I move—

I second.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—78:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker. T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Cadman, C. F. M.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp. W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Noes—63:

Badenhorst, A. L.

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Bruyn. D. A. S.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fagan, H. A.

Fullard, G. J.

Grobler, J. H.

Havenga, N. C.

Haywood, J. J.

Hertzog J. B. M.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, O.

Quinlan, S. C.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Theron, P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

I think it best that I should reply at once to the points that were raised in this debate yesterday, and I propose to start with a question of a less contentious nature. The hon. member for Marico (Rev. C. W. M. du Toit) referred to the League of Nations and asked what the position was now in regard to that League; he wanted to know whether it was dormant and what benefits we derived from our connection with it. I do not propose to go fully into the question of the League of Nations, it is a matter which has been raised in this House year after year.

But surely this year there are special circumstances.

The attitude adopted by the previous Government is my attitude too, and is our attitude, namely that to-day, especially in the present difficult conditions through which the world is passing, there is no good reason why we should depart from the policy pursued by us so far. The world as we know is passing through times of tremendous stress, there are changes taking place such as we have not experienced for many years, and there is no outside organisation to-day except the League of Nations which may yet be a source of conciliation and of co-operation among the peoples of the world, and it would appear to me that it would be most unwise, so far as we ourselves are concerned, and it would be a most unwise step so far as the world is concerned, if especially at a time like the present, we should abandon the last straw which we can hold on to work for co-operation and peace among the nations of the world. It might possibly be a step which would be almost irreparable. It is quite easy to destroy and a great deal of destructive work has been done in connection with the League of Nations, but something is still left. The idea remains, and a central organisation remains to which a great many of the nations belong, and it is possible that that which remains, the kernel which remains in the organisation, with the idea of what it contains, may become the nucleus of a new growth, and of the restoration of the world after this war, and after this period of storm and distress. I feel that from every point of view it would be wrong, it would be réprehensible and irreparable, if at this stage we were to depart from what is left and if we were to destroy that which still exists. No other idea has been put forward, no other device has been submitted as to the way in which the peoples of the world may be brought together again, and I feel that it is highly probable that when the world again returns to a condition of peace, and the great question of world orientation and of restoration has once more to be considered, it will appear that the League of Nations as it exists to-day may prove a good starting point for the restoration and for the laying of a good foundation to build up a better organisation. And in those circumstances I feel that we would be doing the wrong thing entirely if we were to depart from it. Let us cherish the expectation and the hope that with the experience which we have gained, it may be possible to erect something better on that foundation. In all the years that we have passed through no other foundation has been indicated. The hon. member also drew attention to the increased expenditure appearing on the Estimates in this connection, namely that we are asking for an amount of £1,000 more this year than last year. The reason for this increase are the rate of exchange difficulties which we have to contend with. As hon. members know our contributions have to be made in League of Nation francs—that is in gold francs—and in view of the deterioration of our currency on the sterling basis it is necessary for us to provide more money than we placed on the last Estimates. The hon. member further asked why so much more money was required in respect of exchange equalisation on the various votes in connection with the Estimates. This in every case is due to the same causes. Our Embassies in other parts of the world carry on their work on the basis of the currencies of those other countries, and as our currency deteriorates so that the rate of exchange is against us, we have to supplement the amounts in that way. That also is my reply to the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) who also asked why there is an increase on the votes for the different Embassies. In almost every case he will see that it is a pure exchange question. It is not a question of increase of salaries and of increase in expenditure in other respects, it is almost exclusively a matter of exchange. The hon. member also asked why so much more money was provided under item A (3) in respect of cablegrams. Well, the hon. member will realise that in times such as those which we are passing through at present, while the Government is in continuous touch with its Embassies in other countries and has to be kept informed of what is going on, the cable service is fairly extensive, and it is to be understood that to a certain extent there must be increases under this heading. Then, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe) inter alia raised the question of the information officer, and he moved the deletion of this item of £750 for the salary of the information officer, and the reasons adduced by him are that our broadcasting service is being abused; that the information officer is being used for the broadcasting of news items which are disapproved of by the hon. member and by others. I feel that the hon. member entirely misses the point. This provision for an information officer has been on the Estimates for a long time—it is in respect of a press officer who will keep the Government in touch with the press outside, and who will also keep the Government Departments together in regard to information, and issue notices of a public nature to the public. These are the usual activities of an information officer. After war broke out, and in view of the tremendous radio propaganda being made from outside to influence public opinion in this country, the Government considered it necessary that the information officer in addition to his ordinary items which he communicates to the press for publication, should also supply information by way of a reply to the broadcasting service from outside. Hon. members will notice that such a service is broadcast by the information officer, which contains not merely communications in regard to the work of the Government Department, but also information replying to the radio service from another country which is definitely intended, and equipped, to make propaganda in this country, and to reply specifically to the radio service from Zeesen. It requires no proof from me to show that the broadcasting service from Zeesen is a poisonous, destructive and subversive propaganda directed against South Africa. And it is essential that the lies which are spread from Zeesen and which are addressed directly to South Africa, and which mostly refer to South African conditions, should be overtaken, and that they should be overtaken at once, and dealt with at once.

Especially in regard to the quotations from certain documents.

With the cooperation of the Broadcasting Board and the Broadcasting Corporation broadcasting services are taking place every day, and in my modest opinion the work is being done excellently. Every possible precaution is taken to, ensure that the service is a true and correct one, and to ensure party political questions being avoided, and to see to it that the public are informed in regard to matters broadcast by the Zeesen radio service. Another question was also raised by the hon. member for Vryburg regarding the difficulties that have arisen on the Molopo River on the border between the Protectorate of Bechuanaland and the Union. He cited an instance to show the difficulty of the position there, and to show that those difficulties would continue until the incorporation of the protectorate had taken place, and his arguments amounted to this, that a different solution of the difficulties had to be found. He urged that incorporation of the protectorate should take place at an early date. I do not think, however, that I should go too deeply into this question of incorporation at the present juncture. This is an important question which it is impossible to deal with at this juncture. The matter was dealt with by several governments and it was taken to a certain stage. Statements were to have been made to the protectorate public and certain reports were to be published. Those statements have not yet been made, but it was agreed between the British Government and the Union Government that such a statement would be made at a given date. It is self-evident that it is difficult at a time like the present to take up a question such as the taking over of the protectorates. Both the British Government and the Government here are overwhelmed with other work and other difficulties, and are occupied from day to day with more important and more difficult affairs, so that it would not be an easy matter to fix a time to deal with this matter.

Can you tell me when it will be convenient to do so?

Let us hope that the time will come. The position is not facilitated, incorporation is not facilitated, by statements such as those recently made by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) in which he, in the Transvaal, announced it as the policy of his party that if they came into power compulsory native labour would be introduced for farms for six months in the year. Hon. members will realise what the effect of a statement of that kind, coming from the leader of the party, must be on the natives outside. And they will realise that a statement of that kind will scare them and drive them away from the Union; they will realise that statements like that make the question of incorporation of the protectorates very difficult. I am only pointing this out to show that we have to be very careful. When we come to deal with the question of the incorporation of the protectorates we have to consider carefully how to tackle such a matter, because as soon as the natives learn that it is the policy of the party on the other side to take such a step immediately it comes into power, of introducing compulsory native labour, it naturally makes the question of incorporation extremely difficult and renders it impossible. I realise the difficulties and the grievances, however, to which the hon. member has referred. I know that those difficulties exist, because they have repeatedly been represented to me personally by those parts, although I myself have not yet had an opportunity of paying a visit to those particular areas. None the less I am familiar with the difficulties described by the hon. member and I feel that we must continue to make efforts even before incorporation takes place, in order to improve the position, and if possible to put matters in order. The proposal of the committee to draw an arbitrary line may perhaps prove impossible to be carried out, or it may be associated with very great difficulties. If that is not the right solution then I hope that another solution may be found which will render unnecessary all those prosecutions of Union citizens on the borders. We are face to face here with an extremely difficult matter because the question of cattle diseases is involved in it, and that certainly does not facilitate the solution of the question with which we are faced.

Will you be good enough to take steps in order that these matters may be taken up with the other Administrations?

If the hon. member will remind me of this matter again and see that I am kept informed, I hope to follow it up and see whether any way can be found out of the difficulty, if it is impossible to carry out the proposal of the joint committee to put up a wire fence between the two territories. I hope the hon. member will remind me again of this matter at the right time. I now come to the more contentious matters raised here by hon. members, and first of all I wish briefly to revert to the speech made here yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition. I call it a speech, but I should rather call it an outburst, a violent outburst, which to my mind was unnecessary in the circumstances. The Leader of the Opposition made a charge here yesterday to the effect that on the 4th September in connection with the change of Government, there had been a breach of the constitutional position, and he stated that I was responsible for that violation or breach of the Constitution. In what way I am responsible for something with which I had no concern whatsoever I do not know. But there is something peculiar in that charge. For this reason: Eight months have now passed since those events. So far as I have been able to follow the papers or the speeches the hon. the Leader of the Opposition never made that charge throughout the whole of that time. After eight months he now for the first time comes along with this very serious accusation against me. This causes the question to arise in my mind why this charge is now being made. Since when has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition adopted that attitude, and since when has he shared that view? If that has been his view from the very beginning, why then did he not say so at once? If I cast my mind back, it seems to me that the hon. member raised this question on several occasions in a totally different spirit. Shortly after the events here in Cape Town, that is to say, shortly after the change in Government, the Leader of the Opposition was received with a great show of glory in Pretoria, where he made a speech at a reception given him by the students, which was attended also by other members of the previous Government, among others by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad did not hesitate from the very start to express the strongest condemnation of the Governor-General’s action.

Not I.

At Wolmaransstad.

It is untrue.

The hon. member not merely expressed the strongest condemnation of the Governor-General, but at the meeting to which I refer, the reception given to the Leader of the Opposition in Pretoria, he stated that the leader of the Opposition had informed the Governor-General on that occasion that as soon as his party came into power he would put an end to the post of Governor-General.

I still say so.

On that occasion the Leader of the Opposition said this — I am quoting this to show the spirit in which he looked upon the matter—

Hear, hear, and I still say so.

That would appear to be something entirely different from the condemnation eight months later. Only a few days after those events the Leader of the Opposition admitted that the Governor-General had done his best in the interest of the country.

In other words, his bona fides were not doubted, nor have they ever been doubted since.

Some time afterwards there was a party conference at Bloemfontein where the Leader of the Opposition made the following statement—

After that the condemnation to which we listened here yesterday sounded very strange. After the Leader of the Opposition had stated in Pretoria that the Governor-General had acted bona fide and honestly in the execution of his duties, after he had admitted at Bloemfontein that he had honestly and straightforwardly carried out his duties, the hon. member came here yesterday with a condemnation of his actions on constitutional grounds. It seems very peculiar and strange. The Leader of the Opposition used certain expressions yesterday which force me to say this — first of all. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding in regard to the position on the 4th September. I want to say that neither on that occasion, when I saw the Governor-General for the first time on the night of the 4th September, nor before that did I have any negotiations with him, nor did I see or consult him, nor was my advice ever asked in connection with this matter. We are dealing here with a matter which may give rise to misconceptions and suspicions in the country, and I wish to say quite clearly that I was not in touch with the Governor-General, and I had no consultation with the Governor-General, except the consultation on that one day, but on the days preceding I had no discussion with the Governor-General either on this or other matters, I had no discussion with him until the evening of the 4th September when he asked me whether I would be prepared to form a Government.

That was after the resignation.

After the resignation he informed me that the former Prime Minister had submitted his resignation and he asked me whether I would be able to form a Government, and my reply was that I could not answer at once but that I would answer the next day. That is all, so far as my knowledge, or my actions, or my contact with the Governor-General are concerned. That was the only exchange of thought that took place. On another point, too, I think it is necessary for me to explain the position. The Leader of the Opposition yesterday warned the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) not to talk about the difficulties — he told him not to talk in the way he did about the troubles that might have arisen at that time. I want to say this, and I appeal to the Leader of the Opposition to say whether it is correct or not, that one of the things, one of the arguments adduced by the Leader of the Opposition after the 2nd and 3rd September when we were discussing this question of neutrality, or going into the war — I want to ask whether it was not one of his strongest, motives and arguments — was the difficulties which he anticipated might arise in the country if we should take part in the war I asked the hon. member whether it was not his view that if we should decide to take part in the war, the position in the country might become just as serious, if not even more serious, than in 1914.

Did you know anything about the rebellion which the hon. member for Kensington talks about?

To give an idea of the position and to show what we expected and feared, or at any rate what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his friends feared, I think I am entitled to say that he was under the impression that great difficulties might arise if our country should take part in the war. Now I feel that what I have said here about the communications made to the Public by the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters, should be sufficient. I will not say that he gave his approval of, but he refused to disapprove — his words amounted practically to an approval of the actions of the Governor-General—so I think what I have said is sufficient in regard to the question of the dissolution of Parliament. What remains therefore is practically an academic question. The hon. member said that if the Governor-General had acted honestly he, Gen. Hertzog, could not have found fault with the attitude he had adopted. This should suffice, but I should like to say a few words about the matter itself. As the issue has been raised here repeatedly, and as it was discussed by the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen), I should like to add a few words without going into too many details. It is self-evident, everybody agrees that in the ordinary course the Governor-General would accept the recommendation of the Prime Minister where the dissolution of Parliament is concerned. That in ordinary circumstances is the practice, but certain circumstances may arise, as admitted by the hon. member for Piquetberg….

Can you mention any examples from history?

As the hon. member for Piquetberg has admitted circumstances may arise where it is the duty of the Governor-General to maintain the Constitution and not to allow a dissolution, although the Prime Minister may have advised such dissolution.

Can you mention an instance?

Yes, there are numerous instances; they have been discussed here. The rule I would say is—I do not want to go into details because we cannot carry on a constitutional debate here now—the rule I would say is this, that the decision would depend on facts, on the circumstances of a special case. There may be circumstances in which the consent for the dissolution may be regarded by the Governor-General as highly undesirable, and practically as a neglect of his duty.

Will you mention the circumstances?

I now want to deal with the position which prevailed on the 4th September and I want to point out what the conditions were. The situation which prevailed on the 4th September was unique, such as had never prevailed in connection with any dissolution that I have heard of. Let us see what happened? Parliament met and Parliament decided that this country was, to take part in the war. The decision arrived at by Parliament created a condition of the greatest importance (of the most extreme seriousness). That we are all agreed on. What happened then? Not only was the decision arrived at by Parliament of the greatest importance to the country, but it was also a decision in respect of which the Prime Minister had suffered a defeat. He suffered a defeat here in the House of Parliament, but that was not all. He had the major part of his party against him, and not only that; he not only had its own party against him in the House of Parliament, but his own Government was hopelessly divided on the question. I say that when the hon. member on that occasion went to the Governor-General to advise him as Prime Minister—he was only Prime Minister in name then, he was the shadow of his authority; he had been defeated in Parliament, he had been defeated in his party, his Government had been hopelessly broken up, and he remained behind as a person with nothing behind him. I say that never in cases where a Prime Minister went along to suggest the dissolution of Parliament had there been such circumstances. I say that the then Prime Minister after the 4th September, after what had happened in his Government, and here in the House, was only in name Prime Minister, and he had no authority behind him. It was the duty of the Governor-General under those conditions to act very carefully in connection with this matter. If the Prime Minister had had a government behind him, the position might possibly have been different, but he not only had the House of Assembly against him, but his own Government was also divided. I can conceive some course of circumstances, and we may be able to see then what the true constitutional position was. Assuming the Prime Minister after these troubles in his Cabinet went to the Governor-General—I am now assuming a different situation which might possibly have arisen—assuming the Prime Minister after those difficulties in his Cabinet and after the break up of his Government, went to the Governor-General and said to the Governor-General: “My Government do not agree; I am unable to carry on and I resign in order to form a new Government.” We would then have had a condition of affairs such as we had on a previous occasion. The hon. member had had a similar position when he had some difficulty with my hon. friend here, the Minister of Labour. What would have happened then? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition would then have formed a new Government. He would have had a Government behind him, but on the 4th September he had no Government behind him. He would have had a Government behind him and he could have said to the Governor-General: “I have a Government at the back of me and I ask for the dissolution of Parliament.” In such a case it would….

Do you want to say that there was no Government?

The hon. the member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) is under the impression that there was nothing wrong with the Government on the 4th September.

No, but your contention is that there was no Government.

Practically speaking there was no Government. The Governor-General does not look at formalities; he had to see what the actual posisition was, and the actual position was that you had a so-called Prime Minister who had been defeated in Parliament, whose own party was against him, whose Government had been broken up, and he approached the Governor-General as Prime Minister. No, if the Prime Minister had formed his new Government and then asked for a dissolution we would have had a condition of affairs more or less similar to the one we had in the other instances, but on the 4th September that was not the position. To my mind, therefore, on the merits themselves, irrespective of the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition from September until the day before yesterday, on the merits themselves of a purely constitutional question, the attitude of the Governor-General was perfectly correct, and I say that in the peculiar circumstances we have no analogy for which we can turn to precedents from any books. Now, Mr. Chairman, I wish to proceed with the charges which the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) made here. He moved the deletion of the whole of my salary and he has adduced a number of reasons for such a deletion which I wish to deal with for a moment. The first reason was that I have no Mandate from the people, and he asserts that because I have no Mandate from the people I should proclaim a general election. I see no reason whatever for a general election being held. The hon. member mentioned the case of Canada and he told us that Canada held a general election during the time of war. But why? A general election was held in Canada because the charge was made against the Government by its own Party that it did not take sufficiently strong action in regard to the pursuance of the war; that the Government had acted too weakly in regard to its war measures. That was the position in Canada, and I do not believe that the hon. member will make the charge in this House that the Government had not acted drastically enough.

But we are not waging any war, we are doing nothing yet.

I hope the hon. member will assist me.

Why do you not do more than you are doing?

Is that what the hon. member is finding fault with me for?

If I held the convictions which you hold I should try to achieve something.

hon. members opposite will find that those expressions about our doing nothing will be held up against them, that they have challenged us here because we are not doing enough and because we are not acting drastically enough. It is not the practice to have a general election when war breaks out. In other countries none of the Governments have a special Mandate to pursue a war. I do not know how many Governments there are which are involved in the war, and in the past dozens of Governments carried on with a war without holding an election. When a war breaks out surely that is not the time for a general election, and I say that there is nothing in the situation of this country to-day compelling us—there is no reason why we should have a general election. The people support this Government; not only has the Government a majority in both Houses of Parliament supporting it and enabling it to carry on with the country’s work, but the elections which have taken place, and public opinion in the country, also indicate that the forces behind the Government are continually getting stronger and stronger.

What did Kuruman say?

Including Kuruman. Kuruman was one of the most hopeful signs to me in the recent election that was held there. I say that there is no reason whatsoever, so far as the situation outside is concerned, and so far as public opinion in the country is concerned, to comnel us to hold a general election. If we were to proclaim a general election I wonder what would happen to a number of hon. members opposite. Many of our hon. friends opposite are asking for a general election and they talk a lot about a general election, but they are praying all the time that no general election will be proclaimed. Even if it is only out of sympathy for my own friends opposite, many of whom are….

Dear to my heart.

Yes, and for their sake I am not anxious to have a general election. On the other side of the House to-day we see the lion and the lamb sleeping alongside each other. The hon. member for Piquetberg also adduced another reason—he said that I had grossly abused the powers entrusted to me. I feel that the very opposite is the case. I do not believe that there has ever been a government which in a time of war has ruled the country with such leniency, and which has gone to the extent that I have gone to meet those sections of the public which are not well disposed towards the Government. The evidence that the Government has treated the public generously and well is available from the fact that the fear which existed eight months ago that there might possibly be riots, and that there might be risings in the country, that troubles and various difficulties might be created, have practically disappeared with the result that the position in this country is totally different to-day. There is a condition of rest and peace in the country in respect of which even the hon. member for Gezina has not yet, had any reason to give a lead. No, I do not believe that we have abused the powers which we have taken. It was necessary to take certain steps for the sake of peace and quiet, and for counteracting malicious propaganda and things of that kind. Those regulations were made but in the application of those regulations I feel that we have acted very leniently and in cases where people to start with may possibly have gone too far, so that we had to intern them, more and more lenient measures were subsequently applied and we released people, not because they were not guilty but we let them out on parole and on other conditions.

What about the brothers Arndt?

They are entirely out of it. And that confirms exactly what I said. There we had a case of charges having been made against these people and it appeared….

That those charges were false.

It appeared that those charges were unfounded and they were immediately released. I feel that this is a fact which confirms my contention that we do everything in our power to treat people as well and as leniently as possible, and whenever a mistake has been made it has been rectified as soon as possible. The same thing happened in other cases too. Wherever we find it practicable to release internees and let them go out on parole, and to apply more lenient measures we do so.

None the less there are still some Union citizens in the internment camp.

The hon. member also referred to the question of the new form of attestation and the oath. I did not understand him to condemn what we have done, but he states that it has been done in an incompetent manner, that it has caused misapprehensions and has created ill-feelings and bad blood. If the hon. member were to go into the facts he would realise that those misapprehensions and those ill-feelings were not due to me, but due to his papers and the Press which support him. There is nothing being done by me or by the Government in connection with this war which is not immediately distorted and put in a wrong light so that the public outside and specially the young fellows in the Defence Force, are given a totally wrong impression. I have made statements in this House and outside, and I have had this new form published, to show people that everything is in perfect order and that there is no need for them to be afraid of anything. If, however, we read the newspapers of my hon. friend opposite and see how doubt is cast on everything day after day, then I must say that I have the greatest sympathy with our young men, who afterwards do not know where they stand. They read those papers and they are given a totally wrong impression, but the evil that has been done there was not done by me. It is not my incompetence or my malice which is doing the harm; it is being done by the friends of the hon. member opposite and his friends outside, who are opposing the Government as if they are enemy subjects in this country, and who are not prepared to co-operate to carry out the policy laid down by Parliament and by the Government. It is their fault and it is the fault of their Press that everything is being distorted in the most poisonous way. And now let me say a few words about what the hon. member calls the khaki knights. Those khaki knights are one of the reasons enumerated by the hon. members. We have had all this propaganda from Zeesen, which we felt it our duty to analyse and to contradict. Hon. members know as well as I do that for months and months before the war broke out a poisonous Nazi propaganda had been started in this country.

Does that justify the actions of your followers and of that new band?

I want to show what we have replied to, and what is the motive at the back of the attitude of those people whom my hon. friends apposite now style the khaki knights. A venomous propaganda had been started in this country, lies and distortions were being spread, and it appeared as though South Africa was on the way of becoming a Nazi country with a Nazi mentality. We know that in South-West Africa the position became so serious that the Government was compelled to take drastic action. Nor was the position in the Union very much better, and it was not only felt by the Government, after the change had come and the new Government was in power, that steps had to be taken, and serious steps at that, to put a stop to that propaganda, but also by the ordinary citizens of the country. The Government did its share to put a stop to that propaganda in this country by its martial law regulations. But outside, irrespective of the Government, the public came to the conclusion that it should also do its share by spreading the true information in order to stop the propaganda in that way, so that a better public opinion might be created in this country on that basis, and that is the object which this truth movement has in the Union. It was not the intention of this movement to do any espionage work, as the hon. member has said, or to spread slanders about citizens of the country.

That is what some of them have done.

There may perhaps have been very few exceptions, but I do not believe that anything of that kind has been going on in this country. The main object of this movement was to provide for a better public opinion and to counteract all these lies and all this destructive propaganda. That movement will continue.

Will you publish their names?

No, there are thousands of them. Will the hon. member provide me with a list of his storm-troops and of the Broederbond? Will he give me a list of the Ossewa-brandwag and will he give me a list of the Handhawers? It was the feeling of the well-intentioned section of the public that they should also da something towards building up a better public opinion in this country, and to purify public opinion in this country of all the lying propaganda and all this maliciousness which was going on. I think I have now dealt with all the points referred to by hon. members and all the reasons mentioned by the hon. member for the deletion of the whole of my salary, and I think I have completely destroyed the hon. member’s case.

The right hon. the Prime Minister of course entertained us here this afternoon in his usual way; very amusing, but he did not deal to any extent with the questions at issue. The manner in which he dealt with the debate was certainly, in the circumstances in which this country finds itself, not highly commendable, but we have to take him as he is. I only want to repeat what I said last night, because the Prime Minister does not seem to realise what it is all about. I said last night that the Prime Minister by acting as he did on the 4th September last year—that is to say by accepting the invitation of the Governor-General to form a Cabinet— did something which he should have known was to all intents and purposes nothing short of a breach of the constitutional position. I did not accuse him of it, because I do not take it for granted that he actually advised the Governor-General to act as he did, but this I can tell him, that immediately he heard that I, as Prime Minister, had recommended to the Governor-General that there should be a general election, and that Parliament should be dissolved, it was his duty to have supported that recommendation. I said this on the ground that that is the only constitutional rule which exists, a rule which had been followed for I do not know how long; I do not say how long that rule has prevailed, but it has been in existence so long that there is no other rule which can be accepted as its substitute, and that is what I told him. Now he comes here this afternoon and denies that that is the position, and he talks of certain conditions which prevailed at the time; I asked him to mention only one of those conditions and he mentioned one, to which I shall revert just now. In any case he should have submitted to this House the reasons which justified him on the 3rd, 4th and 5th September to act as he did. I maintain that it is a serious and gross breach of the constitutional position, and I say that if we have to carry on in this way, this country will find itself face to face with a condition of affairs which will cause great difficulties, difficulties which will result from the principle which has now been introduced. I went further and said: You must not come and say that you accepted the Governor-General’s invitation because you believed the Governor-General to be right. He did not have the right to do so, as I and others adopted the attitude that constitutionally it was not the right course. I said: “You have no right to accept when the Governor-General offers you something which is in conflict with the consitutional rule.” In this case you should at once have said: “No, there must be an election and there must be a dissolution of Parliament.” Now the Prime Minister mentioned one reason which I would like to deal with. He told us that there were peculiar circumstances which had never yet existed, namely that Parliament had decided, and as a result had caused the Prime Minister to be in the minority and as such had placed him in a position—to use his own words—that he was Prime Minister only in name. Now I should like to know from the Prime Minister how many similar cases there have been in the past where exactly the same rule had to be applied because the Prime Minister no longer had a majority. It is in those circumstances when a Prime Minister has come to the conclusion that he no longer has a majority behind him, that he advises a dissolution of Parliament.

When he has a minority in his own party and in the Government?

What has that to do with it?

Everything.

Imagine! I should like the Prime Minister to show us what the extraordinary position was. He now comes along with one excuse on top of another, but that exactly is the position when a Prime Minister, if placed in such a situation that he no longer has a majority behind him, recommends the dissolution of Parliament. Can anyone imagine a Prime Minister to have lost his majority unless his own party has left him in the lurch? Can a situation like that be imagined? The Prime Minister does not know what he is talking about. Every fresh excuse he makes is worse than the previous one. His excuse now is that Parliament took such a step that the Prime Minister was placed in the position of no longer having the majority of Parliament behind him, and he tells us that for that reason the Governor-General would not agree to his request for a general election. He says that I was Prime Minister in name only. But I wish to draw the Prime Minister’s attention to the fact that even if he is defeated here in Parliament, that does not mean that so far as the public are concerned he will not have a majority if a general election is held. The hon. the Prime Minister delved into the past and I shall also do so. What is the background of this whole question? Shortly before these events, we had a general election during which he no less than I and his followers in Parliament told the people what our war policy was going to be. This matter had repeatedly been referred to in this House. The policy laid down was that the Union would not be involved in a war unless the safety of the Union and its main interests were actually threatened. That was the policy which was accepted at the general election. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, the chief grievance of the hon. Leader of the Opposition appears to be that he was left in the lurch, for we are continuing this debate to-day on the internal affairs of the country with reference to external affairs, under the shadow of the very serious happenings of this morning. I want to suggest to the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) that it does not matter two hoots whether he was left in the lurch or not. What does matter is the future of South Africa. On the occasion of the 4th September last, I cast my vote for the amendment moved by the present Prime Minister, not because I am a Smuts man. I have never in all my public career been a Smuts man. I have often found occasion to criticise the Prime Minister in the manner in which I usually criticise Ministers in this House, but I was satisfied on that occasion that the Prime Minister was correct, and the happenings of to-day have proved to me that he was correct 100 per cent. To come into this House this afternoon and find the hon. member for Smithfield still pursuing his stupid, vague» constitutional obstructions, proves to me conclusively that when he was removed from the office of Prime Minister on the 4th September last, he was removed not a day too early. But what is the case? The hon. member for Smithfield says that the present Prime Minister should have supported him. Does the hon. member suggest that merely because he had been Prime Minister for 16 years, it was the duty of the present Prime Minister to follow him down the dark alleyway of any stupidity which might come into his mind? Does he suggest that the fate of South Africa is subservient to the personal ambition of the hon. member for Smithfield? Does he now tell us that because for 16 years he guided the destinies of this country, we should say that he should guide the destinies of this country for ever? Surely not. Surely all this constitutional obstruction is mere twaddle. The question of whether the Governor-General should have refused a dissolution, and as to whether when the Governor-General did not feel inclined to do so, the present Prime Minister should have discarded all his intelligent feeling for what was right and proper for the Union of South Africa, in favour of some kind of obscure personal loyalty to the hon. member for Smithfield—the argument is, I think, nonsensical and ridiculous. But, sir, where did the hon. member for Smithfield disagree with the present Prime Minister? He disagreed precisely on this point, as to whether Herr Hitler had embarked upon a policy of world domination, and the hon. member for Smithfield, in this House, did what I at the time termed and still feel, was audacity. He made out a case for Herr Hitler. I want to remind you, sir, that I did at that time emphasise that he was the only head of any democratic state in the whole world who was prepared to venture one single word for Herr Hitler. His whole constitutional case is not based on constitutional law at all. His whole constitutional case was based on the fact that the hon. member for Smithfield was right. He did say, and he said it rather feelingly, with tears in his voice, that he was referring to the rights of small nations. First of all, he told us what he had told the British Government. He has been telling the British Government quite a lot of things during the last few years. As the head of a democratic state it has always seemed to me that he has always been prepared to tell the British Government things that he was not prepared to tell his own House of Assembly, and if he had said less to the British Government and more to us, probably what occurred on the 4th September last would not have occurred. And he told the British Government all sorts of things—one found that Hitler had quietly increased his navy—apparently so much so that he had one hundred ships to invade Norway this morning. He told the British Government that one cannot describe that as an attempt at world domination. He said, “I told them that in my opinion it was an entirely mistaken deducation of Hitler’s aims.” He called him a plain ordinary man —I am surprised at him using that language; he should have called him the Fuehrer; and then he went on to say: “I said so because I have been through the same mill and I realise what his feelings were.” He realised what Hitler’s feelings were—what a wonderful best seller he could write. And then he went on to say this…. [Interruptions.] Please do not interrupt me because I have no feelings of hero worship for the hon. member for Smithfield. [Opposition interruptions.] Oh, yes, stupidity is stupidity.

And so is absence of breeding.

I am quite accustomed to that. I have the highest respect for the stupidity of some hon. members over there, and even the remarks of the hon. member for Gezina do not worry me. And then the hon. member for Smithfield goes on to say this: “I know what it is to be driven by humiliation and belittlement until you come to a point where everything is subordinated to the wiping out of that humiliation, and where you say, ‘I am no longer going to tolerate it, I would rather sacrifice my life than tolerate this condition. I know what it is to be driven by humiliation.’”

Yes, we know it here.

The hon. member for Smithfield says he knows it.

Yes, by you English.

Why did he refrain here from saying one word about the humiliation and the belittlement which occurred to Denmark and Norway this morning?

That was done because England laid the mines.

Rubbish! Why did he not rise in his place and tell us that the invasion of Denmark and Norway were one more bit of evidence of Hitler’s desire to dominate the world?

Did not England lay those mines?

Why did he not quote us the words of his German communique which read as follows—

Mark you, when there is proof positive of the number of the ships of these countries having been sunk without warning, when seamen have been allowed to drown ruthlessly in the sea after their ship had been torpedoed or riddled with bullets from aeroplanes—

Can you imagine the might of Denmark attacking Germany? Those are the States who are made to feel what humiliation is.

The German army, mind you, under its protection! And then follows what I consider the most priceless phrasing in any communique ever issued—

[Time limit.]

I was pointing out that the Prime Minister and others had promised the country — had promised the people in the country, during the elections and after the elections that they would not involve this country in a war unless the country’s safety and its interests were threatened. But it did not stop at that, it did not stop at that promise to the people. Oh, no! Not long after that the Prime Minister himself promised me, we agreed that this country would not take part in a war except if the country’s safety and interests were threatened. And not only he promised it, but half of the Cabinet sitting behind him now, made that promise together with him. And do you know, Mr. Chairman, matters were such that on the 4th September none of them so far as I knew had ever changed their policy; and in the meanwhile they left the people in the country under the impression, and they assured them both in this House and outside, that the country would not be involved in a war unless its safety and its interests were actually threatened. Suddenly on the 3rd September last not only I, but the people outside, had to learn that a breach of faith had been committed, that the Prime Minister of to-day and his colleagues behind him had acted disloyally in a manner such as has never been heard of in the history of South Africa. I say again that such a breach of faith had never before been committed. And it was in those circumstances that I said that what took place on the 4th September when this breach of faith was confirmed in this House, that the House was not competent and that the decision taken here could not be accepted as the voice of the people. This House, which in every possible way during the elections and after the elections, in this Chamber had given the people the assurance over and over again that we would only take part in a war if our freedom and our interests were affected — the very members who gave those assurances are the people who are to-day sitting behind the Prime Minister. The position being what it is, it does not give the Government, which to-day has the Prime Minister as its leader, any claim to say that when on the 4th September the House decided to take part in the war, that decision was in accordance with the wish of the people. I ask any reasonable man whether that is or was an unreasonable interpretation of the conduct of the Prime Minister and his followers. I approached the Governor-General with a full sense of what was right, and I said: “Parliament should be dissolved, and a general election should take place; after that let Parliament give a decision and we shall then see what the will of the people is”. To come after all this propaganda, like the Prime Minister has done to-day, and to say that the people outside support him, is not true. I deny that the people support him, the people did not support him at that stage, and they would not have supported him, and I doubt very much whether they would support him to-day. But if it is a fact that the people do support him, why then does he not dissolve Parliament? One thing is clear, however after the fraud perpetrated on the public, and it is that those members who committed this fraud are not entitled to say that they have the support of the public. And what is more, the Prime Minister tries to drag in the Governor-General. I tried from the very first day to keep the Governor-General out of it, and I did so in spite of the fact that I differed from him. I said that I felt none the less, and I repeat that it was his conviction, that that was the best course to pursue, and that he was fully convinced of that. Consequently the words which I used, or am supposed to have used in regard to the Governor-General, are true, but that does not do away with the fact that to my mind the Governor-General was wrong and it is still my view to-day that he was wrong. I am more than ever of opinion to-day that when I gave him that advice he should have accepted it, and it is for that very reason, in order to safeguard the rights of the people, that the Governor-General at any time when the Prime Minister advises him to do so, should dissolve Parliament. It has been prescribed and laid down as a rule, as a constitutional principle, that in such an event the Governor-General shall accept the advice of the Prime Minister. Consequently, it is a fact that the Prime Minister committed a serious error when he took that course, when on the 4th September he adopted that position and formed his Ministry as he did. On that occasion he violated one of the greatest principles along which a free nation can, and must be led. If that principle is neglected, the principle namely that the Head of the State shall not be prevented from giving the public the opportunity of expressing themselves through a new Parliament, when the old Parliament can no longer be trusted, then one violates one of the greatest guarantees of the people’s freedom. It is for that reason that I have risen here to-day. The Prime Minister indicated that my remarks were in the nature of an outburst, as he called it. No, I said and I say again that the question is one of such great importance to the freedom of the people of the Union — it is so important that that principle should be maintained, that I felt that I could not remain silent, and I assure the Prime Minister that he may carry on as he likes, but the time will come when he will be called to account.

Mr. Chairman, it does seem to me very remarkable that the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) when he was specifically challenged, in view of his bleeding-heart speech in favour of Germany on the 4th September, when he is specifically challenged, still does not feel that it is within his compass to mention in this House one word of sympathy with Denmark or Norway in respect of the tragedy which has occurred this morning. However, that does not surprise me, because I was satisfied when the hon. member made his speech on September 4th that his heart did not bleed as far as the German people were concerned, but what did disturb him was that at long last Germany was in a position not only to dominate the world, but to dominate the British Commonwealth of Nations as well. And when I think of the many apologies which the hon. member, when he was Prime Minister, gave to the German Reich, apologies on behalf of various newspapers in this country, and apologies on behalf of two organisations of which I myself was a member, and finally when he used Government influence to urge municipalities in this country to buy rotten German goods, then I realised just how much he was under the influence of the hon. and Germanic — I had almost said satanic — member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow). After all the hon. member for Smithfield is not, like myself, an irresponsible backbencher. He is a man who has guided the destinies of this nation for 16 years. He is now Leader of the Opposition, and one would expect him to take serious problems into consideration in a serious way. I think that is the point upon which we differentiate him from the present Prime Minister. The member for Smithfield is quite obviously bound by the geographical limits of the Union; he has that peculiar type of brain which does not appear to be able to go beyond that, and he is under the impression that whatever affects the Union of South Africa happens only in South Africa, whereas the present Prime Minister realises that the fate of South Africa is in many cases decided six or seven or eight or ten thousand miles beyond the boundaries of South Africa. It is because the present Prime Minister realised that, that he saw on September 4th of last year a distinct threat to South Africa’s freedom. Now, shall we leave the general question and let us try and meet the hon. member for Smithfield on his own ground. We know that it is very difficult to pin the Leader of the Opposition down to any specific argument. Since September 4th he has made numerous speeches, but he has not said one new thing since that occasion, although he has made literally dozens of speeches since then. Let us try and find what is the meaning of his argument. On the 12th September, 1939, General Kemp is reported to have made the statement that General Hertzog and his supporters would do everything in their power to get the Governor-Generalship abolished. The hon. member for Gezina spoke at Ermelo on September 21st, a fortnight later, and this is the report of what he said—

Now, apparently this is a case of putting down your money and taking your choice. Incidentally the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) appears to have been completely misinformed, because we have a further statement that no such statement was made to the Governor-General by General Hertzog, and it is said on the very highest authority that General Hertzog’s attitude towards His Excellency on that occasion was scrupulously fair and correct, as it has been on all other occasions. Apparently the member for Smithfield takes the perfectly fair and scrupulous attitude towards the Governor-General when he is interviewing the Governor-General, but leaves it to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad to adopt a perfectly unfair and unscrupulous attitude towards the Governor-General when he is talking to his supporters in the backveld. That is the way this Of/or Party is organised and how their propaganda is worked. The member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) or Piquetberg (Dr. Malan), as the case may be, adopted a perfectly fair and scrupulous attitude, the hon. member for Gezina is always telling us how constitutional they are, but the backbenchers are allowed to run all over the country saying what they like. In this respect I suppose I ought to apologise to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad for suggesting that he is a backbencher, but in his new party, although they have put him on a front bench as a possible future Cabinet Minister, he is very definitely a backbencher. These people are allowed to run all over the country and make any kind of irresponsible statement which is not subsequently contradicted by a leader. It seems clear to me that the hon. member for Smithfield last year was very sore because we did not have a general election, but I do not think any unbiased individual could deny that had a general election been forced on September 4th South Africa would have been landed in a state which would have virtually amounted to civil war. I am not afraid to use the phrase “civil war.” Whenever we mention it the Opposition are up in arms immediately and suggest that we are in favour of civil war, and yet we know perfectly well that all the innuendoes in favour of civil war come from these hon. gentlemen themselves, and the fear of a civil war if we had a general election last September rested entirely at the door of those hon. members whom I am satisfied had been for years preparing for it. The hon. the Prime Minister has talked about the propaganda which has gone on in this country for a number of years past. I am one of the individuals who have landed myself in any amount of severe criticism in this House because I started a campaign against Nazi propaganda in the Union, and I know too well just how far it had gone, and I know just how much German money was behind it in many instances. I know that German money subsidised the newspaper which was published at Paarl. [Time limit.]

I do not want to refer to what the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Burnside) has said, but at the very best all he gave us here was back yard talk. That is how I would describe it. When a number of those ultra Loyalists meet over a glass of poor liquor and sentiments are roused in a way unbecoming to good company, we get the sort of statements such as we have just heard from the hon. member. As one of the young members in this House, I want to say that I used to have the greatest respect for the Deputy-Leader of my party, the present Prime Minister; in spite of this I am going to vote for the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan), because I am deeply disappointed in the rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. I say so because I feel it my duty to state that in 1938 it was with the approval and the consent of the present Prime Minister that we seriously misled the people of this country. I have here a book which has been issued and composed on the instructions of the Central Head Committee of the United South African National Party. I wonder whether the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie), or the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) know this book.

I did not even need it.

Then I do not know how the hon. member conducted his election.

I can remember it.

The hon. member for Kimberley (District) remembers it; I should like to quote from this book what the policy of the United Party was. Under the heading of “Neutrality” I find this—

And then the book quotes the following—

Now I ask the Prime Minister why he allowed us to tell the people during those elections a thing which was not true? Why did not the Prime Minister tell us: “Look, if England declares war we shall also declare war”? I was on the same platform with the Prime Minister when he addressed a meeting at Zeerust during the election there and he stated there that if England should be attacked and was in danger of being defeated we would have to go and assist her. But not if England interferes in a war in Central Europe as France’s ally. He stated that we would have nothing to do with that kind of war, in which England interfered as the ally of France or of some other country. And now I ask whether all this loose talk which we have heard from members such as the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) destroys these definite facts that the United Party adopted the principle that we would not mix ourselves up in European wars. That was the heart and soul of the United Party’s policy. I could go further and quote from speeches made at the Congress but that would take up too much time. I can only say that those speeches all had the object of bringing our policy to the notice of the people. I want to nut a question, however, to members opposite, such as for instance to the hon. member for Kimberley (District). We have been told that the khaki knights are not a political organisation, but that the only object of that organisation is to counteract the poison spread by Zeesen.

Why do you call them khaki knights?

If the hon. member resents my calling them khaki knights I might call them the “khaki pest.” I want to ask whether this book which has been issued and which makes it clear that England is such a good customer of ours, because she buys our mealies, has been issued with the object of fighting Nazism? I want to ask whether these multi-coloured pages are here with the object of fighting Nazism?

They are there to prove that the “Century of Wrong” is untrue.

The object of this book is not so much to fight Nazism as to foster khaki-ism in this country. That is nearer to the mark. I only want to say that so far as the khaki knights are concerned I do not think they are worth any further notice. We may well leave them where they are. When the time comes the country will know how to settle with them. But now I have arrived at a point which I wish to deal with further, and I want to make it clear that the Prime Minister has departed from the policy which we, as old United Party members, have always followed.

That is not so.

If I had the time I would be able to argue with the hon. member, but I wish to use certain definite arguments and to give reasons why I am voting for a reduction of the Prime Minister’s salary. I am going to do so because the Prime Minister has misused the Defence Force of this country in order to turn it into a party political machine. We have been told that only those people who approve of the Government’s policy will be allowed to join our Defence Force for the defence of this country. Any officer who does not stand by the Government’s policy, and who in his heart is not in agreement with the Prime Minister, has not got the right to serve the country and to defend it. Freedom of conscience is no longer permitted. For that reason I consider that the Minister is turning the Defence Force into a party political machine, and that he has done so because espionage on a large scale is being practised against members of the Defence Force, but I want to go further and say that I propose voting for a reduction of the Prime Minister’s salary because the Prime Minister has gone even further than that; he expects Union citizens to take an oath entirely beyond the provisions of this country’s Defence Act. The Prime Minister has placed people in this position, that men who for years have followed their calling as officers in the Defence Force have had to resign with the loss of the whole of their pension rights, and without any hope of obtaining other positions, or of making a living unless they take the oath which is in conflict with their conscience. I say that that oath goes beyond the demands of the Defence Act when they joined up, and when they chose that profession as their future career. I regard this as a serious offence on the part of the Prime Minister, and we are pleased that the Prime Minister has come here and told us that he will keep the two separate. But before he did so it was necessary for the hon. member for Gezina to raise serious objections in this House, and all sorts of difficulties had to be raised before the Prime Minister to a certain extent ran away from the position which he had taken up.

What oath are you referring to?

hon. members over there have not perhaps even read their own papers. The hon. member does not even know that an oath had been prescribed and that only after serious objections were lodged by officers and members of the Force, and after we had protested, did the Prime Minister make the concession that officers would still be allowed to take the oath, but that it would not be an absolute necessity. On the 4th September we had a promise from the Prime Minister that he would not let any troops go overseas. In the last war too it was only volunteers who went, nobody was commandeered. The Prime Minister stated that such a thing would not happen again, and that no people were to be sent overseas. When a question was put to him recently the Prime Minister denied that members of the Marine Reserve had gone overseas to his knowledge. He said that he knew nothing about them, and that they had gone voluntarily without his consent. Two days later we found out that the Prime Minister had approved of their going overseas, but then he told us that they went under the 1912 Act and that he had practically had no say over them. In 1936, however, a new basis had been created. [Time limit.]

I want to ask the right hon. the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to make any communication to the House in regard to conditions which have developed in Europe in the last 24 hours. I am not putting this question with a view to obtaining a bit of information about European conditions, but we should like to know the extent to which South Africa was an accomplice in the policy which was pursued, and to what extent South Africa to-day is bound to that policy? If one reads what has been published in the Press it would appear that there is no doubt that Great Britain has, during the past week, violated Norway’s neutrality by laying mines in the territorial waters of Norway. South Africa is in this war on Great Britain’s side, and I should like to know to what extent our Government was consulted in regard to this action, because there is no doubt that South Africa will also be blamed for this violation of neutrality which has occurred. The violation of Norway’s neutrality was the direct cause of Germany having to act so that to-day she is perhaps also violating the neutrality of Denmark and Norway. Has the Prime Minister any information to give us? Is it true that England has violated Norway’s neutrality by the laying of mines? Surely that question can be replied to very clearly. We understand that Norway has protested, but I do not know whether that country (Norway) has taken all the steps that could be expected of it in the circumstances. There is no doubt that the violation of Norway’s neutrality has been the cause of the action taken by Germany, and South Africa is jointly responsible for this action. To what extent has South Africa been consulted in regard to the action taken by England which aimed at preventing the supply of raw materials to Germany? We are getting this information from English sources after it has been censored, and we can therefore take it that the case is not presented to us in the most unfavourable light so far as Great Britain is concerned. I moved yesterday that the amount set down on the Estimates for the information officer be deleted. I want to say again that in principle I am not opposed to there being such an official. That post was created a few years ago with a view to the Press and the public being kept properly informed of Government affairs, but my motion is a protest against the manner in which that position is being abused. There is no doubt that serious abuses are taking place, and that the information officer to all intents and purposes is nothing but a party political official who is continually making announcements in order to defend the policy of the Government, and to plead the Government’s policy before the public. This is being done in the most deplorable fashion. It is not only we on this side of the House who differ from the Prime Minister and his policy, who are disgusted with it, but I know that some of his own supporters, even people in Durban, are disgusted with the announcements of the information officer. It is nothing but an imitation, an “apeing” of what we get from Zeesen. If Zeesen says something this evening, no matter how ridiculous it may be, South Africa has to reply in exactly the same way the next day. The reports coming from Europe are coloured to a very large extent and are the purest propaganda, and if such reports come from Zeesen, let London defend Great Britain’s interest, and also broadcast to South Africa. I have no quarrel with that. Why should our broadcasting service be dragged into the thick of party struggles? We have always tried to avoid that sort of thing. Why should our broadcasting service be used for that purpose, and above all, why should it be done in such a ridiculous fashion? I do not know whether the Prime Minister ever listens to it. I do not listen to it any more, but when I did listen I considered it so ridiculous and so highly coloured that it entirely failed in its object. One does not achieve anything by highly coloured propaganda of this kind. Every one realises that it is nothing but propaganda.

Have you ever listened to Zeesen?

Yes, and I have also listened to London and other places, because when both sides lie one may be able to find the truth in between the two. I do not believe that Great Britain is absolutely truthful, any more than Zeesen is. I believe that both exaggerate things tremendously and hide things which we are anxious to know, but they hide these things in their own interest. We should not undermine our broadcasting service in this manner, and we should not destroy public confidence in ourselves. It is for that reason that I have made this proposal so as to register my protest.

Such very great and interesting and apparently heatgenerating questions have been raised upon it, constitutionally and otherwise, that one feels it would be almost heresy to say anything about the vote itself. Nevertheless I am venturing for three or four minutes to refer to actual figures here laid before us. I have a little bit of a grievance of my own. I am sorry, because I do not believe in this “rusie-maak” business at all. I have, however, a complaint of sorts, and I propose to ventilate it rather than suffer in silence. Though I do not like doing so,, because, like the jockey in the “Arcadians,” I “look on the bright side!” On page 8 of the Estimates there is a summary which I supposed to be a summary of the various items on pages 6 and 7. On adding them up I find that the totals do not tally at all in three or four instances. The items I have checked and find unreliable have to do with rent. I have a real interest in rent, because I have a very desirable residence in the most important city of the Union which I find it difficult to let altogether satisfactorily. For the benefit of the ignorant and unlearned I had better explain that that is, of course, Durban. There is since the war started a decided tendency for rents to rise, but my particular property is an exception to that rule. Such charges appear to have risen in foreign countries, for I see in these Estimates that the various premises occupied by our representatives overseas show a very big increase. My grumble at the summary is that whereas it shows there is an increase of £800 on rent paid, I find on detailed examination that there is an actual increase of £2,000. All, with the exception of Kenya and Japan, of the overseas states appear to be asking a great deal more for rent. At Geneva, and in Italy, the United States of America, Belgium, Sweden, Portugal and Canada the average increase is a matter of 50 per cent. This is a substantial and rather sudden rise, and it seems to me reasonable to enquire what is the cause of it. Canada is the most modest with an additional demand of 8 per cent., and Sweden the most exacting with 200 per cent. increase. The payments for office premises used in these various centres also show a considerable increase, the biggest jump being once more in Sweden, where the increase is roughly 1.000 per cent. I am sure it will be a relief to the Minister of External Affairs to have an easy question like this to answer, and I am interested to know whether these increases have occurred because we are using more accommodation owing to the war, which may easily be the case, or why these costs have gone up in the way they have done.

When I was addressing the Committee earlier on and I was stopped by the time limit, I was busy mentioning certain reasons, well-founded reasons, which make it impossible for me to do anything but vote for this reduction of the Prime Minister’s salary. I want to say that the Prime Minister in everything he has done since the formation of this Government, the legality of which we greatly doubt, has made very unfair personal attacks. The Prime Minister is a man who usually does not do that sort of thing, but at Bloemfontein he made remarks against his predecessor as Minister of Defence which ill became him. We have heard many allegations both in this House and outside from the Prime Minister. He stated that the five-year plan of the previous Minister of Defence had not been completely carried out. On a previous occasion he made such a statement in this House, and I want to point out that his predecessor thereupon immediately asked for a commission of enquiry to be appointed. The House and the country wondered who of those two had misled the people. The people have been waiting, and now they find to their surprise that the Prime Minister refuses to comply with that request. Surely it is customary when one makes accusations against a man to give him the opportunity to defend himself, so that the country may know the truth? I am forced to come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister has surrounded himself with a number of old, used-up officers from the Anglo-Boer War. He has suddenly received information which is supposed to show up the work of our young men in the Defence Force. This sort of thing is very serious, but I am under the impression that the Prime Minister allows himself to be led astray by people like Collyer and Mitchell-Baker, old officers, as Red as one can get them, or by people outside who want to show him how the country should be led. They are to have adequate supplies of leggings and trumpets, and as an hon. member here said, they are of the kind who aim, shoot and miss. I want to point out that if the charges made against the previous Minister of Defence were false the people are entitled to know it; the people are entitled to know whether the information in the possession of the present Minister of Defence is correct or whether it is distorted. Now I want to know what the real truth is. As the Prime Minister has refused to go into the matter and to appoint a commission to investigate this whole question I and the people in the country must take it that Gen. Collyer is engaged on blackening the predecessor of the Minister of Defence in order to, secure his own position and that of his people. That is the only conclusion we can come to. We were told of the state of unpreparedness in which the country was on the 4th September, and we have had an example given to us in regard to the position in Cape Town. We find that when the former Minister of Defence was in charge we were well defended here in Cape Town, but when the present Minister of Defence took charge he sent the Erebus back to England, as a result of which he not only endangered Cape Town but the whole country.

The Erebus had never left England.

The Erebus should have been here in September, but Cape Town has been undefended from September until the present day. The Minister of Defence has told us that it was unnecessary to have the Erebus here, but I want to know how he is going to defend Cape Town in view of the fact that the 9.2-inch guns on Signal Hill cannot be used, as we are told that if they are fired from, the houses in Cape Town will crack up. What would the Prime Minister have done if the enemy had attacked Cape Town? No, all he has concerned himself about is the interest of Great Britain. He has never considered South Africa’s interest, and he has completely neglected the question of the defence of Cape Town. The Prime Minister told us that if the Erebus were in Cape Town docks the docks would be destroyed if her batteries were fired from; he made that statement, not knowing that his predecessor had given instructions that the Erebus was to be moored at Robben Island, and was to fire from Robben Island, which would not affect Cape Town. Here we find a position of unpreparedness due, not to the Prime Minister’s predecessor, but to the Prime Minister himself. He has made a mess of the defence of Cape Town and he has endangered the people of this country, and, these facts are not only a justification for a reduction of his salary but also for a demand on our part for an explanation of his actions.

I do not propose to follow the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe) in his rather peculiar attempt to throw the onus for this German invasion of Norway and Denmark on Great Britain. That I think is a matter which public opinion itself will answer without any attempt on the part of the hon. member for Winburg. The hon. member referred to another matter. He complained of the Broadcasting Corporation of South Africa being utilised for certain types of propaganda.

Do you deny it?

There again I cannot understand the hon. member criticising the Broadcasting Corporation doing certain propaganda when one realises the difference between the freedom of broadcasting in South Africa and the restrictions in Germany.

What do you know about it?

We know that in South Africa licensed holders can listen in not only to South African broadcasts, but to broadcasts from any part of the world, whereas in Germany a decree was issued in September, 1939, prohibiting listeners from listening to any broadcast outside Germany on penalty right up to death. And we know that hundreds of cases have been tried in Germany where people have been sentenced to anything from one year’s to ten years’ imprisonment.

You must have been reading the funny cuts.

Here we can listen in to anything, and make propaganda by repeating what we hear if we want to.

And if we do we are interned.

hon. members who compare the freedom here with the freedom in the country which they so consistently support…

Do not talk nonsense.

I should advise the hon. member to confine himself to wool. He knows more about that.

You should confine yourself to Jerusalem.

I wish to touch on the general discussion which is taking place here, and again I submit that public opinion will find it very difficult to follow the obtuse constitutional meanderings of the Leader of the Opposition into what after all are plain facts. The plain facts are that prior to September last year the Leader of the Opposition went about the country and stated that when the time came for South Africa to take a decision then Parliament would be the body to take that decision. It would depend on Parliament to decide what attitude to adopt. When the time came Parliament took a decision in no uncertain manner, and that being so I cannot understand why the hon. member for Smithfield should now come along and say, “Because Parliament did what I said it would do I have a grievance.” Surely the Governor-General could not have done anything else than he did?

What do you know about it—talk on a subject which you understand.

The hon. member for Smithfield must admit that what the Governor-General did was correct, not only did he act constitutionally, but acted correctly as a reasonable man, because he knew that the Prime Minister had laid down the principle that Parliament was the body to decide and it was nonsensical and not reasonable to go along and say, “Now that Parliament has decided I want you to dissolve Parliament.” Assuming the decision of Parliament had been reversed, assuming there had been a small majority in favour of the resolution of the hon. member for Smithfield, would he still have advised the Governor-General to dissolve Parliament?

Of course he would.

He would not, but that is the issue. There are plenty of illustrations showing that the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition was wrong. We have the position in Great Britain during the Great War when there was a difference of opinion between Lord, then Mr., Asquith and Mr. Lloyd George. Mr. Asquith resigned a position as Prime Minister. He had not been defeated in Parliament or in his party, but in spite of that he did not suggest to the King that Parliament should be dissolved. On the contrary, he never asked the King to dissolve Parliament when Mr. Lloyd George formed the Ministry and he never suggested that Mr. Lloyd George was wrong.

Do you say that Mr. Asquith advised the dissolution of Parliament?

No, and he was in an even stronger position than the hon. member for Smithfield. He was not defeated, but he felt that there were certain differences and he resigned. He did not advise the King to dissolve.

If he had advised the King there would have been a dissolution.

Not at all. We cannot deal with it from that angle. The point I am making is that the Leader of the Opposition himself has admitted that the Governor-General acted correctly, and his grievance now is that having been defeated in Parliament and Parliament having acted according to the rights which the Leader of the Opposition had said that Parliament would have, in spite of that he advised the Governor-General to dissolve Parliament. And I put the question, supposing the position had been reversed and the ex-Prime Minister had had a majority of two or three, would he then have advised the Governor-General to dissolve Parliament?

He said he would.

Who said so?

The Prime Minister made it quite clear.

Oh, no. I give another illustration, when there was a difference between Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Bonar Law, the former was not defeated in Parliament nor in his caucus, but he realised there was a difference between them, and he resigned, and again there was no question of a dissolution of Parliament. Mr. Bonar Law became Prime Minister, and the reason for that is a simple one. Both in the case of Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Asquith, they were concerned with the Government of the country being carried on, but in South Africa obviously the Leader of the Opposition, instead of being concerned with consideration of policy and the carrying on of the Government nursed a grievance because, as the result of Parliament having done what he suggested it would do, he was put out of office and found himself in opposition.

I quite appreciate the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) always taking up the attitude that when we on this side of the House do not agree one hundred per cent. with hon. members opposite, they should accuse us of being proNazi. They are never able to realise the position that we on this side of the House are only pro-South African and pro-South African alone. We on this side of the House are Afrikaans, and we have no double loyalty, and we do not want to have a double loyalty. Hon. members over there have no conception of our attitude on these matters. We stand for South Africa, and if South Africa is in danger we shall be prepared to defend our country.

But your judgment is wrong.

That is the position which we made perfectly clear at the last general election, and we also made our position in regard to a European war perfectly clear. The hon. member stated that we had made it clear that Parliament was to decide, and Parliament only. That is one of those half truths which we get from the khaki knights. The statement was made by the former Prime Minister and by the former Minister of Defence, and by all of us, that Parliament would decide whether we were to go to war if South Africa’s position was in danger, and that decision was to be taken with the greatest possible unanimity. And now I ask the hon. member whether there was any great unanimity on the 4th September? Never before has there been such a difference of opinion in any country on a decision to take part in a war. The majority of the people were opposed to the war, and this House by a majority of thirteen decided to go to war. Would England have gone to war if the Government had not had 90 per cent. of the people behind it in favour of a declaration of war? In England the Government had been negotiating for months with the opposition before war broke out. But here they want us, as Afrikaners who had experience in the past of an English war, who had been wiped out (“uitgemoor”), to go along and become the henchmen (“agterryers”) of England, just the same as members opposite are. The Prime Minister told us how strong he was in the country, and he stated that there was no necessity to have an election so far as he was concerned because the people of the Union stood behind him. If it is a fact that the Prime Minister is so strong, why should we not have an election? His reply is that there is a war going on. Genl. Botha was not so cowardly as to refuse to have an election, he did not avail himself of the pretext that because of a war being waged he could not have an election. He had an election and he did not simply keep in power under martial law, as he could have done.

That was a different position. His time was up and he had to have a general election.

He could have remained on longer, but he did not do so. We have also had several instances where elections were held when a change of Government took place. The hon. member tried to mention a precedent of what happened in England during the war. Here in South Africa in the days of the old South African Party Government we had the position that Genl. Botha could have kept on under martial law, but he said he was not going to do so, and he decided during the war to ask the people for their confidence. We have another instance. In 1920 the present Prime Minister remained in power for only one year; he thereupon joined up with the old Unionists and immediately after that there was a general election. His time was not up, but he proclaimed a general election when he joined up with the other party.

That was not during a time of war.

The hon. member for Kensington finds it impossible to think of anything else but war, but he is not going to fight. If he is so “red”, why does he stay here, why does he not go and fight? I want to go further. In 1933 the Government also resigned when an agreement had been arrived at with another party. A general election was held immediately afterwards so as to get the view of the people. On this occasion, however, the Government has collected its supporters from right and left in order to enable it to remain in power. The Government got the native representatives on its side; it got the people from Russia, the labour members; it has the Unionists with it — and they are the people who control this Government. They would be unable to remain in power for one day without the support of the Unionists, who in days gone by used to be persecuted and belittled by the Prime Minister. To-day we are told that we had never promised the people that an election would take place if we went to war. The people knew that there would be an election in the event of war. I have here two statements, one by the Prime Minister and one by the Minister of Finance. One of them must have told an untruth, and I want to bring these statements to the notice of the House. This is what the Minister of Finance said—

He was so certain that we were anti-war. And then he went on—

It may be that the Minister of Public Works thought so, but the other members agreed that we were not at war when England was at war. But the Minister of Finance goes on—

That is what the Minister of Finance wrote. Did he tell a lie when he wrote it? I go further. In the Free State a question was put on this subject to the present Prime Minister, and at that public meeting he said this—

What did he do on the 4th September? Did he then say that there was only one man who could speak on behalf of the United Party? No, on that occasion he had no objection to the party being broken up from top to bottom. I should like to draw attention to the fact that the Prime Minister is under a misapprehension when he says that the Leader of the Opposition, together with me, attended a meeting of students. I was there alone, and I made the statement that the Governor-General should be abolished. And I did not say it only on that occasion, but five days after this resolution had been passed in Parliament I made that statement in my own constituency, as I was of opinion that a man’s common sense should tell him that when a nation was split in two on a question of peace or war, a general election should take place. I want to tell the Prime Minister what his own people told him. He has told us of his great strength in this country. I recently attended a large meeting at the place of his birth, and the people there asked me to convey this message to him—

That is the message which comes from the Prime Minister’s place of birth, and it is one of his own relations who sent this message. The Government is very strongly in favour of war to-day. I do not want to be unfair to them. The Minister of Public Works is strongly in favour of war, but he is over age. But I want to ask him how many of his sons have gone to the front; how many of the Prime Minister’s sons are at the front; how many of the sons of the Minister of Lands, and how many sons of the Minister of Agriculture are at the front? My children and other people’s children have to go and make war. Let them set the example to the people. Do not let them stay behind. Let the general manager of the khaki knights who is sitting on the other side of the House (Brig.-Gen. Botha) reply to us on this point. We have had enough of these khaki knights, but they are now beginning to realise that the Hand-hawersbond is now coming to the fore. I want to say that I am extending my fullest support to the Handhawersbond. We shall see that those khaki knights are given a knock-out blow—naturally we shall do so on a sound basis so that our children and those coming after us will learn to respect their own nation, and their own Afrikanerdom, and so that we shall not be trampled on by khaki knights and people like that. We are not going to achieve this by violent means. The hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha) in an interview the other day said that they would suppress the Handhawers, even by violent means. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, usually on this important vote one has an opportunity of putting before the House something associated more or less with the affairs of the country in a more direct way, and while I would be the last to divert attention from high politics, there is a matter which I want to bring before the Prime Minister, and that is with regard to an important portion of the trade of this country. It is now some two years since I introduced this previously. I mean the trade between South Africa and Kenya and the surrounding territories of Uganda and Tanganyika. Those of us who are watchful and anxious about South Africa’s development in trade have seen the announcement of a vacancy in the Office of Trade Commissioner. That might be alarming but it is not so, it is merely a change. There is an Acting Trade Commissioner now, and a Trade Commissioner will be appointed in the near future. I say that in order to allay the feeling of those who are anxious in regard to trade of this territory. In 1935 we came closely into touch with this trade which was then conducted very largely between Great Britain and Japan with South Africa just beginning to look on it as a potential market. In 1937 we find that Great Britain had completely disappeared as a supplier to any of these markets, and the trade had practically all gone to Japan with South African secondary industries making an effort to maintain the little hold they already had there. When the House sees the position we occupied in 1937 and the position that we occupy to-day and the possibilities of the future, I think the House, and I hope the Prime Minister will agree that some action which I will suggest later is desirable. It warrants the Government’s very early attention. Sir, these are the imports of goods that are actually manufactured in South Africa, either primary or secondary products. These, in the year 1937, totalled £1,007,000. I will give the details to the House in order to show that these are all goods that we could supply, that we are desirous of supplying, and indeed in our own secondary industries, so far as these particular things are concerned, I think the country deserves a good deal of credit. Kenya and the surrounding territories imported during that year these goods that South Africa could have supplied: cotton blankets to the value of £89,000; coal to the value of £77,700; hides and skins to the value of £51,672; cigarettes and cigars to the value of £168,687; boots and shoes to the value of £120,000 and iron and steel products to the value of £350,000. That is a total of £857,000 out of a total of £1,007,000. The point I want to emphasise first of all is this. These are all goods that are grown and manufactured in South Africa. The question will immediately be asked, why are we not maintaining our trade there, because we find that following 1937, in 1938, there was still a further drop? We supplied less than 10 per cent. of those particular articles. In 1939 there is an increase, but the increase is indeed small. It is comparatively small, and it is brought about by the curious situation of the world. It is not so large as what is taking place in other territories to which we are exporting goods. I had the privilege—I think I told this House before—during 1937 to visit these territories entirely on my own account. I took some little notice, and satisfied myself that our secondary industries, particularly where the goods were entirely suitable, were just what the territories wanted. It was not only a matter of boots and shoes, but blankets and many other things, but in reality as far as I can see, all the products of the secondary industries that we have, manufacturing goods that we are turning out, could take the place of those coming from Japan in every particular. On enquiry from some of the good traders there, I found that they prefer South African goods. At least there was no preference for Japanese goods. There was only one reason why South African goods were not purchased, and that was that South Africa could not compete. But South Africa was so very nearly being able to compete, that one thought it is a matter that some endeavour should be made, at any rate, to get over, in order to maintain the amount of trade, at least, that we had. It is interesting to note that since then we have, if anything, been going downwards except during 1939, when there was a slight increase. The position we occupy to-day is shown by an investigation that was made by a former Minister of Commerce, Mr. Fourie, who occupied the position then, and he made a departmental investigation. What did he find, sir? He found that the statements which I have made now to the House, and which I made then, were quite correct. He found that if we could plant our goods in those territories without the cost of transport, we could compete and capture the whole of the trade. That is, the whole of the trade in those particular articles I have enumerated. This is information which, I think, people who have the advance of our industries and the advance of our country at heart, should take notice of. If we can plant those goods in Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika without any cost of transport, the whole of this trade could and possibly would come to South Africa. That was shown by the investigation and that was the position. I should say in justice to the late Minister of Railways that he made some attempts with the Italian line trading round these shores, but nothing came of it, and that is the position which exists to-day. The position we know with regard to these territories is really the position of the Ottawa preferences. We have no treaty with these people. We have no trade agreement, and if we had that trade agreement, I know there are those who fear, if we had a trade agreement, in all probability we would be met by subsidies which would cause divisions and possible disagreement. [Time limit.]

The rt. hon. the Prime Minister told us here this afternoon that since the 4th September he had governed this country leniently, and those who listened to what he said must have been amused at his assertions. The people outside know what has been going on since the 4th September. The Prime Minister may tell us that he has dealt leniently with the country, but his statement is not in accordance with fact. Everybody knows that we have a worse reign of terrorism in South Africa to-day than we possibly had before in our history, and our people remain quiet and dare not open their mouths for fear of the tyranny which prevails, and the danger of their being sent to the camps. I only wish to mention a few facts and then I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he still wants to say, I would almost say whether he still has the temerity to say, that he is dealing with this country leniently. We have the worst dictatorship imaginable, and the first instance I wish to mention is in connection with the Radio service. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is in his seat. He knows on what pious grounds the radio service was created and taken over by the State. It was to have been kept outside the political arena. South Africa hardly entered the war before the Prime Minister came along with his iron hand and appropriated this radio service to the people, to use it for his own Party political purposes, and for the purposes of the war. That does not strike one as being the deed of a lenient government. The second instance I wish to mention is in connection with the Defence Force. Later on, on the Defence Vote, I shall deal with other matters—I am only just mentioning this. I do not believe that there was ever a time in South Africa, not even during the late war, when officers were asked in the presence of senior officers, whether they would be willing to shoot their own people. To-day espionage on a large scale is being indulged in in the Defence Force. A smelling out is being indulged in for the purpose of ascertaining whether officers are supporters of the Government’s policy or not. This espionage is unprecedented in the history of our country, including even the history of the last war. If one studies the history of the last war one does not find such methods having been adopted in regard to the officers of the Defence Force. We have a campaign of intimidation going on, and yet the hon. the Minister tells us that he is treating the country leniently. Another point is in regard to the ordinary members of the Defence Force. On a previous occasion we pointed out that the Minister of Labour is also responsible for people being forced to do certain things. Young men, if they are unable to earn anything, or if things are being made too hot for them, are forced to don khaki uniforms and as soon as they arrive at Roberts Heights in uniform the first question put to them is whether they support the Government’s war policy. I raise my hat to these few young men at Roberts Heights who said, “Even if I have to starve in the streets, even if I should be unable to get my work back, I would prefer to get along as best I can than make such a promise and put on a uniform to be used outside our country in respect of a war policy which I am not in favour of.” That sort of thing is a scandal.

A scandal?

Yes, the hon. member has no feeling for that sort of thing.

I know my duty.

To the Empire.

He is only waiting for his extra salary.

In the Public Service the Prime Minister went even further when he issued his scandalous circular of the 21st December of last, year, which will remain a blot on our history, and a disgrace to those who were responsible for it. It is a pamphlet which is a disgrace to the Public Service. It is evidence of the espionage system which is being applied to this Public Service. Almost every khaki knight in the country is a spy, and people in the Public Service and teachers are spied upon by khaki knights. I again want to draw attention to this particular circular so as to show up this scandal. I would be ashamed if I were responsible for a circular like this. I want to read it. Sir T. Truter is one of the best lieutenants of the United Party in this country—

So far it is fairly reasonable but then it goes on as follows—

The control officers are the spies and they are now given those high sounding names. The system is one of “smelling out” in the Public Service, such as we have never had before. People are put in the camps and afterwards they are released again, but by that time they have lost their employment and they have suffered heavy losses. All sorts of obstacles are put in their way on account of scandalous allegations made against them, and in the face of that the Prime Minister tells us that he is ruling this country leniently. This is a movement in this country which seeks out people and sends names to the Government. The Minister of Labour who is staring at me apparently does not want to believe me. Is he a stranger in Jerusalem? Go to the C.I.D. in Johannesburg or elsewhere, and if they dare speak they will confirm that most of the accusations emanate from the Jewish Board of Deputies.

Can you prove that?

The hon. member is such an Imperialist that even if I were to prove it he would not believe it. The Jewish Board of Deputies are so accustomed to work in the dark, they carry on in such an underground manner that only the detectives would be able to prove what I say. I cannot prove it here in this House, but if hon. memmers will speak to the detectives they will be able to confirm what I say. Private businesses are also being brought under this reign of terror. Private businesses are now being visited with a view to intimidating people; it is beyond my conception that the Prime Minister can say that he is ruling this country leniently, while he is allowing lists to be circulated in private businesses to make people say “yes” or “no”, and then one also gets officials going round with lists. It is a scandal. [Time limit.]

When one listens to the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) and when he tells this House that far from the Prime Minister having dealt with South Africa with a soft hand he has ruled us with a hand of iron, then I must say that words almost fail me to argue with one who holds such an exaggerated and distorted point of view. The hon. member says that we have been ruled with a hand of iron. I wonder how he compares the rule in South Africa with the present day rule in Germany.

What have we to, do with Germany?

Does he realise that if he and his colleagues were to make the speeches, which they make here, in Germany they would probably be executed?

Oh, stop talking nonsense.

Do hon. members realise that if the martial law regulations drafted by the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) had been carried out, every German would have been interned, and, as he told us himself, all the papers not supporting him would have been suppressed? Another thing is certain, that if this country had been ruled with an iron hand all political meetings, especially those held by opponents of the Government, would have been banned. These things have not happened, and the only things that have been done are things which were necessary in the interest of the state, and the regulations have been carried out in a manner to create the least inconvenience possible. Now I want to say a few words to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). The hon. member said that he objected to being referred to as a Nazi and that his party also objected to it. If there is anyone to blame for his being considered sympathetic to the Nazi cause, or his party being considered sympathetic to the Nazis, it is that party itself. One only has to follow the outpourings of the hon. member for Gezina, who has stumped the country from end to end and has preached the principles of National Socialism, to realise that he is definitely encouraging the people of this country to adopt Nazi methods. The hon. member has talked about storm-troops being formed and things like that. Surely hon. members have only themselves to blame for people thinking they are sympathetic to the Nazis. The hon. member said that if we on this side of the House were so confident that we could carry the country with us to-day the Prime Minister should have a general election. We are quite sure that hon. members over there do not want a general election; they would be very sorry if the Prime Minister accepted their invitation. The hon. member for Gezina himself has told us and the country that he wants to educate the people of South Africa first to his new National Socialist political system. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad drew an analogy between the present position of the Government and the position when Gen. Botha was Prime Minister of South Africa during the last war. Gen. Botha went to the country then, but he forgot to tell the House that Gen. Botha went to the country at the effluxion of time; he went to the country because Parliament had lasted its full period. So a general election had to be held, just as a general election will be held when this Parliament comes to the end of its full period. The by-elections we have had have shown clearly that there is no necessity to have a general election now. I just want to say a few words about the employment of an information officer by the Government. I think that is one of the finest steps the Government has taken to counteract the propaganda consistently indulged in by Zeesen night after night.

And also the propaganda indulged in by the Opposition.

Quite. I have made a particular point of listening to the remarks that come over the wireless from Zeesen and I can only describe them as contemptible, particularly the remarks applying to our leaders in South Africa. Some people in this country may accept those remarks as truthful and unless they are contradicted there is a danger of people accepting them as gospel. In the words of Goebbels himself: “If you repeat a lie sufficiently often it becomes a truth.” If we did not have replies to the lies spread by Zeesen there is a danger of people believing them.

Do you really expect the country to believe everything the information officer says?

You should be the last to talk about people believing anything that you say.

The reason why the Opposition objects so much is because the information officer without giving any political bias to his talks is counteracting all the pointless arguments which members opposite are putting out through our country.

You admit it now.

hon. members opposite base their arguments on what they hear from Zeesen. They base their propaganda on Zeesen, and therefore when the information officer replies to Zeesen he replies, accidentally, to the Opposition as well. I just want to say this to the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne). He said that Cape Town was undefended, that because the Erebus was not brought to South Africa therefore Cape Town was undefended. The best reply to that is that the Graf Spee passed close to Cape Town and made no effort whatever to attack Cape Town, and I would tell the hon. member for Delarey and those others who are anxious about Cape town that the Cape Town defences have never been better than they are at present.

That is because South Africa is not in danger. South Africa has not been attacked.

There is one other point raised by the hon. member for Moorreesburg. He objects to Government officials and officers in the Defence Force being asked to subscribe to the Government’s policy. The former Government adopted precisely the same method. We know that some officials carrying out the Farmers Relief Act and other Government duties were antagonistic to the Government, and created a feeling of disappointment in the minds of the Government by abusing their positions, and I remember the hon. member for Wolmaransstad making a speech in which he said that all things being equal he would appoint officials who carried out the policy of the Government.

Yes, and he sacked the sheep inspectors.

If steps were necessary in times of peace, how much more necessary are they when our country is at war. I am satisfied that the country and everyone in this House feels that the Prime Minister has been carrying out his duties since he took over last September in the best possible manner, and that he has earned the respect, the honour and the gratitude of every true South Africa.

The Prime Minister gave us a statement here of what took place from the 3rd to the 5th of September and he tried to explain his innocence in regard to the part he played. He assured us that he was never in touch with the Governor-General until after the Prime Minister of that time had resigned, and the Governor-General sent for him to form a Cabinet. That was on a Monday evening, and if I am wrong I hope the Minister will put me right. I take it that I correctly understood him, because he is not denying it. His strong point is that he never had any contact with the Governor-General until the Monday evening when he was asked to form a Cabinet. But now I want to point out that the Prime Minister of the time only resigned on the Tuesday; so according to his own statement the Prime Minister saw the Governor-General before the previous Prime Minister had resigned.

No, then it must have been on the 5th.

You said that it was on the Monday, and that the then Prime Minister resigned on the Monday.

No, it was after the Prime Minister had resigned.

Then the Prime Minister’s dates are wrong. I shall leave that point, and the Prime Minister will be able to put it right later.

You are mixed up.

No, the Prime Minister is mixed up.

The resolution was passed on a Monday, and the Prime Minister resigned on the Tuesday.

So that the Prime Minister must have seen the Governor-General before the previous Prime Minister had resigned.

No, it was definitely afterwards.

Very well, the Prime Minister made a great point of it, that the recommendation made by the Prime Minister was made after the split and that the then Prime Minister had lost his supporters so that he was there without supporters, and that after that he (the present Prime Minister) was invited to form a Cabinet. Now I want to point out that the Prime Minister prior to the last elections travelled throughout the country and emphasised that we had no concern with England’s wars. At Bloemhof and other places we put questions and we made the point that if England was at war, the Prime Minister would see to it that we were also at war, and we said that from our point of view he was a most dangerous man. The Prime Minister said that he had always adopted the attitude that if England was involved in a war South Africa must also be involved in that war, but after the Leader of the Opposition had secured our declaration of liberty in 1926 the whole position had changed. Let me tell the Prime Minister that the people were suspicious of his attitude, and those questions were put to him so as to find out exactly where he stood. He stated on that occasion that we would not take part in any war unless the League of Nations declared war. I notice that some of his supporters are shaking their heads. I can prove from their own papers that he did say it. He was also applauded by his own party when he said that we had no concern with England’s wars, but that if the League of Nations declared war we, together with the other nations, must take action against the aggressors. That would be a sort of punitive measure. The United Party obtained a great deal of support by that statement of the Prime Minister’s, and the party obtained votes from people which it would never have obtained if the present Prime Minister had not adopted the same attitude as the Leader of the Opposition. That statement of his contributed greatly towards getting members who are to-day sitting on the benches opposite returned to Parliament—members who on the 4th September voted in favour of South Africa going to war. And it is because of that that we are justified in saying to the Prime Minister that while he has the majority of this House behind him to-day he certainly has not got the majority of the country behind him. Assuming an individual after an election goes along and by promising people fat jobs and things of that kind succeeds in getting a whole lot of people together so that he is able to bring about the fall of the Government, would he then be able to go to the Governor-General and ask to be allowed to form a Government so that the public would have to wait until the next selections before having an opportunity of making themselves felt? That is what has happened here, not on the 4th September, but there have been weeks of preparation. I do not say that this took place with the knowledge of the Prime Minister, but some of his lieutenants were engaged in working up to the point where they would be able to jettison the former Prime Minister. They openly stated that they were trying to undermine the influence of the present Leader of the Opposition, who was then Prime Minister, that they were busy undermining his authority until the day would arrive when they would be able to put him out and place the present Prime Minister in power.

Are you not going to produce evidence of what you have just said?

I can prove that his own supporters, some of them who are now in the Cabinet, did not make a secret of it, that the day would come when they would put out the Leader of the Opposition.

Who is it?

The Minister of Justice made no secret of it, that he was working in order to create trouble in the party so that he might be able to put out the former Prime Minister. He did not say it to me alone, but also to a man like Dr. Van Rhyn.

Will you say that under oath?

If that hon. member who does not know his own language properly would talk a little more clearly I would be able to hear what he says. The Prime Minister made it clear why we were to have an information officer. He was mainly concerned about the broadcast service from Germany which, according to him, was creating Nazism in our country. Why should there be an information officer to counteract the distortions and lies broadcast from Germany? One of the things which the broadcast announcer in Germany is very fond of quoting to the public is the “Century of Wrong,” and we know that the Prime Minister will not deny that what is stated in the “Century of Wrong” is the truth. If that is so why then does he instruct the information officer to pay special attention to the accusations quoted from Germany out of the “Century of Wrong,” why has the informtion officer to contradict these things? He believes what is stated in that book. He is the author of it, and he will confirm the truth of what he says in the book. Why then have the statements of the Zeesen announcer denied? I put a question to the Prime Minister whether he will also take steps to instruct the information officer to deny what is being said in connection with the concentration camps of the Anglo-Boer War? [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, having shown the difference in the cost of transport of our Union industrial manufactures is somewhere in the vicinity of 8 per cent., I want to say that it is this difference which prevents our supplying those territories with our manufactured goods. That 8 per cent. I understood was the average applied to all the goods manufactured in South Africa, and no doubt the Prime Minister will find a report of that somewhere in official documents. So that we come to this position. We are able to manufacture the goods, to give satisfaction and we should be able to take a great deal of this trade and in course of time all of it, if this transport position can in some way be met. The Prime Minister will no doubt meet with many suggestions such as trade agreements and subsidies, and it is admitted that all present difficulties. I personally would approve of any way of meeting the situation. It is important that this country should not lose this trade and I would pay out a fairly moderate subsidy, if such subsidy brought about the necessary result in order to keep it. You have the opportunity now, perhaps there was never a more difficult time for exporters than the present, and South Africa has now a favourable opportunity. It is said that this is not an opportune time to put forward a proposal of this kind, but, sir, I maintain that any time is opportune to secure a trade which you may not be able to secure in the future. Up till the present our secondary industries have been catering for small populations, a small clientele, our population is not so great that anything approaching mass, or semi-mass production can ever be secured, but if these and other territories were secured for our industries there is a great future before us. Unless we take this opportunity now we may not be able to get a footing there after the war even if we were then prepared to make the small sacrifices which are demanded. These territories geographically belong to this country and there is no reason for any hesitation. If we are going to give subsidies it need not be for any length of time, probably a year or two, by which time in all probability we should have established a position in those territories, and once established those markets should never be lost. I will leave it with the Prime Minister, and I think the case deserves consideration and examination. I believe a way can be found to overcome difficulties and to secure this market will be one of the greatest services we can render our industrialists to whom the country owes a great deal for the splendid position they have established our secondary industries in to-day.

I am not a bit surprised when I notice the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) acting here as the advocate of British Imperialism. But what does surprise me is that the hon. member is still here and that he has not yet joined up with England. We understand that hon. member. He is an out and out Englishman. He is a typical Rooinek. For that reason I fail to understand why he is still here and has not yet gone overseas. But if the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) were to do so it would be unnatural, inexplicable, unpsychological, unAfrikaans, and it would be a crime, it would be cruel, it would be malicious if he were to take up the cudgles against his own people and belaud British Imperialism. I say it is inexplicable and I cannot understand it. I can only describe it as something very much out of the common, as a crime, as a betrayal of South Africa. But when the right hon. the Prime Minister acts here as the advocate of British Imperialism, well I am accustomed to it; he has never yet been anything else, nor can he in fact be anything else, because he has become the symbol of British Imperialism in this country. That is his being, that is his outlook, it is his soul. I cannot say anything else. That is how we know him, that is how he has lived and that is how he will die. The right hon. the Prime Minister is no longer a young man, but none the less he looks 20 years older than he is; when, however, he rouses himself, and when his soul takes fire for the sake of British Imperialism he is young, he is youthful, he ffourishes like a flower on a grave, but in his heart everything is dead—a gruesome death for South Africa. We deplore it, and we shall continue to deplore it until a definite turn sets in in this miserable condition of affairs. In regard to the League of Nations I want to say that I consider the League of Nations has outlived its usefulness. It was created solely and simply as a clever web for British Imperialism, and nothing else. The only country which benefited from it was Great Britain, and Great Britain understood the art of catching people in that spider’s web, of destroying people and exploiting them. For that reason I consider that this expenditure of £30,000 in respect of the League of Nations cannot be justified. The League of Nations in the past protested strongly against the violation of the neutrality of small nations. It stepped in to protect small nations on behalf of England. But what is England doing to-day; what is Great Britain doing at this moment? Small nations are attacked; Norway and Sweden, peaceful small nations which have interfered with nobody, are being threatened by British Imperialism. Great Britain prides herself on being the champion of small nations on behalf of civilisation, democracy, religion and freedom. Is this freedom and protection of small nations? Is what we are seeing now the protection of small nations, when those small nations are being walled up and smothered by mines? That is the acme of hypocrisy. I am pleased that the world is beholding Great Britain to-day in her true colours, because under the cover of knightliness and under the guise of the protector of small nations Great Britain has succeeded in applying its cruel methods to the Republics, and to India, where the Indians are being killed off by steam-rollers in the streets to strike terror in the hearts of others. This hypocrisy has now been shown up. This action of the violation of the neutrality of Norway and Sweden shows Great Britain up in her true light. I am sorry to have to say this, I am sorry that I am constrained to say it, but Great Britain has shown herself to the world as the world’s Imperialistic road hog, and I fear that many hon. members opposite — there are exceptions among them, there are members over there whom I respect — but many of the hon. members over there, including the hon. member for Kensington, are nothing but Imperialistic road hogs in this country. The right hon. the Prime Minister appears to be amused at this expression. I would have thought he would regret it and blush at it. If we look at his history we find that he used to be, and he is, and he will in davs to come be known as the British Imperialistic road hog of this country.

Is it parliamentary to call an hon. member a road hog?

I did not understand the hon. member to apply that term to hon. members, but if he did use it then I want to say he may not apply it to hon. members.

The hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) this afternoon completely exhausted his vocabulary in contradicting his own leader, the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog). The hon. member has used every possible word at his disposal in order to condemn England, and in doing so he has contradicted what his own leader said to-day. Has the hon. member for Namaqualand forgotten that the hon. member for Smithfield has stated that England is our greatest benefactor and is South Africa’s greatest friend? Has the hon. member forgotten that the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) has stated that England is the mother of our freedom? If the hon. member has forgotten it I want to remind him of it. It certainly does not become him to contradict his leader like that. Because his leader regards England as the greatest benefactor and friend of South Africa, and the other leader of his party has described England as the mother of our freedom, so it is not becoming of their followers to come here and exhaust their vocabulary in order to condemn England and to besmirch England in the eyes of the world. The hon. member referred to the most recent war events, but is it not a fact that England intervened there and stated that she was going to protect the small countries invaded by Germany? The facts are the very opposite to what the hon. member pretends. The hon. member is not the youngest member in this House, and I am afraid that he overloads his sentences to such an extent with drastic expressions that he may deeply rue it later on. He overloads his sentences with expressions such as do not become any decent member of this House. I should like to revert to the discussion which we had this afternoon when the Leader of the Opposition spoke of a breach of faith on the part of the Prime Minister. The Leader of the Opposition and all other hon. members opposite still owe us a reply to, the question, a question which we have put for the hundredth time, how they can accuse the Prime Minister of breach of faith while, when the hon. member for Smithfield was still Prime Minister, the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe) and Piquetberg and others had challenged him repeatedly to tell them what his policy was to which the hon. member for Smithfield invariably replied that he had no war policy. To-day the Leader of the Opposition comes along and states that it is on that very point of neutrality that the general election of 1938 was fought. That definitely is something new. I thought that that was one of the cardinal points on which he differed from the hon. member for Piquetberg, and all the propaganda against the United Party in that election was that the United Party was not prepared to accept a policy of neutrality. That was the main point of difference during the election. Apart from three points which the Opposition had, namely “Die Stem van Suid-Afrika,” “God Save the King” and “Turning Wheels,” they had only one fourth point, namely the policy of neutrality. That was the main point of difference in the election between them and the then government party. To-day the hon. the former Prime Minister comes along and says that he was perfectly clear on that point. Why then did he not give his reply to the hon. member for Piquetberg? Why did the then opposition always say that the government party of those days had no policy in regard to war? Now he comes along with the story of what I call “the secret policy” and he accuses the Prime Minister of breach of faith. I hope the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will now stop those accusations of his, because “he should not look into a looking-glass and imagine he will find the Prime Minister there.” The hon. the Leader of the Opposition now tells us that Parliament had no right to take a resolution in regard to the war. I ask if this House, which is composed of the representatives of the whole country, have not got the right, then what right did the hon. member for Smithfield in his capacity as Prime Minister have to get the Cabinet to decide on such a matter? He did not even call his caucus together. He ignored Parliament, and to-day he again says that Parliament had no right to decide on the matter. Why did the hon. member tell us ad nauseum in this House that Parliament would decide? Parliament did decide, and now he says that Parliament did not have the right to decide.

It has the right.

But your leader says the very opposite. The hon. member for Piquetberg, who was the Leader of the Opposition at the time, consistently urged that the then Prime Minister should state his policy. He stated that the country knew exactly where the then Minister of Justice, the present Prime Minister, stood in regard to this matter, but so far as the Prime Minister was concerned — that is the present Leader of the Opposition — the country did not know where he stood and it wanted to know where he stood.

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

Because the Opposition is a failure, they are now grasping at any little straw which might save them. They are not prepared to meet us with arguments, they are not prepared to reply on the question of policy, because they are powerless. We find in that way that the Opposition is surly, moody, angry, intolerant, inclined to run away, unreasonable, without any principles and selfdestructive in their actions. Now they are having recourse to abuse, as we heard again this afternoon from the lips of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan). He knows, of course, he need not convince us that he was prominent as a member of Parliament in calling the Prime Minister, or other hon. members, names. We now hear the story of the khaki knights, because we are no longer afraid of terms of abuse like negrophilists, communists, imperialists and jingoes, and now they have established a kind of military Nazi organisation, which they are following, and they now call us khaki knights. I want to tell the hon. member for Piquetberg this, I would rather be a khaki knight in name than a Nazi knight in deed. We so often hear hon. members opposite using abusive terms against this side of the House, and one would think that if they are prepared to apply such names to us, that they would not whine when you reply to them, when you call them by their right names. One would have expected that they would not whine in this way when you boldly call them any abusive name, and then surely they should expect to receive the same thing back. I do not mind them calling me names like that, but they must expect to get the same thing back. A sportsman does not whine when he is attacked by the other side. I say the Opposition have, up to the present, given us an extremely pitiful exhibition. They no longer ask what is necessary in the interests of the safety of South Africa, no, hon. members on the opposite side no longer enquire what the safest thing for South Africa is, they only ask themselves what can be done against certain persons. I am quite prepared to range myself on the side of a person, as I am now doing on the side of the Prime Minister, provided that person is following a line which I regard as a safe one for South Africa. [Time limit.]

I would very much like to support the motion of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) about the deletion of the salary of the Prime Minister. I do so for various reasons, the chief of which I want to mention. The first that I want to deal with has been rather fully dealt with by the Leader of the Opposition. It is this, as to what the real policy was of the United Party, of which the present Prime Minister was a very prominent member, the deputy-leader. It was, that when the interests of South Africa were not concerned in the matter, we would not take part in any European war. That declaration was very clear, and it was also the view of the present Prime Minister at that time. During the elections they announced it from the various platforms, and moreover there was a clear agreement in the Cabinet, in the previous Government, that we were not going to take part in any European war unless our interests were involved in the matter. The second point which in my opinion is very important, is that on the 4th September we asked for a declaration of neutrality, and when the Prime Minister was in the minority, the Governor-General sent for the present Prime Minister and offered him the duty of forming a government. He accepted that offer, and in my opinion it was very wrong of him that, when the Governor-General gave him the opportunity of forming a government, he accepted that offer, knowing what the promises were that had been made by him, and knowing what the mandate by the electors was, namely, that we should keep out of those European wars. Then he accepted the offer to form a government, and I do not think that he had any right to accept that offer. Then the third point is in connection with the promise which the Prime Minister made on the 4th September, that he would not send troops overseas. Now he comes and says that the troops which may be sent to Egypt and those areas, are not being sent overseas. I will not allow myself to be told that. It is much worse than sending our troops to Flanders. I can imagine what will happen there. One of the allies of the Allies will probably be Turkey, and we shall have Arabs there, and the result will be that our troops will have to occupy the same trenches as the Arabs. And then it is said that it is for the defence of Christianity, and there they will be co-operating with a lot of anti-Christian people. No, I cannot approve of it. The other objection that I have is the large amount of money which is being spent to prosecute the war in Europe. We in little South Africa have already at the beginning of the war to spend the colossal sum of £14,000,000, and when we get to the end of the year I prophesy that it will be £20,000,000. When we think of what we could do with that large sum of money, then we can see what this war is costing us. We are a young country, and we must have development in our country, instead of using this money to take part in the troubles of another country. Take our irrigation works, and look at the advantage we have already had from the money that we have spent on them. We want to give the present Prime Minister credit for it, because those irrigation works are, to a great extent, due to him. But what has already been done is only just a drop in the bucket. So much more could be done, and if those large amounts were used for development of our own country, how much more use could we not get out of it for the Union of South Africa? There is another point that I would like to mention here, and that is the system or way in which our citizens are being interned. It is said that those who were innocent have been released. But when a person has once been interned there, then the tendency amongst people is to regard him with suspicion, especially my hon. friends opposite. Suppose that a person out of that camp came to one of them. He was presumed to have been concerned in Nazi propaganda, and how would he be received if he went to one of the hon. members opposite? It is no more than right that when an innocent person is put into the camp and he is released on account of his innocence, that the Government should make an apology to him, and should make it clear that he is entirely innocent of the things of which he was accused. They ought to say to him that they are very sorry for what they have done to him, and that he is now completely exonerated. But now it happens this way, the prison door is opened for the man, and he has to go out without any compensation. That is the greatest injustice which could be done to those people. Another serious matter in our country is in connection with those khaki knights, who have already been referred to by other hon. members.

You also wore khaki once.

But there is a great difference between wearing khaki to defend your country, and acting as a khaki knight to go and do dirty work in the dark. I fought like a man when I wore khaki. When I wore it I wore it to fight for high ideals which were held up to me, and I fought for the liberty of small nations and things of that kind. But what dirty work is being done by those khaki knights? I am not surprised that their names cannot be publicly named. Then they are even compared with the “Handhawers” (vindicators). There is a great difference between the “Handhawers” and the khaki knights. I should e.g. be proud of being a “Handhawer,” but the names of the khaki knights cannot be given owing to their dirty work; they slink about in the dark and they do the dirtiest work which can be done in the country. We dare not compare the “Handhawers” with the khaki knights. Then I also want to refer to the way in which the broadcasting service is being used. I will not enlarge on it, because the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe) has already referred to it, and I do not want to repeat what he said. Another reason why I am going to vote for the deletion of the salary of the Prime Minister, is that the Prime Minister is now going much further than what he intended on the 4th September. I may say that the people are becoming aware of this, and I daily receive letters from persons who on the 4th September were inclined to follow the Prime Minister. They say that the Prime Minister is now going too far. They said that as long as the Prime Minister kept the promise of not sending troops outside of South Africa they stood by him. Those people now see that the Prime Minister has broken his promise, and they have the courage to say that they are not going to support him any longer. [Time limit.]

We have this afternoon got a brand new definition of war propaganda from the Prime Minister. He said here this afternoon that war propaganda was the building up of sound public opinion. Well, that naïve and childish confidence of the Prime Minister is really touching, but we know that the Prime Minister is not naïve, and he is not childish either. He has had far too much experience for that; he has taken far too much part in wars in the past. He knows what goes on; he knows well enough that in time of war it is the general practice on the part of all countries to broadcast false and incorrect information. The Prime Minister tried to create the impression this afternoon that the information that we were getting from Germany was false information, and that the information that we got from our own information office was the pure and unadulterated truth. But the Prime Minister knows that that is not so; he knows that in time of war you do not get such a thing as truth from the belligerents, and just as you do not get the truth from Zeesen, so I say that you just as little get the truth from Daventry and from our own information office in South Africa. The Prime Minister has himself in the past taken up that attitude. I have here before me a letter or a report which the Prime Minister wrote in 1902.

So long ago?

It is a letter which he wrote from Van Rhynsdorp when he was still a Boer general.

Had you already been born then?

Yes, I had already been born, and it makes no difference that it was written long ago. The truth remains the same. It was a report that he sent to President Kruger, and he wrote the following in connection with the matter—

Is it „De Eeuw van Onrecht”?

No, it is not from that. It is a letter which the present Prime Minister sent to President Kruger. If the hon. member had listened to what I said here then he would have known that. However, it is not only the Prime Minister who holds that opinion. I have a book before me here which I strongly recommend the Prime Minister and hon. members opposite to read. It is a book by Ponsonby entitled “Falsehood in Wartime.” He was formerly a member of the House of Commons, and now he is a member of the House of Lords. He played an important part in public life, and he was for a time Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. In this book there is a revelation of all the misrepresentations and lying propaganda which were put into circulation in England during the last war. The book was written in 1928, and out of the 30 chapters in it 29 are devoted to lying propaganda, which was broadcast in England during that war. And he, therefore, makes certain general remarks in his book, we can assume that it is specially directed against the lying propaganda which is carried on in England. On page 13 he writes—

He goes further and says quite a lot of things that are also applicable to the present war—

Then he goes further and points out that those stories, stories which we have now also heard in this war as to why England went to war, were false. We heard the story in 1914 that England went into the war because the neutrality of Belgium had been violated (in this war however England has violated the neutrality of Norway). But he points out that England did not go to war for that reason in 1914—

He then goes on to prove that that was not the reason why England went into the war, and he adds….

Who is it that writes that?

I have already said that it was Ponsonby. He is a man who had experience of public life in England, and who occupied three ministerial posts. He speaks about the so-called “war aims” of England, and it is remarkable that the same cry is being heard again now that served as a war cry in 1914. That proves now untrue and how unreliable that cry was, and he says, inter alia—

Then he mentions all the war cries that there were—

And then he goes on to prove that they were all hollow cries. Well, I can quite understand that my hon. friends opposite feel bad that a British statesman should expose these things so clearly, and prove it in that way, because it is not only his opinion. He quotes speeches to prove that the propaganda which was broadcast during the war of 1914—18 was all false propaganda. The world has not changed. To-day we find precisely the same thing going on. False propaganda is being broadcast from Zeesen, and precisely the same sort of false propaganda is being broadcast from Daventry. This afternoon the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) spoke here about the development that had taken place in Europe. He spoke feelingly about what had happened there, and he quoted from the special edition of the Cape Times. One thing, however, he did not quote. He surely must have seen it, but he did not quote it. The article was written before the events took place, namely, yesterday after England had decided to violate the neutrality of Norway. This report reads—

That was written before Germany acted, and by it the correspondent admits that what was done by Great Britain in this case would probably lead to an extension of the war to the Scandinavian countries. But now we will presumably hear from these “builders up of public opinion in South Africa” that no violation of the neutrality of these countries has been committed by England. I have already on a previous occasion said that what we blame so much on the part of the belligerents in England and in South Africa, is that the war is being based on a hypocritical basis, and that they do not expressly come out with what they are fighting for. If our hon. friends opposite and their press will clearly tell us that they are fighting in order to uphold England’s position in Europe, and for that old policy of the balance of power which England has always striven for, and for the restoration of the prestige of England, then we would, although we do not agree with them in regard to our participation in the war, have the respect for them, which we cannot now feel for their aim. But to-day the whole war is being carried on on the basis of hypocrisy. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) said that hon. members on this side of the House had learnt a lesson. I can tell the hon. member that we have learned that a person can go overseas and come back as an Afrikaner. I want to tell the hon. member that it is possible for an Afrikaner to go overseas, and to come back as an Afrikaner. The pity is that the hon. member for Kimberley (District) went overseas and came back not as an Afrikaner but as a champion and bywoner of John Bull.

I have already heard that I am called “Lord Whytecliff of Dover.”

I have now given the other title to the hon. member, and I think that he may as well be satisfied. I want to revert to something which the Prime Minister said this afternoon. He said that one of the reasons why he did not want to have an election was because he loved the hon. members who were sitting here, and he did not want to lose them. He said that some of us would not come back. Now I want to ask the Prime Minister to give a tangible proof of the love which he says he has for us, and to grant us the election because then he will really be showing love for us. We feel that it is absolutely necessary for the sake of the people of South Africa that we should sit on the other side. If the Prime Minister says that there are some of us who will not come back here after a general election, then I want to ask him if he can indicate one person here who will not come back.

You will find it difficult.

The hon. member for Kimberley (District) is certainly one of those who will not come back. I think that his constituency has too much sense to send him back. I say quite definitely that when I look around I can indicate to the Prime Minister six persons on his side, who certanly will never come back if we had a general election at this stage. That is absolutely certain, but my thoughts go back to the time when the two great parties came together and the United Party was formed. My thoughts go back to a big meeting which the Prime Minister addressed at Koster in my constituency. There were about 800 to 1,000 persons present, and what was so striking was that when the Prime Minister addressed the meeting under the willow tree there, he told the people that he and the Leader of the Opposition (Gen. Hertzog) had quarrelled for 20 years and that they had now found out that the differences were only about trifles, and that it was unnecessary to differ all the time. He further said: “If you want to go on quarrelling, you can quarrel and go on with it, but so far as the Leader of the Opposition and I are concerned, we have taken each other’s hands and are not going to separate again.” I understand that the Prime Minister is a botanist, and I want to tell him that the same weeping willow under which he addressed the meeting, dried up and died two years later. Inasmuch as the Prime Minister is a botanist, I want to ask him whether the tree has a better instinct than a human being. I never thought that the occurrences which took place later, on the 4th September, could take place; but the tree actually realised it, and the tree dried up and disappeared, and it is no more. The time that we co-operated was a pleasant one. It always made me think of a married couple. The two rejoiced and were happy because it was their honeymoon. Then we were kicked out, those of us who sit here. Thank God! We are now forming a strong national party. You can go through the length and breadth of the country, and you will find in the high schools, the lower schools and in the universities, that the national feeling is strong everywhere. You cannot stop it. It is in the hearts of all the young Afrikaners, and, therefore, I ask the Prime Minister to let us have an election, because it will mean the salvation of the people, inasmuch as we shall then be sitting on the other side of the House. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) moved the deletion of the salary of the Prime Minister. I think that he did not go far enough. I think he should have made it act retrospectively, and not only that but that a fine should also have been added. We have a precedent for that. The Prime Minister will remember that we had the “reformers” in Johannesburg in 1899.

The hon. member is now wandering very far.

I want to show what should happen to people who do not work in the interests of South Africa, but in the interests of England. It was found that the “reformers” were certainly not working in the interests of the old Transvaal Republic, and consequently they were fined £20,000 each. Well, I feel, and doubtless thousands of people feel with me,….

The hon. member can vote against the passing of the salary.

I just want to point out why the money should not be voted. I feel that the Prime Minister is not working in the interests of South Africa, and for that reason I agree with the amendment of the hon. member for Piquetberg. It is only necessary for us to think of what has happened during the past eight months. Everywhere we go we find that persons are being victimised. If they do not contribute to some fund or another to carry on the war, then they lose their work, then they are victimised. There is, for instance, the Mayors’ Fund, which certainly does not meet with our approval. It goes under the name of voluntary contributions which are collected, but those of us who know how things are done, realise that they are not voluntary. People who have work are being victimised. Even on the mines a certain part of their wages is deducted every month.

Not on the mines, that is untrue.

I have it from one of the miners himself. The hon. member is possibly speaking about his neighbourhood, but he is also one of the knights of truth, and the people will not tell him, because they know who he is.

Die Transvaler says so.

If Die Transvaler were to say anything about the hon. member, then they would say that he should get up if he has anything to say, and that he should not make so many interjections. The hon. member is one of the fortunate persons in the House. I think even the Scriptures mention him. It says there: “Let the little children come to me.” [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) rose this afternoon and attributed ignoble motives to us in connection with the arguments we were using. The hon. member said that there were hon. members seated on this side who at one time wore khaki. The hon. member possibly was referring to 1914. Now I want to ask the hon. member whether he also did not wear khaki at one time.

Often, in the Boer War as well.

Was he not once in khaki and prepared to go and shoot rebels? Was he not ready to shoot his own people? Here I have a photograph where the hon. member was taken in khaki in 1914. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) is one of the people who says that when he recruits people then he will accompany them. He advised the people on the Market Square at Burghersdorp during the rebellion in 1914, that when their house was on fire they should not ask who had set it alight, but they should put out the fire. They should go and suppress the rebellion. He urged them to go, but after a few weeks they had to go alone, and the hon. member was not there. He turned back half-way and left them in the lurch. Will he act in the same way again? When one talks to-day about waging war, then you must look at what he did in the past, and the hon. member was ready in 1914 to shoot his own people. But he will himself never fire a shot at the enemy, although he will urge others to go. To-day the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) made the remark here that the English always held themselves out as the champions of small nations, although they acted aggressively against small nations. Some hon. members opposite said that he was quite wrong, and they asked whether he had not seen in the newspapers that Germany was attacking the small nations. Then I said by way of an interjection, that I would quote to them from the newspapers of the present time, how England had treated small nations, and with your permission I want to quote what took place in the Norwegian Parliament, and what the Prime Minister there said of the note from the Allies which they sent to Norway last Friday. I am now quoting from the Argus of the 9th inst. The note from the Allies reads as follows—

They had nothing to do with the independence of the small nations. As long as it suits their war policy, they will not protect the small nations, but would even attack them. They did, as a matter of fact, attack, and went and put mines down there. And what was the reply of the Norwegian Government when they laid down those mines? It is said that England never violates the neutrality of small nations, and what is being said to the small nations? We are your protectors! But what does the Norwegian Government say, one of the small nations whom you might expect to hide under the wing of England? They say the following—

Here they expressly say that England violated their neutrality, and they add—

The “violation of our neutrality,” that is what the Norwegian Government says, and then hon. members of the Dominion Party and other hon. members opposite come and want to make out that England is the protector of the small nations, the small nations no longer believe in that protection of the small nations, and that is why Finland said to England: “Thank you, I do not want any more of your protection,” because it had seen what had happened to Poland. Not a single Englishman had fallen on behalf of Poland, not a single aeroplane was sent to Poland. And then we are still told in South Africa that England is the protector of the small nations. We have had experience of that. We had experience of it in 1899, and we had experience of it in 1896, when we had to endure a raid by that country, and now they come here and say that England is the protector of small nations. But England was supposed to attack us again, because just listen what an hon. member on the opposite side of the House said. Listen to what the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. Steenkamp) said, who distributed hundreds and hundreds of pamphlets in the constituency of Calvinia, containing the following statement—

That is what an hon. member on the other side says, and there is not an hon. member here, not even the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) who dare contradict it. It seems to me to be the truth, and even the Prime Minister dare not contradict it. I have already said, we have our independent status, and there was an honourable agreement that South Africa could remain neutral, and here you have a country which has put its signature to it, as the hon. member for Calvinia says, will come and shoot us down because we are remaining neutral. Can you expect me ever to believe that country again, or must I assume that the hon. member for Calvinia wrote an absolute untruth? I do not believe that the Prime Minister has the courage to contradict the hon. member for Calvinia. I showed it here in the lobbies to English-speaking friends, and they considered it ridiculous, but I asked them to contradict it, and no one dared to contradict it here. Here you have a member of Parliament who has written a pamphlet and no one contradicts it. I think that the Prime Minister should contradict it, otherwise I will never believe in English statesmen again.

I would not have spoken again, but after what the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) has said here, I must briefly reply. I am proud of the fact that the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg carries about a portrait of mine, and that it was actually taken in 1914. I am very proud of that photograph owing to the special circumstances in which it was taken. What happened in 1914? I was a follower of the Leader of the Opposition, because he stood for South Africa first. Then the resolution was taken in 1914 that we should attack South-West, and a rebellion broke out under Gen. Maritz. But we who were officers in the Defence Force, got an order to mobilise our men, and within 24 hours my men had come together. I then made a speech to them and said: There is a fire in our house, and we must not ask how it happened. We must put the fire out, otherwise the whole house will burn down. Have any hon. members any objection to that?

Yes, of course.

In 1894 I was also present at Burghersdorp with my mauser in my hand to defend my country, and to fight for our freedom, and the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg also came to Burghersdorp, with a forceps in his hand to make money.

Now you have lost the freedom.

The hon. member now comes here and makes remarks of that kind here, but Burghersdorp knows Louw Steytler and Burghersdorp knows that hon. member. Then he comes and says that I wore khaki. Of course I wore khaki. Every officer wore khaki, and in the Anglo-Boer War I wore khaki, because I had nothing else, and I was fighting for my country. Now this doctor — he is supposed to be a doctor — comes….

Are not your sons doctors as well?

Yes, tout I will educate them better than that they should some day come and use abusive terms about the Prime Minister, like the hon. member. I want to say something more about that time. It was a very difficult thing for me when I saw that my beloved Gen. De Wet went into rebellion as well as others amongst the leaders, but I had to make the speech that a fire had broken out in our homes and that we must put it out. But I also want to say this: I know a little about characters, and I went through a war, and as I know the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg I do not think he would go into rebellion, but he would urge others to do so. I am sorry to have to mention personal matters, but the hon. member made attacks on the Prime Minister which were undeserved. But now I want to remind the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg of something about his leader. In 1914 he was the leader of a large party, and I was one of his followers. There was a rebellion in the country, and there was bloodshed. I was astonished when a select committee was appointed and my leader appeared before the select committee, and in answer to a question about the rebellion he said that he did not approve of it. He was then asked why he had not warned his followers, and he said that he would then have lost his influence. I was not afraid of losing my influence, I was not too frightened to say that I would do my duty, and I lost my seat in consequence. And now there is such an apple of discord being thrown amongst the people by the Leader of the Opposition.

Is that the way to behave, to insult your old leader?

It is not an insult. They have been insulting me from the start. If it is not so., if that is not historical, then I withdraw it. Is it an insult if I state facts? If it is so, then I will unconditionally withdraw it. The Leader of the Opposition abused that group of purified Nationalists for six years, and to-day he has his arms round their necks, and why? Owing to neutrality! Then I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition; he stated in his motion that we should carry out all our obligations as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, we had to carry out our obligations as a member of the League of Nations, we had to carry out our obligations in regard to Simonstown, and then the Leader of the Opposition comes and says he wanted to remain neutral. I ask everyone on that side of the House to-night, is that a neutrality motion? No, it is not a neutrality motion; it is a sham neutrality, and the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) supported it. But do you know why he supported it? He knew that there would be a split between the then Prime Minister and the present Prime Minister, and he regarded that as a good opportunity of getting into the Cabinet, a good chance for him and his group of purifieds. I say that if that opportunity had not been in existence, and the Prime Minister had agreed to it, then the hon. member for Piquetberg, with his group of purifieds, would have moved some other proposal. They would have said: This is not neutrality, this is sham neutrality; and they would have moved that we should appeal to the country. I have been in politics a long time, and I emphatically say that this sham neutrality was offered to the public as a bone of contention.

I want to say a few words about the speech of the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler). It struck me that he said that Burghersdorp knew the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman), and that Burghersdorp knew him. That part of his speech I believed, because that is why the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg is member for Burghersdorp, and the hon. member for Kimberley (District) is not. I am astonished that he spoke so sneeringly, and that he said that he hoped that when his sons were once educated, they would not make such attacks on the Prime Minister. But what then has happened to his own education, because he has sat in this House for 24 years. I do not want to say anything more about the speech of the hon. member for Kimberley (District), but it struck me that the hon. member was of late becoming so British that he could not pronounce the name of an Afrikaans village, for he calls Piketberg Piquetberg. I would just like to repeat the questions I asked the Prime Minister last night with reference to the speech which he made at Sea Point, and in which he said that 60,000 volunteers had offered their services. I would like to know how many of those 60,000 men signed on under the provisions of the Defence Act, and how many of those men joined up under the alternative category, namely, as volunteers to go and fight outside the borders of South Africa? It is very important for us to know that. The Prime Minister now divides the defence force into two classes. The one comes under the Defence Act, and serves under that Act; the other group are the people who join up voluntarily to go and fight in Egypt, or wherever it may be. We would now like to know how many came under the first group, and how many under the second group, who are prepared to go and fight as far up as Egypt. Then there is another question which was raised here this afternoon, and I should be glad if the Prime Minister will tell us a little more about it. He posed here as piety itself, because there was calm and rest in the country. I received the impression that the Prime Minister was not only a good actor, but the pious attitude which he adopted also gave me the impression that he was going to play the chief part in some drama. Everything is so wonderfully quiet and peaceful in the country, and that quiet and peace in the country we are to ascribe to his capable Government, which took office on the 4th September. Now I want to ask this: Does the Prime Minister admit, or does he not admit that since the 4th September we on this side of the House have gone from platform to platform in the country and advised the citizens to note a protest, but to remain calm? We said to the people that we knew that they were opposed to participation in the war, because we were not concerned in that war at all. But we said to them: Make a protest in a constitutional way. Now the Prime Minister comes here and poses as the only man who has created calm and peace in the country. What is more he says that the way in which they acted, namely in releasing people from the internment camps, brought about that calm and peace. He said, what a splendid example it was of the calm and peace which they had brought about in the country! But he forgets that those people whom he has released are also people whom he caused to be arrested. He goes and arrests people in the country, puts them into internment camps on the ground of false charges, and he subsequently releases them after strong protests had been made in this House, and when they have been released, he comes in a pious way, and poses before the House saying that he brought about calm and peace in the country because he released those people from the prison. The Minister of Finance always tells us that he likes direct questions. I, also, would now like to put a direct question to the Prime Minister: What did he do to the people who made those false declarations in the case of the two Arndts, the false declarations on the ground of which they were put into the camp, and suffered all that inconvenience? Did he not, by his action, encourage similar people to make similar false statements? This is not the only case of that kind which we have had. We have the position now that the people, who made false statements are at liberty, and the people who were innocent have been in gaol. And then the Prime Minister comes and poses here as the man who has brought calm into the country, because he released people! I have already quoted the story about Reynard, the fox. The jackal was fighting with the wolf. He had shaved himself clean and made himself slippery, and when the wolf was tired from running around he knocked him over and while biting pieces out of him he said to him: I am doing this to punish you for all the innocent lambs which you have caught in your day. When the Prime Minister poses here as piety personified, then he reminds me of that little history of Reynard the fox.

This afternoon I touched briefly on the question of the League of Nations. When my time was exhausted someone else spoke on that subject. Since that time the Prime Minister has replied to the argument from this side of the House. He said, inter alia, that the League of Nations was surely still a centre of conciliation in the world. When we look back at the history of the League of Nations then we must say that it has not been the centre of conciliation in the world, but it has been the hotbed of failures and plotting, and even the Prime Minister had on occasions admitted that the League of Nations did not come up to his and our expectations. With the establishment of the League of Nations there were high ideals, especially on the part of the founder of it, namely President Wilson. But unfortunately it appears that among the other persons who assisted in the establishment of it the same high ideals were not present which inspired President Wilson. And in the light of the subsequent history we learned that at the time of the institution of the League of Nations there were other motives present among the statesmen who met at Versailles, and history has also shown us that those motives were chiefly and mainly that the League of Nations ought to be established in order to guarantee the boundaries of the new postwar states. I have already on a previous occasion said that the meetings of the League of Nations gave the opportunity for the forming of alliances, and those groups of powers in Europe which to, a great extent led to the conditions and troubles which we are having in Europe to-day, and I say here definitely that the Assembly of the League of Nations gave the opportunity for that intrigue and plotting, which the nations concerned would otherwise never have had. In saying that I do not only rely on the opinions which have been expressed by a prominent politician, and by experts in international matters, but I am in the position of saying here, from my own experience also —seeing that I had the opportunity three times of representing the Union in the Assembly of the League of Nations — that it was also my impression that the Assembly of the League of Nations was nothing else than an opportunity for the countries concerned to occupy themselves with international scheming and intrigue. I remember that on a certain occasion Mr. De Valera, a man who was shown the greatest respect when he addressed any body of the League of Nations, said in the Sixth Committee that the real work of the League of Nations was not done in the Public Assembly but in the sitting-rooms and the bedrooms of the hotels where conversations took place. I am convinced that the rotten state of affairs internationally that we have had in recent years is to a very great extent due to the League of Nations, and that the League of Nations contributed to it. One of the greatest war cries which we have had during past months is that we should go and fight against agression. But it was the League of Nations which permitted the first great act of agression after the previous war, by tacitly approving of it. When Japan committed agression by occupying Manchurio it was the representatives of England and also of France who went along the lobbies and exercised pressure, especially on the representatives of the smaller states, that they should not insist on sanctions being applied to Japan. Why did they do that? Simply because it did not suit their book to apply sanctions to Japan at that time. But subsequently when the matter affected Abyssinia, and when it was in the interests of England to apply sanctions, we found that England was the leader of the movement for applying sanctions to Italy.

And what was the attiude of the Government of the Union?

We did our duty.

As the hon. member says, the Government of the Union did its duty. I am speaking here on the attitude of the British representative. All the nations did their duty in applying sanctions, but the people who led the movement for the application of those sanctions were the delegates from Great Britain and from France. The delegates of the same countries who took up the attitude in connection with Japan that sanctions should not be taken against aggression, took the lead in the latter case of applying sanctions against Italy. It was purely a question of self-interest and nothing else, which was the deciding factor. Another cry which we heard in this war was that Nazism should be fought. It was the attitude of certain groups in the League of Nations and in the disarmament committees, which came under the protection of the League of Nations, against Germany, which to a great extent contributed to the growing of the Nazi movement and the rise of Hitler in Germany. I therefore say that the conditions which we met with in Geneva, the plotting and the intrigue which was going on there, contributed to a very great extent to the rotten European state of affairs which we have had of late years. The League of Nations has been not merely a failure, but also a discredited body, and therefore we may say that it has become a complete failure. That is the reason why so many of the smaller nations in Europe and in South America have lost confidence in the League of Nations and have already withdrawn from it. There were many of us, and amongst them I was included, who once believed that in the League of Nations we should have a body which would guarantee the maintenance of peace in Europe. But with the passage of years, and especially since 1932, we have become disillusioned and have begun to realise that the League of Nations was a hopeless and complete failure. I say to-day that whatever the high motive may have been inspiring President Wilson when he started with the establishment of the League of Nations — and I also want to admit that the Prime Minister, one of the promoters of the League of Nations, also had good motives — and assisted in the establishment of the League of Nations to realise an important ideal. I say that that ideal has not been realised, and the League of Nations became a complete failure. The Assembly of the League of Nations consists of delegates of the different countries who are members of the League of Nations. A government is a group of persons, and the average person, in nine cases out of ten, is someone who acts in his own personal interests. When those delegates from the governments sit in the League of Nations, then they act in the way individuals would act, namely, in their own interests. They do not, in the first place, ask what the interests are with regard to world peace, but they ask in the first place: What is the interest of the country which I represent? I, therefore, say that before we can make a success of the League of Nations, we must first of all change the human character, and I do not see the least chance of changing the character of human beings in this world. The Prime Minister said in his speech this afternoon that “there was still something left of the League of Nations”, and that we could use what was left as the nucleus for building up something. All that is left is a corpse, and I say in addition, that it has become a stinking corpse. We are merely paying. Last year we paid £28,000 as our contribution to the League of Nations, and when we add up the contributions for all the years, then our expenditure on the League of Nations has been almost £500,000, and I say that in view of “what has happened there, in view of the fact that the League of Nations has become a hotbed of intrigue and plotting which does not contribute to world peace, but contributes more to making the rotten condition of Europe worse, the time has come that we should take up the attitude in South Africa that we can see no use in the League of Nations as it now exists to South Africa, and that South Africa should take into serious consideration whether she should not retire from that discredited and unfortunate body.

It was rather interesting to hear the Nationalist Party criticising the League of Nations. I remember not so many years ago the Nationalist Party were full of praise for the League of Nations. It was one of the excuses for the Nationalist Party when they were asked what would happen to South Africa if Japan or any other nation attacked us here; the excuse always put forward was that the League of Nations would safeguard us. They said we would not require the might of the British Empire or the British Navy; the League of Nations would always look after us. That is why it was brought into being and why we subscribed to it year after year! Now, Mr. Chairman, to-day the League of Nations is all wrong. It should never exist. It has never done any good and all the rest of it. They are simply full of excuses when it suits their own purpose. During this debate and this session of Parliament we have heard quite a lot of talk about British imperialism and all the alleged faults of British imperialism. They have had nothing good to say about British imperialism and the imperialistic party. I would remind hon. members on my right, members of the Nationalist Party, that South Africa is rapidly becoming an imperialistic nation. We are hoping, I suppose, one day to take over completely South-West Africa. We also have desire in time to get the native territories. What are we doing by that? We are building up an empire in a small way, and it ill behoves the Nationalist Party to speak of Great Britain as being an imperialistic nation, always prepared, they state, to take advantage of the smaller nations. I am somewhat surprised at that when all the tendency on our part is practically to follow an imperialistic nation like Great Britain. I hope that we shall hear a little less of it in the future than we have been hearing in the past. I wonder what the real feeling of the Nationalist Party is to-day, with all their cries of neutrality. I wonder what they are thinking of these small nations, Norway and Denmark, that are being invaded to-day.

You mean the day before yesterday.

It does not matter whether it was the day before yesterday or to-day.

The day before yesterday it was Great Britain.

Did Norway resent it?

I suppose we shall get an explanation from the Nationalist Party that Germany has been forced in self-protection to invade Norway and Denmark. That is the sort of thing we expect from them, and I expect it is what we shall get. They will say, poor old Germany was threatened by these two small nations and has been forced to invade those countries in self-protection! The question of sowing these mines around Norway was done, for all we know, with Norway’s consent. It is quite possible.

A new prophet has arisen.

Also, I should like to ask the Nationalist Party if they think it was right for a neutral country like Norway to allow German vessels to use their territorial waters as a trade route without any interference whatsoever. It is perfectly absurd to expect it. Do ever the Nationalist Party think of what has happened to these two neutral countries and to other neutral countries, and that it is time they changed their attitude in regard to the question of neutrality? It is time they changed their mind in regard to the question of neutrality and face facts. The only trouble with the Nationalist Party, and the only reason why they would like this country to remain neutral is so that they can get a better price for their wool or their maize. That is the explanation we get. Evidently their neutrality may be bought by the highest bidder. That is the party which for many years have been advocating that the small nations should be protected, we have heard a lot in these debates about the Boer War. They suggest, “Look how we were trampled upon during the Boer War because we were a poor undefended nation.” Those are the arguments we have been hearing. When it is suggested that the Great Powers, the Allies, in Europe should come to the assistance of the small nations, these people over there are not prepared to subscribe to it. It is absolutely amazing, Mr. Chairman, how they came to arrive at their conclusions and the arguments they have brought forward. I got up to speak with regard to the League of Nations, because I have heard many many times in this House during the past few years that the League of Nations is our only hope and saviour, and that we do not require the assistance of Great Britain. There is another point, Mr. Chairman, that the Nationalist Party are always talking particularly about, namely the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell). We have heard nothing but references to the faults of the hon. member for Kensington during the last week. He is the nigger in the woodpile. He is this great imperialist, and what they would not like to do to him I do not know. I would remind my hon. friends on my right that when they speak of people having two homes, and having one foot in one country and one foot in another country, that it is not so very long ago that we brought a considerable number of Afrikaners back from Angola and the Argentine, who had been there for many years. In fact, some of them were born there. What would we think of those Afrikaners, after they had been living in another country, if they had lost all sympathy and sentiments or feeling for the land of their birth? We should have nothing but contempt for them. Last year when I was in Europe I met quite a number of Afrikaners in London. To all intents and purposes they had gone over there for the rest of their lives. They were, however, perfectly good South Africans and good Afrikaners. I met many of those men, and if they had said, “I have given up South Africa; I only know one home and that is London,” I would have looked at them with the utmost contempt. Those people were born in this country, and I hope they will always have that love and affection for this country that they should have. I say again that I hope we shall hear less of this talk that because a man was born in another country he can have no possible affection for the land of his adoption. It is an excuse for all this racialism that my hon. friends over there have been preaching for many years, and I suppose they will continue to preach it. I hone that the events of the last day or so will eventually change the Nationalist Party, and that they will be big enough not to make political capital out of things which are very serious to South Africa. Such an attitude may have repercussions in years to come, and may affect our childrens’ children. Two countries can play at this game of neutrality. How do we know that in the next ten or fifteen years we may not be put in a similar position to Denmark or Norway today? Supposing the rest of the British Commonwealth turned round and said, “South Africa is in trouble; let them get out of the trouble; we are going to remain neutral.” [Time limit.]

I would like to devote a little time to the hon. member who has just spoken, but my time is too valuable because I want to say a few words to the Prime Minister. We have had arguments here about neutrality, about the declaration of war, and quite recently again about the important matter of the League of Nations. I just want briefly to draw the notice of the House to a few views which I expressed here in 1930, about the Treaty of Versailles, and in 1931 about the League of Nations. I need not withdraw a single jot or tittle of my arguments and my views expressed at that time about the peace Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations. The Prime Minister will remember that he said to me: “Roelfie, you are too idealistic, these things will all come right.” In my idealism then I could speak not for ten minutes, but ten times ten minutes, and enlarge on the basic principles that I want to lay down in the matter of the policy which a sovereign independent country like South Africa should follow. It is not the policy which the Prime Minister wants to follow, but the one which should be followed in the interests of the people. The hon. member who has just spoken, and other hon. members over there, have often put the question as to who the people of South Africa are, whether they are the purified Nationalists. No, the people of South Africa consist of those who believe in the introduction which we incorporated into the Act of Union in 1925, when after some years of experiment we felt that there was something wrong, namely—

To that we want to draw the attention of the House when we answer the question who the people of South Africa are. Do we think that the Afrikaans-speaking people alone have the right to exist, that they alone constitute the Afrikaner people? We have different peoples in South Africa who make up a part of the people, but we have part of the population here which believes in the sovereign guidance as mentioned in the Act of Union, a people who have found a home here, and who have no other home, a people who have acquired a birthright here during the 500 years since South Africa was discovered, when other Empire builders discovered the route to the East round the Cape. But it took hundreds of years, and later under the same guidance, there was established here the trading station under Van Riebeeck, who developed it into a settlement. At that time the same chaos prevailed in Europe, which there is to-day, owing to the envy in commercial matters amongst the nations. A settlement was then established here in order to send a ray of light from South Africa into the darkness. That settlement was added to by Hollanders, Frenchmen and Germans, and subsequently also the 1820 settlers. The colony extended, but they very soon became acquainted with British imperialism, and that led to the fact that the British imperialism got possession of them in 1807. The extension of British imperialism went on, which had the result that in 1807, just on the other side of the mountains, a nationally-disposed free Afrikanerdom arose. By their action in South Africa they created the first tragedy, that is the coloured race. They did that under the cloak of spreading the Gospel. We must carefully examine the history to see where they incited the black races against the Afrikaners, because in 1838 the people were called upon to destroy barbarism in South Africa. [Time limit.]

Let us hope that this will be the last occasion upon which the hon. member for Smithfield will treat this Committee or the House of Assembly to the pitiable exhibition which he indulges in during the course of this debate. For a former Prime Minister to devote the best part of half an hour in successive speeches to a cry that he has been displaced from the Treasury benches, to assert all kinds of irregularities, and unfairness, as being the cause of that displacement is surely to bring down the dignity of his former position and to make himself ridiculous in the eyes of the country.

You did not follow him, what are you speaking about?

I followed him closely and know quite well what he was speaking about, though he cloaked his complaint by constitutional argument.

Rather tell us something about your revolution.

The hon. member who is the lackey of the hon. member for Gezina is a littlë late with his customary interjection. It is of no use for empty headed members to try and bring up matters of that kind when they realise that criticism is coming very near home.

You must be speaking from experience.

I do not propose taking any notice of further interjections by the hon. member. Now the hon. member for Smithfield asked the Prime Minister if he could name instances in which a Governor or Governor-General had rejected, or ignored the advice of the Pime Minister when the Prime Minister had advised a dissolution. The history of the Dominions is replete with such instances. Prof. Berriedale Keith whose opinion on this matter, though disparaged by the hon. member for Zululand, is held in high esteem by wiser men, has several remarks to make on this point. Prof. Berriedale Keith would doubtless be cut to the quick if upon hearing of the existence of the hon. member for Zululand, he were to learn that he had merited his disapprobation, though he could afford to be amused to learn that he had been described by an hon. member so ill-qualified as one whose opinions on constitutional law are more prolific than dependable. I am sure he would be mortified beyond measure though not inconsolately if he were to learn the hon. member’s unfavourable opinion of him. Yet the opinion of Prof. Berriedale Keith continues to be held in respect by people who stand higher in the councils of the world than the hon. member for Zululand is ever likely to. The hon. E. Lapointe, Minister of Justice for Canada, Mr. Mac-Kenzie King’s Minister of Justice, who surely knows what he is talking about on a subject such as this, referred to the opinion of Prof. Berriedale Keith as recently as March, 1939, as perhaps that of the leading authority on the question—that was the question of the King and the Dominions. Now, Prof. Berriedale Keith gives us examples in which the advice of the Prime Minister has been disregarded by the King, or Governor-General and for a very good reason, the very reason that applied in this case, that the Prime Minister was unsupported by his Cabinet, that in short he had no right to give such advice. Prof. Berriedale Keith in his book, “The Dominions as Sovereign States,” page 355, says—

He even went to the expedient of dismissing the Ministry so that the Ministry advising the dissolution should be a new one. It is made clear that the late Prime Minister of the Union failed to carry his advice to dissolve Parliament because he had not a Cabinet to advise a dissolution. His Cabinet by a majority of one I believe, were opposed to a dissolution. Why should the hon. member now come crying to this House because he no longer occupies the Treasury benches, because that is the burden of his grievance, that is the plain fact of the matter. Because he no longer occupies these benches he comes here weeping against his fate and making false accusations against the Prime Minister as though he were responsible for the action which led to his ejectment from office. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. C. Viljoen) read a portion of a letter from Professor Berriedale Keith last night in this House but he carefully omitted the last paragraph of that letter which dealt with this very reason, where Professor Berriedale Keith clearly stated the reason why the late Prime Minister’s advice to the Governor-General was disregarded. His concluding paragraph which the hon. member purposely omitted was this: Professor Berriedale Keith was referring to the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. B. K. Long) in this House, which evidently he did not regard very seriously, as he said in his concluding paragraph—

In short, as other authorities have said, the Prime Minister was not supported by his Cabinet, he had been defeated in the House, and constitutionally he counted for nothing at that stage, and if he had had a proper sense of the fitness of things he would have realised that it was an impertinence on his part at that stage to have advised the Governor-General to grant a dissolution of Parliament and bring about a general election. That briefly summed up the situation and if the hon. member for Smithfield desires further examples in which the Governor has rejected the advice of the Prime Minister for similar reasons, for the reason that á defeated Prime Minister no longer counted for anything in the councils of the country, I shall be willing to supply them.

A short speech was made by the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) in which he made certain charges against the Leader of the Opposition, which I do not want to pass unanswered. After the hon. member spoke I had the opportunity, and refreshed my memory a little. The charges which were made here by the hon. member for Kimberley (District) amounted to this, that the Leader of the Opposition was indeed opposed to the rebellion, but that he took no action against it, because he was afraid that he would in that way lose his influence over the public. The charge was very clear, and so was also the meaning of it, and it was nothing else than that the motive of the Leader of the Opposition in those days was to save his own political skin. As I have said, my memory was possibly not quite clear on that point, because this happened 25 years ago, and I therefore had recourse to the blue book containing the evidence of the select committee to which that matter was referred. I have before me the report of the select committee which dealt with the rebellion in the year 1915. I want to quote from it the paragraph to which the hon. member for Kimberley (District) was referring when he used those words. This sentence is in connection with questions which were put by one of the members of the select committee, namely, Mr. Merriman. Let me say that it was in connection with the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition with regard to Maritz, and not in connection with the rebellion.

Then it was another distortion.

I want to get to that distortion. The attitude of the Leader of the Opposition appears from that report, and it was to the effect that Gen. Maritz, as an officer of the Defence Force, had taken up a wrong attitude, and then this question was put — and the whole thing turns on it — by Mr. Merriman—

The answer of the Leader of the Opposition was—

I want to say that the Leader of the Opposition offered his services to Gen. Botha in connection with the action of Maritz, because Maritz had clearly said that he could only listen to a few persons. One of those persons was the Leader of the Opposition, and to get over that difficulty the Leader of the Opposition said: Very well, I am prepared to go to Maritz and to put a stop to the thing. We know that Gen. Botha’s reply was that he would not allow the Leader of the Opposition to do so. Whether the attitude of Gen. Botha was right has nothing to do with the present argument. We then come to the next question by Mr. Merriman—

And the reply was—

He went further to prove how prominent men in the Cape had immediately condemned Maritz’ rebellion without the least enquiry into the psychological facts, which of course was a strong weapon in the hands of Gen. Botha. The Leader of the Opposition said that he was not going to condemn it without an enquiry into the facts. He said that he was prepared to go to Maritz, and to try to settle the matter, but that if he acted differently, he and President Steyn would have lost their influence in the Free State. He said “we” would lose our influence in the Free State. Who were the “we”? I read on. A further question was put to him, to which he gave this answer—

There the motive is quite clear. I can make it still clearer from other answers. The Leader of the Opposition and President Steyn decided to try and hush up the trouble with Maritz. When Gen. Botha refused to allow the Leader of the Opposition to go to Gen. Maritz, he said to the former, that he should state whether he was going to warn the people against Maritz, or whether he could not do so. The Leader of the Opposition replied that if he did that then he and President Steyn would lose their influence in the Free State, which it was so necessary for them to retain in view of the troubles that existed. Those are the facts. Now I am sorry that the hon. member for Kimberley (District) — unfortunately he is not in his place — with that trembling of his voice, mentioned the name of Gen. De Wet in connection with this matter. Let me mention this recollection, that I personally often heard Gen. De Wet say: “You can trust Hertzog in the dark; you can always trust him.” Now the hon. member for Kimberley (District) comes and he tries, while mentioning the name of Gen. De Wet, to cast a slur on the good name and the past of the Leader of the Opposition. I thought that these official facts should be published, not only for the sake of the truth and in order that our history, this history which we passed through with all its bitterness, will be correctly recorded, but because we are dealing here with a violation and a distortion of the truth and with an attempt — I hope that it is not a malicious attempt, and I am prepared to agree that the hon. member did it from ignorance — to drag in the mud the good name of a man which has always been held high by the people of South Africa, and will always remain so. It is an act which is unworthy of the hon. member for Kimberley (District) and which is unworthy of this House, and I therefore thought that I could not allow it to pass without protest.

I ended my last argument by pointing out that the colony here in South Africa extended until our ancestors took a solemn vow at Blood River that if the sovereign and Almighty God would bless their arms then they and their children would devote themselves to His service and honour. The victory was obtained by that vow, and as the Bible teaches us that Abraham acquired an inheritance for his descendants by an act of faith so our forefathers by their act of faith acquired an inheritance for their posterity. But what do we find now? After the might of barbarism had been broken, and it was one of the objects with which we were placed here, comes the ancient enemy which landed here in 1807, and he takes away from cur ancestors what they had acquired by their property and their blood. They were once more sent into the wilderness out of Natal, the same persecution which we had had in the case of the French Huguenots and the whole of our previous history. They had to go into the wilderness again, after Imperialism, with its overwhelming power and might, had taken away from them what they had acquired by their faith — they had to go further into the interior, and there they established the two republics. Hardly had they established them, or that enemy followed them up again. But in the years 1852 and 1854 they did get their freedom there, and an agreement was entered into — clause 7 of the Convention of the Free State — that Great Britain would not intervene in the difficulties, native troubles and the like, of, or with the Government to the north of the Orange River. But we know how things went. In the Free State we did our best to govern the country and to develop it, and our task was too difficult, because the arch-enemy kept out ammunition and powder, and our ancestors had to smuggle it through in order to defend themselves. When they had maintained themselves against the Basutos, Basutoland was taken under British protection. That was not all. Diamonds were discovered, and when all the documentary proof had been given that that land belonged to the Free State, then that inheritance was also taken away from the Free State, and it had to be satisfied with a few hundred thousand pounds for all the treasures which they had been deprived of. An insignificant sum was paid to it for what it had been deprived of. That is the acquaintance we made here in South Africa of the protector of small nations. I do not know, Mr. Chairman, whether you are so well acquainted with this history, but I trust that the account which I am giving here will also enlighten you as to the course which our history took. I go further. In 1854 we got our freedom in the Free State in the first instance, and we developed. In the Transvaal that happened in 1852, but the Transvaal also had to make acquaintance with the following-up of this enemy. Gold was discovered in the Transvaal, and this all shows us how under the protection of the Sovereign Almighty there was an inheritance laid aside for our people. They made acquaintance with that. In the treaty of 1881 the poor Transvaal was contaminated with the equalisation of British interests, with those of natives and Indians. The Free State remained intact. But in 1899 it was no longer in the interests of the great protector of small nations for the two Republics to continue to exist, because the World War was approaching. We saw it coming, just as we saw this war coming after the Peace Treaty of Versailles. It was then decided that they were to be destroyed. In 1899 there was imposed on us, just as is happening now to the small nations who want to maintain their neutrality and freedom, the protection of Great Britain. The independence had to be handed over to British Imperialism, and the two Republics had to be destroyed. I wish I had before me the placards and notices and news which were published to the world. It was charged against the Transvaal that Europeans were being murdered, and coloured people were being ill-treated, the same nonsense and lies which are being dished up to the world to-day, even here under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister. We fought for three years against the whole Empire, including the natives, the Indians and the Turks, and even our own natives were used to murder our wives and children. When we remember all these things then we know what British Imperialism means. In three years 26,000 women and children were murdered in the camps, and 7,000 of the cream of our small nation, which did not have the population of one British town, were destroyed. The small population under God’s providence had to go through that distress, so that the foundation could be laid to build a future on.

I believe it was God’s providence to build up a free and independent nation here. [Time limit.]

In answer to the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), I do not want to deal with the argument whether the Constitution was complied with or not, but I just want to point out that if these things can happen continuously then it may happen that a government may get into power without having the majority of the people behind it. It has been pointed out by hon. members opposite that the majority of the party of the then Prime Minister, the present Leader of the Opposition, were opposed to him, and therefore it was justifiable to form a new government. But now apply the same argument to the governments of to-day. They do not govern with the majority of that party which was in existence, but they have dragged in the “little Britishers” who sat on the cross-benches, and the members of the Labour Party, who are standing by them in consequence of the war policy, but who also, in consequence of that, have lost more than half of their supporters. We must be consistent so far as this matter is concerned, and we cannot take much notice of the hon. member for Illovo and the Dominionites. We know that they have always had a different view in the past about things to what we held. They were never yet prepared to admit our sovereign independence. That is the attitude of those hon. members, and to-day they are sitting on the Government side, and the Prime Minister in that way, got a group of members of Parliament to support him. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, that something has really been done here which South Africa, and even other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations also, will yet deplore in the future. When we have to deal with such important matters, then we must be careful not to do anything which is going to injure us in the free enjoyment of our sovereign independence. By the action of the Prime Minister, a dangerous precedent has been created here. But I also want to reply to a few challenges which were made to this side of the House by hon. members there. Provision is being made on the estimates for the information officers, and I want to put a few questions to the Minister. Why is the information officer not appointed as was the custom in the past, by the Public Service Commission? Why did you pass the Public Service Commission by? Why is the information Officer unilingual? The Prime Minister will remember that I put certain questions to him in writing about the information officer, the personnel on his staff, the assistant he had, etc. Why is that staff not provided for under the vote of the Prime Minister? In consequence of the incapacity of the information officer, it was necessary to employ an Afrikaans announcer, who simply slavishly translated the Wilsonian bits into Afrikaans. What expense is connected with the information service? It is not restricted to the £750, because there are quite a lot of officials in the office. Now we are challenged to mention one lie which Wilson has broadcast. I will do so. You remember when the Ark Royal came into the Cape Town docks, then just a little before, the Graf Spee had anchored at Buenos Aires, then Wilson related that the British Navy was ready, a whole group of British ships were lying in wait to destroy the Graf Spee when she left Buenos Aires. Wilson told us that Zeesen had told lies that the Ark Royal had been sunk, and Wilson gave the weight and tonnage of the lies which were broadcast by Zeesen. All the time he was himself dishing up lies, which immediately after the Graf Spee had been sunk by its own crew, he mentioned that only the three crippled, damaged old bulldogs were lying there in wait for her. That is the kind of lie which he tells from day to day in connection with the war. It runs into tons and tons, but I would almost go so far as to ask when Wilson ever said anything over the wireless that was true? That now is my challenge to the other side. He has said, ad nauseam, that Great Britain was fighting for Christianity. Does the Prime Minister believe that? That is another of the Wilson untruths, which are dished up every day, and then the Prime Minister actually says that he does not interfere in politics. Then we hear from him that we are fighting for democracy, and not for the balance of power in Europe. Is that the truth, or is it propaganda to establish a state of mind in South Africa, so that the knights of truth, with their lying, and propaganda campaign, will find a good field for sowing their lies in. Why do Wilson and the knights of truth not tell us what the war really is about? [Time limit.]

As we know, we are at war. During the Anglo-Boer War I knew what I was fighting for. I was fighting for our independence. To-day I want to ask the Prime Minister how far he wants to go to fight. Does he want to fight again for a second Treaty of Versailles, does he want to fight until Hitlerism or the German people are destroyed, or where is the end to be? We know that we are plunged into war to-day, and that he does not give us a statement as to when he is prepared to make peace, and up to what point he is going to carry on the war. We want to know that, because we know that this war in which we are engaged, is not in the interests of South Africa. We have four classes of people in South Africa, and of the four classes there is one which consists of Afrikaners. It is therefore English-speaking or Dutch-speaking persons, it makes no difference what language such a man speaks, as long as he is heart and soul and body for South Africa. That is the Afrikaner. And then you get the little Englishman, who is more “red” than the English in England, and who has plunged us into the war. Then we have what we in former years called the “loyal Dutchmen.” They also have plunged us into war; and then we have the Jews who, as we know, all favour the war. Why? Because we know that they declared war against Germany six years ago, because according to rumours, they were persecuted there. There they started with the boycott, that is an economic war which they had already commenced at that time. I have good Jewish friends, and when they started that at the time, I warned them and said: Look here, we are a nation which feels that no one could poke his nose into the laws which we make in this counry; we want to treat our citizens in the way we consider right, and why do you now want to poke your nose into Germany’s affairs, let Germany treat its citizens as she wants to. But they gave their race first place, and their country the second place. It is for that reason that they are a danger to a country, because they always put their race before anything else and before any country. That is why they can never become good citizens of the country. I now want again to put a question to the Prime Minister. I feel as we to-day are at war, if the enemy comes to our borders, not only I but my children will be compelled to defend our country, even if it is against our wish. I will shoot any man who comes over my borders, just as happily as I shot Englishmen. It makes no difference whether it is a German or a Frenchman. But I believe in fighting once with a man and not twice. That is where the English have made a mistake in having declared war on Germany again, and I want to ask again if I must go to the war and if my children and the people must go and fight, how far are we to go, do we want to destroy the Germans, do we want to have a second Versailles, or a more cruel treaty. I want to have an answer from the Prime Minister, and if he does not answer me then I am unwilling to do anything for the defence, or to take action against the Germans. I want to know how far he intends to go with the destruction of the Germans. He is the person who was opposed to that Treaty of Versailles, and he is the man to-day who has dragged us into the war owing to that treaty. He must be consistent. He said at that time that that Treaty of Versailles, that that corridor would be the cause of a new war, and he was the man who proposed that we should declare war on Germany again. I want to ask the Minister this, does be want to have a second Versailles Treaty, or does he want to destroy Germany, and how far does he intend to go with this war?

When I ended my last speech I had just got to the peace treaty of Vereeniging on the 31st May, 1902. In that peace treaty it was laid down that if we agreed to it, the terms which we had given on the battle-fields of South Africa, with the sacrifice of 26,000 women and children and 7,000 men, the cream of South Africa, on the battlefields, and 2,000 abroad, if we wanted to accept it then we would have the right to self-government. That is what we acquired, and we accepted it and laid down our arms. In 1905 and 1906 we got self-government. It was a wonderful idea why we got peace and self-government so quickly, because the war was started to destroy us. I do not want to deal at length with the war because it surely is a fact that under the guidance of Almighty God with his Providence over the lot of the settlement in South Africa, it was necessary for us to accept the peace. The Transvaal then got self-government before the Free State, and the Free State got it a year later. We then once more disposed of our own lot, and something happened in the Transvaal then. The late Gen. Botha fought for one thing, and that was that we should now not take action against England, let us out-manoeuvre them. Out-manoeuvre England, just imagine it! It is the oldest empire, which has existed in the world to out-manoeuvre other people, and we wanted to out-manoeuvre her in South Africa! But nevertheless the course of events showed that we got self-government in 1910. The British colonies could, after consideration agree to Union. Alongside of England there is situated another country which was destroyed by fire and the sword, just as things happened here. It is the Irish people, and with a history of 600 years they could not get self-government, and we got it in only ten years. That was British diplomacy which wanted to outmanoeuvre us. It was a childish idea that we would out-manoeuvre Great Britain, but in 1910 the British colonies were joined up in a union. Under the idea that we believed that it was happening under God’s guidance, and it is wonderful in that history—and here appeared the figure of the present Prime Minister, that he acted as a personage under God’s guidance in South Africa, for God’s purpose and not for his purpose. In 1910 our association together was emphasised, and why? Because the world war was in the offing, and why was John X. Merriman not to be the Prime Minister? Because of danger from the farmers of South Africa, who had no reason to feel any love for Great Britain. A farmer, an Afrikaner leader had to be appointed to take that lead. It was he who unfortunately disturbed the peace and quiet, and I will say no more about it. But he who fought for the freedom of the Boer republic, he had to do it. The present Prime Minister took that task over from him. That is our history under God’s guidance, and then another voice was heard. In 1912 God called another man, a Hertzog who had to stand against the policy which was being followed by his previous colleagues, in order to issue a warning against the British imperialism and to stand for South Africa first and for South Africa alone. When he said that at Grahamstown in 1912, at the opening of the college there, he was called to account by the Ministry, and the conditions under which he could make speeches were dictated to him. Then he went to De Wildt, and he made a speech there which was the cause of his being put out of the Cabinet because he had said that he stood for South Africa first. Is it not the will of God that we should live as a South African people, for South Africa first? But the Prime Minister had to carry out the will of God, because from 1899 to 1902 the foundations were laid on which the South African people were to be built up. I continue with the history, and I point out that it was the responsibility of the Prime Minister to fix the future of South Africa, but on what basis? On the basis of the Empire, or on the basis of South Africa first? Then history progresses fast, and after the warning of a Hertzog, the test came in 1914. It is the same test which is being put to the people of South Africa to-day—British imperialism first or South Africa first! He chose. The Prime Minister did not place the interests of South Africa first, but the interests of the Empire first, just as he did in 1914. It is wonderful how history repeats itself and records occurrences every now and then to make it clear to us what the will of God was with this colonisation. [Time limit.]

The amendment proposed by Dr. Malan put, and the Committee divided:

Ayes—48:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Fagan, H. A.

Fullard, G. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Havenga, N. C.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Oost, H.

Pirow, O.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Theron, P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, J. H.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. J. Haywood and J. S. Labuschagne.

Noes—68:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Baines, A. C. V.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Cadman, C. F. M.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Neate. C.

Nel, O. R.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares. A. P. J.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

The amendment proposed by Dr. N. J. van der Merwe put, and the Committee divided:

Ayes—47:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout. J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Fagan, H. A.

Fullard, G. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Havenga, N. C.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Oost, H.

Pirow, O.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Theron, P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. J. Haywood and J. S. Labuschagne.

Noes—68:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Baines, A. C. V.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Cadman, C. F. M.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson. H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg. M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Vote No. 4.—“Prime Minister and External Affairs”, as printed, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 10th April.