is allowed to exist in this country. If a man drives about in a D.K.W. car he is in danger of his car being burnt, and those incendiaries get away scot-free. This chief control officer will not take any action under the regulations for the prosecution of the incendiaries. There is hot a grain of justice in the whole business, and it is for these reasons that we cannot allow these regulations to pass. Has there been any justice so far in the steps taken by the control officer? People are allowed to go and set places on fire, they are allowed to trample on our most sacred possessions, but they are protected. Why? I move the amendment standing in my name—

1. (2) In respect of the regulations promulgated by the proclamations hereunder set out, the following provisions shall apply:
   1. (i) The following Regulations promulgated by Proclamation 201, 1939, shall, in respect of any act or omission after the commencement of this Act, be construed as if the words “or procession” in sub-paragraph (1) of regulation 10 had been omitted;
   2. (ii) Proclamation 201, 1939, shall, in respect of any act or omission after the commencement of this Act, be construed as if the words “with the approval of the Union Tender Board” had been added to the end of sub-regulation (1) of regulation 7; and
   3. (iii) Proclamation 201, 1939, shall, in respect of any act or omission after the commencement of this Act, be construed as if regulation 9, paragraph (b) of sub-regulation (1) of regulation 17, and regulation 23 had been omitted.

I am sorry the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) is not here. He objected to the celebrations at Majuba where the Afrikaners meet in order to pay tribute to the heroes of the past, but when the great Imperialists come together to celebrate Empire Day there is no objection. When our predikants pay tribute to our past the hon. member accuses them of indulging in politics, but when the Bishop of the English Church and the predikants of the English Church talk politics, and when they talk about the Empire, it is very fine. The Minister of Labour laughs.

Of course I am laughing, do you want me to cry?

For those reasons we object to the great powers which are being given to the chief control officer, and to the Minister of Defence, because we are afraid that there will be discrimination. When one advocates the cause of the Afrikaners, it is looked upon as politics, but when one advocates Imperialism it is looked upon as fine and excellent. An hon. member on the other side of the House said that we here represented half a million poor whites. Those friends of the Empire forget that the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) and several other members on that side of the House also belong to the half million poor whites whom we represent here—they also belong to the poor Afrikaner nation which is stigmatised as poor whites. Who cleaned up this country? Our ancestors did so, and then those people who now call us poor whites came here, they came to prey on us, and they came to settle here. I was astounded to hear the speech of the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) and I want to say that if that is the mentality of the Labour Party then they are a party of the past, because the future of the workers of this country lies with us on this side of the House, and not with those who are so fond of the Empire. Even the Labour Party of Australia is not in thorough agreement with their Government. But what is the Labour Party here doing? They only say, “Sa, Sa”!

And what do they do in New Zealand?

For those reasons we want the regulations to be deleted, because they will lead to discrimination and we know against whom such discrimination will be exercised—it will be against us. All we do will be looked at through a magnifying glass, and it is for that reason that the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) has moved a general amendment under the provisions of which we shall be allowed to hold our meetings, to come together, and pay tribute to our past. If the war is still on in 1942 and the Nation of South Africa wants to meet at the Monument near Pretoria in order to unveil that Monument, members opposite who have no Afrikaner sentiment will say: “It will be risky; we must prevent the Afrikaners from going to Monumentkop”. For that reason we ask this House not to approve of that regulation. I want to move my amendment standing in my name as follows—

1. (2) In respect of the regulations promulgated by the Proclamations hereunder set out, the following provisions shall apply:
   Proclamation 201, 1939, shall in respect of any act or omission after the commencement of this Act, be construed as if regulation 16, subregulation (2) of regulation 17 and regulation 19 had been omitted.

It is laid down here that those who go voluntarily are to be re-employed by their employers when returning at the conclusion of their military service. This is a dangerous clause. When does a man go voluntarily? What is happening to-day? We find that in many concerns victimisation is taking place, and people join up not on their own initiative, but because employers are creating such a condition of affairs that it becomes impossible for them to remain at work. Some people are even being dismissed, and then, of course, there are also employers who are quite honest in their intentions. They have an employee whom they allow to go away for four or five years and in the meantime they employ somebody else in his stead, but when war is over the man who went away to fight, has to be taken back, and the other man who has learnt the work in the meanwhile has to go. Then the Minister of Commerce and Industries who is turning his back on me now, will have thousands of people walking the streets without work—men who have incurred liabilities. The Labour Party is not putting up a plea for these people to-day. They cannot realise these things. They do not see any danger in this regulation so far as the workers of the country are concerned. I now come to regulation No. 18 which deals with the arrest of offenders, and this is what it says—

Very farreaching powers are being conferred here upon some subordinate officer. Any second lieutenant may arrest a person on suspicion. This is going too far and it is unnecessary to have a regulation of this kind. I therefore move my amendment.

I first of all wish to express my thanks to the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Wallach) for having read Dr. Leyds’ letter and I should like to make an appeal to the rt. hon. the Prime Minister to carry out the request contained in that letter, and not to plunge South Africa into the same position as Germany is in, and therefore not to establish any concentration camps here. I hope the Prime Minister will take note of Dr. Leyds’ letter. Secondly, I should like to put forward a question in regard to this policy of discrimination which is introduced under regulation No. 10. Before the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) got up to speak here, the reasons for our objections may possibly not have been felt so strongly. If regulation No. 10 had merely provided that the control officer could prevent meetings from being held, we would not have felt so uneasy about the position, but the possibility of discrimination is being created here. In this regulation No. 10 it is laid down that a gathering held exclusively for the purpose of divine worship in a building ordinarily used for such worship, or for the purpose of instruction, religious instruction, shall not be interferred with by the chief control officer. Nor shall he interfere with funerals, or the cremation of a body of a deceased person. Nor can he interfere with a meeting of the members of a statutory body of persons held exclusively for the purpose of transacting any business of that body; nor can he interfere with a gathering held exclusively for the purpose of a public auction sale, or a game, or a race, or an athletic competition, or a theatrical, or cinematographic entertainment, or a concert. Nor can he interfere with a gathering held exclusively for the purpose of a wedding. We notice therefore that there is discrimination because other gatherings can be prevented by the control officer. As soon as one can mention functions which are exempted, there is discrimination, and what we particularly object to in the remarks made by the hon. member for Krugersdorp was first of all that he made accusations against the church and that he stated in other words that he was not even satisfied that general religious functions should be exempted. He therefore holds that all other church functions with the exception of religious functions in a building set aside for the purpose, can be prevented. He went further and he said clearly that Dingaan’s Day celebrations should also be prevented in future, and the reason he gave was that they were being exploited for political purposes.

Who said so?

He deliberately stated, and he gave us to understand that that was his view, and he gave an instance by mentioning Paardekraal near Krugersdorp. That is the motive behind the whole business. In the past we did not look upon the matter as seriously as we are doing now, because an opening is being made here for discrimination. It is laid down here that certain functions are to be exempted, but other functions, which are just as much entitled to exemption, are included in the prohibitions, and may be prevented by the control officer. What is behind all this? As the hon. member for Krugersdorp has given us to understand, Dingaan’s Day celebrations are to be stopped, and outside services are also to be stopped. They are afraid that some person or other may make a political speech there, and for that reason the whole of the Nation has to suffer. The “Sunday Times” had something in mind when it cut up rough the other day, and the Minister of Native Affairs had something in his mind when he had such a lot to say during the by-election at Losberg in connection with the Majuba procession. Those are the motives behind the regulations which we are now discussing, and for those reasons we cannot agree to those regulations. I am not going to move my first amendment as I wish to give my hearty support to the proposal of the hon. member for Swellendam, which, as a matter of fact, covers my amendment. I wish to move the other amendment standing in my name. I move—

1. (2) In respect of the regulations promulgated by the Proclamations hereunder set out, the following provisions shall apply:
   The following regulations promulgated by Proclamation No. 201, 1939, shall, in respect of any act or omission after the commencement of this Act, be construed as if the words referred to had been omitted:
   1. (a) Paragraph (b) of sub-regulation (1) of regulation 12, the words “or any Minister, official, or member of the forces”;
   2. (b) sub-regulation (1) of regulation 14, the words “or any person belonging to a specified class”;
   3. (c) sub-regulation (3) of regulation 15, the words “or chief control officer”; the words “and may cause any person arrested as aforesaid to be detained at such place during such period as the said Minister or the chief control officer may determine”; and the words “either conditionally or upon any condition which the said Minister or the chief control officer may think fit to impose.”

I first of all therefore move an amendment to regulation 12 (b) which reads as follows—

I first of all move the deletion of the words “or Minister, official or member of the forces.” We are going quite far enough by putting these powers in the hands of the Government, but we cannot give the Minister the right to disallow any crticism of himself, or to disallow anything being said against him. Even less can we give that right to an official or a member of the forces. If we were to allow that, it would mean that all those people would be above criticism. I also move in regulation 14 (1) to delete the words “or any person belonging to a specified class.” In regulation 14 the Minister has the power of stopping anyone from leaving the Union. Here again there is discrimination, because certain people are exempted. He can prohibit anyone belonging to a specified class of people leaving the Union. We do not want to give that power to an official. If there is to be such a prohibition let it be general, but do not discriminate. I also move the deletion of certain words in 15 (3). First of all I want to see the words “or chief control officer” deleted. We cannot give that power to the chief control officer. We can only give that power to the Minister who has to account to us personally. I also want to delete the words “and may cause any person arrested as aforesaid to be detained during such period as the said Minister, or the chief control officer may determine.” Here again great powers are placed in the hands of the Minister or an official—powers which should only be entrusted to a court. Finally I want to move the deletion of these further words “either unconditionally or upon any condition which the said Minister, or the chief control officer may think fit to impose.” Here again great powers are placed in the hands of the Minister or the chief control officer. A person is either guilty or not guilty. I move the amendments standing in my name.

In your absence the Deputy-Chairman appealed to the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) not to be personal. The hon. member immediately obeyed, and moderated his language, but after that all the hon. members on the other side of the House who got up here, with the exception of the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie), made personal attacks on me. I should like to avail myself of the opportunity to bring this to your notice. The Hansard report will prove that the hon. member for Kimberley (District) submitted to the ruling of the Deputy-Chairman. This side of the House complied with the request of the Deputy-Chairman, but the other side did not do so, and I wish to protest against this, if I may be allowed to do so. I also wish to avail myself of this opportunity to protest against the distortion of what I said here this evening. Hon. members have made a personal attack on me, and have accused me, and after having done so they are not even present to hear my reply. In their personal attack on me they have given a distorted interpretation of words never used by me. I again want to protest in this Committee against the exploitation of the sacred things of the Afrikaners by the Opposition. I am referring to the desecration by the Opposition of the sacred possessions, and I make the strongest protest against their doing so. They are now, no doubt, going to make a tremendous noise in their Press but I want to tell these three hon. members, who are sitting over there, and they can tell their friends, that I am prepared to meet any hon. member who has attacked me here, anywhere in public, if my words are not distorted, and we may then leave ft to the public to judge who trampled on the things that are sacred to the Afrikaner—whether I did so or the Opposition did so. We shall then be able to judge matters coolly and dispassionately, and not like the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Bezuidenhout), or the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. R. A. T. van der Merwe) have done. I want to tell those hon. members who a few minutes after I have spoken completely distort my words, and I want them to realise, that we are not going to run away, even though they may distort our words. We shall support the Government and its proposals just the same. The hon. member for Witbank refused to give me an opportunity to make a personal explanation. He gave the House to understand that I had addressed the demonstration, which was held in Parliament Street last year. It is a disgraceful untruth, and the hon. member knows that it is not true. The hon. member also stated that I had addressed the meeting on the Parade, and that, too, is devoid of all truth. I was under the impression that it was the usual custom—if one wanted to give an explanation or information to hon. members when they are under a misapprehension—to give an hon. member that opportunity. I appeal to the Opposition to be reasonable. The conduct of hon. members to-day is anything but reasonable. When I ask them to be reasonable, I do not mean that they must not criticise, but they should not make statements which are untrue. Hon. members knew, they were probably aware of the fact, that they had made a whole lot of mis-statements which I was going to answer, but unfortunately they are not here now. For that reason there is no need for me to go into the whole question any further, but it is not courteous on the part of hon. members who attacked me in this way, knowing that I was going to answer, not to be here now.

All I can say in reply to what the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) has said here is “whom the gods…”

I want to ask the hon. member to confine himself to the clause.

I only want to say that the English saying “Whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad,” is applicable to the hon. member.

How is it then that you are still alive?

It is a striking fact that the hon. member who made such a disgraceful attack on the Afrikaner, first of all attacked the Afrikaans church, then he attacked the religion, and then the festivities celebrated by the people. One always finds that the Afrikaner who deteriorates makes such attacks, and it is also a striking fact that hon. members opposite sit still and leave it to the “loyal Dutch” to make those attacks. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) defended the hon. member for Krugersdorp. I happen to have a little bit of doggerel here, which is applicable to the hon. member for Kimberley (District). It will shew the people in what light they should regard the hon. member. I hope hon. members opposite will all understand it, because it is in English and this is how it goes—

If a blind man begins to see there is hope for everyone. The Prime Minister is regarded as the Leader of the English-speaking section of the population, and it is the Prime Minister who comes along with these regulations in a so-called free democratic country, within the British Commonwealth of Nations. This is a country in which every little worm is permitted to attack the Afrikaners. That is not the kind of freedom we want, but we want a freedom under which we can celebrate our festive occasions, and pay tribute to our ancestors without danger or suspicion that we are doing something against the law. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he still regards himself as the same leader of the Afrikaners as he was in the Second War of Independence. I want to ask him whether he considers that all the Afrikaans-speaking members on this side of the House are wrong, and that only the few who are with him on that side are right? I am afraid the Prime Minister has lost the confidence of his own people, and that he is now distrusted by his own people. The reason why I say that is because he is going against his own people to-day. The Prime Minister at Voortrekkerhoogte showed whom he distrusted, he mustered troops and placed them around Pretoria, he told the police that they were not to go away because he was afraid that the people would attend a meeting to be addressed by the Leader of the Opposition, and the hon. member for Piguetberg (Dr. Malan). That was when the Afrikaners again came together to thank the Lord that they had been brought together. He was so scared of his fellow Afrikaners that he turned the guns round to face his fellow Afrikaners. I want to go further, and I want to ask why, if the Prime Minister does trust his fellow Afrikaners, he goes about with a bodyguard? Even here in Parliament there is a bodyguard at the moment, which has to watch over him. If he trusts the Afrikaner, why then the necessity of having a bodyguard here in Parliament for him? He need not fear, the Afrikaner is not going to commit any cowardly acts. The Afrikaner is not going to hit below the belt like the hon. member for Krugersdorp. We trust our fellow Afrikaners, and if the Prime Minister thinks over these things he will realise that there is no need for him to distrust the Afrikaners. They are now applying these regulations to a section of the people, and one is not allowed to do anything lest one should get into trouble. I want to move my amendment appearing on the Order Paper. My amendment reads as follows—

1. (2) In respect of the regulations promulgated by the proclamations hereunder set out, the following provisions shall apply:
   The following regulations promulgated by Proclamation 201, 1939, shall, in respect of any act or omission after the commencement of this Act, be construed as if the words referred to had been omitted, viz.:
   1. (a) paragraph (b) of sub-regulation (1) of regulation 12, the words “or any person or class of persons” and the words “or with any other measure relating to the state of emergency which gave rise to these regulations”;
   2. (b) paragraph (c) of sub-regulation (1) of regulation 12, the words “or any section of the public or any person or class of persons” and the words “or aggravate”;
   3. (c) paragraph (d) of sub-regulation (1) of regulation 12, the words “or a section of the public” and the words “in every respect”;
   4. (d) sub-regulation (1) of regulation 13, the words “or the Chief Control Officer or a control officer” and the words “at any entrance to, on or near any area defined in that notice”;
   5. (e) sub-regulation (1) of regulation 14, the words “in a manner which he deems most suitable to inform those for whom the notice is intended” and the words “or by a person mentioned in the notice”; and
   6. (f) sub-regulation (1) of regulation 15, the words “or the Chief Control Officer or a control officer” and the words “or without.”

The Prime Minister knows that there are people in South Africa who are hostile to the Afrikaner nation. He knows that there are people who have a feeling of hostility against everything that is Afrikaans. He knows that there is a group of people in our country who live like parasites on the others, and he knows that if an individual should have a grievance against one, such an individual may make a complaint against one with the result that one may be arrested. I want to ask hon. members whether they want to deny that, if a complaint could be made against the hon. member for Gezina, he would very soon find himself in gaol. In my amendment I also move the deletion of the words “or part of the public, or a person, or a category of persons.” If that is not deleted one will not be allowed to urge one’s fellow-Afrikaners to support each other, because it will be interpreted to mean acting against some other section of the population, and if one were to point out, for instance, that the Press of the country is in the hands of the Jews, one might get into difficulties. One becomes liable to punishment if one states the truth in this country—one is not allowed to do so. For instance, one is not allowed to say that a telegram has been sent to certain sections of the Press that all their advertisements will be withdrawn if they publish certain things, for instance, if they publish the fact that a certain group of firms in South Africa are defrauding the people of South Africa in regard to medicines and things like that. If one mentions a thing like that, one becomes liable to punishment.

And were the advertisements withdrawn?

I am more concerned with the principle than the financial aspect of the matter.

You should rather go and draw teeth.

I have never yet given a guarantee that my father was a “Khaki” in the Boer War, in order to secure the nomination, so that I might sit on the other side of the House. [Time limit.]

On page 252 and 253 of the order paper there are 7 amendments standing in my name. I wish to move those amendments with the exception of numbers 6 and 7. I am not moving those because by reason of the amendments from the Government side, they fall away. But before speaking of these amendments I would like to say one or two words to the address of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock). This afternoon that hon. gentleman got up and endeavoured to justify the action of the right hon. the Minister of Defence in amending clause 3, notwithstanding his promise not to do so. The explanation which he gave does more credit to his loyalty than to his intelligence. The explanation, in fact, is this, that, although admitting that the promise not to amend was made, the right hon. gentleman made those amendments because of a request from a private member on this side of the House. Now, sir, I submit that an explanation like that is an insult to the intelligence of hon. members. How can the right hon. gentleman explain himself away like that? He would not have stood up in his place to give such an explanation, but left it to the hon. member for Pretoria (Central).

I did not give it either.

Oh yes, you did, you said the amendments were made as the result of a request by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Fagan) who objected to a tribunal without any right of appeal.

I did not say that.

Well, I leave it to the hon. members here who were present, and I will not argue the point any further. If the right hon. gentleman can get away with an explanation like that, where do we stand with regard to his other promises? What about this undertaking not to send troops overseas? How do we know that, in a few weeks’ time, when he wishes to do that, that he will not get up and say it is quite true that he did say he would not send troops overseas, but, because he was coerced by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), he did it? Will that explanation hold good? No, it seems to me it would be far better for the right hon. gentleman to get up and admit that he spoke out of turn; that he should never have given that undertaking, and that he now finds it necessary to go back on it, instead of leaving it to someone else to make a fatuous excuse like this. That is not the only alteration to the clause, although that is the only alteration that the hon. gentleman has tried to explain away. There are other amendments, for instance, the amendment to regulation 33. Now that amendment, sir, is vital in a way. Under the old regulation there were appointed as members of this board, Mr. Edward Paul Smith, Major Collin Charlwood Frye. Mr. John Dunbar White, Mr. John Ronald Heddon and Mr. Charles Andrew Smith. Now, I myself have no objection to these hon. gentlemen, but I wonder how comfortable anybody from the platteland would feel if this board were sitting in judgment between him and the Government? Justice must not only be impartial, but it must also appear to be impartial. I wonder if it would not have been much fairer to the agricultural part of the community had there been a few farmers, a few representatives of the farming community on the board. One of the amendments which has been made in breach of this undertaking — I don’t say I complain of the amendment—is that the right hon.

Minister now has the right to add names to that board. Now, I would like to know what excuse the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) will find for that amendment. A blunder has been made, and the more graceful thing to do would be to, get up and admit it, and have done with it. I "would like now to get on to the question of this expropriation clause again. I had just started there when I sat down this afternoon. The point I was making was that this board of expropriation was really unnecessary, because under sections 86 and 87 of the Defence Act there are already ample provisions, and the proof of the pudding is that his Act was passed in 1912, and although we have been through very strenuous times since then, it has not been found necesasry to amend it. I want to know how it comes that this new principle has to, be introduced into the law. The first new principle to which I object is that this power of expropriation, which was hitherto confined to the Minister of Defence, is now granted to any Minister. Under these regulations not only can private property be expropriated for defence purposes but it can be expropriated by any Minister for any purpose. I would like to hear what the reason for that is. It seems to me that the explanation of this Bill, which was given at the second reading, was hopelessly inadequate. Vital aspects of the case like this were not touched on; vital new elements have been introduced into our law which were not touched on by the right hon. the Minister. I think it would have been much fairer to the House had he gone into these new elements at that stage. Another vital principle which is being attacked, one of our democratic principles, is this. Hitherto, when the state has sought to expropriate private property, the assessment of compensation has been left to arbitration. That is a principle which has worked very well in the past, and how does it come now that a board, such as the one to which I have referred, is now to usurp the functions of an arbitration court? Under the Irrigation Act the Crown has the right to expropriate, but the amount of compensation is settled by arbitration between the parties. Under the Native Land Act and the Slums Act the urban authorities have the right to expropriate, but the amount of compensation is assessed, not arbitrarily by some board appointed by one of the parties to the suit, but by an impartial arbitrator. These new powers, these new principles which are now being imported into our law, are vital, and it is a matter for regret that the right hon. minister has not thought it necessary to take this House into his confidence and to explain to us the necessity for this departure from our established custom. The first amendment which I have moved, sir, is in connection with the language question. You will notice that under regulation 3 of proclamation 201 the Minister may, by notice served on an individual or published, compel that individual to take certain steps, and it seems to me to be no more than right that that notice should be in both official languages, or else in the home language of the person on whom it is to be served. I hope the right hon. the Minister will accept an amendment which will have that effect. I do not know whether, in view of the fact that the Dominion Party has now taken control, we are going to depart from our bilingual custom, but it is quite clear that what we are being governed by to-day is not the policy of the old United Party, but the policy of the Dominion Party. I notice it not only in this Bill, but we had another intsance of it a few days ago when the hon. minister of Finance made his budget speech. I move—

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

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Rooth) has been good enough to refer to certain remarks I made this afternoon and to distort what I said on that occasion. I merely quoted the speech of the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Fagan) the other afternoon, pointing out the hardship which was imposed under these regulations. I made no statement that the Prime Minister had introduced his amendment in accordance with that speech. I pointed out that the hon. member for Stellenbosch had drawn attention to a hardship which has now been adjusted. What I want to ask the House is whether it was a fair charge to make against the Prime Minister that he has broken faith in putting forward an amendment on the Order Paper designed to restore rights which existed before? It is perfectly true that the Minister has put that amendment there, but I still say the hon. member is not justified in making the charge of bad faith which he did against the Prime Minister, and he knows it. These amendments the Opposition is putting down and asking the Prime Minister to accept, what is the good of them if the Minister is not to agree to any amendments at all?

The undertaking was categorical that there would be no amendments.

The hon. member should be the very last person to charge other people with bad faith, because he has also made charges against other public men in this country which, when they had the opportunity to reply, had been found to be totally unfounded.

What are you referring to?

It ill becomes the hon. member to make such charges against anybody in this House and least of all against the Prime Minister.

Mr. Chairman, in fairness to myself if an hon. member makes a remark which carries the innuendo which that does, then I am entitled to get from him to what he is referring. I ask him for particulars of the charge.

That is not a point of order. It rests with the hon. member whether he wishes to give that information or not.

The hon. member will have a full opportunity of replying to certain other statements which have been made on other occasions in this House.

When I was speaking just now, I said that the regulations, as we have them before us, could easily be abused to such an extent that the position would become impossible for our people and the public. I feel that what we experienced here this evening tended to show us on a small scale what these regulations are going to mean to us. I cannot refrain, before moving my amendments, from saying that as these regulations are going to be put into force, we have to try to make these bad regulations as good as possible. I further want to say that I feel very deeply that a man like the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens), a man whose reputation stands very high in the Western Transvaal—I say that it hurts me deeply that we should have witnessed a scene here such as we had here this evening, I feel, and I thought, that the Prime Minister would have been the man to have got up….

The hon. member must not go into that now.

If you will allow me to finish my sentence, Mr. Chairman, you will see that I do not intend to reflect on your ruling. When the hon. member for Ventersdorp was only sixteen years of age, he left the Western Transvaal and together with the present Prime Minister, he trekked through the Cape on that famous trek of the Prime Minister. He is an Afrikaner such as we have very few in this country, and the Prime Minister knows it. The hon. member for Ventersdorp said, “I protest against these regulations.”

The hon. member must not go into that now, the Prime Minister was obliged to propose that motion.

I am grateful to know that, but I hope that if the Prime Minister to-night casts his mind back over the past and thinks of the young man who accompanied him through all these difficult days, he will come back here to-morrow and do his duty. It is not for me as a young man to say anything against the Prime Minister, but it grieves me, and the Western Transvaal will be shocked to hear what was done against the hon. member for Ventersdorp this evening.

The hon. member must leave that point now.

There are certain things which I can stand, but there are other things which I cannot stand, and when the sacred feelings of the people are trampled on, it is impossible for me to remain quiet, and I want to say that if attempts are made to trample on the honour of the people we shall protest, and we shall see to it that the sacred possessions of the people are protected. I move the amendment standing in my name.

1. (2) In respect of the regulations promulgated by the Proclamations hereunder set out, the following provisions shall apply:
   1. (i) Paragraph (b) of sub-regulation (1) of regulation 12 of Proclamation 201, 1939, shall, in respect of any act or omission after the commencement of this Act, be construed as if the words “or any section of the public” had been omitted;
   2. (ii) sub-regulation (1) of regulation 12 of Proclamation 201, 1939, shall, in respect of any act or omission after the commencement of this Act, be construed as if paragraph (d) had been omitted;
   3. (iii) regulation 13 of Proclamation 201, 1939, shall, in respect of any act or omission after the commencement of this Act, be construed as if sub-regulation (2) had been omitted.

My reason for moving these amendments is as follows: The proclamation speaks of the public or part of the public, or a category of persons. You will agree with me that if we leave that provision as it is, certain people will go out of their way to challenge and defy others, and to place them in a position so that complaints will be forthcoming. And for that reason it is safer to delete the words “part of the public.” The public is the public and we do not know “part of the public.” To speak of a “part of the public” sounds very suspicious. So we would like to leave this out. I also move the deletion of sub-regulation (1) of regulation 12 of the proclamation. As the proclamation reads now the chief control officer can act without any complaints being made. There is a reference to causing a panic among the public-Well, if the public is constituted as it is at present, it will always be possible to cause a panic, because part of the public is always somewhat nervous. That being so, it will be quite impossible in this country to avoid coming within the scope of the regulation as it reads now. I should like to explain briefly the other amendments which I have on the Order Paper. I want the discretion, which is provided for, to be in the hands of responsible people. At the moment that power or discretion may be entrusted to a magistrate’s clerk, for instance, and the public will be exposed to the danger of control by irresponsible individuals. There may possibly be people who may not know how to use their discretion. The result would be that such irresponsible people might be able to prevent us from attending meetings or visiting our sacred monuments, or something of that kind. Notices might be issued that people were to be prevented, for instance, from entering a town hall. We might not even be allowed to attend our national gatherings. We might, horribly, not be allowed to attend our Volksmonument, or other gatherings. I have heard the Volksmonument at Bloemfontein stigmatised as “a living lie,” and if an irresponsible official were appointed, he might perhaps prohibit people visiting that monument. In the circumstances I feel that this clause should be deleted. The responsibility should rest with the Minister himself, or at any rate, with a responsible person. The public want to know that their rights and freedom shall not be entrusted to an irresponsible person.

At 10.55 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 7th March.