During the few moments still at my disposal I should like to bring a few matters to the notice of this House and to the commander-in-chief of our forces, our Prime Minister. After the 4th September we on this side of the House gave guidance to the national South Africans in South Africa. Our guidance was that we told them that we have always stood for peace and the result was that we still have peace in South Africa.

We told the people that we did not want a rebellion. In the second place we had to inform the people about the development and the methods of continuing the war. I went from platform to platform and I gave this information to my fellow citizens. I told them that this commandeering of rifles would most definitely have far-reaching consequences. We have had experience of commandeering in the past, but that the officer in command at this stage has to issue an order to his men that they have to disarm and that they have to hand in their guns, is positively one of the most humiliating orders any officer in command has ever had to give to his men in South Africa. The public asked us: What shall we do? Our advice was that they should not oppose the law however deeply they might have been hurt by this order. But if the officer in command who tells his men to disarm at this time of the war, should at a later stage call upon me to arm and fight, then I say that I shall not comply with his orders. I told the same thing to the magistrates who had to see that this order was complied with. I told them that they had to take the humiliating nature of that order for the farmer in South Africa into account in cases where persons would be found guilty under this order. Since we are encircled by millions of natives, and since we know what lives in their minds and what is being impressed upon their minds, namely that we are the fifth column in this country, which we are not, we can understand how deep the humiliation is for people to have to surrender their guns. For some people the humiliation is too great and we have noticed the case in Bloemfontein recently where an old man and his son said: We are not going to surrender our guns; we rather go to prison. I also told the police and gave them the following advice: Look here, you have to comply with your orders. You have to fetch the guns in cases where people refuse to hand them in, for if they do not hand in their rifles they are also guilty of an offence. The Leader of the Opposition has already warned against the results of these measures. Will there be a rebellion? No, there will not be. But there will be Bezuidenhouts and Slagtersneks may follow. There will be people who will refuse to surrender their guns and what will be the result? I maintain that this order is an excessive and humiliating order from our officer in command, the most humiliating order which any officer has ever given his men. I now come to another point. There is a possibility that England can still win. I also want to concede that there will always be an England, but whether the English government will be there is a different matter. What is our purpose with this offensive war which fortunately has not yet reached our land and our coasts. In this war millions of men are used and they must have terra firma under their feet to be able to fight this war to a finish. That will be clear to every thinking person. It has even been suggested that if England should be conquered, the English government will move and continue the war from another place. Will it go to Canada? No, it will not go to Canada and it will neither go to Australia but it will come here to South Africa. We do not want that. But nevertheless we see that those preparations are being made and that South Africa will be chosen as the battlefield, whereas that battlefield could have been in Europe. The fight will be moved to this country and is this the prospect we have after we entered this war, that South Africa’s home and hearth, its women and children will have to pass again through the fire and destruction of a hellish war? For that reason we remain steadfast in our opinion that we should use this opportunity to make peace. The other side has asked us what our terms for a peace will be. We feel inclined to suppose that the peace terms which will be offered us will be of such a nature that they will be quite acceptable to us, and that it will prevent South Africa being the future battlefield of this war. The Prime Minister and other members on the other side told us that we are going to win this war. It may take years, but we are going to win. Have we here in South Africa got to wait and let the war go on until in those future years the war is shifted to our country and we have to undergo destruction? Is that common sense in the interests of South Africa? This is something that could have been prevented. We gave the Government three opportunities to prevent it. The first one was our neutrality proposal in September last year. The second was our peace motion during the previous session and now for the third time we give the Government a chance to make peace. I am afraid, however, that the Government is not going to make use of that opportunity and for that reason we shall emphasize what we have done here before the whole world, that we are neither hands-uppers nor fools. I also once had to surrender my gun, and it hurts only now that it is alluded to. But to demand our weapons now and to send people with those weapons against modern army equipment is making victims of them, and it flabbergasts one that this should be the purpose of the Government. Because Great Britain is in the war, we are in the war to help in the protection of Great Britain. It is no longer the protector of small nations. We now have to protect that country in a war which is the upshot of a previous peace, as I explained already. We want to have peace in the future. That peace we cannot obtain within the British Empire. We do not want the British Empire as an enemy and we do not want Germany as an enemy. We want to live in peace with all nations, and the new world order will demand and entail that capitalism will no longer be the ruling force in the world and neither imperialism here in South Africa. It is because we have acted imperialistically and have taken the possessions of others which did not belong to us, because we supposedly were to protect those possessions but in fact deceived those people, that we cannot have peace. In that way we make enemies in this world. Let us leave that path and let us live in friendship with other nations and then we shall have peace.

I have listened to the speech of my hon. friend who has just finished, and I want to say that the spirit with which his speech was permeated is the same spirit that is shown by members on the other side of this House. We shall not start a rebellion; we shall acquiesce in the decision of this House of the 4th September of last year. But if I am called upon to serve in the defence of South Africa, I shall refuse. The hon. member also threatened the Government in connection with the commandeering of rifles, and he referred to Slagtersnek. I now want to ask him and other members on that side of the House: what else is that but inciting the people? The people take him and others at their word. If members of Parliament who, as such, are leaders of the people, tell the people in the country: I refuse and I am not going to hand in my rifle, as the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) did, and he does it all the same or goes the back way about to the magistrate and obtains exemption, is that not misleading the people?

It is not true that he did so.

It is true, and I maintain that the people take such members at their word. There are many persons who act on the strength of assertions made by those leaders of the people. To-day they are in trouble, but those members are sitting here safely on the benches of this House. It is one thing to say: I am not going to hand in my rifle, and another thing to do it all the same for the people outside take you at your word and refuse actually. Those people are now in great trouble because they followed the advice of members such as the member for Wolmaransstad, who said he was not going to hand in his rifle.

I did not hand it in.

Because you went to the magistrate by the back door and obtained exemption. On the platform, however, you told the public that you were going to refuse to hand in your rifle. Some-body then asked you whether you had not obtained exemption. Why did you not tell that to the people? I want to say here to-day that it is this continual misleading which has incited the population, with the result that to-day we find people who have been found guilty under the law. They have to suffer to-day. But the leader who incited them, is a free man. The speeches which have been held here during the past few days in connection with this motion which has been proposed by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, has given me the definite impression that our system of democracy is being abused to-day. We praise the freedom we enjoy, the freedom of speech and action, the freedom to speak in this House of Assembly which constitutes the highest authority in the country and which is responsible for the maintenance of law and order in the country and the proper carrying out of the resolutions taken by Parliament, and I say democracy is being made a farce of if persons in this House of Assembly openly make common cause with the enemy. I maintain that all the speeches we have heard here amounted to nothing else, and I begin with the speech of the Leader of the Opposition held here the day before yesterday. He may now laugh about what I say here, but I want to remind him of the fact that this is the second time that his country is in trouble, that his country is in a war crisis and that he does not do his utmost for the defence of his country and his people, but that he makes common cause with the enemies of his country in his speeches in this Parliament. His speech of the day before yesterday amounted to nothing less than a glorification of Germany and Hitler and everything connected with Germany. The Government has been accused, and has been accused especially during the past few months, that it is abusing the rights it possesses, rights transferred to it, and duties imposed on it by this House in order to maintain the security of South Africa. I say that as a result of the execution of those duties the Government is accused of being autocratic and of robbing the Afrikaners of their rights. The Government has been accused that it has interned Afrikaners. As far as I am concerned, I maintain that I hope, or rather that I have been firmly convinced that if the position in this country is such that even the Leader of the Opposition is guilty in this time of war of such a wrong as that of openly siding with the enemy of South Africa, then the most serious abuse is being made of the freedom we enjoy, and then the Government should take more drastic steps. I say that the Government was accused of acting autocratically, but I have come to the conclusion that where the Government, in doing its duty, how unpleasant that sometimes may have been, it was nevertheless lenient, lenient to such a degree that it might perhaps have been called excessive leniency in some cases, I say that where the Government was compelled to be moderate and where this was interpreted by the Leader of the Opposition as nothing but weakness, the time has now arrived that the Government should act more drastically and should take more drastic steps in the execution of its duties here in South Africa for the protection of the people of South Africa. I even go as far as saying that the Government should take steps to protect the followers of members on the other side, the ordinary man in the street, who is being misled by those members on the other side and consequently gets landed into trouble whilst they are safely sitting here, to protect him against the actions of popular leaders of that kind.

Is that now the “he-man” you mentioned?

When I spoke about a “he-man” I did not speak about men who hide behind women’s skirts. I spoke about men who are really men and who have the courage to defend their country and their people when the country is in trouble. This motion of the Leader of the Opposition we are discussing here to-day, is now for the third time before this House. He wants us to withdraw the resolution we took on the 4th September last year, he wants us to hoist the white flag, he wants us to go to Hitler and tell him that he should do to us as he likes to. In none of the speeches from members of the other side is there the slightest indication of what the terms are on which they are prepared to surrender to Hitler or Germany. I maintain that such an action is in direct conflict with the conceptions of the Afrikaner people. This is a humiliation for a people such as the Afrikaner people, with its history and its traditions, a people which has never yet surrendered with the white flag. [Noise and interjections.] I am speaking about the Voortrekkers.

You should not talk about them.

I am speaking about the Voortrekkers. [Noise and interjections.] They did not know what it means to hoist the white flag and to surrender under the white flag. They continued until the ultimate victory. They prayed, but their prayer always was, “Grant us the victory.” This is the tradition of the Afrikaner. ([Interjections.]

I must ask hon. members to refrain from making so many interjections.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I maintain that the spirit of the Voortrekkers always was that of victory, and this Government under the leadership of the greatest Afrikaner and statesman in South Africa, a man who always stuck to one road and one course, will again be victorious. Under his leadership the Government on the 4th September received a mandate from the House of Assembly which it will scrupulously and faithfully carry out to the last letter. We received a mandate to declare the war and we shall carry on the war until the ultimate victory, not only for South Africa, but for the whole world. Hon. members on the other side want to pretend that they feel absolutely certain, for their Leader says and their Deputy-Leader says that England has already lost and bitten the dust. I want to tell them that they have not the slightest right to say so and where they want to pretend that they are convinced that this is the case, they make one think of the boy who had to pass a cemetery at night and whistled to show that he was not afraid. This motion is a humiliation and is inconsistent with the traditions of the Afrikaners. But thank God, this side of the House on the 4th September saved the country and they are still here. They are going to do their duty. If the Government should give ear to the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition, then this country will develop in such a way that the descendants of the proud Voortrekkers will become a people of cowards and handsuppers and National Scouts. Hon. members say that if it is necessary they will defend our freedom, but they will be the white flag commando, the Limpopo commando. They maintain that they will sacrifice their last drop of blood for the freedom of. South Africa. What a terrible deception. Their Leader and their Deputy-Leader have repeatedly said that it does not help us to oppose the enemy because we have already been beaten. They want to go at once with the white flag and they do not think one moment about doing their duty. They want to sacrifice their last drop of blood at the Limpopo, but we know that that will never happen. They will go to the Limpopo with their white flag. The spirit of this motion, the purport of this motion is nothing but an insult to the Afrikanerdom of South Africa, and it does not do honour to the descendants of the Voortrekkers; this is not in harmony with the traditions of our people. For the second time when his country is in danger and threatened does the Leader of the Opposition place himself on the side of the enemy. I am now thinking of 1917.

When you shot Afrikaners.

Yes, misguided Afrikaners who had been incited by the Leader of the Opposition and who went out into the night. But the Leader of the Opposition was not there, and how did the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) fight?

I am proud of what I did.

He went into the rebellion, but the time came when he would have been only too glad to get out of it again if they had only given him a chance. I know how he fought. Perhaps he does not know that I saw him when he and his commando were lving behind Rooikrans at night. I was in his camp then.

You were not even capable of catching me.

Yes, we had him in our hands, but something went wrong. But how did he fight. Every time he first went to consult the old seer who had to throw the dolosses for him. I know how much trouble his comrades had when he wanted to hoist the white flag. Now he is proud of his actions. He now tells us that the Leader of his party, the Prime Minister, and I and others are no Afrikaners. All of a sudden he is now the only Afrikaner. To him the Afrikaner is worth 1s. a piece. He sold his Afrikaners for 1s. a piece.

The hon. Minister is going too far now.

I withdraw, but I only mentioned actual facts.

The hon. Minister must withdraw unconditionally.

I withdraw. I again come to the Leader of the Opposition in 1917. At that time the country also was at war and the speeches which were held then correspond exactly with the speeches to which we have to listen to-day. The Leader of the Opposition will remember the bitter attack he made at the time when Gen. Botha was our Prime Minister. He abused the South Africans who went to Europe, and if we look up Hansard and read those speeches again we shall find that they were of exactly the same kind as the speeches delivered to-day. At that time he got the nickname of “the little German advocate”. To-day he again pleads for Hitler and for Germany and for everything German. He knows and the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) also knows that if they would deliver similar speeches in Germany they would find themselves behind prison bars for the rest of their lives, or they might even fare worse, but here in our free South Africa with a tolerant Government you find this sort of thing. I still remember that the Afrikaners who went to fight in Flanders during the last war were called the scum of South Africa. In 1917 the Leader of the Opposition also sat on that side and I sat here. He made his speech and I replied, and it is most interesting to note that as a result of that the Leader of the Opposition did not greet me for seventeen years.

No, my friend, there are quite different reasons why I did not greet you.

A gentleman has to draw the line somewhere.

Yes, if somebody comes into touch with a gentleman, he has to draw the line somewhere. It has always been the misfortune of the Leader of the Opposition in spite of the services he rendered to South Africa and which I gladly admit, that if he had to take a resolution he always took the wrong one. At that time we also listened to the kind of speeches we hear to-day. But there came a turn of things. Instead of England losing as hon. members on the other side thought when they went into rebellion, things turned out differently. And shortly they will again be disappointed in the same way. We erected a monument at Delville Wood in France in honour of the fallen South Africans who gave their lives in the interest of South Africa. The Leader of the Opposition, who at that time was our Prime Minister, was asked to make a speech there on the occasion of the unveiling of the monument. Hon. members can read that speech. It was one of the most inspiring speeches made there. Of the young Afrikaners who had been abused in 1917 he said that they had given their lives for South Africa and that the scrolls of history would in the future mention that as a result of their sacrifices, South Africa can now be proud of its freedom. He then swallowed everything he had said before and in so many words he acknowledged that the government of that time had after all been right when it entered the war and that the government thus saved South Africa. That same acknowledgment will come again in regard to the present war. Hon. members on the other side will again have to swallow their speeches. From 1933 to 1939 when we co-operated and when the hon. member was our leader and Prime Minister, he rendered excellent services, the best services he has rendered to South Africa during his whole career. When he was in good company he did well in the interests of South Africa, but unfortunately as I said already, it is his fate if he is confronted with the choice, if a matter crops up on which he has to decide whether to stand on the right side or on the wrong side, you may be sure that he chooses the wrong side. This has happened again on the 4th September when his country was again threatened and he had again to choose one of two ways. Most unfortunately he again chose the wrong way, for without going into details here, the Leader of the Opposition knows that there was another road he could have chosen and which would have left him in the same position he was in, without being caught in the trap of the Malanites. He was, however, caught in their trap and how much have they tortured him since. To-day he is their leader in name, but how long will he remain that? What is going to happen to his followers? In what way do they behave to-day? In the rural areas they try to outdo the Malanites themselves, they try to outmalanite the Malanites, they try to safeguard themselves for the future when there will be another nomination and they want to make sure that they will be nominated again. The Leader of the Opposition has run into a trap and he now turns round and comes to Parliament with a neutrality motion, a sort of twin affair, in which you are neutral and not neutral at the same time. According to his proposals we are neutral in the Cape but in Simonstown we have to fight. But whilst he does this, he jumps round and accuses the Prime Minister of having betrayed the people of South Africa. The Leader of the Opposition who talks so much about freedom and our democratic institutions, the parliamentary system, should be one of the first to bow to a decision taken by Parliament. But he turns around and says that the Prime Minister is the man who has been guilty of treason and he stabs him from behind. There is no truth in that whatsoever. The constitutionally lawful, sovereign body, the House of Assembly has decided. The Leader of the Opposition, then the Prime Minister, appealed to Caesar and Caesar gave him his reply, but instead of acquiescing in it, the Leader of the Opposition follows a policy of resistance which will still lead to unpleasantness for a part of the population which will again enter the night as they did in 1914. If there is one thing for which South Africa will always and eternally be grateful it is the fact that there were 81 men here who had a clear conception of their duty towards South Africa on the 4th September. The time will come, as it came in 1918, that hon. members over there will again have to swallow their revolutionary speeches. The time will come again that they will have to acknowledge that South Africa owes eternal thanks to those 81 men. The Leader of the Opposition appealed to Caesar and the decision was given. If he were a man with patriotism and with love for the institution of his country and its freedom, he should be the first to admit that the people by means of its representatives have given the decision and that he as a loyal subject will stand by it. He may not actively support the policy but he should certainly not make common cause with the enemy. He should at least see to it that the Government which is entrusted with the carrying out of the resolution, is not hampered in its work. It should not be made impossible for the Government to do its duty honestly and faithfully. The Government should not be forced to fight in front and behind and underground. I only want to remind you of the dynamite explosions. They are the result of speeches made.

Do you mean the dynamite explosion under the Dutch Reformed Church?

The Leader of the Opposition spoke about the lies which are being spread by the wireless and by the knights of truth. I in turn challenge the Leader of the Opposition to give a single instance of the people being misled or lies having been told by the wireless or the knights of truth. The truth army has been called into being in order to try, where the Opposition is busy misleading the people in the most abominable way, to tell the truth to the people. Let me tell you what the position is. Hon. members on the other side are like a cat on a hot stone. They run every time to see whether a telegram has not yet arrived that Hitler has landed in England. They gather at night in groups to listen to Zeesen. Why are they so anxious? They want to hear whether the tide has not turned yet. For the people have been told that everything would be finished by the 15th August. The people have been told to be prepared, to be saddled up. The people wait and the 15th August has passed and now they do not know what to say. They now look whether a change has not occurred in the position overseas, whether Hitler has not come yet. They said: Hitler comes, be ready for a republic. The hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) who in the past told us that the republic was a joke and not even a good joke, is now heart and soul in favour of a republic and he says that as sure as the sun shines the republic will come. This is the most horrible deceit. The people are waiting and will keep waiting and will be disappointed, for Hitler cannot fulfill his promises. What happened from 1914 to 1918? The Leader of the Opposition gave us the reasons why in his opinion England has lost, and they were that France has collapsed, that Hitler is in control of practically the whole of Europe. He says that Dunkirk has shown that England has lost, that England is a captive in its own fortifications. If the Leader of the Opposition really wants to inform the people he should not say that Germany has conquered the whole of Europe. Germany has taken one small country after another. How did it do it? It hollowed out these countries from the inside, just as hon. members on the other side are busy hollowing out this country. When Hitler came in Holland, the Hollanders themselves assisted in the fighting against their own people and they shot them from behind.

And where was England?

What the hon. member would have liked to see is that England had sent a large number of troops to the Continent in spite of the fact that there were traitors in the middle of the people which needed England’s assistance. There were Fifth Columns there which hollowed out the countries, so that England did not know who was its friend or its enemy, and hon. members over there would have liked to see England being stupid enough to let its troops be caught on the other side of the water. The English decided to withdraw their troops, but Dunkirk was not a matter of running away. The Leader of the Opposition, who is an old warrior, knows that Dunkirk will go down in history as one of the greatest war feats. His reason why he should make peace is that in his opinion England has already lost the war. I want to say on my part with the same right and confidence and with perhaps slightly more information at my disposal than has the Leader of the Opposition, I can say that England and its allies are going to win this war The Leader of the Opposition says that England has been conquered, but I say that as lar as the air is concerned, the position is that England is growing stronger from day to day. The Leader of the Opposition should also know that the side which controls the sea and which possesses the last shilling, is going to win the war. Germany is rapidly approaching its doom as the result of economic factors which have to be taken into account. This Government will continue the war until the victory for South Africa has been won. What happened in 1918, will happen again. We are going to win again. But I now want to ask in my turn. The Leader of the Opposition and our friends on the other side should toll me what the position is going to be when I am right as regards the outcome of the war; what is their position going to be then? [Time limit.]

In the course of the speech to which the House listened just now we were asked to give our attention to certain speeches of the past. Well, I just want to ask hon. members this. I advise them to look at a certain speech which was made three weeks ago and which was reported in the Johannesburg morning paper, where a certain view was put forward by my hon. friends’ paper. And if we want to appreciate that speech we can turn to that paper for appreciation. My hon. friend was given praise on that occasion and I am afraid that he is going to be praised again. I do not know whether it is possible at this stage still to contribute anything new or anything useful to this debate. We have apparently arrived at a position where reason no longer plays a part. The hon. Leader of the Opposition, who has introduced this motion, has placed hard facts before the House in justification of that motion. Hardly any effort has been made to contradict or weaken those facts. The right hon. the Prime Minister has simply come along and said to us “We are fighting for a victory and we are going to win.” That undoubtedly must to many people in this country sound like boasting. In the minds of others it has probably created the impression that this country is engaged on a gamble and that we are gambling with the lives of our young fellows and the fate and the welfare of the country. Nothing has been done to refute or to disprove those hard facts. It has appeared clearly on every occasion that we are dealing here with a mentality such as that of the famous literary authority who always made use of the words “We shall wait for something to turn up.” The right hon. the Prime Minister stated here yesterday that Parliament had already decided; that Parliament only a few months ago had again approved of the Government’s policy and that Parliament was going to do so again. I have never had any illusions as to what is going to be the probable result of this debate. Unfortunately there is no one to-day to give a final decision. The only court of appeal in a case of this kind, the people in the country—that court of appeal has been refused to us, and the public will not be given an opportunity; so apparently nothing else can be done except just to wait until force of arms has decided the issue on the fields of battle with all the fatal and deplorable consequences this may bring with it for our people. I support this motion and I should like to give my reasons and motives for again taking up the attitude which I took up on the 4th September and the attitude which I have since that time persistently adhered to. Because we must go back to the 4th September. This motion is the logical sequence which has to follow on the conviction given expression to on that occasion, even though that conviction was not expressed by the majority in this House, but undoubtedly by the representatives of a very large section of our people. It is of no use to come and tell us that this motion of ours is an act of treachery and that it is dishonourable; it is no use coming to tell us that we must acquiesce by Parliament’s decision. That aspect of the matter was effectively dealt with yesterday afternoon by the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) when he pointed out that we are not concerned here with a war of defence, that it is we who have declared war, and that it is not only within our rights, but that it is the duty of the representatives of the people, if they are of opinion that a wrong decision was taken at the time, to point out to the people of the country how wrong that decision has been. Nor is it sufficient for us to say “What are the peace terms which you suggest”? That is a question which should have been considered on the 4th September. An effort was made a few months ago, and now again, at least to try to get out of this muddle before our country should arrive at a state of affairs where we shall have no say at all but where terms will simply be dictated to us. On that previous occasion there may still have been a chance of evading by reasonable discussion some of the consequences which hecessarily had to follow on this senseless step which to my mind was taken by the Government. But there is something else which we must not lose sight of, and that is that on two occasions already the enemy has made an offer to start peace discussions, an offer which was made at a time when according to my friends opposite the Allies, or at least England, had not yet been defeated. There was still a chance then. An invitation was sent out in any case to discuss terms, but that invitation was simply turned down. Why? Naturally because one of the belligerent parties had entered the war from the very start with the definite view that this struggle had as its object nothing but the destruction and the breaking up of its enemy. It is not my intention to criticise that attitude. We can do nothing but admire that attitude so far as that belligerent party was concerned, but my question is whether that applies to us? Was that a consideration which induced us to take part in this war, and to enter the war? If that is to be the object of the war, that Germany is to be broken up, then we can understand that that offer for the discussion of peace terms cannot be regarded as acceptable. But I hope surely that that is not the object which South Africa had in view in regard to this war; I hope that those were not the considerations which induced us to declare war. I said that I was anxious to mention the motives which induced me personally to adopt the attitude which I did on the 4th September. There were two fundamental considerations, and the first consideration was that no South African interests were involved in this war. It had been the traditional policy of our country, at least the policy of the Government which had been in power for fifteen years preceding the war, that we should keep ourselves out of the European war difficulties, and that it was our right and our privilege, if a decision had to be arrived at in such an eventuality, to take a decision solely on the ground of the interests of this country. That was my first consideration. Then there was another consideration as well, which weighed just as much with me, and that was that no Government and no statesman dare, when the defence of the country is not at issue, but when it is a war of offence, decide to drag the people into that war unless the greatest possible unanimity prevails among the people. Here in our country we had the hard fact that we did not have a homogenous population. There is a large section of our population which has a history behind it which we dare not ignore, and if we were sensible we would realise that by dragging the whole country into a war in circumstances of that kind a feeling of bitterness and of dissension must of necessity once again be aroused in the minds of the people. As we have noticed in the last few days and as we all know the position in the country to be, that actually is what we find in the country to-day. That is the second important consideration which weighed with me, and I am sorry to notice that the right hon. the Prime Minister is not here to-day. I want to remind him of the fact that on the last occasion when we were together as colleagues I also emphasised these two great considerations, and I want to remind him of the warning I uttered then. But I want to discuss this question a little further, and I want to ask those hon. members opposite who are still prepared to listen to reason, to think without prejudice about these issues. I said that no direct South African interests were involved in this matter. It is a striking fact that during this debate at least we have not heard a great deal more of what we heard on a previous occasion, that we have to take part in this war because it it a war in defence of Christian civilisation, and that the aggressor must be punished. We have not heard that again in this debate, because it must have become clear to everyone in the past few months that if that was the reason why he had to take part in this war, that argument would have applied just as strongly in respect of big countries, such as the United States of America; democratic countries, Christian countries, countries which are also animated and inspired by all those lofty motives, but those countries have not felt themselves called upon to take part in this great struggle. Numerous neutral countries including the South American countries which fortunately were in such a geographical position that it was not easy or possible for one or other of the belligerent countries to drag them into the war, as we know has happened with a number of countries, did not enter into the war. Those arguments which have been adduced may be left where they are. I said that there was no South African interest involved in this matter, and I said that our entry into the war was in conflict with the recognised traditional policy of the country followed over a long period of years. I want to revert to the year 1926 when my honourable Leader and myself attended our first Imperial Conference. On that occasion we made it very clear on behalf of this country, and it was not only we who did so, but the other Dominions also did so, on the occasion of the discussion on the signing of the Locarno Treaty, that we were not prepared to be involved in quarrels which might arise as the result of the undertakings entered into by Great Britain under that Treaty. The British Government was aware of this and it was stated very clearly. I know, and all of us know, that that attitude remained the official attitude of South Africa and also the attitude of the previous Government right throughout all those years of crisis. I knew it, and this country also knew it. We are also aware of the fact that in our country the question of participation in European wars was one of the great political issues. The various parties had to give account to the people of their views in regard to this matter. In order to show what public opinion and the feeling in the country was on this issue I need only remind hon. members of the fact that the present Prime Minister went and told the people that according to his personal opinion, in the event of England being attacked and being in danger, it would be in the interests of South Africa to go to the aid of England. Even with the pressure brought to bear on him by a certain section of the population he was not prepared to bind South Africa unconditionally to take part in England’s wars. No, he laid down certain special conditions and he illustrated certain events in which, according to his own personal opinion, it would be in the interests of the Union to take part in one of England’s wars. There were other Afrikaners as well who in those circumstances might perhaps have been prepared to subscribe to that doctrine. It would not have met with general approval, but there was a spirit prevalent in the country in support of that attitude. This question, however, was not merely a theoretical question. No, the conditions which eventually drew us into the war were actual conditions. The Polish question had already become an actual issue and the Prime Minister of the country in an unequivocal manner told the country at the time “What have we to do with Poland?” and he told the country that we were under no obligation as a result of that issue to enter into the war. And the present Prime Minister subscribed to this view. On a previous occasion I pointed out that a report had appeared in the English Press of a speech which he (genl. Smuts), had made during the elections and in which this matter had been raised. He referred to the speech he had made at East London, to which I have also referred, and he stated clearly that in the event of a war breaking out in consequence of England’s undertakings in Central Europe, then the “conditions which I mentioned in my East London speech would not be applicable.” That was the impression which had been created in the minds of the people of South Africa in connection with the question of the war. I say therefore that there was not the slightest doubt as to what was the traditional policy of this country. And that being so it was not merely within our rights, but it was our duty to avail ourselves of our freedom to come to a decision and to say that we were going to keep ourselves out of that war. So far as I am personally concerned I stand to-day still more strongly on that point than I did on the 4th September because not only then, but since that time I have arrived at a deep conviction that hon. members on the Government benches who in the past were members of the same party as I was, but who on the 4th September adopted a different attitude, adopted that attitude not on the merits of the case, but they adopted it in consequence of a feeling which they had that it was not possible for this country to come to a different decision when England entered into a war. We hear hon. members talk about our Sovereign Parliament, and we said that Parliament was going to decide if we should have the question of war or peace placed before us. If I had been convinced that that decision had been arrived at after a reasonable consideration of what was in the interest of the country, then I, and nobody else, would have had the right to take exception. But I am deeply convinced that that was not the main consideration. Let hon. members listen to our friends opposite, let them listen to the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) and to the Minister of Mines and his party—they simply deny that any other decision could have been come to. If England is at war then we are at war; That is the deciding factor so far as they are concerned. My hon. friends may deny it, but they must give me credit for my honest conviction, and I am convinced that the merits of the case did not play the principal part in the decision that was arrived at. Later on I shall deal with the question of cooperation and racialism, but I want to say this at this stage, that so far as I am concerned the question of our right to decide about war and peace is a fundamental one and it should not be merely a theoretical one any longer, but a real and actual right, failing that, it is of no value to us. That is the main consideration which weighed with me, and I now wish to discuss the other one. On that occasion I also said to my hight hon. friend, the Prime Minister, that he must take account of the fact that we did not have a homogenous population in this country. There is a history at the back of the two great sections of the population and we must take account of that history. We dare not go and drag our people into a war when our doing so is going to have the effect of putting those two large sections of the population up against each other. What is going on in the country to-day, what we have been seeing of late, could have been expected by everyone. It had to come. Are these small things? Even my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, indicated a few weeks ago that he was aware of the fact that these were not minor things— he said so when he told a deputation of women that he was not so much concerned about the war as about what was going to happen afterwards, as we all had to live together in this country, and, he asked, what was the relationship then going to be between us? Unfortunately my hon. friend did not think of that on the 4th September of last year when the war was decided upon. We are in that position to-day; do not let us shut our eyes to it. And now during this debate we have heard mention made again of racialism and of anti-English feelings. The main impression which this must have made on most of us, not merely during the last few days, but for a long time already, is that there is a total lack on the side of a large section of our English-speaking fellow-citizens to realise what the feelings in such circumstances must necessarily be in the minds of the Dutch-speaking Afrikaners. That feeling is totally ignored as one of the minor details as it is called. I hope you will allow me, seeing that I am in a position here to submit to the House the mental development w hich has taken place with me personally on this question—and when I say this I know that I am speaking not merely bn behalf of myself, but I am in exactly the same position as that of tens of thousands of other Dutchspeaking Afrikaners—and that mental development is this. First of all we ourselves nearly forty years ago emerged from a struggle, from a war in this country, a war in those days in which in consequence of war propaganda, which in those days had just started, but to which we became more accustomed later on, a feeling of bitterness was created. Exactly the same thing was said about us in that war as was said in the last war, and in this war about the other side. It has only been in súbsequent years that it was recognised that that fight put up by the Afrikaner was not an ignoble fight. In that war we lost our freedom and that bitterness was created as the result of war propaganda, and it must be realised what essentially must have been the result in the mind of every Afrikaner who had a feeling for the value of what he had lost. A feeling of bitterness was created. It was that feeling which the Minister of Native Affairs had in his heart when’ he said: “I prefer to leave my Fatherland and to go to another country.” It was that same feeling which arose in the heart of the Prime Minister when he wrote that letter which was quoted here yesterday. The feeling was there. It was the result of the events which had taken place. The next development was that we obtained self-government after a relatively short time, and feelings were assuaged somewhat. But unfortunately our country too soon afterwards had to undergo a shock of the same kind as it now has to undergo again; war came about and rebellion broke out. I did not take part in the rebellion because at that time I was not convinced of the wisdom of that step, but I understood the feelings and I appreciated the feelings which led to that rebellion, the motive behind it. And what happened after that? The rebellion was suppressed. Subsequently a Nationalist Government party came to the head of affairs, whose principal object was to go out of its way to get the freedom of the people restored. That was the main object of the National movement of those years. What happened? In 1924 the people put the Nationalist Party into power and that party immediately proceeded to carry out the great task which it had placed before it as its object. The Leader of the Opposition who was in those days Prime Minister, approached the British Government—and I again had the privilege of being present—and he said: “You will never get peace in South Africa; we have an impossible position between the various sections, and you will never get peace until matters have been put right”. The British Government, so the Leader of the Opposition said, did say from time to time that South Africa was free and could decide over its own destiny in the fullest sense of the word, but there was a large section of the people of South Africa who did not believe it, and would not admit it. The Leader of the Opposition said to the British Government: “It is necessary to get an authoritative statement from you of our freedom.” We returned with that statement. What was the reaction in this country? We said to the people: “Here is your freedom. It is not so much the form which matters but the essence is freedom, the freedom of deciding over your own destiny even in regard to a matter of peace or war. You have that now.” What was the reaction? There were Afrikaners who said that they did not believe in that freedom. But we succeeded with the influences that prevailed to get the people to believe in it, and as a result of that recognition, over a course of time gradually a better relationship between the races began to prevail in this country. It is now held against the Leader of the Opposition that he on certain occasions said that England was our best friend, that England had returned to us what she had taken away from us in the fullest degree, and that we must co-operate. That same reaction also animated the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) in those years and he spoke in the same trend during those years. Matters further developed until as early as 1933 we were in the position that the Leaders were able to go to the people and say that the great fundamental issues between the sections had been disposed of, and that it was in the interest of the country that the two sections should come together and work together. That was the result of that recognition of our freedom. But I want to remind hon. members that we did not just casually come together. Oh no, we came together before that time, and we faced matters, and we put down in writing what our belief was in regard to these matters, and what our attitude was. There were conditions laid down for our coming together, and provision was made in connection with those matters because those were fundamental questions. We did not tolerate anyone going to the people before that without these issues first of all having been properly regulated and laid down. But they were definite and they went in connection with these things just as they went in regard to the solution of the other great fundamental issue here in South Africa — the language question. The battle had been won, but it took years before the appreciation of the fact had penetrated into the minds of a large section of the people that we were in earnest, and that it was not merely a question of theory with us. And we had the same position in regard to this question. A large section of our friends opposite said “Let us accept it”, but they never took account of the implication of all this, and they never realised that we were in earnest, that it was not just a matter of theory, but that so far as we were concerned it was a matter of reality. To-day we have this unfortunate position. Hon. members opposite surely will not accuse me of racialism. I shewed honestly that I was in earnest, and to-day I am still in earnest, and I am still convinced that there is, no other future for our people except for them to come together, to put up with each other, and to work together. When co-operation came about I was in earnest. After that the split came about. We can do no more than deplore that as I said earlier on, we are apparently in a position where reason no longer plays a part, and where this matter has now to be settled by force of arms on the battlefield. This is the position due to the fact that sufficient heed has not been taken of the great outstanding fact—that it was not realised that we were engaged on destroying the foundation completely. I do not know how we can start building again because of one thing I am convinced. Personally I have no regrets whatsoever over the fact that Dutch-speaking South Africa has made the attempt during the years of fruitful constructive work to co-operate with the English-speaking people. But they left us in the lurch on the fundamental point. All we can do now is to use our best endeavours to see to it that the cleavage is not made too wide, and that when the time comes for arms to be laid down it may still be possible to have co-operation between the two sections. I want to conclude by mentioning just a few matters which to my mind, if the Prime Minister fails to take heed, will contribute greatly towards maintaining a position in this country for many years during which great bitterness will prevail. The first point is in regard to the events which are occurring in this country—the threats that are being made towards Afrikaans-speaking people, the acts of violence, the deliberate ignoring of the convictions of the Afrikaansspeaking people. It is unfortunate that it has been proved that the highest authorities regard these things as minor details. They are not minor details. Action will have to be taken to see to it that protection is afforded to the other section of the population as well. The other point is the handing in of rifles. I fail to understand how it is possible that anyone who knows or should know his people, as the Prime Minister should know his people, should take a step of this kind. I have asked myself with what object this was done. Did he not realise how deeply he was going to touch the feelings and the hearts of every Afrikaner in depriving him of his rifle? In what way did this benefit the state, or the interests of the state? When I heard for the first time of this instruction I thought that the Government possibly did not have enough rifles for war purposes, and that it required those rifles for war purposes. Later on, however, I heard that the order had been made applicable to all kinds of rifles which were of no value whatsoever for the continuation of the war. Even small cartridges had to be handed over, and it would appear that this is nothing but an effort to disarm the people, an action which necessarily must be regarded by the people as an insult. [Time limit.]

I must admit ….

Why do you not speak your own language?

I am speaking in the language I want to speak in.

Why not speak …

These gentlemen evidently want me to speak German.

Why not.

If necessary I could deliver a speech in German, but could the hon. member?

As well as you.

It is with a sorrowful heart that I arise to speak against this motion, sorrowful because it has been introduced by a man who has been held in such high esteem, not only by myself but by tens of thousands of Dutch and English-speaking South Africans, and sorrowful all the more to me as a Dutch-speaking South African, because this motion was introduced by a Boer general, and Boer generals up to now have always held an unblemished record for chivalry.

That cannot be said about you.

That is what I think is a Dutch-speaking South African.

Which you are not.

What English-speaking South Africans think of it I do not know.

Does it matter?

But I can well imagine in view of the fact that the ex-Prime Minister, the mover of this motion, has held the record of having enjoyed the longest interrupted term as Prime Minister under the British Crown, that has yet been held in the history of the British Empire, I can well imagine what English-speaking South Africans must think of it.

Terrible!

My first objection to this motion is that it is in conflict with all commonsense.

Then you cannot judge.

At the time of the Status Bills the ex-Prime Minister drummed it into our heads that we were freely associated with the other Dominions with England in a common allegiance to the King, and to those to whom the position was not clear we made it plain over and over again that the King of England was the King of South Africa.

That is what we object to.

Now I ask how in the name of commonsense is it possible that the King as King of South Africa could make peace with Germany and as King of England be at war with Germany?

You are a doctor and you do not understand it.

So we are on the horns of a dilemma.

Just let us get into power and we will show you.

My second objection, and it is my most serious objection, is that this is a gross breach of chivalry. The Prime Minister has over and over on public platforms and once at a dinner in my own presence told us that England is our greatest friend. As a matter of fact the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) went even further and said that England is the mother of our liberty.

The grandmother.

And now that that same Great Britain and that same Empire …

Again your Empire!

Now that that same Great Britain and that same Empire is engaged in a struggle of life and death, in a struggle for democracy, in a struggle to prevent civilisation from falling back into the darkness of middle ages, now we are asked to leave such a friend in the lurch, and to stab that mother in the back. Is that the sort of chivalry which we stand for? Let us argue the point. If we make a separate peace to-day with Germany the whole world will cry out, Germany will cry out, Hitler will cry out, it is finished with England, because they will say: “Look at that, the British Empire is disintegrating. The British Empire is falling to pieces. South Africa has made a separate peace with us.”

It has fallen to pieces.

It will be, sir, the death blow to the morale of the British troops. It will be the death blow to the general impression and to the prestige that England still holds in the world. Is that friendship? Is that chivalry? I want to make a second point. If we cede South Africa to Germany — because Hitler will be satisfied with none less — or if we did not cede it directly to Germany then we must become a vassal state; at any rate a state under the supervision and the surveillance of nobody less than Hitler or Germany. Say for instance that England loses Gibraltar — but she will not. Say that she loses Suez, which she will not. But take the remotest possibility that she loses that and that South Africa is an enemy country or has been ceded to Germany, then the only way to reach her great Eastern Empire will be via the Cape, and then it will be impossible because the Cape has an enemy atmosphere, and if she cannot reach her great Eastern Empire it is finished with her. This motion is meant as nothing less than a death thrust, to the very heart of England. The mover of the motion said that England is our greatest friend; the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) said that she is the mother of our liberty. Is that friendship? Is that chivalry, or may I ask, have we lost all our sense of chivalry? I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that after the speech by the hon. member for Piquetberg yesterday I am beginning to feel that we are losing, or at least some of us are losing, our sense of chivalry. Here he pointed his finger at the Prime Minister and he read from a book called the Life of Lord Kitchener by Sir George Arthur. He quoted from a letter in which he said that General Smuts was practically the Leopold or the Pétain of the Boers at the time of the Boer War, before peace was declared. Now, sir, I ask is this chivalry? What is the truth? Here is a book written by nobody less than General Christiaan De Wet: “Die Stryd Tussen Boer en Brit.” If you read certain passages on pages 300 and 301 you will see that this is an untruth and that that letter was never written by General Smuts. It was written from the Government Offices, District Ermelo, in the South African Republics on the 10th May, 1901, and is signed by the late President Reitz, State Secretary. Now, sir, are you surpriséd if I ask have we lost our sense of chivalry. Here before this House, before the reading public, before the listening public over the whole world the Prime Minister is being vilified, is being made out for a modern Pétain, for a traitor, for a Leopold, and that on a letter that has been misquoted, by saying something that is not true. Now I can forgive the hon. member for Piquetberg for having done so if he is a busy man who has another job and cannot apply all his work to his job, but outside Parliament he is unemployed. He has lots of time on his hands. Could he not have investigated the matter beforehand, and could he not have read this book written by old General De Wet himself? Then he would have told a different story instead of going so far as to vilify a man who is a world renowned figure and the leader of South Africa in these days of stress and darkness. Then he would not have compared him with a modem Pétain. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat again, the mover of the motion said England is our greatest friend and the member for Piquetberg said she is the mother of our liberty. Now I admit if I have been let down by a friend or even if my mother had kicked me out of the house then there would be some big reconsideration of my attitude, but now to-day in the name of fairplay, in the name of honesty, in the name of chivalry, I want to put this question, has England treated us in such a way that she deserves to-day to be stabbed in the back. I say in the name of honesty — England fought against the two Republics, right or wrong, but it is a thing of the past and let the dead bury its dead. But she took away the two Republics and gave us four in their place. She allowed this great fact which nobody can dispute that the whole Union of South Africa was ruled for the last thirty years by the generals of those two conquered Republics. Has that ever happened in the history of the world? She, the conqueror, allowed these people to be ruled by the conquered for the last thirty years, not by Natal or by the Cape Colony but by the generals of the two Republics, Generals Botha, Smuts and Hertzog. Now look at our language. If that is British policy I wish it was your policy. Mr. Speaker, I want to mention a second thing. England gave absolute official status to our language. Has that ever been done in any country? Has Germany done that in South-West? Has France done that with her colonies. I want to put this question to you. [Interruptions.] I am led into temptation because the hon. member for Potgietersrust (the Rev. S. W. Naudé) keeps on interrupting me. Let me read from Hansard of the 12th April, 1939, and see what he said—

He was referring to the hon. member for Piquetberg. On that I read the Speaker’s remark—

The Transvaal Republic which we South Africans love to think of, and think of with the greatest reverence, did she allow official status to the English language? The Free State which was a model state ruled by the uncrowned king of this country, President Steyn, did she give official status to the English language? Here the English come and they force their own children into this position that they cannot get into the Public Service unless they have passed an examination in Afrikaans. Is that not broadminded? Must we not appreciate that? Mr. Speaker, what have we to complain of? Where is the harness chafing us Dutch-speaking South Africans to-day? Can we be freer than we are to-day? We are freer than the two Republics were. We are freer than the Transvaal Republic was, which was under British suzerainty. We can make agreements with foreign countries to our heart’s desire, which they could not do. We made a trade agreement with Italy for which we did not even get back decent macaroni. We made a trade agreement with Germany and gave her the best wool in the world, South African wool. What did we get back for it? Old engines, which were rotten in three months time and had to be used as scrap iron. I say is the harness chafing us, in all honesty?

The Chief Justice to-day in this country is a Dutch-speaking South African. The professors of our colleges are Dutch-speaking South Aricans, the Administrators of the Provinces are Dutch-speaking South Africans, the police and their chiefs are Dutch-speaking South Africans. Some of the chiefs of the Railways are Dutch-speaking and 85 per cent. of the personnel is Dutch-speaking. The heads of practically all Government Departments are Dutch-speaking. We have free speech, we have a free Press. Such free speech and such a free Press that if we were to-day under Hitler and my friends opposite had spoken as they have spoken their heads would have been very neatly chopped off. If we were under Hitler and the Press went as far as the Afrikaans Press is going in this country, with exceptions, they would long ago have been condemned to the waste-paper basket. Now, sir, what I read the other day made me sad. I read a leading article in Die Burger referring to what I am saying now and it said what England gave us was “stench for thanks.” But these very people are revelling and rejoicing and living in that atmosphere of stench. That atmosphere of stench has made administrators of them. One or two of them have drawn no less than £50,000 from this country. That is the stench atmosphere in which they are revelling to-day which made them live and made them what they are to-day. Now, sir, must we stab such a friend in the back, a friend which the hon. member for Piquetberg said is the mother of our liberty? Must we do this to the mother of our liberty? Must we be like Nero who had his own mother put to death? No, sir. Rather dead or poor than surrender our sense of chivalry and, therefore, our self-respect, because a nation without selfrespect is a lost nation. I want to come to the point where the hon. mover of the motion said we must make peace with Germany, because Germany is too strong, Germany has practically won the war, and I want to analyse that statement. If that is so, then we must make peace because Germany is so strong. Was it right of President Kruger — and hats off a million times to him — at that time to declare war against Great Britain, knowing that the Transvaal only had a few thousand people against millions of people? But he was a man. He was too chivalrous in his heart. He said rather die on the battlefield with an empty stomach than surrender to an enemy with a full stomach. I want to ask the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) whether the strength argument counted so much with him at the time of the rebellion. Did he not know it was an impossible task when he went into rebellion? I want to ask every fair-minded man of Dutch origin, did our forefathers consider that weak-kneed argument when for 80 years they fought against the supreme power of Spain, and must we, the descendents of such people, lower the flag before the tyrant? Does the mover of this motion want us to be like rats that leave a sinking vessel? This reminds me to-day of what a certain gentleman did when he saw the whole world was against his Master, he went and sold his Master to the strong people. His name was Judas, but Judas was a gentleman, because he afterwards repented and hanged himself. The last question I want to address to the member for Smithfield, and I want to ask him what kind of a peace is he going to offer to Hitler and what kind of a peace will Hitler be satisfied with? Are you going to offer him the terms of Leopold, or the terms of Pétain? No, sir, I will tell you what we are going to offer him and what he will be satisfied with. Two or three weeks ago in my constituency a public meeting was held, not by my supporters but by Dr. Malan’s people and, just fancy the cheek of it, they passed a resolution ordering me to vote for an unconditional peace. These are simple people, they believe what they read and what they hear from their leaders, and that is the impression they get from speeches and articles, namely, that going to Hitler means unconditional peace. Why? If Hitler now says, as he said to Leopold. “My terms are unconditional surrender,” the same as he said to Pétain, what are you going to do? What did he say to Pétain? „Voertsek out of the greater part of France. You can go to Vichy, you can drink the waters there, you must surrender your arms, your navy and your air force.” And he also said to the Bank of France, “Deliver up all the gold.” Now I want to ask this question, if Hitler’s terms are the unconditional surrender of South Africa, what are you going to do? Are you going to fight with him, can you fight with him in view of your argument that we must run away from a steam engine? The hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) justified Hitler’s invasion of Holland by saying that from a strategic point of view he needed Holland because France could only be approached in that way. That is the greatest piece of jesuitism I have ever heard. It was the same argument that England used to the Transvaal, she needed to come into the Transvaal, and to-day we are still sore about it. Yet to-day the hon. member is justifying the action of Hitler by saying that he needed Holland. I want to say that when we come to talk terms with Hitler, he will say, “Yes, Rev. Malan, that is all very well, that is all very fine, but I need the gold of the Transvaal and the diamonds, the mineral wealth of South Africa, her cattle and sheep and her agricultural products. I need them, so I am sorry, my friend, but you must surrender unconditionally.” Will you be satisfied with that? No, sir, rather free on our knees, than slaves on our feet. Honour is more than life to me, you may call me a fool and I will agree with you, but to me honour is more than life. In conclusion I want to refer to the threatening to which we have been subjected. We have heard very much about intimidation and a pitiful picture has been painted by an hon. member, but what have I seen here with my own eyes and heard with my ears? Yesterday the member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) and my friend, the member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) — I am not going to say a word against him, because he knows I love him — but he also yesterday said, “What we are going to have is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But wait a bit, if he takes my eye then I take his. He will take my other eye and I will take his, and the result will be that we shall both be in darkness, and that is what this motion is leading to, and that is what disunion inside South Africa is leading to, it is leading this country and this nation into the darkness of poverty, disunion and racial hatred. He said a tooth for a tooth, and he should remember that we have many teeth in our mouths and in the end, if this doctrine is followed, we shall both be without teeth and have to live on mieliepap. The hon. member for Vredefort is a man and a soldier, I take my hat off to him, but I ask him, does he mean to threaten another Afrikaner? He will not allow any man to threaten him, he is too chivalrous, too much a soldier, and I would be the last to threaten him, because he would knock me down. Now I warn him that there must be no threats towards either the Dutch-speaking or the English-speaking South African. Do not threaten, because you are looking for trouble, and serious trouble too. I want to conclude by referring to what the member for Piquetberg said. These were his words—

Now, Mr. Speaker, if Germany wins, I want to look at the other side of the picture and say, what if Great Britain wins and you have seceded and have made a separate peace? What is going to remain to you? Do you think that Great Britain will be justified in giving you self-government?

You are a hippo.

These people always call me a hippo. I am proud of it, because in the first place it is good eating, and secondly from the hide you can cut fine sjamboks, with which I drove your leader out of Calvinia. In view of what I have said, I wish to conclude with these words, we are going to follow the path of chivalry and honour whatever the consequences may be, and we are going to win the war because we have the money and the men, and we are led by one of the most brilliant brains in the world, and we thank God he is a South African.

It is a pity that the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. Steenkamp) was given the opportunity to speak after the magnificent speech made by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga). It appeared to me that the hon. member for Calvinia could not have listened to the speech made by the hon. member for Fauresmith. While I was listening to his speech the thought came to my mind that we should say to Calvinia, with a representative of that kind: “Calvinia, woe unto you, Calvinia”. I doubt whether it would have been possible for a member of the Dominion Party to have praised England up to the skies in the way the hon. member did. It was very clear to me, however, that that hon. member at the time of the Second War of Independence, became so afraid of England that to-day he can do nothing but praise England, because that fear is always with him. I want to tell him, however, that I am not possessed of that fear, and I have not got up here to praise England up to the skies after what has happened during the past few years.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

When the proceedings were suspended I was pointing out that the English people had apparently inspired the hon. member for Calvinia with such fear that he issued a pamphlet to his constituency in which he stated that if we had decided on the 4th September in favour of neutrality Australia would have come and attacked us. If he got scared of the Australian troops let me tell him that on this side of the House there are sixty-seven men who, together with the thousands of people they represent, did not get scared of the Australians, nor will they get scared of them. He further pointed out that at one time the Leader of the Opposition stated that England was South Africa’s best friend. That may still be said about England, but the difficulty is that the English people here in our own country are not South Africa’s best friends. The hon. member for Calvinia used one sentence which found an echo in my heart. He said that there was a man by the name of Judas who was a gentleman because he had repented and hanged himself. Let me tell the hon. member that he can also be a gentleman, but he need not go far as to hang himself, because so far as the South African people are concerned he is of no importance either dead or alive. If we think of the way in which the hon. member for Calvinia tried to belittle me and my fellow Afrikaners, if we think of the way in which not only he but other Afrikaans-speaking members opposite, are out to belittle us, it is quite enough to make anyone feel resentful. Listen to their speeches on the platteland. There they call us hands-uppers, and the white flag brigade. It is a disgrace to say this about one’s fellow Afrikaners simply because they do not stand for the interests of the Empire and do not want to be England’s satellites. I want to tell the hon. member this, that history will show that the sixty-seven men who on the 4th September voted for neutrality, and who sit on this side of the House, have rendered a great service to South Africa, and the South African nation will honour their memories. So far as the other eighty-one men on the other side of the House are concerned, they will go down with contempt in the history of the South African nation, and for that reason I want to téll them that the time has come for them to consider whether it is not ‘advisable now for them to put the interests of South Africa first. This motion reads that we must ask for peace. If we cast our minds back we find that in a few days’ time it will be a year since South Africa was plunged into this useless, ridiculous war, by the Prime Minister with the aid of a group of English followers who sit behind him, and we find that by doing so they have given evidence that South Africa, as far as they are concerned, is only a secondary consideration. A year has passed and now I ask them, what have they done to promote Great Britain’s cause? They have contributed absolutely nothing at all to that purpose but what they have done is to put the clock in South Africa fifty years back. What they have done is to create dissension among our people. They are not prepared to accept this motion. When the Prime Minister made his speech here the other day I could come to no conclusion but that it was a speech of despair. He tried to inspire confidence in the minds of his followers when he said that England was going to win the war. It was an effort of despair which the Prime Minister made, and it reminded me of the man who with his wife went to an attorney to make his last will and testament. The testament was to the effect that the surviving spouse would remain in full possession of the estate; when the will had been made and they were going away the man, when he reached the door, turned round and asked the attorney: “But what happens if the surviving spouse dies first?” Let me tell our Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Great Britain that in this case the surviving spouse will die first. If he will accept my advice, let him tell the Prime Minister of England that the time has come for them to put their estate in order, and if they want to appoint any executors, this is the time for them to do so. All we need do is look at the events of last year. Germany scored one victory after another. If I think of the English nation I am sorry for them. I am sorry that they have leaders who lead them into the dark alleys, leaders who do not keep them informed of what is going on. I am afraid that it is the English nation who will have to pay the piper when their leaders have run away. And then we find that our Prime Minister in his farewell message to the troops that have gone to North Africa, said: “I wish you good luck, and remember that when the war began it began as Hitler’s war, but it will conclude as the Lord’s war”. He did not say on whose side the Lord was. But that was the crux of his speech, and what did he say further to those young fellows who are being sent North to go and fight there, not for the interests of South Africa but to be used there as cannon fodder for the interests of the Empire? I say definitely that the troops which are being sent to fight in the North are not being sent there to go and fight for the interests of South Africa, they are going to fight there for the Empire. He said to them: “You stand here before me as volunteers, and no compulsion has been brought to bear on you to go and fight”. Is that so? Was no compulsion brought to bear on those people? Among those large numbers of young Afrikaners who stood there I tell the Prime Minister that there were thousands who were there because they would have been dismissed from their work if they had refused to take the oath. They were intimidated and victimised and that notwithstanding the promises which the Prime Minister made to us during the last session of Parliament. If a man goes on to the field of battle and he sacrifices his life for his people, a gravestone is erected for him on which the following words are put: “Here lies a man who has given his life for his people and his country”. What will be the position in regard to those thousands of people who go to the North to fight there for the Empire? What will be the position in regard to them if they are killed? If a gravestone is put up for them the following words will have to be put on, not “here lies a man who has given his life for South Africa”, but “here lies a man who has given his life for bread and butter”. Why do I say that? I say so because those people were compelled to go as a result of victimisation which was exercised against young Afrikaners in our country. All we have to do is to enquire in the different departments of State to find out what is going on there. In every sphere, in the police and in the Civil Service, pressure has been brought to bear on these people. If a policeman refused to take the oath he was very quickly transferred. I know that there are large numbers of them who did not want to take the oath, and those people found that within a few weeks they were sent to some out of the way spot in the Union of South Africa. They are victimised because they are loyal to the great principle of the Afrikaner to stand for South Africa first. The question involuntarily arises in one’s mind how long South Africa is going to tolerate this sort of thing going on? My mind goes back to the 4th September and the period after that when we returned to our constituencies. We did everything we possibly could to calm the minds of the people there. Who is there on the other side of the House who can say that we did not succeed in doing so? And what thanks did we get? In exactly the same way as the English in 1902 disarmed the Boers, the Prime Minister who regards himself as an Afrikaner, has now disarmed his own Afrikaners. To think that it should be possible for our fellow Afrikaners to go so far as to deprive their own people of their rifles; I want to ask the Prime Minister what is behind all this? Did he think perhaps that there would be a revolution or a rising? Is that also the reason why he always has a bodyguard behind him? Is it necessary for a Prime Mi nister, if he really looks after the interests of his people, to keep a bodyguard round about him? I want to tell the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that the South African nation is going to achieve its object, but it is going to do so without violence, and in a constitutional way. The time is coming and is coming quickly. I want to ask why hon. members opposite are so quiet, so despondent, so down in the mouth? Is it possible that they have had bad news? Have they possibly heard that another air raid has been made on England, and that another few broody hens have been killed? Why so downcast? Or is it that although they tell us that we are bringing up old and worn out arguments the blows which have been administered to them from this side of the House have put them to flight, so that it looks like Dunkirk on a small scale? On the 4th September the blow delivered to the Afrikaner people nearly made them despondent, but in the course of the year that has just passed the people have been awakened, and since the 29th of this month the offensive has been started by the Afrikaner in this House. Hon. members opposite are running away, they are in full flight. The Minister of Lands is laughing. He ran away at Brits, and that, so far as he is concerned, was the beginning of the flight.

I did not run away.

Was it not a case of running away? He is still busy retreating. Hon. members are so quiet, one no longer hears them singing that they are going to put their washing on the Siegfried Line. Perhaps it is because since Dunkirk they have no clothes left, no washing. When they ran away and crept through the barbed wire their clothes got stuck and were left behind. I want to say a few words to the Afrikaans-speaking members who are still sitting opposite. They will also have to run away, and their flight will be a great flight when the Afrikaner nation comes to settle with them, and the time is nigh when the Afrikaner nation will settle with them. Some remarks Were made here about our having spoken of a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye. No, we are going to hit back with double blows, because some of them are sniffling about among the people to find out whether it is not possible for them to get some fellow Afrikaner put into the internment camp. For the sake of a few pounds they sniff about like a lot of mongrel kaffir dogs, to see whether they cannot get some people put into the camps. Let me tell them that for every Afrikaner who is put in a camp for one year they will have to sit there for two years. They are laughing now, but they remind me of the old saying that very soon they will be laughing on the wrong side of their faces. If there is one good thing, it is that the Englishman has learnt to pray. There is an old saying to the effect that distress teaches one to pray; the distress now seems to be so great that one can see in Adderley Street how they are praying with one eye closed and one eye open, because their trouble is so close at hand that they dare not close both their eyes.

I do not think that that has very much to do with the debate.

I am referring to this because it is our wish that an end should be put to those things which tend to increase the dissension among our people. While they stand and pray they look around and they are on the watch for somebody who may not agree with their views, and whom they can attack. And what is so scandalous is that some of our Afrikaners who pray there are satisfied to see skolly-boys and natives and hottentots attack our own people. If I think of that sort of thing it makes me sad to realise that there are Afrikaners who have as little backbone as the rat has in his tail. I want to make an appeal to Afrikaans-speaking South Africans to ask the Prime Minister to put an end to that sort of thing, so that feelings which are already running high shall not be further stirred up. We have the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) over there. If there is one man in this House who has done harm it is he. The hon. member at his meetings suggested that the college at Potchefstroom should be shut down, and I say to his face that it is a scandal. What has been the result of the advice given by him? The result has been that those brave soldiers of Potchefstroom — and the hon. member is responsible for it — have assaulted the other people there and by their actions they have even shewn contempt for the Government — they have shewn just as much contempt as I have for them. I personally, together with other hon. members, have seen what has happened. I have seen how windows have been smashed to pieces, furniture destroyed and fourteen students injured. When I beheld the destruction which was done there I was réminded of what took place forty years ago. In those days the fathers of those soldiers caused the mothers and the young girls of South Africa to be chased by natives, and twenty-six thousand of them were buried, and they — those people — killed the stock and the sheep and the horses of the Afrikaner people. When I saw the destruction caused at Potchefstroom I came to the conclusion that the English people at Potchefstroom have been partly civilised, because at Potchefstroom they did not burn down one house, and not one of the women students had been knocked about. So they have progressed. I wonder whether the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has had an injection and whether he has English blood in his veins now; failing that his attitude to-day is inexplicable because he only thinks of the interests of the Empire and not of the welfare of South Africa. Let me tell him that we here are full of courage, knowing that the time is near when the Afrikaner will again have a say in South Africa. I want to add that we on this side will try to show the English speaking people how their fellow citizens in South Africa should be treated.

When one listens to the hon. member for Zwartruggens (Mr. Verster) one gets the impression that he is a man who has returned from a disappointed chase. He has made certain allegations and he might just as well have mentioned me by name. It was I who spoke about handsuppers and I do not withdraw one word of what I said. I said that the people who ran away from my meeting at Rustenburg were the same hands-uppers ….

You are still suffering from the motions of no-confidence which you got.

I have not had one yet. The hon. members say that we are going to run away; well, they have been running away for the last twelve months, but that has never troubled us, so long as they keep in their places and do not interfere with other people’s business, and do not interfere with our loyal Government. Now let us get back to the motion. We find that this motion is the aftermath of the hands-up meetings which were held over the length and breadth of the country. Those meetings were complete failures. We are told about the thousands of people who attended those meetings. I know of people who took part in six or eight of such meetings and it was always the same “mob” which carried out mob rule. Threats were made at those meetings such as one could expect from an irresponsible section in the country, but do not let them imagine that they are influencing us in any way. They have not the courage themselves to get into the front ranks, but they make use of simple people to cause difficulties throughout the country. They did not even have the manly courage to go and present the women’s petition to the Prime Minister at Union Building, but they used Afrikaner women and girls to go and do it, and to see first whether it was safe. When they see that it is safe they come to the front and after that they came along with their peace meetings. We are now being told that they have come forward with this peace motion because the position of the Allies is desperate. But was that the position also on the 4th September? Was the position precarious at that time? At that time France had not yet collapsed, but even in those days they were animated by Hitlerism and it is in consequence of that that we have all this division in the country. They are even divided in their own party, with the result that they are not even able to get a name for their party. They are fighting among themselves, and then they want us to make peace with the enemy. This motion which is now before the House is a hypocritical motion and these peace meetings that are being held are doubtful. They go under the guise of peace, peace with Hitler in order to declare war in South Africa. They do not move a finger if difficulties arise at political meetings, and when assaults take place. On the contrary they welcome it if one simply puts a question or makes a remark and is knocked down.

You people came and looked for trouble.

The hon. member who has just made that remark is the greatest cause of the difficulties that have arisen, but is it not peculiar that they should come along now and pretend to be the true Afrikaners. We who sit here are not allowed to have any opinion and we are not allowed to say anything. I want to make it clear to hon. members over there that when I and other members voted here on the 4th September we were in earnest with our resolution, and I have no regrets whatever about the step which I took on that occasion, because happenings of recent days have clearly proved to me that I did the right thing. I then came to the realisation that I had acted correctly in not allowing myself to be led by the nose. I gave my vote in the best interests of the country and of the people, and I was not prepared to sell my vote for the sake of a seat. We did not take our financial position into account, but we feel that we voted in the best interests of the country.

You are the last one to be able to say that.

I want to ask the hon. member to tell us a little more about that smart Dutch woman and her children. I want to ask hon. members opposite what the question was on which we voted on the 4th September? Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister’s motion came before the House without our party knowing anything about it, without our having been consulted? I myself and the other Afrikaans-speaking members who sit here to-day are just as pure Afrikaners as hon. members opposite, but we were not prepared to vote for the undermining of loyal South Africa. The Leader of the Opposition has always proclaimed inside and outside of the House that if war breaks out Parliament will take a decision. That decision was taken on the 4th September. He always said that if circumstances, international or local should affect South Africa’s position, Parliament would decide and that is what has been done. Is it fair now on the part of hon. members opposite to adopt the attitude they are adopting, to go through the country and try, wherever they can, to cause a revolution?

Is it true that you managed to take refuge in a poplar tree?

That interjection does not worry me, because the hon. member did not have the courage to go and look in the poplar tree. The hon. member would do much better if he confined his remarks to the wool troubles. I want to revert to the position on the 4th September. In Hansard one can read numerous statements in regard to the United Party’s policy before the 4th September in which it was said that Parliament would decide. If hon. members doubt this I want to remind them that the then Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan), and the Leader of the Dominion Party (Col. Stallard) and the Leader of the Labour Party (Mr. Madeley), repeatedly demanded that the then Prime Minister (Gen. Hertzog) should make a statement as to what the Union’s policy would be in the event of war. Now it is stated here that as long ago as 1938 the Government Party decided that we were to remain neutral. I as an old member of the United Party definitely knew nothing about it, and not a solitary member on this side knew anything about it.

What do you know?

I wish to quote what the hon. member who has just interrupted stated on the 29th August, 1938. These were his words—

Were any objections raised, was the hon. member put out of the caucus in those days by the present Leader of the Opposition, or was that statement welcomed?

Do you also believe it?

I believe it, and the Leader of the Opposition also believes it, and other members also believe it. Now, however, they come along with a motion asking for peace. Nothing is said about the conditions on which that peace is to be concluded, but they come here and want to cause trouble. If they want to pose here as Hitler’s mouthpiece, why do they not go to Hitler and ask him on what conditions he is prepared to make peace? They would be able to find that out.

How is it you are not fighting?

I am fighting against Hitler.

Where?

The hon. member, of course, is anxious that I should vacate my seat and go to the front so that they may be able to get ’n majority here, but I stay at home because I have to protect the cowards who would otherwise be in danger. If they are Hitler’s mouthpiece let them find out from him what his conditions are, and if his conditions are acceptable let them tell us so. Outside this House, and during this debate, references have been made to the effect that we on this side of the House are fighting for British Imperialism. That is absolutely untrue. On the 4th September a motion was introduced in this House which was accepted by the great majority in the House and which was accepted by the people, and against which hon. members over there are now acting in a revolutionary spirit. Let us see whether there is a single grain of truth in their statement that we are fighting for British Imperialism. The fact is that we are out to fight for that freedom which we appreciate so greatly, but which is so sadly abused by the Opposition. In spite of all that we are told to-day that we are Great Britain’s satellites. I quoted here to show the policy which the Government of the Leader of the Opposition had followed since 1924, and I refer to the words spoken by the hon. member for Potgietersrust (The Rev. S. W. Naudé), and I want to know from them whether they in those days looked upon themselves as Great Britain’s satellites? Were they in those days the satellites of Great Britain for the sake of the ministerial salaries they drew, and are they no longer satellites to-day because they are no longer receiving those salaries? In 1936 Italy attacked Abyssinia. Our Government under the leadership of the present Leader of the Opposition in those days applied sanctions against Italy, and sanctions after all, are very much like war. Why did they do so? Was it not because it was in the interests of the security of South Africa, or was it because Italy had attacked a crowd of uncivilised natives, and did they and the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow), who has had such a lot to say about this matter, then become the satellites of Haile Selassie? If they were not, what right have they to come and make those insinuations to-day that we are Great Britain’s satellites because we want to go and protect South Africa’s freedom? No, my friends opposite realise to-day that a year ago they made a mistake; they are satisfied after having gone back to the country and having found out what the people think about this matter, and now they are trying to justify what they have done. What they are doing now is to try and stir up the public and practically to advise people to resist the authorities of the country. This has had the result that the public have been stirred up, and people are being assaulted, and even women are being assaulted, and these assaults are not disapproved of by them, so that we must take it that they have their approval. And now they come and tell us that it is our people who commit those assaults. I say that the people who are guilty of that kind of sabotage, such as the throwing of bombs and things of that kind, are 100 per cent. supporters of hon. members opposite, and of the peace movement. Let them deny it. I do not want to approve of the kind of things which have occurred at Potchefstroom, but I want to say this, that an enquiry is being made now and that enquiry will show that those soldiers were compelled to do what they did by the defiiance hurled at them by the Potchefstroom mob.

We shall mob you.

Those threats do not affect me, they are the threats of a coward. That crowd could not mob be, because they have not got the majority in the country, and I am not afraid of that kind of threat. I say that an investigation is being made, and it will be found that the result of that investigation will be that the students were the cause of the difficulty. In Pretoria the women were assaulted in the Auxiliary Air Force building, and afterwards the lorry on which they left was attacked and the windscreen was broken. An investigation is being made and my friend will later on be able to tell us who committed that assault. It is our duty to condemn those things but none the less I am convinced that it is hon. members opposite who are the cause of those difficulties, and if an investigation is made it will be found that it is their followers who have caused those troubles, and that is how things are going on in this country, but this side of the House is being blamed. Remarks have also been made about the penalties inflicted on people who have refused to hand in their rifles. Who is the cause of those difficulties? It is members like the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) who stirs up the people to refuse to hand in their rifles, but who themselves run away so that the people who have followed them are left to get into difficulty. Hon. members opposite will yet have to account for those things and now they come to this House and propose that we should make peace, but they do not tell us on what conditions. It has to be complete surrender, so long as we just play into Hitler’s hands. We are told that Great Britain has already lost the war, something which I and hon. members on this side of the House are not prepared to believe. Let me tell them that Great Britain to-day after twelve months of war is stronger than she was at the beginning of the war, and evidence of that fact can be found in the twelve or sixteen ships with men and children on board which have been lying in the bay in the past week. Those ships are evidence of the fact that Great Britain is still dominating the seas. Those ships were not stopped, and as a matter of fact there was nothing to stop them. Hon. members have also referred to the fact that some countries have already made peace, and they have quoted the case of France. I am sure hon. members over there will laugh again when I refer them to the attitude adopted by the French territories in Africa. I know that the French Congo is a territory of lesser importance, but it is a sign to us that that territory feels that it is not safe under the peace which has been entered into, which is not a noble and honourable peace, because it is prepared to go and fight again against Germany. True, those territories are of minor importance, but they show the direction in which things are going.

It is bribery.

When we speak of bribery we should turn to the evidence of one of our prominent South African women, namely Mrs. Dr. Van Broekhuizen. She told us where bribery took place. She told us about the German Consul in Holland shooting from his windows with a machine gun, and shooting not only at men but also at women and children. Was that treachery or was it not? If the German Consul could lend himself to do such things in a country in which he was a guest what then about those under him? This shows clearly to us that they were armed in anticipation to commit acts of treachery, and it was as a result of that sort of thing that the people of Holland were conquered. We are told that Germany vanquished Holland in three days, in consequence of Germany’s great power. No, I cannot accept that. It was the result of treachery, it was the result of a stab in the back which was inflicted on Holland, and it is that sort of thing which is also going to cause the downfall of South Africa. That section of the people in our midst who are prepared to stab us in the back will be responsible. There will always be a crowd of them who will run away and who will want to surrender. If we look at the position which we occupy in South Africa to-day we must realise that we are 100 per cent. better off to-day so far as our military force is concerned than we were at the beginning of the war. In that connection I want to say this: If it were not that we contemplated a future war why then did we in 1938 vote no less than £6,000,000 for the purpose of armaments? Then hon. members asked why England did not come to the aid of Belgium and Holland. She was not there to assist Belgium and Holland in time. I am sorry to have to say this, but the position is that exactly like my friends over there, those countries thought that all they had to do was to remain neutral and they would be safe. But that was their downfall. Just like my hon. friend opposite they relied on the word of a man whose word of honour we cannot depend upon. They want to rely on his word to conclude peace, and they will be very sadly disappointed. Hon. members opposite will have to admit that we have had half a dozen instances in which the world has been disappointed at Hitler’s word because he has broken his word of honour, even to great countries, and now we are expected to make peace with him. Well, if my hon. friends are in earnest with their motion, let them go to Hitler and find out from him what sort of peace he is prepared to make with them. Let them enquire whether it will be an acceptable peace to them, and if it is not an acceptable peace, let them come over to our side and fight alongside of us for the freedom of South Africa. We are not here engaged on fighting for the freedom and protection of Great Britain; nobody can deny that we are fighting for the freedom of South Africa. I am prepared to admit that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is thoroughly in earnest with his motion, and I respect it in him, but I also say let him take the necessary steps and see what sort of a peace is possible. Do not let us stand up against each other with feelings of suspicion and speak in the way the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) has done about satellites and traitors on this side of the House. We are entitled to our opinion and it is our honest conviction that we are busy doing what is best in the interests of South Africa. I also want to give my hon. friends opposite the assurance that in spite of the agitations and the threats which we have had from that side, whether they are under the guidance of a Portuguese horse or a bush wagon, we are prepared and determined to see this thing through. We stand by Britain and if Britain falls we fall with her, but we are not going to come along on our knees like a lot of cowards.

The time allotted for the discussion of this motion is rapidly coming to an end and we are therefore in a position, seeing that we are nearly at the end of this discussion, to look back over the debate which has been taking place here in the last three days. Two kinds of speeches have come from members on the opposite side of the House. There were a few in which a serious effort was made to reply to the arguments of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I had in mind for instance the speech by the hon. the Minister of Mines. But there were a great many more speeches of a different type, which I might call the windy type, which we have had. It is rather striking that in three instances that type of speech came from Cabinet Ministers. The first of those was a speech by the hon. the Minister of Native Affairs. One of the most windy speeches was that of the hon. the Minister of Lands, and yesterday we had the windy and very noisy speech of the hon. the Minister of Labour. If we study the speeches made here we have to come to one conclusion —that those speeches were not in the least effective and that they did not in the least answer the arguments which came from this side of the House. We had a repetition of the old story of honour and duty. First of all we got that from the right hon. the Prime Minister himself, and then again we had the argument “We are at war now and we cannot do anything else”. Then we had the story to scare us “Look out for Hitler”. And from the very beginning we were told by the Prime Minister that he was going to persist until the bitter end. In view of the defence of their policy, which was put forward by members opposite, I can now understand why for several months it has become so difficult for the Prime Minister and his Government to secure the necessary number of recruits, and why it was so essential for them to bring pressure to bear on Afrikaans people to go and fight, and also why it was necessary for the Minister of Lands to act as a recruiting agent with the motto “No key man is a he man.” Hon. members may tell us now that we are ridiculing that motto, but it really was unnecessary for him to think out that motto on account of the fact that there were so many key men. I am prepared to admit that his own sons joined up, but a great many of the sons of those who think as he does were not prepared to go. One does not want to take any serious notice of a member like the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. Steenkamp). I am sorry he is not here but none the less I would give him a few words of advice, and I would say this, that if he wants to try again to speak English in this House he should first of all learn to speak English properly and in a civilised manner. There are many opportunities for him to do so at evening classes here in Cape Town and I would suggest to him that he should go to an evening school and take lessons and learn to speak English before he makes another English speech in this House. I want to give him a further word of advice. We know the hon. member for Calvinia better than some of the hon. members opposite and there is one word which he should never allow to pass his lips and that is the word “stink”. It reminds one of the sobriquet which he has in Namaqualand. But to revert to the replies which have been forthcoming to this motion. Last year when we had a similar motion before this House the attitude adopted by the Prime Minister created the impression that he was pretty sure of himself. In the speech which he made in the course of this debate it was quite clear that his mental condition had changed somewhat. True, there was a certain amount of boasting in his speech; there were threats and there were also those serious warnings which he is so keen from time to time to address to the people of South Africa; but with all his boasting it was clear to us that the Prime Minister’s attitude to a large degree was artificial. His speech gave evidence of his nervousness. It was clear, and it could be read in between the lines of his speech, that he was busy trying to infuse courage into the people behind him, and into his supporters in the country. The hon. the Minister of Lands during his speech here this morning told us about the school boy who walked past the cemetary. The impression which the speech of the Prime Minister created in our minds was that he was that school boy whistling to keep his courage up in order to give courage to himself and his supporters. In this instance he certainly is on the way to a cemetary, and it is a cemetary of British Imperialism. The Prime Minister realises this fact. Whatever may be the result of this war, whether England loses the war, or whether England wins the war, one thing is perfectly clear and that is that England, the England of the past—it is clear that British Imperialism as we have known it in the past—is coming to an end. They may sing “There will always be an England” and geographically England will be there, but the England of the past, and British Imperialism of the past will not remain. Significant events are taking place to-day. We have the developments in Canada which are very significant. If one had spoken to Canadians five or ten years ago and had put the mere idea to them of military co-operation with the United States they would have laughed at one, and that happened to me when I used to talk to a lot of them about this question. To-day we have this remarkable development, under which an arrangement has been arrived at with the United States with a view to common defence. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) drew attention to the fact that this was a significant development. Then we have the position in India. It is true that for the time being the British Government has succeeded by means of its old policy of divide and reign in coming to arrange matters with Gandhi. But there is another condition of affairs in India in connection with the Congress Party and it has become perfectly patent to us that in India too certain developments are taking place. We have been told about the Canadians standing shoulder to shoulder in order to support Great Britain. We have read what has taken place at Montreal, with the result that the Mayor of Montreal is to-day lodged in gaol. He is a man who has a great following behind him, and hon. members on the Government benches should not try to console themselves with the idea that everything in Canada is in perfect order. All these are significant things, but hon. members opposite simply refuse to face the facts. To-day we find in England the position in contrast with the state of affairs which prevailed from 1914 to 1918, that there is a considerable section of the population which also wants to put an end to the war. Let hon. members read the English papers, and not merely the reports which Reuter sends across, or which “Our own correspondent” informs us about. Let them read the English periodicals and they will find that a member of Parliament like Mr. Ramsay is in gaol and Admiral Domville as well, while there are no fewer than 400 English citizens, not naturalised English citizens, but people who were born in England, who have been locked up. English citizens born in England have been put behind the bars. Is it not a significant fact too that an attack has been made on Duff Cooper in consequence of the pamphlets which he has sent round, and in which he practically put this question: “Are we downhearted?” In England the same wish for peace as we have here in South Africa is making itself felt. And that is why our Prime Minister, because he realises what is going on, is so deeply concerned about matters. He is concerned but he is not concerned about South Africa. Our Prime Minister has never yet been concerned about South Africa. So far he has always been concerned about England and about the lot of the British Empire. The Prime Minister proclaims in this House that we are hands-uppers and that he and his friends are not going to run away. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) shewed up that insinuat ion yesterday by referring us to the actions of the Prime Minister forty years ago. The hon. member for Piquetberg read a quotation here from Kitchener’s book, and that quotation was doubted by the hon. member for Calvinia. He contended that that letter was not written by the Prime Minister but by State Secretary Reitz. I have here before me a statement dictated by the late President Steyn to his wife which appeared in the book written by Dr. N. J. van der Merwe. These are not Dr. N. J. van der Merwe’s words which I am going to quote but the words of President Steyn himself. Because of the fact that doubt has been cast on this letter we want to have some clarity in connection with the matter, and this is what President Steyn states here—

And then he goes on—

Here we have the same attitude in regard to the Prime Minister as that in which he spoke in his radio speech when he declared that King Leopold had not even consulted Great Britain and France before he negotiated with Germany. Now I come to the contention that that letter was not written by Gen. Smuts but by the State Secretary Reitz—

Even at that time the Prime Minister was more concerned with his own personal position than with the lot of the Boer people. He was afraid that he would lose their confidence, and that he would lose his position. He further said —

Where do you get that?

This was dictated by the late President Steyn to Mrs. Steyn and we can take it that it is authentic as written by President Steyn. I hope we shall not get another insinuation from the other side that it is not true. The Prime Minister has been shewn up in all his nakedness. He came here the day before yesterday and he tried to tell the Leader of the Opposition in a high moral tone about the way in which in those days they wanted to carry on the fight to the end, but in those days he was busy stabbing his ally in the Free State in the back and he was prepared to make peace. Now we are told among others, by the Cape Times, which this morning is trying to justify these things, that circumstances in those days were different. Well, in those days we were faced with a war of aggression and the Republic defended itself against aggression. If ever there was a time when they should have fought it was in those days, and not to-day when we are dealing with a war of aggression from our side. But what is more significant is that in the same book it is stated by the late President Steyn that Lord Morley said in 1910: “If you had carried on through the winter of 1902 the possibility was not excluded of your having got your independence back.” It was not a case of a hopeless resistance. There was still a chance. I understand that this was just after the Leader of the Opposition had returned from the Cape where things had gone favourably. In those days the present Prime Minister was the same man who to-day talks so sneeringly about hands-uppers — in those days already he was a hands-upper. Now I want to come more particularly to the object of this motion. The Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) yesterday particularly shewed what is behind this motion. They did so at length, they have told the House why we have introduced this motion. I want to discuss another aspect of the matter, namely this: If one reads the English papers and periodicals— not what Reuter’s correspondent dishes up to us—one finds that the question which is being put in England is this: “For what are we fighting?” That same question in a somewhat different form was put at the beginning of the war when they asked: “What are England’s war objects?” In those days the question was still put in a spirit of interestedness, but to-day that question is no longer being put in a spirit of interestedness, but in a spirit of deep concern, and one of these days the question will be put in this way: “But what are we still fighting for?” According to the statements made by the Prime Minister and his Press and also by the Government’s information officer in Pretoria, I think I am entitled to take it that South Africa’s war objects are exactly the same as England’s. In South Africa’s case, however, there is another special reason why we are in the war. Nobody will deny the fact that we are in the war because of the British connection. When troops were embarked in Durban the other day, the Prime Minister said to them—

As a matter of fact I remember the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Long) saying that it was impossible to imagine South Africa remaining neutral if England was at war. The question is not whether South Africa's interests are affected, and whether South Africa is being threatened by Germany or Italy, but we are in the war because we are part of the British Empire. But so far as Italy is concerned a special excuse was made by the Prime Minister, or rather an argument. According to him we are at war with Italy because the danger which threatened us comes from the North. We had the same thing in the emergency appeal No. 2. Since the 4th September we have already had four emergency appeals from Irene. On this occasion it was: “We are threatened from the North.” I understand that the hon. the Minister of Finance does not yet want to take part in the debate, and I ask him, or I ask any other member, to mention to us one instance, or to give us any indication from which it would appear that Italy has ever threatened South Africa. Is there one speech of Mussolini’s or of any other influential person in Italy, or has there been anything in any paper in Italy shewing a desire, or a tendency, to indicate that Italy wants to obtain any South African territory? Is it true that Italy wants to get hold of countries round about the Mediterranean. It is a well-known fact that it is Mussolini’s policy to restore the old Roman Empire in Northern Africa, but neither the Prime Minister nor any other hon. member on the other side of the House has adduced the slightest evidence of any threat on the part of Italy against us or has shewn that a wish has been expressed by Italy to become possessed of South African territory. The story that we have to secure and protect Kenya reminds me of a remark made by Baldwin who once stated in regard to England: “Our borders are on the Rhine”, but where have they got it from? It is no longer the Rhine now, but the white cliffs of Dover. In the same way the Prime Minister now talks of the frontiers of Kenya as our frontier, and he wants to go and meet the enemy there. As as old farmer in my constituency said to me: “But, Mr. Louw, surely they are going to bring the enemy there”. That is exactly what they are doing. They are looking for the enemy and then they say that we are being menaced. They say that our war purpose is the same as England’s war purpose, and what are England’s war objects? They may talk about Christian civilisation and the protection of small nations or whatever it may be, but anyone who knows anything about the international situation knows that England is in the war simply because England’s position in regard to the power she holds over the rest of the world is at stake. Is there one hon. member on the other side of the house who dare deny that? In international economic spheres it was essential to restore the position of England’s power and England’s prestige. England’s prestige and position had suffered considerably as a result of the events in Abyssinia, Spain and China, and the question at issue is still that of England’s power over the rest of the world. That is why England is at war and now we have to be in the war simply because England is at war, although we have no concern with it. There was a time when there was a good deal of talk about British-German co-operation; for instance in 1936 and 1937. There was a desire on the part of the Germans to co-operate, and I myself have met a great many prominent Englishmen who also had a strong desire rather to co-operate with Germany than even with France, but the efforts which have been made on both sides have failed. On the one side there was a certain amount of clumsiness on the part of Hitler and on the other hand they failed because men like Churchill, Eden and Duff Cooper made it impossible. It was especially Churchill who always set his face against any degree of co-operation, and peace with Germany, and it is ironic therefore that he should be the man to-day who is in difficulty. Now, fine stories are being told us why we are in this war, but in reality the question at issue is the question of Great Britain’s power in the world. Naturally that has to be covered up. One cannot obtain support by saying that one is fighting for a position of power. Other reasons have to be found. Consequently the statement is made that one is fighting against aggression and for the protection of small nations, for democracy, religion, etc. Now I should like to refer, to two recent events. It has been stated that we are waging war on behalf of democracy and freedom, but would hon. members opposite be kind enough to explain to me why Sir Stafford Cripps is to-day working overtime to get Soviet Russia in on the side of England as her ally? Why is it that Sir Samuel Hoare was the other day sent as a special emissary to France in Spain to ask Spain please to stand on England’s side? A few years ago Franco was cried down by England as a dictator, as the oppressor of freedom and democracy. To-day Sir Samuel Hoare is working overtime to get Franco on the side of England.

Are you in the confidence of the English Cabinet?

I am coming to something more serious, and I hope to get a reply to this. We are being told all day long that we are fighting against agression. If that is so will hon. members opposite tell us why England has made an agreement with Japan not to allow China which has been fighting against Japanese aggression for the last three years, to get any arms? Will the hon. member who is to speak after me be good enough to make that clear to me? We should like to know. The right hon. the Prime Minister spoke of the strength of our moral position. How can he explain that England is now busy helping Japan to commit acts of aggression against China? Let him make that clear to us. Then I want to come to what is the most disgusting thing we have had to deal with, namely the way in which Christianity is being exploited for political purposes. It is being exploited by the Government and more particularly by the right hon. the Prime Minister. In his speeches he talks of crusaders, and wars of the Lord, and one cannot turn on the radio without also hearing Wilson talk about religion, in exactly the same way as in England Lord Halifax is continually dragging in religion. Is it to be wondered at that an American paper should have referred to Lord Halifax as Lord Holy Fact? When he was speaking recently the final part of his speech consisted of a religious discourse and that was the same Lord Halifax who three days before, on behalf of England, had entered into an agreement with Japan to assist Japan in its aggression against China, and then they still tell us that they are fighting for Christian civilisation. When the Prime Minister the other day addressed his troops in Durban he told them that they were now the crusaders and children of the Cross. I believe that those are the same children of the Cross who, about 1000 strong, attacked a small crowd of students at Potchefstroom, “children of the Cross”!

Who attacked the women in Pretoria on a lorry?

I am pleased the hon. member has interuppted me. I want to ask her to pay a visit to Piet Retief where there is a military camp and she will find there that women dare no longer take the risk of walking about in the streets after dark. Children of the Cross indeed! The hon. member is concerned about the protection of women. Does she know what happened when the Australian troops were here—that they tore the clothes off white women in Adderley Street? Does she still want to talk about children of the Cross? It is, time that this hypocrisy and deceit which we have had since the beginning of the war is put an end to.

They let the men pass and they threw stones at the women.

In this House we also have a few children of the Cross. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) is a child of the Cross and so is the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg). The other day we saw a photo of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) shewing him on guard with a riffle—also a child of the Cross. He should be careful, he will be called upon to appear before his Church Council.

Whose child are you?

The hypocrisy and deceit which we have had in the course of this war and during this debate are things which I resent, and I further am remindend of the reprehensible remarks which were made about King Leopold and Marshal Pétain. The Prime Minister, knowing what happened, especially after Mr. Winston Churchill’s speech, which contained a chronological exposition of what happened after the German break through Sedan, knowing what happened after he had read the speech by the American Ambassador in Brussels—that Prime Minister of ours comes here now and makes a statement and accuses that king of treachery. King Leopold is accused of treachery, although he is one of the most highly respected heads of State in Europe. The Prime Minister knows what actually happened. King Leopold knew—he knew three days before, as has come out now—that he was going to be left in the lurch, and that the English and French were going to leave him alone with his troops while they made their retreat, and ran back to England. After this war the truth of what happened will come out. And then Pétain. When Pétain was called upon to join the Government he was described everywhere in England, and in our papers here, as the grand old man of France, and Weygand was greeted as the great man of France. It was true that they were old men, but they were young in spirit. But now that France has been defeated in the war, whatever the Prime Minister may say, they are spoken of as being in their second childhood, and as being too old. The Prime Minister will have to be careful; he is over seventy years of age, and when his friends one day no longer like his politics they may also possibly say about him that he is in his second childhood. These insinuations are made against great men of the French people to whom we are attached by ties of blood. The French people will not forgive the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister of our country has imitated the Prime Minister of England and he tells us that France has not been beaten on the battlefield. I could hardly believe my ears. The German troops had got as far as Loire, the French had been driven right back and there was no way out. All that was left to them was to surrender and then it is said that the French leaders betrayed their people, that France itself had betrayed her Allies. Now England is busy getting every possible Frenchman on her side. I do not know whether the saying emanates from Germany, but we have already heard the statement made that England will fight on to the last Frenchman. That really is what is happening. But irrespective of that, irrespective of the fact that England will fight on to the last Frenchman, one can also say now “England expects every American to do his duty”. And those are the people who all day long have their mouths full of the fifth column. They are keeping rather quiet about that now, and one need not be surprised at that seeing that we on this side of the House have pointed out that Rhodes was really the father of the idea of a fifth column. Now they are keeping quiet about it. The Minister of Justice told them that they should strike a lower note in talking about the fifth column here. But now we are hearing that Japan has deported a whole crowd of prominent Englishmen, because they were busy with fifth column activities, in Japan. In regard to America I can say from my own personal experience that for a number of years already a strong fifth column propaganda has been carried on there, and nobody less than an intimate friend of our Prime Minister, namely Lord Lothian, the British Ambassador there, was one of the leaders of the fifth column in America. If any other ambassador or Minister should have said at the Columbia University what he said in his speech he would have been asked to leave the country, and only to-day we read an interesting paragraph in the paper. An investigation was made into the British fifth column in America and nobody less than Sir George Paish, the well-known British economist, was asked to leave America because he was engaged on fifth column work with underground propaganda. I vainly looked for that report in the Cape Times. I may have failed to see it, or perhaps it was hidden away in a corner, but I could not find it. And then we are accused by a man like the Minister of Lands of deception. That deception is not on our part, but it is on the part of the other side of the House. They believe everything they read. When any news comes from America transmitted by Reuter, it is noticeable that only three papers are always quoted, namely the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the New York Herald Tribune. The New York Times is 100 per cent. a Jewish paper; the Washington Post is the property of the Jew Meyer, while the major portion of the capital in the New York Herald is English capital. Those are the only papers ever quoted by Reuter in connection with the position in America. We never hear prominent papers like the St. Louis Post Despatch, or the Baltimore Sun, or the New York World Telegram, or the Philadelphia Public Ledger, quoted. I do not remember having seen during the whole of this year two reports from America from the last-mentioned three papers. We are told that America is becoming more and more keen every day to enter the war. I take it that American sympathy after the vigorous British fifth column activities is continually leaning more and more towards England, but if we have to pay any attention to unofficial plebescites taken in America by papers, it would appear as if the American people are becoming more and more opposed to any interference by America in the war. [Time limit.]

There are many old war veterans on the other side of the House and on this side, and I have never yet heard from one of them who has done otherwise than speak with the greatest praise and respect of the Prime Minister, especially in regard to his history during the three years War of Independence. We have never yet heard from his old colleagues, who were in the field with him, anything but the highest praise of him. I therefore think that it is very strange that hon. members who are known as deserters, should get hold of a book and explore sources which are probably without an iota of truth, to try to blacken the good name of the Prime Minister. It never came from one of his colleagues in that war, but it comes from the people who shine owing to their desertion. I hope that the country will see who the people are who are trying to vilify the Prime Minister at this stage. They are not his colleagues, the men who stood with him in those days, but those who in a cowardly way ran away when it was necessary to fight. Not one single member on the other side with an honourable history in that war, made such a low attempt to blacken the character of the Prime Minister, but it only came from people who, if they will ever be recorded in history, will be known as people who never showed any courage to stand up and to make sacrifices for their convictions. We now come to the motion of the Leader of the Opposition. I tried to follow his argument, and to understand his reasoning as to why we ought to make peace. Now I would like to refresh his memory. The first time that he introduced a motion in connection with the war was at the beginning of this year. Then he introduced a peace motion for the first time, and he gave as a reason that the Treaty of Versailles was such an injustice towards Germany. He said that Germany was so scandalously treated, and that he therefore could not help sympathising with Germany. He said that poor Germany suffered so severely, and that an injustice was done to her, and that he could not help having a certain amount of sympathy with Germany. But what do we find now? Now the Leader of the Opposition mentions as a reason for his peace motion that Germany is so triumphant that we cannot do otherwise than play our cards well and see whether Germany will not be merciful to us. Notice the contradistinction. A year ago he said that he was sympathetic to poor Germany. Today he says that the Germans are triumphant. Now I should be glad if the Leader of the Opposition will tell us when he will not sympathise with Hitler, because in these two extreme cases he has exhibited sympathy with Hitler. Poor Germany! Hitler has been done an injustice, and therefore I sympathise with him, because I have been through the same struggle! Now he says once more: Triumphant Germany. It is foolish of us to oppose her any further. In what circumstances then will the Leader of the Opposition choose the side of his legitimate friend England? I think that the Leader of the Opposition ought to give a reply to that to the people of South Africa. A thing which particularly struck me in his speech is the large adjectives and verbs that he used in connection with Germany and the British Empire. He overloaded every sentence with adjectives and verbs which were as heavy as he could get. I regard the Leader of the Opposition as a responsible man. He says that he is trying to keep the country calm, but nevertheless he overloads his speech with such exaggerated adjectives and verbs, and he must admit that it can have no other effect than to excite the feelings of the people. If a responsible man like the Leader of the Opposition makes exaggerated speeches like that, then he must have some object in doing so, and I say that such exaggerated language stirs up the feelings of the people. I want to come to the speech of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan). He was just as inconsistent as he has always been in the past. His main point was to justify this motion for peace, and he pointed out that the Liberal Party in England were opposed to the war in South Africa. How inconsistent he was, because it is still firmly fixed in the memory of everyone in this House that the same hon. member described the greatest enemies of South Africa as liberals. At that time the liberal was the friend of South Africa, and why is he then to-day the greatest offender in South Africa. Hon. members opposite say that we must not accuse them of wanting to stir up the feelings of the public. But why is it then that after the conclusion of their meetings it always happens that disorders take place in the country? They behave just like Germany does. Germany drops bombs on London, and on the women and children. But when Berlin gets the same in return, then the world is told what misdeeds England has committed because she has dropped bombs on Berlin. At their meetings hon. members told the public that they have so many bodyguards and that when anyone opens his mouth at their meetings he will then be treated in this or the other way. It is, then, after those meetings that those things take place, which we have recently had in our country. I am not here referring to things where people were assaulted who were working in their offices, and this kind of thing happens after this kind of peace meeting held by hon. members opposite. The feelings of the people are stirred up, and then when they come out of the meetings blood flows. We know of meetings where their supporters got on to lorries, and good-humouredly assaulted people. Then those hon. members still say that they want peace, but when it is the other way round, then they are dissatisfied, and then their wrath breaks out so that they cannot control themselves. Hon. members opposite understand that force can only be met by force. If they agitate the people so that people want blood to flow, then it is they who are responsible if force is used. Then there is one part of the motion with which we can all agree. The Leader of the Opposition complains about the way in which the war in being conducted. We will agree with him in that respect and say that the greatest mistake of the Government is that they have given certain elements in the country too much rope, to certain elements who cannot appreciate being given good treatment. Some of those people have been put into gaol, and when they are released then the people in this House who incited them will possibly yet find that things will go with them as they did with certain leaders in the French revolution, who themselves became the victims of the populace which they had excited. Hon. members opposite must realise it is not a question of how loudly a person says that he is an Afrikaner, which makes him an Afrikaner. The fruit reveals the kind and the quality of the tree. They must not come and tell us that they are not proHitler, and then have “Heil Hitler” as their password at their meetings. They must not tell me that something is a sparrow when I can hear that the note is that of a finch. I want to tell those hon. members that they are playing a dangerous game. The time has come for them to realise their duty, and the time has also come that the Government should put an end to that misconduct on the part of certain elements in our country. The soldiers should be properly armed, if the force which exists to maintain order and to protect them, is not able to do so. The soldier can maintain himself if he is put into the position of doing so. The time has come for the Government to take more drastic steps, because the patience and tolerance which they have exhibited is not appreciated, but is being abused.

When I listened to speeches like those made in this House, for instance the speech which has just been delivered, then I get the impression that Herr Hitler has rendered a great service to the world, but also at the same time a great disservice. He has taught people who up to the present were not accustomed to praying to do so. But his actions have also had the result, to use the words which the Minister of Lands used this morning, that we find people to-day who are quite famished. They no longer have any commonsense. When then we hear an argument like that which the last speaker used, that the Liberal Party in Great Britain should be linked up with liberalism in South Africa, then it seems to us that there is something lacking in some people. If any doubt possibly existed with us as to the disability of continuing this foolish war of Great Britain’s, in which the people of South Africa have been forced to take part against their own will, then no one less than the Prime Minister himself has removed that doubt from us. If anyone with an otherwise such a fertile brain as the Prime Minister could find so little in support of the continuation of the war, as what we heard from his speech, then he must really have a very weak case. He represented himself as very brave, but right through his speech there were signs of despair. The climax of his speech was the view that the war would last many years more, and that something unexpected would possibly happen which would enable Great Britain and her Allies to obtain the victory. Yes, there were also other kinds of people, people who thought like him, and who agreed with the persons in favour of seeing the war through in South Africa, who also hoped that a miracle would happen—a miracle which however did not happen—people like Reynaud in France. Apparently our Prime Minister also wants to depend on some miracle or other. We only want to remind the “see the war through” people in South Africa that this war is not the 80 years war, and also that we are no longer living in the age of miracles. If we are not prepared to learn from the history of the past, then history is of no use to us. If we will only think clearly and look facts in the face, then we will realise how the circumstances of this war are entirely different from the circumstances of the World War. We heard that the Minister of Native Affairs gave the advice to the war enthusiasts, not only here in South Africa, but also in other parts of the world, that the Maginot Line was impenetrable. The result was that Englishmen commenced to sing, “We’ll hang our washing on the Siegfried Line.” But after Germany, with its war forces, had penetrated the Maginot Line and had gone up to the Channel coast, then their hymn changed to the old anthem which they used to sing with such pride, “Britannia Rules the Waves.” But the modem war material — aeroplanes, long-distance guns, etc. — in turn induced them to change that tune, and they commenced to sing “There’ll always be an England.” Very likely that melody will also soon have to be changed into “There’ll always be an Island.” Whether Britain is going to win this war or not the question to us as citizens of this country, who have nothing to do with this war of Great Britain’s, is what the consequences of it will be to South Africa. Even the war enthusiasts admit that the war can only have one of two results, and they are that if Hitler was not astonished when he reached the English Channel to find that it was not empty, but that there was cold salt water in it, and if he Jias a scheme prepared, then Britain will lose the war, and what will the consequences be to South Africa? I have not the time at my disposal to go into that, but any right-thinking person can ask himself what the consequences are going to be to our country. Is anyone so stout-hearted as to prophesy that Great Britain is going to win? No, we see no chance of England conquering Germany. If Germany does not defeat England, still less will Great Britain succeed in defeating the powerful Germany. In other words, we may have a position of stalemate between the two countries, with the result that the two parties will subsequently conclude a peace, and what will South Africa gain out of this crusade of Christendom? We will only reap misery out of it. The people in the country do not believe the Minister of Finance that the war is such a happy period and such a good time for our people that we must go on remaining at war continuously. I say that notwithstanding all those things posterity will have to pay very bitterly for this senseless war into which a chance majority in this House decided to plunge South Africa, a war with which South Africa had no concern. The question was asked here as to what the conditions were on which we were prepared to make peace. There is only one condition, and I say this in view of what the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) said here so clearly this morning. He showed how an attempt had been made in South Africa to obtain the co-operation between the two sections of the population who had to live here together. Why did those efforts fail every time? They failed because one section in South Africa had both feet on South African soil, while the other section had one foot in South Africa and the other in a country 6,000 miles from here, because one section had true and undivided patriotic love for South Africa while the other section had a divided loyalty, a loyalty which was divided between South Africa and another country 6,000 miles away. There is only one condition on which we can have peace in our country, and peace with the nations of the world, and that is that we have only a South African loyalty, when the bonds with the British Commonwealth of Nations are cut. When that happens then we in South Africa will also succeed in making a good Afrikaner of the Englishman, if such a thing is possible, as was done with the Englishman in America. The condition for that is a free and independent republic, a republic in which the exploiters and the sweaters in our country will be put in their place, in which there will be no people to stand with one foot in South Africa and with the other foot 6,000 miles away from here, when we have people in South Africa who only have one patriotism. If they are not willing to do that then they had better go to another country, then they had better go and search for another country for themselves somewhere near the North Pole. London has now become the place of refuge of dethroned royalties and of Prime Ministers who have fled from their countries These people should then just go and search for some king for themselves amongst those who have congregated in London.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a lengthy debate and it has seemed actually longer than it has been, because it was largely a repetition of a debate which has been held on two previous occasions. As far as the peace motion is concerned this is the third time of asking, and as far as the opening speech of the Leader of the Opposition is concerned, one may say that it represents the publication for the third time of the banns of matrimony between himself and Nazi Germany. Well, he may consummate his intention of matrimony if he wishes, but he will not take South Africa into that marriage with him. There was a time when, as the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) has remarked, the Leader of the Opposition talked about poor Germany. Well, poor Germany was not the theme of his speech on Thursday. That speech, sir, was rather a paean of victory, it was a hymn of rejoicing, but the rejoicing was for victories attained by the enemies with whom South Africa is at war. The refrain of his speech was this, the war is over, it is completely lost as far as Great Britain is concerned, and so we must leave the sinking ship as rats do. Mr. Speaker, that was not the first time we have had that from the Leader of the Opposition. He said the same thing in June. But the war is still going on. The war is not yet lost, and the war is not going to be lost however much the hon. gentleman over there may say it is lost. That was the refrain of his speech, and every time that refrain came, and it came at least a dozen times, it was received with loud cheers by the hon. gentlemen who sit behind him. The hon. member said poor South Africa. Yes, sir, poor South Africa indeed, which has an Opposition which receives with jubilation the victories of South Africa’s foes. Sir, it is the irony of this occasion that we on this side stand for a cause the victory of which would make it possible for an Opposition to act as this Opposition is acting. They want the victory of a cause which would make it impossible for oppositions to act as they are acting. Sir, this debate, if it has done nothing else, has shown up the Opposition. It has shown that the Opposition desires the victory of the enemy, that the Opposition desires the victory of the enemy with all its heart. And what is the enemy whose victory the Opposition desires? It is Germany, the nation which has destroyed freedom within its own boundaries, the nation which has by broken promises and by brutal force taken away the liberties of one neighbouring state after another, a nation which has exalted the ethics of the jungle as the guiding principle in international affairs. And Italy, a nation which by that dastardly act of June 10th, when it plunged the dagger in the back of its hard-pressed French neighbour, stood out as a gangster nation, self-disclosed and unashamed. That is the enemy whose victory they desire. The hon. member based his case on the belief, perhaps I should say the desire — it is really the same thing— that Great Britain and the nations allied with Great Britain, including South Africa, including Holland, should lose this war. Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman likes speaking as if he is talking for the whole of South Africa, the whole people of South Africa, or at least as if he is talking for the whole of the Afrikaans-speaking people of South Africa. And that, sir, leads to the effect of his remarks sometimes being misunderstood by those who are not politically-minded, by those who live outside South Africa and do not understand the inwardness of our politics. There is a tendency among such people to assign far too much weight to his utterances. It is just as well to let it be known that the hon. gentleman does not speak for the whole people of South Africa, he does not speak for the whole Afrikaansspeaking people, he speaks only for a portion of the Afrikaans-speaking people. He speaks for a party, and a divided party at that. The hon. gentleman has declared that the war is lost as far as South Africa is concerned — that is the foundation of his case — and because the war is lost he says, let us follow the path of expediency and sue for peace. That is the argument, nothing less. The policy of the Opposition is the ignominious policy of waiting to see who is going to be the victor and then backing the winner. My colleague, the Minister of Mines, has already shown that in relation to Italy the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has been a veritable Vicar of Bray. In the days of sanctions, he was prepared to defy Italy, now that Italy is on what he regards as the winning side, he has no word of condemnation for Italy’s actions. But, sir, the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) made the position quite clear. He criticised the Government on the ground that we had entered a war of the outcome of which we were not quite sure. It is quite clear what his policy is, don’t take part in a war unless you are quite sure of the outcome. The hon. member for Piquetberg, sir, loves freedom, he desires a republic for South Africa, but he will leave it to Hitler and Mussolini to fight for that republic. Sir, it is an ignominious policy with which the Opposition is coming forward. The hon. member for Piquetberg sought to justify that ignominious policy by referring to the activities of a large part of the Liberal Party in Great Britain in the war of 1899-1902. But he lost sight completely of the difference. Then, sir a considerable body of people in Great Britain wanted to stop a war which they regarded as an aggressive war, as far as their people were concerned. They were right in so regarding it in spite of the fact that their nation did not declare war, but the war had been declared by the republics. Now we are told that because Germany has not declared war on this occasion, it is not a war of aggression as far as Germany is concerned. I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) using an argument like that. He knows better.

Certainly not as far as we are concerned.

Those people in England, the Liberals, did not put up their hands in ignominious surrender, as we are asked to do, because their nation had been sustaining defeats, they did not desire to give in because the war seemed to be going against them. They did not give in to the aggressor because the war seemed to be going against them. They did not acclaim the victory of the aggressor as portent of the subjection of their own nation, but that is what our friends opposite want us to do to-day. The hon. member for Piquetberg adduced another justification. He reproached the Prime Minister on the alleged ground that he had favoured peace in that war of 40 years ago, after a year and a half of fighting. You know it is interesting to see to how great an extent the hon. member’s stock in trade has come to be abuse of the Prime Minister, and how his efforts mainly consist in the coining of epithets in regard to the Prime Minister. Of course, there was a time when he did the same thing in relation to the honourable gentleman who now sits by his side, but now his abuse of the Leader of the Opposition is within his heart, it does not pass beyond his lips. May I say to the member for Piquetberg that by this sort of thing, by this continued abuse of the Prime Minister, he is demonstrating one thing, and one thing only, and that is the magnitude of his own consciousness of his own inferiority. Sir, he reproached the Prime Minister on the alleged ground that he had favoured peace after one and a half years’ fighting in the South African War. The difference is surely obvious. Our friends opposite favour peace after they have not done any fighting at all. I would have hoped that they might at least have drawn some inspiration from a kindred country, Holland, and Holland’s great queen, whose birthday it is to-day, a birthday which her loyal and sorrowing people are to-day remembering but are not allowed to celebrate in their own land. Holland, sir, was overwhelmed, overrun by the enemy, its cities were laid waste, its army was crushed, but Holland is carrying on the fight, her head is bloody but unbowed, and Holland’s contribution even to-day to the Allied cause is no inconsiderable one. Well sir, the hon. member for Smithfield believes that the war is lost, we do not believe it. The rt. hon. the Prime Minister has given reasons for our not believing it. The hon. member for Fauresmith is not satisfied, he has asked us for the facts on which we base our confidence and I will vive him those facts very briefly. I mention first the magnitude and power of the British Navy with which I associate the Mercantile Marine, to which have been added the mercantile marines of Norway and Holland and other countries. I place second the strength of Great Britain as an island fortress which completely differentiates its position from those other countries which Hitler has overrun. Thirdly I mention the quickened friendship and the readiness to assist of the great American Republic, even as a non-belligerent. May I put a thought into the minds of my hon. friends opposite. If this war is so completely lost why is it those hard headed Americans are laying down plant and machinery for the manufacture of munitions for Great Britain for 1941 and 1942? I give as a fourth reason the gallantry of the Royal Air Force, which I believe is going to be the decisive factor in this war on the military side. And I give as the greatest of all the reasons the moral factors which in war as in other things are still more important than the material factors. Well sir, these are the grounds of our faith. The Opposition bases its policy on the belief that the war is lost, it is a policy of expediency. We have faith that the war is not lost, that it can be won and will be won, but we do not base our policy on that consideration of expendiency, we prefer to base our policy on considerations of the vital interests of South Africa. The hon. member for Fauresmith asked us this morning to give him credit for honesty and conviction when he takes the view that this decision of a year ago was not come to on the basis of South Africa’s interests, that it was not decided on its merits. We ask him to give us credit for the honesty of our convictions when we say that it was so decided. Of course we give him credit for the honesty of his convictions. We give him full credit for the honesty of his convictions when he says that he believes that the English-speaking members of the United Party who did not stand by him and his Leader on the 4th September left them in the lurch, but we ask him to give their credit for their conviction that they believe that he and his leader left them in the lurch. We believe that the hon. member for Fauresmith is sincere when he expresses the desire that the breach should not be driven too deep, that we should do all we can in the years ahead to heal the cleavage. We ask him to give us credit for the same desire. We ask him to believe that if to-day things are done which are represented as having the effect of driving deeper that cleavage, that we do these things unwillingly, and only because we have co do them, and we ask him to give us credit for that, and if he looks forward to co-operation in the days after the war to heal that cleavage, we want him to believe that we shall welcome his cooperation. We base our decision on considerations of South Africa’s vital interests, but from the consideration of South Africa’s vital interests you cannot detach the consideration of South Africa’s honour.

Honour and duty again.

The country’s interest cannot be served if its honour is thrown overboard. It does not profit a nation if it gains the whole world and loses its soul.

That is exactly what the United Party has done.

On that we took our stand a year ago and we do so to-day. It was on that ground that we asked that the issue should be decided on the 4th September, and we, believe that it was on that ground that the issue was decided. Of course we have had reproaches flung at us ever since. There has been no lack of reproaches. We have had the reproach flung at some of us that we are “loyal Dutch”.

Are you ashamed of that?

If the hon. member for Fauresmith will give us credit for our convictions he will do his best to prevent reproaches of that kind being-made against us. May I say what my conception of loyal Dutch is? They are those Afrikaans South Africans who are loyal to the true interests of South Africa.

True interests of Great Britain.

The true interests of South Africa conceived as one and indivisible, while those people who hurl that reproach at us are people who can only think in terms of a section of the South African people.

The true South Africans.

I repeat, Mr. Speaker, we voted for South Africa’s participation in the war because South Africa’s honour was involved and because South Africa’s vital interests were affected, and if those were grounds for going into the war a year ago, those grounds are infinitely stronger for our remaining in the war to-day, and for making our contribution towards a victorious conclusion.

A victorious conclusion of a lost war.

If it was in the interests of South Africa a year ago to participate in the war it is even more so to-day.

Hear, hear.

It there was any doubt that Hitler aimed at world domination a year ago there is no doubt about it to-day.

There is no evidence of it.

Can anyone doubt that that is his aim? Can anyone doubt that he will brush ruthlessly aside any nation or any individual who stands in the way of his ambitions? Does anyone believe that a victorius Hitler will be content to leave South-West Africa to us?

Not now any more.

Can anyone believe that a victorious Hitler would leave us our freedom? It is believed perhaps by some of those hon. gentlemen over there. They have tried to make the people in the country believe that if Hitler wins the war we are going to have a republic.

Just like Poland.

Has Hitler shown in his conquest of the neighbouring countries any particular affection for the governments of those countries or for the establishment of any republics? The hon. member for Gezina some time ago said that it was a joke, and a bad joke, to speak of a republic in South Africa.

Why do you say that when you know better?

I know that if it was a bad joke then it is a worse joke now. The threat to South Africa’s vital interests which existed a year ago has come much nearer within the last few months. Italy has entered the war. Italy is an African Power, an aggressive African Power, which desires an extension of its territory in Africa. Italy does not merely want the Mediterranean countries as the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) said. I have yet to learn that Abyssinia is a Mediterranean country.

You know perfectly well what I said.

There was a time when the hon. member for Smith-field tried to prevent Italy’s aggression in Abyssinia, there was a time when he was most anxious to protect Haile Selassie. In those days he thought that what Italy was doing was a threat to South Africa. That is the answer to the hon. member for Beaufort West. But when Italy issued a declaration of war which also meant war against Kenya and Tanganyika with their European populations, large portions of which are people of our own kith and kin, Afrikaansspeaking and English-speaking, then the hon. member for Smithfield nulled up his skirts and passed by on the other side. He was not prepared to lift a finger to help the people of Kenya and Tanganyika, to help our own kith and kin, and at the same time to protect the vital interests of South Africa on ground of our own choosing, rather than on ground of the enemy’s choosing. No, he was more willing to protect Haile Selassie than his own kith and kin.

Where do you get that from?

But what about South Africa’s honour? We have acclaimed our freedom. We are proud of our freedom. If you believe in freedom, it is not particularly honourable when that freedom is assailed, when the principle of freedom is attacked in the world, to be unwilling to lift a finger in its defence. That freedom we have been told by the hon. member for Smithfield and by the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) was given us by Great Britain, the mother of our freedom, our best friend, our greatest benefactor. It is not particularly honourable to refuse to support one’s greatest friend, one’s best benefactor, and moreover, as the hon. member for Smithfield has done, to utter no word of sympathy when adversity comes on your best friend, but instead of that virtually to gloat and to triumph over these adversities. That is not particularly honourable. Of course, he has his excuses. He believes Great Britain is going to lose this war, but it is particularly dishonourable to leave your best friend in the lurch when you think your best friend may lose the war. I would prefer to think, no, indeed I do think, that we in South Africa do not do things like that. The hon. member for Smithfield asked us to give reasons why we should continue this war. I have given those reasons. We shall continue this war because it is more than ever in South Africa’s vital interests that we should do so. We shall do so because South Africa rejects as dishonourable these suggestions that we should give up the struggle because it is going against us, or that we should leave our best friend in the lurch because we believe that he is in difficulties. He urges peace. Of course, we all want peace. We all love peace. But what is the difference between them and ourselves? We want peace through victory, they want peace by abject surrender. They want peace without terms, they want a peace without honour, they want a peace such as the men of Vichy made.

You will get a worse peace than that if you go on.

That is the peace they want. May I remind them of something written by Hitler in Mein Kampf?—

Hitler looks upon a people which voluntarily capitulates as a people which has lost its character; the hon. member for Smithfield is prepared to see the South African nation stand out as such a people. We on this side are going to do all we can to prevent it, and, with God’s help, we are going to succeed. Against that picture I am going to put another one. I am going to put the picture painted by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) in that striking speech which she made here yesterday afternoon, a speech by the way which deserved a much greater audience in the House and much wider publicity than it received. I make no apology for repeating some of her words. She spoke of the wonderful way in which is being demonstrated in this war at this time the moral force of the free human spirit, and the will to defend a free heritage. The moral force of a free human spirit. It is that freedom of the human spirit which is to-day assailed by the Nazi doctrines, and if we are worthy of our heritage we shall not relax our efforts to play the fullest part we can in its defence. The issue in this war is not an issue between German and British Imperialism. It goes far deeper than that. The issue is the freedom of the human spirit, and we must fight on until the Nazi menace to that freedom has been dispelled. The danger with which we are faced in South Africa is not just the danger of annexation by Germany, and the resultant loss of our freedom in consequence of South Africa becoming a German Colony. We could lose our freedom in other ways — we could become a republic without having very much freedom. The mistake some people seem to think is that they believe that a Republican constitution is a guarantee of freedom. There are many Republics to which the essential idea of freedom is alien. The danger is not that. The danger is something wider. It is that as a result of a German victory South Africa, whether it is a German Colony or a Republic, or even perhaps part of an attenuated British Commonwealth, would, together with the rest of the world, be permeated by Nazi ideals. If Germany wins the war then Nazi ideals will prevail throughout the world, and nothing will stop it, and that will mean the eclipse of human freedom. To-day already Nazi ideals have found lodgment in our country. We see it, sir, in our young people, we see it in our universities, I am sorry to say. We see it in other walks of life. I am not reflecting on one party or on one section. It goes wider than that, and when I talk of Nazi ideals I am not just thinking of sympathy with the idea of a Nazi victory. I am thinking of something much subtler, much more insidious than that. I am thinking of the Nazi ideas which are taking hold of people who would repudiate the idea of sympathy with Nazi Germany. I am thinking of intolerance; I am thinking of contempt for democracy and the exaltation of force, and the failure to understand what true freedom really means. To that extent, sir, the enemy is already within our gates, and it is only by defeating Nazi Germany that we shall be able to safeguard South Africa against the menace which this irruption of Nazi ideals implies. On that account, sir, we must, we shall carry on the fight. Mr. Speaker, we did not lightly enter this war. Like the hon. member for Cape Eastern I for my part did not vote for the amendment on September 4th last believing victory to be inevitable. I remember saying that we were prepared to face the consequences of our decision without flinching whatever those consequences might be. We knew that the task would be a difficult one. It may be, sir, that the task has become more difficult than we thought it would be, but the only effect of difficulties and setbacks has been to quicken our determination and to steel our resolution. We shall go on. Let the Opposition know it, let the country know it, let the world know it. We shall go on, on to the end of the road.

If eloquence and words could win a war then the war has already been won. Unfortunately words are usually coupled, and especially when they come from the eloquent Minister of Finance, with hollowness, because except that they cause wind, no damage is done. You will forgive me for saying that when I was sitting here listening to the speech of the Minister of Finance I thought of the words—

We have in this debate heard nothing from the other side of the House in reply to the question which was so clearly put and will be so clearly put, not only in this House but also through the length and breadth of South Africa and which will be put in every home, and what from henceforward will be more and more than ever put from day to day to the Government, namely the question: After the way in which you have been beaten and the way in which you have run away — you are forcing me now to speak in clearer terms than I did in the beginning, because you have yourselves to thank for it — after all this I want to know and South Africa wants to know what the reason is for continuing any longer to keep and to drag South Africa through the mud of this war with all its consequences. You may have a majority in this House — that is not the question — but according to the way in which you have been beaten during the past few months and the way in which you ran away and are practically always still running away we want to know why we should be kept any longer in the mud of this war. Did we get a reply to that? The only reply we have got up to the present was the reply which we have now once more got from the Minister of Finance: “We have not been defeated. We deny that we are defeated.” I only want to say this: I can quite imagine what Germany and what Hitler will say, to wit: “Well, if you are not defeated then in any case you have run away so many hundreds of miles, and you have anyway left in my hands all your thousands of guns and tons and tons of munitions and war supplies, and if that is winning, please come and continue winning.” No, that is just boasting. South Africa and the world have now had enough of that, and South Africa and the world will insist that an answer be now given to the question that I have put. I have told the Prime Minister time after time that South Africa and we expect a serious reply to the question why we are continuing the war. I tell you that unless the answer comes, then the Prime Minister may come and he can, if need be, plunge us into a massacre, but the citizens of South Africa will know what they should do. What was the reply that we got from the Prime Minister? It was: I am going to fight as long as Great Britain fights. Without giving a single reason why South Africa should take part in the war and our sons should be commandeered and have to sacrifice their lives in the war, the only answer we got was that South Africa would fight as long as England fought. I tell you this: you speak about the lack of appreciation of duty, you speak about traitors. There (pointing to the Government benches) sit the traitors. The men on the other side who are called upon to look after the interests of South Africa, sit there as the delegates with full powers, as the trustees of South Africa, as the highest authority, and all they can tell us is: We will allow your sons to be shot, and we will waste millions and millions of pounds and we are going to tax you, because England wants it. I say that if there are traitors, then they sit over there on the other side. If there are traitors who should be brought to justice, they are there. And I tell you, as certain as I stand here, that a time will come when they will have to give an account of these things. When you ask them: What is it that makes you act as if you were allowing yourselves to be considered the slaves of Great Britain, then they say: “Honour and duty.” I want to know from the Prime Minister what the difference is between his duty and mine. I know of no difference. What is the attitude which he and I have taken up all these years? What was the attitude which we took up up to the 4th September of last year towards the British Government? The documents are there, copies of the documents are in the office of the Prime Minister. We took up the position from the first day when there was a question of another war possibly occurring in Europe, possibly war between England and Germany, i.e. ever since 1935, we determinedly and logically took up the position that if England was going to war about those matters — the matters which have ultimately been the cause of the fighting — then they could not rely on South Africa, South Africa would not take part in it. And the British Government admitted that we had the fullest right not to take part in it. There was never a question of “honour and duty”. No, the person who is at the head of the Government to-day, who is guilty of all the crimes of treason against South Africa, is the man who had agreed with me. He agreed, and he knows that the last communication which was sent by my office to the British Government — I challenge him to deny it — that every communication which was sent when it was in any way necessary, was to say: “If you are going to make war about these matters, South Africa will not be at your side.” He knows it quite well, and he agreed with me and voted with me. What are we to think?

What am I to think to-day? The Minister of Finance comes here and we are abused as being without honour. Who are the people who have no honour? Those who have broken their word so disloyally. The dishonourable persons are sitting over there on the Government side, and the most lacking in honour of all of them is the Prime Minister. It is not only that they adopted a sly trick in order to get where they are sitting to-day, but the whole history up to the present is nothing else than one of breach of loyalty. I know the duty which I have always fulfilled, the duty to my fatherland, and I realised the duty when in 1926 I received the declaration with the freedom of South Africa contained therein. That did not contain the fact that I should go and betray the freedom of South Africa as has been done by the Prime Minister and his Government. I still stand where I used to stand, and I still say: I am not called upon to take action on behalf of any country, and to defend any country — whoever it may be — except my own country. I have been elected to this House to look after the interests of South Africa. To hear from the men to whom nothing is more pleasant than to be able to play with words and to obtain applause in this Assembly, that I am a traitor! To whom have I sworn loyalty? I assume that the Minister of Finance, in his heart, has sworn fealty to Great Britain and the British Government. I did not do so. If he does not want to be disloyal to himself, well and good. But then he does not have any right to charge me and others with a lack of loyalty. No, the disloyal are to be found amongst the people who have represented themselves as the reliable trustees of the people of South Africa, and who in all their actions have betrayed the interests of the country. The betrayers are seated over there on the opposite side. I have never yet allowed anyone else to question my conscience. In consequence of what has been said here this afternoon. I feel called upon to say something with regard to that letter that was written to President Steyn. What is stated in the volume is perfectly true. The Prime Minister, on one occasion which I know about and with which I had to do, made an attempt — it was in May, 1901 — to obtain peace and to start peace negotiations. He cannot deny it. Here is my hon. friend, Mr. Havenga, at my side, and in regard to that letter which was written to President Steyn he and I had to leave the Orange River to persuade the Government of the Transvaal not to go into the matter and please not to try to get peace. He knows very well how we met his government at Standerton, and how a certain document was drawn up there. To come here now and to pretend that the words of President Steyn were untrue — I say those words are true, whether you want to admit it or not. The Prime Minister has brought these things on himself by the frivolous way in which he has acted here. I certainly gave him no cause, in my introductory speech, for all these malicious charges and innuendoes. But they-must take now what they are getting. We are the hands-uppers! But we are not yet traitors. The only reasons which they gave for their attitude in this debate were: first, Great Britain wanted to win the war, and second, honour and duty. Well, they have their honour and they have their duty, and I hope they will be satisfied. But that is not the question which I put to them. It is not the question which the people of South Africa want to be answered. The people will ask them once more: Why must we go on and allow South Africa to be exploited for the sake of a war which is lost? Now you may say that the war is not yet lost, but why then not give some reasons why you think that it is not lost. We are surely not a lot of knaves collected here who cannot trust each other with matters of importance to the country. We are entitled to hear from the Government, in the name of the public, at any rate so far as we represent the public, what the reason is why you are allowing the war to be continued? Are we to assume that it is really nothing else—it seems to me that that is the only thing we can do—we must assume that they have no other reason than only —they are continuing. They are allowing our people to be shot—and let me say this: Do you know—I can only say that I have been informed in all seriousness, and whether it is so or not should be enquired into—that I was informed that our poor lads are being sent away to Kenya and they have to go and fight there against the Italians and they have the ordinary old rifles, while the Italians are as well armed with machine guns as they can possibly be. They are being sent there to be shot. If it is not so then I still tell you that that is what is being repeated about the place, and that it is a question which will require investigation. I was told that our people are going there improperly armed. I can only judge by what we know and what came out in this House about our aeroplanes. We know that we practically got the surplus from England with the exception of a few which we had the fortune to be able to buy. The rest are practically the surplus of England which were given to us. When our flying men are sent up in these aeroplanes then they are meeting the best that are built in Europe to-day. Only last session we heard how badly equipped our army was. Are things better to-day? If not, then I ask with what right are you sending the citizens of South Africa to go and fight for the Empire, I repeat again, in a struggle with which our country has nothing to do? The only other argument which I can remember at this moment is the argument against myself personally that I am opposed to our taking part in this war, but that in 1936 I took up the attitude that we ought to apply sanctions to Italy. But how that argument can be used except by way of a quibble, and for quibbling purposes, I cannot understand. Let me point to what the position was in 1936. There were about 54 nations belonging to the League of Nations, including Italy. We had all solemnly promised each other that none of us would go and make an attack on the territories of another. And then we also promised and undertook that if that were to occur then the people who did it would get into the position of having sanctions applied to them. In 1936 Italy did so in connection with Abyssinia and I as Prime Minister, speaking on behalf of the Government, insisted that sanctions should be applied to Italy. I said in this House it was not in the interests of South Africa for such a thing to be overlooked because if it were overlooked then we might expect the next day or the day after that another nation would possibly come to our borders and make an attack and that then the League of Nations would again say: No, we are not going to apply sanctions. Because I said that we were interested in the matter, hon. members on the other side now come and say that that is in conflict with the attitude which I am taking up here to-day, when I say that we have had no grounds for war against Germany and have had no cause to declare war against Germany and also that we have no reason for continuing the war to-day. I stand by that. I say that we have been plunged into a war, not only one with which we are not concerned, which is without any justifiable ground, but also in a war for which no moral justification can be made by a single man, in spite of all the windy words that we have heard from the Minister of Finance. Let us go a little further and analyse the defence which was put up in this House against the motion. They have no grounds and they could not indicate any grounds. From the very first man who spoke, starting with the Prime Minister’s own speech, we could at once feel that he was running away and all he tried to do was to throw as much dust as possible into the eyes of others. If one thing was clear then it was this, that the continuance of this war, although it was based on nothing else—well, I will assume that it is so—seeing that it was based on nothing but sympathy with Great Britain and no more, is deprived among the people of an y conviction, so that I cannot help feeling that the whole defence was nothing else but based on the fear of despair and that every act which was still to be done by the Government, was a desperate act, just as every motive which was given for those actions was a motive of despair. How could it be otherwise? They are following in the footsteps of their masters. The trafficking in war spirit is pursuing them, and how can there be any force of conviction with those people? It is they who dragged England into this debate. Who is there who is not astonished at the acts which were committed since the time of the breaking through of the Germans and of the running away of the Allies? Was it not a shock to the whole world when we read in newspapers that King Leopold of Belgium, who as a soldier fought with his men, was a traitor? But what was not the shock to us when we heard that the Pétain Government had entered into an armistice in France. He in turn was called a traitor. I have always acted on this principle: When I have had a quarrel with a man once then I am convinced that I am right and he is wrong. When I quarrel with him the second time then I get the suspicion that I may possibly be wrong. If I quarrel with him a third time then I call in somebody else. But here things were not done in that way. No, they found fault with Holland. The King of the Belgians was accused of being a traitor; Pétain, a man with irreproachable character up to that moment, was called a traitor, and then came the climax of all, about which we cannot do otherwise than get a feeling of nausea—that attack on the French Fleet at Oran. I must say that the eyes of the world then opened and the question was put: What is there behind all this? Is the English Government of to-day sunk so much deeper, morally, than English Governments of the past? Are they sunk so much lower than other governments? No, I do not believe it. I will tell you what the position is. It was simply despair which drove them and owing to which a panic arose, and all their acts bear the impress of suave qui peut — let them save themselves who can. Just notice the conduct of the Government in this House. When we try to correct them then they try to brush us aside with their hands, because they feel that things are happening here in such a way that everyone must try to save himself, and if there is one means of salvation then it is the means of salvation of the strongest. Unfortunately the British Government had to give an account of its acts and I leave it to the world to judge what the reason for those acts was. Here sits our Government and it also gives a so-called account of all the misdeeds which have been committed in the country — the deprivation of the citizens of their arms, the interning of men who ought not to have been interned, and the imprisonment of citizens. But they allow people to remain free to continue acts of violence as much as they wish, acts of violence against peaceful citizens. And then we hear these excuses and the answers to questions which are given here. There is no answer on the part of the Government. No, if an inquiry were to be instituted to-morrow by an impartial commission then that Government would not remain sitting there for three days. But what can they do? They have landed South Africa into such a position that they know that they have placed an intolerable burden on the shoulders of the citizens and as a Government they can only say: We must save whatever we can save and abandon the rest; and in the first place let us save ourselves. That is the sort of story to which we were listening a few moments ago. That semblance of conviction which the Minister of Finance wanted to give to his speech, a childish speech, which could be made in, and which possibly was made in the Oxford Debating Society, is certainly not an answer which should have been made in connection with this serious national question of the continuance of the war which we have debated here to-day. No, I say again that the war is being carried on, but not with the conviction that they are going to win. No, for then they would have given a reason for it. But they have to make a show as if they could actually do so, and that is why we have had this spectacle to look at since yesterday. We must close our mouths. Keep silent! That is what came from the other side. That speech by the Minister of Finance amounted to nothing else than simply this: Shut your mouths, you have no right to speak. Did he not say so in so many words? We listened this morning, I at any rate had to listen to an elaborate speech ad hominem by one of the so-called Ministers who ought to look after their portfolios. I do not want to go into his speech. But he complained here yesterday that I had not taken any notice of him for so many years, on account of a speech that he is supposed to have made. I told him that that was quite wrong. The reason why I did not look at him, and do not take any notice of him now, is this: It is the reason that prevented the decent old Roman in public life from taking notice of the scurra. That is also the reason why I am going to take no notice of him and his speech. The Minister of Finance says that we must keep our mouths shut. We may not speak. Just imagine it. Here we sit, 150 representatives of the people elected in order that we should be able to come here and look after, and debate the business of the nation. We are told by our Government: You must not speak, but keep silent. If you speak you are traitors, and the Minister to whom I referred a moment ago even dared to go the length of saying: “I shall yet take away from you the last 1 per cent. of freedom which you still have.”

Who said that?

It was said this morning.

It is absolutely untrue.

Only he did not say “one per cent.,” but I told him that we only had one per cent. of freedom left, the other 99 per cent. they had taken away from us. Now I want to tell the Minister there that he will never dare to do it, and even the Prime Minister will not dare to do it.

What will I not venture?

To muzzle the people.

I have not tried to muzzle the people.

Your Minister says that he would like to do it. That is the reply which we get now. Instead of the Prime Minister being in his place this morning properly to control his Ministers, he allows them to do what they wish. That is one of the chief reasons why to-day there is that feeling of dissatisfaction in the country with the Government. Each Minister is a small king to himself, because he thinks that they have full power in the matter, and that when they do anything the Prime Minister will support them.

You are making yourself guilty of a deliberate untruth.

Even if we feel that the country is being forced into the abyss — and that will be the position in a short time if you do not act differently — we may not say anything, because it is not honourable in the view of the gentlemen on the Ministerial benches. They possibly do not realise their duty fully. I have a different country to theirs, to which I feel an obligation, and to which my honour is bound, and as long as I fulfil my duty and honour so far as South Africa is concerned, they can continue to act as they wish. But now I want to say this: It is not only myself, and it is not only this side of the House which says: “No, we want to know what we are fighting for.” It is not only a question which is being put in South Africa, but it is the question which is being put in England. In the streets of England even sandwich men are walking about and saying: “The war must come to an end.” But of course our Prime Minister cannot be only a little loyal, but he must possess more honour and duty towards England than the Englishman. That is why we must be silent. I assure you he will have a tremendous failure if he tries. He will not succeed. There are thousands of people in England to-day, even millions, who are asking: “Why is the war continuing?” They want the war to be stopped. Even a man like Wells, the author, who surely is a person of importance in England, can no longer remain quiet, and has written and said: “But I now want to know, it is time that the people knew why we must go on with the war.” The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have the money. Of course, they have the power to get the money. Why should they take notice of a man like Wells, or of millions of English people in England who say that a stop should be put to the war? We are accused of cowardice, that we are moral cowards, because we do not want to continue the war, a war in which we have nothing to gain, but have everything to lose.

But I just want to point out to the Prime Minister and his Government, and all our friends who are so full of courage: This position has not come about yesterday or since the break-through of the Germans in France. I never believed that England would or could win this war, and I have not made any secret of it either. Therefore, to come to-day and to accuse me of cowardice — well, I leave the question of cowardice where it exists, because cowardice does not exist amongst us, but it lies with those persons who have taken a wrong step, and who have not the courage to admit that they are wrong. That is where the cowardice is. Just one word more. We are abused as being in favour of Hitler, and being pro-German. I tell you this: You will make many pro-Germans in South Africa before long, and you will deserve to have them. Now I want just to ask hon. members again: Do you really think that England is able or will become able to conquer Germany? Well, I said from the first day to England — not since yesterday, but I have now for some years constantly said — “You really do not know what you are going to tackle if you start a war against Germany, a war against a country with 80,000,000 to 100,000,000 inhabitants.” But apart from that I said to them: “You will pardon me, but I am speaking as a man who” — although I speak on a small scale compared with what is hap pening — “has also been through the mill.” We now read daily in the newspapers, and we hear that the object is to destroy Germany. That is still being said by Winston Churchill, and I assume also by the Prime Minister here. Germany must be destroyed and broken up, the German people must cease to exist, Germany and everything German must go under; there will be a second Versailles. I ask England: Do you think — it was England and France then that I had in my mind — do you think that you, and whatever allies may yet join you, will be able to defeat the German people, who know what they are faced with, who know that a second Versailles or even worse will be imposed on them, do you think that you will ever be able to force that people to lay down its arms except if the whole nation is destroyed? But now the argument is always used that Germany cannot provide its population with food. My reply to them was: “Admitting that it is so, then I want to tell you that I know how little a people can live and exist on if it is fighting for its life and its national existence.” Do you really think that it will be easier, with France eliminated, which will never again stand at the side of England during this war — do you think that England alone will obtain the victory? I notice that they are pleased to assume —and I assume it myself also — that Hitler will not make an invasion of England. I do not think that he will be so foolish as to do so. Now they are rejoicing about it, and they think that owing to that the war has already been halfwon, because they think that that will not happen. Well, if Hitler cannot come to England because he has to go through the sea, then I want to point out that between England and the Continent the same sea exists, and also the same difficulties. I ask you in God’s name to let us admit just for a moment that England will be in a sufficiently strong position to be able to get a footing in Europe, what then of the position? Today the whole coast of Europe from the most northerly point right down to Spain, along the French coast, and the Italian coast is in the hands of the enemy, excepting Portugal. There is not a single ally of England along the whole of that coast, but they are all opposed to England. Then I ask you, how long do you think it will take any one of those countries to come to the point of making common cause with England for an invasion. But now I ask you to think for a moment of the position which Germany is in to-day. While I spoke the other day, only four months ago, France was still fresh and on the side of England. France also has dropped out, and do you think now that you will be able to help England? Poor South Africa, which must assist England to obtain a glorious victory over Germany! They think, as I said in my opening speech, that Hitler and the German people will be presented to England on a gridiron. If that is believed by the Prime Minister and his colleagues, then I tell you that you are thereby showing that you are engaged in gambling away the life and the freedom of our country, nothing less. You have not the right to do so. I want to say to the English-speaking people on the other side that there is one thing which grieves me deeply. I have always yet zealously and honestly tried to get the two sections of the population in South Africa to work together, to build up one great nation together in the country, but I ask you: Do you think it is possible, after what we have experienced during the past twelve months, after what we see happening now day after day — that not the least sympathy is exhibited for Afrikaans-speaking South Africa? Do you think that it is possible? Then I only say this: You may think so, but I can give you the assurance that she will no longer follow the line that was followed in the past.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—65:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer. K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Bruyn. D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Plessis. P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Erasmus. F. C.

Fagan, H. A.

Fullard, G. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Havenga, N. C.

Haywood, J. J.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, 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, 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.

Noes—83:

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.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

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.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

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.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: G. A.

Friend and J. W.

Higgerty.

Question accordingly negatived and the words omitted.

The substitution of the words proposed by the Prime Minister, put.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—83:

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.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

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.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

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.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Noes—65:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet. J. C.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fagan, H. A.

Fullard, G. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Havenga, N. C.

Haywood, J. J.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, 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, 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.

Words proposed to be substituted by the Prime Minister accordingly agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and the House divided:

Ayes—83:

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.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

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.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

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.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Noes—65:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fagan, H. A.

Fullard, G. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Havenga, N. C.

Haywood, J. J.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, 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, 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, as amended, accordingly agreed to, viz.:

It being 8 minutes past 6 o’clock p.m. Mr. Speaker, in accordance with paragraph (3) of the Sessional Order adopted by the House on the 26th August, adjourned the House.