The Prime Minister explained to us last night that his object was not that an individual’s property should be declared forfeited for any offence which he has committed, but only the article in connection with which the crime was committed. As the clause stands here, however, it can be read that the property can be declared forfeited for any offence, and to avoid misunderstanding I want to suggest that the word “die” (the) be inserted in the place of “’n ” (a), or that there be added at the end “in connection with which the contravention or neglect took place.” Then we shall be removing all doubt. These regulations which are being proclaimed will possibly be applied by magistrates who are not fully aware of things, and who may read the clause in that way. If we pass this amendment we remove all doubt, and I appeal to the Prime Minister to accept it. If the Prime Minister refers to his department they may possibly advise him that as the clause reads at present it means only the object in connection with which the crime was committed, but it can very easily be read differently, and to remove all doubt I want to ask the Prime Minister to replace the little word “an” by “the” or to insert those words at the end.

I do not believe that it is actually necessary, but to satisfy my hon. friend I am willing to insert “the” instead of “a”. According to my information it is not actually necessary, but my hon. friend is so insistent that I want to meet him.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining amendment in Clause 1 put and agreed to.

In Clause 2,

Inasmuch as these cases all have to be reviewed by the Central Court, I want to ask the Minister of Defence whether he will make provision to meet the people who have already been punished. There are people who have practically served the whole time for which this Act made provision, but now it will still last a long time before the Registrar can go into all the cases. Then it will mean that the people may possibly have to do further hard labour unnecessarily. Will the Minister not consider releasing them, provided they will give security for the maximum fine for which the Act makes provision pending the finding of the court? if they give £5 security cannot they in such case be released while waiting for the decision? Then the people will not have to suffer a further two or three weeks before the Registrar has received the judgment in all the cases. As the clause now stands, it is unfair.

It is not the Registrar who will give the judgment, but the Supreme Court. Cases are now being left to the discretion of the court, and I therefore cannot intervene in the matter.

May I put the point in this way: The people are in gaol, and before this Bill is passed and the provisions of the Bill come into force, they will possibly have to remain a week or two more in gaol, much longer than if their sentence had been under the new Act. What the hon. member is now asking is that the Minister or the Department of Justice should now arrange that all the people who are in gaol should be let out on bail. The bail can be the maximum punishment which can be inflicted on anyone, namely, £5. Then these people will he realesed until such time as their case is taken into review. Otherwise further injustice will be done to the people. Suppose that the court decides, under the new penal clause, that a man should be fined £2 or a week. Now it may happen that, while the person under the new provisions has only been given one week’s punishment, he has possibly already been in gaol a few weeks, and will have to remain a few weeks more until such time as the provision comes into force. We therefore ask that all the people may be released on a maximum bail of £5.

I would, of course, like to see that unnecessary punishments should not be imposed on these people after the amendment which has been made in this Bill. I will discuss the matter with the Minister of Justice, with whom the matter actually rests, and we will see whether the request which has been expressed here can be complied with.

Amendments in clause 2 put and agreed to and the Bill as amended, adopted; third reading on 11th September.

When the House was in Committee last Saturday I drew attention to the rule which governs discussion on additional and supplementary estimates, viz.—

Since then I have given careful consideration to the estimates now before the Committee and the unusual circumstances of the estimates contain two votes, without giving any details, for large contributions to the War Expenses Account, viz.: Vote No. 5 Defence, £8,500,000 and Loan Vote N, £23.500,000. The House has, moreover, allotted a specific period for the consideration of the estimates. I am loth to depart from the settled practice of the House, but many important events have taken place since the original votes were passed and under the circumstances I propose that in this instance the rule should be relaxed. If it suits the convenience of the Committee I am prepared to allow discussion on Vote No. 5 covering any administrative action connected with the prosecution of the war. In doing this I hope the Committee will assist the Chair by avoiding a repetition of the discussion on Loan Vote N.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the ruling you have given. I think we all realise that with regard to the curtailment of the debate in this connection, allowance was not or could not be made for circumstances such as prevail to-day. The position has altered very much, and the rule would have made debate altogether impossible. The fact that we can now deal with the whole administration of the Defence Department is not only desirable, but also necessary for proper disposal of the work, I want to thank you for your concession, and I can give you the assurance that we will support you in this connection. I just want, as a preliminary, to put a few short questions to the Minister of Defence. In the first place I thought that we would now build up a defence force in South Africa which was planned on a very modern footing, and that with the flaws which were now being rectified, we would be developing a defence force which was equipped with the most modern armament. Therefore I was somewhat surprised to learn, in answer to a question which I put to-day, that certain departments of our defence force were apparently reverting to a barbarous method of waging war, because the Minister of Railways and Harbours in answer to my question, said that the department was now busy making assegai points. Yes, I smiled just as you are doing, Mr. Chairman, when I received the reply. The reply was that the points were being made under an order from the Minister of Defence. Now, I would like to know from the Minister of Defence what the assegai points are being made for. We were all under the impression, when the war broke out, that we on our side would only conduct it with European troops, but we now find, apparently, that considerable trouble has arisen in East Africa, and when one looks at the list of casualties, we notice that we are now engaged in using quite a lot of natives against the Italian native troops in Abyssinia. We now find that there is trouble with the Bandas. I have never yet heard of them, but apparently they are a native tribe who have come under the influence of Fascism, and they are engaged in coming into Kenya in large numbers. They are regarded as casual enemy troops, and I understand that arrangements are now being made to obtain other natives who do not know so much about Fascism to fight the Bandas in Kenya. I would like to know whether the present intention is to provide the other natives, who are to fight against the Bandas, with assegai points. Is there now going to be a good old-time assegai war in Abyssinia between different native tribes, while the Union troops, provided with the most modem war equipment, will be sitting on a koppie to see who the winner will be? In any case, I would like to know from the Minister of Defence what the assegai points are required for. The other day it was necessary for me to draw attention to certain cases of the waste of money in the Department of Defence. Since that time a further instance has come to my notice, and I call the attention of the House to it, not in a frivolous spirit, but because I feel that if this unnecessary waste of money is made known, it will possibly lead to the Department of Defence handling our money a little bit more carefully. One of the chief officers in the Department of Defence is, I understand, the so-called information officer. Hon. members will of course understand why I say the “so-called” information officer, and it is not necessary to go further into the matter, but that officer who talks all day about Hitler, has now apparently suddenly come to the conclusion that he knows little about Hitler, because he heard of a book “I Know Hitler”, which was obtainable in Johannesburg, and he immediately wanted to get hold of a copy. He was in such a hurry to get it in Pretoria that he could not wait until the book arrived by train — there is, I believe, a train every hour from Johannesburg to Pretoria — but a motor lorry had to be sent from Pretoria to go and fetch that one book in Johannesburg. The cost of that trip was under £2 they say, I do not know whether that is correct or not, but if a highly-placed official sets an example of that sort, what are we to expect from the less highly-placed officials? Then you can only expect people not to care very much how the money is spent. That was a very bad example to set, and it will create the tendency to deal very extravagantly with the money to be spent in connection with the war. Then it is constantly said that the people are being dismissed if they refuse to do military service. I think it was the Minister of the Interior, as a matter of fact, who to-day replied on those lines to a question. Now I have here quite a number of cases of people who were discharged from work on the national roads, because they would not do military service. The people who were working at Port Elizabeth received notice that if they did not join up with the army before the 18th August, they would be discharged from the work. I do not blame the Minister of the Interior. He does not know what is going on in his department. Apparently very few of the Ministers do know what is going on in their departments. I, however, want to mention the names of those people. There is a Marais, a Potgieter, a Wagenaar, a Du Preez, a Koen, a Fourie, a Van As, a Haward, a Black, a Marais, a Bosman, a Vos, a Meiring, two Humans, an Ackermann, a Lemmer, a Vogel, a Hetsie, two Bezuidenhouts and a Barnard — in all, eighteen people. They all received notice that they were to join up before the 18th August, or else they would be discharged from the work.

What work?

National road work. I am now giving the names of eighteen or twenty people who received notice to join up before the 18th August, or otherwise to be discharged. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) had the same experience in his district.

And we also.

I went to Pretoria with the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg to see whether we could not obtain an alteration, but we had to leave Pretoria without having accomplished anything. We went before the 18th August to try and keep the people on that work. Now it is said that no one is being discharged if he does not take the oath.

The Provincial Administration, which is responsible in this matter, denied it.

I do not care if they do deny it. I mentioned names. An official came to them and said: “Sign or you will be dismissed.”

Why did you go to Pretoria and not to Cape Town?

I thought that members of the Cabinet would at least do something in the matter, but now it appears that they are powerless even in these matters. If they had not given their support to the Provincial Administration, if they had wanted to stop it, it would never have happened. The Provincial Administration would only do such a thing if it knew that it had the approval of the Cabinet, and apparently this step is approved of by the Cabinet. After struggling for a week, the Minister was able to give a reply. [Time limit.]

With reference to what the hon. member said in regard to people who were working on the national roads, I would like to ask the hon. member whether they were individuals who were driving lorries. A similar position arose in Natal. When it was brought to my notice, I made enquiries, and it appeared that they were persons who were driving lorries. They were told that the lorries would be used for defence purposes, and the drivers were informed that if they wanted to accompany the lorries, they could get work. If not, then the lorries would be taken, and they would be without work. Those persons refused to go. The lorries were taken away, and certain individuals were discharged. Or ought they to have been kept on to push wheelbarrows? That is the position.

It is a very poor excuse on the part of the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Friend) that the lorries are supposed to have been required for defence purposes, and that the people had to be discharged for that reason if they would not sign on. We have instances in connection with all the departments that pressure is systematically being exercised on people to sign on. Then the Prime Minister comes and says that it is a war which is being carried on with volunteers. No, the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has again produced proofs that people are being forced to sign on. I, however, rise to bring to the notice of the Minister of Defence the scandalous way in which at this time the money of the country is being wasted. There was a mounted brigade camp established at Piet Retief. The camp was put up in a great hurry—that is not so much my objection, but I want to point out the stupidity of the head of the department in making arrangements for the mounted brigade there, and to have hundreds of bales of lucerne and fodder and other things sent on to Piet Retief to find suddenly that Piet Retief was not suitable for a mounted brigade, because there was horse sickness there. The brigade is now being transferred to Ladysmith, which is at the same level as Piet Retief. Now I ask the Minister of Defence why such foolish action was taken. Why are not things properly considered? Moreover, we have all these remedies against horse sickness, and why can they not be used? Now all the expense has to be incurred to send hundreds of bales of lucerne to Piet Retief, and then they just have to be carried back to Ladysmith. This may be business for the Railways, but it is a terrible waste of money. It will be a good thing if the Department of Defence took greater care about what was done, so that money would not be wasted in this reckless fashion. I have been informed that the brigade is now being sent to Ladysmith, and that the Scottish regiment would come there. I want again to issue a warning that all the money which is now being unnecessarily spent has to be paid back, and I hope that when one of these days we get into office, care will be taken that those who were responsible for this expenditure will also bear the burden. The Minister of Finance is usually strict with regard to expenditure, but he must make some enquiries to see that the Department of Defence does not waste money so recklessly. When I was in Pretoria the other day I learned—and it also appeared in the newspapers—that five officers were living at a certain hotel. They all have the same headquarters to go to, but each of them has a motor car and even a chauffeur as well. Are we now to go on paying for the waste and extravagance of the officers? The Minister of Finance ought to see to it that a stop is put to these things. I have respect for the Defence Force, but as things are going now they cannot be tolerated any longer. It seems to me that they think that while a country is at war, you can just waste money and do whatever you wish. The Minister of Defence will remember how in the last war nearly £1,000,000 was lost in connection with boots and leggings. I hope that we shall not have a repetition of that kind of thing, but that better supervision will be taken. Hon. members opposite who are drawing double salaries will possibly hope that the war will go on ad infinitum, and then we will pay for it, but an end must be put to these evil conditions.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a point with regard to those women in the service who marry soldiers—and, of course—receive allowances under this vote. The position at the moment is that if a woman in the service marries a soldier, she immediately has to give up the post in the Public Service. Now most of these women are needed—their services are needed. What is happening is that they are giving up posts, some of them very good posts, and then are immediately brought back in temporary posts at 7s. 6d. per day. In addition they draw their allowances as wives and in some cases it is true that their allowances and their temporary pay of 7s. 6d. per day does bring up their total pay to what they were getting before they married. Now I want to put that point to the Minister. Is it fair that in those cases where a woman has been drawing a fairly big salary and where she marries and is taken back into the service in a temporary capacity, the Government should profit by the position? She is rendering the same service. She is taken back and is paid far less than she was originally getting. The Minister knows quite well that the services of these women are needed. Women are always needed. The women are needed more to-day because we are short of man power. I will not say why we are short of man power, but the position is that we are. Now I would make an appeal to the Minister that for the duration of the war he should suspend the operation of that clause in the Public Service Act which forces a female officer to leave her post on marriage; it should be laid down that women in the Civil Service who marry soldiers should be kept on in their posts for the duration of the war, and for sufficient time afterwards until they can properly readjust themselves to ordinary life.

What about the marriage allowance?

I would be prepared to discuss this question of giving up the marriage allowance if they are allowed to keep their ordinary pay in certain circumstances and if they remain on the permanent staff. I have spoken to the Chairman of the Public Service Commission on this matter of giving up the allowance and he says it cannot be done. If they were to give up their military allowance and only get their ordinary pay, the Public Service might lose the services of the women who are highly qualified — they would go to private employers. I think at any rate the position should be gone into and we should see how it would work out, and what is in the best interests of the women. That, I think is only fair. It must be realised that when the men to whom they are engaged to be married go away to the front, it is only a natural instinct for these two people to want to get married —and actually the proportion of marriages is very much higher to-day in war time. Then there is the vital point which affects these women: if by any chance their men should not come back, their position is not a very happy one. They would have left the service and their means of livelihood would be gone, and they might have to fall back on any war pension which might be provided—which is likely to be extremely small. I think it is a fair principle, that that particular clause should be suspended for the duration of the war. I hope the Minister will consider the matter and that at the very least it will be laid down that if they are to be re-employed in a temporary capacity they will not be paid a smaller salary than they had before.

I would also like to speak on the question of the national road workers. I am not prepared to accept the statement which was made here in connection with the national road workers. I want to add that we would have had a little more respect for the Minister if he had frankly admitted what was being done there. We have the facts, and we know what happened. Last session I had the original circular which was sent out to the engineers who were in charge of the road work, in which it was said that the object was to militarise the national road workers in the form of an engineers’ corps. I had personal cases under my notice of national road workers who assured me that they were only discharged because they were not prepared to sign the required oath.

An oath to do what?

The “red” oath.

I have before me statements in connection with this matter. I have, inter alia, the statement of a man whose name is P. J. Botha. He says that he refused to take the oath, but he got the wind of the probability that he would be paid off on that account, and he then went to the village to join up. When he got back to his machine, his discharge was already there, and the person who had to replace him on that machine was also there. After a telephone message, he was re-employed, and he is now again working on his machine on the road. It is not, as the hon. member opposite tried to make out, that it only affected lorry drivers. This man was back again on the road, at his machine, after he had decided to sign the oath, and he is now working there. He went and joined up to be able to retain his work and to support his wife. I have here another declaration by two people in which they say that one of the overseers expressed himself as follows to them—

These two men refused to sign and they were discharged. The overseer then said to one of them, as stated in this letter—

I also have a list here of persons in the same district who joined up and who retained their work. In addition I have a fairly long list of persons who refused to sign, and who lost their work. I, for my part, am not prepared to accept the assurance of the Minister. The assurance which he gave is not a correct assurance. One of the hon. members opposite made an attempt to shift the responsibility on the Provincial Administration. We also had a similar case in the Transvaal where the Government made an attempt, through the Provincial Administration, to obtain certain undertakings from the teachers in connection with the war. We now see the same thing here. The people who are behind these things are in the Defence Force and the Union Government, who are making use of the Provincial Administration, and who are now trying to pass the responsibility on to the Provincial Administration. The best thing that can now happen is for the Minister of Defence and the Minister of the Interior frankly to admit what was going on; that they should make an honourable admission. If they deny these things, then we are not prepared to accept that denial, because we have facts and proofs of what happened there.

I want to ask the Minister if it is possible to give further assistance to dependents who are at present in a very difficult position owing to their breadwinners taking part in the war. The position is that we are allocating a matter of an extra £350,000 for the internees — who are enemies of the country. Those people are very well provided for indeed. I have no complaint so far as that is concerned, and I believe that we are doing the right thing in keeping these people in the best way possible, although they are enemies of the state; but I do think that there are others, dependents of soldiers, who are in a worse position than the internees. That brings me back to the position in regard to the large number of civil servants, municipal employees and various others who are receiving full pay just as they were receiving prior to the declaration of war. I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to this anomaly, because there has been a certain amount of criticism to the effect that big business has its effect on the Government, and are preventing them from paying people joining up a reasonable amount of pay — the same pay as Government and municipal people were receiving. I want to tell the hon. member who has criticised the Government that I do not believe that that is the case. Let us take the position of a small employer of labour who is sending half a dozen men to the front, and who is prepared to make up the difference between their military and civil pay. He continues to make this allowance hoping that he will be able to carry on throughout. But he is actually making three contributions. In the first place he is making a contribution to his employees by making up their salaries. He is also making his contribution to the municipal employees through the rates he is paying, and he is also assisting to pay for Government employees who are on active service. I have no fault to find with that, so long as the other people are also properly treated. But it is unfair for hon. members to say that big business is having its effect on the Government in preventing the Government from doing the right thing in regard to the men on active service. It has been argued that the Governor-General’s Fund will make up the difference and that people will be in just as good a position as the employees of the Municipality and the Government. But I do not think that that is the correct way to handle the position. There is plenty of money in South Africa, there are enormous resources that can still be taxed for our war efforts, and surely the last thing we should expect is that the wives and children of soldiers should be allowed to remain in the same position as they are in to-day—they should be properly provided for and not be left to charity. For instance, special arrangements should be made to enable the children to continue their schooling, and an extra grant should be made in that respect. That I think is the least we can expect, and I do submit that it is definitely unfair to use public money to pay one section of the community and not the other. We are all making our contribution to the taxation of the country, and yet a large number of these men are not able to have their wives and families provided for in the same way as the wives and families of employees of the Government and employees of the municipalities. I am not complaining that these employees are well provided for. They should be, but I do suggest that all should be treated alike. It is not fair to differentiate. Many of these men have given up their jobs and they are just drawing small military pay—3s. 6d. per day and the ordinary allowance. Hundreds, even thousands of these men, have left employers who cannot possibly make up the difference between the military and the civil pay, and I am afraid that conditions may arise in South Africa under which even these men who are at present having their pay made up may find that their employers, if they are not big men, will be unable to carry on that obligation. I do suggest that it is time for the Government to take over the responsibility in connection with this matter. South Africa would not begrudge our paying decent allowances to our soldiers. We should see to it that the sacrifices which the men are prepared to make on our behalf are duly recompensed by proper provision being made for the wives and children of these men. The Governor-General’s Fund constitutes a very laudable effort, but it will not be able to provide for all these expenses which are so very necessary to-day. They will not be able to raise this money by voluntary effort, as they are endeavouring to do to-day, so I suggest that the Government should take over the whole of the financial responsibility of the scheme, and allow the Governor-General’s Fund to continue getting as much money as they can to be used for good purposes.

I would like to bring a matter to the notice of the Minister of Defence. In the South African Artillery in Cape Town quite a number of men were discharged this week and at the end of last week. I have here before me the case of Isak Johannes Henningse, who received his discharge on the 31st August. He had been in the service of the Defence Force for six years, and he had an excellent record. He had always been in Cape Town and always performed his duties here. Before the 31st August, the commanding officer came to him and said, if he wanted to continue to remain in the South African Artillery he would have to take the oath. He refused to do so, with the result that he was discharged. There are other similar cases in Cape Town. I can tell the Minister this, that I know of cases of men who joined up during the last few months and who were willing to take the oath, and they are doing the work which these people did in the South African Artillery. I would like to ask the Prime Minister to go into the matter. I also have the case of another individual about whom my minister rang me up. This person was in the South African Artillery. He has a wife and two children, but he was discharged, and he is on the streets to-day without work. Those people have obligations to fulfil, and they are prepared to do the work which they have done in the past in the South African Artillery. They are prepared to do that work in the Union, but because they would not take the oath, they were dismissed. This individual and his wife came to see me yesterday. He is still a young man, and has given six years of his life to military service, but because he will not take the oath in conflict with his conscience, he is dismissed. Then I want to mention another case of two persons in the Special Service Battalion. A certain Petrus Visser, who came from my constituency and spent three years in the trade school at Oudtshoorn, where he was training as an upholsterer and carpenter. Last year, during the month of October, the principal told him that owing to the war they would not be able to place him, and he recommended him to join up with the Special Service Battalion. He did so. When boys have been in the Special Service Battalion for six or nine months, then steps are taken to place them somewhere. This boy was anxious to join the police force, but when he applied to the police, they asked him to take the oath. He refused. He then applied to the Railways. There also he had to take the oath, and on the 24th May this year, his commanding officer came to him and told him that if he wanted to remain on in the Special Service Battalion he would have to take the oath. At the end of May he was discharged, and went back to Kakamas, where he came from. This boy is the eldest son of eight. His father lives on a small erf, and he cannot make a living there. He was trained as an artisan, but all doors are closed to him unless he is prepared to take the oath. Another son comes from Louisvale. He was also in the Special Service Battalion, and his case is a similar one. He is twenty years of age, and has had a three years training in a trade school. He could not be placed, and if he wanted to remain on in the Special Service Battalion he had to take the oath. Can that be the policy of the Government? Both the parents of these boys refused to allow them to take the oath. They are minor sons, and are they simply to walk about unemployed? They cannot find a living on the small holdings where their parents are making a living. Accordingly, I would like to bring these cases to the notice of the Minister. Then I want to mention something in connection with the rifles, which in my opinion ought to be brought to the notice of the Minister. At Upington a certain Goussard came to hand in his rifle. He asked the magistrate if he could not retain his rifle, and the reply of the magistrate was this: “How did you vote at the last election? For the Government or did you vote against the Government?” The man replied that he had then voted against the Nationalist Party, and he was allowed to retain his rifle. He is willing to make a sworn statement in connection with the matter, and I want to ask the Prime Minister to bring it to the notice of the magistrate of Upington, and to ask him not to allow such irregularities to take place. There are numbers of people who, in consequence of that incident, feel aggrieved that the magistrate should have gone out of his way to enquire what the political views of the man were, and if the man were a supporter of the Government, to allow him to retain his rifle in such case.

I did not intend to take part in this debate, but certain charges have been made by people who, I feel, rightly or wrongly, are not fully acquainted with matters, and with this matter on which we are now engaged. It was said by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) that certain people working on the national roads, were asked to take the oath, and by way of an interjection I asked: What kind of oath? And the reply came from the other side: “The red oath.” I do not know what is actually meant by the red oath, but what I do know is this, that notices went out to the road units in which they were asked to attest whether, as road units, they were willing to go and make roads in any part of South Africa. There was no question in the notice of military service. It was purely and simply a question whether they would be prepared to go and make roads «as a unit in any part of South Africa. It goes without saying that with the reduction of the amount which was made available for the building of national roads, and with the exhaustion of the funds which were available for the building of national roads, certain people had to be discharged from the service. It is a fact that there were not sufficient funds available to keep all the people in the service, and there was some question in connection with the discharge of the people, and probably also the intention or scheme that roads would have to be made in other parts of the Union, and even outside the Union, if it were to be necessary, by people who had worked as road units on the national roads. When those people were therefore asked to go outside the Union if necessary, and they refused to do so, then we can understand that there would be a state of impossible disorganisation created. The whole organisation of road making in areas where roads have to be built for military purposes, would thereby be made quite impossible. Whoever was responsible for the issue of the notice, whether it was the Minister or whether it was the provincial administration, that notice was undoubtedly intended in that spirit, and to come to this House and try to create the impression that people are being discharged because they refuse to join up for military service — because as my hon. friends opposite say, they refuse to take the red oath, in other words, that they are being forced to attest for military service, is definitely untrue. It is not in agreement with the facts, and I am very anxious that this impression should not be created by people who are not au fait with the position, and if people come to this House with these complaints then such people should be au fait with the facts before they come and make complaints of that nature in the House.

I rise to echo every word of what the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) said. I was astonished at the answer which I received to a question this morning when it was said that people had to be discharged who had refused to make roads “somewhere in South Africa”. I just want to repeat what took place, and possibly there are hon. members who can confirm it. A person came out from the Divisional Council of Stellenbosch to the road workers, and asked them to sign a paper in which they said that they were prepared to make roads in any part of South Africa. The persons who refused to sign it were discharged. The old people who were working there were, however, kept on. In one case a man who refused, in the first instance, subsequently said that he was prepared to sign. He signed, and was immediately re-employed. But that is not all. The Divisional Council of Stellenbosch was accustomed to pay the people once every fourteen days. Now they have been discharged on two days’ notice, and they were paid for two days. Usually they were paid at Firgrove, but in this case they were told that they had to come and fetch their money at the office at Stellenbosch, while the people who were kept on and are still working there, continued to get their pay at the place where they always got it. Whether that was the intention or not, there is not the least doubt that the persons were brought under the impression that if they did not sign the paper to build roads for war purposes, they would lose their job. It was asked whether they would be prepared to make roads in South Africa — we know what that means, how broad the term is. Force was employed on these people to do work for war purposes. The Minister will remember that a large number of young Afrikaners gave up other work because they thought that the roads would provide work for them for a longer time. I had at my house twelve men who were discharged at Stellenbosch because they would not sign. They were for the most part people who had given up other appointments, because they expected that they would be employed on the roads for years. Now when they will not sign, they have to leave. Those people who did sign are still working on the roads. I cannot understand the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) wanting to say here that we are creating a wrong impression. Those are the facts, whether the hon. member is now making anticipatory excuses or not.

I said precisely the same thing, but that is not what the hon. member for Beaufort West said.

They cannot get work unless they join up. It was conspicuous that the old people were not discharged. If there is not enough money to go on with the work, why then are only young people discharged, and the old people kept on anyhow? No, it is indirect force which is being exercised over poor and less privileged people in order to get them to go and fight in the war. I say that the poor man has just as much right as the rich man, or as any member of Parliament sitting here, to say that he does not want to go and fight. I ask the Prime Minister, for the sake of young South Africa, who anyway have to build up the future of the people, not to discharge these people simply because they do not want to see the war through. If the Prime Minister believes that it is in the interests of South Africa to see the war through, then any person with commonsense also has the right of differing from him. If a person does not want to fight, the Prime Minister should have respect for him and give him also a chance to work, which is the right of every citizen.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a matter of considerable importance — the question of providing sporting facilities for the young men in the training camps. At the Milner Park training camp there are between 500 and 1,000 men who are taking this technical course. They leave off work at 4.30 and have nothing to do until the next morning. If some kind of sporting facilities could be provided for these young fellows between 4.30 and dark it would be very acceptable to them. Would it not be possible to provide some kind of bioscope entertainment for the benefit of these young men? I also want to voice my opinion in connection with a matter raised several times — the inequality of soldiers’ pay. I want to say that I do not think the grumble comes from the soldiers themselves; it rather comes from the soldiers’ wives and in some cases the one woman may be getting £25 per month and the next the ordinary £12. The inequality is due to employers in some cases making up men’s pay, while in other cases the soldiers are civil servants who also have their pay made up. Other women do not get any additional allowances and this is a matter which is causing considerable discontent. When we in Johannesburg try to explain the position to people we are often given a very rough time. Another matter is one which I raised on a previous occasion. The question is that of the widowed mothers of soldiers who have to get their allowances paid by the Social Welfare Department. This savours too much of charity and I will again appeal to the Minister to see to it that these people are paid their allowances in the same way as others are paid.

The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) asked what the “red” oath is. The “red” oath is a form which the Afrikaner signs when he desires to fight for the British Empire. That is the “red” oath. Anyone who, for instance, wants to go and fight in Abyssinia and wants to put Haille Selassie back on his throne signs the “red” oath. I am surprised that there is anyone still left here who doubts that people in the public service join up as volunteers under compulsion. Everyone knows that that is so, and it is openly admitted in the Transvaal. I can speak from personal experience. On one occasion a number of road workers came to see me. They said that it had been held out to them that if they signed the “red” oath by a certain time they would not be discharged. They did not want to sign, but for the sake of their wives and children many of them did sign, and they had left. The hon. member for Caledon said that they did not go away to do military service. Let me tell him that when they come back on leave then they all have uniforms on, and they are all bitterly dissatisfied, because the promises that were made had not been carried out, and they were not getting the salary that they were promised; money is being deducted for board and lodging and the like, about which nothing had been said beforehand. I can confirm that. The records of the court at Louis Trichardt will prove it. There was a certain road worker named Snyman. He also signed the form, and only subsequently did he find out what the effect of it was, namely that he would have to go to Northern Africa if he was called up. When he was called up he refused, and he came to me with a summons. When I had to appear in court to defend the case on the grounds that he was misled and compelled to sign a form, not knowing what it was — he cannot understand English, and the form was in English — the case was withdrawn. After a consultation between the officials concerned the case was withdrawn. The case did not come up, but I still have the summons in my possession. Everybody knows why it was withdrawn. The authorities were not at all anxious for the facts of the case to be made public. Speaking of volunteers, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he cannot prevent his officers kidnapping minor children. Six or seven mothers came to me and complained that their minor sons, without their consent, had been carried off by the military authorities. The hon. member for Caledon complains that we are talking here without being au fait with matters. Let me give the names of the persons who approached me, and also the names of the children who were carried off: Hendrik Adrian Roets, Botha Regiment, seventeen years old, carried off without his mother’s consent; Nicholas Johannes de Meyer, sixteen years old, carried off without his mother’s consent; Petrus Cornells Grobler, seventeen years old, carried off without the consent of his parents; Hendrik Jacobus Venter, the same; Josias Cloete, jnr., the same; and Jan Jakobus Adrian Botha. They were all minors.

Is that done in a democratic country?

Yes, and by people who defend the democratic system. I have now sent three registered letters on behalf of the parents to the colonel of the Botha Regiment which demand that their children shall be sent back. I have not even received a reply. Under the Roman Dutch law it is an offence to kidnap minor children, but the commandant probably feels that he will get protection from the authorities if he is prosecuted.

With reference to the item which we are at the moment discussing I want to raise a matter which I consider to be very urgent so far as Durban is concerned. I am sure the Minister will agree that Durban is a very important city from a naval as well as from a military point of view. One of the things which is important in regard to the defence of a city is the road communication to and from that city. The need for good roads has become more and more evident owing to the increased use of mechanical transport. In Durban there are three roads leading to and from the city — the South Coast Road, the North Coast Road, and the Main Road leading to Maritzburg and the interior. Now, this Main Road is the one I wish to refer to more especially. As the Minister probably knows the road is of a winding nature with sharp corners and is quite inadequate even at the present time for ordinary civilian traffic. If the road has to be used to any extent for military traffic — say for instance the war comes near Durban and the question of the evacuation of children has to be considered — this road will become a hopeless jam within the space of twenty four hours. And I think it is the duty of the military authorities to consider the question of an alternative road. This is a matter which has been under discussion for some two and a half years, and the people concerned, I believe, have given almost unanimous consent to the building of an alternative road. I think the only opponents to the scheme are the vested interests along the existing Main Road, tea rooms, garages etc. I realise that at this late stage to start constructing a permanent and adequate main road would take a long time, and I want to suggest to the military authorities through the Minister that they should consider the question of improving an existing road which is rather longer than the present road, but could provide a temporary alternative. I refer to the road from Isipingo through Umbumbula to Maritzburg. It is a road which is rather longer, but at any rate should there be congestion on the present road it will be an alternative. To start at this stage surveying new roads, I realise, would be a very big job, but I want to point out to the Minister that there are complete surveys of all these roads around Durban, and it is only a matter of co-operation between the military authorities and the National Roads Board, to have all the information placed before them. I feel it necessary that I should bring this matter to the notice of the Minister, and I hope that having done so, he will take immediate steps to see what the possibilities are of improving this road through Isipingo so that, at least, we can have a temporary alternative road between Durban and the interior of Africa.

With reference to the volunteers, I want to bring a few matters to the notice of the Minister of Defence. In the first place, I would like to know from the Minister of Justice how far the matter has progressed. We find that certain boys who passed their admission examinations and who have now applied to enter the public service, are not being given an opportunity. The Department of Justice has sent a circular to magistrates with the instruction that if there is a vacancy in their offices, pensioners should be considered in the first place, secondly, people who are physically unfit, and thirdly, women, but the boys who have passed the examination may not be accepted. No permanent appointments are being made, but only temporary appointments. Is this not intimidation to get the boys to join up with the army? Why should the citizens of the country, who do not regard matters as the Minister of Justice does, be prevented from getting appointments in the public service? We even find that the Minister of Justice goes still further. I would be ashamed if I were Minister of Justice with a seat in the Cabinet, and my colleagues were to rise and say that the fighting was only being done with volunteers. I have already raised this point before. A circular was sent out, and a petition to the workers on the national roads. It came from some first-grade clerk or other, and it appeared from it in the clearest possible way, how compulsion was being used. I can give the names of persons who refused to take the oath and who were discharged. Now the Minister of the Interior says that it comes under the Provincial Council. Is the Minister of the Interior not responsible to this House for national roads? How can the Minister say then that no intimidation is taking place. Indirect compulsion is being exercised here.

What is the compulsion?

I have a petition here which was sent to certain camps in the Transkei and East Griqualand, in which the signatories complain that they in consequence of the international position, are not able to co-operate any longer with people who have anti-British feelings, and who are pro-Nazi and sympathise with the enemy. In it they ask that all pro-Nazi people, and hostile subjects should be removed from the work on the roads. If workers do not hold the view of the Government, is that a reason for discharging them? This petition had to be signed, and those who did not sign it then and there were discharged. I have the telegram here, which was sent by a first-class clerk, Carlson, to the provincial council administration. In it he said that there were many mechanics and drivers who wanted to go voluntarily, but they demanded the removal of all foreigners and supporters of the Nationalist Party. The telegram was sent on the 20th May, 1940, and the effect of the petition etc. was that persons in the service who did not hold the views of the Government in connection with the war, were discharged. Afrikaners are being threatened and are being obliged to sign the oath. Then the Government continue to say that only volunteers are fighting. I would not like to be an officer and have to fight with volunteers of that kind. There is another point that I would like to touch upon, and it is in connection with rifles. The Minister of Defence said, inter alia, that he did not need all the rifles which had been commandeered, and that a number would be given back to the farmers. May I seriously ask the Minister to remember the areas which adjoin the native reserves, Basutoland, the Transkei, entire constituencies in my parts, as also in East Griqualand, Aliwal, Zastron, the Southern Free State. Those areas are surrounded by natives. Has the British Government called in the rifles of the natives? No, but the rifles have been called up in the case of our farmers on the other side of the river. What will the consequences be? We know the mentality of the natives. If there are any rifles to spare, then let the farmers on the Border have them. The Minister should prevent the natives taking irresponsible steps. Then I just want to come to a point which was touched upon by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock). He stated that certain manufacturers were now receiving guarantees to make certain war requirements. He also said that certain farmers — I think it was to those in this part of the country — who were growing vegetables, a guarantee would be given for their produce. He made mention of sweet factories, and tinned vegetables and meat, and he said that 20,000 oxen would be required immediately. What about the cattle farmer? Are the Government not going to give the cattle farmers a guarantee for a fixed price? If it is given to other farmers, why not to the farmers who produce cattle which are suitable for the purpose? Why should a difference be made between manufacturers in the towns and farmers in certain parts of the country, and the cattle farmers? Then I want to say a few words more to the Minister of Lands, and I want to ask him whether he does not think that he is going too far with the intimidation he is making use of in his department.

Just give one instance.

I am going to mention a few cases. Instructions were given by his department that the holdings of the people who joined up were not going to be called up.

Certainly.

The law provides that if a settler under Section 10 or 11 is four years in arrear, then his holding is automatically cancelled. [Time limit.]

Naturally on the outbreak of the war one does expect extravagance, until the various departments have been co-ordinated.

I hope you are not thinking of my department.

I think the Minister of Defence is to be congratulated on the fact that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) has had only one complaint about lucerne hay at Piet Retief having gone to pieces and having had to be re-pressed. It is the habit of lucerne hay to go to pieces sometimes. The hon. member also complained of officers having Government cars. Well, if that is the only complaint which the hon. member has, then I must say that his complaints being so trivial rather constitute a compliment to the hon. Minister. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) also seems to have gone out of his way in voicing complaints in regard to men on the national roads in the Port Elizabeth district. The hon. member spoke about pressure being brought to bear on these people to join up. I wonder at the lack of good manners on the hon. member’s part in not bringing these questions to the notice of members for Port Elizabeth. If he had sincerely wished to help these men, it would have been the right thing for him to do to have brought the disabilities of these people to the notice of the members concerned. I may say that two of these men came to interview me at Grahamstown and they never told me a word about pressure having been brought to bear on them to sign the declaration for service anywhere in Africa. I also feel that the hon. member for Wodehouse (Mr. S. Bekker), when he made his appeal to the Minister about the return of guns to farmers on the borders, should have brought to the notice of the House the fact that any farmer who could stress the need of his rifle for self-protection, or for the protection of his home, was given an exemption by the magistrate. Many of these farmers have shot-guns and revolvers, and I may also point out that our natives in the Cape Province are very docile, and I think I can say that there is no reason why we should expect any trouble from them at all. Nor have we heard of any threats from them. We rather expect to get the co-operation which we require from our natives, and we expect them to help us—so I do not think that hon. members have any ground for the fears which they’ have spoken about. I personally do not know of one single case of a farmer who has not got some means of protection. Our magistrates will always see to that. In reply to the hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) I want to say that the Government has already authorised payments to the dependents of men attested for active service. The Department of Defence has gone out of its way not to neglect any dependent whatsoever — grandparents, foster parents, sisters, half-sisters, half-brothers, grandchildren — the whole category are provided for.

Even foster children.

Yes, even foster children. Definite allocations are to be made by the Department of Defence. Of course the soldier has to give proof as to the needs of these allowances, and he also has to prove that he has been contributing to the upkeep op these people’s homes. The department even goes further and provides for people not in the category I mentioned. If people can give proof that they have been getting support from a soldier, the Government will investigate their case and give them definite consideration. The allocations are oh a very generous basis, like all payments made by our Government, and I hope hon. members will realise that our soldiers and their dependents are the most highly-paid in the world.

You think a woman and two children can live on £12 per month?

As far as dependents of soldiers are concerned the allowances are on the following basis: Grandparents or parents up to a limit of four persons, first dependent of a private 3s. 5d. per day, plus 9d. per each additional dependent, not exceeding four in all, plus 6d. per head for dependents other than grandparents or parents, not exceeding a total of six in both these categories. The allowance for other than grandparents and parents up to a limit of six persons, maximum allowance 2s. 3d. per day, plus 9d. each for other dependents or 6d. in other cases. The list is a very comprehensive one. Of course, the men who have been attested have to contribute half their basic pay and to fill in the necessary forms, and these forms are referred to the Government and to the Governor-General’s Fund and they make the necessary investigations. It has been very sad to hear the numerous grievances which members of the Opposition have been trying to put into the minds of their supporters. I think their only ambition is to create a grievance — something hateful, cheap and nasty, something that grows like a chain letter. I do appeal to them in this time of national peril to throw in their hands and to help us to defeat the great forces that are set against us in these days when our civilisation is on trial.

If one had had the opportunity during the past few days and also this morning of listening to the arguments which have been used here in favour of an increase of pay to soldiers, then one could not do otherwise but receive the impression that those people are receiving less now than before. The idea was expressed here by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) last Saturday, that even an additional tax should be imposed, so that a better salary could be paid to the soldiers. Now what is the position? The fact is that many of those people are to-day performing military service, not because they approve of the view of the Government, but because the pay has induced them to perform military service. Allow me to give a few examples. One of the magistrate’s officials in my constituency, who as I knew was opposed to the war, actually joined up early. And when I enquired what had induced him to do so, the reply was that the pay which he was to get for military service was such that he had accepted military service for the sake of himself and his family, although he was opposed to the war as such. I learned that the pay and allowances which he is now receiving provides him with more, allowing for the amount of his house rent. I want to mention another example. A railwayman with a wife and three children stated that he could not help accepting military service, and his wife testifies that when he worked on the Railways he earned 8s. 6d. a day. With the allowances which he is getting and which the children get, they now have an income of 14s. 11d. a day, and she says that so far as she is concerned, the war may go on for ever, because they have never yet been so well off. I do not grudge these people a living. I am glad that they are getting it, but I do not want the impression to be created in this House that the people who are doing war service are now suffering from want. No, the actual position is that those people, in view of the war service, are really better off than before, and if the Minister of Defence or the Minister of Finance were to yield to all the pleas that are made, and give higher pay to those people, then the war expenses for the year will not amount to £46,000,000, but to twice £46,000,000. Now I want also to say something about this much-debated subject, namely, the so-called voluntary service. Cannot we now once and for all be honest and admit that it is not exclusively voluntary service which is being done? I want to go so far as to say that if I held the view of my hon. friends opposite, and was in the position of the Minister of Defence, then I would possibly use not direct but indirect methods to get men when there were not enough of them, as the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. L. A. B. Reitz) told us here; I would also possibly make use of such indirect methods to increase the numbers. That is a natural phenomenon. But then let us admit that it is not entirely voluntary service, but that people are got to do that service in an indirect way.

Show us one case.

I do not think it is necessary to give further proofs to the Minister, because if the names that have been mentioned here, and mentioned again to-day, have not yet convinced the Minister, then nothing will convince him. Even if it has not been done directly then we have had those cases of indirect intimidation to egg people on to join up. Take the fact that the obtaining of work was practically non-existent unless a person was willing to do military service—that is an indirect means to drive people to military service, who otherwise would not have performed it. Before this session started a widowed mother rang me up and said her minor son had sat for the examination in the police service, and had passed. The office then rang her up and said that her son had been successful and that he could get service, but would she be willing to give her consent for him first of all to take the oath? This technical training which we hear about is another form of indirect obtaining of recruits for military service. I take it that almost all hon. members of this House received the circular letter in which this technical training is being offered. The letter reads in such a way that doubtless a large number of applications are made to us by people who have no work, and they ask us to be so good as to get them to apply for this opportunity, on this condition, that after they are technically trained, or have even been accepted, they can then be called up for military service. After they have been enlisted, it makes no difference whether they have been five weeks or five months there, they are available for military service.

Where does the compulsion come in?

It is not always direct compulsion which is used. Indirect compulsion is used. I want my hon. friends to admit it. If I were in that position, then I would possibly also have done so, but we want this admission that it is not merely voluntary service.

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

The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) and other hon. members quoted from letters here to show what the policy of the Government was, namely, that of dismissing employees for refusing to take the oath. He went further and said that he could quote a number of letters and give names of people who were discharged because they refused to take the oath. I want to tell the hon. member that I also receive letters of that kind, and I will now give two examples of those letters. One person writes to me that he was dismissed from his work; he is an Afrikaner and a Nationalist, and was discharged for that reason. He adds that he was going to write to all the newspapers to publish what had happened to him, and that the day of reckoning would come, when the Afrikaners would once again get their right in this country. I had the matter investigated, and it was found that this person was appointed to be on guard about a factory, but instead of doing so he went and chatted in another room, away from his work. It is not for him to say that because he is an Afrikaner he can perform or neglect his work just as he chooses. I received another letter which was written on the same lines, including threats, and we found out that this was a person who went to sleep on duty.

Do you now want to make out that all the people who have been dismissed because they refused to take the oath, go to sleep when they are on duty?

I just want to prove here that if hon. members institute enquiries into many of the letters which they get, they will find that often there are quite different things at the back of the matter, and that there are no grounds for the complaint. With regard to the oath, I want to show what is being done there. The hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Brits) said the other day that a number of people in Vereeniging were threatened with dismissal because they would not take the oath. I asked him to give the name of the employers or employees concerned, and he could not do so. What is done in connection with the oath is this. The worker comes to the employer and if he is keen on getting the badge then he can take the oath voluntarily. Then he first of all has to take the oath, and subsequently enquiry is made whether his services can be dispensed with in the factories, and if the industry is not able to do without him, then he is given the right of wearing the badge, although he remains at his work. Those people remain at their work, and they sign the form which is submitted to them. It is not obligatory. It is purely voluntary, because they want to have the badge.

You do not know what you are talking about.

I know quite well what I am talking about. There are numbers of people in our industries who are working there and who have not taken the oath, and there are many among them who are Nationalists. They are not discharged because they are Nationalists. I am referring here particularly to Vereeniging. As I understand it, the policy of the Government is that compulsion shall not be exercised over its servants to take the oath; it is not its policy that everyone who belongs to a different party should be discharged. It is possible that there may be individual cases of that happening, but it is not a fact that that is the policy of the Government. But now I want to add this to that. By the action of our hon. friends opposite feelings are so stirred up that amongst the military authorities it is no longer a question of taking the oath or not; the question is, who is in favour of the policy of the Government and who is a Nazi. The result is that the people who have taken the oath feel uneasy about being in the same unit with people who have not taken the oath, not because those people do not want to go beyond the borders of the Union, but because feelings are stirred up that they are regarded as Nazis, and we can understand that they are uneasy to go to the front in the same unit as such people. The policy of the Government must either be carried out or it must not. Even the hon. member for Wodehouse (Mr. S. Bekker) said that he would not like to be an officer in charge of men who were not willing to follow him. Everyone feels the same way, and therefore it would be an unwise policy on the part of the Government to compel people to join the army who are not willing to carry out the policy of the Government. It would be definitely undesirable, and therefore the Government will not adopt any policy of compulsion. With regard to the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Hugo) and what he said about technical training, I want to point out that in the days of the old Nationalist Party the policy of the government in connection with forestry plantations, the Special Service Battalion, road work, etc., was that work was being offered by the government on special conditions. The people had to accept those conditions to get the work. To-day the country is involved in war, and we need technical people in connection with the war. There is an opening for the training of such people, and the condition is that those people, when they are trained, must be prepared to do their work in connection with the war, and therefore they have to take the oath. Suppose the Government trains those people, and they cannot send them beyond the borders of the Union, then in the first place it was a waste of time to train the people, and in the second place a waste of the country’s money. The hon. member must not only think of the political side of the matter. We are, involved in war, and we must do everything to win the war.

But indirect compulsion is being exercised.

Then it was also indirect compulsion in the days of the old Nationalist Party.

Whose money is it that is being used for the training?

The Government today uses our money to carry on war, and hon. members opposite as well as their followers pay for it. In a democratic country the Government of the day has the right to decide what they think is right, and the country and the people have to pay for it. I want to tell the hon. member that the country also pays for the university, but I never thought that the amount which I and others paid would be used for universities where the professors openly take part in politics. Take the position of the employer. We are involved in war to-day, and the employer has to be very careful not to employ hostile people, because an explosion may possibly ruin his whole undertaking. It possibly is an undertaking in which millions of pounds have been invested, and if such an employee employs individuals who are inclined to be hostile, would that be fair towards the shareholders of such an undertaking? No, he must protect the interests of the shareholders, and it is his duty to make sure that the money of the shareholders is not brought into danger. Then there is another matter. We can do what we wish, hut human nature remains human nature. When one is an employer, and a time were to come like to-day when many people come to ask for work, then he is going to give the work to the people who hold the same views that he does, and not to people who are inimically inclined. Other things being equal, they will give the work to their own people. [Time limit.]

I want to ask hon. members not to make so many interjections and to obey the Chair when they are called to order.

The hon. member who has just sat down said that a certain person, instead of being on duty, was in another room, and that he was then discharged. The hon. member, however, never said that an enquiry was instituted as to why the person was not on duty. That shows how autocratically people are acting. An enquiry was not even instituted. The hon. member has now clearly said that the feeling in the Defence Force is already so bad, that people who have not taken the red oath are already regarded as pro-Nazi. That means that we, here, who will not take the red oath either, are regarded by the hon. member as pro-Nazi. In other words, we who are pro-Afrikaans are now pro-Nazi. If that is so let me then just be pro-Nazi from top to toe. My policy towards the sons of my bywoners has always been that they could not become farmers because they were too poor, and my policy was to get them into the Special Service Battalions at Voortrekkerhoogte and at other places. I now have a letter here from a lad of that kind who has been working there for five years as a mechanic, and who has been forced to take the red oath. Every morning they have to fall in, and then they are told that the Government has made sacrifices to give them their training, and that they are not willing to render service now. They refuse and are being tormented. They are housed amongst the reddest members of the red section. They are made martyrs of in any way. They get no promotion. Is it just? People who have only been two years in the service are promoted, but the boy who has been there for five years is not promoted. That person is to-day still getting 6s. to 7s. a day, but the others who have signed the red oath get 9s. and 10s. Why this difference in payment? I would like the Minister of Defence to take notice of this. Is it not tyranny? The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) has again left the Chamber. It seems to me they are running away here just as apparently they are running away from the Italians. We are asked to vote £8,500,000. Now I do want to point out that those who are called Nazis here are also taxpayers. I am just as little a Nazi as any hon. member opposite, but I am pro-Afrikaans, and I have to be satisfied to be taxed for what they have done. But they cannot blame me for raising my voice against the taxation. We are fighting against Nazidom now, and nevertheless we are called Nazis here. Do they expect us to vote £8,500,000 to be used in order to persecute ourselves? Are we to vote money to allow Afrikanerdom to be suppressed? If the hon. member for Vereeniging withdrew his words that we are Nazis, then it might possibly be different. But he, as a front bencher, accused me of that, and therefore we now have to be asked to vote the money to suppress Afrikanerdom in our country. The hon. member for Beaufort West told us what had happened to him personally. I thought that the Minister of Defence would rise and make an apology, but up to the present we have not yet heard a single word of apology in connection with the assault which the hon. member for Beaufort West was threatened with. Here now we are asked to vote £8,500,000 for the scandalous action of the soldiers, while not a word comes from the Prime Minister saying that he despises soldiers who behave in that way. If he would use that expression, it would be adequate. But what can we expect if no word of disapproval is uttered? We can only expect that the soldiers will go further and further. It is, moreover, impossible for me to vote the money when I remember how the property, the assets of our colleges are being bestroyed by the soldiers. This is an aggressive war against the Germans and the Italians, but it is also an aggressive war against our Afrikanerdom. It is also an aggressive war against the Dutch-speaking Afrikaner in the country. I said before that to my mind hypocrisy was the greatest sin. There is one thing which is possibly worse to my mind, and that is being a traitor. If I were to vote for that side, I would feel a traitor to the Afrikaner people. We are accused of being Nazis. We shall hear that charge as long as we are not prepared to become khaki knights. My great principle is to get unanimity in my household. We here represent hundreds of thousands of households, and to-day everything is disintegrated and there is disunion, even in the defence force. Why this quarrelling and dissension? One of the reasons is the red tab. Was that not calculated to bring discord into existence? The Minister of Defence threw that apple of discord into the defence force, and dissension is the result. Am I in a position to vote £8,500,000 to create further discord in the defence force and in the police? [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Hugo) in a very nice and correct manner, showed us that the real complaint is not that measures of compulsion were being taken, but that the complaint is that we are making the defence force too attractive to people. He gave as an illustration a railway man who, including the allowance for his wife and children, is now earning 14s. 6d. a day. If that is so, then it redounds to the honour of the defence force that it is paying better for services than the amounts people earned previously. The hon. member only mentioned one point which makes the service attractive. There are others also. There is, for example, the Government of Kenya, which is probably also going to offer farms to many of our boys; many of his poor whites who have no land will possibly get farms. The Government at Kenya will receive hundreds and thousands of lads from South Africa after the war with open arms. There is yet another attraction. Many of our boys have great ideals, and dream of the United States of Africa from the Cape to the Congo. It is therefore not only the wages, but also other things, great ideals, which induce the people to go and fight. Hon. members are trying to convince us that force is being used.

Would you deny it?

I definitely do deny it. Regarded from a departmental point of view, I absolutely deny it. There may possibly here and there be a person who looks at another one askance. If it is a compulsory measure, what then about hon. members opposite who want to frighten people and tell them that they will be dealt with if they put on a uniform? If an official possibly says, “You are a coward if you do not go and fight,” and that is regarded as compulsion, what then about the threats made to wives and children of men who want to join up, threats which have already been carried out?

Is it for nonsense like this that you get extra pay?

Hon. members are now getting afraid of the results of their work. They now see where things are leading to, and that they will become the victims of what they started. They now see the danger of the populace getting out of hand, and will do harm to those who are responsible for the trouble in the country. The history of all the revolutions in the world, of all the risings is that the people who started them in the first instance, have also become the victims of them. There is a complaint and a weeping here about the rifles. It is, however, a strange thing that hon. members on the other side do not want the Government to get the rifles, but they come and tell the Prime Minister that he should place all our guns and all our rifles unconditionally at Hitler’s disposal. Everything must be handed over to Lord Hitler, but our Government may not have the rifles. They are quite satisfied to give the sacred things, as the rifles are called, to Hitler, but not to the Government of South Africa. I want hon. members just to consider a little what they are engaged in doing. It is very easy to water down every argument and to make it ridiculous.

You are a laughing stock to the whole nation.

Hon. members are playing with fire, but one of these days they will possibly wake up, and then it will be too late. If these things had taken place when the Prime Minister was a little younger, then an end would soon have been put to them. We accept his lead, and submit ourselves to his experience and far-seeing statesmanship. We only hope that it will appear that his policy of tolerance and patience has been the best, and we submit ourselves to his policy in that hope, but while the Prime Minister in his younger days acted possibly a little too impetuously, we almost feel that he is now waiting a little too long. This Bill must be put through immediately, and he must obtain the means of being able to exercise proper authority over the elements which you are engaged in creating in the country.

It is very interesting to hear from the Labour Party that the Prime Minister is now too lenient, seeing that it was the Labour Party which in 1922 suffered as a result of the Prime Minister’s actions, and which since that time has every year made a pilgrimage to the graves of the people who were shot on that occasion.

You had better go back to 1911 when Gen. Hertzog was Minister of Justice.

And they are the people to-day who are grovelling at the feet of the Prime Minister. I can only express the hope that the Afrikaner workers on the Rand who up to now have allowed themselves to be led by the nose, will eventually see what the Labour Party is. Now that they get 17s. 6d. per day and now that the interests of the British Empire are involved — now we do not hear any more about the graves of the workers who were shot down in 1922. They do not count any more. Now the British interests are in the forefront, and the Minister of Labour has forgotten all about the poor people who suffered as a result of the Prime Minister’s actions. We have heard a lot of talk about threats made by us as to what would happen after the war. We are being accused of threatening people that they will be called to account. There is not the slightest doubt that the public will call certain people to account, but it is interesting to note what the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) recently said in Johannesburg. He asked whether the Opposition imagined that the things they were doing now would be forgotten when peace was concluded.

Do you think so?

I want to warn hon. members opposite not to throw stones.

You are the very last one to talk.

The Minister of Lands is protesting now, but he is one of those who will be remembered for the things which are taking place here now. Is he not the man who, because of his war lust and his vindictiveness, had the brother of the late Jopie Fourie dismissed? And it was done for no other reason than that he was the brother of Jopie Fourie and a Nationalist. Does the Minister of Lands want to deny it? Let him grant an investigation in connection with this matter.

There is no need to have the matter enquired into.

But there is another matter I want to discuss and that is the question of the internments. I am sorry the Minister of the Interior is not here, but I notice that the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Justice are here.

There is a vote “Internment Camps” under which this matter might perhaps be more properly discussed. I have said, however, that if it suited the Committee I was prepared to allow discussions to take place on Vote 15, which covers any administrative actions in connection with the pursuance of the war. What the hon. member is now doing is contrary to the rule of anticipation but if there is no objection the hon. member may proceed.

I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice. Large numbers of Union burghers have been interned. If the question is put to the Minister why these people are not informed of the charges made against them, so that they may know what they are accused of, and so that they may prepare a proper defence, the reply is given that it is not considered advisable in their own interests. Now I want to tell the Minister that I am speaking on behalf of all interned Union citizens, and I am making an appeal on their behalf, and I want to make an offer to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Defence: try these people at once; they are prepared to be tried in public and everything can be brought to light in the courts, but give them a chance of proving their innocence in the courts. The Minister can no longer hide himself behind the excuse that it is not in their interest that the reason for their internment should be made known. They are prepared to have it announced to the world what they are accused of, so long as they are given the chance which every decent person gets, namely of proving his innocence in court. The Minister can no longer take refuge behind the excuse that it is not in the interest of those people themselves. We now give the Government the right, and the internees are requesting the Government, to have it stated openly so that they may know what they are charged with. I have a letter here which was sent to the Prime Minister and which is dated 26th July, 1940. It was sent from the Leeuwkop concentration camp and it reads as follows—

I want to endorse this. If the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Defence have not got the courage to say what the charge against those people is, I can only assume that they have been guilty of those things of which we are guilty, namely of protesting against the Government’s war policy. If we are at liberty those people should also be released, because they have not been guilty of anything that we have not been guilty of, namely of having opposed the Government’s policy of unnecessarily going to war. The letter goes on as follows—

Can the Minister of Defence imagine what the position is of those poor people, some of whom have been a year in camp already? Can the Minister of Lands imagine what their feelings are going to be when one day they get out of the camp where they have been innocently locked up?

I can imagine what you feel.

I am asking the Minister of Lands whether he can imagine what is going on in the hearts of those people. If there is a feeling of vindictiveness in the hearts of those people I can well understand it.

You will be branded for ever and ever.

I have never yet been guilty of a crime like that against my fellow-Afrikaners, and that is what the Minister will be branded for. I want to continue to quote from that letter—

I should like to know from the Prime Minister what he has said in reply to this letter, and I want to ask him again what his answer is to the request contained in it. These people who have been interned demand that they shall be tried; they ask to be brought before the court, and they ask that those khaki knights, those knights of the truth, be shown up to the world and shown up before the people of South Africa. They ask that these things shall be done in public and that everything shall come to light. [Time limit.]

I want first of all to reassure my hon. friend the member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Acutt) with regard to the distribution of comforts to the troops. I suggest to him that the machinery is already in existence and that the postal authorities are in a position to handle these comforts extremely well, and are in fact doing so. Moreover, special officers have been appointed, particularly in East Africa, to do no other thing except to arrange for the distribution of these comforts, and as a treble assurance, if any hon. member still has doubts, he can consign these articles to the padres of the brigades. The padres, of course, are, like Caesar’s wife, beyond suspicion, with possibly one or two exceptions. Even I myself would not go so far as to “pinch” cigarettes, or even chocolates, intended for the troops. I do submit, and I know something about this, that there is not the danger at present which there may have been in other wars and other countries in the past. At present things are reasonably satisfactory, and as time goes on they will be more so. Next I wish to deal very faithfully with the ridiculous story told to the House by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) with regard to the mending or non-mending of a wheelbarrow at the Premier Mine camp. This artless narrative reminded me very much of one of Grimm’s Fairy Tales, except that Mr. Grimm would have needed to have refreshed himself copiously with Klip Rivier— “sonder water” at that! — to have been able to tell the yarn. The idea of any person having to send a wheelbarrow from Cullinan to Pretoria to have a simple repair effected under the conditions described by the hon. member, is frankly absurd. There are 4,000 young and handy Afrikaners at Premier Mine, from the workshop and the farm, any one of whom is quite competent to do that job.

He was not allowed to.

That is easy to say, but incapable of proof. In addition to that there are about an equal number of sappers (South African Engineers) in the camp, all of whom are entirely capable of doing it. And if none of them had been there, I was there, and would have been very pleased to do the job myself. It would have been very much more pleasant than some of the tasks I have to do. I want to say in justification of the money being spent, partly at Premier Mine, what the position there is. I am going to say a few things as a result of having lived in that camp for the past three months. My information is not gleaned from irresponsible letter-writers, whose only wish is to cause trouble. It is exact knowledge, whether hon. members like it or not. First let me say that it is not a hell on earth there at all. Premier Mine is not an enormous, open-air prison, it is not another version of Devil’s Island — it is not a camp at all: it is a group of great camps which is hard to control but on the whole very well controlled. Like the curate’s egg it is good in parts and not so good in others. What can truly be said is that it is a reasonably hard camp, but on the other hand our men are reasonably tough also, and well able to take the strain and grin and bear it. To give a general impression I may best refer to what I regard as the least satisfactory feature of the whole position. Large numbers of men, are sent there, hundreds of them, who should never have been sent to Sonderwater, in my opinion. They are not, in my opinion, able to perform military service — unfit men who might probably be in moderate health at the coast; for instance, men with unsound hearts are sometimes sent up to the camp. There are hundreds of cases of that kind. They would be reasonably healthy at sea level; but obviously it is a severe test for men to go to any Transvaal camp in the winter, at an altitude of 6,000 feet. But notwithstanding that, the number of deaths in three months to the best of my knowledge and observation was two. Out of an enormous number of men, many of whom were unfit when they came, only two died, and one of those died of his own volition — it was a case of suicide. This man put his rifle under his chin and pulled the trigger with his toe, a tragedy due to the fact that he had been declared medically unfit and was not allowed to go North. Anyhow, that is the position. That camp is in charge of an Afrikaner, a very able and very clever soldier, a careful, wise and far-seeing administrator, and the men, speaking generally, are the salt of the earth. I am very proud of belonging to Premier Mine, and although I greatly appreciate my present company I wish I were there now. Now, if I may, I would like to suggest one or two ways in which some of this £8,500,000 to my mind should be expended. One way is in the form of a pamphlet in both languages, in all the languages of the world for that matter, elaborating two or three principles which I may perhaps be allowed to touch on; and the first one is this, that even if Britain were losing this war, it ill becomes anyone to exult over it, it ill becomes anyone on earth to deride. Even if anyone believes that Great. Britain might be going down, it is at least admitted by all that she has been a great nation, and she has done great things, not only for South Africa but for the whole world. There is one beastly thing I know of in the boxing game, and only one, and that comes from the spectators, and not from the fighters — as often happens in other directions too. There is a section of the public which goes and watches the boxer who holds the championship. When the champion goes in to fight he is a great man. But if anything should go wrong with him, if he is beaten, then that same section which fawned on him now jeers at him, and no reproach is too bad for him. I say that is done, though it is a very cheap and mean thing to do. And I add that if England, the old champion, were ever beaten, it would become each one and everybody everywhere to remain decently silent. Furthermore, we have to remember that she is our Ally, and after all the only Ally we have. England has her point of view about South Africa, possibly in some respects a mistaken one. I myself had an extraordinary view about South Africa before I reached the Union. I thought that the high veld was a country with grass growing six feet high and with snakes all over the place. Great Britain may hold peculiar views about South Africa, but surely she is bound to judge from what she hears, and from certain Union personages she hears very strange things. She certainly does not want abuse from South Africa, and if she gets it we may not receive so much help from our Ally as we otherwise should; we may not get as much as circumstances and actual events prove we need. This must be kept in mind. I also would like to mention that some people talk a lot about defeat of England and all that sort of thing. Talk like that lessens the security of this nation. Defeatism can only cause our people to become dispirited. That must decrease our aggregate strength and so diminish our margin of safety. [Time limit.]

If there is one thing which has come out very clearly in this debate it is the confirmation of the fact that the oath introduced by the Government is an oath which was brought in with only one object in view. That was also confirmed this afternoon by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) who tried to defend it. The looker-on can come to only one conclusion, and that is that Afrikanerdom has got to a stage where, if it is prepared to take this Imperial oath, it will never be able to enter the kingdom of heaven, as the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) put it. But a son of South Africa who has only one love and one loyalty — a love and loyalty for South Africa — the son of South Africa who objects, who has conscientious scruples to taking that Imperial oath — to him all employment in the Government service is closed. The hon. member for Vereeniging confirmed this fact very effectively this afternoon in his efforts to argue that oath away. I would welcome it if the hon. the Minister of Defence in his reply would discuss the question of the oath which is being forced down the throats of free citizens of the Union in so unworthy a manner. It is disgraceful that people should be practically forced through starvation by the Government into taking the oath. Whether people are disgusted unto their very souls or not, they have to live, and that is how they are being forced to take the oath. We can come to only one conclusion, and that is that the day of the Press gang is here again. Letters have been quoted here in connection with young when who are minors and who have been sent out of the country against their will. What are those methods but Press gang methods? And they are being applied here, and that although the Prime Minister on the 4th September, when he introduced his motion here, sweetly and calmly, and in the most mealy-mouthed language imaginable, told the country that we were only going to take a nominal part in the war in order to overcome certain technical difficulties and that nobody would be forced. That speech of the Prime Minister’s is being belied by the conditions which we find in the country to-day. I say that the conditions which prevail in the country today belie every word which the Prime Minister spoke in that respect, and if we are not blind and our minds have not been completely dulled we can do nothing but resist with body and soul these methods of compulsion which are being applied. For days and days we have been using the same arguments in regard to these methods of compulsion. Individual cases have been mentioned and time and again we have referred to the difficulties prevailing in the country, and to the riots which are taking place in the streets of our big towns on account of the fact that we have a population consisting of two sections. It has been brought to the notice of this House time and again, and if there is one thing which we must deplore it is that the hon. the Minister of Defence has not devoted one word to a reply to all the charges which have been raised and that he has not felt himself called upon to reply to the protests which have come from this side of the House demanding that these things shall no longer be allowed to take place in this country. I am not saying this in a spirit of bitterness, but I say none the less to the Prime Minister that he, as the highest authority in the country, can contribute a great deal more in order to calm and to settle that unpleasantness which has been caused in the country, and that he can help to put an end to those excesses which are being committed in this country. I shall also be pleased if he will give this House the assurance that he will see to it that right and justice are done and that he will punish those officers who are responsible for young men being dragged away to the North by means of those Press gang methods to which I have referred. I had an instance of the kind in my constituency. I have already referred to it, and I have written a letter about it to the Secretary of Defence. The parents of that particular young man have the fullest right to make an appeal to the Prime Minister, and I am doing so on their behalf, and I am asking the Prime Minister to see to it that an end shall be put to this malicious spirit as a result of which people have been dragged to the North, and to demand that a stop shall be put to the injustice and bitterness caused to those parents. I further want to say this, that in days like the present one can have nothing but a feeling of contempt when the hon. member for Krugersdorp speaks here. As somebody on this side remarked, one never knows to what level anyone may descend. Until a little while ago he was one of the keenest speakers in condemning everything that the Prime Minister did, but today he grovels at the feet of the Prime Minister. He cannot find words strong enough to condemn this side of the House when we bring well-fouhded complaints to the notice of the House. I say that one can have nothing but contempt for a person like that. It is essential that we should remain calm in times like the present. We are in a position to-day such as we have never before been in; the very existence of the Union is at stake, and if in the midst of all these difficulties we have to behold the spectacle of people beginning to feel that they are not at home in their own country as a result of the methods which are being applied by the Government, a Government which should be there to protect them, then I ask hon. members whether the end of everything in connection with these matters does not appear to be close at hand.

We hear a great deal of criticism of the amount which is being voted for defence purposes. Admittedly that amount is large, but it is large because of the default of the previous administration. If all these things which we have to buy now had been provided for in peace time, when they could have been acquired at much less cost than to-day, the amount which we have to provide now would have been very much smaller. It would be churlish if we did not recognise the magnitude of the task with which our Defence Department is today faced. In this connection I think a word of praise and appreciation is due to the Director-General of War Supplies and the various committees functioning under him. That does not mean, however, that we wish to pretend that everything has been done which might or could have been done. We admit that the circumstances are difficult, and we find that in the past people have gone out of their way to exploit the difficulties this country has been labouring under. We know, for instance, that tenders have been called for and have gone to people who do not ordinarily deal in the particular commodities which the tenders were for. We want the Minister to go into these matters. A number of safeguards have been provided and we hope that as a result of the various committees which have been set up these malpractices will be eliminated in future. But we cannot condone past misdeeds. The committees should he empowered and instructed to go into all antecedent transactions, and where it can be established that any undue profit has been made, such profit should be confiscated for the benefit of the state. In regard to future contracts it must not be a question of tender, but the contracts should go to people who can provide the goods and the price shall be determined by actual cost plus a reasonable profit. We do not want a recurrence of what has happened in the past, of a butcher supplying certain forces with bread, simply because the butcher had been able to obtain a tender to which he was not entitled. Contracts should only be placed with firms who either manufacture the particular commodity or who are at least direct importers. We would urge the department making the fullest use of the materials they have. Where, for instance, an accountant joins the army let that man, as far as possible, be employed on work for which he is best fitted. We have heard of instances of skilled artisans being put to work which could have been performed by people without special training. If there were a little more co-ordination it would make for greater efficiency, and it would make our war effort more effective. One has heard a lot about delay in payments to the dependents of soldiers. There have been such delays, but we know that lately there has been a great amelioration in these conditions, and I want to congratulate the Defence Department on the improvements which have been effected. There are, however, cases where dependents of soldiers are still waiting for their allowances, and these defects will no doubt very speedily be remedied. A great deal of the criticism levelled at the military camp is unjustified. Speaking to soldiers who have come from these camps on holiday one finds that the condition in these camps is good, the food is good and the treatment is good, and I want to congratulate the Department of Defence on the great improvements that have been brought about.

There are just a few matters which I should like to bring to the Prime Minister’s notice in regard to this £8,500,000 which the House is now being asked to vote. I should like to know in connection with the handing in of the rifles why such extravagance is being indulged in and why the taxpayer’s money is being wasted in the way it is being done. The Rev. Mr. Oliver from Senekal has a collection of all kinds of rifles. Some of them are of a kind I have never seen before. The whole of his study is full of them. Some of them have a great sentimental value. He applied for exemption but he was refused. I should like to know whether those rifles are suitable for war purposes. They are put up in packages and sent away to “somewhere in Africa.” I do not know where. According to the explanation given by the Minister those rifles will now be returned to him, but why should this heavy expenditure first have been incurred to send those rifles away — God knows where to — and then to send them back again? The taxpayers have to pay for it, and I think it is essential that the public should know how this money is being wasted in connection with this war of aggression which this Government is conducting. What is so peculiar to me is this: I have been to Pretoria on a few occasions and at Polley’s Hotel I noticed how the one officer after the other arrived there in a motor-car, everyone with his own driver. They are all greyish cars which come there, and they must come from Roberts Heights I take it; twenty or thirty of them arrived there, everyone with a driver. I do not know how such things are allowed to go on, and how the taxpayers of the country can be asked to vote money for that purpose. We have no criticism to offer if the Minister spends the money, which is being voted by his people, in the correct way, in the interest of South Africa and South Africa alone, but as things look now it seems to me that those officers are driving about right and left in motor-cars and that they are all joy-riding. I really think the public are entitled to know what is the object of all this, and whether the Minister of Defence is satisfied with the war which is being carried on inside South Africa in this fashion, a war which was started by him. We find that officers and men are chasing up and down the streets of Pretoria, and the taxpayers have to pay for it. Several speakers, and especially the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood), have stated that no compulsion is being brought to bear on road workers or on anyone else. I do not know whether that hon. member really understands what he has said. I have been told by many of those men who have been working on the national roads that the engineers have told them that there was only one of two things they could do: they must either take the “red” oath — that oath of which the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) pretends to know nothing— or they will lose their work. If that is not compulsion then I do not know what compulsion is. Most of the police are taken away and are compelled to wear the red tab, and I am convinced in my very soul that most of them have only allowed the red tab to be placed on their shoulders as the result of compulsion. I know of one instance in my constituency where a man took the oath with tears in his eyes, but he was within a year of the age of retirement and he knew that if he did not take the oath he would be put on the streets.

Or he is transferred.

I believe he has just been transferred. These are people who have done their duty faithfully as police officials. I must pay them the tribute and say that they may differ and they may not be prepared to go and fight outside South Africa in a war of aggression, but they are people who have done their duty faithfully and truly to the state. In spite of that we find that hon. members opposite say that no compulsion is being brought to bear on those people. I hope the Prime Minister will give these matters his consideration and will not allow further compulsion to be brought to bear on those citizens of the country. The Prime Minister has not yet told us what he intends doing in connection with all the troubles which have arisen in this country, and which have been discussed here. I am referring to these troubles which have occurred in the streets and things of that kind. We are all waiting to hear what the Prime Minister’s answer is going to be.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to know how the Minister of Finance is going to raise this loan for defence if the confidence of the public is shaken by speeches such as have been made by the hon. members for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer), George (Mr. Werth) and Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). These members I look upon as having a certain amount of business knowledge. I am not worrying so much about the back-benchers of the Opposition, but these gentlemen hold important positions in big institutions in Cape Town and they ought to be very careful about shaking the confidence of the public. Do the hon. members know that they are shaking the very foundations of our industrial development? They are decrying their own securities as well as those of others by voicing the possibility that we can ever lose this war. I want them to take that in and digest it, because they can easily cause a calamity which they may greatly regret in the near future. The cry that we have lost the war will undoubtedly badly affect our insurance companies, our banks and other important institutions which these gentlemen represent. They are undermining the confidence of the public, and this loss will be reflected in all our commercial and industrial undertakings. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet happens to represent a very big insurance company, and what effect the speech that he has recently made will have upon policyholders and others who are insuring in that company, may be imagined. When the time comes for a re-election of these members for those companies, how can they possibly expect the public to vote for them?

Is that another threat?

It is not a threat; it is the truth.

Are you trying to drag politics into insurance?

The policyholders will take into serious consideration the attitude taken up by hon. members opposite.

Are you speaking on behalf of your nextdoor neighbour?

I am speaking on behalf of myself and many other industrialists. I want to ask the Opposition, have they seriously thought of the effect this is going to have on our various institutions and on our industrial expansion? To-day we have something like 12,000 industrial establishments employing 400,000 persons, and do hon. members realise what all this means? The hon. member for George painted a picture of starving people, and let him be very careful in painting such pictures, or we shall indeed have starving people. If he wants to improve the lot of these people I should advise him to be more optimistic about the result of the war. We now have a great chance of fostering industrial development and the production of base minerals, and why bring forward these foolish arguments decrying the very things that are going to bring prosperity to this country? I am surprised at the lack of business knowledge of the Opposition when they bring forward such poor arguments as they have done recently. Do hon. members think that if we had remained neutral we should not have had increased expenditure? Let them look at what other countries had to do who remained neutral. I hope that hon. members opposite will take note of what it means to the future if they go on decrying our prospects.

I do not wish to devote a great deal of time to a reply to the hon. member who has just spoken. He takes his stand with the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood), whose whole plea was that in his “war intoxication” he now regards the war as an Imperial industry. Hon. members opposite who are too miserable to face their man on the battlefield now talk about the war as an Imperial industry. The greatest performance of the hon. member who has just spoken is that he is attacking front-benchers without any success. I think that that is the greatest achievement he will ever obtain in this House. I just want to draw the Prime Minister’s attention to an important matter. For days on end objections have been raised against the riots and the disorderliness which are taking place. Evidence is continually being produced, and I now want to ask the Prime Minister whether he with the authority he commands, cannot stop this debate by replying to the charges which have been made against him. Evidence has been produced, even by members on his own side, that the 12 o’clock pause, this hypocrisy in Adderley Street, is unchristian and should be disapproved of.

The hon. member cannot raise that again now.

The right hon. the Prime Minister has never yet replied to the debate. We are being asked to spend money while all these troubles are going on and while the feelings of the people are being stirred up. Why does not the Prime Minister get up and at least give evidence of his willingness to maintain peace and order? Evidence has continually been produced of the intimidation which is taking place, of the direct and indirect compulsion which is being exercised. I have a case here of eleven officials in the main post office in Johannesburg who have been transferred because they have refused to take the “red oath.” This is a good example of the way in which the Afrikaners are being oppressed. I have the information here before me. It reads as follows—

And yet it is stated that no pressure is brought to bear. The hon. member for Senekal (Maj. Pieterse) has just mentioned the name of a police officer who signed under compulsion. They know now who it was who complained, and to-morrow or the day after he will be transferred. That is the way in which people are being persecuted. Now I come to a particularly serious matter, which was also mentioned before, namely the removal of minor children without the consent of their parents, without their having taken an oath. The first thing the parents hear of the children is that they are in Kenya. Will not the Prime Minister at least make a statement in that regard? The reply which we got to our representations was that those children would be sent back. We are pleased about that. But the position is unsatisfactory. What right did the Prime Minister have to deprive the parents of their children and to send the children to Kenya? The reply which we got was that those children had been wrongly sent away and that they would be sent back. But in the meantime tremendous expenditure has been incurred and the taxpayers have to pay for it. An end should be put now to all this unrest and to the provocation of the Afrikaners. Even coloured people and natives are being used to cause this unrest, and to force people to do things against their wiil which they do not want to do. If the Prime Minister is not prepared to use his authority in order to keep the hooligans in check he will have to bear the consequences. Does he know of this case, which also appeared in the Press? I shall quote the case—

We are stigmatised by hon. members opposite as fifth columnists, and then a deputation comes along and asks the Government to give them a chance to attack the so-called fifth column. The report goes on to say—

I just want to ask the Prime Minister one thing, whether that request has been submitted, and what the Prime Minister ’s answer and the Government’s answer has been. Did he receive that deputation? He refused to listen to the finest and noblest voice in the world, the voice of the thousands to mothers who begged and prayed of him that their children should not be sacrificed for the sake of ideals which they did not cherish. He was deaf to that voice. Did he meet the deputation? What was his answer? I want to go on and read further—

This is a powerful native organisation. They can do that kind of thing; it does not worry the Prime Minister. The mayor of the location was chairman of the meeting. Those are the things which are going on and it shocks us deeply that a man with an Afrikaner name allows them to continue, and when complaints are made he does not even answer; he does not even give an assurance that those things will no longer be allowed to take place. Why does not the Prime Minister answer? It is only the inferior smaller lights on the other side who get up and want to give assurances. The hon. member for Vereeniging is one of those who took it upon themselves to say that those scandalous things would not take place any longer. What is the use of that? Why cannot we get an assurance from the Prime Minister and from his Government that that type of provocation of the Afrikaner nation would no longer take place? That is what we can expect. It is time the Prime Minister realised his responsibility and together with us assumed the responsibility for the maintenance of law and order. If he is not prepared to do that, if he keeps silent like the grave, he must take the responsibility for allowing these disorders to continue and for encouraging them. Even during the last session I pleaded earnestly with the Prime Minister, and with the Minister of Justice. I said that dark days were ahead of us and I asked them to keep these things under control in view of the fact that disorders would otherwise take place in this country. What scenes have we not seen since that time. Our prayers and our requests were not listened to, and to-day we find that those disorders and the provocation of Afrikaners are spreading like wildfire. Does the Prime Minister again intend to allow things to develop as he did in 1922 so that he may again get the opportunity of causing Afrikaner blood to flow?

I am very sorry indeed to trespass again on the patience of the House, but I want to mention a couple of matters, and also the effect of the speeches that have been made by the Opposition, which would form the fourth point of my proposed pamphlet. They have suggested to my mind the story about certain depiorable people who went to visit a famous picture gallery which was an absolute storehouse of priceless old masters. These persons were very free with their criticism, as unqualified people sometimes are, and the attendant present could not bear it any longer, and he came up and said: “It is you who are on trial, not the pictures.” I do suggest to anybody and everybody in the world to-day that any sort of abuse, even any lack of appreciation of Great Britain to-day, is very greatly misplaced, in the face of that epic withdrawal of troops from Belgium, with treachery on the right flank and treachery on the left.

Are you referring to Dunkirk?

I am definitely referring to Dunkirk, with the greatest pride and pleasure in the world. And I am ready and willing, Mr. Chairman, I may say through you, to discuss this matter of Dunkirk or anything else that I say in any way with any number of people whenever and wherever and however it suits my critics. When we consider the victories of the British Fleet, and the tremendous and gallant fight that the British Royal Air Force is making against huge odds, then I feel, and I don’t mind who knows that I feel that way, I am sorry and anybody who does not appreciate and honour them. In any criticism that we offer, in any criticism at all, we are judging not a great country but ourselves, and harming no reputation except our own. Another point I wish to make is that I hope a proportion of this money now to be voted will be spent in increasing and consolidating the control and defence of sea ports, beyond anything as yet devised. I am personally afraid of the position at this present moment, because I do not consider that these gateways of South Africa, notably Cape Town and Durban, are adequately guarded. I fear confusion very much, with dual control by the state and the corporation in our great cities; I fear the overlapping and the little local jealousies as to who shall lead. I fear not the enemy outside, but the enemy that is within. Is there any occasion for misgiving? Well, I am told there are 500 full-blooded Germans quite free to-day between Rosebank and Cape Town. If nobody else fears what they may accomplish I am saying that I do, because I always fear a false friend and the enemy within the gates. I suggest to the Committee of this House that the marine parade of this town or any other should not be open to anybody who cares to go there after dark. If we leave the foreshore open for anybody who chooses to visit, we may lose very considerably in regard to certain public works. This is more than possible, and I suggest that a military guard should be mounted and that the foreshore should be cleared at night of all unauthorised persons. More than ever, especially at Cape Town, I urge that a military guard should be posted at every entrance to the Docks. I am aware that a pass is required to get to the quayside, but I also know that taxi drivers can go in at any hour, and it is possible for any malignant to take a taxi and go down there and sabotage a great ship, or sink a ship at her moorings. I think that more money should be spent on securing these gateways of our country from possible, even probable, attacks by agents of hostile powers from within. And just one other point. I want to endorse what was said by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) and the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Burnside) about increasing the pay of the most lowly paid men in the army. They have dealt fully with the social and economic aspect, and I would only add a warning from the army’s own point of view. There is nothing to be feared from the men, but much from the conditions which are thrust upon them. A child who is hungry cannot make the best of his lessons at school, and it is a fact that men who are troubled in a financial way, as a man on 3s. 6d. per day must be, not may be, are not able to take the best advantage of their training. We are taking ten weeks over a four weeks job, because the minds of the men are preoccupied with financial worries. If the pay were increased, not only would training be improved but also recruiting. We are trying to fill our regiments, and how can we get more volunteers when the women are going round and talking their miseries over, one with the other, from end to end of every street? We cannot recruit against that. The welfare of the individual man and of the state as a whole here run hand in hand, and I therefore hope some alteration can be made in order to rectify existing conditions, which bear with most severity upon just those people who are least able to support the burden.

I only want to say a few words about the injustice which has been done to me, and I consider that I am perfectly justified in bringing this to the notice of the Prime Minister. I see from these estimates that large sums of money are being asked in respect of people who go about signing on recruits. One of the Prime Minister’s colonels came to Riversdale and one evening he sent for me to come to the house of an officer. He said that I must attend the recruiting meeting; he already had twelve men together and he asked me to be good enough to come as well. I went, and he said that I should also get some recruits. He said that the young fellows in my constituency did not want to join up and that it appeared to him that they knew too little and that they should have a little bit of patriotism infused into them. He told me that I should go around and tell the young fellows that the country did not just consist of a bit of land between Robertson and Riversdale. I was to go and tell them to go and fight, so that they would be able to see the country and learn something. I thought he appeared to be rather a sensible man and I thereupon promised him that I would go and recruit men. And then I put this question to him: “But tell me, you and I are not so very young any longer. We have seen history made in this country, the history which these young fellows have learned; we have seen a powerful nation come here and vanquish a small nation, and we know that there is a women’s monument at Bloemfontein in memory of those women and children who suffered and died.” I asked him if that perhaps was not the reason why those young fellows refused to join up. And I further said: “You people say it is the politicians, but perhaps it is the fathers and the mothers who dissuade these young men.” And I further asked him this: “If Hollanders and Belgians were to be asked in forty-two years time voluntarily to go and help Germany, do you think that the young people would do so?” And his reply was “No.” So I told him that that was the reply to his question why these young people refused to join up. I told him, however, that I would address four meetings which he could call together, and that I would explain the policy of the Prime Minister, that England was in trouble, and that I would further tell these people that everyone who was in favour of the war should join up, and that the man who did not do so was a coward and a “papbroek.” The colonel thereupon gave me a bundle of forms and on each platform where I spoke I said that a man who did not go and fight for his convictions was a “papbroek.” I told them that they must not go and fight At Badenhorst who was a peaceful man; they must not go and fight him on the stoep, but they must go and fight the Germans. I talked and I talked but I did not get a cent. On the other side of the House we have a large number of members who are to-day getting so much per day to recruit people, and in addition they get a uniform and all their expenses are paid. I went about in my own motor-car, in my own clothes, and I paid for my own petrol. Now the Minister will ask how many people I recruited. But the other day one of them talked here in the City Hall until the perspiration was running down his face, and he did not get anything either. But he gets paid. I wonder whether I am also entitled to send in my account. Am I to hold those recruiting meetings for nothing? I am prepared to advise people to go and fight if they feel that they should do so for their convictions, but so far I have not got one to join up yet. They talk about patriotism. What sort of patriotism is it if a man gets paid? They only want to go if they get a large amount of extra pay, and hon. members opposite who get the pay do not even want to go and fight now. The right hon. the Prime Minister fought in the Boer War. Did he get any pay for every day he fought? Hon. members opposite all want to get big pay. With them it is not a case of patriotism but it is a case of filling their pockets, and now they come here and they say that At Badenhorst is a rebel and a Nazi. Let those men who have so much patriotism and who get all the money go and fight instead of wearing the red tab and instead of being on the lookout to see how they can best fill their pockets. Ask those people to go and fight without money, then we shall see how many of them are prepared to go because of their patriotism.

Times have changed very considerably since the days of the Boer War, and if the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. A. L. Badenhorst) imagine that one can get people to-day to go and fight without pay, as they did in the Boer War, he is mistaken.

You have also changed.

If they go and fight for another country they have to be paid.

A great many points have been raised in the course of the debate and it may perhaps be well if I were to touch on a few of those points. I believe that the main battle has been waged here on the question of the alleged compulsion in connection with the oath. Let me say this: I stand by my undertaking which I gave the House during the last session, namely, that no pressure, no compulsion, would be exercised on behalf of the state. We do not want people who do not want to join up. The service in the Far North beyond the borders of South Africa will be absolutely voluntarily so far as the state is concerned.

But what are the officials doing?

I stand by that undertaking. No compulsion will be exercised on behalf of the state and departmentally so far as my authority in the department is concerned, everything possible has been done to disapprove of and to discourage any attempt to bring pressure to bear. During the course of this debate today a number of instances have been given in which there is alleged to have been compulsion, and instances have been mentioned particularly in connection with work on the roads. It has been stated that people have been compelled to take the oath for service beyond our borders, and that people have been told that they would be dismissed if they did not join up. I am naturally not thoroughly conversant with what has happened. This is not a matter falling under the Government, but it rests entirely with the Provincial Administration, Judging, however, from what has been said here today, it is clear to me that the charges of compulsion which have been made in connection with work on the roads are entirely unfounded. It has been stated that people are forced to join the Engineers Road Corps. It is true that an Engineers Corps has been established as a small section for certain roads which we shall have to build outside our country in the north for transport purposes, and for the movement of our army forces, but this is a small selective body of engineers who are required for that purpose. The ordinary man about whom the complaints are made, the allegation being that he is being compelled to join up, is not taken up in that corps. That corps consists of a small number of selected engineers. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop), however, used still another argument, and he stated that those people were being compelled not to do military service in the north but to make roads in any part in South Africa. I do not know what that means, because work on the roads in South Africa falls under the Provincial Administration, and I do not understand how people can be compelled to go and make roads outside their own province. That shows the kind of accusations we have to contend with. They are based on loose talk and on a totally false basis. That talk is based entirely on rumours.

Are you prepared to send an official to the Northern Transvaal to make an investigation on the roads there?

I am prepared to take the word of the Chairman of the Roads Board. He is a man who has my entire confidence.

Will you be prepared to have an investigation made into the cases in the Transvaal where road workers have been dismissed for having refused to take the oath?

I shall consult the chairman of the Roads Board and find out from him what has happened there. There has been a certain amount of curtailment in the amount of road work. We know that the amount of money available for road work is such that that service cannot continue on the old basis, and as a result of that people are leaving the service, but I do not believe a word of the statement that they are being put out because they have refused to take the oath to go and fight.

If we give you sworn statements, will you go into the question?

Yes, I shall go into those cases. I want to say this to the House and to the country, that people who have to be compelled and who are unwilling to go and fight beyond our borders are not wanted. I do not need those people. If we could not get people voluntarily and had to apply compulsory measures in order to obtain people it would be a different question. But the numbers of people who are prepared to come forward voruntarily are such that no compulsion whatever is required.

Are you prepared to release people who want to leave the forces now?

It would be foolish to do that. If a man takes the bath and afterwards gets tired and wants to go and visit ins family, it is childish to say that we must release him. We do not allow that. Now let us take the other case which was mentioned by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie). He spoke about people who he said had been dismissed from the Artillery because they refused to take the oath. He mentioned the name of a certain Henningse. I have had the opportunity of finding out what are the facts in this case, and the facts which were given to me were as follows: Henningse voluntarily resigned before that time. He had joined up for a specific period and that period had almost expired. He went to the officer and informed him that he could get another post, and as he was not prepared in any circumstances to go north he asked for permission to resign before his time was up so that he could accept that post. He resigned and a Short while afterwards his wife came along and said that her husband could not get the post and she asked whether the officer would take him back. The officer was well disposed towards the man and said “yes, if he is back by such and such a date I shall take him back again,” but he did not return. Now that is the type of talk which goes about and then it is used in this House by the hon. member for Gordonia as evidence to prove that pressure is being brought to bear on people to compel them to take the oath. When specific instances are mentioned and we go into the facts we find the very opposite to be the case. This particular man voluntarily resigned in his own interest so as to improve his position. Afterwards he got stuck and he was unable to get the other post. Now let us take the case which the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Rooth) and other hon. members have mentioned here, in connection with which they stated that young fellows who were minors were being compelled to go without the permission of their parents. In many of those cases these are the facts; there are cases of young fellows who have gone North without the permission of their parents. But what actually happened was this; in the first place we have those young fellows who are very anxious to go and fight and they give a wrong age. It is found out later that they have given the wrong age, and we have to incur all that expense to send those young men back. They have been over keen to go and fight and they themselves have made the mistake. The other cases may be the type of cases to which the hon. member for Zoutpansberg has referred. There are young men who are minors and they give the correct age. Then they get a form to optain the consent of their parents. That consent is given but it appears afterwards that the consent form is not signed by the parents but by the young men themselves. They go North and a great fuss is made by the parents. When the case is looked into it is found that the consent form has not been signed by the parents. We get a large number of cases of that kind, and hon. members will realise the trouble and expense those cases are responsible for. We do not want cases of that kind because they only cause trouble. Then we have the case which was mentioned here of a young fellow who is supposed to have been discharged from the Special Service Battalion because he refused to take the oath. The fact of the matter is that the Service Battalion has been abolished and has been converted into a military unit. It has become a fighting brigade and the Special Service Battalion is not being proceeded with on the old basis. Young fellows who do not want to go in for general service, and who are not prepared to take the oath drop out because there is no more work for them.

Why are there young fellows in Kenya who have not taken the oath?

I do not believe that that is so.

I have a letter from your department in which it is stated that there are such cases.

There may be a few isolated cases but as a general rule the people who are being sent North are people who have taken the oath.

Can you tell us why the Special Service Battalion has been abolished?

It was no longer necessary. It was established during peace time to provide for military training for young men and also to give them a certain amount of industrial training which would have helped those people afterwards in their lives. But now we have concentrated all our efforts on military units and we have now converted the Service Battalion into a military brigade on a proper military basis.

Must those young fellows who are getting technical training also take the oath?

No, not before they go North. I have told the House that the oath for voluntary service anywhere in Africa is only taken from young fellows who are going North. The red tab is further being given because there was a strong desire on the part of people doing essential services to have this tab. Those people are anxious to go further to serve their country, but it is impossible to release them, but they were anxious to have the privilege of wearing the red tab in order to prove that they are prepared to go North.

Does that also include the police?

It was suggested to the police that they should take the oath of general service, and I believe that a little less than half of them took that oath. It was an entirely voluntary matter.

A little more than half.

In order to prove that refusal to take the oath, or an unwillingness to take the oath, has not affected those people in the slightest, we can mention the case of the police who carry on with their work exactly as they did in the past, without there being any difference although only about half of them have taken the oath. Now I want to touch on a few other points which have been raised. The hon. member for Weimaransstad (Genl. Kemp) referred to the camp having been moved from Diet Retief. I do not think he is in possession of all the facts; the position is this that we are busy shifting those camps about a bit. We find that from the point of view of training it is better to do so because if these young fellows remain too long in one camp it does not have a good effect on them. That is what we are doing, not only in the case of Piet Retief, but with quite a number of those camps. We change the units about a bit. The camp at Piet Retief has not been given up. The mounted troops who were there have been sent to Ladysmith, which has been equipped for the purpose, and other units have been sent to Piet Retief. The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. N. J. Schoeman) also referred the other day to certain troops having been sent to Lydenburg. The idea was to give those young fellows a change; they make long trips and we give them a change of place and scenery as otherwise life in the camps becomes so monotonous that it afterwards becomes practically unbearable and it then has a bad effect on the troops. What we do is to change them about, we make them march long distances from the one camp to the other so as to give them a change of scenery and surroundings, and thus to make them take a greater interest in their work as otherwise there is a danger of their interests slackening. For those reasons we move the units from one place to another, and from one town to another. The main object is to make the training and the drilling less monotonous.

†My friend the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. L. A. B. Reitz) referred to the case of women in the service who married soldiers. And then under the Service Act they lose their posts and have then to be satisfied with a smaller allowance, the marriage allowance, which they get as the wives of soldiers, and with some special work which may be given them. And she wishes to know why we do not allow these married women to continue in their old posts and on their old salaries. We have gone into that and it is simply a matter of law. We cannot do it. I think my hon. friend has herself consulted the Chairman of the Public Service Commission and has found that we are up against legal difficulties before which we have, of course, to bow. I am sorry that that is the position, but we cannot alter it.

†*Then another matter was raised by a number of speakers, a matter which was also raised on a previous occasion, namely, the allowances which are paid to the dependents of soldiers. The criticism which has been levelled is that the system now in force varies so largely in the matter of allowances paid to different people, that it is unsatisfactory, and the question has been raised why those allowances cannot be paid by the state. It has further been argued that the Governor-General’s Fund should be cut out and that the pay should in all cases be the same. Hon. members will see, however, that that is impossible. We have people of all kinds and conditions and of all classes of the community joining up, people in receipt of varying incomes. We simply cannot do it. All the state can do is to say that it will contribute a certain minimum amount, and in every case we contribute the same amount for the dependent. Then the question of the former’s mode of living of those people and their families arises, and it is contended that the amount we pay is not sufficient, so we get the Governor-General’s Fund to make further contributions and they arrange the contributions according to circumstances. The difference in the mode of living as between one person and another is so great in this country that it is quite impossible for the state to consider all these variations. All we can do is to contribute the minimum amount, and whatever is required further has to be met from the Governor-General’s Fund. In cases of that kind investigations are made. That is a system which was in operation during the last war, namely, that the Governor-General’s Fund makes contributions after an investigation into each individual case. Investigations of that kind cannot be undertaken by the state. Departments and officials are not suitable to go into domestic affairs. It is better to leave that work to the women who serve on the various committees of the Governor-General’s Fund and who are best able to judge about matters of that kind. I believe that the system which we have in regard to looking after the dependents in the circumstances is not merely the best system, but the only system possible. Now the question of internments has also been raised here, but I do not think it is necessary for me to go into that because there is another vote on these Estimates dealing with it.

We shall never reach that.

Well, anyhow, we discussed the question of the internments very fully during the last session.

But a great deal has happened since.

What has happened since that time is that conditions have been greatly ameliorated. Concessions have been granted which I did not see my way to grant in the beginning. As our administration improved and the matter was placed on a proper basis it became possible to grant such relief. There can be no doubt that since the last session the position has been greatly improved so far as the ininternment camps are concerned. The treatment of the people in the camps where they are kept and interned, has been relieved considerably in many respects.

What about the change of Ministers?

Now, may I be allowed to say a few words about these disorders that have taken place in the streets in various parts of the country. I regret the irregularities which have occurred in some of our towns, especially here in Cape Town. I notice that there have been certain occurrences too in Port Elizabeth, but practically speaking those troubles have so far been confined to Cape Town. Nobody can deplore these troubles more than I do.

And nobody but you can stop them.

How am I to stop them?

You only have to say the word.

We can deplore such things, and say that their effect on public life is detrimental, but it is something entirely different from saying that the Government can intervene.

Can you not intervene under the regulations which we are now passing?

Yes, it will be possible to do so under the regulations if they are made legal.

Will you do so under those regulations?

No; it is a matter which has to be handled very delicately.

But it was not delicate to stop our meetings?

I did not do so.

You prevented the meeting of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) at Queenstown.

When?

On the occasion of the unveiling of a monument.

There are certain specific kinds of meetings which can be prevented, but that would have been done under the law; the law says that where local authorities are of opinion that a meeting may result in disturbances of the peace, steps may be taken to prevent such meetings being held. There may have been cases of that kind, but not that I know of.

And what about all the other cases?

I hope hon. members will allow me to continue my remarks. They have spoken a great deal more than I have done, and I hope they will have the courtesy to give me a chance now. I am not aware of any steps which the Government has taken to prevent any meetings. The Government has acted with the greatest patience so far as public meetings are concerned, but the gatherings and disturbances in connection with the 12 o’clock pause—I do not think there is much prayer in that pause, and that is why I would call it a pause of silence—it is not a meeting. It is something entirely different, and one cannot take any action under the existing law. All one can do is to see that the police are there to maintain law and order as far as possible. It is a matter of conscience because hon. members know that the pause has a religious origin. I have consulted the Mayor of Cape Town to see what is the best way out of the difficulty, because I am anxious to have this difficulty overcome. The Mayor told me that the idea is similar to that of the last war, and this pause was started on the recommendation of the Church Council which, I believe, also represents the Dutch churches.

No; the Dutch churches have nothing to do with it.

I thought they were all in it.

No, they are not.

I was not sure of that. All I want to point out is that the origin of this pause is of a religious nature and that there are people who attach importance to it. I understand that the churches which have been approached with a view to ascertaining whether the position cannot be changed on account of the unpleasantness which has occurred, are strongly in favour of the maintenance of the pause.

You are now putting the responsibility on somebody else.

No, the responsibility does not rest with me. The responsibility which rests on me is to carry out the law, and there is no breach of the law in this instance which does not come within the jurisdiction of the police. I am very anxious to find a solution but one cannot force these things without hurting people’s consciences. There is a great deal of malice in this whole matter. I have never been present at any of these disturbances myself, but judging from the reports in the Afrikaans Press and in the English Press of what happened at Port Elizabeth a few days ago, there is no doubt that there is a great deal of malice connected with this matter. What I am pleading for is that our public on both sides should realise that they should not indulge in this sort of thing. We have to live together in this country. There is a difference of opinion in regard to the war and in regard to matters resulting from the war, and we must do our best to soften feelings and to put up with each other. We must show more tolerance so that it may be possible for us to find a friendly solution of these matters. I do not believe that there is any other solution and I do not believe that the Government can solve it. The Government has not the right to do so. It is very much better, when we are dealing with a difficulty which has its roots in public sentiment and in the conscience of the population, to try and find a solution by means of forbearance.

The hon. the Minister of Defence did nothing to controvert the objections and contentions put forward by this side of the House. On the contrary he made a sort of an apology, not in justification of his point of view, for the Government’s misdeeds, but he made what was practically tantamount to a recognition of the despair on the part of the Government to be able to take action to cope with these matters. In connection with the prayer pause I want to say that we are deeply disappointed with the Minister’s reply and with the attitude adopted here by him. He stated that the question was so delicate that it was impossible for him and for the Government to interfere. He also said that the Government in other cases had not interfered with people holding meetings, because he felt that if they had done so it might possibly have led to crimes being committed and to disorders. I want to say that in my town the Government went out of its way to prevent a meeting being held.

Was that done by the magistrate? I do not know anything about it.

But you are responsible. The Minister is now trying to hide behind the magistrate. The Ossewabrandwag wanted to hold a meeting at Oudtshoorn and was prevented from doing so. And now the Minister comes here and tells us that it was the magistrate who prevented that meeting from being held. I just want to tell him that before the meeting was held an official telegram was sent to the Minister and he was asked whether the meeting could be held, and yet he allowed the magistrate to prohibit the meeting. That is what he did in the case of the Ossewabrandwag, perhaps because he expected disorders — quite an unfounded expectation — because the people at Oudtshoorn are not as excitable as the people in Cape Town, and nothing would have occurred but, as I have said, he went out of his way to prevent the meeting, and here, where he realises that unpleasantness and disorders will occur —as we find they did occur in Cape Town and Port Elizabeth which led to friction and difficulties — here he shrugs his shoulders and says that he is unable to do anything. It is not a case of being unable to, it is a case of unwillingness. If the Prime Miniser, as he has told us, disapproves of those disorders all he has to do is to say one word; he only has to give a hint that it is not in the interest of the country to have these prayer pauses and they will immediately be stopped. He said that it was a matter of religious feelings and that for that reason he must not disturb them. I want to point out that among the ministers of religion, among the leaders in church matters, great objections are felt against the pause. True, the Church Council of Cape Town may have instituted the prayer pause in a moment of thoughtlessness, but there are numerous parsons today, not merely of the Dutch Church but also of the English Church, who thoroughly disapprove of it, and who would like to see it terminated. There is, for instance, Tubby Eaton, a well-known theologist of the English Church of South Africa, who strongly urged that it should be stopped as it led to people making a farce of religion. Let the Prime Minister take heed of the warning given by a man like Tubby Eaton; all he has to do is to give a hint to the mayors of Cane Town and Port Elizabeth. If he did so I am convinced it would be stopped. It is now contended that there is no pressure brought to bear in connection with the recruiting of troops for the North, but what does the issuing of the red tab mean except compulsion? We know what happened in the Defence Force and in the Police. Those who are not prepared to wear the red tab are looked down upon with contempt; they are provoked and they are told that they have cold feet and so on. The result is that many of them wear the red tab for the sake of peace. The wearing of the tab is nothing short of indirect compulsion. If the Prime Minister is anxious to secure good co-operation in this country he should do away with this thing. Why should it be necessary to distinguish between one soldier and another? Why should it be necessary to distinguish between a man who is prepared to go and fight in the North and another soldier who is not prepared to go there? They are all members of the Defence Force and of the Police. Why should there be a badge to distinguish those people? If they were to wear it voluntarily the country would be able to see who are the ultra-imperialists who go out of their way to fight a war on behalf of England; one would be satisfied with that, but the insignia are used in order to bring indirect compulsion to bear on people to force them to take part in the war against their will. The Prime Minister again stated that no pressure was brought to bear on the police and on members of the Defence Force. I happen to have the case here of an officer in the Defence Force in the district of Oudtshoorn. That case clearly shows that pressure is brought to bear by senior officers, and that this officer was given the choice between taking the red oath or being dismissed.

Absolutely untrue.

I shall prove it. My contention is that the officer was threatened with his dismissal if he did not sign the red oath. On the 22nd September last year there was a meeting of officers held at Oudtshoorn. The major of the Rifle Association told the officers that if they wanted to be reappointed they would have to sign the red oath, and he thereupon gave the officers who had to be reappointed the chance of letting him know within a certain time what their reply would be.

Even the date is quite wrong.

I have he letter here, and I shall give the details. The officers were given the opportunity of notifying the major whether they would comply with the request. One of the officers, Capt. J. Meyer, of Vlakplaas….

Do not mention any names.

This man is not afraid of giving his name. He was a captain in the Rifle Association there, and this is what he wrote to the major—

That was his reply in consequence of the meeting of the 22nd of September. On the 28th of October that same major wrote to that captain—

To this the captain again replied—

That officer was not reappointed and he was dismissed. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the award of grants to mothers of soldiers on active service, there have been complaints by serving soldiers in my constituency, from which a large proportion of two Natal regiments, the Natal Carbineers and the Natal Mounted Rifles, have been drawn. Whilst the Mayor was in charge of the Mayor’s Fund there was an advertisement issued in almost flamboyant terms stating that if any soldier had a mother dependent upon him she would be the care of the Mayor’s Fund. I want to show that in a case that came under my own personal notice the assurances given in that advertisement were completely falsified. No grant of any kind was given to the mother of the soldier. She was subjected to a great deal of unpleasant questioning, although it was held out in the Mayor’s advertisement that she would receive the grant as a matter of right. The case in point was one about which there has been some correspondence, and I should like to say to the Minister how vexing it is to a man who has gone north on active service to feel that his mother is practically without funds. The circumstances are set forth in a letter by the employer of the serving soldier who contributes one-third of the salary which he formerly drew as a farm manager prior to the outbreak of the war. When the young man went to the front he asked his employer whether this advertisement in regard to the support of his mother was one which he could rely upon, and his employer wrote out a letter for him which he sent to the secretary of the Mayor’s Fund. Now, sir, the woman has appealed to the employer of her son. She said: “Is it worth while to continue struggling for this money?” And the employer wrote to her—

That is the position, sir. If she is now to be denied a grant, the advertisement must be termed premeditated humbug, because she was given the assurance of a maintenance grant in the form of that advertisement, and now when she approaches the board she is treated as a mendicant or supplicant of some sort and turned empty away. This sort of thing brings a very worthy fund into bad odour if this is to be the procedure when a definite assurance was given through a Mayor’s advertisement. If this is to be the procedure, it is going to be most exasperating and in the end is going to cause this fund and the committee a great deal of odium which they don’t deserve. The other afternoon the hon. member for Yeoville (Dr. Gluckman) dealt with the question of medical and nursing services, and commenting upon that matter I don’t wish to say anything in an acrimonious spirit, but I am bound to say that the view put forward by the hon. member is not shared by a very large number of people whose sons went to the front and suffered through the want of provision for sick men on the part of the medical and nursing services. I have held no meetings throughout my constituency; I have refrained from doing so, but meetings have been held by farmers’ associations and others, and I have been asked to draw attention to a resolution which was passed at one meeting of farmers in my own constituency, an area from which a lot of young boys went forward and are still serving. The resolution runs—

Now, sir, there is a difference between the point of view of the hon. member for Yeoville and the point of view of the persons who passed this resolution; the parents whose sons had gone to the front and had had experience of the inefficiency complained of. I think we shall be accused of not facing up to the facts if we are going to accept the somewhat specious statement of the hon. member for Yeoville, that because a certain percentage of influenza cases occurred and only so many died, there was nothing to complain about, and because so many cases of meningitis occurred and only so many died, there is nothing to complain about. That is to give a totally wrong view of the facts. The facts were that the Director of Medical Services and the matron-in-chief were jointly responsible for making suitable and efficient provision for the nursing and medical services both for those going on active service and those in training, and the greatest blame is put on those officials because of their want of foresight. It is axiomatic that wherever you have a large number of troops you are bound sooner or later to have illness, some epidemic is sure to attack them, and it was their unpreparedness for any epidemic that led to the condemnation that the public meted out to them. The ministers of religion and voluntary nurses organised nursing services which saved many lives. The state of affairs was such that you had the Judge President of the Natal Provincial Division departing from all traditional observance and himself writing to the Press drawing attention to the insufficiency and inefficiency of the nursing and medical services. Judge President Hathorn was tremendously praised by everybody for the stand he took in this matter of want of provision on the part of the persons responsible. I think a great deal of the blame is due to the attitude of those appointed to the medical service. Judging from Mr. Justice Hathorn’s remarks some of these gentlemen suffered considerably from swelled head. That was undoubtedly the cause of a great deal of neglect. They condescended only to see the sick men when they were lined up on sick parade, although the men were collapsing from weakness and were not fit to be lined up. The compulsion that was exercised at that stage was wrong and should not have taken place.

When I was interrupted by the time limit I was pointing out how a captain in the Defence Force had been dismissed because he was not prepared to take the red oath. He had been asked by his senior officer to sign the red oath and to notify him of his decision within eight days, or otherwise to resign. He thereupon wrote a letter saying that he was prepared to defend South Africa up to the country’s military boundaries. In spite of that statement he was given his discharge. He thereupon again wrote to his senior officer and asked why he had been given his discharge, to which he received the following answer—

And yet the Minister says that these things are not happening. I have documentary evidence of victimisation here in connection with an officer of the Defence Force. People are threatened with their dismissal and they are dismissed because they refuse to sign the red oath, and what is taking place in that case must unquestionably have taken place in other cases as well. And what happens in the Defence Force is also happening in the Police Force. In that way people are being recruited for service in North Africa. There is a systematic victimisation which is being applied to young men, and when we bring it to the Minister’s notice he tells us that things like that are not taking place. If he wants good feelings to prevail in the country he must see to it that things of that kind are put a stop to. The Minister is now trying to create the impression that nothing is being done in the country so far as he is concerned to create these bad feelings. He must see to it that things of that kind do not happen. There is another matter I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice. This, perhaps, may not come directly under Defence but it results from the administration of the Department of Defence; I am referring to the dismissal of erosion workers on account of the Government requiring all the money for war purposes, and therefore stopping soil erosion works. What is the Government going to do for those needy people who have no means of livelihood now? They have been dismissed in consequence of the Government’s war policy, and they have nothing coming in. I shall be pleased if the Minister will answer that question. Then I put the question on a previous occasion to the Minister in connection with the purchase of horses, but he unfortunately did not answer my question. I want to know whether it is his intention to put an end to the speculation that is going on in regard to the purchase of re-mounts. I told him that I myself had seen the crowd of speculators who turned up when horses were being bought at the police stations. They go there and they buy horses that have been turned down but which are none the less fairly good and then they sell them in the next town to the Government’s buyers. What happens next is that if they know that the buyers will visit a certain town they go along and they buy up everything they can in the district and then they offer the horses which are suitable. I have also been told that some of the officials go out to the farms or places where the speculators live, and they buy re-mounts there, and they do not buy them at the police stations. I should like to have some clear statement from that Minister in that regard. I also want to know from the Government whether it is their policy not to appoint anyone to the police force who has not taken the red oath. In my district there are a great many young men left who want to join the police force, but it is said — I do not know whether that is correct — that they cannot be appointed if they have not taken the red oath. I should like the Minister to make a statement reassuring us on that point. Fortunately the Minister stated in connection with the technical training service that the people who want to come under that scheme need not necessarily take the red oath. I only want to say that I have been informed that my magistrate contends that they definitely have to sign the oath. I would, therefore, again like to have a clear statement from the Minister that it is not necessary. I would then know what advice to give to those young fellows.

I should like to take the opportunity which this debate offers to urge upon the Minister one specific thing, and that is to see to it that the new scientific knowledge of nutrition be applied to the feeding of its troops. I am not complaining of the feeding of the troops at present. As far as my information goes, troops in camp are fed well enough, but troops in camp are one thing and troops campaigning are another, and I would urge very strongly on the Minister to see to it that the latest scientific knowledge of nutrition should be applied to troops campaigning. The German army machine applies the most scientific methods to their troops and it has been proved again and again that the morale of the troops is largely dependent on the food they eat, and that Napoleon’s adage that an army marches on its stomach still holds good. Now, sir, when it comes to feeding the troops there is a good deal of new scientific knowledge which might be applied with advantage. I would urge that very strongly. I know there is a War Emergency Nutrition Committee which deals with food, and I hope sincerely and urge very strongly that its recommendations will be accepted by the quartermasters of the department, and that due consideration will be given to the whole question of the feeding of the troops. That is one point I urgently stress, but there is also another point I want to make. That point has been made already from various quarters, both on the other side of the House and this side of the House, but it is a point of sufficient importance to bear reiteration, and that is that prompt payment must be made towards dependents other than wives. And, indeed, even when it comes to wives I have been informed that there are cases where payments have not yet been made to wives of soliders who joined up as far back as March; but that has been dealt with and the point that must be made again is what I have been told of dependents other than wives who have not received any payment from their sons and relatives who have joined up. May I say that the person who framed the pay regulations originally must have been singularly lacking in imagination; he seemed to conceive that each family was a simple unit where the breadwinner joined up, and the wife and two or three children were left behind. I want to stress the absurdity as well of making no allowance for a number of children above six. There are people in this country who have a good many more than six children, and it seems absurd that whereas other countries encourage large families we in this country, who need them, are doing the reverse by putting a limit on the number of children who may be paid for by army headquarters. But apart from that, let me repeat that the person who framed the original regulations was lacking in imagination because he could not have known the conditions of families in the poorer quarters. There each child as it grows up is a breadwinner, and the contribution which each child makes to the family is of the utmost importance to keep the family going. Now, where the sons of such families join up the families are penalised in two ways. First they are penalised through a son joining up, but furthermore till now they have not been able to get any allowance for the contribution which the son makes. So they have had to make a double sacrifice, firstly by the son going and then through lowering the standard of living, and while that has now been altered recently by the new regulations which have been introduced, there are still far too many cases where payment has not yet been made to the dependents and I would urge that fact on the Minister and ask him to see to it that payments for dependents should be promptly made, and that the sacrifices in regard to the standard of living as well as the absence of a son who has joined up shall be reduced to a minimum.

The only heartening point in the Prime Minister’s reply to this debate was that he admitted definitely that he was anxious to find a solution of the difficulties in connection with the prayer pause. Unfortunately one has to deduce from what the Prime Minister has told us that he has not the courage of his convictions to take steps to put an end to this trouble. He stated that he could not do it. We take it that he has not got the power to prevent these pauses, but the Prime Minister will admit that if he were to express the wish and if he were to point out that the prayer pause did not contribute to the good relationship as between Afrikaans and English-speaking people in Cape Town it would undoubtedly have the result of inducing the English-speaking public who are inclined to insist on the prayer pause, to nut an end to it. The Prime Minister said that it was a question of conscience with those people who wanted to have this prayer pause, but has the Prime Minister no sympathy for the people who also have conscientious scruples and who regard this pause as nothing but political propaganda. There are people in Cape Town who are just as much entitled to go into the streets of Cape Town and who are opposed to this prayer pause—they are just as much entitled to go into the streets of Cape Town as the people who want to have the prayer pause. Are not those people justified in feeling aggrieved that they are being compelled to take part in the cause at the risk of being assaulted and knocked about? If the Prime Minister is prepared to put an end to this prayer pause he will contribute greatly towards calming the feelings which at the moment are running very high. He told us that we have to live together in this country. He is quite correct, but whether the Prime Minister wants it or not, those things which have been happening lately are not going to contribute anything towards improving the sentiments in order to make it easier for people in future to live together in South Africa. It was a very unsatisfactory characteristic in the Minister’s reply that he failed to say anything about the conduct of the troops on the train, and about incidents such as those which the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) brought to his notice. The position is very serious, and although we realise the difficulties facing the Prime Minister we regret the fact that he has not thought it worth while to express his serious disapproval of these incidents in this House. He regrets the incidents, but he does not express the hope that those incidents which have been mentioned here will be avoided in future. Here in Cape Town the position has become so serious that even members of Parliament are not safe any more. I should like to know from the Prime Minister whether he thinks it fair that a member of Parliament who holds views different from those which the Government holds and who goes to a public place, should be insulted and threatened there because he does not get up, not when “God Save the King” is played, but when songs such as “Rule Brittania” and all the rest of them are played. Is it right and fair that those people should be assaulted, and are things like that going to improve the feelings in this country? Here in Cape Town the position is aggravated by the prayer pause, and furthermore, the position is that there are large numbers of sailors and soldiers here. For those reasons conditions here in Cape Town are worse than they are elsewhere, with the result that even members of Parliament have to put up with insults which are flung at them. If the war continues and if this sort of thing is going to continue, it will be advisable in future not to have Parliament sitting in Cape Town while the war lasts, but to have it sitting in Pretoria. We are entitled to ask for protection from the Government, and if we are to be threatened when we give expression to our feelings and to the feelings of our constituents, and if the Government fails to protect us in the way we are entitled to be protected, then the Government has not the right to ask us to come to Cape Town to do our duty here. Now there is another matter which I should also like to say a few words about, and that is the abolition of the Service Battalion. The Minister of Defence stated that the Service Battalion was no longer required and that it was now being converted into a military unit which was need in order to carry out the Government’s war policy. The necessity which existed in the past to give young fellows the opportunity of being trained in the Service Battalion still exists to-day, and I want to ask the Prime Minister whether it would not be possible to keep the Service Battalion going even if it had to be kept apart, so that the hundreds of young fellows who are ready and willing to use the advantages offered by such a Service Battalion will still have the opportunity of being trained there. We notice that in the bioscopes and the papers the Government are publishing advertisements stating that they require young fellows able to do technical work. Those young fellows can be trained in the Service Battalion and they can then be used for the technical purposes for which the Government needs so many people. The Prime Minister further emphatically denied that any pressure was being brought to bear in connection with recruiting for the army. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux) gave an instance of a specific case which had occurred. I have also had similar cases, but unfortunately it would appear that the Prime Minister attaches no importance whatsoever to matters of this kind. He simply told us in so many words that we were talking nonsense. The Prime Minister and the Government remind me of the farmer who, seeing a kangaroo carrying her baby in her stomach bag, remarked that there was no such thing, and even after having seen the animal himself he still would not believe that there was such an animal. We have produced evidence here of the fact that compulsion is being brought to bear. In spite of that the Prime Minister still denies it. I drew attention to the affidavit of a man in the Police Service, but unfortunately the Prime Minister did not trouble to give a reply. I put a question to the Minister of Defence which was answered by the Minister of Justice, asking whether he was aware of a sworn statement which had appeared in the paper, and in which the person concerned had definitely declared that compulsion had been exercised in regard to himself. The reply was most unsatisfactory. I further asked whether the Minister had seen and whether it was correct that the Commissioner of Police had used his influence to force people in the police service to take the oath. He said that he had made an inquiry and that no improper pressure had been brought to bear. We have a case here where it was stated under oath by the person concerned what kind of influence had been exercised over him, but none the less the Minister could not see any compulsion in it. There is one important aspect of this matter to which the Prime Minister should give his attention The person states under oath that he has been told that the Commissioner of Police had declared that he expected the oath to be taken by the police. The Prime Minister is an old soldier, and he knows that in the police service the same code applies to a very large extent as in the army. If the General or the Commissioner expresses a wish it amounts practically to a command. In spite of that it is contended that that is not compulsion. This man states that he has been informed that he will be dismissed if he does not take the oath. All this is simply denied by the Minister of Justice. It is no use his simply denying it. The charge has been made against the Commissioner of Police that he has compelled people, and it is a responsibility of the Minister to go into that matter and absolve the Commissioner of all blame. [Time limit]

The speech of the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) has tempted me to say another word or two in connection with the differential rate of pay existing in the army, and also to raise a couple of other points to which I have not referred in my earlier speeches. I would like to impress on the House, further to what I said previously, that not only is the public servant and the municipal servant being placed in a very favourable position vis-a-vis his more unfortunate bretheren in the service of the public, in the service of the private employer, but the position is actually that the military pay to the soldier who is in civilian life employed either in the Civil Service or on the Railways is such that there is a great difference between the one class of the population and the other. At the same time the Government authorities do not take into consideration the allowance which the army pays to the wife and the children of a man who in civilian life is in the public service, or in the Railway service; so actually the position of a civil servant is that he draws his full civil pay while serving with the army, and in addition his wife, if she has no children, draws an extra sum of about £6 per month.

What about a member of Parliament?

Mind you, I am not grumbling about her drawing that. If she is his wife and has two children she will draw an additional sum of about £9 per month. The point I want to emphasise is that the military authorities and the Government expect a soldier who is not in the public service to exist on precisely the same amount of money as is given to the public servant as a bonsella. The military authorities expect the wife of a soldier who has no claim on a public body for civilian pay, or whose employer is not in a position to, or will not give him any additional allowance — the military authorities expect the wife of that man to live on the same amount of money and keep her children on the same amount of money as what is given to the wife of the public servant as an addition to the money she is drawing as her husband’s civilian pay. I am not making any objection to the pay given to the public servant or to the employee; as a matter of fact I feel that here is an instance where the Government and the military authorities can be congratulated. Here they have set an example and have laid down a principle which should apply to every man serving in the army; in other words, they have broken away from the tradition that soldiers should be paid 1s. per day, and they have got beyond the stage of considering a soldier merely as a paid mercenary, and they have got to the position of appreciating that a man serving in the army is probably contributing the greatest thing he can to his country and as a result is entitled to get from his country the fullest possible consideration. But I am pleading now for a very unfortunate individual, and this position will become worse as time goes on. All of us, I believe, know that a number of the smaller firms in South Africa are to-day making up the salaries of their staffs who have joined up; some are making up half, some are making up quarter of the salary, but we also know that with the development of the war this burden on the smaller firms is going to become more than they will be able to bear, and as the war progresses there is a possibility, if it lasts long enough, that some of these firms will not be able to continue contributing to the pay of their former employees. To-day perhaps 80 per cent. of the firms are paying something to the men who have joined up; that number may drop to 60 per cent., and it may gradually go lower because there are some firms to my own particular knowledge who, although they are making efforts to continue contributing to the pay of these men, will not be able to continue indefinitely doing so. Business in some instances is falling off, while in others it is improving. But where it is falling off it is going to be impossible for these people to continue making these payments. While I have no information as to the number of men in the army who are existing on the pay and allowances they receive, I know it is likely to be a rising figure, and while congratulating the state on its generosity to its own employees, I think we are justified in asking that that particular generosity should be extended to everyone serving in the army. I personally see no difficulty about it. I do not think we should countenance this differential rate of pay, and it seems that where a man is not receiving any civilian pay of any description, there it seems to me that the military authorities would be quite justified even to double the allowance that is made to-day for a wife, and add say 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. for each child. The argument against that, I know, is that the tendency will be for employers to throw all the responsibility on the state, but I would suggest that even if that were the case it is not correct to penalise the individual who is prepared to go into the army without any extra pay, because we are afraid that certain types of employers will not live up to their responsibility. Of course it is not the duty of the military authorities to see to it that all employers shall do their duty in this respect. If there are employers who will take advantage of an increased allowance to individual soldiers, or if there are employers who refuse to assume the responsibilities which they should assume, well, they can be dealt with in another way. The state has all the resources of an efficient taxing machine, by which to make these employers cough up, and in the long run it appears to me that a thing got by law is much better than a thing got by charity. I feel it is much better to make employers contribute their share by legislation of this House, rather than place the voluntary onus upon them, because we know that there are bad and indifferent employers as well as good employers, and we know that there is a type of employer who is definitely not living up to his responsibilities. They are not numerous, but as time goes on they are liable to become more numerous. I think this is a very serious thing. It is likely to become an issue if it is not dealt with early in our war effort, and if the difference between the rates of pay between one man and another is not put right. I do not think it needs a great deal of imagination to realise that it is bad for the army itself to have, for instance, six or seven men in a tent, four of whom are earning £40 per month and another one £50 per month — and let me say in passing that I know of private soldiers who are to-day in receipt of £1,500 and £2,000 per year, but it is bad to have four men receiving £40 per month and have two men in the same tent only getting 3s. 6d. per day, and if they have a few children their wives are expected to come out on £12 per month. [Time limit.]

There are a few things which I should like to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister, but before doing so I just want to say that his reply regarding the young fellows who were minors, who were sent to Northern Africa after they had given a wrong age because they were so anxious to go—well, it was a very weak excuse. If a person is taken into the Defence Force, into the Police or in the Public Service, he has to produce his baptismal certificate before he can be appointed. Has our Defence Force got to such a low level that those things are not asked for simply because we want more recruits? I think that that excuse was very, very weak. Then there is another question. I listened attentively to the Prime Minister, and it seemed to me that it was not so much what he did say as what he did not say which was of importance. Ever since yesterday we have been raising a question here in the House in connection with the Defence Force, namely, the behaviour of our soldiers. I personally have the greatest respect for men who are prepared to sacrifice their lives for their country, but none the less there are certain things which we have to bring to the Prime Minister’s notice, things such as the fact that soldiers are mishaving on the trains, and in the streets, where people are being intimidated; we have had instances given here such as the attack made on the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) when they wanted to throw him out of the window. Did the Prime Minister tell us that he was not going to tolerate those things? He wants us to maintain peace and order, but it is his soldiers who are carrying on in that way in the country, and who are intimidating the people, and if we have to judge by his speech it means that those soldiers can just carry on as they please. That is how I must take it, because why otherwise did not the Minister of Defence say that he was going to put a stop to these things.

The police are enquiring into these matters.

I am pleased to hear the Minister say so, but the public notice that we are bringing thesé matters to the notice of the Minister of Defence, but he thinks so little of them apparently that he merely sticks up for his soldiers, and the result is that the public get the impression that those people can carry on as they please. I am pleased to hear that the police have received instructions to go into those questions, and I hope that the Minister of Defence will also express his disapproval. The Prime Minister told us that we must keep quiet and peaceful because we have to live together in this country. Does he want us here in Cape Town to keep perfectly still; does he want us to show respect for the hypocritical things which are going on here? He himself has admitted that he does not believe it to be a question of people wanting to pray, and if that is so, why should the Afrikaners who do not want to have anything to do with this hipocrisy be compelled to stand still or otherwise be chased by every Dick, Tom and Harry and knocked about in a way which no country would tolerate. The Minister of Defence also referred to the question of the mounted troops having been moved from Piet Retief to Ladysmith. Well, if it is the Prime Minister’s idea that troops should be moved from camp to camp and that 2,000 mounted men should be moved every two months, I want to ask him whether he has ever given any thought to the question of what it is going to cost. I always thought that the behaviour of our troops should be such—and I want to say again that I have the greatest respect for our Defence Force—but I did think that their behaviour should be such that the officers would have so much control over the men that there would be no need for the Prime Minister to make them move about from place to place in order to I take them retain their interest in their work. The behaviour of the people should be such that there would be no need for it. In connection with the internment of the citizens of the country I have a telegram here which has just reached me from Mr. Simon Schoeman, the chairman of the Reform Organisation in Johannesburg. The telegram reads as follows—

I do not know what the circumstances are of what is taking place, but I say that we have courts in this country and no citizens should be interned without having been brought before the court. I have no objection to anyone being interned if he does anything to the detriment of the state. But let the courts of the country decide on these matters. Do not allow the minds of the people to be stirred up and thus to cause difficulties such as strikes being provoked in this country which may result in people being shot, and the streets of Johannesburg being turned into shambles. I am bringing those matters to the notice of the Prime Minister with all the earnestness within my power, and I hope he will listen to me. I have another letter here from a Mr. Meyer, who, inter alia, writes as follows—

This is a man who was born in this country. He comes from Natal. He addressed a meeting there and the police thereupon came along, arrested him and put him in the internment camp, without his being given a trial. He is a citizen of this country and the Prime Minister knows him. During the three years war his father was a field-cornet in the Piet Retief war and he fought in that war. It is the children of those people who are to-day being treated in that fashion; they are being sent to the internment camps. Is it because his father fought for this country and because he stood up for the interests of our country that he is now being interned? I want to ask the Prime Minister in all earnestness to give his attention to this question of the behaviour of our soldiers. We have every respect for them, but do not allow them to do anything which tends to endanger the lives of our people and to create trouble. We dare not go on in the way we are doing to-day. The right hon. the Prime Minister is pleading for tolerance. I do not think that any people in the world have ever shown the tolerance which the people of South Africa have shewn, but one must not expect everything to come from the one side. Ever since the 4th September we have been keeping the people of South Africa calm, and we are still doing so to-day, but hon. members opposite must also contribute their share. I have another wire here which I wish to bring to the Prime Minister’s notice—

I want to ask the Prime Minister not to let those people remain in gaol any longer in view of the fact that their cases will be reviewed. That poor woman should be released; it is bad enough that our men have to undergo these penalties. Are our mothers who are opposed to the war also to be put in gaol now? The Prime Minister refused to meet the mothers of our people and to listen to them, and he said it would have been a sign of weakness. I have never yet heard that it can be called a sign of weakness to honour the mothers of the people. They have always held high Afrikanerdom, and they have always saved Afrikanerdom. I hope the Minister will immediately release this lady from gaol. I understand that she started a hunger strike and I trust that the Minister of Defence will give immediate instructions for her release.

It has been quite customary for members on rising to say they had no intention of intervening in the debate, and I can assure the House that until I heard certain criticisms from the other side I had no intention of intervening. We have had criticism ranging from Press gang methods of recruiting to the number of officers’ motor-cars outside Polley’s Hotel. In regard to the latter I would like to ask the hon. member whether he counted those thirty cars before he went in or after he came out. I am reminded of the story of the Irishman who, in giving evidence, referred to something that happened on a moonlight night. The magistrate looked at the calendar and he said: “Pat, you are wrong; there was no moon.” “Oh yes, there was,” said Pat, “I saw them, three of them.” I wonder how much of the criticism on the other side levelled against our big training camps is based on actual experience or merely hearsay. In my few remarks I shall relate my own personal experience, although I do that with some regret because it rather savours of blowing one’s own trumpet. I happen to be one of the few members who have had personal experience of undergoing a training course in one of these camps, and to supplement my own information Ī have three sons, one of whom went through Voortrekkerhoogte for three months, one went to Maritzburg, and one went through the Premier Mine camp. In regard to my own experience, I went in not as a member of Parliament, although I happen to have a commission in the reserve of engineer officers; I went as an ordinary individual. There were 200 of us, but no one knew who any particular individual was; one might be a general, a colonel, a corporal or, if I may use the expression, a “damn all.” You worked in overalls; nobody recognised anybody else, and if I, a man of my age — I was 59 when I went through the course — can stand up to one of these regimental courses there is no Afrikaner boy who could not stand up to it. In regard to my own sons’ experience, they were boys who have been brought up in the ordinary comfortable homes such as are represented on this side and on that side of the House. They were not unduly mollycoddled, but they experienced the usual comforts of an ordinary, decent South African home. I never had a single complaint from any one of these boys; every letter I received was couched in exactly the opposite terms. I will admit, and I have no doubt that the military will admit, that at the commencement of the big training camp at Pietermaritzburg the arrangements were crude; for the first few nights they were required to sleep in sheds on hard floors, and their food conditions were somewhat crude. But within a few days that was completely remedied. With regard to the Premier Mine, my hon. friend from Langlaagte (Mr. Bawden) referred to the necessity of having recreations and bioscopes for the boys taking technical courses at the Premier Mine. My own experience of the Premier Mine is that anyone who goes up for a technical course there has very little time for recreation if he is going to do his job properly. Criticism has been levelled against hospital organisation, and the hon. member for Yeoville (Dr. Gluckman), from the somewhat elevated point of view of the expert, dealt with that criticism. I want to describe very briefly my own experience as a layman. I went into the hospital at Voortrekkerhoogte not as a member of Parliament or an officer; I insisted on going into the privates’ ward. I was only there three days, and I can only pay the highest tribute not only to the medical officers and the nurses, but to the treatment adopted to cure one in that serious influenza epidemic there. They had a system of intensive treatment that lasted three days, which effected a complete cure in 99 cases out of 100. We have heard about Press gang methods of recruiting. My experience — and I will pit it against the experience of any member or the combined members opposite — my experience is that you would require Press gang methods to get those boys out of the army.

The Minister of Defence in his reply stated that no compulsion was exercised over anyone to take the oath. I particularly have two divisions in mind where such compulsion actually does take place, namely on the national roads and on the provincial roads. The Minister denies that any effort has been made to induce white labourers on the road to take the oath. By means of interjections I asked him whether he would have an investigation made in the Northern Transvaal in regard to the national road and also on the provincial roads. It is not merely the engineers who are being asked to sign the oath, but ordinary white labourers who work on the roads as well. Numbers of them have come to me for advice, and I want to ask the Minister to have an investigation made. Compulsion is definitely being exercised on people to take the oath and those efforts are made by engineers as well as by road inspectors. The labourers are told that they can make big money if they are prepared to go North to make roads there, and in the second place they are given to understand that if they are not prepared to take the oath they will be retarding their own future progress and their own livelihood. It is often a kind of indirect compulsion which is being exercised. I want to give an instance of the kind of compulsion which is exercised over a man. There is the case of a man who, when he arrived at the Premier Mine camp, found that he had to join up as an ordinary soldier and that he had not been recruited for road-making. That man was given leave to go home. He is still free to-day and he has not been arrested. He has refused to go back to camp. The magistrate and other people have done all they can to induce him to go back. His reply has been that they can come and arrest him so that these things can be shown up. I am pleased the Minister of Justice is here. The Prime Minister pleads innocence in regard to pressure being brought to bear on police officers and men. I take it that the Minister of Justice will also plead innocence. If both of them plead innocence there must be something radically wrong in the Police Force, because I emphatically declare that compulsion of the most serious kind has been exercised over officers, highly-placed officers and non-commissioned officers and men, to induce them to take the Africa oath. I know them. They come to consult me, they write to me, and they ask me what they should do. I stated on a previous occasion that if they refuse to take the oath their lives are practically made hell in some cases. On some of them American third degree methods are being applied to all intents and purposes. Some are immediately transferred if they refuse, they are sent to South-West or to other distant parts of the country. This is not just loose talk, but these are facts. The officers and men have personally informed me of these facts, and I know them and accept their word. Let the Minister of Justice have an investigation made, but if he does so it must be an impartial investigation, not a departmental investigation, and a full guarantee must be given to the officers, non-commissioned officers and men that they will be indemnified against any discrimination if they give evidence. There are officers in the police force who have been, and are guilty, of compelling men, and I want to mention the Commissioner of Police personally as one who is responsible. If such an investigation is made we shall find the way in which compulsion is being exercised. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) has quoted a telegram in connection with Mrs. Hartman. I have a similar telegram in front of me, and reports have also appeared in the papers to the effect that this lady who lived in the Northern Transvaal has been put into gaol for not having handed in her rifle. As the Minister of Defence agreed yesterday to amend the procedure and to meet these cases, and in view of the fact that all these cases cannot perhaps be taken into review immediately, I want to ask him to see to it at once that this lady is released.

Instructions have already been sent out that everybody is to be released; those instructions were sent out this morning.

Another telegram was quoted by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad in connection with a threatened strike on the gold mines also in consequence of intimidation and the internment, among others, of a certain Van Schalkwyk. This also is a matter which requires immediate attention. The Minister of Mines the other day also denied that there was any intimidation or any compulsion. I take it that that is his opinion, but if he were to have an investigation made he would find that in the mines officials were bringing compulsion of the most serious nature to bear on miners in order to induce them to take the oath.

Are you now referring to the case of Van Schalkwyk?

He has been interned.

What for?

I do not know. I only say that there is so much dissatisfaction that they are even talking about a strike, and I ask the Minister to have an investigation made into the circumstances surrounding this man’s internment at once, so as to avoid the strike which is being threatened. Now I want to come to the iron and steel industry. The Minister of Justice, speaking at a meeting at Bronkhorstspruit the other day, gave the assurance that if officials of the state had been illegally interned they would be restored to then-positions when they were released.

Yes.

Now I want to draw the attention of the Minister of Commerce and Industries to the fact that in the iron and steel industry too some of the workers were interned and were eventually released again because there was no evidence of their having been guilty of anything, but those poor devils are still unemployed to-day. They were innocently interned, but they did not get their work back. I shall mention their names, Leech, Breedt and Van Maak. They were released but they were not given their jobs back. I want to make an appeal to the Minister’s sense of fairness, so that he will use his influence to get those people restored in their jobs. [Time limit.]

On Saturday last I raised the question of hospitalisation for our soldiers. At that time I had a question on the Order Paper which was answered this morning by the Minister, and I hope the Minister will indicate that that answer is only part of the facilities which are to be placed at the disposal of our men. The answer was in this form—

I, of course, speak as a layman only, but I can say that. I know the benefit which people derive from staying in a convalescent home as far as our civilian population is concerned, after they are discharged from hospital. I know from my own knowledge and observation of the benefits that were derived by men during the last war who were given an opportunity of going to convalescent homes. I would like the Minister to make enquiries from those who can advise him as to how convalescent homes can benefit our men. The services of medical officers in the convalescent stage are a secondary consideration. It is the nursing, the care, the nourishing food and the rest which these men are able to get in convalescent homes, and which they cannot necessarily get in their own homes, which is of paramount importance. Many of these men may be in convalescent homes for several months after their discharge from hospital. I referred on Saturday last to certain offers of homes that have been made, and I would ask, are these offers going to be turned down? If not, I wish the Minister would take the opportunity of explaining that the answer that was given to my questions which I put on the Order Paper, form only part of what the Government intends to do for our men on their discharge from hospital, both here and in East Africa, because it will be found that many of those who are discharged from hospital in East Africa will find their way back here in the same way as they did in the last war. I feel that it is necessary to stress the importance of the convalescent home, and I hope the matter will receive the fullest consideration of the Minister.

The Prime Minister spoke this afternoon about the alleged victimisation of people employed on national roads. We were then told that the Engineers Corps, which is going to make roads in the North, will only consist of engineers. I want to refer, however, to what the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) said in connection with road workers, and I should like the Prime Minister to bear in mind what has actually occurred. I do not want to go into all the details, but it is a fact that the people who were asked to sign the form were not engineers but ordinary workers. Their names have already been read out to the House. Now the question arises — they are being asked to sign these forms and then the Minister states that they are not asked to go and fight: Why then have those people who signed those forms not been discharged? They are still engaged on their work. The people who are discharged, allegedly with a view to economies, are all people who have not signed the form. Now one gets this position, that those people who signed the form to go and fight do not go and fight. Why are they left in their employment? As against that the people who refused to sign the form are dismissed, with the result that they are out of work, and if they want to get work they are told that they can join up under the technical scheme. These are cases of direct compulsion. The supporters of the Prime Minister are kept on at their work but the others are put out so that they are unemployed, and the only chance they have is to then join up. It is direct compulsion, and I go further. The Government is economising on erosion works so as to use the money for the war. The other day an inspector by the name of Jannasch came to Burgersdorp and called the single men who were working on the erosion work gangs and told them: “The Minister is now getting work for you on construction work on the Railways.” We know that people who are employed on the Railways have to be in good health. I have one case here which I want to mention. It is the case of the son of a widow, who has four or six children, and he is the only breadwinner in the home. He was told that he could get that work. When he got there he was informed that all the gangs at the works were full up, with the result that that young fellow is out of work to-day. He went to the construction works between Queenstown and East London and he was taken away from the erosion works practically on false pretences. To-day his mother is without food. That is the sort of thing which makes one bitter. I recently addressed a meeting at Petrusville and Philipstown. That evening six people came to see me who had been dismissed from the erosion works at Petrusville; twenty-four men from Phillipstown also came to see me.

What has that to do with this vote?

I want to show that as the result of economies people are being dismissed from erosion works and are being thrown out of work.

We are now dealing with the vote Defence.

Those people are forced to join up and I am showing how they get into that position. In my constituency there are between twenty-four and thirty people who used to be employed on erosion work but who are to-day out of employment. What is the Minister going to do for those families who are starving? They asked me how they were going to get food and what they had to do to make a living. I want to ask the Prime Minister to be good enough to tell me how those people are to live. The Minister of Lands is here. I went to see him in Pretoria and he told me that he would see if he could not send them to settlements. The Minister of Lands is mayor of the town there, and he knows what is going on. I also went to see the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs who at the time was acting Minister of Labour. He told me that he would reply the next week and would send a telegram. I am still awaiting that reply. I said last night that I felt embittered. I became embittered when those women and children and men were standing there and were asking where they had to get food the next morning.

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

When business was suspended at 6 o’clock I was showing the way in which the Government is carrying out its war policy and the way in which the Government is bringing pressure to bear by putting people out of their work so that they are unemployed, and when they make application for work then there is only one reply for them; all the work available for them is military work. There was an inspector of labour in my constituency who had to look after the erosion works there. I went to see him personally and I asked him what advice I could give the people, what sort of work was available for them, and all he could tell me about was military work. I brought the matter to the notice of the Prime Minister here. I told him that that was one of the reasons for the bitterness which prevailed in the country. Imagine the case of a mother with four children who have to go to bed at night without food, and when they get up in the morning there is no food either. Imagine a position like that in those cold parts like Petrusville and Phillipstown, and let hon. members imagine for a moment that these women may be their own wives and children. Would they be able to go and sleep quietly if they have to think of things of that kind? [Time limit.]

I just want to raise one particular point, and I shall not detain the House very long. It is in connection with the operation of the Governor-General’s Fund. The Minister of Defence explained the position to us in regard to the Government’s attitude in relation to the basic rate of pay and the association of the basic rate of pay with the allowances to dependents, and he indicated that further than that the matter was one for the Governor-General’s Fund. I hope I understood the Minister correctly, but it indicated to me a certain aspect which I think the Government might take into consideration. It is that the Governor-General’s Fund does perform a duty which, in my opinion and I think in the opinion of everyone, is one which should be the function of the Government. That is to say in regard to the position of dependents. In that connection I quite appreciate that, in regard to the matter of differential rates of pay and the association of these rates with allowances, the Government wants to put the matter on a proper footing and that there would be difficulties in administration. It has fallen to the Governor-General’s Fund to make up the difference in cases of need and that fact seems to me to bring forward the argument that the Governor-General’s Fund should be subsidised by the Government to a certain extent. I think that it is a very important principle in our national life that there should be an opportunity for public-spirited citizens to give of their own free will, but those free-will offerings should in my opinion be augmented by a grant from the Government itself. I would suggest for the consideration of the Government that some such assistance as is given in the case of hospitals, whereby contributions from the public are augmented on the £ for £ basis, should be instituted in connection with the Governor-General’s Fund. I suggest this in consideration, first of all of the interests of the men on active service, and also of the part which the Governor-General’s Fund plays in performing a duty which under a new order would be fully performed by the Government itself at the expense of the general taxpayer. I therefore want to bring that suggestion to the notice of the Government and I hope it will receive its consideration. Such a charge would form a debit against the general income tax of the Union and would be borne in conformity with the ability of the general taxpayer to bear it.

The hon. member for Kingwilliamstown (Mr. Baines) made a statement in this House this afternoon which was unworthy of him. He said that the hon. member for Senekal (Maj. Pieterse) must have looked at the cars after he had come out of Polley’s Hotel, by which he meant to convey that the hon. member must have been under the influence of liquor. Let me assure the hon. member that the hon. member for Senekal was perfectly correct in his statement that there were a large number of cars going to Polley’s Hotel. As a rule I go to Pretoria two or three times a week, and one can hardly move about Polley’s Hotel without tripping over an officer. It is stated that there are three generals and eight colonels in every street in Pretoria, not to talk of commandants and other officers. Now with reference to what the Prime Minister stated about the hypocrisy in the streets of Cape Town, I want to say that the Church Council in Johannesburg invited our churches to attend a meeting, the object of which was to set aside one Sunday every month as a day of prayer. At that meeting one of the speakers remarked, “We have to pray for the glory of the Empire,” to which one of our predikants retorted, “We only know the glory of God and not the glory of any Empire.” That was where it stopped, and the result was that our Church did not set that Sunday aside. We pray in our churches, but we pray for peace on earth. The hypocrisy in the streets of Cape Town is so sickening and contemptible that we are unable to take part in it. If the Afrikaner wants to pray he is not going to do it on the corners of streets. We have been taught to pray in our churches and in our inner chamber. I have a revolver in my handbag because I knew what we were going to find in Cape Town, and if I am assaulted in Cape Town while I am in the streets I am going to defend myself.

Do not frighten us!

The hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) need not be afraid, I do not shoot “tame people. That hon. member voted a double salary unto himself to go and fight, but we have not seen him go to fight yet. I want to draw attention to the £500 appearing on the Estimates for a wireless information service for natives. I say it is most unfortunate that that kind of information and also the kind of information which we find in the papers is being broadcast to the natives. That is the cause of their having held a meeting, as quoted by the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) from the Press, at which they decided to form a commando and to go and fight. We have more natives than white people in the Union, and we can well imagine what the consequences are going to be if we allow the natives to be armed in this country. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) stated here the other day that she was not afraid of the natives and that there would be no trouble in this country so far as they were concerned. She stated that the farmers might as well have their arms taken away from them because the natives were peaceful. She knows very little of the history of South Africa. If we think of the murders which have been committed on lonely farms, and of all the blood of women and children who have been murdered in South Africa we realise that the hon. member is wrong in what she said.

When did that happen?

If she knew the history of this country she would not talk about peaceful natives on the farms. We are entitled to have protection for our women and children on the farms along the borders, near the native kraals. We should never disarm those people. Let us look at the sad cases of murders and thefts which have already occurred on our farms.

I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux) and to express my regret at the fact that the Prime Minister has not given us a more satisfactory reply to our request in regard to the prayer pause. I agree with him that the Prime Minister has so much influence with the English-speaking section in South Africa that all he has to do is to make a request to them and they will listen. He is familiar with the sentiments in the hearts of the Afrikaans-speaking section of our community, but it seems that he is afraid of hurting the English-speaking people which he would do if he were to put a request like that to them. I think we can easily come to an agreement. I fail to see what harm it will do if the Prime Minister were to make a suggestion to the Church Council as to what should be done. They could put aside a specific hour in the church for prayer, and I think that our English-speaking friends certainly have a need for prayer in these days of fear and trial. But one of the great factors in such prayer should surely be hummation, and we are dealing here with a nation which is proud, which stands by its prowess and the power of its fleet. We never hear the British nation expressing its trust in the Lord, but we do hear them expressing their confidence in their navy and their feats of arms. It is a well-known fact that humiliation is one of the greatest factors in prayer, and we trust that the Prime Minister will put forth a suggestion for an hour of prayer to be agreed upon, but that hour of prayer should be in the churches and not on the corners of the streets. We are being asked to vote £8,500,000 on the Defence Vote. Should not this vote have been called “aggression” rather than “defence”? It is being stated that this war is a voluntary war without compulsion, and that nobody is being forced to go and fight. In spite of all this the country’s money is being commandeered including the money of those people who are not prepared to wage this war, a war with which we have nothing to do and with which we do not want to have anything to do. I want to assure the Committee that there are many people in my district who have joined up not because of love of the war but because they have been driven to do so through starvation. A father of nine children said to me: “I am not in favour of the war but I am driven by hunger, and if I do not go and fight I am simply put on the streets.” Does that mean joining up voluntarily? But what hurts me is this, that those people who are being humiliated are Afrikaners. We do not find the other section of the community working on the roads, but it is the Afrikaners who have fallen by the wayside who are being compelled to join up. And then we find the keymen, or as they are called here, the Ikeymen, who sit in their shops to make profits while the impoverished Afrikaner has to take his life into his hands to go and fight in a war which he feels nothing for. I am opposed to this expenditure of money. The Minister of Finance spoke here about £300,000 which has been saved on several votes. We know that on the loan votes £6,000,000 is saved on important items, such as labour, public welfare, and even on public works money has been saved in order to continue the war. Money has been saved on essential services, so that the money saved may be wasted in smoke and air. I would rather have seen that money spent for the purpose of uplifting the impoverished Afrikaner, for the purpose of rehabilitating the farmer, and for the establishment of sound industrial enterprises, and while we are being asked to save money hon. members opposite are busy wasting the money. We voted against the Bill to enable members of Parliament to draw double salaries. You will allow me to mention that certain members of Parliament representing the Labour Party are drawing double salaries to-day. I well remember the days when the leader of the Labour Party used to get up here to plead for the poor man, when he took up a strong stand against capitalism; and now we find him on the other side in the Government with a fat salary, and he is perfectly satisfied to assist in helping to wage the war of the capitalists, and what has he done with his followers? He has looked after them very well. The hon. member for Durban (North) (the Rev. Miles Cadman) is a so-called chaplain and draws an additional salary of £50 per month. The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Burnside) is an acting captain and draws an additional salary of £42 per month, so that he is drawing £100 per month; and the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) is in exactly the same position. The hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha) draws an additional £90 per month, and I would like to ask the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) to get up here and tell us what the additional amount is which he draws.

Nothing at all.

Then it is a miracle of heaven! Then we have the intelligence officer in the person of the hon. member for North-East Rand (Mr. Heyns). His intelligence is such that he is hardly ever here. He gets an additional £42. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Gluckman) is at the Government’s disposal and meanwhile gets an additional £2 2s. per day. So that there are quite a number of members opposite drawing double salaries and robbing the public of the money they are getting. We were told that they were going to fight, but after that a proclamation was issued by the Prime Minister laying it down that they were not to go beyond our borders, they were not to go beyond the Limpopo River; and while they are walking about here with their red tabs to tell the public that they are willing to go and fight they know only too well that they are not allowed to go beyond the Limpopo River. It is nothing but dishonesty and hypocrisy. We have the greatest respect for the man who goes to the front, but we have no respect for the people who play the big gentlemen here by taking a “red oath” enabling them to draw a double salary. The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) told us that they were fighting for freedom and for release from slavery. Did the hon. member see the English troops which passed through here? There are men among them who have been earning 2s. per day as workers in the coal mines. Is not that slavery? And yet the hon. member came and told us that this was a war against slavery. We say that in London there are slums, and the right thing to do would be to declare war against those slums. In conclusion I want to put a question to the right hon. the Prime Minister. [Time limit.]

I have been expecting some member on the Opposition side to raise this question of what they call the double salary, that is the military pay to certain members of Parliament. I think it is time that this matter was stripped of its humbug and viewed in its proper perspective. Members of Parliament in this country, though paid reasonably well, are not paid on a full-time basis. Every member of Parliament is free to pursue and does pursue his ordinary occupation, whatever that may be, when Parliament is not in session. Some members of Parliament are professional men, and when Parliament is not sitting they practice their profession. I can think of one eminent member on the front Opposition benches who practices his profession when Parliament is sitting, and with considerable success, and no one queries it. He is constantly absent from the House and we see his name in the papers as being in leading cases, and no one cavils at it. He is free to earn a large and lucrative income in addition to his parliamentary pay. There are two members on the Opposition benches who receive £1,000 per year from a grateful country for their services on the Native Affairs Commission.

And they earn it.

I have not heard the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé) speaking in tones of indignation against their doing so, and I look the length and breadth on both sides and I see farmers who can run their farms, I see merchants who can run their business, and I see country and town attorneys who run their practices, and nobody has anything to say against it; but because a member of Parliament enters the employ of the state in a military capacity, in a full-time military capacity, gives up his ordinary occupation, leaves whatever he does in the ordinary way —because he draws military pay—not while Parliament is sitting—I want to emphasise that — but because he draws military pay for the time he is on military service, hon. members opposite become eloquent in their wrath. I denounce that as hypocrisy and humbug.

The hon. member must not use such language.

Very well, I denounce that as a holy pretence. Let me remind hon. members of the position in the last war. I was an officer in uniform in the last war, and a member of this Parliament. I drew my military pay. It is true, I was absent from the country most of the time and I drew my military pay. It is true, I was absent coming back on leave from East Africa and sitting in this very chamber for several weeks and not a single soul on either side thought there was anything wrong in that, and why? I had given up my practice, I had gone away, given up my chambers and the military pay I received was in lieu of my ordinary professional income. Let us look for one moment. [Interruption.] Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted to reply without having to meet a machine-gun fire of interruptions? I was looking at the script of a speech which I made in this Chamber yesterday, and it consisted almost entirely of single sentences punctuated by a fusilade of interruptions. Let me turn to my hon. friend the member for Yeoville (Dr. Gluckman), who cannot speak for himself. He is known in Johannesburg as an eminent surgeon with a large and lucrative practice; he gives that up and takes the pay of an army doctor, and does anyone doubt that he is infinitely poorer for doing so. If I were to take a full-time commission in the army, I tell this House now that I would cut my professional income down by one-third. What is the use of standing up in this way and proclaiming to the country that these gentlemen on this side of the House and the opposite side too, if they would accept it, those gentlemen who enter military service are wrongly drawing double pay. Two weeks ago in the lobby I was introduced to a young second lieutenant in the British Army, who is a member of the House of Commons in England, and he told me that he drew his full pay as a member of the Commons and his pay as a second lieutenant. And, sir no one seemed to think that was wrong. It is only because of the heat of party feeling in this country, it is only because any stick will do to beat the dog with, it is only because the Opposition will hesitate and stick at nothing in order to gain a little party advantage that this point is raised, and it is time it was stopped. It makes it exceedingly uncomfortable for hon. members of this House who are serving their country and it is grossly unfair. Now let me deal with the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom), let me ask him a question. When this Parliament closes at the end of this week or early next week he will go back to the practice of his profession and he will make an income there, does he think he is doing anything wrong? If his convictions allowed him to accept a commission in our Defence Force and he closed his attorney’s office, shut down his work, would he think he was doing anything wrong in taking military pay in lieu of his professional income? Mr. Chairman, I protest most strongly against this campaign of innuendo which has been proceeding against members on this side for some weeks, on the pretence that members on this side are obtaining an improper advantage out of the war. They are following the precedent set in the last war, they are doing exactly what members of the British House of Commons are doing.

Not exactly.

What is the difference?

Because they are at the front.

Oh, is that the difference? Very well, if hon. members will give me a chance, let my try and meet the point. The hon. member said the difference is that these gentlemen are not going beyond the confines of the Union, whereas the officer I spoke of was out here in South Africa on the way to the Middle East. Is that the difference?

That is one difference; I will tell you a few more.

Does the hon. gentleman want me to meet the point or not?

Yes.

Well, if you will keep quiet and allow me to do it ….

You keep calm.

It is very difficult to keep calm in this House in these days when one meets with the class of interjection that one meets with from the Opposition benches, but I will deal with his point. Hon. members know, or they should know, that the battle for South Africa is being fought on two fronts, the home front and the overseas front. Everyone of those gentlemen knows that this country is being governed with a comparatively small majority. The Prime Minister has thought fit to issue what’ practically amounts to an order to his followers not to leave the home front and not to leave this Parliament, and when I consider the tactics which the Opposition have followed during this and last session I don’t wonder that those are his wishes. Would we risk the dire consequences that we foresee?

Would you risk a general election?

Jeopardising in any way our parliamentary majority. No, sir, everyone of these gentlemen and many more would go on active service to-morrow if we were allowed to do it. I say for myself that I have almost gone on my knees to the Prime Minister to be allowed to go to serve in Kenya once more as I served there 25 years ago. It is no use, he will allow no member on these benches to go. Therefore I say these attacks are lowering the dignity of Parliament, they are unfair and hitting below the belt.

The hon. member for Kengsington (Mr. Blackwell) who has just sat down does not understand this side of the House at all. We have no objections whatsoever to hon. members opposite drawing those salaries if they go and fight, but on the 4th September last year they voted in favour of South Africa taking part in the war. Now they tell us that the Prime Minister subsequently notified members that they were not to leave the country to go and fight. I take it that some of them were in earnest when they joined up, but when the Prime Minister said that if they went beyond the Union and Parliament were convened, the party majority might be endangered and consequently they were not allowed to go—I think that when that happened they should have been men enough to have resigned their posts because they then found that they would not be allowed to go and fight. Now they have voted themselves double salaries and they are to-day drawing from £1 8s. to £3 per day in order to recruit soldiers to go and fight for 3s. 6d. per day. The man who asks others to go and fight gets £3 and the man who has to go and fight gets 3s. 6d. per day. That is what we object to. I feel that we would be able to save a large proportion of the £8,500,000 if they were to lay down their jobs and if they were to go and fight. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Wallach) told us that he did not take much notice of the back benchers on this side of the House, and that he only took notice of a few of the front benchers who were in favour of industries. He stated that the constituents of the backbenchers on this side of the House should give a thought to the question of whom they should return at the next election in order to develop industries, and the hon. member also said that they on the other side of the House are strongly in favour of the development of industries today. I should like to quote a telegram which I have just received—

A few days ago already I pointed out that if that factory ceased to work 375 people would be put on the streets, and if the factory at Hennenman shut down. Weitz would also shut down, and from 1,000 to 1,200 men in my constituency would be out of work. Kroonstad is not a large town and these are practically the only two industries which we have there, and the right hon. the Prime Minister will realise what it will mean if those thousand or twelve hundred people lose their jobs. It may perhaps be said now that those people could take the oath. Let us assume for a moment that they are prepared to do so, and I want to point out that this is a factory in which English capital has been invested, and that the reins are held overseas. The whole position looks very suspicious and I think an investigation should be made, and that a telegram should be sent stating that those people are not to be put off until such time as the Government knows what is the reason. Assuming all those people are prepared to put on the red tab. The factory will then give the impression that it only wants to get away from the liability of paying those men the difference between their soldier’s pay and the salaries which they have been drawing. It would give the impression that that factory was trying to get away from doing what the Railways and other departments and private concerns are doing. By putting those people off they want to get out of that liability and those poor people will only get 3s. 6d. per day if they join up, and when they get back the factory will be closed and they will have no guarantee of being able to get work again. People in the Railway Service and so on know that when they get back they will get their work back; but this factory in which English capital is invested is controlled from overseas to-day, and one cannot help thinking that they want to compel the workers to put on the red tab without guaranteeing those workers the additional amount of pay and without guaranteeing them the return of their jobs. I certainly feel that the Minister of Commerce and Industries should see to it that that does not happen. Those are the only two industries in my constituency and I do not know what is going to happen if they should shut down. And I also want to say a few words on behalf of the soldiers in my constituency who are going to fight. I feel that they should all be placed on a footing of equality. In the one case one has a man who has been working in a shop and who has perhaps been earning a salary of £20 or £25 per month. His pay as a soldier is, say, £5 or £10 and then his employer pays the difference between what he gets as a soldier and what he has been earning. Alongside of him there is another man who has been put off his work on the roads and when he goes to fight he will only get 3s. 6d. or 4s. 6d. per day, and he has no guarantee of getting his work back on his return. His wife and children will starve while the other man gets £25 or £30 per month. I feel there is something radically wrong. I do not know whether it should be a liability on the Mayor’s Fund or on the Government, but I do feel that the people who, as the Minister of Defence says, fight for their country should be placed on a footing of equality. It is wrong that one should get 3s. 6d. per day and another one £1. Here in this House we have members who are getting from £1 8s. to £3 per day extra for asking others to go and fight. Let them bear this in mind, that they must see to it that the people they recruit get a living wage so that the women and children shall not starve. There is one other point. Reference has already been made to the lady who is in gaol to-day for having failed to hand in her rifle, and who started a hunger strike. I am pleased the Minister of Defence has already stated that that woman will be released at once. Now I want to express the hope in the presence of the Minister of Justice that the magistrate who punished that woman without the option of a fine—be he English or Afrikaans-speaking—will be sent so far away that his feet will drop off. To put a woman in gaol without the option of a fine for having failed to hand in her rifle is something for which that magistrate should get a serious choking off. We remember how the former leader of the Minister of Justice, the late Mr. Tielman Roos, in such cases used to send people to South-West Africa or others who were strongly pro-Afrikaans to Natal, and I want to express the hope that this magistrate will also be put in his place. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux) has on a few occasions pointed to what is going on in regard to the buying of remounts in the Department of Defence. The Prime Minister may remember the crooked work which took place in the last war. It is possible that this may happen again. I want to say that the percentage of horses which is being taken to-day is too low altogether. The Prime Minister is a farmer himself and I want to tell him that they are only taking the fine, shiny imported horses which look nice, but a strong horse reared on a farm whose hair may be somewhat long is not taken into account at all, even though it might be the best type of horse for the purpose. I am definitely opposed to the purchase of those horses because they will all die in the North. But now that the Government is out to waste money I want to say this, that if those other people are going to make money, then the people who breed horses should also get a chance. But what is happening now is this: horses are turned down at one place, the speculators buy them and sell them at the next dorp to the buyers for £5 more. Let the Government appoint commissions — it can take its own supporters — to buy horses, commissions consisting of the magistrate of the town, one business man of the town and a farmer who is a member of the Farmers’ Relief Committee, somebody who has a knowledge of horses. That will tend to do away with this speculation. I remember an instance which occurred in the last war when two officers came to a kraal which was full of horses, and the one officer remarked that he assumed that those horses had been trained, so he asked for halters in order to go and catch them and test them. The speculator abused the native because he had no halters there. None of those fifty horses had been trained. That was the kind of transaction which went on. I know that the Minitser of Defence has his hands full, particularly owing to the fact that we have such a strong Opposition here, but if one remembers that a shopkeeper who charges ½d. too much on a packet of tea is fined £15, we should pay a little more attention to this kind of speculation which is going on to-day. [Time limit.]

I always listen with pleasure to the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) when he speaks with so much passion on certain subjects. I think we are entitled to say that he has never spoken more passionately in this House than he did this evening when he painted to us the scene of how he practically went on his bended knees to the Prime Minister to beg the Prime Minister to let him go to Kenya to render service there, or to serve anywhere in Africa.

No.

Anywhere in the world. He will be satisfied to go anywhere the Prime Minister sends him. And in order to achieve that, to use his own words, he nearly —not quite — went on his bended knees. I picture to myself the scene of the hon. member for Kensington almost on his knees; it is difficult for a man with rheumatism, but who is not quite on crutches yet, to go almost on his knees to beg the Prime Minister to let him go anywhere in the world to risk his life in the service of the Empire. It reminds me of the answer which was given to a question put to the Prime Minister a few days ago, namely the question: Which members of this House had offered their services? A list was read out of about a dozen heroes of the home front. Eleven of those twelve had indicated their willingness to serve anywhere in South Africa, but one of them had refused to wear the red tab, and who was the one? Nobody but the hon. member for Kensington.

Mr. Chairman, to a point of personal explanation. I don’t know where the hon. gentleman got his information from but that is simply not true, the statement that I refused to take an oath. The truth is, and the Prime Minister will bear me out, that for months I have been asking to be allowed to go and serve in Kenya, and the truth is therefore the exact opposite of what the hon. member is saying.

I am quite prepared to accept the explanation. I have often complained about the Prime Minister giving us false information, and I am pleased now to have the support of the hon. member for Kensington in regard to the wrong information which we are being given. I hope that in future I shall have him as my witness of the unreliability of the information which is given us by the Prime Minister. I hope the hon. member for Kensington will then come along again on his bended knees to support us when we raise objections to wrong information being supplied to us. Half on his knees! That means on his haunches; he crawled along on his haunches. What we object to is these double salaries which are being given to those haunched supporters of the Government’s war policy. It is quite easy to wear the red tab as is being done here, and to crawl on one’s haunches to the Prime Minister to ask him to send them away while all the time hon. members have the assurance that although they may wear the red tab they will never get anywhere near the danger zone. But even that is not the greatest objection which we have against the payment of double salaries, against the payment of salaries for military service to members of Parliament. We would not have so many objections if they really went and fought, but our objection at the time was that this gets as near to bribery as is possible, without it actually being bribery. I am not allowed to talk about bribery, but this is as close to bribery as it can be without actually being bribery. What was the position on the 4th September? Hon. members voted in favour of the war, and a few days later it was announced that members of Parliament who were prepared to take military service would be allowed to draw double pay. Posts with double salary were held out in prospect. In other words, members of the House of Parliament were told: “If you stand by the Government on the 4th September and if you support the Government you may expect to get jobs with Government pay.” That is the position. Hon. members opposite knew only too well that no members on the Opposition would get a job like that, or would apply for such a job, but if members supported the Government there was the prospect of jobs with an extra pay of 17s. 6d. or of 25s. or of 35s. or of £2 10s. per day plus an additional 10s. 6d. per day. If there is anything approaching bribery in parliamentary history closer than that then I want to see it. The noise on the other side convinces me that I am right in what I am saying; and here is another point. The Prime Minister gave a negative reply to the assertions made by this side of the House that pressure was being brought to bear on people to join up and to wear the red tab. I have the names of twenty people who were told that if they failed to sign the new attestation forms by the 18th August they would be discharged. Naturally, the Prime Minister did not take any notice of that. There are many other instances. I have the case here of a Minister—I do not think I had better say which Minister because steps may perhaps be taken against the man whom I am going to speak about. But if a really impartial commission of enquiry were promised I would give the Minister concerned the name and the place where this happened. Complaints were made against an official in the public service. He made a statement before his chief and he denied the truth of the complaint. The chief sent him to the Secretary of the Department. His immediate chief sent for him a few days later and said, “Look here, this complaint has been received. You deny it. I do not know what the results are going to be, but I can only tell you this, that you should join up, take the red oath and then I promise you that the case will not go any further.”

That is one of many instances. I do not want to mention the man’s name because I know that if I do so things will be made difficult for him, but if we could be given the assurance of an impartial enquiry we would be able to give those names and produce sworn statements. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I understand an hon. member made a statement in this House that I was one of the members of Parliament drawing double pay and doing no work for it. It is quite true that I serve on the Medical Appeal Board at the Castle, but I am only paid for every sitting of that Board. Since Parliament met I have been unable to go on the board and I have drawn no salary whatever. As a matter of fact I sit on the Compensation Board and I am paid more for that than for my work on the Military Appeal Board. It is a peculiar thing to me that these loose statements are made’ in this House day after day and we have got to listen to them, and hon. members opposite will not even listen to the explanation. The hon. member for Potgietersrust (the Rev. S. W. Naudé), who not long ago expressed such hatred of the Nazi spirit of domination, even he to-day is so blinded that everything that is put forward from his side is regarded as a statement of fact, whereas it has no substance of fact whatever. I do hope members on that side will try and develop that spirit of fairness which we all know as British fair play and South Africans also know it. Hon. members just come here and make loose statements and get people in the country to believe them. I hope people will not be misled by this loose kind of talk. [Interruption.] I go further, Mr. Chairman, and say that this objectionable habit on the part of certain Opposition members, not all of them thank goodness, of impugning the courage of members on this side who long before the war signed on for national service in South Africa or outside should be stopped. It is a disgrace that we should have to listen in this House to that kind of loose talk. I tell them, Mr. Chairman, that the country is judging them to-day and the future of South Africa will judge them. I am sorry for certain members of the Opposition when that judgment comes.

I want to ask the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) why his Government allows members of Parliament to be paid their full parliamentary salary while at the same time they are also getting full military pay. Why do they not see to it that the teachers and other public servants are placed on the same basis? The teacher and the official only gets the difference between his military pay and his usual salary. Members of Parliament who are not risking their lives, like members opposite, get their full parliamentary salary and in addition to that their full military allowances. I always used to regard the hon. member for Kensington as a man with a sense of justice. If he still has that sense of justice why does he not see to it that this injustice is put right? A number of instances of direct and indirect compulsion used to force people to join up have been mentioned. I think that those cases have been adequately proved. But there is something I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister of Defence, and that is that certain members of the Defence Force at Voortrekkerhoogte have been dismissed without being tried. I have in mind the case of a man who is not a constituent of mine, but of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Wallach). One of my constituents has brought his case to my notice because I was asked to find work for him. He was called into the office of a captain one day—I do not want to mention his name, and he was accused of being a Nazi. He denied being a Nazi and the captain thereupon told him that he could not deny that he had been a member of the Nationalist Party since 1924. This man’s name was Smit. He had had several years military service; he was one of the instructors of the Service Battalion. He had done everything that could have been expected of him, and he said that he denied being a Nazi, but he did not deny having been a member of the Nationalist Party since 1924 and still being a member of that Party. The officer then used these words to him: “Then you get to hell out of my office.” That man was discharged without any trial. I saw his dismissal papers and I can still get them if the Minister of Defence wants to see them. In the column for the reasons of the man’s dismissal it is simply stated that he is being retired under section so-and-so of the Defence Act. In the column where the man’s character is to be described, there is a big black line. This is a man with seven years service who was in receipt of £32 per month, and that is the way in which he is being discharged. I obtained work for him as a lorry driver at £16 per month. Within a few days it was stated that he was a Nazi, and in order to keep the support of the public the man’s employer had to let him go. He again got work as a lorry driver and so far as I know he is still doing that work. That is one instance, and I can assure the hon. the Minister that there are many similar instances of people having been dismissed. Now there is another matter I want to refer to. Why is this war costing such a lot of money seeing we have hardly started? I do not want to go into the question of why we should have to pay for this war. That has already been discussed here, and I only want to put the question now why so much money has already been spent on the war in spite of the fact that we have done practically nothing so far. An amount of £33,000,000 is now being asked for which, together with the £14,000,000 already voted, will make a total of more than £46,000,000 for this one year ending March next year. I should like to know what this war is going to cost our country in the long run. I put a question to the right hon. the Prime Minister about a certain matter, and in his reply he told me that that was not the case, but I know of young fellows who have joined up with the Air Force as apprentices, who simply cannot get any promotions, and who cannot get their wings either as a sign of promotion, simply because they have refused to take the oath to go and fight anywhere in Africa. In connection with the complaints mentioned here by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw), I want to say that I have had a similar experience, but I did not take much notice of it. This also happened at Beaufort West station. A soldier was walking about the station instead of being in camp. I was in a compartment talking with some of my colleagues. He started hammering at the window and abusing me. I told him that I did not feel disposed to have a fight with him and that if he was in a fighting mood he should go to East Africa where he would be able to find somebody to fight. I did not report it to the Minister, nor did I report it to the police, because I did not take any notice, but those things are going on and they should be stopped. The hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler) put a question here about the Special Service Battalion, and asked whether it could not be kept going. We must not forget that shortly, perhaps within a few months, the war will end, and we shall then again have to find work for these young fellows. It takes eight or nine months to train these youngsters, so why not give them that training in the Service Battalion, even if they are not prepared to take the oath to go and fight in the north. The Prime Minister told us that he would probably need these young fellows in our own country for the defence of the country. Well, why should they be untrained? This is a matter which should be very seriously considered, and I hope the Minister will give attention to the question of allowing the Special Service Btatalion to continue. Now, there is another matter I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice. We have some teachers who have become colonels and who write this sort of letter to Afrikaners—

I object to this method of recruiting people. I feel that it would be much better if those people were to go to the front themselves, and if they would set an example to our young fellows before writing that sort of letter. Or if they were to go to a rifle range where people are practising and threaten them there and provoke them by telling them that they are nothing but a lot of cowards and “papbroeke”. I know of one of them who rode a white horse in front of the Voortrekker wagon in Pretoria. He is the man who writes that sort of letter to insult our people. That kind of intimidation should be stopped. I finally have one other point which I want to touch upon, and I want to ask the Minister of Defence whether he could not do something in regard to the Kappiekommando building in Pretoria. That building was offered to the Department of Defence by the Minister of Social Welfare for the use of the Women’s Auxiliary Air Force. As that building was specially put up and in view of the fact that my predecessor (Mrs. Malherbe) had such a lot of trouble to get that building and to establish the Kappiekommando it would be a disgrace if it were taken away now from those people and used for military purposes.

Some hon. members on the Opposition benches apparently derive great joy from making all sorts of insinuations and thus providing the House with some kind of entertainment. The insinuations made just now by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) made me feel that 99 per cent. of the many complaints raised in this House with hon. members opposite putting their hands on their hearts and pretending to mean what they say, were of the same kind as the insinuations which those hon. members made. If an hon. member of this House indulges in insinuations and assertions such as the hon. member has indulged in, one has to take a magnifying glass to try and find any truth in the complaints thus brought before the House. The hon. member made such a serious insinuation here that he himself had to make the excuse that he could not say outright what he wanted to say because if he did so you, Mr. Speaker, would call him to order. I say that that insinuation was of such a character that no decent member would ever have made a statement like that about another member of this House. By his insinuation he openly accused this side of having acted in a corrupt manner. He openly stated here that that was the position. I say that never before in the history of this House, or in the history of the Union of South Africa, since 1910 to the present date, has a more unworthy statement and more untrue statement been made than the statement made by the hon. member for Humansdorp. I say that he knows that he was telling an untruth. He knows it as well as anyone else does. And one can realise, Mr. Chairman, that if an hon. member dare make such insinuations here, if he dare say things like that to our faces, one can imagine the kind of stories he is going to tell people in the far distant parts of the country, and one can also understand why there are people who get so annoyed that they blow up our our railways, and murders are being committed, as happened in Johannesburg last night when a man was attacked with a knife. If language of that kind can be used in this House hon. members can imagine what that kind of member will do when he gets into the far distant parts of the country. And he enjoys himself when he makes statements like that. The time will come when cheap jibes of that kind will react against himself, and also against his party. One may gamble if one likes to, but nobody has the right to indulge in a gamble with the interests of the country in the way hon. members opposite are doing. There is another important point I wish to deal with. Hon. members opposite contend that all employment, all efforts at finding employment in the country have been stopped, or rather that the only method of employment is to turn people into soldiers. Those hon. members know that that is not so. They know that several months ago the hon. the Minister of Labour made them an offer of providing a good future for any young fellow who had passed Standard VI. But they ridiculed him. Now they are pleading for those people who are unemployed. Why are those people unemployed? Not because they are unable to find work and not because the Government is not providing opportunities for work, but because those people have been misled by the propaganda which is being made by members of the Opposition on the platteland and elsewhere, with the result that those people have conceived a dislike of the opportunities which the Government has created for the young men of South Africa. On the motion for the House to go into committee after the Minister of Finance had made his statement, I said that the Minister of Finance had scored the greatest triumph that any Minister of Finance had ever scored in South Africa, because those things to which South Africa had been looking forward for years and for which they had been longing for years, but which it had never succeeded in getting, had been given to us now. But instead of hon. members opposite being grateful and availing themselves of what has been offered, they are pursuing a pernicious propaganda which will have the result that a large proportion of the young men of the country will not avail themselves of those opportunities, and they will become the unhappy prey of that scandalous propaganda indulged in by irresponsible members opposite. And now they are pleading for the people who have lost their positions, and they try to plead for the people who have been dismissed from military service. Are not hon. members opposite the very people who, when war broke out, came and told us that the great majority of the permanent force refused to take the oath? They incited those people to refuse, and what has been the result? Those people had to come afterwards shamefacedly and had to say that they had unfortunately listened to what those members had told them. They came and told us that they were sorry they had ever listened to that propaganda. Unfortunately there are still a number of them who have become the prey of that pernicious propaganda as a result of which some are to-day in gaol. They are in gaol because they were stirred up and incited by people who themselves had obtained exemptions for their rifles by going to the magistrate on the quiet. Those people are suffering the evil results of propaganda conducted by members opposite, and now that members opposite are also beginning to gather the bitter fruit of their propaganda, they come here to the Government and they do what the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has done, and they ask the Government to be good enough to consider re-employing some of those people who have been dismissed. Now they come here to plead on behalf of those people, but in the past they never listened to the Government, and they never listened to what we told them; now that people are without bread they come and plead with the Government to consider re-employing those people. The people who have been put in gaol because they were misled by members opposite, the people who have become the prey of their propaganda, are now turning against them, and that is why they are pleading so hard for those people, because they are beginning to realise the bitter fruit they are going to pick as a result of their own actions. Let the Opposition carry on with the disgraceful work they are doing; I tell them again, as I have told them over and over again, that they will pick the bitter fruit of their own actions, and the result will be that the public will call them to account. They may look at me with contempt now, but it will not help them. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) not so long ago rubbed his hands in the Transvaal and said that he had to apologise for having gone into rebellion.

That is untrue.

How can it be untrue? It is published in Die Vaderland, which is the organ of the hon. member’s party. The hon. member cannot say that it is untrue. He said: “Ladies and gentlemen, I have to beg your pardon for the fact that I once rebelled against those in authority over me.” I hope the hon. member’s life will be spared for a long time and that he may enjoy good health, but the day will come when the hon. member for Wolmaransstad will again say: “Ladies and gentlemen, I again have to beg your pardon for not having submitted to the authority in the year 1940, and for not having agreed with the wise policy of the Government.” He has already done it in the Transvaal. He almost went on his knees and he practically asked to be forgiven for having rebelled once, and he promised that he would not do it again. I wish him long life and good health so that he may see the day when he will again ask to be forgiven.

You know that what you are saying is untrue.

If it is untrue, then I have been misled by the political organ of the hon. member’s own party. It seems to me that the hon. member is casting doubt on what I have said.

We do not merely doubt it, we say it is definitely untrue.

I repeat it, and I say that that is what the hon. member’s own paper stated.

It is untrue. Bring that paper here and show it to us.

If it is untrue, then the hon. member’s own party political organ must have misled the public.

I stated only last week that I was proud of the fact that I had gone into rebellion.

Then I have been misled by the hon. member’s own party organ, and it is his own organ which has spread an untruth about him. [Time limit.]

Science has discovered that a certain animal imagines itself to be of tremendous importance and to possess qualities out of the ordinary, and that particular animal is a donkey. If a donkey stands in the road it does not give way to anyone, not even to the king, and if one gets near it, it will kick one’s motor-car to pieces. Having listened to the speech of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg), I was reminded of the story of the donkey standing in the road. I feel that I should reprove that side of the House and urge them to be tolerant and moderate. There is a spirit and a sense of bitterness among members opposite, and not merely a sense of bitterness, but also a sense of pessimism and despair. I really feel that that side has handed us an ultimatum, a declaration of war. And we ask: “What have we done?” I challenge them to mention any fact and to prove that we have done anything to foster a feeling of hostility against them. No, they cannot prove that; we have not provoked them either in the Afrikaans Press or anywhere else. They cannot mention a single Afrikaner who is fighting in the German Army against Great Britain, but there are ten thousand or more Afrikaners fighting on the side of Great Britain. Is that a hostile action? But instead of their respecting the Afrikaner, and instead of their thanking him, they slander him. We have conscientious scruples against this war of England’s, and our conscientious scruples are based on history. Our people are being humiliated and persecuted as a result of what is happening, and we have to put up with the greatest injustice and endure it, and we have to realise the fact that the jingo section are the greatest enemies of our people.

At 9.25 p.m., on the conclusion of the period of eight-and-a-half hours allotted for the Committee of the Whole House on the Estimates of Additional Expenditure, the business under consideration was interrupted by the Chairman in accordance with the resolution adopted by the House on the 2nd September.

Vote No. 5.—“Defence”, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—70:

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.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Cadman, C. F. M.

Christoper, R. M.

Collins. W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire. J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander. A.

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.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate. C.

Nel, O. R.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts. J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp. W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach. I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Noes—48:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Plessis. P. J.

Fullard, G. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Haywood, J. J.

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.

Rooth, E. A.

Scnceman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strauss, E. R.

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.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wentzel, J. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Vote No. 5.—“Defence”, accordingly agreed to.

Vote No,. 6.—“Native Affairs”, £500, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—70:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

Badinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Cadman, C. F. M.

Christoper, R. M.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

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.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Noes—48:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer. K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Fullard, G. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Haywood, J. J.

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.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strauss, E. R.

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.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosioo, L. J.

Wentzel, J. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Vote No. 6.—“Native Affairs”, accordingly agreed to.

Vote No. 7.—“Treasury”, £2,000, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 11.—“Miscellaneous Services”. £500, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 13.—“Inland Revenue”, £1,650, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 19.—“Commerce and Industries” £100, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 21.—“Agriculture (Assistance to Farmers)”, £458,000, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 22.—“Agriculture (General),” £14,230, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 25.—“Posts, Telegraphs and Telephones”, £3,200, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 28.—“Interior’.’, £2,000, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 34.—“Social Welfare”, £10,000, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 43.—“Prisons and Internment Camps”, £330,000, put, and the Committee divided:

Ayes—68:

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.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Cadman, C. F. M.

Christopher, R. M.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley, G.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

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.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Noes—47:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, S.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet. J. C.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Fullard, G. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Haywood, J. J.

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.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strauss, E. R.

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.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wentzel, J. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan,

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Vote No. 43.—“Prisons and Internment Camps”, accordingly agreed to.

Expenditure from Loan Funds:

Loan Vote B.—“Public Works”, £59,830, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote F.—“Local Works and Loans”, £6,000, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote N.—“Defence”. £23,500,000, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—68:

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.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Cadman. C. F. M.

Christopher, R. M.

Collins. W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley, G.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

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.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Noes—46:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, S.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Fullard, G. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Haywood, J. J.

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.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. 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.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wentzel, J. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Loan Vote N.—“Defence”, accordingly agreed to.

Loan Vote P.—“Capital for Manufacture of Ammunition”, £50,000, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported that the Committee had agreed to the Estimates of Additional Expenditure from Revenue and Loan Funds without amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER read the Report and put the Question: That the Estimates of Additional Expenditure from Revenue and Loan Funds he adopted.

Agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER appointed the Minister of Finance and the Chairman of Committees a Committee to bring up the necessary Bill in accordance with the Estimates of Additional Expenditure as adopted by the House.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE brought up the Report of the Committee just appointed, submitting a Bill.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last Friday, I had been dealing with the effect of gold mining upon the economy of South Africa and with the taxation of the gold mines. I had shown the House that in 1931 the mines were milling 33,000,000 tons of ore, that the tonnage had steadily increased, and it is reaching 65,000,000 in the current year, introducing an entirely new outlook in the country. I also reviewed the adverse position, which would have developed had the Government in 1933 appropriated the whole of the gold premium, and I showed what a disastrous decline would have overtaken the industry, and how the expansion, which I had outlined, could never have taken place. I instance that the increase in taxation during these two years would exceed the increase in profits, and emphasised the enormous value of the vast deposits of low-grade ore. I was dealing with two suggestions to the Minister when the adjournment was reached. The first was that the Minister should grant the mines the realisation charges amounting to 2½ million pounds, and thereby allow the mines the full nett price of gold, and confine revenue to the yield from taxation. The second was that the special contribution should be based upon taxable profit and not upon gross profit, which made no allowance for amortisation. The tendency at the present time is to increase taxation by a flat rate on profit. There is the tax of 3s. on the taxable profits, and the further 11 per cent. through the special contribution. I hope this tendency will not increase, because the result is to reduce the value of gold and to off-set the favourable effect of the formula tax upon the low grade mines. The test of any taxation measure lies in its satisfactory application to individual cases. I am quite sure this House will appreciate very readily what giving the mines the extra 3s. 3d. an ounce, which now accrues to Government from the realisation of gold will mean to a mine, which is milling a grade of 1.3 dwt., and the other mines, which are milling slightly higher grades. In taxation the great object should be to assist the expansion of the gold mining industry as fully as possible, and to encourage the exploitation of new areas, which it has hitherto not been possible to work economically. There are such new areas to be opened up, and particularly promising developments are in process in the Klerksdorp area and also the Orange Free State. The whole objective must be directed to assist the expansion of the industry by the imposition of wise taxation measures. The process is like dropping a stone into a pond and watching the ripple grow and extend. The ripple may be likened to the number of employees engaged by the mines, both white and coloured; to the wages distributed to employees directly and the many indirect benefits; to the stores consumed, which are being produced locally in ever-increasing quantities. In general the expansion will affect commerce, industry and farming. In the process it will lead to general prosperity throughout this country, and to an all-round increase in the incomes of the people, the normal tax, the super tax and the company tax. One must appreciate that the real wealth of this country lies in the enormous deposits of low grade ore, and the exploitation of that ore. It does not lie as some think in taking the whole or part of the so-called gold premium. It does lie in developing the mineral resources, in the development of these enormous deposits of low grade ore, which remain to be worked. The economic structure of the Union is unquestionably built on the foundation of a prosperous and flourishing gold mining industry, and it is a very safe foundation upon which to rest this super-structure I should like now for a moment to deal with certain aspects of income tax—normal, super and company tax.

Hear, hear!

At present under the Income Tax Act there are differential rates of tax applicable to individuals and companies. This differentiation gives rise to a variety of problems, including the problems arising under sections 27 and 32 of the Act. It appears to me to be quite incongruous to tax the profits of a partnership at 1s. in the £ and to tax the profits of a company at 2s. 6d. in the £. Furthermore, the result of taxing the profits of a company at 2s. 6d. in the £ means that a great number of individuals, who are in receipt of small dividends, are taxed 2s. 6d. in the £, whereas individuals in receipt of much larger incomes pay no income tax. Admittedly normal tax is on a sliding scale, but the limit is 2s., which only becomes effective on incomes of £24,000 and over. It is not surprising to find that taxpayers divert from the high to the low rated categories. That is quite understandable. The solution of the question lies in abolishing the multiple rates of taxation. A second anomaly arises from the present method of diminishing the abatements. This concerns normal and super tax, and is most marked in the cases of single normal taxpayers and super-taxpayers, who have every additional pound earned within the effective range of the abatements taxed as £2. I shall cite two illustrations. Take the super-taxpayer, who earns £4,000 and receives an increase of £100. On the additional £100 tax increases by £26 6s. 8d. Whereas the other individual, who earns £4,900 and receives an increase of £100, only has to pay on that extra £100 a further £13 8s. 2d. In the case of normal tax, the single individual, who receives the primary abatement of £300 and earns £400 by an increase of £100, will pay £10 16s. 8d. thereon, whereas the individual earning £600 and receiving an increase of £100 would only pay an extra £5 5s. 6d. The present system of diminishing abatements therefore requires revision. I would suggest to the Minister that he should consider the abolition of multiple rates and diminishing of the abatements, and to leave abatements as a standing figure. This will do away with the many problems arising under sections 27 and 32; it will eliminate unequal taxation as between individuals of equal incomes, and will lead to fairness in the application of tax and the principle of taxing like incomes in like manner. In the present state of the serious conditions in the world it is necessary to raise additional revenue.

So long as we realise that.

And I wish to support the Minister wholeheartedly in the method he has adopted in his Budget. It is an extremely well-balanced Budget. The world is facing most critical days and the tremendous war expenditure can be borne easily by this country, although it is heavy. I heard a saying the other day which I think is applicable: “Don’t hang around figuring out why a black hen lays a white egg—get the egg.” The only consideration to-day is to get the egg, and by that I infer win the war, which is the real means we have of safeguarding our freedom and the future for our children.

It is remarkable that while these taxation proposals are being-discussed by the House one member after the other on the opposite side of the House gets up and regards it as his duty to plead on behalf of the poor gold mines. We heard just now from the hon. member who has just sat down how concerned he is about the gold mines. At the same time he told us that he was of opinion that the price of gold would ere long be 200s. per fine ounce, that the gold mines have an income of £65,000,000 per year and also that they are now in a position to work ore of a very low grade. It would, therefore, appear to me that his argument amounts to this, that because of the fact that the gold mines are in such a flourishing position the Minister of Finance must not think of taxing those poor mines. It was remarkable to notice that hon. members opposite are of opinion that the small amount of £855,000 required to make up the large amount which the Minister of Finance requires for the war is the utmost the Minister can demand from the poor gold mines. What was further very remarkable was that while the Government benches were pleading the cause of the poor gold mines, those very same benches were making an attack on the farmers. An attack on the wheat farmers was made by the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Burnside); and although there are members on the other side of the House who pretend to be friends of the farmers, they do not say a single word of protest against their new ally. Nor have we heard a single plea put up from the Government benches on behalf of the poor man. The Labour members, when they were still on this side of the House, used to pose as the great friends of the poor man; now they are on the Government benches, and we do not hear any more about the poor man. Now they tell the poor man that he must go and fight, and then they will do something for him, but if he does not want to go and fight they are indifferent towards him. That is the attitude which we get from members on the Government benches to-day.

It is very unkind of you to say that.

If we note what those hon. members say here and how they remain quiet and do not raise any objections to taxes which affect the poor man, we are entitled to say that they are no longer the protagonists of the rights of the poor man. Let us, for instance, take the increase in the cigarette tax.

That is a luxury article.

As though the poor man is not just as much attached to his cigarette as the rich man is to his cigar. The poor man is attached to his cigarette, but now it is being taxed as though it were a luxury article so that he has to pay more for this pleasure which he has in life.

You should rather put up a plea for the girls.

It is no use trying to hide behind the girls; we know that the poor man smokes just as much and even more cigarettes than the rich man who smokes cigars. This tax, therefore, is a tax on the poor man to a much larger extent. Now I come to another matter, and that is the tax which affects owners of motor-cars. Here we are no doubt going to be told that this tax does not affect the poor man, as though a motor-car were a luxury article. The owner of a motor-car is not always a man who is well-to-do. The motor-car is no longer an article of luxury, but it has become an indispensable means of conveyance. It may perhaps be unfortunate, but we should not lose sight of the fact that we have reached the stage where the motorcar has taken the place of the cart and horse. We also know, however unfortunate it may be, that the lorry has taken the place of the wagon and the mules. The Minister of Finance was aware of the fact that the Provincial Council had already put its hand on the motor-car owner by increasing his licence fee for next year. Now the Minister comes along and taxes the owner of the motor-car and the owner of the lorry as severely as he can. The country cannot forget that at the beginning of the war the price of petrol here at the coast was 1s. 4d. per gallon; then it went up to 1s. 7d., and now the Minister of Finance comes along and adds another 3d. so that the price has been increased by about 38 per cent. We may take it that if the war goes on for any length of time the price of petrol will go up still further, and I ask whether this does not affect the poor man as well as it does the middle-class man. And not satisfied with that, the Minister puts a tax on motor tyres and even on motor tyres which have to be repaired. I say that he has taxed the motor-car owners in every possible way.. Take the tax which is imposed on the owner of a lorry — does that not affect the poor man? Who is the man who pays the increased expense in connection with a lorry? If the farmer owns the lorry it means additional expense in connection with his farming operations; if it is a lorry which is let out then either the owner has to pay the increased cost or the farmer has to pay it. I want to repeat what I have said, that this is a tax imposed on the poor people. Or does the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward), who has interrupted so often during this debate, regard the farmer as a rich man? But that was not yet the end of the Minister of Finance’s proposals. He has also taxed the wine farmers’ products — the wine farmer who, as the Minister should have known, or perhaps he does not know it, is already faced with many difficulties, owing to the fact that he has to declare a surplus of 43½ per cent. every year; the wine farmer who in many instances is also a fruit farmer, because he goes in for mixed farming. The Minister knows, or should know, that the fruit farmer is up against tremendous difficulties. He should know that the fruit farmer has to pay tremendously high prices for his box wood, but now he comes and puts a higher tax on the wine farmer. The tax on a gallon of wine brandy is being raised from 12s. 6d. to 15s.; the tax on grape brandy is raised from 17s. 6d. to 20s. and the tax on dop brandy from £1 2s. 6d. to £1 5s. 0d., and that although the wine farmer is getting 5s. per gallon for that brandy. That is what the Minister is doing, and have we heard one single member opposite — although they have pleaded for the gold mines, pleading that the product of the wine farmer should not be taxed more highly than is the case to-day? If the Minister had thought fit to put a higher tax on whisky I would not have raised any objections, but he should not interfere in this way with the market of the farmer’s product which is produced in this country. We know that brandy and whisky compete against each other. And now I want to come to the income tax. I do not want to go into details, but the income tax also affects the middle classes. We know that the cost of living has gone up. To a single man like the Minister of Finance it does not make much difference, but to the man with a large family who wants to look after his family properly, and wants to clothe them properly, this new increase together with the increase which has already been imposed makes a very much larger hole in his purse than was the case before. Now the Minister of Finance is imposing an additional income tax. We are opposed to all taxes for war purposes but if there had been no other sources available there might have been something to say for what the Minister is doing, but why did not the Minister put a heavier tax on the gold mines which, as the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Bell) told us, are well able to bear it, and why did he not see to it that those taxes fell less heavily on the poor man?

Unlike the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser), who has covered the whole field of the taxation proposals, I propose dealing merely with one aspect of the proposals, knowing full well that the Minister will be able to refute the charge of an extra burden having been imposed on the shoulders of the poor man. When I look through these proposals it struck me that it is the middle class people of this country who will feel the real burden of this taxation. The Minister has been particularly careful to avoid placing any undue burden on the poor.

What about the petrol tax?

That affects the rich man as well and he pays according to the quantity he uses. The one point I wish to deal with is the increase in the Excise duty on brandy by 2s. 6d. per gallon. As intimated by the hon. member for Malmesbury, according to the schedule, the proposed duty on wine-brandy will raise the present Excise from 12s. 6d. to 15s., on grape-brandy from 17s. 6d. to 20s., on dop-brandy from 22s. 6d. to 25s. per gallon. Let me say at the outset that I raise no objection to this increase of 2s. 6d. per gallon. I consider the Minister is quite justified in placing a higher Excise Duty on such a luxury article as brandy. My objection is that the Minister is not spreading his net wide enough, but that he is losing a golden opportunity of roping in those many thousands of gallons of brandy which today pay no Excise Duty, and thus to eliminate those thousands of private stills which we have in this country, totally over 4,000. I was hoping that the Minister would have taken advantage of this opportunity. When I look at the figures, the records of Union convictions for drunkenness, then I see that we have one of the most serious social problems affecting the population of this country. During the five years from 1934 to 1938 there were no fewer than 30,769 convictions of Europeans. When we come to non-Europeans there were 150,645 convictions for drunkenness in this country. Drunkenness is one of the most serious social problems facing this country, and particularly among our coloured people and our natives. The Government of the day some five years ago appointed a commission to go into the whole question of the wine industry. That commission sat and took a tremendous amout of evidence and produced one of the most valuable reports that we have had in this country on this whole question. I just want to quote the position as indicated by the commission itself, where it deals with the question of agricultural distillers. I refer to clause 520 of the Report where it says this—

And then in paragraph 521 the report says—

The report gives a table which is summarised in this form—

From its investigations the commission was satisfied that in the majority of instances the agricultural distiller’s licence is taken out on account of the permission to distil 30 gallons for the farmer’s own use. And then it says that the system provides a very great temptation to the agricultural distiller to distil more than 30 gallons and to dispose of it illicitly. And then I want to give the final recommendation which reads as follows—

Now, in connection with that report the Government last session of Parliament introduced a Wine Control Bill into this House which gave full control of all good wine to the K.W.V., giving them practically a monopoly. All the resolutions embodied in that report were actually embodied in the Bill. The Bill was referred to a Select Committee, a very representative Select Committee of this House on which the wine farmers were well represented. The committee had not sat many days before it passed a unanimous resolution to this effect, asking a special instruction of the House in these words—

That proposal came before the House: it was only partly debated, because the Government was very anxious that the Wine Control Bill should pass through the House that session. The result was that that aspect of the question was not pressed home. When it came to the committee stage I also tabled a contingent motion to the same effect, and also, at the request of the Prime Minister on that occasion I did not press that contingent motion because it meant delaying the Bill. Now that Bill embodies all the recommendations of the Commission, with the exception of just one, the abolishing of the present allowance of 30 gallons of brandy, and the Bill makes provision that any wine farmer can send his wine to the K.W.V. and he can get 15 gallons of matured brandy free of Excise Duty instead of these thousands of gallons today of class “C” spirit, the worst possible spirit — a spirit, which, as indicated in this report, is very largely utilised for illicit purposes. The Bill provides for this recommendation so that the K.W.V. are now entitled to supply its members with up to 15 gallons of pure matured brandy. There is even a stronger reason for preventing this illicit sale of liquor which is taking place to a tremendous extent. There is no doubt that in the outlying districts there are these stills turning out very much more than 30 gallons and that extra liquor is illicitly consumed in this country. We know that as the result of increasing the price by this extra taxation oh brandy the temptation will be greater than ever to increase this illicit trade as far as this cheap brandy is concerned. I, therefore, do ask the Minister to take into serious consideration the suggestion that the time has arrived when the exemption of 30 gallons from excise should be abolished because the Bill provides that the K.W.V. can supply any farmer with 15 gallons of good matured brandy. By so doing the Minister will be striking a blow at, if not entirely eliminating this terrible evil. I can assure the House in certain outlying parts of the country where these stills are in existence there are not a few but hundreds of people who are absolutely living out of distilling and selling this cheap brandy, and it finds its way into the hands of traders and others who have no scruples whatever in demoralising our coloureds and natives, and we who are dependent upon coloured and native labour have to bear the brunt of this illicit trade. I do ask the Minister to consider this very seriously. He now has an opportunity of carrying out the recommendation of the Wine Commission and the desire of the select committee and also of the K.W.V. itself, because I have it from one of the directors that if this concession were made the free grant of 15 gallons of good brandy to the farmers, they would support this proposal to do away with private stills. I ask the Minister to apply the same principles as he indicated when he referred to his reasons for increasing the tax on yeast, when he said: “Far and away the largest part of yeast that was manufactured in this country was used in the illicit liquor trade.” So I appeal to the Minister to do likewise in regard to all this unmatured dop brandy, or chain-lightning, which is demoralising our coloured and native population.

I strongly oppose the motion for the House to go into Committee on the taxation proposals, because I regard those proposals as unjust and I look upon them as placing an unequal and unfair burden on the population of the country. The Minister of Finance will admit that that section of the population best able to bear the burden should be taxed, and that section has been repeatedly mentioned in this House, namely, those who are concerned in the mining industry. I have already in a previous speech drawn the Minister’s attention to the fact that the mining industry is the one industry which at the moment is not merely flourishing but is in an éven better position than ever before. We need only look at the returns which are published from time to time. I have already referred to the fact that the estimates of production now amount to £117,500,000 per year, but I now see that for last month, that is for August, the production has been put at more than £10,000,000. We may, therefore, take it that the production will be at least £120,000,000 this year. If any industry produces such huge amounts then it is an industry which is able to pay. I have also pointed out, and I do not think the Minister will be able to controvert my figures, that under the policy of the present Minister the mines will pay a great deal less than they would pay under the taxation policy laid down by the previous Minister of Finance. There is no doubt that under the Havenga system the mines would have contributed at least £5,000,000 more. The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Long) shakes his head, but if he goes into the figures he will see that I am correct. We would have got about £5,500,000 more if we had taken the amount of the premium above 150s. in accordance with the scheme of the previous Minister of Finance for the use of the state. That does not take account of the selling expenses and the increased working costs, but the previous Government never promised that the selling costs would be deducted. If the present Government had maintained that policy laid down by the previous Minister of Finance, there would have been no need to impose the additional amount of £4,800,000 on the public. There is no doubt that the mines are flourishing as a result of the war. Besides that, I contend that the war is also being waged in the interest of the mines. For that reason and because they are able to pay, it is only fair that they should bear the major portion of the burden which has to be imposed in connection with the war. If we come to analyse the position we find that the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Van Coller), whom I have always regarded as a man with a fair outlook, contends that the taxation proposals are reasonable, and that they are not unequal and inequitable. I fail to understand that. Did he go into the whole question? What do we find? That the total special amount now being paid by the mines is about £4,600,000 — it was £3,500,000, which was increased to £3,847,000 plus the £800,000. Let us compare that with the production of £120,000,000 and deduct the costs; we find then that that industry, which takes tremendous wealth out of the country, can easily bear a heavier burden. It is unfair towards the population of the country. We should not forget that the wealth which they take out of the ground belongs to the people of South Africa. Unfortunately we have a capitalistic Government to-day whose chief aim is the protection of the mines. One only has to look at the taxation proposals to realise how unfair and unjust they are. The first people to be considered were the mining magnates, and it is remarkable how satisfied they are to-day. I have never known of any previous occasion where the mining magnates expressed their satisfaction with the taxes imposed upon them, and what do we find further? It is not only the Chamber of Mines who is satisfied, but reports from overseas — where most of the large shareholders are — and where more than £20,000,000 per year are paid out in dividends — show that they are also satisfied. We know how they used to cry in the past whenever any taxation was imposed on them, but for the very first time now, so far as I remember, we find that people abroad, that is to say the shareholders in England, are also satisfied. In regard to the jingo papers in South Africa we know, of course, that they are to a large extent controlled by mining magnates, and consequently one can only expect them to advocate the interests of the mines. They do not study the interests of South Africa, they only study the interests of the mining magnates. Their satisfaction is evidence to us that there is something wrong, and the Minister cannot take it amiss if we protest against the unfairness of these taxation proposals. If we compare the 2 per cent. which has been added to the tax so far as the special contribution is concerned with the additional tax on the ordinary income taxpayer, what do we find? The income taxpayer has already lost his 30 per cent. rebate, and now a further 20 per cent. is imposed on him. This means that the individual who used to pay £100 tax was given a rebate of £30 so that he only had to pay £70. But now he has to pay £100 plus 20 per cent. That makes a difference of nearly 70 per cent. as compared with what he used to pay and we therefore find that the difference is very much larger than it would appear to be at first sight. I admit that the man who is able to pay income tax should pay it, but I want to point out how heavily the middleman is being hit, while it is the middleman who should be granted relief if it is at all possible. It has been stated in this House that the poor man will not pay any of this tax. Is that so? Take the additional tax imposed through the Post Office. The postal rate has been raised from 1d. tot 1½d. per letter and it is the poor man who has to make use of the ordinary channels and who has to conduct his correspondence by means of letters. He is unable to use the telephone or the telegraph. The poor man has to pay 50 per cent. more on his letters, and that while the mines get off so lightly. What justification is there for that? Take petrol. Petrol is no longer a luxury article, but a commodity which is being used by the poor man and the farmer. The farmer under present conditions has to use machinery and needs petrol. There the Minister imposes an extra burden of no less than £1,250,000 on the population. His estimate is £930,000 but if we look into it we find that the consumption of petrol has gone up no less than 166,847,000 gallons per year, and if we look into the figures we find that there has been a constant rise in the consumption of petrol, and that the amount is considerably larger that what the Minister expects. The poor man uses petrol so as to be able to make a living, and he is being taxed. An additional amount of £1,000,000 will be collected in taxes in that way, while the additional amount imposed on the mines is only £800,000. Have hon. members over there got a grain of sympathy left for their fellowbeings? If they have they will realise how unfair this taxation is. What do we find further? We in this country have always been trying to encourage the manufacture of petrol. Last year an amount of no less than £7,000,000 left this country for the purchase of petrol. We have in this country all the by-products required for the manufacture of petrol but this Government is doing nothing to manufacture petrol in our country. There are two private concerns in our country manufacturing petrol, one in Transvaal and one in Natal. Instead of assisting those concerns the Government also taxes those companies and takes an additional amount of £65,000 off them. We often hear hon. members opposite telling us that they want to promote industrial development, but where are they now? Where is the hon. member representing that constituency where the petrol is manufactured?