Mr. Chairman, I think before we come to the discussion of this vote on defence, it might be useful if I make a general statement about the activities of the Defence Department, and the preparations which have been made, or are still in progress, in connection with our preparations for war. A good deal of money is being spent, and will be spent, and I think it may be useful to hon. members to have some details of our activities before they come to the discussion. Now, first a few words about the general policy, by way of introduction. As the Committee knows, sir, the defence system of this country rests ultimately on the duty of every citizen, if called upon, to take his part personally in the defence of the country. That is the principle which is embodied in our Defence Act. It has been the principle of the law in South Africa very long ago, even before Union, that there should be this duty on the citizen to defend his country if called upon. It is the traditional policy of this country, and it is the generally accepted policy of this country. It has, however, frequently occurred in actual trouble and emergency, that this duty is supplemented by the principle of volunteering. I need only point to what happened in the last Great War, when we had both the duty to serve when called out, and also the principle of volunteering to supplement that. So it happened that in the expeditions that were sent overseas, as well as in the expeditions that went to German East Africa, the principle of volunteering was applied, whereas in the case of South-West Africa, both were applied —both commandeering and volunteering. Now, sir, these are two principles which we are following in this case too, and by necessity almost. The defence of this country, after the Great War, during the years of peace, and subsequently during the years of depression, were so neglected, or let down, that training of our forces under the Defence Act went almost out of vogue, and was reduced to a minimum, and the result is that in recent years it has been very difficult to catch up the lost opportunity. Comparatively small numbers of men have been trained, and we find ourselves very suddenly and unexpectedly thrown into a grave emergency when large bodies of men have to be mobilised or to be made ready for service. Fortunately, we were in this position in this country; there still is a very willing and a very strong spirit to serve, and it is therefore possible to supplement the duty which rests on the citizen under the law, by a big volunteering effort. Now two points have to be specially stressed in this connection. In the first place, the size of the force which normally is considered necessary in such grave emergencies as we are now passing through. I may mention two figures as an index of what has been and what is considered proper for the size of the force, the numbers of the defence force which have to take part in the defence of the country. In the last war the biggest effort that we made was in connection with the German West campaign. To that campaign went 67,000 men, which for this country was a very great effort. I should say that if that campaign had not been a very short one, if it had been a prolonged one, and our effort had to be maintained, and our force maintained at a maximum number for a long period, it would have been a very severe effort on the part of this country. That is the first figure—67,000 men in 1915. The other figure I wish to mention is that given by my predecessor in 1938, when he said the figure of 137,000 men for a defence force is the minimum compatible with the safety and security of this country. Hon. members will see that this is a very large increase. In 24 years the number needed for the defence of the country has actually doubled. I have not heard that figure mentioned either in this House or anywhere else, and I shall not question it. I think we can assume that the number of men that we ought to raise and train and equip and get in order for the defence of this country, is probably in the neighbourhood of 137,000. That is double the number which we needed in the last Great War. The other point that I wish to mention is the question of area — the area of operations. Here I come to a matter which has been the standing topic of discussion during the whole of this session. Under the resolution of Parliament, overseas expeditions, like those of the last war, European expeditions sent from this country, are specifically excluded, and therefore it is not necessary for us to trouble ourselves over such expeditions. We are left practically and largely with the African Continent. Now, under the Defence Act, the duty of defending the country is confined to South Africa, and we have had a good deal of discussion in this House during recent months as to what that implies. The Government, as hon. members are aware, has accepted the policy of going north as far as East Africa, by way of volunteering, and that has taken the real sting out of this discussion which we have had over the meaning of the term “South Africa.” We have said that if it proves necessary in the course of this war for us to go as far north as East Africa, and that is the policy of the Government, that in such a case we shall only rely on volunteers, and our preparations are being made on that basis; that so far as the term “South Africa” is ordinarily understood, and is beyond contention, we have the ordinary provisions of the Defence Act, and we are establishing an army to defnd the Union within South Africa, in that sense. Should it become necessary to go further afield, we shall rely on volunteers. For that purpose, as hon. members know, we have applied an additional form of volunteering to that which has already added such large numbers to our Defence Force in the Union, a special form of attestation, for the men and for officers, a special form of oath. I have explained that before, and I need not go into details; I am simply referring to the question generally, so that we can get a conspectus of the whole position. I have said that our defence at present is largely on a volunteering basis. The number of men serving in it on a compulsory basis is comparatively small, but within that larger body of men partly serving compulsorily and mostly serving voluntarily, we shall have a smaller body of men who are volunteering for service farther north, perhaps beyond the ordinary connotation of the word “South Africa.” I may say for the information of the House, although I have not final figures, and have not definite information before me, that this second volunteering is going very favourably, and I have no doubt that whatever forces may be necessary if the occasion should arise, to go to East Africa, will be forthcoming without any difficulty. I just want to guard myself on one point, mostly with a view to the future. It is this. In applying this principle of volunteering to East Africa, I do not wish to surrender the view that properly understood “South Africa” does go as far as East Africa, as far as the equator. That is a matter of contention, and it is in view of that contention and in view of the difference of opinion, that the Government has for the present conceded the point so far as to rely simply on volunteers. But we must look to the future of this country, and we must look to the dangers that may possibly arise hereafter. I should be most unwilling, most loth, to surrender the principle in future warfare, the principle that “South Africa” properly understood, from a military point of view, implies compulsory service as far north as East Africa. Let me say this. A judicial decision has been quoted here as proving that South Africa means something smaller than that. That decision has no reference whatever to the military considerations which should guide us in deciding this question. When we talk about South Africa, not merely in a geographical but in a military sense, the situation is very different from what it was in view of the court in that case. After all, it is military considerations that should guide us in a matter of this kind. I have already shown that from the point of view of numbers, the situation has completely changed. What was considered necessary for the defence of South Africa 23 or 24 years ago, has had to be doubled for its defence in the present case. Besides that, there has been a change, a radical and almost revolutionary change in methods of warfare, methods which have reduced our safety to a very large extent. The mechanisation of modern armies, the use of the aeroplane as an arm of warfare on a large scale, has created a complete revolution in warfare, and we have to bear that in mind with the situation if we look at the defence of this country. The situation has to be looked at under new conditions of danger and insecurity that exist to-day. It is for these reasons that I do not’ wish, by making a concession to the differences of opinion which exist and relying merely on volunteering in this case — I do not wish to surrender the larger contention which may arise on some future occasion one does not know what may happen in future years. I do not wish to be quoted as having thought that South Africa, from the military point of view, from the point of view of the defence of this country, does not extend as far as the equator. I should like, in this connection, to refer to a few words used by my predecessor, which I think show what our opinion was in calmer times before we had embarked on this era of differences of opinions and controversies. I find that my predecessor said some years ago—

To that extent has distance disappeared, has space vanished, and has danger come closer to our shores. I think that the protection of our country, the protection of those territories to the north of us, against any attack, is vital and an essential condition to the safety to the Union itself. We must look upon the matter in that light. I also find that the hon. member said a couple of years ago in words which, I think, have been quoted here—

In those states, that is up to the Equator, including Kenya and Uganda—

And again he said on another occasion—

I quote these few paragraphs, Mr. Chairman, to show how in calmer moments, before we got into these controversies which divide us to-day, we viewed this question of the defence of the northern territories in relation to our defence, and how we accepted as a principle, that it might become a life and death question for us if any of those territories were attacked. Now the hon. member for Gezina challenged me on a former occasion to produce the Cabinet memoranda which dealt with this question of our defence preparations. I have taken a great deal of trouble, or rather my department, both my departments, Defence and External Affairs, have taken a great deal of trouble to try and find these Cabinet memoranda referred to by the hon. member. I am told that they are unable to find anything except one particular memorandum from which I want to quote a few sentences to this Committee. This memorandum was written in these circumstances — the Committee will remember that in 1933 there was an economic conference in London to which the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga), the hon. member for Gezina and myself were sent as representatives of the Union. And while we were there the question of defence was discussed by the hon. member for Gezina with the British authorities, and when he came back he drafted a Cabinet memorandum which he gave to his department, and I find that he says in a letter to Gen. Brink, who was the secretary of the department, that the enclosed copy of the memorandum on the defence policy of the Union was discussed by the Minister in the Cabinet on the 16th October, 1933. This is the only document I have been able to find, as a Cabinet memorandum on the question of defence policy. I wish to read a few sentences from this as incidentally showing what the view then was before we had come into these disputes which divide us to-day. This is what the Minister says in that memorandum—

Then he goes on to say who were present at this meeting — there were Mr. Baldwin and others—

That was the other point he discussed—

That is this question of commandeering in South Africa—

Hear, hear!

Just what we are doing. The hon. member was still on the side of the angels at this point—

This is said to the Committee on Imperial Defence—

Listen to this!

Yes, quite—

That is training for war in Central Africa—

Then he goes on to deal with the matter having to be enquired into on the spot by Lord Londonderry, who was going to visit these territories. And then the hon. member goes on to discuss the second question of our coastal defence. I have quoted this document because, as I say, it is the only Cabinet memorandum that I can find. It was read in the Cabinet, so I suppose it was agreed to, and it shewed that as far back as 1934 this question of co-ordinating our Union defence with the defence of these northern territories, including Kenya and Uganda, was part of the policy of the Defence Department, and, I presume, had also been approved of by the Cabinet.

Will you place those documents on the Table?

I do not think there is any objection. I shall go through the document carefully and I may say that the gist of the document is simply to state in succinct and matter of fact terms the five-year scheme which was produced in this House by the Minister in 1934. I think this memorandum was the preparation for that scheme, because the ideas as contained here both as regards general defence and coastal defence, tally almost completely with the ideas expressed in that speech which the hon. member made on the five-year plan. So much about these two questions of the size of the forces which we require for defence, and the area over which they may have to operate. But there are other very important considerations too, which are involved in this matter of defence. When you make a defence plan you have to consider a number of questions. You have to consider for instance the country where you are going to fight, the nature of that country the character of the land, the terrain, and all that, routes, methods of transport, questions affecting the health and provisioning of the army. All these questions are of the utmost importance for consideration when you come to settle on a defence plan, and you also have to consider the question of the possible enemy that you may meet. You would have one defence plan if you simply have to meet an army of barbarians, and quite a different scheme of defence if it is probable that you may meet a civilised power fully equipped for purposes of war — it means quite different armaments, and it means that your armaments, your methods of defence and attack, will all have to be carefully metered beforehand. It is from this point of view that the remarks which the hon. member made about co-ordinating our policy of defence with the North are of such importance. If, as the Government has decided, it is our policy to go as far north as Kenya and East Africa in order to defend this country, then we have to co-ordinate our policy with theirs, we have to keep in touch and make arrangements with the Governments in die North, we have to make every provision to see that the preliminary spade work for actual operations is done, and carried out. As soon as I had surveyed the Defence Department and seen what was the task before us, what re-organisation had to be done, what preparations had to be made for the future, I turned my attention to this aspect of the matter as well, and I sent to Nairobi a senior staff officer, one of our principal intelligence officers, to get into touch with the Government there and get a survey of the defence position in the North so far as it might, be useful to us. This officer after having had very interesting and useful consultations with the authorities in the North, came back with very useful information, very good intelligence for us. At the same time the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia asked me if he could not come to Pretoria to discuss with me the defence situation so far as it affected his country and the surrounding territories, and in the beginning of December we had that conference in Pretoria, between the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia and the Minister of Defence of Southern Rhodesia and myself, at which we surveyed the whole position very carefully and a great deal of useful information was exchanged. As a result largely of those discussions we had a joint survey made of the routes to the North in case it might be necessary for us to move forces to the North in support of our neighbours there, to find out whether the routes were practicable for the movement of bodies of men. That survey has been made and we are in possession of the necessary information in case a movement by land becomes necessary and in case movement by sea should be precluded. At that time when these discussion were held the position as regards ocean routes to the North, to Mombasa, was still uncertain. The “Africa Shell” had just been sunk. One of these so-called pocket battleships was supposed to be hovering round our coast, and the question of surveying the land routes was of much more importance than it appears to-day. Subsequently to these events Sir Archibald Wavell, Commander-in-Chief of the British forces in the Near East, came to Cape Town and we had the advantage of a very full discussion and an exchange of ideas on the whole situation as it affects us here for defensive purposes. I feel that from that point of view, for the purpose of contacts that have to be established in case operations might become necessary in the North, we have for the present done everything that can be done. Now another subject that occupied my attention quite early was the situation in the Department of Defence, of what I might call the business side of it apart from the purely military side. In October I appointed a small committee of which the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) was a member, to go into the question of the training of our technical men, the artisans, the trained workers of whom we require fairly large numbers in defence. And during the investigations of this committee it became clear that the industrial and the business side of defence could not be properly handled by the military side in whose hands it was very largely still at that time, and the committee made a recommendation that there should be a separation, that the questions of the supply and procuring or manufacturing of the requirements of our forces should be taken out of the hands of the military authorities and be entrusted to an industrial business body. I agreed most fully with that recommendation and carried it out. I did so for two reasons. First of all, it was quite clear to me that military men are not specials trained for business or for industry, or for dealing with business or industrial questions, and that it could only lead probably to waste, to delay and confusion if men whose training, whose outlook, was quite different, had to deal with these intricate questions connected with industry and finance and business. I had another reason too, and it was this, that the supplies, the needs of our forces from South African sources involved a great many intricate financial business and industrial questions. Take for instance the question of the manufacture of artillery, or shells and the like. It is quite clear that numbers of industrial firms might have to co-operate in regard to matters of that kind, and when serious questions like that crop up, military men, officers trained for military purposes simply have not the time or the training or the outlook for this sort of work, and it seemed to me necessary that this work of co-ordinating our industry, our South African industry, for purposes of military production should be placed in quite different hands. I was fortunate in securing the assistance of Dr. Van der Byl, who became the head of this new organisation. Other members of the Board are Mr. Fahey, chairman of the Board of Trades and Industries, who is also the chairman of the Board of National Supplies, Mr. Pienaar, chairman of the Tender Board, and the Secretary of my own department, Mr. Blaine. Dr. Van der Byl with a couple of his own technical assistants together with these gentlemen form the Board, and I have nothing but the highest praise for the work they have done so far and the co-operation they have been able to secure between all the various industrial and manufacturing firms for the purpose of producing the requirements of our army. They have not only succeeded in that, but they have also succeeded in working in the best harmony with the Labour unions, and the Labour people generally in this country whose interests are also deeply involved in these matters. My own view is that not only have we done a very wise thing for the prosecution of the war in creating this new organisation, but we shall probably see emerging from it a good push forward in the industrial development of this country. That step was followed by another. An enquiry was at the same time set going to find out how we could best arrange for our medical services. The committee knows that hitherto the medical services for our forces have been rendered by the Public Health Department; the chief health officer, Col. Cluver, secretary for public health, and Col. Van der Spuy, who is one of the health officers of the Union, have helped us to do this work for the Defence Force in addition to the work which they are doing for the Union generally. It was quite clear, after careful enquiry, that it was impossible for them to do justice to both these jobs, to do the heavy work of public health in the Union and at the same time to prepare the medical arrangements that were necessary for the Army. The result has been that we have created a separate organisation for the health arrangements and control of the Defence Force, and Dr. Orenstein who occupied practically the same position after the last war, has been re-appointed as chief medical director for our Defence Forces. I wish to thank most sincerely Dr. Cluver and Col. Van der Spuy for the gratuitous work and assistance they gave us over difficult years. Now I want to say a few words about the Defence Force itself and the work that has been done in that connection. Hon. members must bear in mind the nature of our Defence Force. We have a citizen army, we have not got standing armies of highly trained men who spend their lives in the business of the defence of the country. Our Army consists of men who come from farms and shops and towns all over the country to serve their country in time of need, and who undergo a certain amount of training in their youth to prepare them for this work. Besides the citizen army of ours, we have a small nucleus of a permanent force and the underlying idea of the whole scheme was this, that you would have a number of key men, of military experts in the Permanent Force of the Defence Department, and in the General Headquarters Staff, and in the permanent force generally you would have numbers of highly trained military specialists, key men, who could be used when occasion arose for the expansion of the force when the citizens of the country are to take their part in the whole machine. That is the underlying idea of our Defence Force. In former years we had the advantage of having a permanent force in the South African Mounted Rifles which gave a good deal of scope for the training of men in the art of warfare, but one of the changes that came in the postwar period was that this permanent force of the S.A.M.R. which did police work in ordinary circumstances, and who were also highly trained for military work, this force disappeared and since then we have had no standing military force of any size, to be a nucleus from which an army could be expanded, and from which an army could draw the personnel from training when occasion arose. This lack has been one of the greatest difficulties with which we have had to cope in this emergency. We had a number of men trained at the staff college, but the numbers were small and they were quite inadequate to the job that faced us when we had to expand our very small Defence Force into the army which is necessary for the defence of the Union. I may say that we have had a very difficult and tough job indeed in training all these staff officers and all the men that are necessary in order to organise the citizen forces in the country. We have had to start practically from the beginning. Instructors have had to be trained, non-commissioned officers have had to be trained, staff officers have had to be trained, and everything had to be pushed on at great speed. It is a pity that there should have been this necessity placed on us. If we had had more of these key men, if we had had our instructors ready when trouble broke out, so that they could have been used at once to start training the rest, it would have been different, but as I say every bit of the work has had to be done from the foundation. This work has been pushed on as fast as possible and I think the results are quite satisfactory. In the meantime we have had to do this great job of recruiting. As I say, the numbers in the Active Citizen Forces were comparatively small. The Minister said in his speech in this House in 1939, in March, 1939, that the active Citizen Force of 56,000 men were short only by 3,000. He said that he had 53,000 men who were ready in case their services were wanted. As a matter of fact when we came to count them the men in the Active Citizen Force that had any small modicum of training, only numbered 18,762.

That is 6,000 more than you found three weeks ago anyhow.

hon. members will see that there was a shortage of about 37,000 men. What had become of them I do not know. They seem to have disappeared on the 4th September together with the Minister. We could not find them.

I shall find them for you.

We had therefore to build up and to recruit on a very large scale. I may say that during the months that we have been recruiting we have had a very fine response from the country, and to-day we have not only the numbers that were necessary, the 56,000 men that were necessary for the various units of the Defence Force, but we have exceeded by many thousands that limit.

All that in six months!

Training centres were established in order to train these units. They were established at Premier Mine, Potchefstroom, Oudtshoorn, Ladysmith and Pietermaritzburg, and two more are under consideration. Through these training camps distributed at suitable points in the country we are passing these regiments one by one, giving them a month’s continuous training at a time and doing our best in this way to give them that small modicum of training which will be some foundation for future work. The old regiments have all been filled up, many of them have been doubled and some trebled, new regiments have been established, and in that way we have pushed on with the recruiting until to-day we have a fairly large force being trained, a force not on paper, but actually being trained towards the work of warfare. The Special Service Battalion has been expanded to a brigade, and these young men are now undergoing military training and will be a very useful force in case their services are wanted. Besides this Special Service Brigade we have started a similar brigade of the older men, men beyond the age of 25, and this older brigade is also being trained at Ladysmith and everything is being done to make of them a real fighting force which may be used in days to come if the need should arise. One rather important departure we have made from the scheme of defence which had hitherto been employed. Hon. members will have noticed that in the scheme of defence we have had so far no provision has been made for mounted men; on the contrary the mounted man has been cut out, and the result is that in a country which a generation ago had the most mobile force in the world, a force which was the envy of every staff in the world, the Defence Force has become probably the slowest in the world, so slow that the ox-cart now has to do their transport. Really, our army now has the pace of the ox. This South African army of ours had as its principal asset its mobility, and that has been reduced to the pace of the ox. Well, it is very difficult to recover lost ground. The horse has gone backwards and we have taken to the motor, but it is necessary, if we want to do our duty by the defence of this country, that we should call a halt to this process. In many of the European armies, notably in the German army, a large mounted force is maintained for the purposes of mobility, and hon. members can imagine what is going to happen to a South African force reduced to bush-cart transport, on foot, and without a horse, having to deal with an Askari army moving at twenty to thirty miles a day. One can imagine what the result is going to be. Our considerations have led us to this result, that we should establish two mounted brigades. Two of our divisions will have mounted brigades attached to them and we shall give these men mounted training. Officers have been chosen and have been trained, the N.C.O.’s for this force have been chosen and are being trained, the horses for training are being acquired, and after that we shall take these brigades into proper training and we shall have connected with our Defence Force something of the old mobility once more. We shall have sections that can scout ahead, follow up in the way that no men on foot, tied down by slow transport, can possibly do. I think that this is a move in the right direction. We have dealt also with the question of reserves. I am afraid the question of reserves has been very badly neglected in years gone by for one reason and another. We have now started to form reserve units which may be very useful to us in our organisation. We have started a reserve battalion to take the work off the hands of the young Special Service Battalion men. These young men have been largely used hitherto for all sorts of ceremonial duties, which can be much better performed by older men. In future men between 45 and 60 will be formed into this reserve battalion and will relieve the Special Service Battalion Brigade of all that sort of civil duty. We have also established an Essential Services Corps for anti-sabotage work, guarding bridges and buildings and places of vital importance, like power stations and all the essential points in the economic life of the country. These are now being guarded by these Essential Services men, not a fighting body, but something which is, in time of war, almost as necessary as fighting men. With regard to the old veterans, ex-servicemen, men who have taken part in past wars, who are now past the age of active service but men of a great deal of experience and really very useful, we have taken another step. We are organising them in three battalions. They were very keen to do something and themselves established a Defence Training Association in order to do the part they could do in the service of the country in time of trouble. We gave them instructors to lick them into shape. Fnally I came to the conclusion that one might do much better with them, and we are now forming three battalions which will make up a whole brigade of these older men who do not need much military training but who are veterans and who want to do their bit. These Defence Training Battalions are being formed and trained, and I think will be a very useful reserve force. With regard to our Seaward Defence, that corps has been completed; all our examination services on the coast, mine-sweeping, anti-submarine work and anti-torpedo work is being done now by this corps. Then civil aerodromes in the country have been taken over. That has been a bit of a financial tangle and promised at one time to be a very expensive business, because the money involved in these civil aerodromes, municipal and others, amounts to £1,500,000. But we have been able, with the hearty co-operation of the municipalities and other organisations concerned, to make a very good arrangement under which, with a payment of £34,000 a year maintenance charges, we have the full use of these aerodromes for training purposes for our Air Force. I may say in connection with this that we are giving accommodation to men of the Naval branch of the Africa Station at our Wynberg Aerodrome. The Africa Station has an Air Arm of its own attached to it, and they are short of accommodation. We are giving them the necessary accommodation at Wynberg. We are also helping Rhodesia in a similar way. Rhodesia is getting over a large number of aeroplanes from England for the training of her men and for the large air-training scheme that they have there, and we have undertaken at Wingfield Aerodrome to help them to put these machines together and fly them to Rhodesia. In that way we shall be helping our neighbour in a practical manner. One word more about a matter which may become of great importance in regard to our air training. The Committee will remember that months ago, I believe early in September, the British Government made a proposal to the Dominions to join in a great scheme of Empire air-training in Canada. The other Dominions have all joined in this scheme, but we have not seen our way to do so, because we thought our circumstances were quite different, and we thought our air-training should be done in this country under African conditions. We, therefore, declined the offer, but we made this offer to them. We said we were training a large Air Force of our own, and if Great Britain or her African territories wanted to send over men to be trained with our men we should be only too willing. The British Government after some hesitation saw the virtues of that proposal and have now accepted it, with the result that it is quite possible in the near future we shall train with our own men in aerodromes in South Africa fairly large numbers of British airmen, who are destined to be trained under African conditions. They will bring their British machines and own instructors, and I think we shall have this advantage that not only will we have the benefit of much superior and more modern training machines than are at our disposal, but we shall also have the example of training under the most up-to-date conditions, by men who are experts in new methods of air-training and air-warfare. I think it will be of inestimable advantage to our own airman here to have these examples of air-training from the old world before them. I need not say anything in particular about coastal defences, because I think that with the efforts made by my predecessor and the efforts we have made since, our coastal defences to-day are in good order. The scheme which we have adopted is that the Peninsula shall be defended by 9.2 inch batteries, suitably disposed at certain points, and 6 inch batteries at other suitable points. Durban will be defended also by 9.2 inch batteries and 6 inch batteries, while other ports, Port Elizabeth and East London will be defended by six-inch batteries. I think the coastal defence of South Africa is now on such a footing that we need not have any anxieties in that respect. To the coast artillery, here in the Peninsula, have also been attached a number of anti-aircraft guns. In connection with these guns we are training a number of gunners, who will be able to man our anti-air defences in future. We have not a large number of them yet, but we hope it will be possible, afterwards, if it becomes necessary, to get more of them. The position then works out like this. My predecessor had a scheme. It involved three active citizen force divisions of 67,000 men; three special defence rifle brigades, 10,000 men; and three defence rifle field forces, 60,000 men, altogether the 137,000 men I have referred to, and which the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) called the minimum compatible with national safety. Generally, we have stuck to the numbers of the scheme. We propose to continue the training of three divisions of the active citizen force, but to two of these divisions will be attached an additional mounted brigade, as I have explained.

When was that decided on?

Yes, that has been decided on.

When?

I cannot give the date.

I can.

One division will be with this mounted branch, and there will be four defence rifle divisions. Besides that, there will be the coast and seaward defences. The artillery, sir, we are expanding, and increasing the number of batteries, with the result that I think we shall be pretty well equipped in that respect. The air arm of my predecessor is not considered adequate for our defence scheme. There is no doubt that if we are ever to be involved in a real struggle, it will be against a force which will be very well equipped in the air. We have learned from what has happened in recent years, the importance, the vast importance of’ proper equipment in the air. It may be a fatal mistake to face an up-to-date army anywhere with air equipment very much superior to our own. It would be a fatal mistake, and we propose to increase our air force fairly considerably and make it much stronger than it is at present. The example of Poland must to us be a continual warning, where highly trained, able and well-equipped armies never got a chance at all, and were practically put out of action from the very start because of the superiority in the air of the agressor forces.

In spite of guarantees.

I am afraid that guarantees do not count very much nowadays. I am afraid that guarantees and neutralities are exploded ideas. They do not work any more. I just wish to express a word of very sincere appreciation of the very hard work that the staff of the Defence Force has put in in all this heavy duty. There is no doubt that the effort the defence headquarters has made in these last eight months, has been beyond praise. Night and day they have been working and exerting themselves to make this defence force of ours not only a paper scheme, but a real fighting machine. I think the result will be that it will not only make a brave show in speeches and in debates, but it will make a very good show when it faces up to an enemy. I want to say this word, in conclusion, about finance. Finance is determined by what I have said. My predecessor practically fixed the numbers for our defence force at 137,000 men, grouped in a certain number of units. As he said at the time, it is an arithmetical question to work out what it will cost to equip these units and the force properly. It is almost an arithmetical question. We know what the cost of modern weapons is, and we know what it means to equip a force of that size and character, and the question of finance, therefore, I say is simply determined by the size of the force and the units in which they are organised, and the equipment with which they have to be provided. We have had to make a very special effort and go to a great deal of expense in the last few months because so little has been done before to provide the forces with what they needed. In certain respects we still lag behind. It is difficult to-day to get modern up-to-date guns and aeroplanes when there is a clamour for them all over the world in theatres where the need is greater than it is in South Africa. Therefore, in certain respects we are by no means up to the mark yet. So far as is possible, either by buying abroad or manufacturing here in South Africa, or making provision for manufacture, we are making every effort in order to equip and arm our forces properly. Steps also have been taken to see that necessary checks are instituted in order that waste may be avoided. I wish to say this, that the Treasury and the Public Service Commission have been most helpful to us in providing us with the men and the advice which help us in these matters. Soldiers, as a rule, have rather large ideas of finance, and very often are babes in finance. It is, therefore, necessary to have these checks. They are being applied, and I think with our contracts, our prices and the arrangements we are making for expenditure, they will probably stand a very severe scrutiny. Every precaution has been taken in that direction. I may say that if something more had been done earlier in the years of plenty lying behind us, the task would have been much easier to-day. As it is, we are doing our best in the circumstances, and pushing ahead as fast as we can. I just want to say this in regard to the coloured people. The coloured people have approached me repeatedly and are very anxious to do their bit, and I am most anxious to meet them too. What we are doing is this. It is not possible to organise them into combatant units. Public opinion in this country does not look with a favourable eye on that sort of development. But in war-time non-combatant service is often just as important, and in some cases more important, than military service. What I propose is to organise some pioneer battalions of our coloured people, who can help us with war work, apart from the fighting that has to be done at the front. It is possible to do that. I believe that the coloured community are quite prepared to do their duty in that way, and I think it would be a very useful adjunct to the army to have these coloured battalions. That is, they can do pioneer work, and work of that character in any advance that may have to be made. For the native people I think similar provision can be made in our transport arrangements, and in many other directions. It will be possible to make use of their services too. I should not like to do anything which might make these people, patriotic and anxious to serve and anxious to defend this country, feel that they are not also pulling their weight and doing their part in furthering the cause for which we stand. I think both the cases of the coloured people and the native people can be fairly met. Their claims and wishes can be fulfilled, quite apart from combatant work. To that extent I am prepared to help them, and am making the necessary arrangements.

As the right hon. the Prime Minister has kept us busy for a good hour and a quarter, it may perhaps not be asking too much on my part if I request to be granted thirty minutes to go into certain points dealt with by him. The question which has been occupying our minds — or at least the answer to which we have all been looking forward — is: Whom are we going to fight against, and where are we going to fight? That question, of course, the Prime Minister has left unanswered. But I feel that he has said enough to cause the greatest possible disquiet among the people of South Africa. It is clear from what he has said that there is no doubt that South Africa has to go and settle the Polish war in North Africa. There is no danger to South Africa from the Polish war. The only way in which dangers may be created is by our following up the Polish adventure by poking our nose into a war between France and Italy. In other words, if in addition to poking our noses into the Polish affair we were to concern ourselves further with possible troubles not between Great Britain and Italy in the first instance — Great Britain will only be dragged into it afterwards — but between France and Italy, then our volunteers and commandeered people will have the privilege of being bled to death in North Africa. And if that does not happen, then there is the possibility of our having to go and fight side by side with Christian Turkey against some nation in northern Africa. Those are the two possibilities we are faced with. Therefore, let us thoroughly understand that so far as the war which is at the moment being waged is concerned, into which the majority of hon. members sitting opposite dragged us on the 4th September, there is no danger for us, and those wholesale military preparations which we are making here are not necessary for that war. There must be other new dangers and developments; we are to allow ourselves to be deliberately and recklessly dragged into other and new dangers before these measures which we are taking will be required. The hon. the Prime Minister did not say one word to show us how South Africa, or South Africa’s interests, are in any way being menaced or can be menaced. I say it is wasting the time of this Committee to refer again to what I have said in the past about the distances which aeroplanes are able to cover. We know all that. I always prepared myself for the possibility of conditions developing in South Africa so that we, as the protectors of white civilisation, might be asked to intervene. I made that perfectly clear. We would not in such an event have commandeered people, but possibly an amendment to the Act might have been necessary to cope with the situation, by means of volunteers. In addition there was always the possibility, even leaving out the question of black troops or of conditions in other areas, that our interests might be endangered, say, in Kenya or anywhere else, for instance, by an attack from Japan; but I want to ask whether we would ever have contemplated being so foolish as to say that South Africa’s interests were at stake because Great Britain had given Poland a guarantee, and that because Kenya was a British colony we were, therefore, affected. Anyone who had put forward that contention six months before the outbreak of war would have been described by the Prime Minister himself — at any rate on public platforms where he always uses such fine language — as a person fit for an asylum. That was our attitude. But now we go a step further. Not only has no case whatsoever been made out to show that our interests, together with those of Kenya, could in any way be threatened, but we also know that our interests can only be threatened if Great Britain and France were to poke their noses into further difficulties which concern us even less than the existing difficulties. But I say that a great deal of uneasiness has been caused, and will be caused, as soon as the public hears what the Prime Minister has said about volunteers, volunteers who are being recruited in this way by the permanent force, after they have first of all one by one been influenced by their officers. “The course of honour and duty demands that we shall be ready to go and fight in Kenya,” and after they have been influenced in that manner a parade is held the next morning. A speech is made to them on the parade ground and after they have been addressed, the command is given that those who are not prepared to sign the oath must be good enough to take three steps forward and those who remain constitute the volunteers. That is the way in which volunteers are being recruited. Well, I do not want to go into that any further. That is the sort of victimisation against which it is impossible to protect people, and that is the way in which the Minister is securing the services of a large number of unwilling people in his army. I might say that I would leave it to his conscience to ponder over what he is doing to these young fellows, but possibly an appeal like that to the right hon. the Prime Minister would be in vain. But now we are told that these people are volunteers and with those people he is going to fight anywhere in Africa, and if things go, wrong with those people then, so the right hon. gentleman has told us clearly, he will stand by his interpretation of the Defence Act, an interpretation, let me say again, which gives him the right, if he should by any chance get into difficulties, to demand that our people go and fight even as far as Italian Somaliland, to go even two-thirds into the Congo and French Equitorial Africa. I almost said that the hon. member had the impertinence, but you would call me to order if I used that expression, and therefore I say the right hon. gentleman had the courage to say that there was a difference of opinion as to where the borders of South Africa were; they might even be the equator. Let me say that that is not a historical interpretation, it is not a juridical interpretation, it is not a common-sense interpretation, but it is a military interpretation. Why stop at the equator? Why not go a little bit further? And let me say that if necessity does arise our troops will be told to go beyond the equator.

He has to keep up appearances.

Yes, he must certainly be doing it in order to keep up appearances. But with his volunteers he is going to get into further difficulties, and he is going to fight enemies who still have to be found. Now he wants to rely on the provisions of the Defence Act, but I say let him have the courage to amend the Act so that we may know where we are, because his present attitude borders on deceit. I feel that I cannot say anything else except that it is bordering on deceit to tell people that not the juridical, not the historical border, but the military border of South Africa go.es right up to the equator. Is that the right hon. gentleman’s opinion? If so, let him amend the Act so that we may know where we are, but I want to tell him this, that this jumping about with these misrepresentations, with this lack of straightforwardness, will have the effect of his getting the public into such a state of mind that when eventually he proceeds to commandeer them he will find himself in trouble. The right hon. gentleman himself is afraid of difficulties and that is why he has been jumping about in this way, and that is why apparently he did not know that the Royal Navy Volunteer Reserve is a portion of the Active Citizen Force which has got lost. I now wish to make a serious personal appeal to the right hon. the Prime Minister, not from a political point of view, but I ask my right hon. friend to be frank with us and to place bis cards on the table. Let him say, “We shall amend the Defence Act,” and if he does say so, we shall submit to it. We have not the slightest objection if Parliament by a majority, even though it is this majority, amends that Act by means of its majority. We shall submit to it. We have submitted to this declaration of war, and if South Africa is attacked as a result of this foolishness we shall defend it. But the hon. member must not imagine that by giving a wrong interpretation, which borders on deceit, he will get the public behind him. Now I wish to refer to a few of the points which the right hon. gentleman has dealt with, so as to show that in this criticism of our former policy we are faced either with the most abysmal ignorance, or the most extensive deceitfulness, and I shall leave the choice to the House. The Minister of Defence stated that he had decided to create two mounted brigades. But he did not tell us when he took that decision. In making this announcement he criticised me, but incidentally I had taken that decision.

On paper.

But his decision is also on paper. But I go even further. Our original intention was to establish two mounted brigades, not to go and chase Askaris in Central Africa, but to use those brigades here in the Union in parts where their services will be useful. But when that decision was arrived at it was not my personal decision. It was a Cabinet decision; it was a decision definitely taken by the Cabinet. And now the right hon. gentleman wishes this House to believe that I had not kept the Cabinet sufficiently well informed of what was being done. But he cannot say that I did not keep the Cabinet informed, and if be tells us that I had a policy which he did not know anything about then I can only say that it is a ridiculous excuse. I shall deal later on with the accusation that I did not carry out my policy, but apart from the fact that I continually kept the Cabinet informed I constantly kept him informed of what was being done and I asked his assistance to get the necessary financial provision passed, so much so that we occasionally surprised my former colleague here (Mr. Havenga). If the hon. member is not prepared to admit that he knew what the actual policy was, then I can only say that it is an excuse. Now I want to go into this criticism of his, that that policy was not carried out. You, Mr. Chairman, will remember that you recently said — and I am grateful to you for having made that comment— that I could not revert to what my right hon. friend had said in March, but he said quite enough to-day to enable me to refer to what has been said outside this House, and as now appears, with his knowledge and with his support. If I reply to that criticism I do not do so because I personally am very much concerned with it, as it is perfectly clear that this criticism made outside the House is principally attributable to ignorance, and that it principally emanates from the office of the Prime Minister. Personally I am, therefore, not very much concerned with this criticism, but what does concern me is the position of the officers who in the last five and a half years have done a lot of work to improve our Defence Force. The right hon. the Prime Minister was fulsome in his praise of what the officers have done since September, but, according to him, nothing was done before that time. I can testify and everyone who was at headquarters can testify and can confirm the fact that those people worked very hard throughout the past years, and when we hear this criticism that what they have done has been more of a danger than a protection to South Africa, then that remark is not only untrue but it is a scandalous insult to those people. The Minister says that these people have worked very hard at headquarters during the past six and a half months, but I can give him the assurance that they have worked very hard during the past six and a half years, and all those officers who are taking courses, all those people have done their bit, and what they have done is not a danger to South Africa, but has been done for the protection of South Africa. What, however, must have surprised everybody is that in those six months’ time somebody must have suddenly descended from the Heavens to do such excellent work, such as I had been unable to do. I want to say this, if a man takes over a farm or buys a business, and he says: “My predecessor had excellent intentions but he was quite unable to carry them out, and I have done it all in six months,” it would be stigmatised as a childish story. Now what are the facts. We had our plans in regard to mobilisation in six months’ time, and those plans have now been carried out. Whether the work is being done effectively and without waste of money is a question which I cannot judge of, but this I can say, that we would have been successful in mobilising in six months and if the right hon. the Prime Minister has mobilised effectively — and I am unable to express any opinion on that point—he has only been able to do so because we had made the necessary preparations, and because that was the definite plan. The only point on which the hon. minister has departed from the plan, as far as I can see, is where he wants to pay me a compliment, and that is in regard to our coastal defence. According to him that is the only thing that is any good, but the peculiar thing is that that is the only thing that is wrong. May I just be allowed to refer to the position of Cape Town. There he departed from what I had arranged. He pays me a compliment and says that I had made good preparations for coastal defence. But what has he done? He has prepared for the defence of Cape Town with two guns which have not been fired for five years, old guns which are out-distanced by a ship with modern 6-inch guns. That is the only point on which he pays me a compliment, and that is where he has made a fiasco of the position, and why? Because they wanted to prove their pro-British sentiments in preference to their pro-Afrikaans feelings. For that reason the Erebus had to be sent back. I believe that we shall hear more to-day of this childish story, that if the Erebus had been fired from it would have damaged the whole of the town. I can reply to that assertion to-day because the plan which we wanted to put into effect is similar to the plan which Great Britain applies with the same kind of Monitor at Singapore and Hong Kong. There it can be done, but here we are told it would destroy Cape Town. But it need not even be a Monitor, if you shoot badly enough you can destroy Cape Town with 6-inch guns. Another type of criticism with which the right hon. gentleman has largely associated himself is that it was a good plan in 1934 but in its main essentials it had not been carried out, and then the Prime Minister told us, or rather his military secretary told us, what had been done until September, 1939. That criticism showed this House that the 1934 plan had been continued with unchanged, and I want to say that this committee is being given information which is based on total ignorance, or on far-reaching deceit, because the 1934 plan has been changed in nearly every respect and has been extended, and has been given a totally different basis. Therefore, to give this House, or the public outside, the impression that we are dealing here with a definite plan laid down in 1934, which had not been carried out in 1939, is simply misleading the public. And what is more, those changes took place with the consent of the Cabinet. Those changes were brought about with the approval of Parliament. Every one of those changes—and I have the quotations from Hansard here—were explained to the House; nothing was said about them, and they were agreed to after they had been previously submitted to the Cabinet and approved of by the Cabinet. Now I want to go further and I want to tell the House what the basis of those changes in general was. The basis of those changes was that as we had come to the conclusion that we would not immediately on the outbreak of war have to take military steps there would be six months’ time for us in which to mobilise, and for that reason a more comprehensive organisation was prepared by us and it was arranged that we would not immediately spend the money which would be required, completely to carry out that more comprehensive organisation, even though it would cost more when we started mobilising than what the old plan would have cost. Every one at that time had the feeling that war might possibly yet be avoided. The first departure—perhaps I should not call it a departure, perhaps I should call it the first expansion of that plan of 1934—was to keep in mind the fact that we would have six months, when war broke out, before it would be necessary for us to use our full efforts and in those six months the organisation— which had all been arranged beforehand, could be placed on a war footing, exactly as is being done to-day. I do not know whether it is being done in an effective and able manner, but that was the plan. Secondly, we arrived at a decision that we should not keep large stocks and supplies in this country. We were not going to have so many rolls of sanitary paper available for every soldier; we were not going to have so many pairs of socks for every soldier, but we made sure that we would be able within that period of time to commandeer sufficient quantities in this country, or that we would be able to manufacture sufficient quantities of those supplies, so as to equip the army as it should be equipped. We were not going to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds, or possibly even millions of pounds on stocks, or supplies, as happened in the last war, and then have those supplies stored away and not used; and in that way we were going to save money on stocks and supplies which during the period of mobilisation could have been obtained in the country itself; I made it perfectly clear that so far as other stocks were concerned, our six months’ mobilisation plan was based on the fact that Great Britain was willing, and had promised to supply us with those stocks and munitions during the mobilisation period.

And if you had remained neutral would you then also have mobilised?

There would have been a certain amount of test mobilisation, but nothing like what is being done now. We would have felt that we were a bit nearer to the war and we would have spent certain sums of money on test mobilisation, but we are now at war, and nobody knows where we are going to fight. The principle adopted by us was to widen the basis of the 1934 scheme, and the idea was that we were not going to spend money in time of peace on the carrying out of that plan, but that we would so equip ourselves that we would be able to mobilise within that mobilisation period on that wider basis. We did not immediately set about purchasing ambulances which we did not require in times of peace, because we would be able to constitute ambulance units within six weeks after the outbreak of war, and it was unnecessary to spend all the money for that purpose during times of peace. It is a foolish and dishonest criticism to say that when war broke out there were insufficient ambulance units on paper for the soldiers. Let me say this, and we have emphasised this from time to time, and I have it here in the Hansard reports, and it is a policy which has been approved of by the Cabinet and also in this House, that we could only spend certain amounts on defence from current revenue from year to year. The reason was that there would be sufficient time to spend the additional money when real danger threatened us, and when the country was really menaced; at such a time the Treasury would not mind spending the money. The right hon. the Minister of Defence the other day, on the 14th March, stated in this House that if we were to carry out the five year plan in every detail, it would cost the state as much as he is spending now, namely £14,000,000. That is the best evidence that we had never intended carrying out that plan in time of peace, and I say that it would have been a criminal action towards the poor population of South Africa to have done so, to have spent all that money on stocks, munitions and supplies, supplies which become obsolete, and on aeroplanes which within eighteen months, or at the utmost within two years, become obsolete, especially as we had other plans in regard to obtaining those aeroplanes on the outbreak of war. I therefore say that the basis of the 1934 plan was shifted in this important respect — the whole scheme was extended and widened but it was subject to a mobilisation period of six months, and history has proved that that six months mobilisation period has been available since the outbreak of war, and that during that period we have been able to carry out everything we intended carrying out. The basis was changed and it is dishonest to come and criticise me here as though that basis had not been changed, and then to come and say: “Look what things were like in 1939.” Now let me take this criticism as it was made in this House and outside, criticism with which the right hon. the Minister of Defence associates himself. The first point in the criticism was that our air force was simply helpless. It had been stated that on the outbreak of war we would have had three squadrons of aeroplanes available, one of bomber fighters, one of aeroplanes for general purposes, and one for training purposes. The criticism is that there were only two bombers: so far as aeroplanes for general purposes are concerned, we had obsolete aeroplanes, so that there was nothing at all, and so far as aeroplanes for training were concerned, there were forty of them, so that there was a shortage of twenty-two on a total of sixty-two. I do not know why there should have been sixty-two, if we were to have had three squadrons. The criticism was that there were no modern aeroplanes as decided in 1934. But since 1934 we had devised another and a much better plan, a plan approved of by the Cabinet, and in respect of which the Cabinet had paid me a tribute, a plan which this House had also approved of. That plan would have excluded the purchase of modern aeroplanes, because as hon. members know, it would have meant the spending of a million or a million and a half pounds in the purchase of modem aeroplanes, which after eighteen months or two years would have become totally obsolete. We therefore changed the 1934 plan and we made a new plan under which we were to have obtained from the British Government obsolete aeroplanes for training purposes at £200 each. This matter was debated in this House after the Cabinet had approved of it, and the right hon. the Minister of Defence took up the same attitude that I did, and which my other colleagues did, that I had done an excellent stroke of work when I had made that arrangement.

Mr. Chairman, for the first time the House has listened to an apology from the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) for his administration of the Defence Department, and for the first time we have ascertained from the hon. member that when he made various speeches on defence, I refer more particularly to the speech in March, 1939, he did not really mean what he said, and the impression he wished to convey to the House was something entirely different to that which was conveyed by the ordinary meaning of words. When he told the House in 1939 that we had 28,000 troops that could be placed in the field, fully equipped within 21 days, he did not mean that they could go into the field and fight, he simply meant that we had a certain number of men who had had a modicum of training, but had no modern weapons at all. And with regard to the total number that he proposed to put in the field within six months, some 200,000 men, he did not mean that they had rifles for, as I said the other day, there were not that number of rifles in the country, and what was more, it was extremely difficult to forecast whether he would be able to get those rifles. The hon. member has stated this afternoon that under the scheme which he visualised he would be able to get whatever stores were required from Great Britain under an arrangement made with the British Government, and that he would be able to get all the munitions and equipment required after war broke out. Will the hon. member deny that he was definitely advised by his department that such a thing would be absolutely impracticable and that it would not be possible to supply what was wanted within six months? Will he also deny that that was confirmed when he went to England in November, 1938, and he found that it was quite impossible because of home commitments that the British Government had? The hon. member has stated with reference to certain charges that have been made, that those charges were dishonest. Presumably he meant that as I was one of those who asked questions in the House that the criticisms I ventured to make were dishonest. Now, I want to take the hon. gentleman back to the statement he made in this House in 1934. He stated that the new policy was for the Government not to purchase overseas equipment, that it was possible to manufacture in this country, equipment such as military stores, guns and shells. That was a policy which the House readily agreed to, because the policy of the country had long been to develop local industries, one has the right to ask the hon. member how soon steps were taken to implement that and to put this country into the position to be able to manufacture equipment when urgent necessity arose. A War Supplies Board was created three years afterwards in 1937, that Board made certain investigations and carried out a limited amount of experimentation work, but it was not until 1939, five years after this policy started, that the engineering industries of this country were called together and an effort made to co-ordinate various sections of the country in a plan to manufacture war requirements. Sir, the whole of the engineering industry were most anxious to co-operate. They were most anxious to render every possible assistance to the country. When in 1934 the hon. member informed the House that it was intended to provide under the five-year plan, twenty-four active citizen force battalions, specially trained to machine guns and mortar practice, one would naturally have assumed that we would have the necessary machine guns and mortars in the country to enable those battalions to practise. Now, sir, trench mortars were one of the items it was proposed to manufacture in this country. The actual number required for peace training is laid down by the military authorities. May I say, in passing, that in the matter I speak on, I am not questioning anything that the military authorities laid down. Ī am going on information given to us. The number laid down as the minimum required to train twenty-four active citizen force battalions was 200 trench mortars. The House may be surprised to know that right up to a few months of the outbreak of war, the total number of trench mortars in the country was ten. The other item which was specifically required, which it is not proposed to manufacture, was machine guns. Did the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) ever give the House full information as to what were the numbers of machine guns in the country? The number that we required under ordinary peace time requirements, not war-time requirements at all—although since then a certain change has been made—was set down at 1.500. For two or three years the total number in the country was under 100. Then through the generosity of Great Britain, they lent us 500 Lewis guns. After 1938, when the hon. member went to England, when they were faced with the greatest crisis in the history of the world, so far as they were concerned, and were fighting for life and death, they agreed to send us, out of their reserves, a certain number of Bren guns to South Africa. At the same time the hon. member tried to borrow certain aircraft to make up our deficiencies. I wonder if the hon. member told the British Cabinet, when he was asking for these things which were so vitally necessary, when the European position was becoming acute and the possibility of war drawing near, I wonder if he told the British Government then that at the back of his mind, when they were giving up these vital things, he had determined on neutrality? The justification of the criticism that has been made is this, and I say that we have no intention of entrenching on the military ground by criticising the plans put forward. Our criticism has been that so far as ordinary laymen in this House are concerned, information was given to us, which when the time of crisis came, was found not to be correct. The hon. member says that it was the laid-down policy that in the event of war we would have six months’ notice in which to prepare. Did the general staff agree? Fortunately, we have had this notice, but even to-day when preparations are being made, although it is true that we are training the men, even to-day we are in nothing like the position we should have been in if the work authorised by the House in the last five years had been carried out by the hon. member. Many hard words have been said to those of us who had ventured to criticise the hon. member. I think, possibly, the correctness of our criticism may be judged by the measure of vituperation the hon. member has poured upon the devoted heads of us who have ventured to criticise him. I say to the hon. member that no amount of personal abuse or personal recrimination against hon. members of this House, who have ventured to criticise him, will deter us from doing what we consider to be our duty in making this criticism. There were other matters which I wish to deal with. [Time limit.]

I was showing how dishonest this criticism is which simply points to the 1934 plan, and aims at giving the Committee the impression that that plan was proceeded with unchanged until 1939, and then goes on to say that that plan was never carried out. I particularly wish to deal with the Air Force question because the dishonesty of the criticism is more patent in regard to that question than in regard to any other point. In 1934 the scheme was for three squadrons and three times twenty-six aeroplanes. Later on I shall point out how many aeroplanes we actually had in 1939, but I want to emphasise that it was with the full consent of the Cabinet and of this House that we departed from the idea that those three squadrons should consist of new aeroplanes, and that in the place of that plan we substituted a more comprehensive scheme, namely to obtain from Great Britain for training and other purposes obsolete, but still highly useful aeroplanes at £200 and that we would obtain a number of the Furies and Hurricanes of the latest types, usually in droves of seven, for the purpose of training our best pilots. But in regard to other aeroplanes which we would need on the outbreak of a war, those we would get out of what Great Britain herself called her “Dominion pool.” This pool consisted of a stock of modem aeroplanes which Great Britain would primarily keep in stock for us, and secondly for other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, for times of peace if you want, but certainly for times of war should they be required. This was not a loose promise, but a definite agreement with Great Britain, approved of by the Cabinet, and communicated to and approved of by this House. I took it, and I was entitled to take it, that Great Britain would create that pool and that Great Britain would have the necessary supplies and would carry out her promise. To say to-day that I should have known that she could not carry out that promise is ridiculous. I was entitled to accept the position that as the British Air Minister with the consent of his Cabinet had made an agreement, I could accept his word, because here I was dealing with a British politician and not with another type, not with an imitation British politician. The amount of money which we would have saved on one hundred aeroplanes, which is about the minimum which we would require in South Africa, would have been from one and a half million to two million pounds in two years’ time. Those modern aeroplanes cost about £15,000 or more, and we paid for the Furies from £9,000, but after two years those aeroplanes would have been obsolete. Let me give an instance. Under the agreement we would have this year obtained Blenheim aeroplanes and Battles for £200. I understand, or rather I have read in the Press, that we have surrendered to Great Britain the Blenheims which we would now have bought as new aeroplanes for £14,000 or £16,000. In normal conditions — I admit that conditions are not normal to-day — we would have bought those aeroplanes, for which we are now going to pay £14,000 or £16,000, and we would have received them in South Africa in the course of this year, for £200. As far as I know we have not got those aeroplanes yet. I believe we have surrendered them to Finland, but if we were to have got them now, we would have got them at about the same time as we would have normally got them for £200. I am prepared to admit that conditions are abnormal and nobody would force Great Britain to carry out that promise, but I emphasise the value of our agreement with Great Britain and of our departure from the 1934 plan. But more than that, while the original plan was to have three squadrons with the necessary pilots, we proceeded after 1934 with the plan for 1,000 pilots and 3,000 mechanics; in other words, instead of our having only the necessary pilots for three squadrons of twenty-six aeroplanes each, with the necessary reserves, under our new plan we would have 1.000 within five years. Nothing is said about that in the criticism levelled against me. We are now told that the three squadrons with the aeroplanes are not there. “They are not there.” Consequently the then Minister was useless. Not a word is said of the fact that we had substituted the curtailed scheme by a wide, comprehensive and much more extensive scheme. It was a scheme from which the country would benefit considerably. Now, may I be allowed in connection with this criticism to point out that if it is said that there were no three squadrons and that what we had was useless, let me point out that even that is not true. There was infinitely more than what we would have had under the 1934 scheme. Let me quote what I said in this House on the 23rd March, 1939, when I explained the position as it was at that time. I did not imagine those figures; they were official figures which were supplied to me by the Defence Department. If there is any hon. member who wants to find fault with those figures, let him find fault and address himself to the Defence Department. I did not go and count the areoplanes myself, but I obtained the figures from the department. This is what I said in column 2281, 22nd March, 1939—

And then I went on to say—

And then I was asked, “Are they fully trained?” and my reply was—

And so it goes on. These figures emanate from the department, and I want to ask whether, in view of all these facts, it is honest now to take the 1934 scheme and to say that the three squadrons with modern aeroplanes are not there, seeing that this agreement had been entered into with Great Britain, and all these other things were added later when the scheme was enlarged and completely changed. [Time limit.]

When my time expired just now I was dealing with the manufacture of stores. At all times representatives of industry were most anxious to collaborate with the Department of Defence in manufacturing munitions which had been determined by this House could be manufactured in South Africa. A conference was called in 1939. That was after the speech made by the hon. member in March, 1939; at that conference representatives of the engineering industry came together. They had been invited by the hon. member for Gezina; the conference had to decide as to the way in which the munition industry could be reorganised. The conference was not altogether satisfactory because although the members were quite willing to co-operate they were not fully taken into the confidence of the Minister, and although they were willing to help they could not do so. One of the first essentials if you are going to manufacture shells is to get out a shellmaking plant, a plant which will not cost an excessive amount of money, such a plant would have been the means of making not only our own requirements but we would have been able to supply neighbouring territories. That has been the position in regard to the small arms and ammunition factories established by the hon. member at Pretoria. It has been a satisfactory arrangement and they are supplying all the rifle ammunition which South Africa needs, and they are able to supply neighbouring territories; but although tentative enquiries were made in regard to the purchase of a shellmaking plant, no steps were taken until after the war had broken out, when steps were taken to acquire this plant and to reorganise the industry. When this plant arrives we shall be able to produce our own requirements and also to supply other territories. The point I want to make is this. While the hon. member for Gezina had admirable ideas about these things, they were never put into execution and our criticism to-day is this—we do not criticise his plans but we criticise the fact that they were never carried out. Another question was the necessity of co-ordinating the efforts of labour in the production of munitions. It was immediately found that with the increased production required and with the increased number of artisans and mechanics wanted for the Air Force, an increased number of artisans and mechanics would be required for the engineering industry and it would be necessary to go into the question of the dilution of labour. It was not until after the war had started that that matter was taken in hand by the Department of Labour, and a satisfactory agreement was come to under which the Labour section of the Government are going to co-operate and co-ordinate these efforts. The whole problem was that if these plans had been properly undertaken and efforts had been made to re-organise the industry, instead of having had to wait some months, some six or seven months before the production of ammunition and guns could take place…

Do you think labour would have agreed to dilution in peace time?

I think if it had been put up to Labour as it was put up afterwards that in the event of war and in view of the necessity for a big increase in the engineering staff, they would have agreed to a dilution. I do not think there would have been any difficulty. Another point is this. At that time we were turning out aircraft mechanics at the rate of three or four hundred per year. The hon. member for Gezina said that we required 3,000, and that we actually had 2,080. That might have been the number that had passed through the mechanical workshops, but when war broke out the actual number of air mechanics at Roberts Heights was 1,349, of whom four or five hundred were apprentices, and the difficulty was this, that when these air mechanics had been trained, they had gone into the various industries, and it was extremely difficult to get them back in the event of mobilisation; because with the manufacture of munitions in this country many of these skilled artisans are occupying key positions and would not have been available for the air force, and one of the biggest problems the department has been faced with has been getting the mechanical staff, the artisan staff, to deal with the aircraft which we hope to get. The department during these last six months have with the co-operation of the technical colleges of this country, organised a scheme for the training of apprentices particularly in the engineering side, throughout South Africa, and the latest report I had was that the scheme was working extremely well and that they hoped with a limited form of training in the space of about half the time it would ordinarily take, to give the lads a training throughout South Africa, a training which hitherto had been more or less focussed in Pretoria. The training these lads get is going to be of vital importance, because as the Prime Minister indicated, it is clear that you have to face a big increase in the aircraft and the air personnel of this country. We are going to have a large number of aircraft in this country and you have to have a mechanical staff to look after that. That is one of the biggest problems. And although the hon. member took certain steps in estimating what was required the fact remains that when war broke out the numbers who were supposed to be there could not be produced, because so many had gone into key industries. And may I say this in regard to the hon. member’s criticism. We ourselves have gone through the countryside before last September supporting the hon. member for the defence efforts which he was making, because we took his speeches at face value. We had been accused of false accusations.

If one takes the hon. member’s speeches at face value there is only one interpretation to be placed on them. When we are told that we have large numbers of troops available to take the field within 21 days, when we are told that we have a rifle strength of 150,000, we are entitled to believe that we have the number of rifles required by these people.

I was analysing the criticism which I regard as dishonest criticism, criticism which was to the effect that there was a certain plan in 1934 and which failed to say that that plan was completely changed. The test put was whether in 1939 that plan had been carried out. I was dealing with the question of the Air Force because the dishonest criticism was more pronounced in regard to the Air Force in view of the fact that we had tremendously expanded our Air Force, a fact of which not a word was said; when I am being criticised are hon. members honest when they keep silent on this aspect of the matter? Now I come to other criticism and I want to deal with this question of artillery ammunition which of all the criticism is nearest to the facts. We had very little artillery ammunition, but what was the cause? First of all we decided not to keep a great quantity of artillery ammunition in stock because it very quickly deteriorates, and hon. members will recollect that a few years ago cordite to a value of £74,000 was thrown away into the sea because it had become useless. I not only told the Cabinet, but I also told this House, that one could not keep these things too long and for that reason we were unable to keep a great deal in stock. For that reason we decided for the time being to keep small quantities in stock until such time as we would be able to manufacture it here. But what is more, we placed artillery orders. I have not got the details here but we would have been able at any time to have obtained supplies by cabling for them. In any case, if the orders had not been placed, I had given my consent to their being placed. So the criticism in this respect is the nearest of all the criticism to having any foundation at all, but the facts are that these munitions rapidly deteriorate and in addition to that I did notify the House that we only had small supplies. But the Cabinet should have known it, and now we find that two-thirds of the members of the Cabinet must have been continually asleep, because they know nothing about neutrality or mortars, or ammunition, or aeroplanes. I say here that so far as the artillery ammunition is concerned the criticism levelled against me is nearest of all the criticism which has any foundation whatever. But let us go a little further. There was a shortage of mortars. The Prime Minister mentioned the figure, but shortly before that the shortage was even larger, because we started here making our own mortars and we produced better mortars than we were able to obtain from Great Britain. Our policy of having very few mortars here was a deliberate one, because we wanted to manufacture them here ourselves. And now it is stated that I had not carried out our policy of 1934 in connection with mortars, and that as a result there was a shortage. Then I want to point out that the Prime Minister further stated that we were short of the necessary equipment, but I did say at the time that our supplies were short, but that I felt that we could take the risk of a shortage of equipment, and we were quite safe in taking that risk. On the 23rd March, 1939, I said the following in this House. I refer to Hansard, col. 2273, but before that I said something else which I also regard as being important, and that is that we only wanted to buy the most modem equipment. In regard to antiaircraft guns for instance we could get as many as we wanted, but all obsolete stuff, and that is why we preferred to wait. Now this is what I said on that occasion—

Was there any criticism of that in this House at the time?

No, my business acumen was particularly appreciated by the Cabinet. And I further said this—

That was the decision of the Cabinet, and I submitted that decision to this House. But now we hear the criticism in this House that there was a shortage. Of course, there was a shortage. I would have been surprised if there had not been a shortage, because it was as a result of the policy adopted by us that there would be a shortage.

Did the present Prime Minister know about it?

Yes, he knew about it. I would rather not express any opinion about that. So we consistently and deliberately accepted this policy and we took the risk of a shortage of stocks, and history has proved that we were quite safe in taking that risk. We did not decide on these things arbitrarily and lightly. We asked ourselves who might possibly attack us, how long it would take before we might actually be attacked, and we arrived at that decision as a Cabinet, and the Cabinet approved of it. I may point out that this side of the House did protest against it to a certain extent, but we took up the attitude that our defence must be based on the supposition that the British fleet would not be sunk, that the British fleet would keep the seas open, and that it would only be from the direction of the sea that we would be exposed to raids. We had no reason to be afraid of such raids because we were already sufficiently armed to cope with such raids.

We said that if South Africa were attacked, such an attack would come over land and we studied the question of what possible enemies there could be from that side, how many troops and what equipment such a possible enemy might have, and how long it would take such an enemy to attack us, and we came to the conclusion that we would have six months to mobilise. It has been proved that we were right in our calculations, but not a word is said about all this when criticism is levelled against me. [Time limit.]

The matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the Minister is not one of high policy but nevertheless I believe it is one involving an important principle. My attention has been drawn to the fact, a deplorable fact to my mind, that in Cape Town the Ordnance Department at the Castle is paying some of its native employees a wage of as low as £3 5s. per month, in other words, a little over 15s. a week, worse than the most notorious Government department in this respect, the Railway Department. This country is engaged in a war against the doctrine of Nazism, which deservedly has a reputation for implying not only dictatorship but the exploitation of the working people as well, and yet the department which is engaged most closely in the conduct of this struggle in so far as this country is concerned, pays the worst wages to its unskilled workers of any in Cape Town. It is true that they get 10s. a month as a contribution towards rent, but those who have to live in the location at Langa and have wives and families, as I understand the majority of them have, cannot get a house for 10s. a month, but have to pay as much as 25s. These are facts given to me by the men themselves, and I am assuming that they are correct. These wages are far lower than the ordinary unskilled wage in Cape Town. Eleven trades in Cape Town pay 30s. a week under Wage Board determinations, nearly double the wages these men are getting, and in the building trade they get more than 30s. a week. The cost of living for a native family in Cape Town is reckoned to be about. £6 10s. 0d. per month. I hope the Minister will investigate the matter, and if these facts are correct, as I believe they are, I hope he will give some relief.

I have already referred to the decision of the Cabinet which was approved of by this House, that we should manufacture as many of our stocks as possible in this country itself, even though that would mean a gap in connection with our stocks. To this I want to add that I did not attend the Witwatersrand Agricultural Show and I do not know what was shewn there in connection with munitions which we manufacture in our own country, but I did read in the Press that the right hon. the Minister of Defence was very much surprised at what he saw there. From that surprise I deduce that he was not the man who had anything to do with the manufacture of these things in South Africa. Anyhow, it must be quite clear that all the preparatory work was done in the past, and that it could not have been done in the last six months. Now the next point in the criticism levelled here against me is that there is a shortage of anti-tank guns. It is stated that the shortage amounts to 780. I had thought that it would be 800, and it is for exactly the same reason, because we considered manufacturing these articles here. The use of anti-tank guns was in the experimental stage. I was not convinced that the anti-tank guns would be the best weapons for the purposes of this country, and I was under the impression that we might possibly be able to obtain a better weapon, and we went into the question of whether it would not be possible to have the manufacture of such guns, machine guns, etc., undertaken in one large factory. Now I come to another item in connection with which I must express my great surprise. That any Minister who sat in a Cabinet with me can get up here and say that there was a shortage of machine guns and Brenn guns, well, I am not allowed to say that it is shameful, but I say again that I am surprised at the courage of the right hon. member to say this against one of his colleagues in the Cabinet. He knows that there was almost a Cabinet crisis in Great Britain on the question of enabling us to obtain Brenn guns. We were unable to obtain the necessary spare parts for the Lewis guns. We obtained a certain quantity to supply them, if necessary, to the commandoes, and we were very happy to get them. But that anyone should have the impertinence to accuse me, as Minister, because there was a shortage of Brenn guns, when Great Britain had stated that she wanted to help us but that it was impossible at that particular juncture to give us any more, is almost inexplicable. I do not want to say here to whose intervention it was due, but in any case it was with the greatest difficulty that we succeeded in obtaining the numbers that we did eventually obtain. My former colleague is perfectly well aware of this, yet he gets up here, or he allows others to say, that the previous Minister is at fault for there being a shortage of Brenn guns. We would have been able to have obtained Lewis guns which were five years old, without the spare parts. That would have meant throwing away hundreds of thousands of pounds. We could have done so but the then Minister had a little too much common sense to do so. Then a question was put how much of the £6,000.000 had been spent. This is the first time I have ever found a Minister being criticised for not having spent enough money: as a rule a Minister is criticised for having done the very opposite, and if my colleagues of those days, whose memories are now so conveniently short, want to know why not more of that £6,000,000 was spent, well, Mr. Te Water, our previous High Commissioner in London is here, and he will be only too pleased to appear before a Select Committee and explain the position. If people from outside come along with criticism of this kind, one can say that their accusasations are based on ignorance. Their criticism is in regard to matters which I am not at liberty to tell them about, but when a former colleague of mine does so, then I am simply astounded at his attitude. Then I come to the criticism in regard to tanks, and armour-plated cars, each of which we had two or three. The criticism was to the effect that they were obsolete. Well, it is something new to me to hear that hon. members expected anything else. We deliberately bought obsolete tanks because we could get them cheaply, and because we had no intention of using them against an enemy. As a matter of fact in view of the conditions prevailing in this country we had decided not to use tanks, but we did buy obsolete tanks in order to use them in regard to tear gas in the event of troubles arising in this country. That was the generally accepted principle and now I have to listen to criticism about these tanks being obsolete. Nobody would have been more surprised than myself if they had undergone a rejuvenating cure, because as I said, we deliberately bought obsolete tanks. For the purpose for which they were actually purchased they were quite useful. To-day we go further and we want armour-plated motor cars for use here and also in adjoining territories, but naturally not in the bush country. They can be obtained within the period of six months. And now I come to the question of man-power. I said on the 23rd March, 1939, that we were 3,000 men short, and that is what I adhere to, and if Gen. Collyer is unable to get them I am not surprised. I am surprised that he has got as many as he has got. The difficulty is that the farmers do not want to have anything to do with him. Gen. Collyer is a very useful man. I appointed him and within his own sphere of activities I was highly satisfied with him, and the rt. hon. the Minister will be highly satisfied with him, but apparently he is being used to-day as a sort of factotum, who has to do everything—he even has to do things of which he understands very little and things in connection with which a section of the public do not want to have anything to do with him. But we are progressing. Fourteen days ago the Minister was only able to get 12,000 men, and by this time he has got to 18,000. Possibly if he lights a lantern and makes a bit of a search, he will be able to find the rest as well, but the people are there and they have been found. The rt. hon. the Minister says that he has more than 56,000. Where did he get them? They are the people who were there. I am prepared to admit that we did not have a registration number for every one of them, but unfortunately we have never had such registration numbers in the Defence Force. I only had sufficient staff available during the last few years to make a start with that. Consequently the sum total of the criticism amounts to this, that we did not have the names on the registers. Now let me say in regard to that that one can keep a register to-day and carry on with it, but a few years ago that was not yet possible. One had to ask them to give their names, and we were able to start with that a few years ago, and avail ourselves of the threatening danger of war when people were talking of national service. Consequently we set this thing going a couple of years ago but at the very best it could only be something incomplete because there was not the necessary enthusiasm. To-day however, with the war going on, and the prevailing enthusiasm, it is possible to carry on with it. The rt. hon. the Prime Minister has recruited more than 56,000 volunteers in connection with the war, which is looked at in a very half-hearted spirit by a large part of South Africa. How many would he have not been able to get if South Africa had really been in danger, if there had really been a question of a national war? How many would he not have got if he had really been able to make an appeal to the patriotism of the citizens of this country? But now it is said that because I did not have every name down on a list for Gen. Collyer, therefore I neglected my duty. I did to a certain extent take into account the possibility of gaps and the fact that matters could easily be put in order if the people were needed for the defence of the country. And even in this war in respect of which people are very half-hearted, the Minister succeeded within the mobilisation period to secure more people than the plan originally contemplated. Then there were a dumber of other complaints. There was no mobilisation machinery, we did not have the necessary officers, we did not have the necessary number of non-commissioned officers. Now let us take this mobilisation machinery. Where is it to come from? One would have to put it together from the people who are in the permanent force. It is impossible to import people from elsewhere for that purpose. It is impossible to train staff officers in the course of a couple of months. One has to have those people and one has to divide the work and get other people in, and that is what is being done. In that way the mobilisation machinery can be pvt together from the permanent force exactly as was done. But if the rt. hon. the Minister does it, then we are told it is something wonderful. I did not do anything that was unnecessary before the time, and now I am being told that I neglected my duty. I started putting the mobilisation machinery into motion. Gen. Collyer was seconded for that work and I took over Maj. Wakefield, but we only carried on slowly with that work. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I had prepared notes in order to make a speech on this vote, but I regret to say that the right hon. the Minister of Defence has rather taken the wind out of my sails by speaking on the two subjects which I had chosen to speak on. Those two subjects are the formation of mounted regiments and the formation of a native labour corps to assist in the prosecution of the war. Now, with regard to the question of mounted regiments I welcome the decision of the Minister of Defence in deciding to have two brigades of mounted regiments. This subject is one which I brought up in this House nearly two years ago, because I realised from my own experience in war the great value of mounted troops. I venture to say that any force which is augmented by mounted troops has a decided advantage over the force which has not got mounted troops, in that they are far more mobile in negotiating country which is unsuitable for mechanical transport. I am very glad indeed that the Minister of Defence has made this decision. The other subject is the question of providing native labour corps to assist in the prosecution of the war. The right hon. gentleman referred to the formation of a coloured corps. Well, I am all in favour of that, because I fully appreciate the great value of the Cape Corps in the last war. They took part in the Palestine campaign, and under their very efficient white officers they earned a very great reputation in that campaign. I believe that one of their gallant officers sits in this House. But the point I wish to speak on is the formation of a native labour corps consisting of Zulus. Coming from Natal, as I do, I take up the case for the Zulus. I leave it to hon. members from the Cape or from other parts of the country to put up a case for the coloured people, but I speak for the Zulus. There are many ways in which a native labour corps could be of use. For instance, they could take the place of batmen, cooks, stretcher-bearers, and do various kinds of other work as well. So far as the mounted brigades are concerned, these Zulus could be grooms and horse-holders. I speak again with experience in this matter, having been in the Natal Volunteers in days gone by. We had these people for our grooms and batmen. They are very efficient and could be trained as cooks and to serve in various ways, and thus release the white men to go into the front line. There is one last point I wish to make. We are joining in this World War, and more and more nations are being drawn into it. I feel this, that the natives want to “do their bit” just the same as the white people do. I also feel that it is their due that we should give them the opportunity of doing their bit. I venture to say that they would feel aggrieved if they were left out of this conflict against the aggressors. I hope, with these few remarks, the Minister will proceed with the scheme which he has outlined to us, and will see that the Zulus are given an opportunity of joining a labour corps and so assist in the prosecution of the war.

I am nearly finished. I only want to refer to a remark that was made in connection with the commando system, and I want to emphasise that thanks to the sacrifices made by the officers and others the commando system to-day is on a higher level than it has been for years and years. Most of the officers have taken their courses and they have taken more than one course which has given them a knowledge of, and a training in connection with modern warfare, such as they have never had before. The spirit prevailing among those people is excellent. The discipline is good and we are able to say that if the country requires them, we shall be able to put them into the field without any fears. But I take it that they are also among the people who have assisted in establishing a structure which on the 4th September was more of a danger to the country than a protection. Finally I want to say this. After what has been said in this House and what has been said outside, and after what I said here to-day, and especially after what I said on the 23rd March, 1939, on behalf of the department, I think that we should get a little more information. The right hon. the Prime Minister can either get up and reply to me point by point, or we can leave it to a select committee of this House to go into the question. I want to suggest, if the Prime Minister is not prepared to reply to me, that a select committee be appointed to enquire into (1) the position in March, 1934; (2) the position in March, 1939; (3) the position in September, 1939; and (4) to go into the criticism of the right hon. the Prime Minister in March, 1940, and (5) to establish to what extent we, after September. 1939, have departed from that policy and with what results, and (6) with what degree of success and at what expense mobilisation has taken place since September, 1939.

I find very great difficulty in keeping pace with the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) because he jumps about from one thing to another and changes his ground so often that it is difficult to keep in touch with what he intends to convey. As far as I can make out, the hon. member for Gezina is really proud of his plan that he made in 1934. I think everyone is agreed that there is very little the matter with it. The trouble was the way in which it was carried out. Our great quarrel with the hon. member is not what he did, but what he said he did. That is the whole difference of opinion. He certainly managed to give us the impression that we were in possession of all sorts of things which apparently are now not able to be found.

That he appreciated the need for a proper defence scheme is obvious, because on the 27th April, 1936, he told this House—

That is what he told us on the 27th April, 1936. He goes on once again to reiterate what we had to have—

Then he goes on to say—

That was in April, 1936, and there he was still talking about his five-year plan and a possible extension of it. Then in July of 1936 the hon. member for Gezina gave an interview to the Press, and in this interview to the Press he talks about further extensions and how these were to come about. And this is what he says—

This I take it is the plan of buying machines at £200 a piece, of which we have heard such a lot. And I would like to ask the Prime Minister why, if we had such a wonderful opportunity of acquiring these first line planes for £200, we never took advantage of it, because it appears to me that we must have missed a great opportunity of acquiring first-class machines at ridiculously low prices. Had we been able to do that we might have been able to amplify the hon. member’s promise to send planes to our Northern friends. And then the hon. member goes on in that interview and this is what he says—

That is what he said in July, 1936, so at that time he had the idea that a common defence policy was inevitable. At that time he was endeavouring to buy planes at £200 a piece. I wonder whether in 1936, when he had all these things in mind, he had also made up his mind about our going to remain neutral? Or was this neutrality business an after-thought? I know, of course, that the hon. member is not responsible for what he said in the Press. Now I have a newspaper report here about something that happened in April, 1939. The hon. member had left the House in a hurry and the Press then reported him as follows—

I think that is very interesting, “perfectly satisfied with the position of our defence.” That was in April, 1939. The point which has always defeated me is what the Minister always told us about the position of our defences. It seems to me particularly in regard to these aeroplanes that the only thing in the air was the Minister himself, because we had no planes to go into the air —we only had the Minister. All I think the Minister had—but I do not think he had it then—was his horse. He has his horse now. Perhaps it is a winged horse. His Pegasus.

You know more about White Horse.

Now that he takes credit for these mounted brigades, he is perhaps going to lead them on that horse of his. Then he has his storm troops—I wonder whether he is going to lead them on this fine horse of his—or are the storm troops going to be pushed along by a number of go-carts?

You mean bush carts.

I am particularly interested in this question of our aircraft, because obviously the defence of a country must be largely dependent on its ability to have some sort of air control. It is amazing to me why we have never taken advantage of this superlative offer mentioned by the hon. member for Gezina which no one else seemed to know anything about. Personally, I think the Minister has the most wonderfully vivid dreams. I don’t doubt his bona tides. I think he dreams these things, and then he believes them to be true. He dreamt that the British Government was going to give us £17,000 machines for £200 —and on top of that we were going to remain neutral! If there is anything in it I think the Minister of Defence should give us some explanation why this country has lost this golden opportunity of acquiring these wonderful machines. Not only the House, but the whole country will be very interested to know why we never took advantage of this offer.

I feel that I should also like to say something in view of the fact that I served as an officer under the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow). There is no doubt, so far as what the hon. member for Gezina has done for the commandos, and I am astounded that the right hon. the Prime Minister should have the temerity to distort the facts. The Prime Minister in the past, of course, never enquired into those questions; if he had done so, he would never have made the speech which he did make. I recollect what the position of the rifle clubs was after the National Government came into power. There was no organisation and the one man who put things right again was the hon. member for Gezina. It was he who put the burger commandos into the state of efficiency in which they are to-day. But since the Polish War the Prime Minister has done nothing at all so far as the burger commandos are concerned; it was the hon. member for Gezina however who imported the machine gun divisions for the burger commandos, it was the hon. member for Gezina who at the meeting of commandants promised to put 25 per cent. of the commandos back on the old mounted commando system. Since the Prime Minister has been there however, nothing has been done, he has simply carried on with what the hon. member for Gezina had started. Then I want to point out that the Prime Minister in the past used to praise the former Minister of Defence, the hon. member for Gezina, up to the skies, as the best man for that class of work. The hon. member for Gezina is the man who created all these new organisations, but the Prime Minister has done nothing for the burger commandos. All he has done is to bring news-carriers, tell-tales, into the commandos; he has created division in the commandos; he has been responsible for the burgers having to sign two oaths, and he has been responsible for Afrikaans-speaking officers being obliged to resign. That is all the Prime Minister has done for the commandos, whereas the hon. member for Gezina brought about unity in the commandos. He undoubtedly was the man who introduced a spirit such as we shall never get there again, and the Prime Minister has broken that spirit. The hon. member for Gezina brought about such a spirit in the commandos that we were all prepared to follow him. I used to be an officer up to 1934, and I never heard any questions put as to what one’s politics were. But to-day we get a condition of affairs which absolutely disgusts one. We are prepared to defend our country, but we are not going to allow ourselves to be pushed out by jingos. To-day we have the position that 80 per cent. of the members of the burger commandos are Afrikaners, but Afrikaans men who are officers are asked to resign and some of them have even been asked not to put in an appearance on the parade grounds. This is terrorism, and it creates division throughout the country. The Prime Minister has done nothing for the burgher commandos which the hon. member for Gezina has not started. Nor has the Prime Minister proved one thing wrong that the hon. member for Gezina did. All he has been doing is to drag his fellow Afrikaner into the mud, and he helps the jingos to besmirch the name of a man who has done his duty towards the country. If there ever was a man who did his duty in regard to defence, it is the hon. member for Gezina. But the Minister has behind him to-day a crowd of wooden heads who are not even able to think. Hon. members over there may laugh, but I can assure this House that they have no conception whatsoever of defence matters. We are willing to defend this country, but I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that if the country should be attacked those hon. members over there will be the very first to run away. We know them, we know what they are able to do — their abilities are confined to locking up people in concentration camps. And that is all the Prime Minister has done as yet — put Afrikaners in the camps. We are willing to co-operate with the Prime Minister, but he must keep the jingos in order, and if he will meet us on a fifty-fifty basis, then we shall all be prepared to defend the country. But those people sitting behind him are the cause of this bad feeling, and I say that no greater injustice has ever been done to a man in South Africa than has been done to the hon. member for Gezina, and the Prime Minister is the cause of all the ill-feeling which exists in the country to-day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to make an appeal to the Minister of Defence on behalf of the Scots community in Durban who are determined to have a Highland Regiment there.

The Highlanders are very far from Scotland.

People of Highland blood in South Africa have defended the country on quite a number of occasions, which is more than can be said of some gentlemen opposite.

I shot some of those Highlanders myself. I know the Black Watch. I have been in contact with them.

I know, I know. It shows their forbearance that you are still here. I understand the Defence Department was approached by the Caledonian Society officially and requested to institute a Highland Regiment for Natal. We have a Highland Regiment in the Transvaal, the Transvaal Scottish. We have the Cape Town Highlanders, and yet in Durban, which has probably the highest percentage of Scotsmen of any town in the Union, we find it almost impossible to get this Highland Regiment. That is one of the reasons why certain remarks have been passed about recruiting in Durban. It is felt that sooner or later we will get this Highland Regiment, and quite a number of young men are holding back because they prefer wearing the kilt to any other form of military dress. I understand the Defence Department made some sort of compromise and rather than form a Highland Regiment they decided that the Natal Mounted Rifles might now call themselves the Natal Scottish. With all due deference to the individual, the author of this brilliant idea, I want to suggest that that is not a proposal that appeals to Scotsmen. The Minister himself remarked the other day that the I.L.H. were no longer light, nor were they mounted. The Natal Rifles are no longer mounted, and in any case, who ever saw a mounted Highlander? To call a one-time mounted regiment the Natal Scottish is a little bit ridiculous. The Natal Mounted Rifles have now borrowed the Caledonian Pipe Band to lead them on their marches, and that is the only Scots thing about them. Seriously, this is a thing of considerable interest to Durban. I understand the Defence Department felt that until such time as they had fully completed the number of men they wanted for the Durban Light Infantry they were not prepared to go in for the formation of a new regiment. I don’t know how far they have got with bringing the D.L.I. up to strength, but when I was last in Durban it was very nearly at full strength. I do feel that the Minister ought to relax a bit. There is no particular reason why we should not have a Scots regiment in Durban. The question of expense does not enter into it. The department said that the equipping of a Scottish regiment was a very expensive proposition, but the Caledonian Society in Durban is quite prepared to equip the regiment as far as uniforms are concerned. We can find the money I am satisfied, although we have to get it from Scotsmen in a very short space of time to make up the difference between the cost of equipping an ordinary regiment and a Scots regiment. I would ask the Minister to give his serious consideration to this. I think it is just as well to be perfectly frank, and I mention that a feeling’ is growing up in Durban that certain influences are at work to prevent us getting a Scottish regiment. I think the hon. minister will probably know to what I refer, and that is a very bad kind of idea to get about. How much truth there is in it I don’t know, but it is felt that certain prominent individuals, or at least one prominent individual connected with the Defence Department would rather not see a Highland Regiment in Durban. I have been asked by the Caledonian Society and Scotsmen generally to make this appeal, and I feel satisfied that if a Scots regiment is instituted it will very soon be got up to full strength.

I only want to add two words to round off what I have said. In regard to manpower I have mentioned, this includes the Active Citizen Force and also the members of the force who have not yet completed their training. And so far as the pilots are concerned, it includes the people who have not yet undergone the final bomb training, but that is something which can be completed three months after. I add this so that the figures appearing in the Hansard may be read with this proviso attached.

I do not rise here with the object of criticising any individuals, or of absolving any individuals, and I only wish to say a few things. First of all I am astounded at the criticism which was voiced here. Were it not for the fact that I and others did know about these matters, the position would have been different. The former Minister of Defence one day in March last year took us into his confidence; he called us together in the Caucus and placed the whole of the defence policy before us. We can all testify to the fact that he did so, even those hon. members who belonged to the United Party in those days and who are criticising him to-day. It is no use their pretending innocence to-day. All of us were there. Why should they come along here now and say that they knew nothing about these matters. It is ridiculous to try and put the position in that light. That is the sort of thing which is not going to scare people outside. Another point is that sneering reference has been made here to the bush carts. Why was that system brought into being? The Minister of Defence gave us the reason when he reviewed the whole position. He put before us the possibility of an attack being made on us from the North and such an attack having to come through our bushveld. We know that in those areas a horse or a mule cannot live, nor can those animals be obtained there. Motor cars cannot be used there, so how would we be able to get ammunition and supplies there? There was only one way out, and that was to use those bush carts which are most effective in these areas. There are cattle there and if an ox is shot and killed in one of those carts one can go and catch another animal in the koppies or in the veld. The previous Minister of Defence had to keep these points in mind and the possibility of such things happening, and he had to take precautions, so I do not understand why these things should be ridiculed now, or why it should be referred to so sneeringly. I was so interested in these carts that I went to look at the training that was going on. It was most interesting and instructive to see the way in which these carts could be used when no other means of conveyance were available. We saw that some of those people who were being trained did not know how to handle an ox, but they learnt very quickly how to set about things, and now to try and ridicule a thing which is so important for our defence, and to try and use it to belittle other people, is surely not befitting to our dignity. I do not think this sort of thing is right. If a thing is right it is right, and if it is wrong it is wrong. And if it is right let us do it, and do not let us try and ridicule each other in this matter.

I am sorry the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) is not here. He put up a plea for a Highland Regiment in Durban; I am surprised. He said that they themselves would equip such a regiment, but what is the use of such a regiment in South Africa? They wear their kilts, but they cannot ride a horse; they play the bagpipes, but in the veld it does not impress. Throughout all these years I have been criticising the policy in regard to our defence system, and sometimes I have also criticised the policy of the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow), because I wanted us to have a defence force which would be able to defend South Africa. I said that I was prepared to spend millions of pounds on the defence of South Africa, because if I have my republic I must be able to defend it, and if I declare my neutrality, I must also be able to defend that. This debate so far as the hon. member for Gezina is concerned has, however, reassured me. The Minister of Defence told us that we were not getting enough people. That is not a criticism, because if our country has to be defended the people will be there. For our national defence we have only one cry and it is this: “We are.” That is what we adhere to, and I am not going to say any more about it. We do not want to have Scottish regiments here; we want South African regiments to defend South Africa. If our country has to be defended all of us, even I who am sixty-six years of age, will be there to help, because our cry is always, “We are there.” We must attend to the defence of our country, but there should not be any waste of money, and every cartridge that is fired and every aeroplane and every gun that is produced must be of the very best. Although I have criticised the policy of the hon. member for Gezina in the past his statement to-day has reassured me. The Prime Minister told us what had been done in six months, but they were able to mobilise in those six months, because the Minister’s predecessor had all his plans in perfect order, and I want to ask the Minister not to depart from that policy. The previous Minister created the machinery and we should extend that machinery in such a way that we shall be able independently to defend our country, because our friend of to-day is tomorrow’s potential enemy. The course of events to-day is proving that in every world calamity and in every war to-day’s friend is to-morrow’s enemy. For that reason we must see to it that we are able independently to defend our country. It will take time to create machinery to enable us independently to defend our country. It will take more than six months. To have achieved in six months what the Prime Minister prides himself on means that he must have found the machinery there. He cannot get away from that. We see the course of events and we are beholding what war means and what it means to wage a war, and I want to emphasise for that reason that we should not be unduly hurried, but that we should establish the machinery which we have for the defence of South Africa. The Minister of Defence has dealt with the question of our old mounted commandos. Those mounted commandos are to be re-established. What did the Minister do with the police which used to be under his command? He has mechanised the mobile mounted commandos by giving them motorcycles, but we know that if it should ever come to the question of our having to defend South Africa, if we should be put to the test it will be the Boer commando system which will have the final say. When the Lewis guns were imported I told the young fellows in my constituency to join up and to train, because those guns can be moved by horses and mules, so as to make rapid transport possible. The Minister knows as well as I do that the great value of our old commandos was that being mounted they were thoroughly mobile. But with motorcars and motorcycles it is impossible to get everywhere, although one can get everywhere in the air. Eearing that in mind we should, as far as the defence of our country is concerned, develop our air arm as a powerful factor in connection with our system. That is what the hon. member for Gezina did. He started developing our air arm, and now we are told that things were not ready. Was England ready when war broke out, in spite of the fact that she started preparing last year? Is England ready to-day? Are we ready to-day? There is no country in the world which is able to be ready at a given moment, unless that country prepares itself for nothing but war, and is ready for war at any time. And a country which does a thing like that is not allowed to exist, because a country like that is a threat to world peace. [Time limit.]

I suppose somewhere under this round and comfortable figure of £2,250,000, there is some provision made for the payment of military chaplains. I do not mean the sort of chaplain that is connected with the cinema, but the kind of chaplain who is connected with the church, and I am interested in this amount in two ways. I am interested that these gentlemen should be properly compensated for their services on the very excellent Labour Party principle that the labourer is worthy of his hire. I am also very much concerned, perhaps still more concerned, that the troops in particular and the nation in general shall also get full return for the money that is paid. I think that this matter of the chaplain service has not always received, in fact it is very seldom given, the attention which, in my opinion, it should receive. It is a fact, I submit to this Committee, that a good chaplain can help a great deal in the training of men for the field, and to keep them in good heart during the actual progress of an active campaign. If we undertake this service at all, it seems to me that it should be thoroughly well done. For that to happen there is need for certain principles to be borne in mind, principles which I may say are largely overlooked in the case of the British Army. One of the first things that is generally done when a war is on is to go out and find all the youngest male persons who can possibly be discovered and grab them. But I think all experienced soldiers will admit that the youngest men are not the very best. They are not able to march the furthest or ride the longest, or best bear the routine and hardship imposed on them. I have known a case of an “infant” soldier who was shot for no other reason than that he was young. He was worn out with fatigue, and not physically able to keep awake at his post. So I submit that reasonably mature age is not a disqualification, especially in regard to a chaplain’s services. A lot of experience is necessary in the case of an army chaplain. I would ask hon. members to put themselves in his position. Supposing it was necessary to ask the colonel not to swear so much at the mess cook. That is a little difficult, but it can happen. It requires, however, a certain amount of finesse, and that is not usually the property of the very young. I can give hon. members examples out of my own experience which illustrate the need of being “all there.” The work that these clergy are called upon to do in a military camp, is work to which the chaplain is unaccustomed. Even the taking of a Sunday service presents unusual features. Instead of being confronted by a few people who are wondering why they should be there, the padre suddenly faces a huge number of people who know very well why they would rather be somewhere else. Taking such a service is not the easiest of jobs. I had an experience in a famous Northern city, with a very well-known regiment of the north of England. The colonel paraded the men for the service, about an hour before the time. I was very sorry for them, much more sorry than the colonel was. Accordingly I picked out some nice hymns that went with a good swing, to give them a go. I took short prayers because short prayers, if real, are quite as good as long ones, and we had a nice service until we came to my special part of it, the sermon.

Did you sing “Onward Christian Soldiers”?

Yes, we sang “Onward Christian Soldiers,” and it did not go too badly. Now, I am a merciful man, and I had thought I would give them a sermon of only ten minutes’ duration; but they had apparently decided that they would not have even ten minutes. When I started the sermon a tremendous amount of coughing also started. There were about 600 men in that garrison church, and at least 400 of them had violent and troublesome coughs. They made so much noise that I could not make sufficient to do any good. So I stopped, and I looked and I listened! They were so surprised that they also stopped, whereupon I told them this. I said that I was very distressed that the regiment was so afflicted with coughs and colds, and not for anything would I interfere with their right to cough if they wished to. Of course, while they coughed I could not speak. But it didn’t matter, because I would wait for the paroxysms to pass, and “take the time off.” I said I intended to speak for ten minutes, and I would speak for ten minutes if it took until 4 o’clock in the afternoon. I may say that I cured the coughing in that garrison church. There was not a single soul who coughed again, not even the sergeant-major (if sergeant-majors have souls). I had my ten minutes, and at the end thereof I pointed the moral and adorned the tale. I told them that if their idea of sportsmanship was that a whole regiment could bait one man, at odds of 600 to one, it was not mine, and that if they wanted to discuss the matter further, they could do so in a secluded corner of the barrack square, and I would be there also to discuss it with them. There was no fight. At all events there was no fighting with me, but there was some fighting afterwards by men who stuck up for me. That is the sort of experience which is necessary for an army chaplain. I want to know what steps are being taken to get into our army the best of the chaplains, and not merely the member of the staff whom the vicar can best spare. The one the vicar can spare is perhaps also one whom the army can spare, in a large number of cases. When I was very young the trams in London used to be drawn by horses, and they were drawn very nicely too. They went all the way round London and back again for a penny or two. The horses wore blinkers—things that are stuck out at the side of their eyes—evidently to prevent the horse from seeing to the left or to the right. They could see straight ahead, though not so very far ahead either, like some hon. members of this House.

You speak for yourself.

Yes, I include myself. Nobody can see too far ahead, not even the hon. members on this side of the House. Part of the idea in regard to the horses was to prevent them seeing how big the load was that they were carrying, an idea which still appeals to a certain type of employer of workers. But that golden age is now past. Trams to-day are propelled in other ways. Horses, blinkers and all, are gone. But the blinkers have in certain respects survived. Some of us, to our loss, are brought up in them, and later find it hard to see life as it is. I often wonder who will be the more successful, the average parson weighing up the soldier, or the soldier weighing up the parson. I think I shall put my money on the soldier. What it comes to is this, that we do not want a man as a chaplain who only knows the next world. It is an excellent thing to know about the next world, but a chaplain should know something, a great deal, about this world too. I am interested to know about the appointment of chaplains. The choosing of an army chaplain is a difficult matter. It is not a thing to leave altogether to the bishop on the one hand, or solely to the professional soldier on the other. We want the best chaplains we can get. Therefore, I would like to have an assurance that arrangements are being made to secure the best, and what the qualities are that are mainly sought. There are certain principles which should be observed. One is that the army chaplain should either be in the army, or out of the army. That sounds easy, doesn’t it? But in the British Army they do not require anything of the sort. You can be half in and half out. In the British Army you do not hold a substantive rank, but a relative rank, which is no rank at all. You may have three stars— I had a crown—but nevertheless I was not a “pukka” major. Had I had the good sense to join the Canadian forces I should have been, and I should have been very much better off, because I should have been the real thing and not half-and-half. I should like to know what is being done in regard to chaplains in this country in that respect. I would recommend the Canadian system, where you are either all in or all out, and I recommend it for this reason, that the chaplain who takes absolute rank is under the ordinary discipline of the army, and I do not see any reason why he should not be.

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

I rise to-night to express my disappointment about the way in which the Prime Minister has tried to mislead the world and even the people outside of this House. The Prime Minister wanted to make out that there was maladministration under the previous Minister of Defence. I am prepared to admit as one of the older officers that since the time when the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) became Minister of Defence the defence system has tremendously improved, and it was he who put it on a very sound footing. I and my friends on this side of the House have always expressed our disappointment about the way money has been wasted. But I must acknowledge that the previous Minister of Defence did his best to put the defence of South Africa on a sound South African basis. That is what we asked for and what we fought for. We feel deeply disappointed because we on this side of the House are prepared to do everything in our power to defend the Union of South Africa to the very last. I am prepared to do so, and I hope that no hon. member on the other side of the House will refrain, if he is called up, to defend the interests of the Union. But we definitely refuse to give our consent to, or to indicate our agreement when we are dragged into the troubles with which we are not concerned.

What about Denmark and Norway?

That hon. member is just like the radio parrot who broadcasted to-night that Hitler has been preparing himself for six years for that attack, and notwithstanding that they knew about it, they were too rotten to prevent it. The previous Minister of Defence would in such a case have taken the necessary steps to prevent it instead of waiting until they had been occupied. Therefore I need not take any notice of that parrot. I want to give the Minister the assurance that so far as the Union of South Africa is concerned we on this side are prepared to sacrifice everything on the altar if the interests of the Union are at stake, but we absolutely refuse to vote for anything or to agree to anything if the Union of South Africa is to be dragged into disaster. That is why I have risen to announce my disappointment with the speech of the Prime Minister.

I was very pleased to hear the Prime Minister announce this afternoon that it was the Government’s intention to give our coloured citizens the opportunity of serving in the Defence Force. [Interruptions.] It seems to me that members opposite are not prepared to do their duty so surely they will not object to our coloured citizens doing whatever they can in the defence of our country.

Are you in favour of arming them?

If they are given the opportunity of becoming fighting units under the Defence Force I would be in favour of that. I am in favour of having that section of the Defence Act amended.

Why do you not amend it? You have a majority.

I would give the coloured people the same opportunity of service as the white citizens have.

Yes, you are a “kaffer-boetie.”

I am not going to worry about the hare raised by hon. members opposite. I merely want to make it known that the coloured people are anxious and willing to serve in any capacity, but preferably as fighting units.

And make you their captain?

I should be proud to command them in the field. I want particularly to deal with the question of the relationship between our naval forces and our army. [Interruptions.] At present our South African naval units have to come under the military command.

Why should they not?

Because the navy has always been regarded in Great Britain as the senior service, and although our South African Navy does not come under the British Navy, our own naval units want to be in the same position, and they feel that they should not fall under our military command, but that they should have their own naval command and naval code of discipline.

Do they want any discipline at all?

As an example of the manner in which the present arrangement works let us assume that a South African patrol boat goes out into Table Bay and strikes a mine. She sends out an S.O.S. for assistance. That S.O.S. can only be received in Wynberg camp on a special meter band which connects them with Wynberg camp. Then Wynberg camp has to get in touch with Cape Town Castle to inform them that the patrol boat has struck a mine and ask for permission to send assistance. The Castle sends the necessary permission to Wynberg camp to render that assistance. That permission is in turn given to the South African naval authorities and only then can the particular unit set out to the rescue of that patrol boat. Surely that is a very roundabout way of doing things and may lead to serious loss of life. The patrol boat may be in urgent need of assistance. We should divorce our naval units from our army command, and we should have our naval command acting in co-operation with, and even under the Admiralty at Simonstown. Unless we have that there is bound to be friction. I know that many of our naval men feel very strongly about their not having a command of their own, and I hope something can be done in regard to this matter.

The hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) quoted from the Hansard report to prove that it was the policy of the Cabinet in which he was Minister of Defence, deliberately to delay armaments, and they set themselves especially to see to it that we should manufacture our own military requirements in South Africa, in order to be able to defend our country. Judging from the interview which was granted by the Minister of Defence when he visited the Rand Show, I must say that the hon. member for Gezina was absolutely correct, because after the Rand Show I noticed that a press representative went to the Minister of Defence and openly put the question to him as to what had struck him most at that Show. The Minister did not have words enough to describe his astonishment at what South Africa had been able to produce. Very well, those preparations were made by the hon. member for Gezina, and I, therefore, think that the charge which the Minister of Defence has made against the hon. member for Gezina is really excessively unfair, because it is contradicted by the statement which the Minister of Defence made of his own free will to the press representative about what had aroused his amazement at the Show. It was the hon. member for Gezina who had made all those preparations to enable South Africa to provide its own war materials. It cannot be understood in any other way than that it is to that work of preparation that we owe the results to-day which surprised the Minister so much. That is preliminary work which was done by the hon. member for Gezina and it forced the expression of astonishment from the Minister of Defence. That is the first point that struck me. The other was the opening speech which the Minister made there as Prime Minister. In it he tried to establish this war in the north idea of his amongst the general public in the country.

In order to allow this war campaign which he has in mind to establish itself, he said that we should look to the future and that possible trade development in those areas, and that was why we should seek the friendship of those States. Let me now remind the Minister of Defence of the fact that it is not so long ago that this country spent a few hundred thousand pounds to extend our trade in those areas, and then the cry was raised by the Jingo press in South Africa and by numbers of people who are now applauding the Minister, of “crucify him” against the then Minister of Commerce and Industries (Senator A. P. Fourie). I refer to this only because we must be clear on the point. Because a few hundred thousand pounds had been spent on the Italian Shipping Subsidy….

We are now dealing with the Defence Vote and the hon. member must confine himself to that.

I am speaking on the Defence Vote, and I want to point out that this idea of war in the north is being connected up with the extension of our trade in those areas.

We are now dealing with the defence expenditure and not with the trade.

I want to show that South Africa is to-day spending £14,000,000 a year on the war in the north idea. That is what the Minister of Defence is to-day prepared to stake in order to develop that trade, although a little while ago they cried out “crucify him” when a former Minister spent a few hundred thousand pounds in order practically to develop that trade. When we sum up these things we cannot understand the mentality of the Jingo press which is trying to impress those things on the public in the country. Then there is another question which is always being put to the Prime Minister: who is the possible enemy on whose account the State has to spend these millions of pounds for the purpose of fighting him? We expected that the Prime Minister when he rose here this afternoon to make that statement lasting an hour and a quarter, would at least have told us who the possible enemy was. I have long since said in this House that it is stupid to say that we ought to go and fight against Germany in Northern Africa. I do not believe that any man with sound commonsense would say that Germany will invade Northern Africa and that we shall have to go and fight against Germany. But millions of pounds are being spent here and the Minister ought to give us a reply as to who is in his mind as a possible enemy. I think that the people are entitled to know that. Then there is another small point which I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister. I think he has reason to be a little despondent because e.g. in Durban there was not a spontaneous joining up by volunteers. I do not want to refer to a previous debate here but the hon. member for Zwartruggens (Mr. Verster) told us how all the loyal music is played in Durban but they only sent a poor complement of volunteers. I want, however, to ask the Prime Minister not to be despondent. He must understand that a state of mind has been created for years now which was not encouraging to volunteers to go and fight in the north. None other than the Prime Minister’s own press has contributed to create those conditions, and it is because that state of mind has been created that there is no tendency to join up. We find that that was said e.g. by Die Suiderstem only 13 days before the 4th September. That is what his own press in Cape Town did. On the 22nd August Die Suiderstem in a leading article wrote as follows in connection with the Prime Minister’s speech—

That was on the 22nd August, 13 days before the resolution was passed here to go to war. At that time the Minister’s own press in Cape Town had still created that state of mind among the public. Is the Minister surprised then that the people do not want to respond spontaneously to the appeal which had been made to them? I, therefore, want to ask the Prime Minister not to be despondent. [Time limit.]

I think that we are much indebted to the Minister of Defence for the statement of policy which he has made on behalf of the Government this afternoon in connection with this war question. No one need have any further doubts as to what the policy of the Government and its plans are for the future, in regard to the areas, and the different powers and similar things, which have to do with our war plans. I say again that the country should be very grateful to the Minister of Defence for that statement of policy, and I hope that there will be no further quibbling as to what the policy of the Government in regard to the war is.

It is clear enough to those who want to understand it. An attempt, of course, is again being made by hon. members opposite to try and cloud the issue to the people of the Union, so that the people will be confused about what the Minister has so clearly told this House and the country. Now, once more, in broad daylight it is being stated that the Government is actually prosecuting the war with impressed volunteers. All of us know that there could be nothing further from the truth, but nevertheless we find that this once more is one of the things with which hon. members opposite will try to attack the Government. We need not have an intimate knowledge of what has taken place there to know that our volunteers are ready and prepared and ready in every respect, to go just where the Government wants them to. They are in every respect prepared to go where the Government sends them, and to come and say here that they are impressed volunteers is a thing which is deprived of all truth. Just as we have had a number of other stories, so we are now being told this story as well. We had to examine and expose those stories one by one, and prove to the public how unfounded they were. In the same way we will have to follow up that story of impressed volunteers as well, about which we have heard this afternoon, in order to show the public how unfounded it is. The hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) has made it clear to us when he was Minister of Defence, he based his plans in connection with defence on the assumption that we would have to mobilise soon. If his plans were based on the fact that we would have to mobilise soon, then I ask him for what purpose? If his plans and arrangements in connection with our defence were definitely based on the assumption that we would have to mobilise in a short time, then we ask him what the reason for that was? Now, those hon. members opposite come and they want to know from the Minister of Defence, against whom we should now go and fight. Well, you have already probably been wondering, Mr. Chairman, why those members put such a question. If you only knew how some of them put questions to us on the countryside: Why is the Prime Minister not sending people overseas so that we can go and attack him? If you knew that, then it would be a proof to you that they wanted the Government to follow a policy so that they could get a point on which to fight us. They are looking for a point, and that is why they ask why we are not sending people overseas, so that they can fight us on that point. If the Government ever took a wise decision and declared a wise policy, then it is the policy as it has been explained here to-day by the Minister of Defence. And now I would like the country, the Government and this House not to allow themselves to be bluffed by the questions or speeches of hon. members opposite when they say to them: We will defend the country when it is in danger.

We have heard a great deal about that. They say that they will defend the country when it gets into danger, in other words, it is to be left to each one of those hon. members individually to decide when South Africa is in danger, and we know how difficult it is for those hon. members to find an excuse because it is easy for people to find an excuse if they do not want to go and fight for their country. They then say, because I do not agree with this or the other thing, I think that you are wrong and, therefore, I will withhold my services. I quite understand that there are numbers on the opposite side who are just as prepared to go and fight as we are, if they have to defend their country, but there are also hon. members opposite who want to take up the attitude, even if the farm of their neighbour is already in flames, that they cannot yet see any danger, and they will first of all look to see whether the weather is threatening and whether rain may not possibly put the flames out.

They will first of all want to have an election.

Yes, they will first of all want to have an election. That is their attitude, and when the war has already come to their borders then they will seek a fresh excuse and say that they must first of all hold an election. Those are the people whom they will then draw back. I want clearly to say that I actually believe that there are members of the Opposition who will be prepared to go and fight, but I also believe that there are many amongst them who will go and look for excuses and who will offer any excuse in the world. There will be those amongst them who have married a wife, there will be those who will be studying books and others will want an election. There will be others who will say, as the hon. member for Gezina said: First amend the Defence Act on this point, and then we will go and fight. No, I expect the hon. member to say that he will obey the laws under which he himself governed. He occupied a responsible position in the Cabinet for years and was satisfied with the Act, and for years he and the country were aware of the fact that South Africa for military purposes did not mean “within the boundaries of the Union”. Now the hon. member says: Amend the Act, and we will obey. How does he propose to amend the Act? I can only assume that he wants to amend it according to the amendments which have from time to time come from the other side. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop), for instance, moved that the Zambezi should be the border of the Union for military purposes. If that were so, I am sorry for South Africa. If the hon. member for Gezina says that that is not his policy, then I want to know who on the other side is now speaking on behalf of the Opposition, because to-day you have one hon. member expressing himself in favour of this, and to-morrow another hon. member expresses himself in favour of something else. I was able to follow the hon. member for Gezina rather far. He said some time ago: If you want to fight with voluntary soldiers, I will have no objection. Now the Minister of Defence had hardly made the statement that he was going to fight with volunteers when the hon. member for Gezina and other hon. members got up and said: “Oh, no.” I said a little while ago that I could understand the hon. member for Gezina fairly well when he said that if we wanted to fight with volunteers then he was not opposed to it. Now, if the Government to-morrow or the day after were to carry out the policy which the hon. member for Gezina now approves, then he will say: You can fight with volunteers, but I am opposed to the Government to-day, because you are fighting with impressed volunteers. I hope that hon. members of the Opposition will actually take up some line now so that one can know where they stand and how you are to take them, so that we can know what their point of view is. I hope they will be consistent and when they declare a policy, that they will not the next day or a week later publish a different policy. They must not always be changing their policy. If they change their views from day to day, how can the Government follow a fixed policy in regard to a dangerous potential enemy, if it has in its midst an Opposition which announces a new policy every day? Now they ask who the aggressor is against whom we are waging war. If hon. members of the Opposition, in view of the present war conditions in Europe, are not yet convinced, then I wonder if they are open to conviction at all. Can they, in view of the present position, still allow themselves to be influenced by the statement that Germany is not out for world domination? If they do so, then I give hon. members opposite up as totally hopeless so far as their conversion is concerned.

If I understood the Minister of Defence correctly, he said that it was the intention to establish a few more military training camps, and that he was also giving attention to the Free State. I just want to ask him in this connection whether he will also be so friendly as to consider the desirability of establishing a military camp right in the middle of the Free State, at Winburg? I am not talking about an aggressive war, but of military camps with a view to defence. I understand that the Municipality of Winburg has offered the necessary facilities and is prepared to provide everything that is necessary, and if they are for the defence of our country they are prepared to assist very much and to make concessions. Winburg is not only the most central place but the two chief national roads from West to East and from North to South cross there, and from all points of view, it is desirable to place the camp at Winburg, if there is an idea of establishing a camp in the Free State. I think that a request has been addressed to the Department by the Municipality of Winburg, and also by people in the district who feel strongly in favour of the matter. I have been approached and they would like, if it is in any way possible for Winburg to be considered in the matter. I do not know whether the Minister referred to Harrismith.

No.

I should be glad if the interests of Winburg in connection with this matter can be seriously considered. It is, to my mind, a little strange for the Minister to come now and ask the House for a blank cheque for £2,250,000, without giving more information. He is, of course, shielding behind the fact that we are in a state of war. But after his speech this afternoon and in view of what the vote cost last year and previous years, I do not think that such a great war secret will be published to an enemy if more information is given on this vote on the Estimates. We surely see that the amount which is here being asked for is more or less the same as what appeared on the Estimates last year. Of course, we shall be asked to vote a much larger sum on the Loan Estimates, in connection with which he possibly would not want to give the full details, but I would like to know whether provision is again going to be made under this vote, as in previous years, for certain things. I would like to know, for instance, whether the sum of money which was voted last year for transcontinental aviation will not completely lapse. I understand that some of it has not been spent even if it is only a minute amount. Are we still obliged to vote the full amount? Then last year there was an amount down for the Special Service Battalion, the Pioneer Battalion, etc. Is he going on with those in the ordinary way? Then there were also a few small amounts which are not so very much connected with the war, but nevertheless were interesting in view of defence. So, for example, £15,000 was voted last year for a scheme of physical culture. Is that sum still going to come out of the money which we are voting now? In addition there was a sum of £1,000 put on the Estimates to give assistance to the Pathfinders, the Voortrekkers and the Naval Cadets. Can we expect that those amounts will come in the ordinary way out of the amount or will it drop entirely? I see no reason why we cannot get more information about these matters. I listened attentively to what the Minister said and also to the speeches of the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow). I must say that the way in which the Minister of Defence tried to make an attack on the hon. member for Gezina about matters in connection with which he had been equally guilty, did not make a pleasing impression on me. As has been clearly shown this afternoon he knew of all these things and he himself constantly assisted in doing or omitting to do things, but now he comes here and makes an attack like that on an old colleague, by which he gives additional support to a kind of propaganda campaign which is going on in the Press against that hon. member. I do not think it was fair or worthy of the Prime Minister. I think that the way in which his attack was replied to was such that he must already be very sorry that he ever made the attack on the hon. member for Gezina. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) mentioned how the hon. member for Gezina had gone to England and had got certain privileges or concessions there last year, and he more or less made it appear as if the hon. member for Gezina had committed a kind of breach of faith against the British Government and he asked whether we could think that the British Government would have given so much assistance if they had known that the hon. member for Gezina had the idea at the back of his mind of remaining neutral if war came. I want to tell him that he ought also to put that question to the present Minister of Defence. What would the British Government have done at the time if they had known that not only the hon. member for Gezina but also the present Minister of Defence had it at the back of his mind, and was bound by a solemn document to remain neutral, at the very time to which the hon. member referred? It struck me very much that throughout the entire attack of the Minister of Defence and other hon. members on the hon. member for Gezina the trend of the attack was that our country was not in a proper state of defence. It is just the hon. members opposite who for the last 15 or 20 years have always said that we need not be afraid, that there was no danger to us, because we would be protected by the British Navy. Why then are they so frightened now? Do they fear that the British Navy cannot protect us? Do they doubt the British Navy? I personally have always thought that we should do what was necessary to defend South Africa and I am strongly in favour of South Africa so arranging for her defence that she may be able to defend herself against any enemy that may come. But their attitude in the past was always just the reverse. They said that we were safe under the protection of the British Navy. I am sorry that they are now exhibiting so much lack of confidence in regard to that protection. We are completely in favour of South Africa spending money in order to put our defences on a proper footing. Our objection to-day is that we are called upon to spend a large amount of money, not for defence, but for an aggressive war, on a war on behalf of Poland, a war in which South Africa is not concerned.

I listened attentively to the speech of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe) but I was astonished to hear him pleading for a military camp at Winburg. Why did he do so? Is it that he wants again to be appointed as chaplain as in 1914, or does he want to become one of the cold feet commandants who are never with their commando? But even if he says that he is opposed to the war, he nevertheless wants a camp at Winburg and if he asks for a camp then he must also vote for this vote. I am very grateful that the Minister of Defence is also prepared to have mounted brigades, because I know that many of our farmers do not like going on foot. They want to ride, and I expect that there will be quite a number of farmers who will volunteer for such a brigade. Now I want to express the hope that the Minister will establish a remount depot at Vrede, that is the only district left which has a few horses, and then our farmers will also be able to sell a few horses which will be a great advantage to them. As a man who has taken an interest in defence for the whole of his life I must say that I was disappointed about the previous Minister of Defence, because I told him that if I had to resign as Brigadier-General of the four regiments then I would rather not stand for the House of Assembly. He said that there would be no difficulty about it, that I should stand, and when I got here I found that there was an automatic rule and that the vote automatically dropped. I saw the reason of it and I then asked him whether he already knew of someone that he could appoint to the post. He said no, but he would consult me if he had anyone. But he appointed someone without consulting me. I went to the Minister in 1938 and said to him: It looks once more as if there is a war coming, and the Minister, the present member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) said: Then you must take over your brigade again. I then said that it would be necessary for me to get into close touch with the people because if I took it over again then I must know my men. He said that he would see to that, and that he would call us together if it became necessary. Then the Minister went to Europe and I expected when he returned that he would tell us what had happened. All he told us was about the Spanish War, but he told us nothing about what had taken place with Hitler. I am not a man who likes to vilify anyone and the hon. member for Gezina did a great deal for the rifle associations, that I admit. The rifle associations were in a parlous state when he took over the department, and he also did a great deal for the Pioneer Battalion. We are all thankful to him for that but I feel that when the hon. member for Gezina was Minister of Defence he did not have any confidence in me. He asked many people, both English-speaking people and Afrikaans-speaking people whether I trusted him, and I stood by him as my Minister of Defence.

Did you say that you trusted him?

Yes, I said that I trusted him, but to-day I no longer trust him because he has one foot in Germany and one foot in South Africa, and I want to ask hon. members on the other side, who offered his services to the German Navy and was not accepted? I have in any case never done a thing like that.

Mention his name.

I felt that we ought to have spent more on defence before the war, because in time of peace you can do so more cheaply than in time of war. Because if you do it during a war then you have to buy what you can get and you have to spend much more than £14,000,000 to buy all the equipment and ammunition for a campaign. But there was never any money and yet if war does come then there is always money available for defence. Now hon. members ask whom we should fight and I want to ask whom did Denmark and Norway expect they would have to fight against; or Holland and Belgium, against whom were they making preparations if they had no enemy? The time will come that we will have to fight and, therefore, I am prepared to attack the enemy in his country and not in my country, because, as I have already frequently said, the country in which the fighting takes place is destroyed, and I do not want my country to be destroyed. During the last war we saw how Belgium was destroyed and not the other countries like Germany. The question has been asked, who is the enemy? But there are countries which may become our enemy, and the hon. member for Gezina also said that an attack might come from the north.

France?

It might also mean France, but I doubt whether the hon. member for Gezina was thinking of France. I believe he expected someone else. Now it is said that we have to use the natives, but suppose that an enemy used native troops, must we not then use natives and coloured persons to fight them? I do not want to encourage the arming of natives and coloured people but if the day comes that the enemy uses natives for the attack, then I do not see why we cannot also do so. They are prepared to serve. They also live in this country and they would like to give their services when they see that the Europeans have to defend the country alone. Hon. members said that they would defend the country to the uttermost, but when I was a boy I remember that before the Second War of Independence, people said that they would chase the English into the sea. But those were the very men who were the traitors. Those were the people we could not trust and who guided the English columns. You also have people to-day amongst us who are promoting Nazi propaganda, and then it is said that our khaki knights are a khaki plague. I wonder whether the hon. member who said that knew what he was saying, because we are all afraid of it. A plague is a thing which destroys and I think that it is humiliating for anyone to describe his fellow Afrikaner as a plague. I am a man who is in favour of a rapprochement and that we should come together and then it is said by the other side that we are a plague. [Time limit.]

I think that everyone in the House listened with amazement to the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig-Gen. Botha), that an ex-Boer General could come and advocate in this House that if necessary the Union of South Africa should use native and coloured troops. I say that that would make the eyes of every Afrikaner here become big with amazement.

Do not distort my words. I said if we were attacked by native troops.

Then the statement is that a white Christian nation, according to the hon. member, should use uncivilised natives to fight against others. Now the explanation of the hon. member is that if we are attacked by another nation which uses coloured persons or natives, then we should also do so. I want to ask the hon. member this: When he fought as a general for the Republics and he so strongly objected to the English using natives as troops, did he not mean it then?

On a point of order, we know what our laws were, but we and others used them as attendants.

I say no; there is not a single responsible leader who at that time advocated the Republic doing such a scandalous thing as to use natives against white people. I want to ask the hon. member, if two armies are acting against each other and consist of white men and natives, whether the natives will only fight with the natives and the Europeans only with the Europeans. I can quite understand the hon. member for Frankfort saying so, but he should never go to the electors of Frankfort again to ask them to elect him after what he has said.

I challenge you to come and stand against me at Frankfort.

After that joke by the hon. member for Frankfort I think I can just leave him to himself. But I now come to the Prime Minister, and I want to put a question to him and I hope he will give me an answer to it later on. Has the Government, has the Department of Defence at any time during the present war commandeered either members of the Active Defence Force, or of the Citizen Reserve or of the National Reserve for service. I am not now speaking of the ordinary peace manoeuvres for which members of the Active Citizen Force can be called up, but whether they are called upon to do war service. I put this question because rumours have reached me from many parts of the Northern Transvaal in regard to the Botha Regiment, that more particularly a certain captain and Adjutant Louw has put men under the impression that they were being commandeered for service. I will mention other instances of what that Captain Louw did, but I want to quote this letter as an example—

I will explain in a moment what is meant by commandeering note—

Therefore, they do not belong to the Active Citizen Force, but to a Defence Rifle Association—

It happened to be ploughing time—

The “commandeering note” which he mentioned here read as follows—

Notice that there is a reference to “service.”

If he is in the Botha Regiment then he is in the Active Citizen Force.

Out of what follows here it will be seen that he is not in the Active Citizen Force.

But according to that letter he is being called up as such.

But listen to the wording—

That cannot be the Active Citizen Force as appears from what follows here. I have the following sworn declaration here—

He, therefore, does not belong to the Active Service. The declaration then goes on—

We, therefore, see again that there is a reference here to “service” and not to “training.” He goes further—

I see that the Minister is laughing at this.

I am laughing at the name of “Kelly’s Home” for a gaol.

The sworn statement then proceeds—

From that the position is very clear.

He is in the Botha Regiment.

He has been forced into it. In consequence of this kind of commandeering note he has now been incorporated into that Regiment. They told him that if he refused to come then he would go to “Kelly’s Home.” I want to give the Minister the asurance that numbers of objections of this kind reach me from people who have apparently been included in the Regiment under false pretences. This person is 35 years old and no one over 25 years is compelled to train under the Defence Act. [Time limit.]

I am surprised at the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom). who has risen in his wrath and condemned the possibility of South Africa ever being called upon to use the services of the non-European population. One would have assumed that these non-European people, coloured and native, have no citizen rights in this country, and one would assume that what little interests they have in this country they would not even be allowed to defend.

I would remind him that this new-found alliance of his with the hon. the ex-Minister of Defence is in total conflict with what he has said to-night. May I remind the hon. member that it was the hon. ex-Minister of Defence, the member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow), who not more than three years ago pledged this House and this country to use a pioneer and transport battalion of coloured people.

It was he who was going to hand over to the coloured people, recognising as he did their exceptional abilities in the management of horses and the transport service generally.

That is not a fighting force.

I understand the hon. member for Zoutpansberg to say that a transport corps is not a fighting force. Of course it is not but he was going to allow these nonEuropeans to run the dangerous risks of getting up ammunition to troops and not even to have the opportunity of defending themselves. Let me tell the hon. member that we have in this country a European population of just about two millions and a coloured population of just under one million, between 700,000 and 800,000. What difference is there between the interests of these coloured people and the Europeans in the country? The coloured people are certainly not uitlanders, they have not got one foot in South Africa and one in England. They have certainly got both feet here in South Africa. And are they less South African than the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Rooth), the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom), and the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop)? They have no other country to go to and are they to be denied the elementary rights of citizenship, the right to defend their own country, to defend their ideals and their privileges? Let me remind hon. members that these nonEuropean people at the outbreak of the last war were also told, by reason of prejudice, that their offers of service to South Africa and the Empire could not be accepted, and after repeated representations had been made to the then Prime Minister and Minister of Defence, they were again refused the opportunity of serving South Africa. They were told as a reason why their help, which was willingly and voluntarily offered, was refused was that they could not afford it. These coloured people. South Africans, whom I am proud to recognise as South Africans, offered to fight for the defence of this country and their principles for nothing. It was only alter they had unquestionably demonstrated their love for this country and their claim to be recognised as citizens that they served in the Great War and served with distinction. Lord Allenby who led them in Palestine in the attack on the Turks made them the spearpoint of the attack on that memorable occasion. They went into action and in the first onslaught lost every one of their European officers as casualties. Despite that they fought till sundown and they were one of the last corps to be relieved. Compliments have been paid to them and their courage and their rights as citizens cannot be questioned. They are just as much citizens of this country as the hon. members for Mossel Bay, Waterberg or Zoutpansberg. I said in an interjection here just now that I myself would be prepared to see these people afforded an opportunity to fight in defence of my country and my principles.

What was the result when they came back?

The result was that they had a tradition which is honoured in South Africa and which Will go down in the history of the fighting forces of South Africa. Don’t forget the memorial dedicated to our honoured dead in this country bears their names as well as those of Europeans. I submit, sir, that any attempt to deprive them of their legitimate rights of normal citizens is to be deprecated.

Do you want to give them the vote?

Of course, I am prepared to give them the vote, and so was the hon. member for Gezina and the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) and the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzorg). And let me tell the hon. member for Mossel Bay if there were greater opportunities given them to exercise the vote he would be one of the first to be tapping at their doors soliciting their vote. My hon. friends over there are never backward in soliciting the coloured vote. But one is getting away from the fundamental point, why do hon. members opposite object to the coloured citizens of South Africa having the opportunity of fighting? Is it because they are any less citizens than we are? Is it because they have no rights and therefore no obligations? Is it because it would offend the hon. member’s white soul if coloured people were allowed to fight and range themselves with men like himself against the enemies of this country? What is the mental complex behind this? Is it that the non-European has no common rights with the rest of the European people of this country? If that is so, let the hon. member say so. Is it an offence for a coloured man to defend his rights if he is attacked by Europeans? Let me ask the hon. member, does he object to fighting alongside a coloured man in a cause which is interpreted as being the cause of right? Obviously not. Does he object to the coloured man defending himself if he is attacked by Europeans, and does he deny the coloured people the elementary rights that he claims for himself?

Do you include the natives for the vote?

I am talking about the coloured people. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, discussing defence, is it perhaps that at the outset there is a difference of concept as to what we mean by defence between the Prime Minister and ourselves? Mr. Speaker, that question must be considered in relation to two periods of time, the period before the 4th September, when the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) was in charge of the portfolio, and the 4th September, and what occurred subsequently. Mr. Chairman, before the 4th September, what defence measures, if any, were required by this country? Did we not mean by “defence” the defence of South Africa? Did we mean, and did defence have the same meaning for us as it had for the English and the English Parliament? We were, Mr. Chairman, not a party to a guarantee to Poland, that would embroil us in a war. Are we not a peace-loving country who never made a guarantee to preserve the integrity of Poland, or to put our nose into Polish affairs? I will admit that we were not prepared to the extent that we should be ready for any foreign adventures such as are now contemplated by the Prime Minister. On the 4th September, was not the House misled by the Prime Minister when he said, and he made it part of his amendment, that the Union should take all necessary measures for the defence of its territory and South African interests, and the Government should not send forces overseas as in the last war? Were not many hon. members who were then members of a party to which I belonged at the time, under the impression that by “overseas” we meant per sea as well, as that reason was inserted, because we had to keep all our men in South Africa to defend South Africa against attack, and that as we could not afford to send men overseas, to England, we could as ill afford to send them by sea to Egypt. That is a very vital difference. It is a question which the country might well ask itself now. Many hon. members who then sided with the Prime Minister, were definitely of opinion that the only fighting we would be required to do would be if we had to meet an attack in South Africa or round South Africa. The Prime Minister never said so at the time and he never said so in his speech, but it appears now from the very wording of his resolutions, that at that time, already he had serious intentions of participating in some struggle in the north of Africa. Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister has criticised the position of the Defence Department before he took charge of it, and he has endeavoured to submit to the House that that department is now a department par excellence. The Prime Minister based his case on a five-year plan round about 1934, and he endeavoured to prove that case by proving that the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) had not achieved in the five years what he had set out to do. The Prime Minister had a detailed list compiled to show that we were undefended. I ask this House whether the Prime Minister was honest with this House when he left that position as he had outlined it on a previous occasion? The hon. the Prime Minister will never convince this House or anybody in this House, that he had failed to overlook the very important speech that had been made in this House during March, 1939 by the Minister of Defence when he was the Minister of Defence. Any man who was a member of the United Party who listened to the hon. member for Gezina on that day, could have no complaint, because the hon. member was unusually frank with the House. As a matter of fact, if you analyse that speech, you will find that the hon. member for Gezina took the House into his confidence, and the speech evoked great pleasure, and was a matter of congratulation from all sides of the House. You have only to refer to Hansard to see that that is true. No greater man for compliments can be found than the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha) who spoke to-night. The hon. member for Frankfort, on that occasion, and it is necessary perhaps to quote the hon. member for Frankfort, because he takes a very important part in propaganda as the chief patronin-truth of the truth ridders, the hon. member said on page 2298….

I know what I said.

I hope the hon. member for Frankfort will not stop me, because we appreciate that the hon. member should remember what he said, but he is not of such great importance that other hon. members remember what he said, and I wish to jog their memory. This is what he said—

“On behalf of the citizens of the country,” not on behalf of himself—

What the hon. member for Frankfort said is quite understandable. He was a member of the same party as the Minister of Defence at the time. The Dominion Party of the day also saw fit to congratulate the Minister of Defence at that time on his speech, and the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Acutt) actually grew lyrical in this House about the hon. the Minister of Defence.

He was also bluffed.

The hon. member for Stamford Hill, on page 2303, said—

[Time limit.]

If the hon. member who has just sat down would follow in the footsteps of the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha), then his place will not be found empty when the call comes. The Minister of Defence has this afternoon taken into his confidence, not only this House but also the country, with his very full statement of the defence policy, and the policy of the Government with regard to the war. I am not thinking only of this House, but the whole country will be thankful to the Government for the very clear statement. We in this country are practically living under normal conditions, thanks to the action of the Government. I do not for a moment doubt that if we had to be governed by the Opposition under similar circumstances then we would have been under martial law to-day. We have heard a great deal from the Opposition about the internments. May I just say that where any injustice has been committed it has been put right to-day. But I am very certain of the fact that if everyone in this country got what he deserved, then there would be many more in the camps than there are to-day.

Where would you be?

I know where the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) would be if he got what he deserved. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) unfortunately dragged the rifle associations into the debate. He charged the Minister with having introduced discord into the commando system. I solemnly declare here that I know that so far as some officers are concerned, the Minister of Defence has acted very mildly. I know of one case of a commandant about whom we had a sworn statement that he declared to his officers that they would go into action and that when they got near the enemy they would put up a white flag and would then fight with the enemy in South Africa. That man is still an officer to-day, and if he had got what he deserved then he would be having a very bad time to-day. It is not for the hon. member for Cradock to accuse the Minister of Defence with having caused dissension in the commandos. We know that ammunition was served out on a rather large scale amongst the men, and we do not know to-day what has happened to some of the ammunition. Ought we to have allowed things to develop as they have in Norway, where a senior officer has been arrested who had arranged that there should be a sympathetic reception for the Germans? No, I just want to say a few words to thank the Minister on behalf of myself and my constituency for the way in which he has administered the Department of Defence, and to assure him of our wholehearted support.

The hon. member who has just sat down made such a short speech and as it seems to me he trod on dangerous ground and he did not feel at home there. He attacked the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) for having said that the Minister of Defence had now created two defence forces. The hon. member for Cradock is quite right. There is according to the Act one part of the Defence Force which has taken the oath, and now the Minister of Defence has instituted another oath which the other section must take. I ask the Minister of Defence, but he remains as silent as the grave, although some of the hon. members who have plunged us into war are going to fight. Then I want to know, when he moved the amendment to the motion of the then Prime Minister on the 4th September, how many of his children were going to fight, as my sons have to go and fight, how many of those hon. members sitting there, including the Jews, risked their lives for South Africa? I want to reply to this. You have three sons, and if you want to be consistent then let your sons set an example and let them all go voluntarily. I also see the Minister of Lands over there, let his son, and his son-in-law go voluntarily. If they do not do so, then you are guilty of breach of faith, if you want to send my sons to the war. I once more put the question which I put at the second reading, to what stage are you going to fight? Are you going to fight for a second Versailles, are you going to fight until Germany is destroyed, or how far? What does the Minister of Lands say, will he send his son across? Is he already in the training camp?

No. It is not necessary.

It is not necessary, but you send your bywoners to the camps.

Order!

The hon. member must address the Chair and not individual hon. members.

I am only pointing it out. You must understand well, Mr. Chairman, when we speak about war, then we fight, and then the Chair should not apply the rules so strictly. They are engaged in dragging us to the war, and in sacrificing our sons for the Poles and the Jews, and people of that kind. But I ask yet another question of the Minister of Defence, who was formerly the Minister of Justice, does he want us as individuals to uphold the laws of the country? And if we are to uphold the laws of the country what has he done? What did he do with my people who have quite possibly broken the law? He put them into gaol, out what does he do even with the laws of the land? He can contravene them and nothing is done to him. My individual burgers have to obey the laws of the land, but he, as Minister of Defence, can just break the laws of the land as he wishes, and we have to be satisfied. He ought to set an example to show that he, as an individual, and also the Government are carrying out the laws of the land. I ask whether he is carrying out the Defence Act, and as I believe that the conditions of 1912 have undergone a great change up to the present, that it may be necessary to amend the Defence Acts in our country. I believe, as the Bill stands, that we cannot protect South Africa in the way we should, but my constituents have sent me here to uphold the laws of the land, and if we want to make an alteration then let the House amend the laws of the land. If the Minister thinks that the boundaries of South Africa do not go far enough in order to defend our country, then I say, amend the Act. It is quite possible—remember what I am saying here, it is dangerous, but I believe that it is actually possible, if you do it in the right way, and I, as a military man who knows that our Defence Acts have to be carried out, will agree. I know I am on dangerous ground here, but I do not mind. I have always said that I put my people first, then agriculture and then my party.

Yes, I know that you stand by us.

No, I cannot be over there with people who break laws, people who are untrue to the policy of the party as it was laid down, that we should not declare war unless our interests were affected. There they sit, the hon. members who broke the party constitution. How could I venture to sit with them? No, I shall never be able to do it. I would be lowering myself right to the ground. There sits the Minister of Finance, who has sacrificed all principles for the Empire, he who said that he resigned because of the appointment of Senator Fourie, and then the Constitution is broken twice over, and he continues to sit over there. But he does not want to sacrifice his liberty, because he will not get married. I am not like him, and I, as a practical farmer, when I have several of my foremen with me, then I cannot go to the individual man and learn how the work is being done, I can only lay down the principle, and let the foreman who does not carry out the principle beware. In that case he must be discharged. I have always said that there was one man who was honest and upright, and that was the Minister of Finance. He is honest, hardworking and upright, but this thing has shocked me. This is a thing which can never again be rectified, the thing which he did in that case. When a man has once told me a lie then he has to do a great many things before things come right again, and especially if he has told a lie about a principle. That is the greatest offence that he could commit. [Time limit.]

I was very glad to hear from the Prime Minister to-day that he has made some provision for the participation of coloured and native people in the defence of the country, but I would say in all seriousness to the Minister of Defence that the coloured people, and the native people of this country are not content to take a completely non-combatant part in relation to the defence of the country. They feel that it is the right and the duty of every citizen to take part in the defence of the country, and to put it in their figurative way, they object, when their country is at war and is in danger, that they should have to sit around like old women. I would urge on this House that there is no solid foundation to the objection to allowing natives and coloured people to take part in military training for defence purposes in this country, and I would suggest that there is a great danger in spurning, as I think some members of this House are apt to do, the loyalty and the offers of service of the native and coloured people. Because I can visualise the time, and that time is not far distant either, when the circumstances of this country will compel us to do what the Voortrekkers and the old people who fought in the early days had to do—they had to, and they did use the assistance of the natives in those days without any objections being raised. The reasons for the assertion which I am making now are twofold. We require the combatant services of these people and I put this question, what are they going to say to us if these services are continually refused? Are they not going to say: “Our loyalty in the past must have been questioned. You could have used us in the past and did not, why use us to-day?” I think the time is coming and coming soon when we shall have to look to our native resources and our coloured resources in order to get sufficient forces in this country to meet the needs and requirements of our defences. I am basing my statement on the figures which the Minister gave us. He stated that our normal requirements were for a force of 137,000 men. Obviously one has to provide for wastage in a force of that size. We have to realise that a force like that has to be maintained, and if one compares that figure with the Census (1936) returns showing the availability of the population for service of this kind, one must come to the conclusion that the percentage of men required is very high. I find the number of European males between the ages of 15 and 35 given in the last Census to be 356,000. That is to say that the army will take up more than one-third of our manhood between 15 and 35 years of age. Between the ages of 35 and 45 we have a male European population of 117,000, making a total between the ages of 15 and 45 of 473,000. The army will require more than one-fourth of that total. Then between 45 and 60 the total male European population is 137,000, making a grand total of approximately 600,000. If you take into account the essential services of this country, the needs of industry and agriculture, and if you take into account the fact that in 24 years the normal army needs of the country have doubled, is it unreasonable to suppose that in the next 20 years you may have further requirements to meet the further defence needs of the country.

What do you mean by defence?

I mean I would look after the country I belong to in the best way, and I think the best means of defence is offence.

Dr. VAN NIEROP [inaudible].

I have no time to spend on the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop). I regard him as the principal dwarf in the re-united Walt Disney cartoon, a political and mental dwarf, and I leave it at that. I would urge very strongly that the non-European people of this country would like to feel that their claim to serve in the defence of this country is not going to be completely repudiated. They are not satisfied to be mere hewers of wood and drawers of water; they will do their job and do it honestly and well if they are called upon to do it, and I do hope that the claim of these people to defend their country may be recognised. I know it is said that this is against public opinion, but where does that kind of public opinion come from? It is coming from that side of the House, from hon. members who in days of this description when the country is at war and its very safety is at stake, are prepared to do everything they can to handicap the Government in the execution of its duty. May I briefly, in the time at my disposal, refer to the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) ? Sir, I have listened in this House to the invective that has been poured on the head of the Minister of Defence, and I have no doubt that the spearhead of that attack is the hon. member for Gezina. The voice may sometimes be the voice of Jacob but the hand is the hand of the hon. member for Gezina, and when one wonders why that is being done, I should like to give one quotation here, sir, that perhaps will give us some indication why it is being done—

That quotation comes from the bible of my friend the member for Mossel Bay. He will no doubt recognise it. I say that is one of the reasons this attack is being made on the Prime Minister. It is not sufficient that the Minister of Defence should have the responsibility of defending this country and of prosecuting this war, but there is now this iniquitous, this vicious system of attacking him on all opportunities carried on without cessation. I say that it ill becomes those who have left this country in this defenceless position to cast these aspersions on the man who is trying to, carry the burden of this duty. I say that it came as a great shock to the people of this country when they found the condition in which the so-called defences of the country were left. My friend the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé) in the early stages of the session referred to the fact that some of the legislation that was intended to be brought in reminded him of the days of the Stuarts. I would like to remind the hon. member that in the days of the Stuarts they had such a thing as an impeachment, and where the duties of a Minister were not properly performed there was such a thing as impeachment. It would be interesting to see the hon. member for Gezina as the Strafford of this country, but there is this difference, that whereas there was some doubt about Strafford’s guilt the hon. member for Gezina to-day is condemned out of his own mouth. [Time limit.]

I want again to revert to the matter I was dealing with. I have a letter here from a responsible person, namely from an attorney, which I want to quote and which reads as follows—

It is a serious state of affairs if, in this way by false pretences, people are being compelled to become volunteers. I assume that what is stated in these letters is correct, because they were responsible persons who, wrote them to me. A few weeks ago when the Minister of Defence introduced the new oath, we saw what happened in the camp at the Premier Mine. People came personally to me to make complaints, and from enquiries made it was principally the members of the Louis Trichardt division who were threatened with imprisonment if they would not take that oath. In all kinds of ways compulsion is being exercised over them to take the oath. The assurance was given to me that persons in the Louis Trichardt Division were threatened with imprisonment if they would not take the oath. The Minister of Defence knows that a large number of the men refused, and they were given an opportunity to reconsider the matter or otherwise this or the other thing would happen to them. Within a couple of days thereafter the announcement came from the Prime Minister according to which he had divided the army into two. The first was the part that had taken the oath and was therefore ready to go and do service in North Africa and elsewhere. The other part would not take the oath, and they came under the Defence Act. But I am dealing here with the compulsion which was exercised and which had the result that numbers of men took that oath who did not actually want to take it. They were then regarded as volunteers, and when they had taken the oath then they were held bound and had no other alternative. I want to say to the Minister of Defence that I have quoted a few things here, but I can give him the assurance that complaints of this kind have reached me on a large scale, and, therefore, I assume that they are well-founded. I would like to know from the Minister whether he will have the acts and omissions of Captain Louw properly inquired into in order to decide whether these complaints are well-founded or not.

While I was sitting here listening to the speeches in regard to coloured troops, the question arose in my mind: Is there still such a thing left in the world and in our country too as right and truth? Is truth forever on the scaffold? Because the coloured people and the natives love this country; it is their country just as much as it is our country.

Fie, for shame!

The hon. member can say fie, for shame, I will allow history to reply to him. On the contrary they have more right to this country than we have. We have been in this country approximately 300 years, they have been here for thousands and thousands of years, no historian has, up to the present, yet been able to fix the time. Have they not reason to be afraid of the barbarian just as much as we have reason to fear him? Because Hitler has shown himself to be the greatest barbarian which the world has ever yet seen. We notice here that he said to Norway and Denmark with the utmost hypocrisy: Germany only just wants to take you under her protection! That is the kind of protection which the wolf wanted to give the lamb, when he was engaged in eating it he said to him: “I am only protecting you so that that jackal cannot eat you up.” I say that he is a barbarian and his chief cloak is the cloak of hypocrisy. That hon. member said “for shame.” In 1937 our Government appointed a commission which made an enquiry into South-West. That commission was presided over by Mr. Justice van Zyl, and what did he find? When the Germans started fighting with the Hereros there were 80,000 of them; when they were finished fighting with them, there were 18,000. Did not the coloured people and the natives see what had happened to them in South-West, and did not they also want the country subsequently to be defended against that kind of thing? They were captured and they were not even shot but a soap box was put under their feet and they were hanged to the camel-thorn trees. Are those people not entitled to be afraid of Germany’s barbarism, and have they not the right to feel a need to assist in the defence of this country as well, because they feel that it is their country also?

Did not the Afrikaners also do that?

I am not now talking of the Afrikaners but of the coloured people.

How many natives did we not shoot because they had arms in their hands? They ought to have shot you too, then you would not have been here.

When the hon. member is finished I will recommence speaking. In our own history we speak a great deal about the Voortrekkers, and we all take off our hats to them, but is it not a historical fact that Andries Pretorius entered into an alliance with Panda to fight Dingaan?

Did he make an alliance with natives to fight against white people?

We will come to that later. Andries Pretorius entered into that alliance with Panda to fight against Dingaan, and it was Panda who defeated Dingaan, before Pretorius’ men went up against him. It is hard for hon. members opposite to hear the truth but I also would like to know from them whether it is not an historical fact that President Kruger had an arrangement with the Swazis, if he had to fight against the natives that he would also use them? Is that a fact or is it not? Some years ago I travelled through Basutoland and I wanted to get to Thaba Bosigo to see where Louw Wepener was killed. I stood by the side of the little barricade where Louw Wepener stood when the Freestaters ran away, and Louw Wepener was stoned to death on the rocks where he stood and along with him his Hottentot attendant was killed. Are we to forget that? I appeal to the history. Who is the man who was the uncrowned king of our people? It was President Steyn and we know that at Reitz it was his Hottentot attendant Plaatjie who caught his horse and put the President into the saddle in order to race away, but Plaatjie remained in the fight and he was captured. Are we to forget things like that? Can we forget that half of the people who were murdered at Blauwkrantz in 1838 were coloured people and natives? Attendants, guards, and nurses of children, and the rest of it. Can we forget that of the 50 men who were murdered along with Piet Retief there were 22 who were coloured attendants who had also contributed their share to enable their masters to go there? Then I want to put another question. Is the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit….

Where are the Knights of Truth?

My hon. friend asked where the Knights of Truth are. He reminds me of what Roy Campbell wrote—

In 1932 the hon. member for Cape Flats who sits just behind me, put a question to the then Minister of Defence as to whether he would also include divisions of coloured troops in the Defence Force, non-combatant divisions — and the Minister of Defence said: “Yes.”

Nonsense!

The hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) says that it is nonsense, he always pretends as if he had a monopoly of wisdom. Is it also nonsense that none of the rifle associations in our country in September had ever yet seen a Brenn gun, or a Vickers gun or a Lewis gun?

Nonsense!

Go to any of the divisions of the rifle associations in the North-West and ask if they have ever yet seen a Vickers gun or a Lewis gun, not to speak of a Brenn gun. Is it not a fact that one of the guns which used to stand at the Van Riebeeck Memorial is now at Potchefstroom, and that all the guns at Potchefstroom are of the 1916 calibre, which was used at the time but has since got into disuse? Whether the boundaries of the country are in the bushveld, or at the equator, or in the north of Africa, does not concern me. South Africa is in danger of being crushed by the greatest barbarian power, worse than the Huns, and therefore as far as I am concerned I will do my utmost to follow the Minister of Defence in order to defend my country. I have only two children and they are both in the Defence Force, and, old as I am, I have registered myself on the Reserve.

I do not know yet what the object was of the hon. member for Calvinia. (Dr. Steenkamp) this evening in telling us about the agreement of the Voortrekkers with Panda, and I understand even less why he told us that the coloured people and the natives have more rights to South Africa than we have, because they have been living here longer.

On a point of order, I spoke about exceptions.

I want to repeat that I do not understand the motive behind the hon. member’s reproaches. Does he want to suggest that we should give more rights to the coloured people than the natives? But I must say that his speech will be of very great value so far as the future is concerned, seeing that he followed the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit). It was also very interesting to listen to the speech made by the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha) which shewed us how far an Afrikaner can go down in that respect if he gets into such company. I want to Know from the hon. member for Calvinia whether his object and his motive is that we should give the coloured people and the natives equality such as the hon. member for Cape Flats wants us to give them? He told us that there was no reason why the coloured people should not have the same rights in regard to military matters as the whites. That is what the hon. member said, and the hon. member for Frankfort followed with a long tirade and said that he saw no reason in the event of danger, and in the event of an enemy coming here and using natives, to our also using natives. In other words we are to prepare the natives in the meantime against the possibility of an enemy coming here and using natives and coloured people, in which event we should also put our natives into the field. That speech coming after the speech by the hon. member for Cape Flats is a serious indication to us of what we can expect in the future, even from Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaners opposite, who are now going in that direction. We are in a state of war. The Minister of Defence told us of the poor position South Africa was in in regard to defence; he told us that he had found our defence position in a state of neglect when he took over, and that accusation has been spread and broadcast by the Jingo Press throughout this country. Before I leave the previous point I want to say that I deeply deplore the hon. member having adopted that attitude. France is the ally of England, and there they do not differentiate—a coloured man can become an officer just as easily as a white man. We have already been told about the case of natives of the West Coast who are being trained for officers in England. The case of Moody was mentioned here the other day. Those are the Allies on whose side we are being dragged into the war, and now we get speeches from hon. members over there who want to have natives and coloured people trained for military purposes. The hon. member for Cape Flats sees no reason why they should not have the same rights as we have, and then an old Boer General from the Free State like the hon. member for Frankfort also wants to go in that direction, and proclaims that policy here this evening. I must say that we are deeply shocked and disappointed and we look upon this as an indication of what we can expect of Afrikaans-speaking members who are now associated with hon. members opposite. The hon. the Minister of Defence spoke here about South Africa having been in a poor state of defence, and that story has been spread throughout the whole country from the one side to the other; as against that the rt. hon. the Minister of Defence told us a short while ago that our Capital, Cape Town, was in a good state of defence and that the Erebus was not needed at all. The point at issue is not the Erebus, but the point is that the Minister said that Cape Town was over-defended, and yet only recently we had a terrific fuss here, because it was alleged that Cape Town was in a very poor state so far as its defence was concerned. That happened only a year or two ago, and the one paper after the other hammered on that point, but now the Minister of Defence comes here and tells us that South Africa is not in any danger, and that we need not worry our heads over the defence of Cape Town, and he asks us to take as evidence of his contention the fact that a German warship passed close by without daring to touch Cape Town. Cape Town is over-defended and no extra guns are needed. Now I want to ask whether in the circumstances there is any need to put us into the state of defence which the Minister wants to put us into if there is no danger at all? What are we fighting for? We have been at war now for seven months, and we do not yet know where we are going to fight; we are still quarrelling over the question where our borders are and where we have to send our troops. In other words, the whole question in regard to the war is that South Africa has provoked other countries and that it had no cause to declare war, because if it was so essential to declare war on the 4th September then surely our troops should long ago have been on the battlefield and should have been waging war there. And then we get the hon. member for Frankfort making reproaches against this side of the House and telling us that our experience of the Anglo-Boer War had taught us that our people would not be induced to go on the fields of battle. In other words, hon. members who to-day are so keen on making war, who seven months ago declared war, have not helped towards one shot being fired, although they have been telling us that this war means a life and death struggle to South Africa. They have not yet done anything to save South Africa, yet they tell us that it is a life and death struggle, that we have to save Christian civilisation, that we have to protect small nations; in spite of all that we have not yet fired one single shot. [Time limit.]

After the onslaught which the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has made on me I am obliged to defend myself. I do not take much notice of what the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) has said. He is still a youth. When he gets older he will probably have more common sense and possibly know more about war. But I know the hon. member for Waterberg holds certain views and he stated that the people, and especially the people in Frankfort, would hear a buzzing in their ears when they read what I have said. I want to admit that the ears of some of the hon. member’s supporters will buzz because they know as little about the country’s history as he does. In the Boer War the life of more than one officer has been saved by his “agterryer” (native servant).

Was the agterryer armed?

He carried his boss’s rifle, and he would have used that rifle if his boss had been in trouble. One of the bravest officers we ever had in the Transvaal was Gen. Coen Britz, and if it had not been for his native servant he would have been killed in the Boer War. And there were more of them, but we hear such a lot about the traditions of our ancestors. Hon. members over there pretend that they are pursuing the course of our ancestors and that they are maintaining our traditions. Did not our ancestors have an agreement with Panda that he, with 3,000 Zulus, would help them to fight Dingaan? Did not the Transvaal Republic use 2,500 Swazis to fight Johannes?

Who was Johannes?

He was a native, and if it had not been for the cowardice of Commandant Coetzee who ran away so that all were shot down and killed, they would have won. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Waterberg this: The Strydoms and the Coetzees inter-married—does he possibly belong to that family? I say that if the enemy uses natives and coloured people we must also do so. We cannot allow white people to be killed by kaffirs, and did not the Germans in East Africa use Askaris? Our friends over there are so well disposed towards the Germans, but the Germans use natives, and now they do not want us to use natives who may possibly save us in many difficulties.

I put a few questions just now and I had thought that the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Finance would have replied, but they have not done so yet, and that being so I shall repeat my questions. I am quite sure that the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Finance have no scruples about going to war, because they are either too old, or because they have no progeny to send to war. They have no interests themselves in the cause of the Afrikaner, but I as an Afrikaner who has five sons, four of whom are of an age to make it possible for them to go to war, feel my responsibility. I feel that the Minister is a man who does not want to sacrifice his freedom, so he remains unmarried, but I prefer a man who is in favour of increasing the population. When a man is not in favour of the policy of building up the population of South Africa I, generally speaking, have very little respect for him. My policy is a minimum of five children. I am very pleased, Mr. Chairman, that you have allowed me to say these few words. The hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha) said a few things here which hurt me very much. He said that the farmers, like the English, had armed natives. Now I want to appeal to the Prime Minister, who was a general in those days, and I want to ask him whether he allowed our natives who were agterryers to be armed. If he is still a true Afrikaner and if he wants to uphold our honour in connection with the Anglo-Boer War he should get up and contradict the hon. member for Frankfort.

I can prove it.

It is a deplorable thing for me to learn that a Boer general wants to pretend that we used kaffirs. It is quite possible that those kaffirs carried the rifles for the burgers but they did not use them in our battles. I want to ask hon. members who took part in the war to confirm my statement that we did not fight with the aid of kaffirs.

I did not say that.

I have a great deal of respect for that general. I was with him in German East and I know him as a brave man, but it appears to me that he has got, into very bad company because the English over there fought us with kaffirs and coloured people. They established cause and now they are again establishing cause, and the Boer commandos are accused of having armed kaffirs. I emphatically deny it. If one begins to deteriorate, one deteriorates very badly sometimes, and I deplore the fact that the general who was wounded in the Anglo-Boer War, who lost his right arm, should put his soul into other people’s keeping.

He was wounded.

Yes, but his wounds are not like those of the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. Steenkamp). His wounds are still bleeding, but we cannot see a wound, nor can we see any blood. I do not want to use hard words, and I do not want to use the word traitor, but I want to say that there are people here whose views have changed, whose views about their people have changed, and they always want to look at the bad side of their people and besmirch them, and it seems to me that the “Loyal Dutch” find themselves in that position to-day. The Prime Minister was Minister of Justice last year. A trap was set at that time to catch my people, my voters who had lost their positions. They broke the laws, and I do not say that they were not guilty; they broke the laws and they were found guilty and fined, but the Minister of Defence is breaking the laws of the country, and I am asking what his sentence is? He is a man who cannot be punished, but the burgers I represent had to be punished and put into gaol, while he has to be let loose because he is Minister of Defence. He makes laws and breaks them. I believe in principle, there is something great in principles. I have to point out the road to my people but if I break the laws myself, what are the people who stand behind me to think? How can I, who used to follow the Minister in all the battles which we have had in South Africa, continue to follow him? Let him amend the Defence Act as I said in a previous speech, because as times change we feel that the law should be amended. And why should the laws be amended? Because since 1912 motor transport has come into being, the Air Force has come into existence, submarines and such things have come into being. I feel that the Minister of Defence should say that the law should be amended, and if the laws are amended I shall follow him, but to come here with false statements and to accuse the former Minister of Defence is wrong, and I say that if the Minister does that he is consistently disloyal, even to his former colleagues. I consider that our country is the holy of holies, but we should now take into account the Air Force and forces at sea and also the forces below the sea. Hon. members may laugh when I say this, and when I tell them what may happen in future. In Western Flanders where they are fighting in the air to-day things are going to happen beneath the earth and they will blow each other up. I want to utter a word of warning and I want to say to the Minister of Defence that he should warn the people in Europe and tell them to watch for the danger which is going to appear below the earth.

After all this excitement about coloured citizens I want to say a word or two about, I think, an equally repugnant section of the community, at least repugnant to the opposite side, namely the English-speaking citizens of this country.

Nonsense.

I am surprised to hear you say that.

I have often wondered why we are not referred to as “Afrikanders.”

Well, because you do not call yourself that.

You have just called yourself an Englishman.

What are you trying to get at?

You call us English-speaking South Africans.

Well, are you ashamed of it?

I want to give an example.

Do not try.

I want to contrast two members of this House. The one is the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow).

A very fine man.

He is of German extraction.

Well, what of it?

He has not a drop of Afrikaans blood in his veins.

Nor have you.

I want to contrast him with myself.

An Englishman!

I am of English extraction. I have Afrikander blood in my veins in that my parents, and my grand parents were born in this country, yet to-day I am persistently referred to as an English-speaking South African.

Hear, hear!

Why should I not be called an Afrikander?

Because you do not want to be.

After all, Afrikander is a translation, the English translation of the word Afrikaner, and I maintain that every citizen of this country should be styled an Afrikaner if he uses the Afrikaans term, or Afrikander if he uses the English term.

But you want to call yourself an Englishman.

The object of my standing up is to say a word on this question of English-speaking South Africans—I will continue to refer to them as Afrikanders—so I will refer to what the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) said about Afrikanders during the course of his reply to the peace debate some time ago. I want to read his remarks and then to offer my comments on them. The hon. member for Smithfield said this. It is recorded in Hansard, page 517. At the end of his reply to the peace debate he said—

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but under Standing Order 74, a member may not allude to any debate of that same session upon a question or Bill not being then under discussion.

It will not do any harm.

It was not during this session, it was last session.

Oh, no, it was not.

In any case I do not intend reading the whole thing. I shall just give the effect. The hon. member for Smithfield said that the English-speaking members, the Afrikanders, as I call them, had been guilty of the grossest act of faithlessness towards him in the course of the debate, and because of the way they voted on that particular occasion. Mr. Chairman, I want to say this, the hon. member for Smithfield accused us of that act of faithlessness. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) during the course of that debate asked quite pointedly why the ex-Prime Minister had not brought the matter for discussion to our Caucus. The hon. member for Smithfield did not answer that question but continued to reiterate his charge of faithlessness.

What matter?

The question whether we would go to war with Germany or not. The hon. member for Smithfield gave no answer to that question. When we—the Afrikanders—gave our decision against what he (the hon. member for Smithfield) advised he attacked us and said we were guilty of this act of faithlessness, a gross act of faithlessness he said, towards him personally. I am sorry the hon. member is not in his place to-night, because the first question which suggests itself to me is since when do members of a party owe allegiance to an individual? I want to stress the point that the hon. member over and over again used the singular, and said that this act of faithlessness was directed against him, and that we had displayed this disloyal attitude and let him, an individual, down. Since when do members of a party owe allegiance to an individual, whether he be leader of a party or not? The next question I want to ask is why did the ex-Prime Minister not bring that matter up for discussion in the Caucus of the party, that was the right thing to do.

Will the hon. member tell me what this has to do with the vote?

It is the whole basis of our defence, it is the question of war.

I am sorry, we are now asked to vote a certain sum for defence purposes, and the hon. member must keep to that vote.

Mr. Chairman, is not a member entitled to discuss the war policy?

No, the hon. member is going much too far. That question has been decided.

Yes, but am I not entitled to discuss the policy which necessitates this expenditure?

If the hon. member will confine himself to that I will allow him to go on.

Certain members on this side of the House decided to vote in a certain way and the hon. member for Smith-field accused those members of an act of faithlessness towards him personally.

I think that is quite beyond the scope of the vote.

If you will not allow me to go on I cannot develop my argument any further. My point is that in the light of present-day happenings we see a sufficient reason why the majority of the House was justified in voting as they did.

Order, the hon. member is going much too far now.

I shall not try to answer the hon. member who spoke a few minutes ago, because I am afraid I shall be out of order as he was; I wish to confine myself more particularly to a phenomenon which we had here this evening, that three or four members opposite put up a plea for the arming of coloured people and natives in this time of war. The hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha) said that he only wanted to arm the natives if an enemy coming from elsewhere — he himself does not know from where — used native troops; in that event he also wants to arm the natives here. When he was criticised and the traditions of the Boers were pointed out to him, he made a second speech as an apology for his first one, but in his apology he went even further and he said that he wanted to arm coloured people and natives. If an hon. member of his standing can deteriorate to such an extent in such a short space of time, then I would not like to be responsible for the level to which that hon. member may sink if the war continues long enough. I want to refer to a plea put up by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Bowen) in favour of equal rights for Europeans and non-Europeans. While all this is going on, the Prime Minister remains silent. What is at the back of it? The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) does not only want to arm the natives and the coloured people, but he also demands that they shall be given the franchise. One of the native representatives put up a similar plea here in favour of the natives being armed. What is at the back of it? If they are armed and they take part in the war, they will on their return come to Parliament and demand the vote for those coloured and native people. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees with these things. If he does not, he should tell this House so. If he does agree with it, we must take it that he is tacitly allowing these things, and that he is quite prepared to allow the white Afrikaner in the future to be out-voted by those natives and coloured people. I do not want to deal with the speech made here by the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. Steenkamp), but there was one thing I was wondering about when the hon. member was speaking. If, as a result of the new delimitation, a coloured constituency were set up, called Hottentot Flats, I wondered whether that hon. member would aspire to become the candidate for that constituency. I again want to ask the Prime Minister a question which I have put to him on three occasions. He tells us that his volunteer corns has 60,000 men, and he divides them under three heads. First of all, there are those who have joined up under the Defence Act; secondly, there are the others who have taken the new oath, and who are prepared to go and serve in northern Africa. I asked the Prime Minister how many of those 60,000 men who have taken the new oath are prepared to go as far as Egypt to fight, and how many are prepared to do only what every Afrikaner is prepared to do — to defend our country under the provisions of the Defence Act when we are attacked. The Prime Minister made a statement this afternoon that he was unable to allocate the various groups. I want to tell him this, if he cannot distinguish the one section from the other, we can come to only one conclusion, namely, that there are so few of them who are prepared to go as far as the Mediterranean to go and fight that he is ashamed to mention the numbers. If that is not so, let him tell us how many of those 60,000 are prepared to take the new oath to go and fight anywhere? There is just one other point I want to refer to. The Prime Minister stated that the Equator was now the limit to which he was prepared to commandeer people to go.

No, I did not say so.

That is how I understood him, and that is how many hon. members on this side understood him, and that being so, the onus rests on the Prime Minister to clear up the position. I, therefore, put this question to him now; How far are you going to commandeer Union citizens? Let the Prime Minister answer this question. He further stated that as a result of present-day war methods we must make our borders elastic. I should like to know how elastic he wants to make our borders, so that everyone who is liable to service may know to what extent the Prime Minister is prepared to extend our borders. The Prime Minister this afternoon also said that a great change had come about in warfare, and he wanted the House to understand that as a result of this change a different interpretation must be placed on the Defence Act of 1912. If the Prime Minister wants to apply the letter and the spirit of the 1912 Defence Act he should give us a clear indication of the manner in which he intends transgressing the provisions of that Act, and also whether he does intend breaking the provisions of that Act. We want to have a very clear statement from him as to what are the letter and the spirit of the 1912 Act because the lives of the people of this country are at stake. We want to know what the Prime Minister has in mind, and we want to know from him to what extent he considers our borders to be elastic. There is another question which I wish to put to him. He stated that we have to consider what equipment the enemy, who will attack us, will have. From that we have to conclude that our action will be guided by the type of enemy who may attack us. Possibly the Askaris may be the people he expects to attack us. He told us that we had in respect of our defences to take into consideration the question of the enemy who was going to attack us and our attitude would depend on the type of enemy who might attack us. Will he tell us which enemy he expects? Does he expect an attack from Germany? Does he expect Italy to come into the war, and if he does not, whom does he expect we shall have to fight? I want to say this to the Prime Minister, that he is again playing the same game which he played in 1914. These steps which he is now taking, and these statements of his are nothing but a preparation for an expedition which he wants to equip to make South Africa go and fight on behalf of the Empire. Those are his motives. That is the motive which on the 4th September induced him to take that decision, and that is the motive which he had when he had to choose between the interest of the Afrikaner people on the one side, and his British imperial glory on the other hand. He chose his British imperial glory — that lustre and glory attaching to him weighed more with him than the interests of Afrikanerdom. If that is not so, then we expect the Prime Minister at the very least to tell the Afrikaner people what he is preparing for, and where and whom we are going to fight. I accused him on a previous occasion of having already commandeered the Exchequer. Now he comes here and he moves this vote without giving us any details. All we have on this vote are these words; contribution to war expenditure account £2,250,000. Without any details being given the Exchequer is used for Empire purposes. We object to that and we demand on behalf of the voters whom we represent here that we shall be given some explanation so that the electors may know what their money is being spent for.

I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again.

House to resume in Committee on 12th April.

DISEASES OF STOCK AMENDMENT BILL.

Second Order read: Adjourned debate on motion for third reading, Diseases of Stock Amendment Bill, to be resumed.

[Debate, adjourned on the 10th April, resumed.]

Bill read a third time.