I move—

I do not know whether I shall have an opportunity of replying to this debate later, and therefore I propose saying a few words in advance, and I propose first of all saying a few words on the working of the guillotine. When the guillotine motion was originally introduced the Government was charged with having sinister objects in view—it was charged with being undemocratic and with wishing to establish a dictatorship and all that sort of thing. We have now had actual experience of the working of the guillotine in connection with our work on a measure of this kind, and I think hon. members on both sides of the House will agree that it has worked very fairly and very well. Ample time has been given, in fact so ample that not all the time given has been utilised. There has been a fair opportunity for good debate and we have avoided the tiresome and objectionable all-night sittings, and I think that from this experience of the guillotime members of this House on both sides must feel that there is a good deal to be said for some such regulation of the debates of the House, and the result has been that we have had a very full and ample discusson, most of which I must admit had nothing to do with the Bill at all. There can be no objection whatever, no charge that there has not been the fullest opportunity given for debate. There has been no substance whatever in this charge which was made that we were trying to undermine the democratic institutions, or the privileges of Parliament, or the powers of free debate which there should be in such an Assembly as this. Now the same charge was made in reference to the substance of this Bill. It was said that this Bill was in effect the establishment of a dictatorship, that it was undemocratic, that the Government was assuming autocratic powers and that these powers should in no circumstances be given. Now, I was taunted in particular about the way in which the British Government was doing its work. I was asked “Why not follow the example of the British Parliament, where such things do not happen, where the Government does not assume autocratic powers, but meets Parliament and listens to the debates in Parliament in regard to matters coming up in extraordinary times such as these?” Now, the answer to that is also quite simple. I did follow the British example. This Bill simply follows almost verbatim these clauses which are now in dispute. The very clause which hon. members have criticised so strongly follows practically verbatim the similar clause in the British Act, which I have read out to the House before. Let me read it again for the information of hon. members and for the information of the country at large. The principal clause in the Emergency Powers Defence Act of last year in Great Britain says this in clause 1—

Words which we use here—

Words we use here—

Words we use here—

Words we repeat here—

It almost looks like apeing the British Government.

Yes, and the hon. member and his colleagues charge me with not following the British precedent and say that I am trying to establish a dictatorship. The clause then goes on also to mention the maintenance of supplies— hon. members say I am establishing a dictatorship—they say I am not following the example of Great Britain. This is a dictatorship. Then the clause goes on to speak about maintaining the services essential to the life of the community. I have not even mentioned that. There are other ways of dealing with these matters. This is the principal provision in this Bill and it was the principal provision in the British Act. I simply copied that as the hon. member has just said. And how they can say that I am trying to establish a dictatorship—how a charge of dictatorship can be levelled at this Government—I cannot understand. It is laughable, it is ridiculous, and in the circumstances I think that the whole charge, which has been the principal charge against the Government in reference to this Bill, falls to the ground. So much for clause 1. In regard to clause 2, we dealt there mostly with the question of the commandeering of rifles, which I admitted from the very start was a grave difficulty with which the Government was confronted. We tried to keep as close to the law as we could, but there was no doubt that under the. Defence Act it was very difficult to frame regulations which would meet the case here which we had in view. The lawyers did their best. There was no case of deceit, there was no case of hoodwinking the public, and there was no case of endeavouring to do anything against the public that should not be done. We were simply trying to follow the Defence Act as closely as we could in the circumstances. It might have been possible to have issued an emergency regulation which would have been legal, but it would have been on the same footing as the other emergency regulation which we did issue, but as we did not follow that course we had the power of commandeering under the Defence Act and we tried to make use of that however difficult that course might prove to be. At best it was doubtful whether what we did was quite in order. There was a great deal to be said for the view which we took, and I have already mentioned the action of the Supreme Court here in the Cape Division which on review confirmed the sentences which had been passed by the magistrates’ courts. But even so there were doubts and in some cases magistrates had upheld the plea that the regulation was ultra vires, and we were bound to come to Parliament for a ratification of our action in any case. Now the object which the Government had in view was not to persecute people, it was not to disarm the population, but simply to get rifles which were necesary for provision for the defence of this country. Why should we distrust the population? We actually here called in the rifles from the commandos. Twentyfive thousand of these rifles were among the people of the commandos, whom we have every reason for trusting to the full. There may be isolated cases of people who are not quite loyal in the commandos, but I should say that at least 95 per cent. of the commandos were absolutely trustworthy.

But they do not agree with you.

But we called in their rifles too. We made no exceptions— not because they were distrusted.

Oh no!

But simply because these rifles were needed. We had made efforts in the British and American markets to get rifles but we could not get them. Rifles are the scarcest articles going to-day. We wanted them; we called in all the rifles, not only the ·303, the ordinary ·303, but also the Mausers which are quite useful to us. All the Mausers called in will be used by us and are being used. I may mention the commandos which are formed in South-West Africa, they are all issued with Mausers. We have the ammunition and we have the rifles, too, now, and we also have a number of ·303 rifles which can be used by our forces.

I thought you would give a number of those back.

There may be. All those that can be used for our military or defence or security purposes will be used, but it is quite possible that there will be a number of others which can be returned. They can be bought back.

Before the end of the war?

Oh no, you will have to send them back sooner.

We could not make exceptions. Hon. members know that in the first instance the Government wanted to make exceptions in regard to rifle associations, but there was an uproar in the country against this differentiation, and so we had to make the order general, and we did. These rifles are being paid for, they are being valued fairly by the board, and rifles which we may not want actually for military or security purposes can be got back at the same price by the public or those portions of the public which are interested. There is no question of the bona fides of the Government in this matter.

Oh no!

And the way in which we have dealt with this matter in the House should be proof of that. I did my best right through to get some decent, reasonable, fair way out of the difficulty in which we were involved under the commandeering orders, and the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Fagan) proved very helpful, and I have already expressed my obligation to him for the way in which he brought forward his case and assisted us to frame a regulation which might meet the position. The position now is that we have put the question on a fair and reasonable basis which has been acceptable to the whole House, and which I think will be acceptable to the country. We have the case of people who are already imprisoned under the old clause of the Defence Act. I noticed yesterday some aspersions cast on some magistrates for having imprisoned people who were guilty of not observing the regulation in regard to delivering up their rifles, but let me say at once that those members who made those criticisms were wrong. The magistrates had no option. Under clause 106 of the Defence Act there was no alternative of a fine, and therefore whatever may have been the private opinion of magistrates, they had no option and they had to imprison. We were therefore sitting with a number of people already in prison, and as soon as the amendment has been accented, and was likely to become law, we started enquiries at once as to how to deal with these people, and yesterday morning the order went out as soon as we saw that it could be done legally and without infringing the proper administration of justice, the order went out that all these people should be let out on bail, and they have all been let out, or are being let out. The courts will now have time to take into review these sentences, and to bring them into conformity with the lighter penalties which are now being imposed — to see how it can best be done. These men will therefore not be detained in gaol in the meantime. I think the Government has given every proof of its bona fides and its desire to meet the people.

What bail will be accepted?

£5 is the maximum fine, and therefore it is no use having something different. That instruction has gone forward, that all these people under detention can be let out.

What about the rifles which have been confiscated?

That must stand in every case. That is the provision under the Bill as we have it here. The rifles in any case become the property of the Government.

Those people are not going to be assisted in any way. What is the position if the magistrate has confiscated the rifles; are they going to be paid for them?

No, not in those cases. The man is paid where he has observed the order and has handed in his rifle. Where he has refrained from doing so he is not being paid out.

What law did they contravene?

I do not want to argue the matter. We have spent the major portion of a day on this subject already and I am just telling the House what has been done in carrying out the resolution of the House to the best of my ability. Well, that has been done, but there is one thing which shocked me during the course of this debate, and that is the attitude of many members opposite towards Great Britain in this life and death struggle in which she is involved. To me, and I am sure to the country at large, it must have come not only as a surprise, but as a shock that people could take up at this time, and in these circumstances an attitude towards Great Britain in her life and death struggle which borders close on hostility. Only yesterday she was our best friend. Only yesterday everything was fair, and to-day when she is in trouble and when London is bombed night and day and a struggle to the death is going on, we find hon. members on the opposite benches taking this view, a view not only of indifference — which one could perhaps understand — but a view of hostility which I think is most lamentable.

Why?

Do you not understand it?

In fact, listening to some members on the opposite side they seemed to me to welcome a German victory. I think that this country will be deeply shocked. One can only call shame on speeches and actions of that kind, and if hon. members think that they are serving their own party purposes by this sort of action, they are making a very grave mistake.

The future will tell.

I do not apply these remarks to hon. members opposite generally, I am speaking of those who have given utterance to these shocking sentiments to which I refer. The people of this country, whatever their politics or party may be, profoundly sympathise with Great Britain.

Hear, hear.

There is no doubt about it, and there is no capital to be made out of the shameful attitude to which I am referring. No, even from our selfish point of view, even from our South African point of view, it is very wrong, because there is no doubt that a German victory will be a very serious menace to the independence of this country.

What independence have we now?

Only last week I saw an article in the principal Nazi peper in Germany, the Völkischer Beobachter, in which the people of South Africa were pointedly reminded that they have been sitting all these years with a mandate over the principal German colony. And the threat is very clear — we shall not escape — and from a purely selfish, from a purely South African point of view, a German victory will be fatal to the independence and freedom of this country. I do not wish to urge larger considerations — considerations of humanity in the struggle which the world is passing through; the question now before the world is whether we shall be a Nazi world or a free world. I do not put that question now, but I do say that for us here in South Africa, placed as we are, with the dangers facing us, to welcome a Nazi victory is blindness to the interests of South Africa, and I think is a sin against this country.

What about an imperialistic victory?

I can understand that with the differences of opinion which exist in this country and the extreme length to which party feeling goes, there may be people who are indifferent and who want to sit out in this trouble. I can understand that. Why should we force them?

But you do force them.

But to take sides against the interests of South Africa, to take sides against our friends overseas, against Great Britain, cannot be condemned strongly enough. But, of course, there are people who are not merely indifferent, but who are openly hostile and are trying to thwart the effort which this Government and the country are making in the interests of South Africa.

Not in the interests of South Africa, in the interests of the Empire.

There are small groups of persons — a minority, I admit — who are taking up a hostile attitude, who are thwarting us, and who are trying to undermine our war effort. This Bill is meant to provide for these people, and I wish to say with the greatest frankness, and with the greatest gravity to these people, that these powers given to us here will be used.

Hear, hear!

They will be used against people who adopt an attitude of that kind.

Threats.

I am making no threats.

They will be used against us Afrikaners.

My view does not suit my hon. friend opposite.

Certainly not.

And we must deal with elements in South Africa that are hostile to our efforts, that thwart the efforts of this country, and whose object it is to undermine the war effort we are making.

Who is going to be the judge?

The Government of this country is going to be the judge.

Hear, hear!

We cannot be accused of having abused our powers in this country. If there is any charge with some semblance of substance against us, it is that we have been far too lenient in dealing with these movements.

Too lenient to the Jews.

I do not think there is a single government in the world at war to-day which would have allowed what we allow here. But we do so because we recognise the peculiar position of South Africa; the composition of our people, the length to which party feeling goes—we also have to make allowance for exaggerated forms of speech—people say more than they mean, and they do not seem to understand the meaning of what they say. All these things have to be borne in mind and you have to be patient with the people of South Africa, and you have to allow here what in other countries would not be allowed. It cannot be charged against us that we have gone to extreme lengths, or have overdone or repressed people here. On the contrary we have given latitude more than we should have done, to differences of opinion and to action which appears to be hostile, and subversive in this country, and we intend to continue to be patient with the people of South Africa. Nothing will be done by the Government that will unnecessarily provide hostile feeling or action.

You have already done that.

But we shall have the power now, and if there are such elements, if there are such minorities, such influences at work, of a subversive character, I wish to tell the House quite plainly, as I wish to tell the country, that these powers will be used when it is necessary in the interest of this country.

The Prime Minister started by making a panegyric on the restrictions which he imposed on the debates in this House. I do not want to go into that, but only want to say that in any case there is one detriment connected with the restrictions which he did not mention, and that is that it enables the Prime Minister to give his reply to the debate, which ought to follow the debate, before the debate has started, and in that way to evade the necessity of meeting any argument which has been used in the debate, and of answering questions which have been put in the debate. We have practically received no reply to the critimism which we have made.

I did not have an opportunity of replying.

Precisely, that is the detriment of the restrictions imposed, and the Prime Minister did not mention that. In the second place, he made a great point of the fact that he was not taking greater powers than the powers which England had taken. He mentioned here what the law was in England, and what the law which he will propose, will be for our country, and, that amounts, word for word, to the same thing as a following of the English law. The Prime Minister missed the whole point of our criticism of this matter. It is not sufficient to come here asking for certain powers and saying that they are the same as the powers which are granted in England, but the question also is what is the difference between the spirit in which the Government of England exercises the powers, and the spirit in which our Prime Minister is going to exercise the powers. He has probably forgotten that when the Government of England asked for those powers, that Government, of its own motion and in a spirit of responsibility towards the public and towards themselves, practically kept Parliament constantly in session and consulted them constantly Our Prime Minister comes and asks for precisely the same powers, but he ignores Parliament. He allows Parliament to be called together only when he wants to spend more money, and when he has to get more money from Parliament. But for the rest, he entirely ignores Parliament. There is a radical difference between the position which the Government of England is taking up with regard to this matter, and the position which the Government of our country is taking up. The Prime Minister, in his speech here, also made a great deal of the attitude which he said to have been taken up here by some hon. members on this side, and some people in the country towards England in connection with the war, and especially the course the war has taken. What I want to say to that is this: That if he showed up to the present only one quarter of the concern for the population of the country, and especially the section of the population which was acting according to its convictions in connection with the war—if he had only shown one quarter of the concern for our country that he shows for England and the interests of England, then it would have been 100 per cent. better for our country. But just because he takes up a different attitude towards the population of the country, and especially those who do not agree with him in political matters, he is chiefly to blame for the feeling which sometimes shows itself against England. He has put Afrikanerdom in the country on the defensive, and we are acting to-day as we do because we realise that we are on the defensive. He uttered the threat here of how he would use the powers which are being entrusted to him— which he would put through with the slavish majority which he has on the other side— against his political opponents.

He did not say so.

I just want to say that if he uses threats against this side of the House, they will not have the least effect, and if he uses threats against us then I say that we will reply to him in the same way. He will not always be sitting there. The day will come when the people will call him to account, and if he can threaten, then we on our side also threaten. He will be called to account for all his misdeeds, and he will have to pay the penalty. Now I come to the Bill. The first thing I want to say is that this measure which has been moved is undoubtedly the most far-reaching and I can add to that, the most alarming measure which has been introduced into this House for years, if ever. This measure represents, in the first place, an attack, a clear attack on the liberties of the people. I have said here on a previous occasion that notwithstanding everything that the Prime Minister said, the Government would continue with measures which not only are equivalent to powers which are usually taken under martial law, but I added to that that they were worse than martial law, because in cases where martial law is proclaimed, and all kinds of actions are done by virtue of it, the Government is anyhow responsible to Parliament for every act and must make a report to Parliament, and put up with the criticism of Parliament, and the Government has to ask for an indemnity for each of those acts. Otherwise the penalty falls on their heads. But what the Prime Minister is asking for here is an indemnity for all the acts that he is going to commit, an indemnity in advance. He has, if this Bill is passed, no need to make a report of his’ actions to Parliament or to anyone. What I want to say here, in addition, is that if this measure is passed, then it will in reality mean the abdication of Parliament. Mention is indeed made in this Bill that the rights and powers of Parliament shall not be tampered with. That may be, but that does not prevent —if these powers are granted to the Government — Parliament becoming unnecessary, and if you make it unnecesary then it amounts to precisely the same thing as if you in reality abolished Parliament. If ever proof has been given that Parliament is still necessary, then that proof has been given during this short session. But what have we seen? That the Prime Minister has come here — he made mention of it again this morning —and he has made all kinds of concessions in connection with the proclamations and measures which he announced previously, and which he has nut into force. Take the rifle episode, or the rifle muddle —which is nearer to the truth — where notwithstanding the illegality of his proclamation he has put people into gaol. He has put some of our best citizens into gaol and treated them like convicts. He has abandoned them to the contempt and ridicule of the lowest class of the population. Now he finally comes here and makes all kinds of concessions. Why has he done so? Only because Parliament was in session and because, with regard to the steps that he had taken, he was exposed to the criticism of the House. If Parliament had not met would he have made any of those concessions? I do not believe there would have been a single one. Now he comes, in the measures which he moves, and practically asks for what amounts to the abolition of Parliament. That means nothing less than that the people are surrendered to the highhandedness and oppression of the Prime Minister and those who support him. That amounts to the abdication not only of Parliament, but also of the courts of the country. The Prime Minister owes no responsibility for his actions under the Bill to Parliament, but he withdraws all those acts from the jurisdiction of the courts of the country, and there are practically no limits put to the things that he can do. It in reality amounts to this, that even in regard to articles which he can declare forfeited, even also where the death penalty can be applied, he owes no responsibility to the courts, nor to anybody else. It is nothing else than the most extreme autocracy, and the introduction of the Gestapo system embodied in his khaki knights system. That system is being elevated into a position of mastery in our country. The worst of all is that although all the powers are taken, and although the Government comes and wants to have all the money, which it is now asking for, at its disposal, there is in reality no war being carried on by us yet; it has so far only been movements of troops here and beyond the borders of South Africa. But in the meantime millions of the people’s money is being spent, and the liberties of the people are being encroached upon. He has not yet hurt so much as one single German, not even one, and now he asks for these automatic powers without his having got a mandate from the people to carry on the war. He got no authority for the declaration of war, and therefore got no authority for taking the steps which he is taking here with the assistance of the slavish majority on his side. In the circumstances I repeat what I said on a previous occasion, namely that what is being done here is not in the interests of the people. It is nothing else but political gangstering. The Government appropriates to itself the power, but let me say that power and responsibility go together. The greater the power you take to yourself the greater is the responsibility. Now I want to repeat what I said a little while ago, namely, that the court to which an account is due under ordinary cirrumstances, is not only the counts of justice of the country, but also the Parliament, the representation of the people. The Government is now however, taking powers by which a state of affairs is created whereby the courts abdicate, and whereby Parliament itself also practically abdicates. You cannot, however, abdicate the people, never, and if the Government is not responsible to Parliament, and if it will not be responsible to the courts of the country, then I say it will not be able to escape responsibility to the people. The objection on the other side is that it is constantly being said here that the other side will not escape its guilt, that the day of reckoning must come. That we say so, and can and must say it, is simply the logical consequence of the powers which the Government is appropriating to itself. Larger powers mean larger responsibility, and the people do not abdicate. Even if Parliament in reality no longer exists to call the other side to account, an account will have to be given to the people. The reason why we cannot entrust these powers to the Government is that the Government has up to the present given no proof that it is worthy of the confidence of the people. I mentioned the other day in a few words that these powers, to a great extent, were being entrusted to people on the Government benches who have not yet given the least proof of possessing any sense of responsibility. I do not want to be offensive, but I do want to say this, that there has seldom yet or never, in our country, been a government which included so many persons of whom you can say nothing else but that they have carried precious little weight in the country. They have previously carried no weight, and now they carry still less. You will allow me to say that there are only two men on the Government benches of whom you can say that they are persons who really have political authority owing to their capacity, the intellectual capacity which they exhibit, namely, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. But in connection with the Minister of Finance, I must say that recent political history in our country has shown that with all his intelligent capacity, he has no following of any consequence in the country. He left his caucus a few years ago, and he practically walked out of his party. How many accompanied him? Only the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell). Therefore, so far as he is concerned, he does not represent the people. With regard to the Prime Minister, he has a long political experience in our country, but unfortunately the people of South Africa have also had a long political experience of him in the past, and I want to say now that never yet in his long political career has he shown that he puts the interests of South Africa above the interests of the Empire. He has been the representative and the personification all these years in South Africa of the Empire, of the imperialistic idea, and all the struggle that has been carried on against imperialism in our country had to be carried on against him personally. Because he stood for the imperialistic idea, he stood for the suppression or the handicapping of the existence and the promotion of our own nationhood. I say that apart from his personal relation, he is the well-known or recognised enemy of Afrikanerdom. This is not a Government to which you can entrust these great powers. We have no confidence in the Government, and we cannot trust them with the powers, because they have up to the present proved that they are carrying on nothing but a tyranny. I do not want to go into details again which have been stated over and over in this House, but we had here, notwithstanding their denials, a kind of direct and indirect compulsion on people to join up. People are being compelled, especially in the public service. They are compelled on pain of losing their appointment, their bread and butter. They are forced to take the khaki oath and to join up with the imperial forces. But more still, it came out here yesterday, and I want to revert to it, that the Government went so far as even to kidnap minor children — it is no less than kidnapping. In my constituency there was also a case of a minor being kidnapped to join up with the forces without the consent of his parents. The Prime Minister came and gave an explanation here that the young men bring documents which are supposed to give the consent of their parents, and that the documents are being falsified because they are so keen on going. If it is true that there is one such case, or even ten cases, what right has the Prime Minister then to apply it generally? If he will institute enquiry then he will probably find that it possibly happened once, but there is only a very small percentage of such cases. If that is so, what right has he to keep the young men there? What right has he to take these children away from their parents? The only one who can put an end to the reign of terror is the Prime Minister, and he has not yet moved a finger in connection with it, although he possesses so many powers as it is. He now wants still further powers. Then I say, can we any longer expect him to move a finger to put an end to the tyranny which has now been passed on to the civilian population in the streets of Cape Town, in the shops and everywhere? He will not move a finger to put an end to it. The feelings of the Afrikaners are not taken the least notice of. But contrast that for a moment with the respect that he shows, the sensitiveness that he exhibits in regard to the feelings of the natives. The Municipality of Pretoria drafted new regulations for the location. Those regulations had to be approved of by the Department of Native’ Affairs. When the regulations were submitted to the Government the reply was sent to the Municipality of Pretoria: “Look here, do not put the regulations into effect now because it will hurt the feelings of the natives, and accordingly we are not approving the regulations at this stage, because in time of war the feelings of the natives must not be hurt.” That is more or less the answer that was given in that case. The feelings of the natives could not be hurt, but that does not prevent the Government, as has been shown in numbers of cases, from trampling on the sentiments, the feelings of the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population. That is the Government which comes and asks this Parliament for these powers. I say that the things which have happened here, those in connection with the prayer pause as well, have, in consequence of that, forced the cold steel into the souls of the Afrikaners. He is engaged in forcing it in still more deeply and, therefore, I say that this Bill represents the parting of the ways. It may mean the parting of the ways for ever in this country, and I would like this House and the country to realise that. In consequence of the way in which the Government has acted, we have had a serious disturbance of the racial relations in the country. We hear voices from the other side that we should be tolerant, that we must all be tolerant and must cooperate on both sides to create a better feeling in the country. Now let me say that we on this side were not unwilling—and we are not unwilling—to create and establish good relations between the races. The charge of racialism, which is from time to time made against this side and this party, is nothing else than political hypocrisy. It is the old game which is being played in the country, and it is being played by passe politicians who are trying to attain their own ends by trying to frighten one section of the population about the other section. I say we have never been unwilling and we are not unwilling now to work for the creation of good racial relations in the country. I just want to remind you that one of the accepted principles of the Reunited Party sitting here to-day, and one of the principles that existed in the constitution of the purified Nationalist Party is that we decided that we had a republic which we were striving for, but that we did not want to bring that republic into existence, otherwise than by loyal consideration of the language and cultural rights of both sections of the population. We want to give the English-speaking section of the population their rights, and to secure them under a republic as well. I say that I stand by that, and I say that the party on this side also stands by it. So far as I am concerned, I just want to add this. I was a Minister for nine years, and had three departments under my control, and when I left I issued the challenge to anyone: Show me where I have ever done an injustice to the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population by not giving them their rights. But I also made the same challenge to the English-speaking population, and I asked: Mention a single case where I have deprived you of your rights. That challenge was not accepted. On the contrary, I received proofs of the very opposite. I stand by that attitude, and we are prepared to give the English-speaking people their rights in any circumstances. But we ask them are they, under the lead of the Prime Minister, acting justly towards the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population, and are they not engaged in trampling underfoot our feelings and doing an injustice to us in all sorts of ways? I want here to say a few words about the reaction of the Prime Minister in connection with the pause for prayer. I think that nothing reveals his state of mind so clearly as the reaction to what has been said here in connection with that pause. He said that he not only deplored what had happened in connection with the pause, but that he also disapproved of the whole idea of it. He deplored it, and he was supported by some of his supporters opposite. But he went still further and said that what took place there was not the offering of a prayer. He said that the people did not pray, and I am glad that he said it. It is so. He calls it a silence. But if it is a silence then it has been instituted with the object of a political demonstration, and to force people who do not agree with it into the position that they allow themselves to be attacked publicly in the street, and as happened only the day before yesterday, that they have to go for safety to the police station, surrounded by skollies and the lowest types of the population, to whose contempt and insults they are exposed. That is the position as the Prime Minister sees it and what he deplores. But what does he do? He throws the blame for it on another. He did not do it; he would have decided differently. But it was the Church Council, and he says that he wants to forc e nothing on to them because it would wound the conscience of the Church Council. All I want to say is this, that not a shred of conscience in this matter, especially after the course things have taken, will remain over, and if the Church Council keeps on with this thing, notwithstanding the facts, then it is an act on their part not of conscience, but of lack of conscience. I do not hesitate to say it. It is anti-religious and unscrupulous in the circumstances. The conclusion of the matter is this, that the Prime Minister, by his weak attitude, proves that Cape Town, and not only Cape Town, but the Prime Minister along with Cape Town, do not stand under the domination of the people of South Africa, but he stands powerless under the domination of the Jingoes and the skollies, who will then govern the country.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the speech just made by the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) was his passing reference to the Republican movement in South Africa. He referred to an appeal which had been made from these benches a day or two ago, when feeling seemed to be rising to boiling point, for moderation. He said that he agreed with that appeal for moderation and then he went on to refer to his own past record and to give the English-speaking people of South Africa the assurance that in the republic of his dreams their rights would be amply protected. Now let me say at once to the hon. gentleman that I served in this Parliament with him when he was a Minister. I freely endorse the claim he has made that when he was a Minister he did give a fair deal to all sections of the population. I have had civil servants, English-speaking civil servants, who served under him, speaking to me, and they have told me that his sense of fairplay had always appealed to them as it had appealed to the members of the Civil Service as a whole. But I would remind the hon. member that he is not the only advocate of a republic in South Africa. For the last few months this demand for a republic in South Africa has taken the shape not of what I might call a Malan Republic, not the sort of republic that he is thinking of, where we would simply carry on as before, where there would be no change in this country except that the connection with Great Britain would be broken.

It has already been broken.

We want to be an independent republic.

May I speak without all these interruptions. We gave the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) an uninterrupted hearing, although we listened to the strongest language ….

That is not true.

May I plead for the same indulgence in trying to reply to his speech. I want to say that during the last few months in South Africa, the movement for what is called a Christian National Republic, has been accelerated. From every platform in South Africa Opposition speakers have made known their ideas of what this Christian National Republic is to be. We had the manifesto, for instance, of the Afrikaanse Nasionale Studentebond in which they said that in this republic of theirs there would be only one official language, but they added graciously that respect would be accorded to English as a second language in this country. But there would be only one official language. And even the hon. member himself only two days ago told me that in the South Africa which he looks forward to there will be only one National Anthem.

Of course.

I have permitted the hon. member to go this far, but I do not think that we can have a discussion on the republic.

It is very difficult for hon. member on this side. After listening to a speech which ranged almost from China to Peru, when we want to reply to it, we are pulled up by Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member himself said at the beginning of his remarks that the hon. member for Piquetberg had referred to this matter in passing. I have allowed the hon. member to make his point, but we cannot have in this debate a discussion on the republic.

I quite agree, but it is a matter on which I feel very deeply, and I wanted to give my views on that particular point raised by the hon. member. May I just round that off and say that various ideas have been put forward in South Africa as to what this new republic will be, and those ideas are not always the ideas of the hon. member for Piquetberg, and some of the speeches made by some of the more zealous of his supporters have caused the gravest disquiet among the English-speaking South Africans.

He speaks on behalf of his party.

The hon. member began his fiery denunciation of this side of the House and of the Prime Minister by using his customary strong language, which, I am afraid, is becoming endemic with him— he began by chiding the Prime Minister that he had not replied to the criticism from the other side. May. I recall what happened. We had a fixed time allotted for the second reading of this Bill.

Why should we have had a fixed time?

I am not going to discuss that now. There was rightly or wrongly a fixed time allotted and hon. members knew that if they took up the whole of that fixed time the Prime Minister would be automatically shut out from a reply. For two full days he listened to their criticisms and made notes and time went on, and at two minutes to 11 o’clock the last speaker on the Opposition benches sat down and the Opposition then knew that they had precluded any reply by the Prime Minister to their criticism. And if the Opposition, knowing that the time was limited, deliberately carried on the discussion to within two minutes of the allotted time ….

The Prime Minister could have risen at any time.

How can they complain that the Prime Minister did not reply? If those criticisms were sound and were made to be answered, they could have closed down the discussion half an hour earlier, and knowing the Prime Minister as we do, we know that he would have taken them point by point and answered them.

Did he try to speak?

As a matter of fact in the few minutes which he did have to deal with the speeches of hon. members opposite he said, “I agree with one of the criticisms made, and I shall meet that point,” and that was all he was allowed to say, so why the hon. member for Piquetberg should begin his speech by criticising the Prime Minister for not replying, one cannot understand. We do not like the guillotine, and we would like to be able to carry on without it, but if we are to have a guillotine, the Prime Minister will have to do something— he must frame his resolution so that the Minister in charge of the motion shall have the right to reply at the expiry of the discussion. We do not like the present arrangement. We do not like the Minister formally introducing a Bill and listening to the Opposition criticism and then not replying. We like our Ministers to reply. If we are to have a guillotine then either by arrangement between the parties or in some other way, the Prime Minister must be given an opportunity to reply. It is unsatisfactory for the Opposition not to have a Ministerial reply, and it is not satisfactory to us.

You know a Minister has preference over other members.

And you (to Mr. Bekker) do not know the rules—

The hon. member went on to complain that this Government is a different Government from that in England because the Government in England obeys Parliament and this one does not. Parliament in England is certainly in continuous session. England is a comparatively small country. Members meet at Westminster and they are fighting a life and death struggle, and they are up against problems which we do not know of here. Our Parliament has already sat six months this year. Parliament will meet again in January, but the suggestion that the powers given in England are applied more lightly than here is absurd. The criticism which could be made against the administration of this Government during the first nine months of the year is not that it has been too severe, but too easy going, and the Prime Minister has allowed things to happen which would never have been allowed in any other belligerent country. Do hon. members know what has happened in England? There a member of Parliament has been interned, not because of an offence he has committed during the war, but because of his connections before the war, and even an ex-admiral of the navy is under detention. When I listened to some of the speeches made by hon. members opposite I asked myself whether those speeches would ever have been allowed to have been made anywhere else. There can be only one answer to that question. I see a look of unbelief on the face of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) and I would like to read an extract from a speech which he made at Newlands on the 23rd July—

I read that speech as a reference to the South African Army, and I read it with the greatest indignation. The hon. member has since explained that that reference was made to the Union Unity Fund. Even so, he should be ashamed to have made it. I have known the hon. member for Fordsburg ever since he has been in political life. He was brought into political existence by the old South African Party under Senator Adler. He was vetted for the Fordsburg seat and he was returned for that seat against what he then described as the extremists — the followers of Dr. Malan. I stood with him on the platform at Fordsburg and I asked Fordsburg to vote for him. He was returned by the votes of thousands of English-speaking people, and the return he gives them is to stand on the platform at Newlands and to make a speech like that, to speak about the “rotten British Empire,” when he was returned by a party which in its constitution stands foremost for South Africa to continue to be a member of that Empire. I think that in his calmer moments the hon. member, for whom I have considerable respect, will regret that he should have made such speeches. Now, let me turn to the hon. member for Piquetberg again. The hon. member realises that we have to live together in this country. Forty per cent. of the people of this country are English-speaking, and I cannot express the indignation and contempt which we feel when we read such speeches in the paper as I have just quoted. I agree with every word the Prime Minister said about the pro-German sentiments in speeches made by hon. members opposite. I want to assure the hon. member that a speech like that does a thousand times more harm than the speech of the hon. member for Piquetberg made here this afternoon, although he condemned the Government’s policy right and left. We take that in our stride. If the hon. member disagrees with the Government and with its war administration, let him do so; let him do so as strongly as he likes, but speeches of this sort when Great Britain is up against it, when 40 per cent. of the people of this country are of British birth, leave a storm of indignation behind them which will lead to the greatest trouble, and I appeal to hon. members, when we Dart from each other next week, when they go back, not to indulge in speeches of this kind. Let them advocate as strongly as they like for a republic, but do not let them indulge in inflammatory and dangerous speeches of the kind I have just referred to. I wish the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) were here. I have told him before how strongly we resent his speech about the British Army leaving Flanders like a lot of wet rats. Those are the speeches which are responsible for the flaming indignation with which some of us are filled when we read them, and they do no good. Whether you have a republic here, or whatever you have here, we are here to live together. And speeches foretelling the collapse of Great Britain, and exulting at her impending collapse, do infinite harm, not only to the Afrikaans people of this country but to the country itself as well. The hon. member for Piquetberg said he agreed largely with the plea I made for toleration. But that toleration and moderation can only be based on a fifty-fifty understanding. If the hon. member can tell me of one instance of top-dogism on the part of the English people I would at once reprehend it; I would say it is wrong.

You are always doing it yourself.

But I am not prepared to put up with top-dogism on the other side. We have to respect each other’s language and traditions and culture, and I am prepared to do it, but I am prepared to demand and expect equal respect from hon. members opposite. Of course, one can never be completely impartial in these matters, but I want to say that I have detected in the last twelve months increasing signs of a top-dog spirit in my hon. friends opposite, signs that they want to make this country a Christian-National republic.

What is wrong with that?

Well. I remember a saying about the old holy Roman Empire, that it was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire, and I would say this about the Christian-National republic, that it will be neither Christian, nor national, nor a republic.

Nor will it be Jewish.

It will set up a oligarchy of one section of the country. So it will not be Christian; it will not be national because it will not represent the people of South Africa, and it will not be a republic in the sense in which the hon. member for Piquetberg and old-fashioned people like myself will regard it. It will be more in the nature of a dictatorship. Now the hon. member used the strongest possible language in regard to the actual provisions of this Bill. I think the word which he used was “politieke rampokkery”. I ask my hon. friend what actually was meant by that, because it is a word unknown in my vocabulary, and his interpretation was “political gangsterdom”. May I ask the hon. member for Piquetberg whether in his calmer moments he would describe the Government of this country in the last twelve months as a Government of political gangsters?

Yes.

Then he does not know what gangsterdom is or can be. As a matter of fact the rule of the Prime Minister under difficult circumstances, with different sections to handle, with subversive movements going on, can be criticised, but from the angle of leniency and not from the angle of gangsterdom. Some of us, as a matter of fact, and I am one of those, who have felt the gravest misgivings in the last three months, have thought that the Prime Minister has been too lenient. We have felt that it was not in the interest of the country for him to try and conciliate all the sections of the population; we thought he was going too far.

You advocated martial law.

I did not as a matter of fact. But what I said was this, that we were fast approaching the time when martial law would have to be declared. Let me remind the hon. member that in the last few months incidents of violence have occurred, buildings have been blown up by dynamite — have we ever had anything like that before? The hon. member and myself lived together during the last war. Were there ever such occurrences?

You are responsible.

I was in Potchefstroom for some time during the last war, and I never heard of any such incidents as soldiers being assaulted.

Did you insult the people then?

But now we have had cases of people being assaulted simply because they wear a uniform. [Interruptions from Opposition members.] I am not going to reply to those interruptions. Things have occurred in this country which should never be tolerated. Speeches have been made, things have been said, uniforms have been found, such as the Minister of the Interior shewed us the other day — and underground movements have been going on.

What a lot of piffle.

I do not pretend to have the same knowledge as the Prime Minister has, or as any of his Ministers have, but we have seen these incidents going-on in the last three months, and we have witnessed movements developing which should be checked. Now, talking about martial law; the hon. member for Piquetberg appears to prefer martial law. He says: “It could not be worse than this Bill and its regulations.” I say this: They are very necessary regulations. Martial law does not have the safeguards which are provided for in this law. The hon. member says that martial law is better than this Bill because with martial law you have to come to Parliament to get condonation, but at the same time he says that this Bill has the appearance of martial law. I say it is an alternative to martial law. We may have to come to martial law. If the war comes nearer our borders and certain manifestations of the last three months still continue, I am certain we shall have martial law. It seems to me I am again addressing myself to the hon. member for Piquetberg that he and his friends have gambled on this that the war will remain in the north and will not come south, that the war will be fought in Kenya, Abyssinia and Somaliland, and if they are right they can afford to indulge in the attitude they have indulged in during this session. But let me put the alternative, supposing the war does not stop in the north— and we must remember that this has been an amazing war—supposing the war comes south, can they then afford to indulge themselves any longer in the luxury of obstructing the Government’s war efforts as they have been doing for the last 12 months. Surely this country will then have to unite and have an adequate defence force and all that they are doing at the present moment is to thwart and impede the building up of that Defence Force. The great need in South Africa to-day is recruits, and more recruits, for the army. Every hon. gentleman opposite seems to be doing his best to prevent recruits from joining the army. We need the recruits, Mr. Speaker, and we may need them bitterly and sorely in the months that are to come. You cannot always sit and loll back in the ease that one has in the seats in this Parliament, and think the war will remain in the north. We read of the bombing of London, but that is 6,000 miles away, and we may perhaps think the war will not come to southern Africa, but if it does come to southern Africa we want to be ready for it, and if we are not ready a large share of the blame for our unpreparedness will be upon the hostile, the passively hostile, and sometimes actively hostile attitude of the Opposition.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell), who has just sat down, has again referred to subversive movements which have been going on during recent months. Let me say to the hon. member: There sit the leaders of the subversive movements by their resolution of the 4th September. They cannot charge us on this side with subversive movements? The hon. member went further and said that all the bomb outrages recently arose from the agitations that were going on. Let me say that to my mind it is a very big question whether the bomb outrages were not wilfully organised by khaki knights for the purpose of making charges against this side. The hon. member for Kensington goes further and says: This is a remarkable war. Surely we heard that the war had already been won. Now, however, he speaks as if he was someone in trouble. Now we understand, moreover, why they have been so mild and sympathetic during the last few days. They are in trouble now, and now they want to come and ask us not to make difficulties if martial law has to be proclaimed, and if we on this side have to be commandeered to go and fight. But who brought the war over here? Did we not warn hon. members opposite ever since the 4th September that they were putting their heads into a beehive? Now they come, and seeing that they have gone and attracted the enemy they want us to go and fight when they have got into difficulties. I think that the statement of the Leader of the Opposition on this point is very clear. The hon. member for Kensington and other hon. members are now suffering from a nightmare, namely the republic. I do not want to go into that now. They know our feelings. But the hon. member for Kensington tried to defend the Prime Minister because the Prime Minister did not reply on many important points that were raised on this side. Well, I have learned one thing, and that is that I will never brief the hon. member for Kensington as my advocate. He said that attacks were now being made on the Prime Minister because he did not reply to the debate. Then he asked if that was true, because, he said, the Prime Minister had no opportunity because this side of the House had prevented him. Is that correct? The Prime Minister had the privilege of being able to get up in Committee at any time and to deal with the points that were raised. I do not say that it was done deliberately, but it was unusually noticeable that he waited the day before yesterday, almost to the last minute, before he replied on certain points. And what happened yesterday? Relevant matters were brought before the Minister in connection with the action of the Government. When the debate was half over he replied, but he never replied in connection with certain important points. He did not say a word in connection with the action of the soldiers. He did not disapprove of that. No, the hon. member for Kensington is but a poor shielder of the Prime Minister. I think that if we ever listened to a very deplorable speech by the Prime Minister then it was this morning. He comes here and says, in the first place, that the Government has been so patient all these months, that the Government never tried to hurt anybody, that troubles were avoided, and we, he said, would like hon. members on the other side to try and co-operate. That is what he said. In the beginning of his speech he pleaded for moderation. The hon. member for Kensington also did so, but when the Prime Minister reached the conclusion, he said: “I warn you children that this side of the House, if you do not listen properly, if you do not say ‘yea and amen’ to my war policy, then I will make use of these powers against you. Then I will make use of the extreme powers which will be given to me under this Bill.” Let me at once say that I agree with what the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) has said, that the tyranny of the Prime Minister will not frighten us on this side. He has often tried it in his life, but he will not succeed. The Prime Minister went further, just as the hon. member for Kensington did, and they now want to create the impression as if this side would like to see Germany and Italy winning the war. Let me say again very clearly that it looks to me as if the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Kensington do not know what it is to be Afrikaans, to be pro-Afrikaans. When you speak about the interests of Afrikanerdom and the Afrikaner nation in South Africa, then you are accused of being pro-Nazi. If you cannot agree with the war policy, you are accused of that kind of thing. I only want a victory for my nation and my people, and not for any other nation in the world. But while I am on this point, seeing that the Prime Minister-asks us not to criticise England so much in this critical period, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether we are to have less liberty than the English themselves have in England during wartime. Let me just quote the main points of a sermon which the Rev. Mr. Aked preached during the Boer war.

Precisely what is happening to-day in this war. He further said—

That we have already experienced in this war, but he goes further and says—

If I say this it is racialism and Nazism, but an Englishman can say it. He goes further—

This is what an English minister of religion says—

Have not hon. members opposite caused racialism to break out since the 4th September as never before, not even in the Boer War? It goes further—

The Englishman can say that about his own people and country, but if we as Afrikaners plead for our freedom, then we are accused of racialism and Nazism. The Leader of the Opposition, on the 4th September, made a clear statement, and the things that he said are being realised one after the other. He said, inter alia—

That was said by the Leader of the Opposition when he warned the Government side not to go into the war. Presumably there has never yet been a people who have gone into a war, unnecessarily, when 50 per cent. of the population was opposed to the war. The Minister of Defence has now said that he is really so conciliatory. It makes me think of a robber who takes £100 from a man, and subsequently comes and says: Look here, I regret it, I am giving you back £1 and putting the £99 into my pocket.” That is what has happened here this morning in connection with the rifles. The rifles of the people were commandeered by the Prime Minister without his having had the right to do so, because he is now coming to Parliament to get confirmation of the proclamation under which he demanded the rifles. Not only that. There were appeals being heard in the courts of South Africa. Then the Prime Minister introduced the Bill and made it of retrospective force and said that the courts of the country were not entitled to go into the cases. But what happened in addition? He committed an illegal act, and sent people to gaol and put them into convict garb and made them eat convict food, and he even allowed women to suffer that fate, and now he comes and wants to tell us that he is so merciful, because he has now changed the penalty clauses to a maximum fine of £5. I think that it is a scandal, because the court is a body which we have always highly respected, and which should not be interfered with. The Prime Minister knows very well that one of the causes of the three years War of Independence was the testing right of the courts. Here he does now what he then strongly disapproved of, and he is now making the same mistake which the British Government made at that time to go and eliminate the courts. Many of the magistrates had already said that the proclamation in connection with the rifles was ultra vires. The Minister of Defence knows that people would have won the appeals. Is he prepared to submit to the decision of the courts? No, he eliminates the courts and now wants to create the impression as if the people can be satisfied because by an amendment which has been suggested by us here, he has toned down the measure. No, the mistake has been committed and the Prime Minister will find out that his own people will call him to account in regard to this frivolous action. They are now busy deserting him as rats desert a sinking ship, and the Prime Minister knows it. He now comes and says that 630,000 people have signed a petition to continue the war.

We cannot now debate the continuance of the war.

I am only referring to it. He does not add to that that even children signed the petition. Let the Prime Minister test the people. I strongly object to the fact that the rights of Afrikaners are being curtailed in a way such as has never before happened in the history of our country. A similar thing has happened twice in our history. In 1902, when the republic had to lay down their arms and accept peace, they were humiliated the first time. This time, however, the insult is being committed by an Afrikaner Government which has taken away the rifles in this way, illegally. Now the Prime Minister says that he needed the rifles. But he is even making slaves of the people. He does not only take their rifles, but he demands of them that they should bring the rifles to him. No commandeering note was served on the people. And the worst of all is that the rifles were taken quite two months ago, and the people have not yet received a penny. Only £26,000 out of the £380,000 which has to be paid, has been paid up to the present. That is the way in which our people are being treated. The people have been humiliated to the depths of their souls.

Now they would possibly like to buy a small rifle or an assegai to protect their families, but they do not even yet receive payment for their rifles from the Government. We have asked the Prime Minister several questions, to which he has not yet given a reply. I repeat that I have the greatest respect for a good soldier, but it seems to me that three things are now happening amongst our soldiers, namely drunkenness, swearing and toasting and molesting peaceful and quiet people. We have the case of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). Their own newspapers admit it. While I have the greatest respect for soldiers and officers who know how to behave themselves, I say that it is the duty of the Prime Minister to put a stop to the new developments in our defence force. Otherwise we shall have no happiness in South Africa, and our lives and our property will no longer be safe. These things have been raised, but the Prime Minister pretends not to have heard about them, or he does not want to express his disapproval of those things. I have given various examples, such as cases in connection with the town hall, the Normal College, Pretoria, which wanted to hold a dance and which was not allowed to hold a dance without inviting soldiers, also the riots at Potchefstroom, the destruction of the Werda Hall at Johannesburg. Nothing, however, is being done. The hon. member for Kensington referred to the Normal College, Pretoria. Because the state has contributed a certain amount to that institution, the soldiers now have to be allowed to go to the dances of the college. If we were to say such a thing, we would be charged with racialism. We want to tell the hon. member that he must stop that kind of thing. Has the Prime Minister, or any other hon. member ever expressed his disapproval as to what is being done to the Afrikaners? Have they ever expressed their disapproval of the damage to the monument at Harrismith, to the women’s cemetery at Heidelberg, to the putting out of the torch in Pretoria? No, when the Afrikaner sentiment is being dragged through the mud, then they take no notice of it. I express my deepest disapproval about it. Because they have now declared war they expect us, like satellites to approve of the wrong actions of the Government and to co-operate with it. No, this side cannot be accused of not being prepared to co-operate. We have shown it, but the hand that we have held out has been rejected in a scandalous way. We were stabbed in the back by the declaration of war on the 4th September, and in our day and generation I am afraid cooperation is at an end. I have done my best personally, but I am bitterly disappointed about what has taken place. To-day they are in distress, and now they expect us to help them. Can they expect it of me to assist them now, seeing that we warned them against this war?

What if the enemy comes to our borders?

We warned them not to-put their heads into a beehive, but they wanted to be clever. They wanted to protect Poland and small nations. But it seems to me that the small nations now have to protect the big nations. South Africa now has to protect Great Britain. They now come along with moderation, but what lurks behind that is that we must come and assist in seeing the war through. I just want to refer to another point which was touched upon by the hon. member for Piquetberg, namely, the sending of minor lads to the North without the consent of their parents. The excuse of the Prime Minister now is that the boys were so inspired by a warlike spirit, that they did everything to mislead the authorities, by giving a wrong age. How then is the law being carried out? When an official is appointed, he first has to show his birth certificate and give certain proofs of his age. Has the position suddenly arisen that the regulations no longer apply to the defence force? It was always necessary for them to prove their age, and it is strange that suddenly it now is no longer necessary, and that minor children are sent away from their parents against the wishes of the parents. The children are now suddenly so enthusiastic. If that was so then the Department of Defence could surely have made some enquiry from the parents to find out how old they were. I am sorry, but I cannot accept the excuse of the Minister of Defence. But to return to the rifles. There were certain small rifles left in the hands of these people, the .22 small rifle. But although they left the small rifles in the hands of the farmers, they commandeered all the .22 cartridges under the penalty of 20 years imprisonment. What can they do with the rifles without cartridges? And then it is said that the rifles were not taken away because the people were distrusted. No, the Government needed the rifles! But if ten months after the outbreak of the war the country is still in the position of requiring the rifles of the farmers, will the Government then be able to expect that in future when they are in need, the people will be prepared to come and assist them? Then an appeal is being made, as the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) has done, for the Prime Minister to proclaim martial law, and that commandeering should be done. How do you think that those Afrikaners who have been so insulted and who have been stabbed through the heart by a dagger, will ever be able to respond to such an appeal? No, I think that that would be expecting too much. It really looks as if the Prime Minister has lost all contact with his own people. With that feeling which certain jingoes in the country have for him, they told the Prime Minister that he was no longer a human being but a kind of superman, and the fall of the Prime Minister is now close by, because we find that he has now started putting himself on an equality with the supreme being. He said that the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) had governed the country by the grace of God and Jan Smuts. If anyone starts comparing himself with the Godhead, then his fall is just as close as that of Herod. I deplore that action by the Prime Minister. I tried to assist him, but he has repulsed me and the Afrikaner people so much that I do not think that he has the least right to make an appeal to the Afrikaner nation to support him. With regard to the weak hands with which the Government is supposed to be governing, in conflict with the advice of the hon. member for Kensington, I want to say that we have the phenomenon that innocent people are in gaol and in the concentration camps. Those hundreds of Afrikaners who are locked up, have they done any harm? If they had done anything which was proved in court then we would not dare to make any objection, but these people were locked up without a hearing. I am again pleading on behalf of Rudolf Meyer. His father was a commandant in the Second War of Independence. He was at first a field cornet, and he fought right through the war. But now his son is simply arrested and put in gaol. Why? Because he does not support the policy of the Prime Minister. That is being done against us, and then an appeal for moderation is made to us. Is that to come from only one side? It is expecting too much for us to show moderation, in other words, that we should become the satellites of hon. members opposite, as matters stand now. I refuse, as far as I am concerned and this party refuses to become the satellites of the Government, a government which has handled Afrikanerdom in this reckless way, and which is trying to trample down underfoot every Afrikaner sentiment. The hon. member for Kensington spoke about fifty-fifty. He should rather have spoken of 99 on his side and one on the other side.

You are dreaming dreams.

That may be so, but my dreams are dreams which are coming true, and it is not a nightmare such as the one which is riding the hon. member opposite. Take the question of our language. Where is the equality? Where is there any equality in treatment for us on this side and for the people whom we represent? No, the Prime Minister looked well after his war people under this Bill. He is protecting them and seeing that it is not really necessary for them to go and fight. The Prime Minister tried to say that there was no intimidation to compel people to go to the war. Yesterday a list of names was read out to him, but then the Prime Minister simply said that that was the provincial administration. It nevertheless proves what is going on. I know of cases, for instance, on the Pongola settlement, where an appeal was made to the inspectors to join up, and if they did not join up then their services would no longer be required. At the Pongola poor people had to leave because they refused to join up. A man had to choose between hunger for his wife and children, or he had to join up and wear the red tab. If the Prime Minister and hon. members on the opposite side act in that way, how then can they make an appeal to us to exhibit moderation? No, they are making a great mistake. Before I sit down I want to deal with the scenes that are taking place every day in our streets now in consequence of the so-called noon pause. The Prime Minister admitted that it was not a pause for prayer, but that the people stood there to watch which people did not stand still for two minutes in this democratic country, in order in such cases, to attack them. It makes me think about what is said in the Bible about the Pharisees who stand and pray at the corners of the streets. It is the greatest hypocrisy which is going on here. Is Cape Town then a more pious city than Johannesburg or Pretoria? No, it is hypocrisy and Christian fraud, such as I have never seen before. I hope that the Prime Minister will take steps to induce the Cape Town Council to put an end to this insult to people who feel that they cannot take part in that hypocrisy. And who is it who are now intimidating those people? It is the coloured man and the skolly who are persecuting the Afrikaners. We are gradually becoming tired of that kind of hypocrisy which goes on here, and of appeals then being made to us to be moderate, because the country is in danger. It is not we who brought hon. members opposite into danger. They brought it on the country, and they must not now ask us to see that danger through. See that danger through yourselves, and stew in your own juice.

I had not intended taking part in this debate, but after listening to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) I want to reply to what he said about young men signing up for military service and being sent North without their having reached the proper age. I know that that has happened on more than one occasion Young men have come to the Castle, have signed up, have been attested, and have gone north. They have given the wrong age. Subsequently their parents have come to the office and have protested.

Were they white people?

I see the hon. member is now running away. What the Prime Minister says is quite correct, young men have come and signed on when they were too young. It is not always possible to find out a young fellow’s correct age.

You can always say when a youngster is 16 years of age or 21.

Certain parents have subsequently come and have protested against their sons having gone North. In those cases we always wire and give instructions for the young men to be returned.

That is not so.

I know that that has been done in every case that has come to my knowledge. From what the hon. member for Wolmaransstad said it is quite clear that so far as moderation and toleration are concerned, we must not expect any from the other side of the House. As a matter of fact, may I just say that the public have regarded this Government as being too soft. They object to the way in which people are allowed to go round the country, and agitate the public into doing things such as defying the law, which normally they would not do. Have hon. members opposite ever advised people against that sort of thing? Take the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. He gave advice to numerous of his supporters not to hand in their rifles, while he himself had an exemption in his pocket. And the same sort of thing happened here in Cape Town. When the pause first started there was no trouble, but after a time some people thought that they would show how brave and smart they were and they started interfering with the pause. Then the public took offence and rightly so. If the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) had on that occasion advised his people in the right direction, and told them that when they came to Cape Town to do as the Capetonians did — to observe the pause—there would have been no trouble. We only ask of them the respect of our traditions and customs which they deserve. That advice was not given. The hon. member for Beaufort West advised people in the other direction—he advised them to disturb the pause. When we are at war we have to see to it that our efforts to support the Government are given the maximum assistance. Wo do not want our efforts to be interfered with. I would only ask hon. members opposite to follow the advice of a man like Senator Alberts; if they did so we would have no trouble. We on this side are determined to prosecute the war and we ask hon. members opposite not to interfere with us in doing so.

The Prime Minister this morning when he rose, told the House how successfully this guillotine system had worked. He forgot to tell us that from the start of the session we have been sitting morning, afternoon and night, and I think it stands to reason that long hours like that must affect the debating powers of any Opposition. It would be of little avail to give us a week to debate a particular Bill and then to tell us to sit throughout twenty four hours. Flesh and blood could not stand it, and that is the position in which we find ourselves. The time given to us has not proved inadequate but that is due to the fact that the hours have been too severe for us. The Prime Minister referred to the British precedent and to the Emergency Powers Act of 1939. No doubt that is a very useful precedent and it would have been better for South Africa if he had followed it. I admit that the clause which he read is substantially the same as the one in our Bill, but unfortunately the Prime Minister did not read far enough. He omitted to tell us that there is a special provision in the English Act to prevent courts martial from having jurisdiction over civilians. We have not got that here. Why has it been omitted? And another thing, and this is vital —the British Act automatically expires after twelve months. Section 11 reads—

It is true, a proviso follows—

I submit it is a far greater safeguard to the public to limit an Act like that in point of time, and give the Government the right to extend it, than what has been done here. We have reversed the process. Here the Act will continue until by proclamation it is discontinued, and the discontinuation of the Act will rest in the hands of the Government of the day. It seems to me that that is wrong, it is undemocratic. It is true the Act will come to an end not later than six months after the Governor General has declared by Proclamation that the hostilities have ceased, but we know what might happen. The Governor General might not declare hostilities to have ceased when he should do so. We heard only a few days ago the Rt. Hon. gentleman telling us what he would do in the event of there being a clash of opinion between the desire of this side of the House and the Governor General. He let it be known that he would be prepared to see to it that the Governor-General should not do what was desired by this side of the House. It would have been better had the Prime Minister, when he quoted this Act, gone the full extent and declared in how far he had avoided the provisions of the British Act. Another difference is this: there is no provision for the expropriation of private property in the British Act, and though I admit that that provision has been deleted from the present Bill, we have to thank the Opposition and not the Prime Minister for that deletion.

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

When the House adjourned for lunch I was dealing with the difference between this Bill and the English Act to which the right hon. the Prime Minister referred. I have given three examples of vital differences between the English Act and this Bill and I would like to give a fourth. In the British Act the power to inflict the death penalty is limited. It was unrestricted when the original Act was passed, but when the Government recently revived the Act for a further period there was such a storm from the Government back benches that the section was amended and provision was made for judicial review in the case of the death sentence. Now sir, there is nothing of that kind here. I wonder whether hon. gentlemen on that side realise the extent to which this Act will interfere with the judiciary. There is no restriction such as there is in the British Act to protect civilians from the operation of these courts martial. Then how does it come about that the right hon. Minister compared this Act with the British Act without telling us of this very vital difference. He referred to the similarity between certain phrases used in the English Act and this Bill. I submit that is about as far as the analogy goes. The Prime Minister attempted to justify the passage of this Bill by the passage of the British Act, but how can you compare the conditions in South Africa to-day with conditions in England? There on the one hand you have a country involved in a life and death struggle and it is almost an undivided nation. Here we are not only not involved in any struggle whatever other than the struggle between political parties in the country, but we are divided; we don’t speak as one nation at all, and under these circumstances the right hon. gentleman will have to seek other reasons to justify himself in the eyes of the House and the country for the passage of this Bill. The Prime Minister assured us that the object of the regulations dealing with the confiscation of rifles was not to disarm the public, he told us that the rifles were needed for military purposes, he told us that for instance in South West Africa troops were being armed with Mauser rifles; to anybody who knows nothing of rifles and conditions in South Africa that may seem plausible, but in point of fact there are so many different kind of Mauser rifles that the argument is unsound. In South West Africa I have no doubt the soldiers are being armed with 8 m.m. Mauser rifles, that is the German military calibre, but what of the scores of other calibres in use in the Union and the sporting rifles which are quite unfit for military purposes, many of them 6.5 and 7 m.m. rifles and so forth. They are arms of no military value whatever. On top of this the sporting rifles have only sporting ammunition, dum-dum ammunition, and does the right hon. gentleman wish to tell us that he is arming troops in South West Africa with dumdum ammunition in contravention of all the laws of modern warfare. Surely that cannot be so. There, of course, we have the assurance of the hon. member for Vereeniging (Col. Rood) that these dum-dum bullets are not to be used on either German or Italian enemies but on the burghers of this country, citizens of this country in case of need. I hope the Germans and Italians will be duly reassured on the subject, but I wonder whether people in this country who doubt the bona fides of the Government feel the same reassurance. It seems to me that in his explanation the Prime Minister protested too much and we must seek some reason other than the one that he gave. In support of that argument I would refer the House to a previous debate. I know I cannot go into it, but I may refer to a statement made by the Minister for the Interior when he was endeavouring to justify this extraordinary step which has been taken. He explained to us that there were the subversive movements in South Africa: he told us of the Ossewa-Brandwag and other societies which he stigmatised as secret societies with a military bias, and to prove their existence he held up a tunic with a swastika on the arm from which he wished the House to infer that there were in fact these secret societies in the country. That reminds one of the story of the sailor who claimed to have sailed across the Bay of Biscay on a matchbox. When his statement was challenged he produced the matchbox. Quite apart from that theory having been propounded by the Minister of the Interior of Mr. X fame it sounds too hollow altogether. The Prime Minister referred to the fact that the public is safe in the hands of the courts, but first of all there is the question how long will the court retain its jurisdiction. There is nothing to prevent, in fact there is everything to enable the Prime Minister and his supporters to appoint their own judicial officers and their own judges in these courts. As far as the magistrates are concerned, I say with regret, that there is grave reason to doubt their impartiality in these trials. There is every reason to think that some of them have been affected by political bias. Is it a coincidence that in the first few cases sentences of imprisonment of two and three months were inflicted, whereas after it had been pointed out that this law was ultra vires —an articled clerk could see that it was— these magistrates then altered the sentences to short periods and suspended them. Is that merely a coincidence, or is it explanatory of the fact that it was quite obvious the regulations were ultra vires and that the Supreme Court decisions laid it down that the Governor-General has not the right to delegate his powers, that the magistrates knew, or should have known, that the regulations were ultra vires? How did it come about that although there was that grave doubt that no accused person received the benefit of the doubt, they were all convicted with the exception of one or two just recently. Finally, there is the case which we read of in the papers a few days ago—I read it with amazement. A magistrate sentenced a number of people to three months’ imprisonment, and suspended the sentence on condition that during the first month the accused reported every Saturday to the police. Now, sir, there is no authority in law for that sentence. Such a sentence is utterly beyond the scope of the regulations and the magistrate had no right to impose it. It shows that he was affected by some bias, political or otherwise, in order to degrade the political opponents of the Government. The right hon. gentleman referred to his tolerance in this matter, and these words sound strangely on the right hon. gentleman’s lips. He is the man who was responsible for these regulations, these rifle regulations, he knew that the penalty prescribed there was twenty years without the option of a fine. Surely, sir, if a feeling of tolerance was in his mind that regulation would never have been promulgated in those terms, but some reasonable penalty would have been substituted. I have in mind the other regulations which were promulgated about the same time, and there you have penalties which invariably include fines as well as imprisonment. If a person, for instance, commits the serious offence of profiteering in these times, he is entitled to a monetary fine. If that is the case, if my right hon. friend was so tolerant in that instance, why was he not equally tolerant in the matter of these rifles? I give him every credit for having agreed to this amendment last night, but what was his motive? Did it spring from the tolerance of his mind, or from the very determined opposition in the House, or did it spring from the degree of public feeling and resentment that was rising in the country against the Government, because of this very iniquitous regulation? Let us be perfectly fair with each other, changes of mind like that require explanation and the right hon. the Prime Minister has given us no explanation. Can we be blamed if we doubt his bona fides in the matter? The right hon. the Prime Minister referred to our attitude towards Great Britain, and expressed sur prise that there should be a growing attitude of hostility towards Great Britain in South Africa. I must say, in view of the Government propaganda that is going on at the present moment, I do not understand his surprise. What did the right hon. gentleman expect would be the outcome of this tab system in the Defence Force? Did he not think that it would stir up the greatest feeling of resentment in this country?

But why against Great Britain?

Because this is a policy which is propounded in Great Britain and not in South Africa.

You know that is untrue. It is rubbish.

The Minister says it is rubbish. Well, sir, he knows what rubbish is, and I leave it to him. Mr. Speaker, that is not the only type of propaganda that is stirring up resentment.

These men are fighting for their own country.

We do respect the man who is fighting for his country, but you people are not fighting for your country or for any country. Some of those gentlemen sitting on the Government benches, when they are at home wear these uniforms with red tabs, but they are ashamed to wear them in the House. Why don’t they wear them here? Do these gentlemen expect us to take this kind of thing sitting down? There is the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) and the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside), why have they been promoted as officers, for what reason, and for what reason has the hon. member for West Rand been put into the Intelligence Corps? Surely, sir, things like that are not inclined to increase our friendly feeling. They make us more bitter, we resent the manner in which public funds are being squandered by the Government, we are against this war because we do not think South Africa has a material interest either in risking lives in the war, or in squandering its money, money which we can ill afford. This system of recruiting is another reason that has stirred up animosity against the Government and Great Britain. We all know the lengths to which the Government has gone in this matter, we know civil servants have been threatened, we know that a number of road workers have been and are being threatened with dismissal if they don’t sign up, we know of concrete instances which have been mentioned in this House. We know also that minor children have been taken away, and in spite of what hon. members have said, they have not been returned. Letters to the commanding officers, registered letters are treated with contempt. I need only refer to the Potchefstroom incident, that was purely a racial incident. Let me read the evidence given by the commanding officer, or part of it. He was giving evidence before this whitewashing commission.

Why do you call it a whitewashing commission?

Because of the personnel. The three men on that commission are dependent for their welfare on the goodwill of the Government, and can they give an unbiased decision? Is it within human nature that they should say what they think or do what they think? They are men who are well known to be supporters of the Government policy, and a commission of that sort should not only be impartial but should appear to be impartial. How does it come about that the criminal law was not allowed to take its course? Why was there not a prosecution? I have in my mind a case in Rustenburg six weeks ago, where some natives were charged with public violence. Was a commission appointed there to investigate? No, the police at once arrested them and prosecuted them. What is the difference, are there two laws in the country, is there one law for Government supporters and another for other people? I want to get back to what this commanding officer said, in order to show that this Potchefstroom_ incident is the result of very definite racial feeling. In reply to a question by Mr. Murray—

Students who are bitterly hostile to the King at the present moment.

Why?

Well, I am not concerned with why they are. They have been compelled to stand up in public and compelled to do these things, and being South Africans they resent it. Mr. Speaker, he goes on to say—

As a result of the raid the troops were confined to camp for a week. The natives were sent to gaol for a long period of imprisonment, and the soldiers only confined to camp for a week. Further on the commanding officer said he did not think the students would have been beaten up if they had not got in the way. Now, sir, is this a free country or is it not, are students entitled to defend their own hostels or not? Have they got to flee at the sight of disciplined Government troops, or are they entitled to do what any self-respecting citizen would do? It is now held up in justification for this outrage that the students did not flee. Had they fled they would not have been beaten up, that is the spirit of it. The smashing of the building was a demonstration of the soldiers’ resentment at their grievances, real or imaginary. That is what it is, sir, these disciplined soldiers have grievances, real or imaginary, and in order to express them they go and smash up public property, and a commission of enquiry is appointed. That is another reason why a feeling of resentment is springing up against the Government, and ipso facto, against Great Britain.

Why?

While we are dealing with the colleges let me deal with the Normal College incident. It is quite true that hon. members on that side have got up in the House and have deplored this incident, and they also deplored the Potchefstroom incident, but before they sat down they went on to justify those incidents. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) said something in reference to that.

I think it is a disgraceful business, the whole thing.

I agree. Here we have a college which has a political bias. They gave notice that they did not want any military people to attend a dance. Surely seeing what the feeling is in the country, the bitter feeling of hostility between these colleges and the military and in view of incidents which had taken place in the past, what did the Government do? The Government said no, you shall have soldiers at your dance or you will have no dance. The hon. member gets up in the House and deplores these incidents but he will not take a step or encourage the Government to take a step which would avoid such clashes.

I am surprised you can defend it.

The hon. gentleman can see the matter only from his own point of view. I feel nothing but regret for what is happening in London, but I do not think we are justified in involving South Africa in war because of the sentimental feeling of those gentlemen over there. Another reason is the sudden inversion of the former policy towards the natives of the United Party. I notice with alarm that the Government is now setting forth to spread propaganda amongst the natives. We noticed with alarm a few weeks ago a report in a newspaper that a special news service was being broadcast for natives, authentic news.

Why not?

Why is that necessary, it is because of the subversive influence of you people, and your Nazi friends.

Only two months ago I heard from Daventry an English Minister expounding to the Colonies that the policy of Great Britain in the Colonies was to do away with the colour bar, no doubt a very wise policy for Great Britain when she wants to make friends with India, but what of us, what of South Africa, and what of the natives who are now, in order to carry out this policy, being educated up to this policy? What is going to happen to them after the war? Take the type of authentic news which is being broadcast. According to the Sunday Times the Klerksdorp magistrate in his talks to the natives assembled in the court room explained the meaning of the red tab. He told them that when they saw a soldier with a red tab on his arm that was the man they had got to honour and respect. Can you wonder at our resenting that? The magistrate said the red tab man was willing to sacrifice his life to serve his country and did not hide behind the law. This is very amusing but what will be the effect on the native mind? Will the native not say to himself, there are two kinds of white people in South Africa, the one man we will respect, the other man we will treat with contempt. Now what will happen after the war?

You are going to have a republic after the war, and you are going to put the native in his proper place.

The magistrate went on to say that everybody had got to hand in his arms and ammunition and he was glad to see that many were doing it, though some people had 101 excuses for keeping their guns. Now, Mr. Speaker, the native will again say, “apparently there is an inferior type of white man in South Africa who may not own a rifle.”

Hear, hear.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) says hear, hear. Sir, that hon. gentleman sitting there wears a tunic with a red tab when he is safely at home, drawing money to which he is not entitled. He is an officer who has never heard a shot fired and a man I would be very sorry to stand behind when he has the first shot fired in his direction. In the few minutes that I have left I want to say to those hon. gentlemen there that it would suit them better if instead of endeavouring to apportion the blame they would find a way out of this difficulty. Someone said here this morning that we have lived together here in the past and we have to live together in the future, and what will that future be if we allow this schism to continue further. How can we expect to build up a South African nation (if we remain divided with two races; and if we do not build up a nation the chances are we will not divide at all. We as an Opposition cannot set the pace; it must come from that side of the House, the Government policy should be so shaped as to avoid incidents which stir up racial ill-feeling, not to encourage ill feeling as the Prime Minister does. Sir, he had a lead from the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) who wrote him a letter couched in reasonable language and in courteous terms, pointing out what would happen as the result of the noon day pause, and what was the response to that? Sir, the reply was nothing but an insult not only to the hon. gentleman concerned, but to all of us on this side of the House. Nobody can accuse me of being anti-British, I never have been. I feel with the deepest regret that there is an element on that side of the House which is today dictating to Government a policy which is likely to make the breach which exists to-day irreparable. I know the Prime Minister is in a difficult position; I know that if he were to give heed to the moderate members on his side of the House and ignore those who stir up racialism and hatred and ill-feeling, he would then fall foul of the hon. Minister of Mines and his colleagues. What would the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) say. I think we would at once threaten us with another revolution as he did a few months ago. In any event, sir, the Labour Party has been effectively muzzled. Every member of the Labour Party is now getting money which he does not deserve. They have no military experience and no ability to carry out military activities. Let us look facts in the face, if we are not tolerant in South Africa we can never build up a nation. The first step must come from the other side of the House.

Several members on the Government side have referred with justification to the moderation with which the Government has exercised the powers conferred upon them in this War Measures Bill and we have another example of that moderation in the attitude of the Prime Minister in reference to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Fagan). The Government will hardly be encouraged in that attitude by the kind of speech we have just listened to by the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Rooth). He told us the Prime Minister was actuated in the concession he made by the inflammatory speeches that have been made on this side of the House. The Prime Minister told us this morning that his reason for modifying the later clauses of the Bill was the reasonable and able manner in which the member for Stellenbosch presented his case. We now hear that that was not the real reason. I do not suppose it will particularly worry the Prime Minister that his word is doubted by the hon. member, but I draw attention to that passage of the hon. member’s speech to indicate the sort of spirit in which that concession has been accepted by the less reasonable members of the Opposition, who unfortunately are in the large majority. The hon. member also took exception to the fact that the Government has been putting out a news service designed to give authentic news to the native population of the country. The hon. member did not refer to the fact, I don’t know whether he knows it or not, that there is a type of propaganda being disseminated among the natives such as has been referred to by the member for the Transkei (Mr. Hemming), propaganda stressing the povery of the native people and prophesying that if Hitler comes they will get 10s. a day, that Hitler is winning the war and Nazi rule is established in South Africa they will know which members were against the natives and which in their favour, and they will be dealt with. That is the sort of propaganda that is being put forward and for that reason it is necessary to explain to the native population what is happening overseas and stating also the policy of the Government. Why the hon. member regards the giving of information to the natives as a reversal of the previous policy of the Party to which he belongs, I don’t know. He was not in agreement with that Party’s policy. The hon. member said it would cost bloodshed in the country to restore the native to what he calls his proper place and that is quite typical of the Party which has always fought against the native peoples. This Bill has been introduced because the Government thinks it is necessary in view of the war, and the discussion which has taken place has afforded an opportunity to hon. members of the Opposition to ventilate political, personal and racial feeling and has not been concerned with the merits of the Bill. It has scarcely been criticised at all as being unnecessary for the effective prosecution of the war. The real reason for the opposition to this Bill is that hon. members of the Opposition are opposed to the association of this country with the other democratic countries in the present world struggle and therefore opposed to any legislation designed to make the part played by this country in this struggle more effective. I think that is a fair statement of the position. Their attitude has been made clear for the past year. What is not clear is why they think the present world struggle has no interest for South Africa. Do they regard a democratic victory as being in the interest of South Africa, that is something which I think Opposition members should make clear. They say that South Africa’s best interest will be served by the establishment of an independent republic here. In the event of an allied victory only one thing will stand between them and the achievement of their objective and that is public opinion in this country.

I am afraid the hon. member is wandering from the subject.

I am endeavouring to analyse the reason for the Opposition to this Bill. My submission is that they are against it because it is a war measure and I am trying to investigate what their attitude to this war is. They have told us that they are against participation in the war, and I want to ask what result they would regard as in the interests of the country. Presumably a victory for the Nazis would not be in the best interests of this country.

Order. I think the hon. member should come back to the Bill, we have had this discussion about the war on a previous occasion.

I am discussing the reason for the hon. members’ opposition to the Bill and I submit it is far from the reason given that it is undemocratic, and an infringement of the liberties of the people. The Bill represents legislation of a special character to meet special circumstances and hon. members of the Opposition have criticised it as being undemocratic. Now sir, this country never has been a democracy in the sense in which democracy is regarded in other parts of the world. We enjoy certain democratic liberties but there is an increasing tendency on the one hand to pay lip service to the principles of democracy and on the other to whittle away democratic rights conceded to those sections of the population not of European extraction, and I contend that those hon. members who object to this Bill because it is undemocratic have had the largest hand in that process of whittling away. Hon. members on the Opposition benches have told us that the day of reckoning and of personal retribution would come. Tactics of that kind do not display any inherent affection for the principles of democracy, and are in fact tactics which were familiar in several States, in several democracies shortly before they ceased to be democracies. In a recent issue of the Nineteenth Century Review there is an editorial which has considerable relevance to the point which I am making, and this is what is says—

Hon. members over here — on the Opposition benches — are putting forward policies which can only lead to serious trouble, and yet when they deal with this. Bill, in spite of the fact that their tactics are a denial of democracy, they contend that the principles of this Bill are in conflict with democracy. They say that this Bill goes considerably beyond the powers of martial law. I was one of those who was pleased that clause 2 was deleted from the original Bill. I welcomed its deletion because that particular clause seemed to me to go beyond the making of regulations with reference to the conduct of the war. Now, this Bill does not go beyond that activity. It is much more limited. Clause 1 of this Bill is much more limited than was the corresponding clause 2 of the original Bill which was withdrawn last session. This clause 1 simply empowers the Governor-General to make proclamations, etc., for the defence of the Union, for the safety of the public, and the effective prosecution of the war — all matters connected with the carrying on of the war, or efforts which have arisen internally as a result of this country being at war. The previous clause which was deleted, dealt with the matter in different language. The words used in that clause have been left out and this clause is simply restricted to war measures. Realising the development which has taken place since the Bill of last session was introduced, I welcome this clause. In the first place the people of this country, and of other independent countries, have had the experience of other countries such as France through internal division, and through the activities of Nazi agents, being assailed from within. And the necessity has been demonstrated of the Governments being armed with fuller powers. Moreover, as the Minister of the Interior has told us, evidence has come to light of the activities of organisations, and for making propaganda and carrying on activities similar to those in other countries. We have evidence as to the length to which they are prepared to go — we have dynamite outrages, we have had acts of violence here. We have heard arguments in this House by the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) that these dynamite outrages could be dealt with by the courts of the country, and that the Government did not need extra powers to deal with them, but that is not the point. The occurrence of these outrages shows the serious danger which exists and proves that the Government requires wider powers than it had before. There has been a certain amount of sneering against the democratic safeguards which this Bill entails. The ultimate safeguard of the democratic rights of any people is quite clearly laid down in this Bill. Any proclamation, or any regulation that may be issued, can be reviewed and dealt with by this House, and it is difficult to see what further safeguard could be included in the Bill. I was amazed to hear the arguments that it was much better to deal with these matters under the ordinary law. Under this Bill the House still has the power of repealling any proclamation. That power is safeguarded, and in addition the limits to which these powers may be exercised, are laid down in this Bill. There is nothing in an Act of Parliament to prevent the courts from interfering if the Government or its agents go beyond the powers provided under an Act. Under martial law the courts can interfere if the Military Powers do not confine themselves within the limits of Martial Law. And so under this Act can the courts interfere if the powers granted by this Act are contravened. In this country there is one criticism which could never be made, and that is that your judiciary is not impartial. That tradition will be carried on no matter which Government is in power, and it was unnecessary for the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) to make the suggestions which he did make. The present Government has no motive for undermining the democratic rights of the people, or of any of our institutions. And in the circumstances I heartily support this Bill.

The Prime Minister told us this morning that he was deeply shocked about the attitude which was taken up against England in this debate and in various debates. He is apparently deeply shocked at the feelings which have arisen in the country between the two chief races in the country. I think that the Prime Minister and his party are for the most part responsible for the fact that a feeling has arisen in the country against England, and also between English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people. Speeches have been quoted, made by the Leader of the Opposition and other members on this side, to show how friendly they were towards England, and how favourable they were towards co-operation in the country. This shows that the feeling between the two races in our country was fairly good in the past, and also the feeling towards England. No one could quote a speech where there had been any sneering remarks about England and the English-speaking people. Unfortunately a bad feeling has now been developed, and to the greatest extent, possibly 90 per cent., the Prime Minister and his party are responsible for that feeling having arisen in the country. In the first place, the Prime Minister has dragged this country into the war against the wishes and desires of the people, and if the Prime Minister now complains that this side of the House is not well disposed towards his war effort, but is hostile to it, then it is only because it is the policy of this side, and has been our policy from the start, to be opposed to this war. But the Prime Minister and his party have dragged the country into war against the desires of the people, and ever since the morning of the 4th September, when certain hon. members opposite were still heart and soul opposed to the war….

The hon. member cannot go into those matters again, and he must keep to the Bill which is before the House.

The Prime Minister accuses us of being hostile towards his war effort, and I only want to show that the policy we are following has been consistently followed by us from the start.

Yes, but the hon. member cannot now go into details in connection with it.

I will not go into the details. The further cause of hostility being created is the way in which the Government acts to-day towards people who think differently to what it does about the war. The way in which the Government makes use of the powers which are granted to it in these war measures, in order, forsooth, to maintain order, causes bad feeling in the country. The Prime Minister comes to this House and asks for extended powers which are practically equivalent to those of a dictatorship. I do not know what the difference is between the two. Except that he cannot interfere with the powers of Parliament he can do anything, and even impose the death penalty for any contravention, and then he is in no way obliged to come and ask this House for an indemnity. If the Prime Minister takes those extended powers to carry on the war, then I say that they must not be applied to the Afrikaans-speaking section of the people, as he has applied them in the past. But that he also is responsible to, and has those powers to protect that section of the people. I can give instances where certain English-speaking people in the country — not all English-speaking people, and I am speaking here of the British Jingoes—behaved in an extremely provocative way towards the Afrikaans-speaking section, but the Prime Minister does nothing to protect the Afrikaans-speaking people. In Bloemfontein we have the Women’s Memorial, which is sacred to the Afrikaners. That monument should be protected. That in itself is a recognition that the necessity arises in this country to protect something which is of sentimental value to the Afrikaans-speaking people. Is that monument being protected against Afrikaans-speaking people? No, it is being protected against English-speaking people, against supporters of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) and the Prime Minister. That it is necessary to protect the monument is proved by the violation of the burgher monument at Harrismith, and the desecration at Heidelberg of the cemetery of the concentration camp, where Union Jacks were put up over the graves. Those things embitter the Afrikaans-speaking people, and if the Prime Minister is going to apply this measure for the protection of one section of the people and not for the protection of the Afrikaans-speaking people, then he must not be surprised if bad feelings are aroused between the English-speaking people and the Afrikaans-speaking people in South Africa. For the feeling that has already arisen the Government is responsible, and the sooner the Prime Minister realises it, so that right and justice can be done to the Afrikaans-speaking section of the people, the sooner a better feeling will arise. I am not again going into the disturbances that have been going on in the streets of Cape Town. But the Prime Minister has been asked to use his influence to put an end to the silence pause. Up to the present, although he deplores what has happened there, he has not raised a finger to put an end to it. The responsibility rests on him, and if he were to use his influence to put an end to it, then he can do so. The Prime Minister does not want to do it, however. Why not? He is afraid of losing his influence with that section of the people who want to continue these things. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) was to have unveiled a monument at Queenstown, but that had to be forbidden. Why? They were afraid that the sentiments of the English-speaking section would be wounded, and that there would be a riot. There the Government intervened, but here where the sentiments of the Afrikaans-speaking people are wounded by a political demonstration in Adderley Street the Prime Minister does not have the courage to intervene and put an end to the matter. Therefore I say he must not be surprised if bad feelings develop in the country. In my own constituency people have been prosecuted in connection with the handing in of rifles. The Prime Minister has now in part released people, and the penalty is being reduced. But I deplore that the Prime Minister, who knows the people well, took that step of prosecuting the people who did not hand in their rifles. The Afrikaner, more than any other nationality, is attached to his rifle. He learnt to love his rifle since the old Voortrekker tradition. There are sentimental bonds between him and his rifle. He regards it as an indispensable thing. Nearly every farmer has his rifle. It is looked after and he is attached to it. The Prime Minister knows that that is the tradition of the farmer, and yet he now comes in such an indiscreet way and calls up the rifles, and if the farmers refuse to obey then they are punished. It should be added that it now appears that those penalties were illegal. The hair and the beards of the people were shaved off, and they were humiliated into the depths along with criminals, and that really in consequence of an illegal measure, which is proved by the fact that the Prime Minister is now trying here to legalise it. Does that not arouse bitter feelings among the Afrikaners? I want to refer to someone in my own constituency. He is an aged man who fought through the Boer War: he is an elder in the Church; he is a kindly disposed man who is honour personified. He refused to hand up his rifle and he had to appear before the magistrate. Here are the words which he used to the magistrate—

Is that not the language of a man who is humble, but at the same time of someone who as an Afrikaner, is deeply hurt in his soul at the injustice that is being done to him? The Prime Minister was a Boer general. Does he not respect the feelings which went on in the heart of that man? He is one of many. He preferred to go to gaol rather than to hand up his rifle. No, the Afrikaner has only been disarmed twice in his history. The first was in 1902 after the war against England was lost, and when he was humiliated to the depths. The second disarmament was by a Boer general in South Africa. I say that, if the Prime Minister starts complaining about the racialism in the country, then he should remember that he is responsible for the stirring up of that racialism. People who were loyal supporters of his have by this unwise action in connection with the rifles been embittered by the action of the Government. We can be glad to-day that the Opposition succeeded in this House in making the position clear to the Prime Minister, with the result that a certain amount of relief is being obtained for those people. The Prime Minister now says that we are hostile to his war policy. He threatened that he would take strong action in the future. He threatened that he would not hesitate in future to take steps against people who were hostile to his war policy. Let me tell him that he would not by that frighten the Afrikaner from living up to his convictions. If he is opposed to the war in South Africa, then no threat will frighten him from living up to his convictions. The Afrikaners have shown in the past that they are not cowards. If the Prime Minister wants to use force then let him do so. I ask him, however, as belonging to the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population in South Africa, also to have that sympathy for his fellow Afrikaners, as well as that feeling of respect for them that he has for the English-speaking section of the people. The Afrikaners have their national pride and their history behind them, and they ask the Prime Minister to have the same respect for their sentiments as he has for those of the English-speaking people. If the Prime Minister continues on the lines he is now taking, despising the sentiments of the Afrikaans-speaking people, and if the rights of the Afrikaans-speaking people are trodden under foot, as is generally happening now, then the Prime Minister is going to bring the Afrikaans-speaking section into opposition to him. He has the power in his hands to-day. He was given that power on the 4th September. He is able to use that power now, but the Afrikaans people will some day call him to account about the way he is exercising those powers.

The hon. member who has just sat down said that the fact that feelings had been stirred up in the country was due to war having been declared against the wishes and the will of the people. I definitely deny that war was declared against the will and the wish of the people.

Hold an election, you are afraid.

During the past twelve months we have had about thirteen or fourteen by-elections, ten of which were won by this side of the House and three by the Opposition. What better evidence can we have? But what is more, the Opposition had a petition signed in favour of peace and they found it difficult to get 148,000 names together.

Names of white people.

We got 630,000 within two weeks in favour of the continuation of the war until our object shall have been achieved. I emphatically deny the contention of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) that Afrikanerdom is on his side. A very large section whole-heartedly supports the Prime Minister and will continue to support him until the object we have in view has been achieved. If there is one thing clear it is that there is a feeling of hatred and malice on the other side not only towards the Prime Minister but also towards England. It is peculiar that that feeling increased in tempo when the Opposition thought that England was going to lose; they even went so far as to say that if the Government did not listen to their demands and make peace, they would take over the reins of government, but now that things have not gone so favourably for them, now that Hitler has disappointed them on the 15th August, they are beginning to sing a different song. One would have thought that after the displays of the last few days, and after the concessions made by the Prime Minister in connection with the rifle trouble, the other side would have expressed its thanks—at any rate to a certain extent. But they are just like a lot of naughty children. If they are given one thing which they are anxious to get, they want more, and they cry for more. They are displaying a spirit which I am sorry to say has also been displaying itself in the past few years among the Afrikaners, and that is not to show any gratitude when they should do so. The population has been stirred up in regard to the question of the rifles until a number of them landed in gaol, and I think that we all owe a debt of gratitude to the Prime Minister for having helped those people out of their trouble, those people who had got into difficulties as a result of the actions of the Opposition. The hon. the member for Piquetberg spoke about the Afrikaner being stabbed to the heart. Does he forget that he with his venomous speeches is not merely stabbing the Englishman to the heart but that in addition to that he is probing about in the wounds which he has inflicted? I am just as strongly convinced to-day as ever that England is our best friend, and I am not ashamed to say that I am a descendant of the 1820 Settlers.

When did you find that out?

I do not want to remind the hon. member for Willowmore (Mr. G. P. Steyn) of the fact that he told me that he would never belong to a Republican Party. The hon. member for Piquetberg wants to proclaim a Republic, and he tells us that the language and the kultuur of the Afrikaner will then be respected. Hon. members opposite should not imagine that they can catch us with that sort of nonsense. The hon. member for Piquetberg on another occasion expressed great appreciation of the attitude of the English-speaking people in South Africa during the Boer War, just as he expressed appreciation of the attitude of certain statesmen in England during that war, but do we get any signs of appreciation now that England is in trouble? Every little bit of trouble is exploited by the Opposition. There are members of the Opposition who imagine that it Germany should win, South Africa would become a republic. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) stated that if Germany won we would become a German colony. The Opposition seems to imagine that if Hitler wins we here, they at any rate, will be living in a land of Canaan. Let us see what happened to certain countries in Europe where the Nazis overwhelmed the small nations against their will. Let us listen to the words of our Envoy Plenipotentiary (Dr. Van Broekhuizen) when he said that the Afrikaners should stand together because if Hitler came here we would get hell. I hope hon. members opposite will take note of those words. A Hollander woman arrived from Holland in my part of the country; she was on her way to Australia with her family; she said that South Africa was a fine country but she was going to settle in Australia. I asked her why, if South Africa was such a fine country she did not come and live here, and her reply was that she did not want live in a country where there was so much dissension as there was in South Africa, and she added, “Tell those people who are not prepared to co-operate with the English-speaking, section of the population that they should co-operate, because if Hitler comes they will not be able to speak at all. The Germans are barbarians and they will have to shout ‘Heil Hitler’ all day long.” We hear a great deal about the day of reckoning; I should like to know what the majority of the Opposition mean by that expression. One hon. member stated that he meant his remark in a constitutional sense. Other members, however, and in any case the followers of that party outside mean something different altogether. What they mean is a settlement by means of pick handles, if not by means of rifles. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) got up here and put out his chest and said— great hero that he is—that he had a revolver and that he would shoot anyone who attacked him. If we hear that kind of talk we can form an idea of the effect it must have on the platteland. I am very sorry that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (genl. Kemp), before business was suspended at 12.45, said that the Prime Minister had put himself on a level with God who by His grace had allowed the Leader of the Opposition to be Prime Minister for many years. I cannot for one moment imagine that the hon. member was in earnest, because that would seem to prove that so far as his mentality is concerned he must have deteriorated considerably of late years. The Prime Minister said that Gen. Hertzog had been Prime Minister for sixteen years, since 1924, by the grace of God, and partly by the grace of himself (the Prime Minister). Does not the hon. member understand the distinction between the grace of God and the grrce of man? But the right hon. the Prime Minister is quite correct. It is generally admitted that if we had had an election before coalition and if the present Prime Minister had not shown what a big man he is by being prepared to take second place, the present Leader of the Opposition would not have been Prime Minister for all these years. Consequently, it is perfectly correct that he ruled for such a long time by the grace of the present Prime Minister. But what is more, the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) also won the election at Calvinia in 1923 by the grace of the present Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister had not flown to Calvinia to induce his supporters there to vote for the hon. member for Piquetberg Mrs. Steenkamp would have been elected there. We have heard a great deal about pressure being brought to bear, but what evidence is there? The name of a man named Henningse has been mentioned, who is supposed to have been dismissed because he refused to take the oath. The Prime Minister immediately had enquiries made and we know now that that contention is devoid of all proof. I am convinced that in 99 out of every 100 cases it will be found that the allegations of the Opposition are unfounded. When I arrived in my constituency I was also told about people being intimidated and dismissed because they would not take the oath. I told the people who made those statements that they were to give me the names in black and white and that if they did so I would take the matter up, but to this day I am still waiting for the names. But this is not the first time that we hear about pressure being brought to bear and about compulsion. Let me remind hon. members of the by-election in Marico when the hon. member for Marico (the Rev. C. W. M. du Toit) make a serious charge against the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) and stated that that hon. member in his capacity of Minister of Lands had forced people to do certain things. I began to think that there was some truth in it until we heard the defence of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, and when it was proved to us how devoid of truth that charge was. We also recollect the serious charges which shortly before the 4th September were made by the old Opposition against the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé) who was alleged to have abused his position as member of the Native Affairs Commission in order to make money. So this is not the first time that we hear charges of this kind, and we know what to do with those allegations. Now I should like to say a few words about the wool position. The Opposition made a very poor show in regard to the wool agreement, and I think it would have been a good thing for them if they had kept perfectly quiet about it. The position of wool as represented by them is not in accordance with the facts. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) had most to say about it, and his contention was that a price of 10¾d. for a lb. of wool did not cover expenses. He also said that something like £160,000,000 had been invested in the wool industry. I do not know what the exact figures are, but that figure appears to be a bit too high.

The department does not say so. That figure has been worked out by them.

It often happens that a department also makes mistakes, just as hon. members opposite do. Before we had the first wool agreement, that was before the war broke out, the average price was 8d. per lb. One day I met the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) in Cape Town. There was a prospect of our getting even less than 8d. He wanted the Government to do something to bring up the price to 10d. So that was ¾d. less than the price which we are getting to-day.

Have not things changed at all since those days?

If the hon. member doubts my word, he must have a very poor memory. He is a practical farmer. We are now going to get about £10,000,000 for our wool. Let us assume for argument’s sake that an amount of £160,000,000 has been invested in sheep farming. Then £10,000,000 is a reasonable return. But is that the only income which the sheep farmer has from his sheep?

The skins, which he cannot sell.

If the hon. member looks so badly after his sheep that they die, it is not our fault. It is not only the wool which provides the sheep farmer with his income. He also gets lambs and hon. members opposite know the old saying that a farmer derives his preatest profits out of the increase of his stock. If hon. members would only bear that in mind they would not come along here with so many fallacies. Because if a man has 3,000 sheep and he does not get less than 12 lbs. of wool from his sheep ….

On an average?

That hon. member farms on sour veld. I am taking now of Karroo veld. Karroo veld gives one 10s. per sheep. I am speaking about full-grown sheep and that does not only pay the interest but it is sufficient, too, to enable the farmer to provide for the needs of his farm and of his family. The general basis which is taken for a sound investment in sheep farming is that the ground on which your sheep run does not cost more than £3. Reckon that at 5 per cent., that is to say 3s., then it leaves you 7s.

Are there no other expenses?

Yes, but the hon. member does not take the lambs into account. Many farmers have side lines, but in any case the sheep farmers will make an additional £5,000,000 to £6,000,000 out of lambs and surplus sheep, and consequently that would give one a reasonable income for the sheep farmers.

What do you get for sheep that die?

If one looks well after one’s sheep one does not suffer very heavy losses. The Opposition has been talking about an open market. What were the prospects? They think of Japan and America. The position in regard to Japan has altered considerably. Japan is no longer able to pay 84d. as it used to do in the past. We have artificial fibre to-day and we are never going to get the same high prices for wool again that we used to get in the past.

But England loves us so much.

I am pleased to notice that the hon. member realises that, because so far as the wool agreement is concerned I say emphatically that the farmers are grateful for the agreement. Our farmers accept it. It is only here and there that one gets a voice crying in the wilderness which is opposed to it for political reasons.

That is how the S.A.P.’s also talked in the last war.

The sheep farmers at Graaff-Reinet are so grateful for the agreement that they came together and decided to hand over 5s. per bale to the war fund.

They also talked like that in the last war.

Those hon. members are still living in the past. I say emphatically that without the agreement our farmers would on the open market instead of getting 10¾d. only have got 6d. on an average. I challenge the Opposition to disprove it. The hon. member for Cradock is a practical farmer. Does he expect that when out of a crowd of hamels and wool the best hamels and the best lines have been selected, anyone will be prepared to buy the poor lines? I finally want to say that I realise the necessity of these war measures. Let hon. members opposite for a moment compare these measures with those which the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) had suggested to apply to South Africa in the event of our remaining neutral. So far as I am personally concerned, and I am satisfied that that applies to all hon. members here, we support these measures because they are needed for the security of the country. No sacrifice is too big. We are not only fighting for our freedom, but also for the existence of our people.

It is peculiar that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward) began his speech by trying to explain that there actually were Afrikaans-speaking people sitting on his side as well, and that he also represented Afrikaans-speaking people. We are always hearing that from the other side, as if they had a guilty conscience. How does he represent the Afrikaans-speaking people? In the area he represents the Afrikaans-speaking people are not allowed to hold a public meeting in the town hall, while the jingoes and the English can hold just as many meetings in the town hall as they wish.

You know that that is not so.

It is quite true. The Afrikaners are refused the use of the town hall for political reasons, and I thought that he, if he is an Afrikaner, would get up and disapprove of the fact that the Afrikaners who sent him here were refused permission to meet in the town hall.

Show me the refusal.

I am now speaking of Port Elizabeth. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) expressed not a word of disapproval of it. Now the Prime Minister comes and moves these measures in a country which we hope will be independent and free shortly, a country which will belong to the people. To-day we have a national debt of £290,000,000, apart from the war expenses which will now have to be added, and we have a white population of 2,000,000 who will have to bear it. The Minister of Defence finds it necessary to introduce these measures to carry on his war in the way that he considers best, and of course the expenses will go up still higher. If we were to carry on war actively there might be some excuse for the measures, but what impression must we get from a declaration of war when the commander-in-chief and the adjutant-general, or whatever it may be, are not on the battlefield but sitting in this House? There are numbers of so-called soldiers in this House. That is their way of making war. Now other people have to be compelled to go and fight, but they do not need these measures. There is, as it is, a censor in our country who prevents you from writing about a republic, from speaking about liberty or imperialism. It is being stopped. I have a pamphlet before me here in which certain expressions, certain statements were forbidden to be exhibited on the screen. It was the chief censor who would not allow such things to appear on the screen. The chief censor said that it was done “for the sake of the maintenance of peace and order in the state.” That is the reason which is given. The first is in connection with the “lie and rot story.” We have always been told by the other side that if we did not take part in the war then our produce would lie and rot here. Now the censor prohibits the following—

It is not in the interests of South Africa for such a thing to be exhibited on the screen, the censor thinks. It might disturb order. And then they will still say that we are living in a free country and that democratic principles are maintained here. The second thing to be suppressed was—

The censor also deleted that, because it was not in the interests of South Africa. I am no longer allowed to say that there is a Divine idea behind the striving after a republic, because it is not in the interests of South Africa. Moreover, I may not argue on economic grounds either, that if we had not entered into the war Great Britain would anyhow have bought our produce. I may not put the question whether a commercial country will ever reject its best customer. I may not say that Great Britain annually sells goods to us of the value of £45,000,000. I may not say that she is our best customer. It is not in the interests of peace and democracy for the facts to be thrown on to the screen. It is not in the interests of the safety of the state. The chief censor was then asked why he deleted those portions, and his reply was—

Those things cannot be shown on the screen. I go still further. On the great event when Afrikaners again shook each other’s hands in the Reunited Party both the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy-Leader made speeches, and out of those also words were quoted. The Leader of the Opposition said, inter alia—

These words also the chief censor did not permit. One Afrikaner may not congratulate his fellow-Afrikaners on the happy occurrence when they have joined up together again. It would endanger the safety of the state, and not be beneficial to law and order! That cannot be revealed to Afrikaners in the so-called democratic country we are living in. The Deputy-Leader of the Opposition said this—

These words the censor also deleted. He may apparently not say that South Africa needs her sons. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) told us here how many Afrikaners were on their side, but throughout he was talking about England and what England required. The only difference is that he sings “There will always be an England” and we on this side sing “There will always be a South Africa.” I have now given examples of things which the censor will not permit in this co-called free and democratic country. On the other hand, I now want once more to bring things to the notice of the Prime Minister things that are actually allowed. I have before me here a pamphlet which was published by the “Non-European United Front of South Africa, P.O. Box 369, Cape Town”. The heading of the pamphlet is “Who caused the riots?” We must now remember what the censor has prohibited, what the Afrikaner is prohibited from saying to his fellow-Afrikaners, and that we are now dealing with a pamphlet which is being sent out by non-Europeans to the coloured people. I find this in it, inter alia, which I want to quote in English—

And then still more, and I want to quote that also—

Immediately after that there follows, with a big black mark next to it—

That is permitted. Pamphlets like that can be circulated in the country to coloured people, but if Afrikaners congratulate each other because they have met together, then it puts the safety of the state in danger. To-day there are some of our most respected Europeans in gaol. Their heads have been shaved and finger impressions have been taken, and they have been humiliated, because they refused to allow themselves to be disarmed. They were disarmed, but here the coloured people are allowed to ask for arms. They want to have arms. Now I would like to ask the Prime Minister this question. If this kind of pamphlet is circulated, cannot the Prime Minister understand why people who have his own blood in their veins, do not want to hand over their arms? I would like to know whether the Prime Minister took any steps against the publishers of this pamphlet. I have only quoted it here to show what a difference is being made, what one side is allowed to publish and what the other side is not allowed to publish, and I am fully entitled to say that these regulations which are now before the House have been introduced against this side of the House, and against this side alone. They are aimed at us. There are vague insinuations made that we belong to subversive societies which undermine the safety of the country. It is not said, however, what those societies are. I have tried to learn from the Prime Minister what those societies are, I could not, however, get an answer, because the Prime Minister says that it is not in the public interest to give me the information. It is certainly just as little in the public interest to say that, than that it will bring the safety of the country into danger if Afrikaners shake hands with each other when they come together again, and which is not allowed to be told to the country. I want, however, to know from the Prime Minister whether he is also aware of the fact that certain other organisations exist in the country, some of which are secret, unnational organisations which preach British imperialism in South Africa, and I would like to know from him whether proceedings are being taken against those organisations. I am not going to follow the line of conduct of the Minister of the Interior by refusing to give the names of such organisations. He comes here making charges of secret subversive organisations, organisations which are sub rosa, but he does not possess the courage to come out publicly with the name of one of them. I am going to give the names here of a number of organisations which stand only for British imperialism, and some of which are secret. There are, in the first place, the following: (1) The South African British Loyal Legion; (2) The Union of English-speaking South Africans; (3) The Racial Unity Group; (4) The Moths, which is a semi-secret organisation; (5) The Citizens’ Equal Rights League; (6) The Overseas League; (7) The Junior Imperial and Constitutional League; (8) The Empire Group; (9) The Union Jack Club; (10) The Bulldog Breed, which is also a semi-secret organisation. And then there are still the Sons of England, the British Empire Service League, the New Guard and the Knights of Truth. Those are all organisations which exist in our country, not to uphold the interests of South Africa, but to promote British imperialism in its worst form. It is those organisations which are behind the street brawls in Cape Town. It is they which inflame the people and which give the coloured populus a Union Jack and tell them that they should go and attack Afrikaners who do not want to play the hypocrite with prayer on the streets. British imperialism is the cause of that. The Prime Minister used threats here this morning.

Against whom were those threats used? They were not used against those organisations, but against Afrikaners, because they believe that it is in the interests of their people to get away from that British imperialism, and who are opposed to this war, it is against them that he used those threats. He threatened us if we were to continue with what he calls our agitation. But there was not one word of threat against these British jingoes and their imperialistic organisations, which are at the back of the attacks which are made on people in our streets. In order to show how British jingoism is at the back of the Government and forcing the Government on, it is only necessary to quote the answers to questions which I put a week ago in this House. On the 27th August I put the following question to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs—

And then again—

To which the Minister’s reply was [translation]—

It is not my object to discuss the merits of the matter now. I am only quoting the answer to show how the British Jingoes have caused the Minister to turn completely round and give a different reply a week later. He said that steps would be taken to restrict the broadcast to Cape Town. On the 10th September I then put the following questions to him—

To which the Minister replied—

I then put a verbal question to the Minister, whether he was going to restrict the broadcasting to Cape Town, and his reply was that they were no longer going to do so. The same people who caused these riots in Cape Town, those same Jingo societies which exist here to promote British imperialism, are behind this Government, and are forcing it to act as they wish. We know that in Port Elizabeth not the slightest trouble was caused because in that town the people stood and wanted to stand still, and the others could walk on in that town. After the troubles occurred in Cape Town, the English-speaking people in Port Elizabeth also started to follow Cape Town’s example. I have already had the experience there that the public are not allowed to hold a meeting in their own hall, for which they pay. After the riots started in Cape Town, attempts were also made in Port Elizabeth to compel people to stand still, and we know what the result was. Let us be very clear. The Afrikaner has the deepest respect for a person who is religious. But just as much as he respects that individual, just so little does he respect the person who uses religion for purposes which are anything but religious. The Afrikaner who walks in the street during the pause acts fully within his rights. The Prime Minister does not say a word to protect him, but he threatens them because they are breaking the law of the land! The people who walk on the street do not break the law; they are obedient to the law. It is the people who make attacks on them who are breaking the law. But the Prime Minister, in this so-called democratic country for which we have to fight, does not say a word against those people who are breaking the law. He is only threatening those who are being attacked. My I ask the Prime Minister whether he is going to permit the opposite thing to be done on the countryside? Just suppose that in a village, such as my village, where the Afrikaners are in the majority—we do not want to be hypocrites there in regard to religion—we were to say that for every Afrikaner that was beaten in Cape Town we would beat two Jingoes on the countryside, what would the Prime Minister do then? Is he also going to give the protection to those people which they are entitled to? Here in Cape Town he says that the people who are beaten are the people who have broken the law. Is he also going to take up that attitude on the countryside? The only way will be for the Afrikaners to protect themselves, if the Prime Minister does not want to protect the Afrikaans-speaking people in the towns. We shall then be obliged to protect ourselves in the best way we can. We do not want to break the law, and if persons in Cape Town do not break the law when they beat Afrikaners, then we also will not be breaking the law on the countryside if we beat a Jingo. I hope that it will not be necessary to do so, and that the Prime Minister will see that it was unfair and unjust of him to threaten us for the sake of that Jingo element which is sitting behind him. It is unfair and unjust of the Prime Minister to use those threats against the blood which flows in his veins and in my veins. I want to say a word to the so-called Labour Party. There are amongst them people who five minutes before they had to come and vote here, said on the train that they would never vote for war, and that they would never in eternity support the Prime Minister’s war policy. Five minutes later they did actually vote for it. There must be a reason for that. We can very well guess what that reason was, but I do not think that we would like to state it in this House. I want, however, to say a word to the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside), who wants to force “God Save the King” down the throats of people in cinemas and such places. I remember when I studied in Scotland the Prince of Wales paid a visit to his town Dundee. His party did not sing “God Save the King” but they walked behind the procession with a banner on which was stated “See the idle rich.” But now we have to sing “God Save the King” here, although his party in Scotland walks about with a banner “See the idle rich” instead of singing “God Save the King.” Let me repeat here what the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) said. If English-speaking hon. members opposite and if English-speaking people abandon their British imperialism and accept South Africa as their country, in the sense not of England first, but in the sense of South Africa first, then this side will be prepared, even proud, to cooperate with the English-speaking people in the interests of South Africa. But the fifty-fifty which they plead for—if the Afrikaner’s mouth is to be muzzled so that he cannot express what is in his heart, and if the Afrikaner has to be enthusiastic about these wars of England, like the so-called Afrikaners opposite, then I can only say that we can never have that view of fifty-fifty. When we express our hearts’ feelings and announce clearly to the world that we stand for the interests of South Africa, and cannot become enthusiastic about this war, we find that hon. members opposite say that we are pro-Nazi and things of that kind. I personally have no objection to any name that they may wish to apply to me. There is only one name that I hope will never be applied to me, and that is the name of a British jingo and a British imperialist. That, in my opinion, is the greatest danger to South Africa. Our great fight in South Africa from the start has been against British imperialism, because we believe it was British imperialism which put our flesh and blood on the roads of the country, and which was the cause of our people being in gaol to-day. The treatment that we are receiving to-day in our own country, and the sorrow that we have suffered are the consequences of British imperialism. As long as these things go on in the country, and as long as these things are forced down in our throats, which the Afrikaner is protesting against to-day, they may call us Nazis, but we will never take part in any war to promote British imperialism. I for my part will even go further. I cannot believe that it is in the interests of South Africa for British imperialism to get the upper hand. What I want to have is the victory of nationalism, and that is why I am sitting here as a supporter of my leader. I am a Nationalist, and I follow him, because he stands for South Africa, and South Africa only and for ever.

I think we can now very readily understand why the Zeesen broadcasting station used to refer to the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) as the Nationalist Socialist Deputy, I am quite sure that very few of the hirelings of Goebbels himself could have made more pro-German speeches than the hon. member who has just sat down. However, he has a grievance. The hon. member is apparently suffering from a very serious sense of suppression. It appears that the Government is imposing certain restrictions on him. One gathers that he is standing up here this afternoon as one of the last bulwarks of democracy.

What are you talking about?

This Government has refused to allow him to run round the country to advocate a republic, and has refused to allow him to say this, that and the other; but if there is one thing which this Government has not been able to do it is to prevent him from talking a lot of silly tosh, and if there was only one good thing resulting from the added powers which we are giving the Government, it would be if the Government were able to stop the hon. member from talking the silly lot of nonsense he did this afternoon. If the Bill could do that, it would be worth while.

Did you understand what I said? You do not even know Afrikaans.

Yes, insofar as it was understandable I understood the hon. member, but there were parts in the hon. member’s speech which, like the grace of God, are beyond understanding. May I just tell the hon. member and his colleagues that I happen to understand a great deal more Afrikaans than they give me credit for, and I can quite probably understand the hon. member better when he speaks Afrikaans than when he reads his ridiculous questions in English. I have seldom listened to such an outpouring of senseless irresponsibilities as those that were delivered by him.

Anyhow, you never said anything worth listening to yourself.

We are faced with one of the biggest crises in South African history, and yet the hon. member can waste the time of the House talking about not having been allowed to publish certain outpourings in his poisoned Press. I write a bit myself, and one does feel annoyed when one’s particular baby is scored through by the sub-Editor or by the censor, but if the stuff he read out to the House was the sort of stuff he wanted to advertise, he should thank the censor for not allowing it to go on record.

You do not even know what I spoke about, I never said that I wrote it.

Well, that is quite enough for the hon. member for Mossel Bay. In spite of the fact that he does not like the song “There will always be an England”, there will always be an England when the hon. member for Mossel Bay has gone down to the “vile dust from which he sprung”. He likes Scotch, so I may as well give him a bit of Scotch poetry. Now the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Rooth) has taken it upon himself to cast reflections upon the courage of individual members of the Labour Party. He suggested that neither the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg), nor myself — I do not know whether he included the hon. member for Durban (North) (the Rev. Miles Cadman) — I really do not think he meant that, had ever heard a shot fired. Well, that is not exactly correct. Of course, as far as it goes I have actually heard a shot fired, and several shots. But in a military sense he is quite correct. But what has that to do with it? He then said that neither the hon. member for Krugersdorp nor myself had any military ability. We never claimed to have any, but perhaps like the chap who was asked whether he could play the piano, and who replied: “I am not sure, I have never tried,” we may have a certain amount of military ability, and the hon. member for Krugersdorp may perhaps have a considerable amount. At any rate, the hon. member for Zoutpansburg is not in a position to judge whether the jobs which the hon. member for Krugersdorp and myself are doing are beyond our ability. The hon. member waxed very eloquent about the money we are earning. I have not had any yet, so I do not know whether I have earned it, but I suggest to the hon. member that he still draws his £700 per year in this House, and he still goes back to his home town and carries on his practice. We have had the spectacle, and we have it now, of there being eight front benchers, yet there are only two of these front brenchers present, and I assume that while the country is paying these gentlemen £700 per year for their work they are in Pretoria looking after their private practice, those of them who are lawyers, or after their farms, those of them who are farmers. Where is hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga)? Where is the hon. member for Gezina. (Mr. Pirow), of whom the hon. member for Zoutpansberg is such an outstanding Mbonga? I suppose the hon. member for Gezina is probably trying to recreate the threads of a practice which he lost many years ago. I want to tell the hon. member there when he speaks about members of Parliament being paid an additional salary, that for five years in this House hon. member’s colleagues drew millions in direct subsidy from the Government as farmers, while they were sitting in this House, and the hon. member for Fauresmith, when I, on one occasion asked him to supply me with a list of the members of this House who were drawing a subsidy—incidentally including the hon. member for Fauresmith himself—paid directly from the Government, together with the amounts, said that it would occupy too much of the time of the staff of his department, so I never got the figures. So the hon. member for Zoutpansberg should not try to score a small point like that, because the Labour Party members happen to have been appointed to particular positions.

Not because they have been appointed, but because they are not suited for the positions.

What special experience does one want for the particular jobs which my colleague and myself are doing? The hon. member does not know what we are doing, so just as the hon. member was on the wrong track in the Schlesinger business, he is again talking through his hat, and while we are talking about courage, what a magnificent courage did the hon. member display on that occasion? He was wrong, hopelessly wrong. He was convicted out of his own mouth of accusing Mr. Schlesinger of something which happened before Mr. Schlesinger came to the country, and he did not apologise and he has not the moral courage to apologise.

As usual you are quite wrong.

Oh, no, I am quite right.

. And you ran away to Rhodesia before the debate came off, instead of staying to see it through.

I read the documents and the hon. member was challenged by Mr. Schlesinger to apologise and he did not do it.

I proved all I said. What made you change your views about Schlesinger?

I have not changed my views about Schlesinger. But when I put forward cases in this House my cases are based on facts. I do not come along and tell a lot of silly stories like those that were told by the hon. member, and like that which was told by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). I do not come into the House and say that I have been savagely attacked in a railway train when the facts are that there is very serious doubt whether such an attack ever took place. The hon. member asked whether we had the ability to do the jobs to which we have been appointed. He is a lawyer and he went specialty to Pretoria to get the facts about Mr. Schlesinger. He made a very poor job of it—he got hold of things which happened 60 years ago.

That is not so.

Of course, I am sorry to have do this, but we have to retaliate when these attacks are made. Is the hon. member going to tell us that the two members of his party who are drawing an extra £1,000 a year because they were put on the Native Affairs Commission know anything about natives? Have they had any special training, or is it a fact that under our Parliamentary system, particularly as it is applied in South Africa, and the system which the hon. member has supported for many years on these particular benches ….

Which you are continuing now.

It is the custom that a good party Whip always gets a good job in the long run. Can he deny that two members over there were appointed by his present Leader, not for any knowledge of the natives, but because of their ability as party Whips? His attempt to reprove sin in this particular instance, is too funny for words. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Rooth) ought to get his facts a little clearer. He should also remember that courage is not a particular attribute of him or his party. I have never known the hon. member display any particular political courage, I do not know that he has ever fought in a war. He suggests that we have never heard a shot fired, and the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow), whose M’Bonga he is, has also never heard a shot fired, but he has been fighting wars in this country ever since I can remember, he is a man who has always been talking about wars, but he has never actually fought in a war. He is the man who twelve months ago told an astonished country that he would give a lead at the proper moment, and one assumes that the lead he would give would be in the line of using some sort of physical force against the people who disagreed with him. I am satisfied that as far as my friend from Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg), I do not speak for myself, I am quite satisfied that he will stand up to a shot being fired, and a number of shots being fired, just as well and probably better, than the hon. member for Gezina, and if we are to judge from the hon. member for Zoutpansberg’s political record in the line of moral courage, a great deal better than the hon. member for Zoutpansberg. This is the kind of talk we get from the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop), who wishes the Government to eliminate certain organisations which he says are the tools of British imperialism. He includes in these organisations the M.O.T.H.S. Apparently he does not understand that in the M.O.T.H.S. there are members who were burghers and who fought for the old republics in the Boer war. He does not understand it, of course, because for all his talk he is not eligible to join the M.O.T.H.S. If they ever create an institution for men who did a considerable amount of fighting with their tongues then I am quite satisfied that the hon. member for Mossel Bay will be M.O.T.H. No. 1, or Old Bill No. 1, as the case may be. I notice that he made one serious omission. He wants to eliminate the M.O.T.H.S., the Overseas League, the Union Jack Club and the Sons of England, but why he forgot the Caledonian Society I do not know, and I would like him to explain whether it is only these organisations which are the minions of British imperialism, and that the Scotsmen and the Caledonian Society have somehow managed to get away from that idea. The hon. member should know perfectly well that the organisations he mentioned play no part in the political life of this country. They are organisations which for cultural and other social reasons gather together people whose origins are alike. We have still to hear that the M.O.T.H.S. or the League or the Union Jack Club, the Caledonian Society or the Cambrian Society or the Londoners’ Society have ever interfered actively in politics. The same cannot be said of the so-called cultural organisations that we have in this country. I cannot imagine the Caledonian Society inventing a new kind of catchword and shouting with clenched fist raised, “We want freedom!” I don’t think the Caledonian Society would last two minutes if they tried that. But that is the kind of society we have here. We have secret meetings — I really think these chaps are suffering from over-indulgence in Edgar Wallace — we have secret meetings, the sword held to the neck, and the neck pricked till blood comes, and the members have to swear a serious oath. The funny part of it is that the more secrecy there is the more the Press seems to know about it. That is the strange things about these organisations, that these oaths and the pricking of the neck, and the drawing of blood, and all these things that most of us put away when we were about thirteen years of age, do not seem to impress, because the members turn round and give the whole game away. These things whilst they are amusing — and anything in these days that provides us with amusement is welcome — but at the same time they are dangerous; they contain the seeds of possible danger in the future. Those of us who have studied the life of Herr Hitler will know that he started in almost precisely the same kind of way. Knowing the kind of feeling our friends have for the Nazi philosophy. I think it is necessary that the Government should be given the powers provided for in this Bill. I trust the Government is going to take serious steps that secret political organisations, such as the Ossewabrandwag and the Handhawersbond, are dealt with and brought into the light of day. We don’t want to deprive anybody of the right of political organisation. In South Africa we have always possessed a sufficiency of freedom to make secret organisations and secret methods stupid. We have nothing to prevent political organisations which work in the open, and when we find that political parties are being responsible for building up secret organisations, even if they are run in ridiculous wild Western lines, we are justified in assuming that these organisations exist for subversive purposes, and the Government is justified, and I hope they are going to do it when they get these powers, in using them to the fullest possible extent to eliminate secret political organisations of all descriptions. We have sufficient democracy in this country to allow the hon. member for Mossel Bay to come to the House and entertain it for 35 minutes. Free discussion is the safety valve of the nation, and anybody who has a political idea and gets elected to Parliament — how some of them get elected I don’t know — he can come here and put his ideas before the people. We of the Labour Party have been attacked. The hon. member for Mossel Bay seems to hark back rather longingly to the days when the Labour Party, sitting on the Opposition benches, used to be in the forefront of the fight for democracy. I seem to remember that we never got any assistance from the hon. member for Mossel Bay. As a matter of fact the record of the Labour Party speeches will show that in the majority of instances they were directed against the Nationalist Party of the day. We did, of course, attack any infringement of members’ rights. We put up some stiff fights in that regard, but when we came down to the question of democracy we usually attacked the members of the Nationalist Party. In fact I remember we told the then Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice many years ago the story of the infiltration of Nazi ideology in the Union, and in those days the present Prime Minister, who was then Minister of Justice, apparently did not place much credence in the stories we told. Subsequent events have, however, justified us. We are still standing as the champions of democracy. Democracy must be saved. I know you, sir, will not allow me to go into the merits of the war, but we voted as we did for the war, because we are determined to preserve democracy, even if we have to go to the limit of giving extraordinary powers to the Government. To preserve democracy we are prepared to do that. A situation has arisen through the irresponsibility of the Opposition that has made those powers necessary. The hon. member for Mossel Bay apparently once went to some kind of a show in Dundee where, instead of singing “God Save the King,” the Labour Party sang “Down with the Idle Rich.” Well, from my knowledge of Scotsmen and the Labour Party there I don’t think they would ever do anything so silly. I doubt the veracity of the story. The Scottish Labour Party is built up on a sound foundation; it is an intellectual party, and they don’t waste their time in singing silly songs like “Down with the Idle Rich.” In any case the attitude of the Labour Party in Great Britain to-day is a sufficient answer to the hon. member fo r Mossel Bay. Í want to go back to the hon. member for Zoutpansberg. To my astonishment he sneered in every possible way at England, at the English people, at England’s war effort and Great Britain generally, and then suddenly blossomed out as an apostle of peace and a fifty-fifty policy in South Africa, and expounded the theory that the two races must come together. He accused the Prime Minister of being the one man who was consistently fanning the embers of racialism in South Africa.

You misquote everything I said about him.

Well, the hon. member ought to know what he says. The hon. member, pointing a declamatory finger at the Prime Minister, accused him of being responsible for stirring up racialism in South Africa. I am a bit of an iconoclast in politics myself. I don’t believe much in hero worship, and so whatever I may say about the Prime Minister you can pretty well take it that I am not suffering from any kind of hero worship. But I want to say whatever failings the Prime Minister may have had politically, the stirring up of racialism is not one of them. Right through his career he has held in his own particular way to the course of trying to bring the two races together. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg is of a different calibre of fifty-fifty people. The hon. member and his leader, the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) and his new deputy-leader, for whom he has suddenly developed so much political affection, belong to the type of South African politicians who say that we must have a single united nation in South Africa, but we must have it by absorbing the English-speaking people into Afrikanerdom.

That is not so either.

I could quote you speeches after speeches by the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) and the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), and as for the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), if I gathered what he really means, he would have a united nation by the simple expedient of slitting the throat of every English-speaking South African. That is the impression I got from the hon. member, his real job in life is to make this united nation by putting us all up against the wall and shooting us with that rifle for which he got a permit. That is the theory advanced by the hon. members opposite. My speeches in this House are just a reaction to the kind of stuff that we have got to listen to from the other side. I stand here and deliberately say that never on any occasion in this House have I attempted to put forward an English-speaking point of view if it has not been in reply to repeated attacks, innuendoes and slanders which have come from the Nationalist Party. It is very simple in this country to bring the two races together as far as the English-speaking people are concerned. There are very few jingoes here on the English-speaking side. The majority of them have been born here. What surprises me is the almost incredible audacity of some of the younger members of the Opposition, because many of the English-speaking people in South Africa, whom the hon. member for Mossel Bay is prepared to call jingoes and imperialists, were in this country before the hon. member was born, or even before he was thought of. That is a fact. We have thousands and thousands of English-speaking people born in the Union, and born ten, fifteen and twenty years before many of those hon. members over there were born, and yet these hon. members have the incredible audacity of saying that these people are not true South Africans, and put themselves forward as being the real and only true South Africans. Mr. Speaker, I came to this country 35 years ago myself, but to listen to the hon. member for Mossel Bay and the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) you would think that I only left the slums of Glasgow the night before last.

The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

The hon. member for Zoutpansberg apparently seems to think that he can insult our sentiments when he can drag, as he literally did drag the name of Britain in the mud, and then turn round and say: “I am prepared to compromise with you, but to compromise on my terms.” I want to say definitely, and in this I am satisfied I speak for the majority of the English-speaking people, we are not having any compromise on those terms. We are prepared to come together as a united South African nation — indeed we are anxious to do so — but we are only prepared to do that when the members of the Nationalist Party realise that a united South African nation must be a nation which has developed from two sides, and one in which each section can contribute of its own culture, language and tradition. We are not having any compromise if we are told we have to forget that we ever came from England, or spoke English, before we are going to be accepted by Afrikanerdom. I have very little doubt as to the future. Perhaps in one way good things might come out of this war, perhaps in one way we can take a step towards coming together as a result of this war. That is why I am anxious to support the third reading of this Bill. I am perfectly satisfied that one of the most potent weapons in the world is propaganda. Looking over the history of the last year, the history of this war has shown us that the Germans have won specific battles by propaganda promulgated two or three years ago. To-day we have to take cognisance of propaganda, to-day we cannot lightly dismiss even the most irresponsible vapourings, such as have been uttered in various parts of the country. I know that in certain parts of the country a lying campaign is being conducted, and conducted very efficiently, which is giving an entirely wrong view of the war and of South Africa. In certain places it is being thumped into people who are not in a position to verify the actual facts, that Great Britain is losing the war, and that Afrikaans-speaking citizens are being imprisoned in thousands. We had an incident not long ago where one of the official organs of these people published an entirely lying story about lorry loads of blood-stained uniforms coming down from the North, and we have to recognise that we have to deal with a type of propaganda which is prepared to sink to the level of these filthy libels. We are dealing with a type of propaganda that has been inspired by Mein Kampf, a book sacred to my hon. friend. In that book Herr Hitler says that if you want to tell a lie you must tell a big lie, and you must keep on lying all the time. That is the theory expounded in that particular book, and it is the theory which is being pursued by people in this country. I feel we ought to give the Government this power, because the Government will have to deal with this question of propaganda, and I am satisfied that legitimate propaganda during the war will not come under the ban of the Government under these powers which will be used in a sane and sensible manner. I am satisfied about that, because the history of the last twelve months has shown us that the powers which the Government has had have been exercised moderately and, in my opinion, entirely too leniently. If I had had anything to do with the matter I would have put the hon. member for Wolmaransstad in gaol immediately for a speech that he made, because he is a responsible man, a member of Parliament, and open defiance of a government in time of war is a crime which should be punished by taking away parliamentary rights.

There was no legal authority for the regulation.

He did not know anything about the legality of the matter, neither did you. As a matter of fact, an outstanding point about the whole position is that they were fighting the question of rights and not the question of legality. They were on the question of disarming these poor farmers who, the hon. member told us, were going about in nightly terror of their lives because of some so-called native rising. The legality of the position was something they found out afterwards. In the case of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad he was not prepared to obey the ordinary regulations issued by the Government. As a matter of fact, if it had not been for the incompetence of the hon. member for Gezina, the new-found leader of the hon. member for Mossel Bay, the Government would never have issued the order. The order was issued because we had no rifles, and that was because of the incompetence of the hon. member for Gezina, and when there were rifles in the country it was surely the duty of the individuals to hand them in. These are the reasons why I wish to support the Bill. I am quite satisfied that the speeches made by the members opposite were not the speeches they intended to make two or three months ago. Two or three months ago, when they started the peace campaign, they were quite satisfied that Great Britain had been finally overwhelmed. The hon. member accused the Britishers of running like rats in a trap; their argument was a rat-in-a-trap argument, because they were not going to argue the merits of the case, but they were going to say Great Britain is now beaten, and we must run away in case anything happens in this country, and we must make friends with the enemy. That point of view has been put forward on platforms, namely that it is the duty of South Africa to go and make peace with the victor, in order that South Africa might be left alone. And these were the kind of speeches they were going to make there. But they have now to be put in the wastepaper basket. I want to say a final word to the hon. member for Zoutpansberg. We don’t want his sympathy for London: the people of London will get on very well without his sympathy, and South Africa will get on very well with the large number of loyal South Africans of both English-speaking parentage and Afrikaans-speaking parentage who are prepared and have joined up in order to defend their country anywhere in Africa. [Time limit.]

This war measure which originates from the war policy of the Prime Minister and his supporters contains alarming powers which are now to be given to the Government, powers which will only be abused, according to the view of this side of the House, for the further oppression of that section of the people who do not agree with the war policy. This measure is being defended by the opposite side of the House, and one of the protagonists of it thought fit to use this argument. He said that on the 4th September they had the majority in this House, and took this step of declaring war. They were to-day in the fortunate position of representing the opinion of the people by their policy, and he said that the people would approve of this measure because it was in the interests of the people. Hon. members opposite further said that they represent the intelligence of the population of our country. We know how the Government got its majority on the 4th September, and let us now just for a moment test to what extent hon. members, let us say certain hon. members opposite, represent the intelligent section of the population. We commence with the hon. members who represent the natives.

The hon. member must keep to the Bill, and those matters have nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, one of the hon. members opposite said that the Government stood on solid ground because the people were behind the Government in connection with these proposals, and he described that section which stood behind the Government as the intelligent section of the population.

But we cannot test the intelligence here of members of the House of Assembly.

Very well, Mr. Speaker, I will not pursue the matter further. I will only say that when I look at the other side of the House then I think that it denies the statement of the hon. member if he speaks of hon. members opposite as representing the intelligent section of the population. But now let us examine the other reasons which hon. members opposite gave why the Government should pass this measure. When we examine their speeches we find that they have only given one main reason for the introduction of this Bill, and that is that the circumstances have changed in the country, and as a proof of that they mention that secret societies have arisen in the country, which have to be suppressed by a measure like this. They said that we must give these powers to the Government for that purpose. I say that that is not the reason why the Government is passing the measure. They have given us no other reason, and I say, judging by the speeches of those hon. members, the only reason why the Government want to have these powers is because they want to oppress us so that we will not be in a position to keep the people informed about the murderous steps by means of which the Prime Minister is dragging our people down into the abyss. That is the one object of this Bill. Let us now enquire what the secret societies are. Hon. members opposite mentioned two, namely, the Ossewa-Brandwag and the Handhawersbond. These organisations are purely and simply cultural societies, to which hon. members of this House sitting opposite, or their supporters, also belong. These societies are not of a political and secret nature. Now, what else did they say? They say that those organisations may possibly interfere with the policy of the Government. These cultural associations were established for the very reason of bringing to the oppressed section of the people the consciousness that it is being oppressed by tyrannical action, and that it must struggle on so that it will not be drowned in the stream against which those societies were established. No speaker on the opposite side gave the slightest proof that these organisations wanted to cause trouble in the country, and that they want to do anything else than maintain the rights of the Afrikaans-speaking section of the people in our own country. The Minister of the Interior exhibited a jacket here. That jacket does not belong to one of the cultural associations, and I repeat that the aim of these cultural associations is to win their rights for the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population, and to encourage them. We have a type of person in South Africa who also calls himself an Afrikaner such as the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Bumside), but I say that he less than any hon. member on that side, that he has the very least right of calling himself an Afrikaner, because he does not know what the traditions of this people are. He is unilingual, and did not know our country until the time when he blew over here from Scotland in a gale to come and make his living here. I ask you what right a person like him has to come and speak contemptuously about the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population, when the representatives of that section of the people uphold the rights of the Afrikaners here? What is more, has he the right to speak about co-operation and rapprochement when he uses foul and abusive language here against that section of the population which is represented by us. Can we be expected to co-operate with people like him? I say that the action of those hon. members opposite is such that that rapprochement spirit which might possibly be exhibited in our country, is now disappearing, and that the separation is always becoming wider and wider, with the result that the possibility of establishing a harmonious Afrikaans nation here has possibly been frustrated for ever. Then we have the Afrikaans-speaking members opposite who, like so-called champions of freedom, along with hon. members such as the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) sing “God Save the King” and “There will always be an England” and then concur in an oppressive measure like this, which will enable the Jingoes in the country to insult us, and who have an enjoyable laugh with those Jingoes when the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population is insulted. And when they rise in this House then they reproach us that we are engaged in bringing about separation and discord in the country. That sin is recorded against them—the sin of causing separation in the country is put to their account and not to ours. We are not allowed to have any organisations to build up our culture and national life, but our friends on the opposite side can have their societies like the British Empire Service League, the Sons of England, the New Guard, the Jewish Board of Deputies, the Caledonian Society, and then this Khaki Legion which we have recently got here. Let them continue with their cultural societies, if we can call those organisations cultural societies. We will say nothing about them; we will not interfere with them. We have no concern with them, but why then will they not give us an opportunity of building up our organisations, so that we can reach the ideals that we long for, and which will permit our coming into our rights. We have had the proofs in this House that the Knights of Truth are using foreign money in order to defeat Afrikanerdom. Over there, opposite, we see the magnanimous member for Springs (Mr. Sutter). He wanted to defend himself here, but the impression he gave us was that of a bush tick on ah ox’s tail which imagines it can swallow up the ox.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker, but may I say that he made the impression here of a ghostly apparition to make an apology for his subversive campaign, and made the feeblest defence. If we want to promote our culture in the country, then those hon. friends opposite speak of nothing else but that we are Nazis, that we are proGerman and that we want Hitler to win the war. I am not so keen on Hitler winning the war, but from the first day when we had the proofs that England was going under in this war, we found that the Prime Minister and his supporters opposite, as true followers of the policy of ruin, were engaged in dragging this side into the abyss as well, and then it became our duty to protest against that murderous policy.

The hon. member must keep to the Bill.

The Prime Minister said we were blind to the facts. We could not see the necessity for these measures! No, we are not blind to the facts, but it seems to me that the Prime Minister, together with his followers, are actually blind to the consequences of their policy, blind because they have been blindfolded with the Union Jack, and only see stripes and no longer see right and justice. That is the reason that they are moving this oppressive measure which is intended to oppress us on this side, so that we may not be able to stand up for the interests of the Afrikaans-speaking section of the people. The Prime Minister told us that he had commandeered the rifles because he required them for the Defence Force. You will possibly stop me if I wanted to enlarge on that, but may I just ask how is it possible for a man who is at the head of our Government to declare war against a nation of 120,000,000 people without having rifles to fight with?

Is that not a proof that the Prime Minister, together with those who support him, is engaged on a policy which leads to the abyss? The rifles are necessary to our Defence Force — and with those, some of them bent and rusted old “sannas” — are our men to be sent with them to go and defend the country? The next step under this Bill will be that the citizens of the country will be commandeered. The commandeering of citizens is implied in this measure. When this involuntary volunteer army which is in the north to carry out this aggressive war has to retire to the borders of the Union — and we do not know exactly where they happen to be — then the people will be commandeered to go and carry on this murderous war of the Prime Minister, and to go and stop the advancing forces. Has the Prime Minister the right, after the humiliation which he committed against the Afrikaner people by taking their rifles away from them, has he the right after the lack of confidence which he showed in the people, by disarming them, can he have the right and the liberty to commandeer us now to go and prosecute that aggressive war? He may have the power to do so under this Bill, and those slavish followers who follow him in everything that is wrong, may support him in it, will so far as we know them, sacrifice themselves along with the Prime Minister to the last man and the last sovereign in South Africa for the empire. He will commandeer. But let me tell him that Afrikanerdom may be disarmed, their rifles have been handed in and they have been humiliated to the depths. But of their freedom and honour you cannot deprive them, and for those things they will be prepared to be ruined. When the Prime Minister commandeers the citizens of the country, then he will be met with opposition on all hands. After the rifles were commandeered, I told the people that after this lack of confidence of the Government in the citizens of the country, I did not consider it necessary for them to take up arms to protect this Government in its aggressive war. Now it is said that we will be commandeered for duty and honour. What honour is at stake when we are convinced that this war is a war of Great Britain’s? What honour is at stake when we know our history and we know that this war is Great Britain’s war? We have been ruined and uprooted in our country by Great Britain, and what honour are we to get for it now by going to fight for the country which is the cause of all the misery that we have had to endure? What duty rests upon us? We are a sovereign country. We have sovereign independence, and the only duty that rests on us is to maintain our independence and freedom by remaining out of the quarrels of England, and by not bothering ourselves about the measures which the Prime Minister is taking in connection with his war. The Prime Minister knows that the Afrikaner people, from the earliest years, have been oppressed and impoverished. They could not, however, kill us, and they will not succeed in killing us by this Bill either. It will never curb the spirit of freedom of the Afrikaners, and drive it out of them. We will keep on fighting against tyranny until we have obtained that ideal in South Africa for which we have already suffered and sacrificed much, and that is the ideal of a free South African republic, and then we will take our revenge.

I am pleased to see that the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) has returned to the House as I requested him to, because this afternoon in his opening remarks he seemed to take umbrage at what my colleague, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward) has said. Unfortunately he happened to glance my way and somehow did not like my looks, and he devoted his attention to me and in some devious way he seemed to hold me responsible for some of the things which had happened, or did not happen to him on his recent visit to Port Elizabeth, I think on the 18th of last month. Now the hon. member, in his characteristic tirade of misstatements and distortions, seemed in some peculiar way to hold me responsible for the fact that he was unable to obtain a Municipal hall in which to hold a meeting in Port Elizabeth. How that comes about I cannot for the life of me understand.

I never said it.

You inferred it.

Why should he have it?

That is the point, why should he have it? I think it is my duty to explain the position as far as I can with regard to the letting of these halls. All I know about it is that I have read the report of a meeting held by the City Council of Port Elizabeth, and I notice that they passed a resolution that they would not let their public halls for any meetings which might lead to violence; they did not say Nationalist meetings, or non-European meetings — they said any meetings which might lead to violence, and in addition they said that the fees for the hall must be paid in advance.

Ah, that is it.

I do not know whether it is due to the fact that the fees were not paid in advance.

Do not talk nonsense.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay is telling me not to talk nonsense. I want to say that what I am telling the House is the absolute truth.

It is not.

It is the absolute truth.

Did not the ex-mayor say that if the Prime Minister came, or if your side came, they could get the hall?

The hon. member must not hold me responsible for what the municipal authorities may or may not do. I am telling him what the resolution was which was passed by the council.

I am afraid that this discussion is irrelevant. The hon. member should not reply to “looks” on the other side.

I want to say that I cannot allow statements to go forth which are a reflection on my town without replying to them. I do not as a rule indulge in personalities or anything of that nature, but when a member gets up and makes statements about my own town or about my own municipality I must refute them.

Yes, the hon. member is entitled to do that, but he goes about it in rather a roundabout way.

I just wanted to refer to that resolution to explain the reasons why the hon. member could not obtain one of the municipal halls. I thought it referred particularly to the City Hall. Having said that I also want to go on to tell the House that the hon. member held a meeting that night on the outskirts of my constituency, and arising out of that meeting certain scenes of violence took place, and a certain number of non-Europeans had to be taken to the hospital for medical treatment. Now that proves conclusively that the municipal authorities were justly within their rights in fearing that there might be trouble had they granted the hon. member’s request for the use of the City Hall, and it is very apparent from the tone of his remarks in this House this afternoon that he does not speak with any pacific intention whatsoever.

Did you listen to me?

I do not want to strain your patience too much, Mr. Speaker. I realise that you are placed in a very ambiguous position in having to listen to what is passed over the floor of this House during this debate, and I would be one of the first to say that you have endeavoured to use your influence to keep the debate on a much higher plane than it has been during the last few hours. Now, to come back to the question of the powers to make regulations which the Government have asked for, and which the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) has said are unnecessary. The hon. member said that the Prime Minister should have asked for military law. Personally I disagree with the hon. member for Piquetberg in asking for martial law to be applied in this country. I think myself that that is one of the last things which we want to see applied here. I very much prefer to be able to deal with the civil courts rather than to have martial law. Martial law is the very last thing which we should use to control the activities of a section of the people of this country. But I do contend that it is absolutely imperative and essential that the Government should have greater powers than it has now, and I do not think that the Prime Minister and his Government are asking for anything too much here. Reference was made by one of the speakers this afternoon to the powers asked for by the British Government to deal with the war situation over there, and he mentioned that a great outcry was made against the death penalty. I remember that not very long before the war broke out the British Government found it necessary to impose the death penalty on dynamitards who were blowing up buildings and endangering the lives of people. We have the same position here; we have people who are using dynamite and damaging property, and who are endangering the lives of the people of this country.

It may be the Moths.

And I contend that there is only one way of dealing with people of that sort, and that is to put the fear of death into them. In no other way can they be controlled. If people deliberately endeavour to break the laws of this country and trade on the generosity of the Government to escape the logical consequences of their evil deeds, then there is only one way, one step, for the Government to take.

Let your Prime Minister take the responsibility.

Then again we come to the position of having control of some of the speeches and propaganda made not only in this House but in the countryside, and on public platforms, and I contend that a great deal of what has been said by some of my friends opposite can be characterised as nothing short of incitement to violence — of nothing short of sedition.

The hon. member should not make an accusation of that kind.

Possibly it is rather a hard statement to make, but on the other hand one has to remember that when one reads the kind of speeches made by some hon. members inside and outside of this House, and also made by certain gentlemen outside this House, one is inclined to put a harsh construction on the meaning of those speeches.

The hon. member is not entitled to accuse other hon. members of a criminal offence unless he brings a substantive motion. He must not pursue that point.

I am sorry that I have transgressed. I must say that I have heard things said from the opposite benches during this session which are just as harsh and just as untrue as anything I have said.

Order!

What are you talking about?

He is talking about something which he knows nothing about.

If my hon. friend over there (Mr. G. Bekker) (Cradock), who thinks he knows so much about wool and who has made so many misstatements, would allow me to continue with my remarks, instead of making silly interjections ….

Well, then do not talk such silly nonsense.

I notice that some of my friends—and I have some friends over there—are getting rather upset. I have a great admiration for some of those hon. gentlemen, although I differ from them, but I do realise that even one’s friends may have mistaken ideas, and even one’s friends may commit actions which one deprecates.

Just carry on.

And that I am afraid is the position with some of my friends on the opposite brenches. Now I want to join issue with the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp).

Another of your friends.

I listened to him to-day when he made use of the statement that these greater powers asked for by the Government were asked for for the purpose of oppressing Afrikanerdom. Well, Mr. Speaker, he may believe that or he may not, but I do suggest that anything the hon. member says in this House during the time of war is suspect. I do not want to go into my reasons for that, it is well known to a large number of people in this country, but I do contend that when the hon. member talks about the Government and its powers during war time, he is absolutely suspect. Another thing I want to deal with is a matter raised by the hon. member for Mossel Bay—and it is something pertinent to the discussion— the question of the pause. He made particular reference to the observance of the noonday pause in Port Elizabeth. We pride ourselves, or we did until recently, and some of us still do—we pride ourselves on being a democratic country and on being governed by democratic principles.

Oh!

And part of that system of democratic government consists of local boards and municipalities being empowered to make by-laws and make regulations to suit local conditions, and usually those powers are exercised by the people who represent a majority, a majority of the viewpoints of the citizens of the particular towns of which they are the governors. And in this particular case I take it that the Municipality of Port Elizabeth has instituted the noon-day pause because they believed that the majority of the citizens of Port Elizabeth required and desired to observe it. I want to say this, that whether it is right or wrong, two wrongs don’t make a right, and because a municipality in any particular town imposes something on the people which a section of the community does not agree with that section has no right to organise and incite to violence. If my information is correct, that is what was done in Port Elizabeth last Saturday at the noon-day pause. Unless we are prepared to respect what the other side stand for, there is no future for this country. I am not a racialist, and no man can accuse me of going out of my way to say things that will hurt, unless I have been hurt first. I feel very strongly that some of our Afrikaans friends are not making sufficient allowances for the feelings of the English-speaking people of this country, and I want to ask this, what would have been said had the English-speaking people interfered with the Voortrekker movement that took place in this country not so long ago. That would have been resented to the utmost, and I want to tell these hon. gentlemen that we resent this organised effort to break down what certain towns are doing with regard to the pause. I am not going to say that I am a particular believer in the pause, I don’t think it is altogether necessary, but I don’t go out of my way to observe it or put myself in a position where I have got to observe it. But if it should happen that I am in a public street when the pause is being observed, I do the same. I don’t go looking for trouble either at the time or afterwards. My exprience in life is that people who look for trouble invariably find it. The future of this country depends upon both sections respecting each others’ traditions, and trying to trust each other. Then possibly we shall do away with much of the bitterness which exists to-day.

The House had the surprise this corning of seeing the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) in a completely new role. He got up and referred to what the Opposition is supposed to have said and done during the recess and he blamed it most strongly. He deplored the fact that the speeches were and are so inflammatory. He said, inter alia, that the English-speaking people would never forgive one of the hon. members of this House for what he, namely, the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) is supposed to have said, but what was so astonishing was that we should hear that from the hon. member for Kensington. If it had come from other English-speaking members on the other side, then it would possibly have been understandable, but to hear the hon. member for Kensington making charges against this side, of making inflammatory speech, is certainly the greatest surprise of this session. It must be understood that the hon. member for Kensington is to a great extent responsible for the speeches which are being made by hon. members on this side. It must be borne in mind that it is the hon. member for Kensington who par excellence typifies that section of the population which has never yet shown any concern about the interests of South Africa or of the Afrikaansspeaking people. It must be borne in mind that the hon. member for Kensington is the man who still wants to perpetuate in South Africa the spirit and policy of Rhodes and Milner. And then the hon. member takes offence when hon. members on this side use sharp language in their speeches. I recollect how scarcely a few months ago, I think it was at Nigel, even before the protest meetings started, the hon. member for Kensington had already said that the Potchefstroom University College and others should be closed down, because they were nothing else but Nazi centres. He made speeches of that kind before any protest meetings were held, before anything of an inflammatory nature was said by this side. And then the hon. member comes and makes a charge against us. But I go further, during August, only a few weeks ago, the hon. member for Kensington made a speech of such a kind that even so great an imperialist as the Prime Minister could not swallow it, because the Prime Minister’s own newspaper, Die Volkstem, repudiated the hon. member’s speech. I want to quote just a little from what that newspaper said in its leading article on the 22nd August—

I do not think that this has anything to do with the debate.

It is a leading article in which comment is made on inflammatory speeches, a thing of which the hon. member accuses us.

Then the hon. member should only read what refers to it, and not the other portion.

I have just been told that the hon. member for Kensington has suffered a great bereavement. Our deepest sympathy goes out to the hon. member. I will, therefore, in these circumstances not continue the subject any further. I want, however, to come to charges which have been made against me in connection with things I am supposed to have said. I want, first of all, to point out that since the 4th September for the first eight months hon. members of the Opposition conducted themselves in a very moderate way. There was practically not one speech to which hon. members opposite could make any objection. Since the 4th September last year until the end of April this year, the action of the members of the Opposition was particularly moderate. The Opposition tried in every possible way to calm the feeling, and the Government was not frustrated in connection with the continuance of the war. But only after we were insulted and challenged by supporters of the Government and Government newspapers, after our people had been persecuted and oppressed in a terrible way, did we take off the gloves and hit back. Take, for instance, what the newspaper of the Minister of Commerce and Industries said of us on the 14th May, 1940, even before we had addressed one meeting. In a leading article the Cape Times made a drastic attack which was aimed at this side of the House. It is indeed an important newspaper in the country, and it went out of its way to attack this side of the House in the most venomous way. I will put it in English. The leading article says — it was just after the invasion of Belgium and Holland—

Then it is expected of us to be moderate — listen—

That was before a single hon. member on this side had held meetings in public, before one member on this side had said anything that was bad against hon. members opposite. Then we were abused in that way. The article goes on—

Then they accuse us. They blame us for saying that the other side do not want to fight. This charge was made against us as long ago as the 14th May. I read on—

Is that a leading article or a letter?

It is a leading article, written in the Cape Times, the newspaper of the Minister of Commerce and Industries, before a single hon. member here had said anything about hon. members opposite or against England. And then they actually have the impudence to object to our using strong language. I used strong language after that. Can we be blamed after an outburst like that of the newspaper of the Minister of Commerce and Industries, which used such language against hon. members on this side, simply because they put the interests of South Africa first and not the interests of the Empire? I hope that they will not again have the impertinence to come and accuse us here of causing bitterness. We cannot use sufficiently strong language to condemn their action and methods. We began speaking sharply at protest meetings, but only after things of that kind had happened. We held meetings and asked them to leave us alone, and to allow us to speak to our own people, and they could stop away. What happened then? The first meeting we held people were sent to molest us and to cause trouble. An attempt was made to break up meetings. When they saw that they could not manage it they ran away and went to the Press, and then the story started that we were making inflammatory speeches and assaulting them. I say that there was every justification for this side of the House to use strong language to the Prime Minister and his satellites. I go further. What happened since Parliament met last time? Afrikaners have been persecuted and oppressed in a scandalous way. I notice that the Minister of Railways is in his place. I want to-day to say in his presence that persecution is going on in a disgraceful way on the Railways, more so than ever before in the history of the country. I am not in a position to give names, because then I shall be exposing the people to further victimisation. But do you know what is happening?

Produce proofs.

I challenge the Minister to appoint an impartial commission. Then I will give the names. If the Minister of Railways institutes an enquiry he will see that what I am saying is true. I do not say that he is personally to blame, but his officials are. Instructions are constantly being received from the General Manager by his subordinate officials, which read as follows—

Or—

I give the Minister my word of honour that that is the truth. There is not one, but there are numbers of such cases. Letters come almost every day signed by the General Manager of Railways where it is simply stated that a certain person is pro-Nazi, that another person does not support the policy of the Government and that he should be transferred. These people come and complain to us. Why is there so much bitterness? That is the reason. And what happens in the case of private employers? I know of many cases where subordinates have been told that if they are not prepared to join the army then their services are no longer required. I know of other officials who, if they should venture to support this side publicly, are victimised in such a cruel way that subsequently they were compelled to resign. That is what actually happens, and complaints reach us every day. This is not fiction that we are talking here, but things that really happen. What has happened in the Police Force? I have sworn statements before me here by policemen as to how they were compelled to take the oath, as to the cruel way in which they were provoked and victimised if they would not sign. I cannot give the names because most of them are still in the service, and I know that they are in danger of victimisation. We have no objection to the Prime Minister using volunteers to carry on the war, provided that they really are volunteers. We are even prepared to assist hon. members opposite to go and fight, but what we blame is that when they speak of volunteers then it is really deceit and hypocrisy. They are not volunteers but people who have been forced to go. Even the Minister of Finance’s little nation is not prepared to go and fight for him. They went to hold a recruiting meeting to get Indians, and what was the disillusion that they met with? They thought that that small people, for whom the Minister of Finance so constantly pleads ….

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to speak of the people of the Minister of Finance and by that to refer to the Asiatics?

What does the hon. member mean by it?

I referred to the little people of the Minister of Finance, and I mean the Indians, whose part he is always taking.

May the hon. member say that?

The hon. member is not out of order.

They held a recruiting meeting.

What does the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) understand; what does he suppose the meaning of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) to have been?

The hon. member referred to a meeting of Asiatics, and he said that the little people of the Minister of Finance did not even want to join up.

What does the hon. member understand by that?

I understand by that that the hon. member for Fordsburg thinks that the Minister of Finance is an Asiatic, or that they are his people.

I never made any such charge.

I want to tell the hon. member for Rustenburg that I did not understand it in that way either. The hon. member can proceed.

As I said, one would have expected that that little people would have hurried to the assistance of the Government to carry on the war. There was a big meeting to get recruits, and then the Indians through one of their leaders, instead of rushing to do so, took up the following attitude, as was expressed by Dr. Dadoo—

Even the Minister of Finance’s little people have left them in the lurch. Shortly afterwards Dr. Dadoo, for some reason or other, on some complaint or other, was brought before the court. Hon. members opposite say that we use inflammatory language. I deny it, but if we do use sharp language who is the cause? I have clearly shown that it is hon. members opposite under the lead of the Prime Minister. I have another cutting here which appeared in one of our papers six months ago. Talk about bitterness? It says that two young Afrikaners had received letters in which they were threatened by the so-called Junior Jewish Society. They were threatened in the following way—

The letters were handed over to the police.

The hon. member is repeating something which has been specifically denied. The existence of any such society has been denied in this House, and the hon. member repeats what he must know is a lie.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

The hon. member repeats a statement which has been already denied in this House.

The hon. member must withdraw.

I withdraw the word “lie,” sir, and I say the statement has been denied in this House.

I was quite unaware that the matter had already been raised, and had been denied. This is the first that I have heard of it. I have clearly shown that hon. members opposite are in reality responsible for everything that we, according to the hon. members, have said and done here. But I go further. The hon. member for Kensington made the charge against me that when he addressed meetings with me before the 4th September, 1939, I was in favour of the maintenance of the British connection. I would like to take this opportunity to admit freely that before the 4th September I was not in favour of a republic, and stood for the maintenance of the British connection. But the hon. member for Kensington, the Prime Minister and other hon. members opposite, have made a fiery republican of me. After it had become quite clear to me that they were not really standing for the interests of South Africa, that they had never yet thought of the interests of South Africa, but stood for the interests of the British Empire, I came to the conclusion that the only salvation for South Africa lay in a republic. Whoever wins, whether the Germans win or the English win, makes little difference, but a free independent republic is the only salvation for South Africa.

Separated from the British Empire?

I stand fully by what the hon. member for Piquetberg (dr. Malan) said, the republic ….

We cannot now go into the question of a republic.

I would just like to say that I stand by what the hon. member for Piquetberg said this morning, namely, that a republic will not be established for the purpose of oppressing a section of the population. I fully concur in that. I have no grievance against the English-speaking people as such, but the people who will have to pay for it when that day comes, are the people who are responsible for the persecution and the oppression of Afrikaners today. Let me say this: I still stand where I stood in the past, namely, for South Africa first and South Africa only. In conclusion, I also would like to make a declaration of faith such as the hon. member over there made the other day in regard to the British Empire. My declaration of faith is: I have confidence in my people, confidence in my country, South Africa. I have confidence in the future of my country and people. I believe as surely as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, that South Africa will yet be a completely free, independent republic, in which peace, progress and prosperity will reign.

I listened attentively to what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward) said this afternoon after the charges which he made against this side of the House. All I can say is, “Forgive him, he no longer knows what he is doing.” The hon. member came here, he threw out his chest and said that he wanted to declare here that the whole of the people stood behind the Prime Minister, and in order to support that he referred to the petition which was drawn up and which was presented to the Prime Minister the other night, and he says that that is sufficient proof that the Prime Minister enjoys the confidence of the public.

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

When business was suspended I was reminding the House that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward) had stated that he realised how drastic were the powers which this Bill proposed to give to the Prime Minister, but he compromised with his conscience by saying that he also knew that the Prime Minister had the majority of the people behind him. In order to prove this statement the hon. member thereupon referred to the petition for peace by victory which was recently handed to the Prime Minister in the local City Hall. I believe there is only one way of testing the will of the people and that is by means of an election. But in view of the fact that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) stated that the majority of the people were behind the Government, and in view of the fact that he based his contention on that petition I now want to read a sworn statement to show the way in which the petition was signed.

I cannot allow the hon. member to read that statement because it has no reference to this debate.

I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. My contention is that this Bill gives dictatorial powers to the Prime Minister, and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) has expressed the opinion that it is the right thing to give the Prime Minister such dictatorial powers as the majority of the people are behind the Prime Minister, and in support of his contention he referred to this petition. Now I should like to show the circumstances under which some people have signed that petition.

I am sorry, but the discussion of that petition is not relevant to this debate, and that sworn statement cannot be read here.

I bow to your ruling, but I want to say that a certain person was forced to sign that petition, and if he had not done so he would have been deprived of his old age pension—that is what he was told. The man who made that statement is one of our upright but simple people and he was so indignant about it that he himself went to an attorney and told that attorney that he wanted to make a sworn affidavit. A dictatorship has its advantages and also its disadvantages, and I maintain that we in South Africa now have a dictatorship here. I recollect that the previous Prime Minister of Great Britain (Mr. Chamberlain), after he had met Hitler at Munich, stated that one of the disadvantages of a dictatorship was that once having taken a certain course a dictator could never go back on that course. The way he put it at the time was that a dictator had no reverse gear. England is also a dictatorship now with the same powers as those which our Prime Minister is asking for to-day, and when we think of the retreat from Norway, Dunkirk and France, then that statement of Mr. Chamberlain’s, that a dictatorship has not got a reverse gear, is being belied. There is also another disadvantage connected with a dictatorship. We are being told that a dictatorship is very detrimental and that we must fight against it being established here. But dictatorships such as those which exist in Germany, in Italy and in England, are dictatorships which interpret the will of the people. The majorities of very many nations stand behind those dictatorships. Here in this country we have a bad dictatorship because the majority of the nation does not back it up and because it does not represent or interpret the will of the people. In those other countries which I have mentioned the dictatorships are in the interest of the respective countries, but here in South Africa the dictatorship is not in the interest of the country, but in the interest of the Empire, and may I say—also in the interest of Haile Selassie. It is for that reason that I say that here, where our few sections of the population stand directly opposed to each other with their own language, their culture and their tradition, and here where the majority of one section is opposed to the war—to place a dictatorship in the hands of that Government is a positive crime towards the nation. That is why I am opposed to this being done and I want to produce evidence to show why I think that that Government sitting opposite to us cannot be trusted with powers such as are being asked for in the Bill now before the House. Several members opposite have got up and have stated that at first they would not have been prepared for the granting of such powers, but matters have developed to such an extent in this country, and members on this side of the House have made such speeches, that they were now entirely prepared to vote for the granting of those powers. But I want deliberately to state here that nobody is more personally responsible for all these things which have happened than the Prime Minister himself. On the 4th September when the Prime Minister declared war he knew that he did not have the majority of the people behind him. He thereupon tried by means of rousing speeches to awaken and to encourage his followers, and after rousing them he did not think for a moment of what he was doing against the other section in the country. We were still in Cape Town at the end of last session when we had the incident of the extinguishing of the torch at the Voortrekker Monument, with the words written on it, “to hell with Hertzog and neutrality.” We would have expected the Prime Minister, who should appreciate the feelings of both sections of the community, and who knows the feelings of both sections, at once to have expressed his disapproval of things of that kind, but he did nothing of the kind. After that we had the violation of the Burger Monument at Harrismith. The Prime Minister did not express his disapproval of that either. I therefore say that the Prime Minister is personally responsible for the feeling prevailing in the country to-day. In this connection I want to refer to the example set by him when he insulted the women of South Africa. The women of South Africa proceeded to Pretoria in dignified procession; so dignified was that procession that all the English papers spoke of the dignified way in which those women had conducted themselves. We find, however, that the Prime Minister insulted those women by refusing to meet them. Those women went to see him because they wanted peace, but he considered it beneath his dignity to meet them. He thereby set an example to his followers to make them show contempt for, and to insult those people, and the section of the people to which they belong. The sons of those women were good enough to go and fight for them in the war, but he could not spare five minutes to meet the women and near what they had to say. It was as a result of that insult that a Government paper like Ons Land in Port Elizabeth described those dignified women as circus women and “soustannies.” That is the example which the Prime Minister set them; he set the tune. And we had the same kind of thing again in connection with the incident at Potchefstroom. We have been told here that the Prime Minister described it as a triviality, as something of minor importance. To his mind there was nothing terrible in the fact that a large crowd of soldiers went to attack the students of Potchefstroom. It was a triviality. In regard to the commandeering of rifles the Prime Minister himself has admitted that in acting as he did he committed an illegal act. Here in the City Hall of Cape Town he admitted that it was the most important thing and the most unpopular thing which in all his life he had been forced to do. But in spite of all that he did it, although he realised that it was illegal; otherwise he would not have come here to ask us to approve of this Bill. And as a result of that illegal action hundreds of Afrikaners are to-day in gaol in towns like Calvinia, Vanrhynsdorp and in the North-West generally. They did not respect the so-called law because the Prime Minister had taught them in the Three Years War to resist illegal authority in the country and to rebel. They followed his example. The Prime Minister set the tune here again, and what do we find in one of his papers? I am afraid you will not allow me, Mr. Speaker, to quote from that paper, but I find that Die Suiderstem declared that if members of Parliament and their sons are found guilty in connection with the handing in of rifles they should not be fined but should be sent to gaol without the option of a fine, so that they would lose their seats. If you will allow me to quote from that paper I shall be able to prove that that paper says that certain people should be punished without the option of a fine, and it says so while the case against these people is sub judice. The paper talks about a member of Parliament and his son, and there is only one instance in which a son of a member of Parliament has been involved, namely the son of the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens). In spite of the fact that the case is still pending Die Suiderstem says that they should be punished without the option of a fine. The Prime Minister commits an illegal act; he sets the tune and that paper imitates and encourages him. The paper says among other things that the people expect the magistrate to act drastically in connection with these cases. I want to know whether that is not an effort to influence the court. Is not that a definite case of contempt of court? This is a matter which the Prime Minister should look into. What I have stated here can be found in Die Suiderstem of the 21st August, and I say that an enquiry should be set on foot to see whether that paper is not guilty of contempt of court. We now find that the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) stated here this afternoon that members opposite realise that they are fighting on two fronts. They are also fighting on the home front. It is because of all thes e things that we say that the Government has declared war against Italy but that all the time it is fighting against Afrikanerdom. It is here that the fight is being fought, and it is the Prime Minister who sets the tune in that fight. At Britstown there is an Afrikaner in gaol whose hair has been cut short, and the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) told me that when Mr. Danie Roux came out of gaol he was sent back from Kimberley to Britstown on a third-class ticket. Does not the Prime Minister realise that he is humiliating his own people to the lowest depths. There are people in various parts of the country who need their rifles to deal with jackals and baboons. I notice that the Minister of Lands is smiling. He shows that he does not care a rap about these things. He should not be here at all, because he does not represent any electors. He owns farms in the North-West and he knows what the position is there.

No rifles are required there.

Then I say that the Minister talks nonsense, if that is parliamentary language. I know what is going on on my farm. We have to deal with wild animals there, such as jackals and baboons, and that applies to the whole of the North-West. I have a letter in front of me from farmers at Sterkstroom who have asked me to request the Prime Minister to send more police to those areas which are close to the native areas, and if he is unable to do so I am to request him to return the rifles to the farmers there. I want to submit that request to the Prime Minister. I say again, the Government has declared war against Germany and Italy, but in actual fact the Government is fighting against the Afrikaner. We are being told everywhere that we are fighting for Christianity. I am not going to say anything further about this prayer pause here in Cape Town because I think we have heard quite enough about it. The Prime Minister admits that this prayer pause is wrong, but he adds that it is a delicate question of religion. Well, is it not a question of religion so far as both sides are concerned? It is not merely a question of religion for the people who stand in the streets; it is also a question of religion for those who are not allowed to go their own way. If the Prime Minister does not see his way to put a stop to this prayer pause then let it remain as a standing example so that all of us may see what kind of Christianity we are fighting for, so that all of us may see that that Christianity is the guise under which these scandalous attacks are being perpetrated. Let it stand there as an example of the so-called Christianity which is nothing but hyprocrisy. The sort of Christianity which we behold here in the streets of Cape Town has to serve as a cover for these things which are being perpetrated here. If there is one thing which has caused feelings to run high, and which has made people feel bitter, it is the victimisation which is taking place all over the country. I do not propose going into that question again. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) mentioned a number of instances here this afternoon and he challenged the Minister of Railways to deny that such victimisation had occurred on the Railways. I have also found the same kind of thing there, but I do not want to go into that. I have in front of me a circular letter, dated 17th July, in which it is expressly stated that the men who are now being engaged on the Railways will not be placed on the permanent staff but if and when the soldiers return they will be dismissed if it is found necessary to do so, so that the returned soldiers will be able to fill their jobs.

That is quite right.

I do not propose at this stage going into the question of whether it is right or wrong, but in this fact we have further proof of the way in which war is being waged against Afrikanerdom. There are a great many Afrikaans-speaking men on the Railways. They particularly go to the Railways for employment. It is in connection with those people on the Railways that this circular letter has been sent out, and it is not done in the other departments. They are telling these people in advance that they are going to be dismissed after the war. It is only a different way of compelling those people to join up. Then there is another point which, to my mind, lies at the root of the evil and which was the beginning of this feeling of bitterness towards those people who wanted to have peace and who wanted to remain neutral and did not want to go to war. I am referring to the establishment of the so-called League of Truth, which we briefly cáll the khaki knights. It is for the sake of those people that the Prime Minister wants to have these powers. He tells us that he wants to secure those powers in order to be able to take action against any underhand movements. The other day a jacket was exhibited in this House. I do not know whether it was a jacket belonging to the Minister of the Interior himself, and I do not know where he obtained the swastika, but I want to mention this, that all members of this House have received communistic badges and insignia in their boxes here in Parliament House. If I were to put one of those badges on the arm of the Minister of the Interior would that make him a Communist? That shows how ridiculous that argument of the Minister of the Interior is. He is a lawyer, and I do not know whether the law teaches one to bluff, or whether he wanted to make a joke. In any case it was a poor bluff and a very poor joke. This Bill is now being introduced against these so-called underground movements which are going on and in respect of which the Minister of the Interior has the Ossewabrandwag in mind, and that being so, I want to ask him in what respect the Ossewabrandwag movement is an underground movement? He can go to the office of the organisation in every town and find out who are the members of that body. They have told the Government that they are fully prepared to place all their cards on the table. What is the reason why members of Parliament, who are members of the League of Truth, are ashamed to admit it here so that we can all know who belong to that body? That is a secret movement, and an underhand movement. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) did not have the courage the other evening to say that he was a knight of the truth. The hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha) did not have the courage to do so either before a pamphlet had been quoted from here. We find in this country how members of this League of Truth are being used so that they are actually becoming a pest in this country. They teach people to spy on each other, and one does not know who is one’s friend and who is one’s enemy to-day. That is one of the causes of most of the bitterness among the people in this country to-day, but now in consequence of what has been read out here we have heard that this League of Truth is the fifth column of England and South Africa. They get money from England to act here as a fifth column in order to counteract the republican movement. I want to say this to the Minister of the Interior: As we are now finding that that movement constitutes the fifth column in this country, is it not his duty to take action against them? May I read a message sent to the League of Truth by nobody less than the Prime Minister himself, and this is what he says—

The Prime Minister tells them to destroy the fifth column. If that is so his own people should destroy the Unity League because they are England’s fifth column, and they get money from England; and this underground movement is under the command of nobody less than the Prime Minister himself. He has given his approval to their getting money from England to fight the republican movement. He is the commanderin-chief and in the oath which the knights of the truth have to take they have to promise that they will fight against Nazism, they have to support the Prime Minister and his Government by spreading the light of truth and by unmasking the lies of the enemy.

Hear, hear.

They say “Hear, hear”. It is stated here that they must spread the truth from the point of view of the Prime Minister, but they are not told to show up his lies — only the lies of the enemy.

On a point of order, has the hon. member the right to speak of the Prime Minister’s lies?

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it at once. I did not say that the Prime Minister has told lies, I only contended that it was not stated here that they were to combat the Prime Minister’s lies.

Order, order!

I withdraw, but as we are now dealing with the question of lies there is one point I wish to meet. During the last war the right hon. the Prime Minister was the commander-in-chief of the Afrikaans army in German East Africa. The Prime Minister was anxious to lead the troops there. I have a book here written by H. C. Armstrong, it is a biology of the Prime Minister written by an Englishman, not by a member of the fifth column or by an alleged Nazi like myself. It is written by an English-speaking person and it is clearly stated why the Prime Minister was anxious to go to German East Africa. He was anxious to be the great general and to lead the forces against Von Lettow Vorbeck who had 5,000 Askaris and 500 white soldiers.

I am sorry having to interrupt the hon. member, but I fail to see in what way that is relevant to the debate.

If I may be allowed to explain I should like to point out that in those days too the country was in a state of war, and the Prime Minister after he had left German-East Africa stated that he had won the war. He then went to England and it then turned out that he had not won the war, and that the enemy was just as strong as ever before. They thereupon made use of him overseas because he had told the English public that he had won the war.

I am sorry but I cannot see what that has to do with the debate.

An organisation has been established here, the Truth Legion, and its members have to take an oath that they will proclaim the truth. The Prime Minister is the commander-in-chief of the army and we are again in a state of war. Am I not allowed to say what misrepresentations were made in the last war and to compare what happened then with what will happen again?

The hon. member should rather use other arguments.

I bow to your ruling, but I just want to say that I feel that the best argument I can use is to point out that the Prime Minister went overseas and tried to give the British public the impression that the war in East Africa had been won. But another general had to be appointed subsequently because the war had not been won, and they had to replace Gen. Hoskings by Gen. Van Deventer. The Prime Minister was thereupon sent to try and conclude a separate peace with Austria. Without the knowledge of France he was sent by England, but he failed in his mission. When he was taken to task about that the Prime Minister declared that he had never had any conversations with the Austrian delegates.

The hon. member must leave these matters; they have nothing to do with this debate.

I bow to your ruling. I only want to show, whether it was a diplomatic denial or whatever it was, that it was definitely not the truth.

I must ask the hon. member to be good enough not to proceed in that trend.

Then I want to ask the Minister of the Interior whether this underground movement will be suppressed by him, especially as not one of the members of the Unity League has the courage to admit that he belongs to it. Those are the khaki knights who make our lives so unpleasant on the platteland. [Laughter.] I shall tell hon. members what is the effect. The effect is that we ourselves have started bodies in order to counteract them. That is the reason for those bodies and it is the Prime Minister who started this whole business. I, therefore, ask, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister is requesting this House to grant him special powers which are to be used for the purpose of maintaining law and order, whether that movement will be prohibited because the Prime Minister started it himself? And then the Prime Minister comes here very seriously and tells us that the time has now come for him to take action against us. But how about that other movement? I am pleased to see the Minister of Agriculture here. He is not in his usual seat and that is why I did not notice him at once, but last year when we were pleading for an open market he denied that he had ever intended taking the open market away from here. He used these words, “I am not going to put my head into a hornet’s nest.” He has now put his head into a hornet’s nest and the hornets have stung him to such an extent that he has moved his seat.

You must have put your head into a dozen hornets’ nests because you are so blind that you are unable to see anything at all.

The Minister told us last year already that England did not want to buy our wool at all; he told us that what they wanted to buy was cross-bred wool. Now I want to put this question to him: if it is a fact that England was not anxious to buy our wool, why then did he close the market, in view of the fact that farmers wire us, and wool societies notify us that they are not at all satisfied. Allow those people who are prepared to take the risk of an open market to be free to do as they please. Why are they to be tied to the Imperial scheme? It is not a risk so far as the Minister is concerned. The farmers themselves will be able to say whether they are prepared to come under the Imperial scheme or whether they are not prepared to do so. I also want to ask why he is tying our wool for a year after the war? What is the reason for that? He has told us himself that England was not anxious to buy our wool. The reason is that after the war it can be expected that there will be a large demand, and the Prime Minister wants England to have the benefit. We are simply told that if England makes a profit our farmers will get a share of that profit. In all the telegrams which I have received in connection with this matter it is emphasised that I must oppose this period of a year after the war. I can read those telegrams to the House. If the Minister is not prepared to give the farmers an open market then I want to know whether he is prepared to grant a subsidy. I do not think so. They ask for a subsidy of from 30 per cent. to 50 per cent.

Of course, I am not prepared to do that.

But why does the Minister interfere with the private business of the farmer? If the farmers are prepared to take the risk why should they also be forced to render service as satellites of the Empire? I have a letter here from a farmer which is rather long winded, but it amounts to this, that he is getting 50 per cent. less for his wool than he would otherwise get. His statements may be right or wrong. But he asks whether members of Parliament will also be prepared to give up 50 per cent. of their salaries for a year after the war? I only want to show the way farmers are looking at these things. [Time limit.]

I take it the House will not expect me to deal in detail with the irrelevancies of the hon. gentleman who has just sat down, but he did put to me one question towards the end of his speech, which the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) would no doubt term a “pertinent” question. He asked me whether I would be prepared to suppress the Truth Legion of the Union Unity Fund. He backed that request by giving the somewhat naive reason that it was causing him and his compatriots on the platteland a great deal of unpleasantness. I have no doubt whatever that that organisation is causing the hon. gentleman unpleasantness. I have no doubt that the more truth penetrates into the platteland the more unpleasant will the position of the hon. gentleman become. But, sir, I have yet to learn that any organisation whose sole object is the dissemination of truth should, in a free and democrative country, be suppressed at the whim of the Opposition, and, sir, the answer to his request will regretfully be in the negative. But I have risen really to refer to one or two observations by the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition earlier in the day. The speech of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) was, if I may say so, a fairly noisy mixture of melodrama and indignation, and judging by the sound and fury of it, mostly forensic indigination. He did, however, accuse the Prime Minister of attempting to assume autocratic powers. He said that the Government was setting up a kind of Gestapo, and piling one adjective upon another as has been his wont in recent weeks he told us that we were guilty of political gangsterdom. Let me remind the House of one or two reasons why it is necessary that the Prime Minister should seek these powers. Hon. gentlemen have, no doubt, been fully aware of recent events on the Witwatersrand where a foreign importation, something quite foreign to our Afrikanerdom, has made its appearance. I refer to certain acts of sabotage. To show how foreign these things are to the Union one has only to look at the Statute Book. If these things were usual in our national life one would have assumed that Parliament would have legislated against this sort of thing. But if one looks at the Statute Book and the relevant statutes dealing with this type of offence, I mean illegal possession of explosives and acts of sabotage, one is struck by the totally inadequate nature of the penalty provisions. It is quite obvious that this sort of thing had not been contemplated. These sudden acts of sabotage breaking out during a time when the country is at war, when Parliament was not in session, and at a time when it is essential that the Government should maintain internal security, show the necessity for some adequate legislation. Under an Act of 1911 the possession of unauthorised explosives other than for private use is punishable with a fine of £50 or three months, and the manufacture of explosives elsewhere than in a factory is punishable by a fine of £100 or six months imprisonment. We know from recent events that certain persons have been manufacturing amateur bombs and amateur explosives on the Witwatersrand. The Government has these explosives in its possession and yet, at the present time, the only penalty which the courts can inflict is a miserable fine of £100 or six months for a man who is making explosives at a time when the nation is at war and these explosives are being left recklessly in public places by these gangsters. This state of affairs is intolerable and no Government worthy of its name would stand for that sort of thing. That is a very good example of why it is necessary for the Government to have these powers to deal with emergencies as they arise. We find from time to time a number of difficulties crop up. Quite recently in Pretoria certain persons were prosecuted for printing subversive matter, and on a technicality these persons were acquitted. Is it to be suggested that in time of war a government has to wait months before Parliament meets in order to put a matter of that sort right? There is another matter. Many inflammatory speeches have been made throughout the country in recent months which constitute an offence under the emergency regulations. It is an offence to make inflammatory statements in a place to which the public has access at a gathering where more than 20 persons are present, any statements calculated to subvert the authority of the Government, to incite the public, or any section of the public or any class of persons to resist authority. It is an offence to make these suversive statements if they are made in the presence of 20 persons. Experience has shown that many inflammatory statements have been made in the presence, not of 20 persons, but of a smaller number, and in that case they are not actionable. These are expamples which goes to show how necessary it is, in view of circumstances which have arisen in recent months, that the Government should have power to act quickly. Time is the essence of this matter. Very often in order to maintain the safety of my hon. friends opposite it may be necessary to act and to act quickly. I want in due course to deal with another matter mentioned by the hon. member for Piquetberg and others, namely the question of subversive organisations. But before coming to that I feel it is my duty as the Minister responsible, as the link between the Government and the civil servants, to repudiate totally the assertion made by the hon. member for Piquetberg today, that infamous statement that even persons in the civil service are being dragooned into taking the oath for service anywhere in South Africa.

That is correct.

I say that is an infamous statement and not a tittle of evidence has been adduced in support of it.

The hon. Minister must not refer to a statement made by a member of this House as infamous.

Well, sir, I will say that it is a statement typical of the hon. member.

The hon. Minister must withdraw the word.

I will withdraw the word and say that it is a statement typical of statements which have been made by a section of the Opposition in recent months, not the whole of the Opposition, but a certain section, typical of statements with a reckless disregard of the truth, with no prior inquiry and statements calculated to do tremendous harm. And that statement, sir, is a very grave reflection on the Civil Service Commission. It is implicit in that statement that the Public Service Commission has been a party to the so-called dragooning of public’ servants. I deny that statement and repeat there is not a tittle of truth in it, and I challenge the hon. gentleman opposite who made that statement, or any of his supporters, to adduce any evidence in support of it. One other statement of the hon. member for Piquetberg calls for comment. He stated that in his ideal of a republic he hoped to have the co-operation of the English-speaking members of the community, that he wanted to collaborate with them, that he wanted to draw them into the fold. Let us be a united Christian republic, with the English-speaking Afrikaners co-operating. I ask the hon. gentleman is he speaking for himself, a section of his party, or for his party as a whole. I ask the hon. gentleman, when he made that statement to Parliament and the country, whether he is aware of the “council of policy” that was recently set up at Bloemfontein, whether he is aware that Mr. Swart has been nominated as a candidate for the Opposition in the Winburg seat, and whether he is aware of the views of Mr. Swart, whether the views of Mr. Swart who organised that meeting at Bloemfontein is the declared policy of the Opposition. The honeyed words of the hon. gentleman are once again trying to draw unwitting dupes into his net.

The hon. Minister is wandering from the subject.

I think you are right, sir, but if I have been erring I have unfortunately been following that path which was laid down by the hon. member for Piquetberg in his speech this morning. I will leave the hon. member and his party to decide whether or not that declaration of policy represents the policy of the Reunited Party or not. I want now to come to the question of these subversive organisations about which I have been challenged. It has been alleged repeatedly in the House that because I exhibited a uniform with a swastika on it I was attempting to deceive the House; that what I produced was not genuine, and was produced in order to mislead members of the House and mislead the country. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) this afternoon made one of those wild accusations when he stated that he would not be surprised to hear that the perpetrators of the recent bomb outrages on the Witwatersrand were members of the Truth Legion! It is interesting to see how the Nazi technique has spread even to Wolmaransstad. We remember the technique of the Nazis — the technique of the Reichstag fire — to say the other man has done it. I want to deal with the statement made on behalf of the Ossewabrandwag by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) the other night. He stated he was deputed by the local committee to state that this organisation was purely cultural in its outlook and aims, and that any suggestion that any portion of it had subversive tendencies was monstrous. I am still rather puzzled why the hon. member was chosen for this purpose when I look around and see hon. gentlemen more appropriate to put up an apologia on behalf of the Ossewabrandwag. However, he made that statement and I see in the Press to-night that the General Council of the Ossewabrandwag has issued a statement denying that the Ossewabrandwag is connected with civil disturbances or is without respect for law and order. I think it was the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) who charged me with being the author of the Book of Revelations. If I might add a chapter, not an apochryphal chapter, to Revelations I will be glad to do so to-night. I would like to say a word or two about the origin of the Ossewabrandwag. It seems to have had its inception early in 1939. Its avowed objects as revealed in its printed constitution are cultural and social in character, including as they do the furtherance of the traditions and culture and material interests of the Boerevolk. These objects, as I have stated, have been reiterated in the public utterances of leaders of the movement and recently reaffirmed by the hon. member for Beaufort West — last Monday night. The claim has been made that the movement is a non-political organisation which will not allow itself to be used for party political ends. Now I want to make this point clear, that it is possible that a large number of the members of the Ossewabrandwag may still be acting on the avowed principles and furthering the published objects of the movement. I believe that that is so. Recently the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Wolfaard) assured me that the Ossewabrandwag was all open and above board. There was, he said, nothing secret or underhand about it. ‘T am a member of it,” he said, “and am using my influence to see that nothing provocative is said. I am concerned only with it as a cultural organisation.” I fully accept what the hon. member for Worcester has said, namely, that he is convinced that the organisation is a cultural one, and has no ulterior motives; but it is clear from the evidence which the Government has in its possession that a not inconsiderable number of members and leaders are using the movement for other and sinister ends.

Do not make our flesh creep.

Whatever may have been the position in the early stages of the movement it is abundantly clear that the character of the movement has now changed and that secrecy has taken the place of publicity. I want to issue a word of friendly warning. I did so recently and I again want to issue a word of friendly warning to hon. members opposite, and to people outside this House — I want to tell them why it is the duty of the Government to give such friendly warning. While there are many bona fide people connected with this movement, it is clear from the evidence which the Government has, as I have said, that a not inconsiderable number of members and leaders are using the movement for other and sinister ends. In the case of more than one of the commandos the activities of the members were directed predominantly towards military or semi-military ends, and persons known or suspected to be loyal to the Government were excluded.

That is a shame.

Some examples taken from those revealed by the evidence in the Government’s possession may be instructive as shewing how the true nature of the movement and the activities of its members were concealed.

More disclosures.

In May, 1940, a detective sergeant called at a barber-shop in Johannesburg and asked the proprietor whether his shop was not a depot for the Ossewabrandwag. The proprietor denied this, stating that he had no papers in connection with the movement and pretending ignorance of the names of the leaders. A search of the shop revealed that the proprietor was a Veldkornet in the movement, with Ossewabrandwag application forms and a list of names in his possession.

What is wrong with it?

Is that all open and above board?

The hon. member says what is wrong with it — that is what we would like to ask the barber. Why did he deny that he knew anything about it — why the secrecy?

Another Mr. X story.

Everything open and above board.

I am glad to hear that my hon. friends are amused. In these days it takes quite a lot to amuse a Nationalist caucus. In explanation of his denial this barber said that since he had heard the movement was against the Government he had cut it out.

Well, well!

Another affidavit shews that an official in the Ossewabrandwag, in the course of conversation with the deponent, admitted that it was dangerous to be a member of the movement and described how they had narrow escapes from detection, and how one evening when a secret meeting was being held guards had been posted to prevent the intrusion of strangers. How the hall had been invaded by the police and how members had escaped through an adjoining room.

A real Woodstock meeting.

It sounds like a Nationalist meeting in the olden days.

Lawrence of Arabia — no, Lawrence of Woodstock.

The evidence of certain railwaymen in Johannesburg shews that though recruiting for the Ossewabrandwag was actively pursued among them, it was made clear that no persons loyal to the Government were required, and that only Nationalists were approached.

What is wrong with that?

Nothing very wrong, except again this great exclusiveness in an Afrikaanse Kultuurvereniging.

Sit down, you are wasting time.

What a performance.

It is clear, too, that the utmost secrecy prevailed in the course of active recruiting for the movement among railwaymen at Johannesburg station. Other instances which could be multiplied shew the use of invitation cards to a private “tea party” to ensure secrecy, and give an innocent colour to the meeting.

They will invite you next time.

I am really glad the hon. member is amused. The care with which members were selected so as to avoid disclosure of what was going on, the instructions given by a leader at a meeting to those present — who were members of the Air Force — to leave in two’s and three’s so as not to arouse suspicion that there had been a meeting, and a promise by a member of the Ossewabrandwag endeavouring to recruit a member of the police, that he need not be afraid to join as it would be secret, and nothing would leak out, all show that the avowed objects of the movement which need not have feared, and should indeed have courted publicity, had been supplanted by concealment.

When are you coming to the kick?

The hon. member need not worry about that.

The kick is outside the House.

That the inference drawn from the above facts is a correct one is demonstrated by a striking passage which occurs in a book containing orders and agenda of meetings found among papers in the possession of a commandant of the Ossewabrandwag. The passage which occurs in the agenda of the “Offisiersvergadering” is as follows [translation]—

1. (1) That not a single traitor shall get into their respective ranks.

Another passage in the agenda at a later meeting reads [translation]—

1. (4) Arrangements for gathering of whole commandos.
   1. (3) Appoint to make his men sit correctly and to keep guard at the door so that traitors shall not get in.

The name omitted is the name of a veldkornet in that commando.

How did you get in?

The Minister is shocking his own people.

This is a cultural organisation which is non-political, non-racial, non-everything else, but it has to have its military organisation with these guards posted at the doors in order to ensure that no traitor shall come in. The only conclusion to which any reasonable and impartial observer can come is that portions of the Ossewa-Brandwag, ostensibly a public, cultural and social organisation, had in effect become a secret society of some kind. The question at once arises why it has changed in this way, and what are now its true nature and purposes? Why has it abandoned its open and public attitude and gone in for this secret organisation? Why this clandestine spirit? The constitution provides for an organisation of a semi-military type based on the old commando system, headed by a commandant-general for the Union, with appropriate staff and other ranks, and members must promise obedience to their superior officers. They have to take an oath, but the oath of the officers is extremely mysterious and secret. It is an oath which is different from that administered to the ranks, and it is administered in the greatest privacy.

That is not so.

How do you know; are you a member?

Yes, I am a member, and I am proud of it.

I have no doubt that the honourable nationalsocialist deputy who has just interrupted will be able to give us expert evidence at a later stage. Even had its object remained the avowed cultural and social kind envisaged by the constitution, experience in recent years in Europe has shewn the dangers which may arise from the presence within the state of a body so organised, and the ease with which such bodies can be deflected from their avowed objects, or with what equal ease subversive activities can be carried on under the cloak of such societies. From the evidence it is apparent that, whatever may have been the position at its inception, a portion of the Ossewa-Brandwag has now taken on an entirely military character and is pursuing military objectives. Establishment tables of certain commandos have fallen into the hands of the police. These shew the completeness and military character of their organisation, including, as they do, provision for storm troopers, machine gunners, transport and medical services. Admittedly army organisation may be used for non-military purposes up to a point, as witness the Salvation Army, but that point is long passed when storm troopers and machine gunners and medical services are provided for. Such personnel serve only one purpose — and that neither cultural nor social. The constitution of the Ossewa-Brandwag summarises its activities as being cultural, social and patriotic. The secrecy which shrouds the doings of the organisation, however, is inconsistent with the objects as set out in the constitution. Objects such as those need not fear the light of day. It is a fair inference therefore that the secrecy which pervades the doings of a section of the Ossewa-Brandwag is necessary for the purpose of concealing activities which are in some way sinister and cannot be made public. I am not to-night going into details of the evidence which has come into the possession of the Government, but I should point out that that evidence does disclose the intention on the part of certain members of the Ossewa-Brandwag to indulge in sabotage. It is evident that a certain section of the movement has got out of hand and is running amok, and again I repeat my warning which I gave recently to hon. members opposite, that if there are any of them who still maintain a sense of responsibility, let them beware lest that subversive, that extreme section, takes charge. The hon. member for Piquetberg laughs.

Do you blame him?

No, I do not. If I were in his position I would also attempt to smile to hide the anxiety which he must feel. If the hon. member for Piquetberg still has that sense of responsibility which characterised him in some of his past he must have been spending many anxious weeks recently. I said that I was not going into details of the evidence. But I want to point out that that evidence does disclose an intention on the part of certain members of the Ossewa-Brandwag to indulge in sabotage, and a document in the following terms was found in the possession of a commandant of the Ossewa-Brandwag who was also an employee of the South African Railways and Harbours. It was headed with the name of the person, and then there was a sub-heading “key position.” Then (1) night duty; (2) afternoon duty; (3) morning duty; then special constable. Guarding of power station, George Goch, next week guarding of power station, Apex; and then the names X and Y—those are the names respectively of a sergeant and the fieldcornet in the Ossewa-Brandwag.

Is that the old Mr. X or is he still in the camp?

X and Y are the names respectively of a sergeant and a field-cornet in the movement. At George Goch and at Apex there are substations. These sub-stations are key positions for the supply of current to the electric railway system. As it was no part of the legitimate railway duties of the person in whose possession the document was found, or of X or Y, to guard either of these power stations, the inference is obvious.

What is the inference?

The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys), who has just interrupted me, I know, is an old military man. He must know all about being on guard! His military instincts are being aroused.

A clown is always a clown.

Quite. And once a town guard always a town guard. As an ex-town guard the hon. member will realise that the guarding of substations may be the duty of town guards, but not of people in service of the Railway. The point is simply this—it is also not the duty of a cultural organisation to be concerned in the guarding of vital points on the Railway Service. Now in the possession of the same person from whom this document came two red flashes were found— similar in size and shape to, and almost identical in colour with the standard orange flash worn by the Mobile Field Forces. As this person has frequently expressed antiGovernment and pro-Nazi views, and has made it clear that he will not fight on the Government side, such flashes could only be intended for possible fifth column activities. We have heard a lot of declamation in this House about the red oath. A good deal of abusive talk against these Afrikaners who have taken that oath and are wearing red tabs has been indulged in, and it is surprising to find that this commandant should have found it necessary to have two tabs in his possession very similar to the ones worn by Afrikaners who are prepared to do their duty by South Africa in the open.

Tell us something about your circus.

The above are some examples of certain of the activities of sections of the Ossewa-Brandwag. Many similar instances could be cited if necessary. There is also clear evidence in the possession of the Government of attempts at infiltration by the organisation into the police, the Defence Forces and the Railways. The danger of such activities need not be stressed. Not only would such attempts, if successful, undermine the loyalty of the Police, Defence Forces and Railway workers, but the evidence dealing with this aspect of Ossewa-Brandwag activities shows that such tampering with the police and and defence forces was intended to be used also as a means of getting important information and of obtaining control of arms and ammunition.

You are trying to bluff the people.

No, there is no bluffing about this. Actual instances of attempts, in some cases successful attempts, to obtain plans and maps of important military objectives, which, in each case included the location of supplies of arms and ammunitions, are to be found in the evidence in the Government’s possession.

Tell us something about the white feather.

While it is not suggested that the whole organisation is actually plotting against the Government, it is apparent that a considerable section has fallen under the sway of pro-Nazi influence.

Nearly as bad as that jacket you showed us.

That this inference from the evidence is correct has been abundantly proved recently by the dynamite outrages on the Witwatersrand. And now I come to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). The hon. member with amazing, reckless irresponsibility suggested that he would not be surprised if the perpetrators of these bomb outrages were members of the “khaki knights”. Let me tell the hon. member, and it would possibly surprise him and it certainly would surprise the country to know, that those persons who have been found in illegal possession of bombs and explosives have for the most part been members of the Ossewa-Brandwag.

Do you believe that?

Let me tell hon. members that the jacket which I exhibited in the House the other day was taken from a Commandant of the Ossewa-Brandwag; and yet the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg calls this an attempt to bluff the House and the people. These things show the trend of events, and show how this organisation has been getting out of hand.

It is your troops that have been getting out of hand.

These events show how the real political gangsters have been defying the authorities.

Can you give us the names?

They are acting along strange and foreign lines. The new movement is foreign to Afrikanerdom. Hon. members may smile but none the less the fact remains that these things are happening. And the equal fact remains that, despite the annoyance of the hon. member for Prieska, the Prime Minister is in charge of this country, he is in charge of the Government, and he is going to see that, despite hon. members opposite, internal security shall prevail.

While I was listening to the hon. the Minister of the Interior I could not help thinking that he made himself out to be a conglomeration of a number of characters with a bit of a clown thrown in. When he got up we at least expected him to come forward with the counterpart of the velvet jacket which he showed the House the other day. One swallow does not make a summer, and one velvet jacket does not make a revolution. In the last speech of the hon. the Minister of the Interior we got some preliminary idea of the terrible disclosures which he made here this evening. Hon. members will recollect that on the last occasion after ten minutes of labour pains he produced a velvet jacket, and it was a miscarriage at that. Now he has again come along, but we did not get another velvet jacket from him. He is trying to make our hair stand on end with his so-called disclosures in connection with the Ossewabrandwag. I noticed that the hon. the Minister remarked that sabotage was something foreign to Afrikanerdom. Quite correct. The first cases of sabotage which we had during the past months was the violation of a Dutch church, the violation of a school in the Transvaal and the violation of a monument in the Free State, and in view of the fact that the Minister is now making a charge that the subsequent acts of sabotage which occurred were the work of the Ossewabrandwag I feel that we are entitled to say that the sabotage at the Dutch church, at the school in the Transvaal and at the monument in the Free State was the work of members of the United Party. The hon. the Minister has been imagining for some time that he is a sort of Sherlock Holmes or Edgar Wallace, and I just want to tell him that when he loses his present job —which may perhaps happen in the not far distant future — he should not imagine that he will succeed in getting a job in the detective service in South Africa. He will have to prove himself to be a better detective before he will ever be able to hope to get a job of that kind. No wonder the Minister of Finance nudged him and told him that he had better stop. The main point made by the Minister in his disclosures about the Ossewabrandwag was the charge of secrecy; we were told that the Ossewabrandwag does not allow other people to attend its meetings. I do not know whether the Minister is a member of the Truth Legion. When they hold their next committee meeting will they admit me, or will they admit any Nationalist to attend such a meeting? The Ossewabrandwag does not admit people of the type who are sitting opposite to its meetings, because of the fact that the Ossewabrandwag demands from its members loyalty to the people of South Africa, and loyalty to Afrikaans ideas, and I can well understand that not a single Afrikaans-speaking member on the opposite benches can have the slightest hope of being allowed to attend a meeting of the Ossewabrandwag. That body consists of people who subscribe to Afrikaans ideals and there is not a single Afrikaans-speaking member on the opposite benches who subscribe to Afrikaans ideals. The question of military formations was raised by the Minister. He made it appear as something terribly wrong in connection with this movement. May I repeat what the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) quoted on a previous occasion from the constitution of the Truth Legion? It is wonderful how many of them belong to the Truth Legion, but are not members of the real fighting forces which are actually fighting in this war. The Truth Legion provides for commandants, commandoes and all the rest of it. It is based on a military system, and yet when another organisation uses the very same kind of formation as a basis for its organisation it is looked upon as a terribly dangerous phenomenon. No, it is not a question of secrecy of the organisation. The Ossewabrandwag— and I am pleased to say that I am a member of that body — is an exclusive body. It does not admit just anyone. It only admits those who subscribe to Afrikaans ideals, and under clause 4 (b) of its constitution it only admits as members people who can subscribe to the following—

Imagine national pride among any of the Afrikaans-speaking members on the other side of the House — national pride and a sense of freedom! I am afraid that the Minister of the Interior has again, exactly as he did in the past, failed in his efforts, just as he did when he disguised himself as a Malay. He comes here and in a provocative manner makes allegations against the Ossewabrandwag, allegations which are based on nothing but guesswork, without giving any data to prove what he has said. He has produced no evidence whatsoever. The Minister came along here this evening with a tremendous “disclosure.” It had all been written out for him. If he cannot produce anything more convincing than that he should try again. As regards the Bill now before the House I just want to say this: we have opposed it from the very start. We opposed it on the motion for leave to be granted for its introduction, and we have been fighting it from beginning to end. In the first place because the object of this Bill is the establishment of a dictatorship in South Africa; there cannot be the slightest doubt about that. During the course of this debate we heard about the parliamentary “home front.” The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) spoke about that. May I be allowed to say in passing — and I am convinced that I am speaking on behalf of every member on this side of the House, that we are very sorry that the hon. member has bad news about his son. I sincerely hope that he will get better news. He has our sincere sympathy. The hon. member spoke about the new home front. It is those people opposite who fight for democracy, but it is nothing but a sham fight. It is on this side that we have the men who definitely stand up for the protection of democracy and for the protection of parliamentary rights. The Prime Minister drew a comparison with England. Cannot the Prime Minister find the necessary time also to read English periodicals?

I would advise him to study those periodicals a bit as well as the others. If he were to do so he would find that in England serious criticism is being levelled at the measures which the Prime Minister, as he has told us, has taken as his model. And may I also be allowed to tell the Prime Minister that there is a very great difference between conditions in South Africa and conditions in England where bombs are at the moment perhaps falling on the capital of England and the capital of the empire. No, two blacks do not make one white, and if the Prime Minister wants to make that comparison I can only say that conditions here in South Africa are totally different. We are not yet at war and conditions here are not such as to render a dictatorship in this country necessary. We also oppose this Bill for another reason. We oppose it because this Bill constitutes the climax of the provocation and the persecution of the Afrikaans-speaking section of the community, of the Nationalist section of our people in South Africa. That provocation of the Nationalist section is now being legalised, not only in regard to things which have occurred in the past, but also as regards the future. We have had threats made to us by the Prime Minister just as we have had threats from the Minister of the Interior. We expected those threats. We expected them after reading what has appeared during the past few months in the Press which supports the Prime Minister, and in the speeches of the hon. member for Kensington. Those speeches and the leading articles in the Press were nothing but an incitement of the Prime Minister to take more drastic action against the national element in South Africa, and when the Prime Minister made his statement here to-day it was perfectly clear that it was very much to the satisfaction of his followers behind him. When the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) in his turn replied that that sort of thing would not be tolerated in future, hon. members opposite laughed. But let me remind hon. members on that side of the House of the old saying that he who laughs last laughs best, and let me also remind them of the other saying that “as one sows so one will reap”. The Prime Minister, when he was recently presented with an address by the women of Pretoria, remarked that he felt concerned as to how we were going to live together in this country in future when the war was over. He may well be concerned. What prospects are there in South Africa of our being able to live together in peace again after what has happened in the last few months? Afrikaans-speaking citizens have been interned without trial. Compulsion has been brought to bear in connection with the recruiting of soldiers for the army. How are we going to be able to live together again if we are to remember the espionage which we have had to put up with from the side of the knights of the truth? I myself have been approached by spies at Beaufort West who have come to me and spoken to me as though they were Nationalists, in the hope of getting me to say certain things. One of them even asked me whether I did not think the time had arrived when the Prime Minister should be shot. That is the sort of thing which is going to make co-operation so difficult in days to come. I subsequently found out that those people had been sent to me as spies — and yet the Prime Minister says he is concerned, and he asks how we are going to live together. Then we also have this abuse, this calling of names. Afrikaners with national sentiments are called Nazis, traitors, etc. Then we had the disarming of the Afrikaner people through the calling up of rifles. We hold that this calling up of rifles was nothing but a step to disarm us. Furthermore, we have time and again had attacks made on people with Nationalist sympathies— we have had instances at Potchefstroom and here in Adderley Street. I am not surprised at the Prime Minister being worried about the position, he has cause to be worried and he has cause to ask how we are going to live together again in future. And that is not all — we especially have the part played by the knights of the truth in South Africa, and all these other things which are going to make our living together so difficult in the future. In Ireland there was an organisation which was known as the “Black and Tans”. That name stinks in the nostrils of every right-minded Irishman even to-day, and I say that the organisation of the knights of the truth is achieving for itself the same unpleasant and distasteful reputation which the “Black and Tans” have in Ireland to-day. If things go on as they are doing to-day, then I am afraid that our chances of co-operation and living together are going to be very poor in the future. The main reason put forward for the introduction of this Bill is the alleged undermining propaganda. We have the same statement again from the Minister of the Interior to-day, and in the course of the debate practically all the members opposite, including the Prime Minister, emphasised that point. Time and again, as they did again this evening, they came along with vague statements about sabotage, and because of the fact that certain individuals have been guilty of acts of violence, which all of us disapprove of, and because of the fact that those individuals are suspected of being members of the Nationalist Party, or of the Ossewabrandwag, those acts are laid at the door of our party. I have repeatedly, also in company with the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), with whom I held several meetings, strongly disapproved of acts of violence. If hon. members, therefore, want to hold our party responsible, then I am just as much entitled to hold the party which sits on the other side of the House, responsible for the acts of violence committed by English-speaking people. But in spite of the assertions which have been made here the Prime Minister in his speech none the less said — and I took a note of what he said — that the condition in the country is very satisfactory. He went further and when he spoke about the calling up of rifles he denied that this step was taken in order to disarm the people, and he stated that he had not the slightest reason to distrust the people. We are, therefore, entitled to ask who is speaking the truth — the Prime Minister when he says that he has no cause to distrust the people, or the Minister of the Interior who came along here again this evening with his ghost stories? But I want to point to something else as well. I think it ill becomes hon. members opposite to speak of undermining propaganda. It least of all becomes them to use the words “fifth column”. This side of the House on a previous occasion already pointed out that the first fifth column which we have had in South Africa was that of Cecil John Rhodes and Jameson. I want to ask hon. members whether they have never heard of Lawrence of Arabia. If there ever was a fifth columnist it was Lawrence of Arabia. Have members opposite never heard either that even Duff Cooper appeared in the role of a fifth columnist and that he was arrested in Morocco and was kept under arrest for a few days by the French Government on account of undermining propaganda among the French in Morocco. Have hon. members not read what happened in Japan where prominent English-speaking people have been put out of the country on charges of having been concerned in fifth column activities?

Do you say that they were guilty of those acitivities?

They were accused of it. Nor did I notice that the English Government seriously resented those charges. They only protested, nothing further. And what about the case of Sir John Paish, the well-known English economist who left America on the advice of the British Ambassador because he had indulged in fifth column activities? On a previous occasion I quoted from a book which I should like hon. members to read when they speak about fifth columns. That book is obtainable in the library. It is entitled “England expects every American to do his duty.”

Hear, hear.

Yes, the wish is father to the thought. In this book which is written by a well-known author no fewer than fifty pages are devoted to what he calls “the British network in America.” The network of undermining propaganda in America. The other day I mentioned the Press and I pointed out to them that in the news which we get here we are only given the opinions of three papers in America. There is one paper which is mentioned practically every day in SAPA reports, and in the Associated Press news—SAPA and the Associated Press work together, and SAPA (Reuter) in turn work with the British Government. Speaking about propaganda we find this—

Who is the author?

Quincy Howe. He is a well-known author and he wrote a book some time ago which created a great commotion in England. I also want to say a few words about the disclosures which the hon. member for Morreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) made here the other day. This is a matter of the very greatest importance. It came out here that the local managers of the British Fire and Accident Insurance Company had come together in order to get money from England, hot merely to fight Zeesen, but it was clearly set out in the memorandum that they wanted to use the money to fight the Nationalist Party and to fight “the drift to republicanism in South Africa.” It is a good thing that we had those disclosures because we now know where we stand. We now know that practically all the British insurance companies in South Africa are engaged on undermining work in our own country. We know now that when those people come and take our insurance premiums the money is afterwards sent back to South Africa in order to fight us in the political sphere. We know that now. Last year an amount of £2,760,000 left South Africa to go overseas in premiums in connection with fire and accident insurance. Only £840,000 was paid in South Africa. If we assume that 10 per cent. of that £2,760,000 comes from the Afrikaans-speaking people, from the Nationalist section in South Africa, it means that £270,000 of the money of our people goes overseas and then comes back to fight us here, and that does not only take place in connection with fire and motor insurance companies. I have in front of me a letter which was written to the manager of the Prudential Insurance Company. This letter comes from that company’s head office in London, and this is what it says—

The Prudential Insurance Company also is a company which asks our people to take out insurance policies with them, and then they use the money in order to foster British interests. It is a very good thing that we know about these matters.

Who signed that letter?

The people should be told about this and I shall certainly do so, and I also hope that other hon. members will make known from every platform what is going on.

Can we see that letter—are you prepared to lay it on the Table?

It was given to me by a certain person, and I shall ask that person’s authority to hand it over. I have every reason, however, to believe that it is absolutely correct.

We should very much like to see it as well.

I am prepared to show it to the Minister personally; I will be only too pleased to do so. This letter is very much more evidence of our contentions than that velvet uniform held up here by the Minister’s colleague. It is clear from the documents which the hon. member for Moorreesburg has quoted here that the Union’s Ambassador in France (Capt. Bain-Marais) has been used as a collector for a political organisation, namely, the Knights of the Truth. I must say that I was astounded when I heard it, and I was even more astounded to hear that according to Capt. Bain-Marais’ letter this had been done with the approval of his departmental head, the Minister. I am very much concerned at the Prime Minister allowing anything like that to take place, and I am even more surprised that a man like Capt. Bain-Marais, who should have an appreciation of the dignity of the post he holds, allows himself to be used as a collector for such a political organisation.

Shame!

I hope that that sort of thing will not happen again in future. I think I am entitled to claim that I am the founder of our diplomatic service. The hon. member over there is laughing, but it is a fact, and I still take a very great interest in the Union’s diplomatic services, and I hope that that sort of thing will not be allowed to occur again. Now I should like to say a few words about the recruiting of soldiers. The Minister of the Interior spoke here about a magnificent response. It is rather strange that only yesterday, or the day before, there was an article in the Cape Times about the keymen, and the Minister of Lands again thought it necessary to make a speech the other day about the same subject when opening a recruiting office here in Cape Town. It was also strange that the recruiting meeting held in the City Hall was attended by only about 350 people. A statement has been made by an hon. member on this side of the House that the farmers’ sons in the constituency of the hon. the Minister without Portfolio are not joining up; and the Minister thereupon brought his recruits here.

That had nothing to do with it at all.

I just want to say that I happened to be standing at the door when they came in. I have every respect for those men who go voluntarily, and I am very sorry for them if they have to go under compulsion. But when I had a look at them I noticed very few rich farmers’ sons among them. It was a different class of man, fishermen and others, as far as I could see. I am afraid that the position in Bredasdorp is similar to that in my constituency and in other constituencies. The sons of the rich farmers have ewes which have to lamb, or their wives have babies, and they stay at home. There are numerous cases of that kind in the country. I am afraid that it is only the poor Afrikaner who is forced to go and fight. A great deal has been said here during the course of this debate about pressure being brought upon people to go to the front. We had a denial yesterday from the Prime Minister that any compulsion was ever brought to bear. I want to go so far as to say that I hope the Prime Minister perhaps does not know anything about it. Failing that I am not prepared to accept his statement. The Prime Minister said that it was nothing but loose talk. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux) thereupon got up and when he started talking about a case which had happened at Oudtshoorn the Prime Minister stated that it was untrue. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn thereupon quoted the documents. I do not want to quote those letters again except the last one. There was a captain of a rifle club who stated that he would be prepared to go and fight within the military boundaries of the Union, but in spite of that he was compelled to resign, and yet we are told that there is no compulsion. I want to quote this last letter again. It is an important statement which cannot be denied, and this is what it says—

Now this is the major, who writes to the captain of the rifle club—

We are not just dealing with loose talk here, but with an official letter in the handwriting of the major, but the Prime Minister says that no compulsion is being exercised. When his troops left Durban the other day and when he addressed them, the Prime Minister said—

I am pleased the Prime Minister said that no “legal” compulsion had been brought to bear on them, because that is a reason for us to conclude that he himself realises that other compulsion is being brought to bear, but not compulsion of a legal kind. The mere introduction of the red tab proves that compulsion does take place. Why is it necessary to give the red tab to one soldier and not to the next one? Surely those people are in different regiments and the one regiment can be kept for service in the Union and the other regiment for service beyond our borders. No, there was only one reason, and the Prime Minister knows it, namely to brand the man who does not wear the red tab. Officers of the Defence Force have approached me and have complained that their lives are being made a hell at the Castle here because they do not wear the red tab. They are provoked and stigmatised as cowards, and so far as the ordinary men are concerned, some of them have told me that when they salute an officer he turns his back on them. The hon. member for Kensington knows very well that an officer cannot insult a man more deeply than by turning his back on him when he salutes. The men who do not wear the red tab are also sent out to do the dirty work, to clean out the lavatories and so forth. And what about the police? Does the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister want to tell me that no compulsion is brought to bear in the Police Force? If they say so I say that I am not prepared to accept that statement, because those men have been to see me personally and I have seen letters written by police officers stating that the red oath has been forced on them. They refuse and they are suddenly given leave the next day. Why this sudden leave? When they come back they are sent to Namaqualand or German West or some other far-distant place and in other ways, too, compulsion is brought to bear. They are first of all called up in groups, then in smaller groups and in the end one by one, and in that way pressure is brought to bear on them. The Minister of the Interior again denied to-day that any compulsion was practised in the public service. Will the Minister deny that the Union Government has approached the Department of Education in the Transvaal and has asked the Department of Education in the Transvaal to grant facilities so that the teachers might be got to sign the red oath? Will he deny that the Department of Railways is going to induce the railwaymen to sign on? Why? Every railwayman is required in the country to carry on the running of the trains. If ever there has been a disgraceful thing it is the way in which pressure is brought to bear for the obtaining of recruits. It is no use the Minister denying it; the whole country knows it. He may deny it from morning to night, but the country knows that pressure is brought to bear. And then we have the compulsion which is being exercised on the workers on national roads — a matter which I raised yesterday. I said that those men had come to see me. I had in my possession the official circular in which it is stated that the national road workers will be militarised and they will be asked to sign the oath, and then the Prime Minister comes here and says that it is not so. How can we attach any value to the statements which he makes here? Another thing which will make it very difficult for us to live together in future in peace and harmony is this prayer pause in Cape Town and elsewhere. The Prime Minister admitted here yesterday that there is very little prayer. The Prime Minister said it was a pause. Why should there be a pause if they do not pray? Why should they carry on with this prayer then? The Natal Witness, a paper which is inclined to talk very straightforwardly to the Government, said this in connection with the prayer pause in Cape Town—

I say that it is neither good politics nor good religion. It is bad in both respects. We saw a statement by the Dutch Reformed Church in Cape Town this morning. We have been told that the prayer pause has been instituted by the churches, but the Dutch Reformed Church has now issued a statement that it was never consulted. The Church Council has done this, and I should like to ask whether the Church Council is the only institution representing the Christian churches. Not only have the Dutch churches been ignored but the sentiments of a large section of the inhabitants of Cape Town, namely, the Afrikaans-speaking section, has also been ignored. The Prime Minister told us that the police would look after the maintenance of order. What hope has the police of the Minister of Justice if a man happens to be walking about and he is attacked by hundreds of people — what hope is there of the police being able to protect that man? I want to repeat what I stated here yesterday and the day before. There have never been any difficulties here in Cape Town before those attacks were started.

There has been no question of provocation from our side. There have been no instances of people walking about and jeering at the people who are praying. We demand that any person who does not want to stand there and pray and who wants to avail himself of his free citizen rights to move along peacefully in Adderley Street, shall not be attacked, and if he is attacked he has every right to defend himself, and his friends have the right to defend him. If this kind of provocation goes on serious things will happen in Cape Town, and the Prime Minister will be responsible, because one word from him is sufficient to put an end to this “sham praying”. [Time limit.]

It appeared to me, as far as I could follow it ….

And that was not very far.

…. that the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) devoted a large portion of his speech to a justification of fifth columnists. He mentioned several notable men who had taken their lives into their hands and gone over to other countries to serve their own country. But he quite overlooked the fact that these so-called fifth columnists working in the interests of their country were relentlessly pursued and hunted down by the authorities in the countries mentioned. I want to say that I, in common with hundreds of thousands of people in this country, welcomed the declaration of the Prime Minister this morning when he said that when he was armed with these powers which we are at present deliberating, he would use them against those who were guilty of subversive activities, and against fifth columnists in this country. And we would fervently thank him if, in addition to that, he would promise us that he will be no respector of persons and that he will not pursue the unimportant fools and tools who are used in this country, but that he will also see that those people who are responsible for inciting and by subversive action will be pursued and dealt with under the regulations which he intends to introduce. I want to refer for a moment to a series of incidents mentioned in this debate. We have this interference with the pause in Cape Town. We have had the interference and reprisals at Potchefstroom with the military people. We have had these incidents so well described by the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. L. A. B. Reitz), who referred to what happened at Pretoria and at the Premier Mine. It seems to me that those who provoke those incidents could be likened to the small schoolboy who puts a chip on his shoulder and challenges everyone to knock that chip off, and when the chip is knocked off, he is quite prepared to mix it with the one who responds to his challenge. But in many cases we find that where this provocation is given, where the chip has been knocked off the shoulder, instead of mixing it with the challenger, the person who wore the chip shouts out: “Mama, Mama, he has hit me,” and that is the attitude adopted by the silly young Jongs from the universities.

Do not insult them.

You keep quiet. Quite recently twenty-five students from Stellenbosch left Stellenbosch in cars to come and interfere with the pause in Cape Town, and the fact that they had left was known to at least two members of this House who hurried from here and took up vantage points in Adderley Street so that they might see what was going to take place. Cannot we infer that these two members knew something of what was going on, and may we not infer too, that they incited these silly young students to come in and interfere with the arrangements of these people who were grave in their attitude towards that pause?

Very grave indeed.

Yes, very grave. I am hoping that the Prime Minister will add to his assurance that he will use his powers and that he will be no respecter of persons and that he will find out who are the people inciting the irresponsible youngsters in the manner I have mentioned. I hope also that he will see that those people are brought to book. And those members who have been advocating the attitude which the Prime Minister so aptly described here this morning as thwarting the efforts of the Government to prosecute this war to a successful conclusion, remind me also of the well-known Irishman in Natal who some years ago took off his coat, dragged it behind him and said: “Will some kind gentleman tread on the tail of my coat?” Well, someone did, and so there was a very fine mix up, after which the same Irishman said: “Thank you, you are a very real friend, I needed that.” If those gentlemen would only take up that attitude, they would be objects of admiration, but instead they come and plead with the Government for protection. Did I not hear the hon. member for Piquetberg say yesterday that he had written to the Prime Minister asking for protection?

No, I did not.

Why does he not stand up for himself after provoking those reprisals —why do you not all stand up for yourselves instead of going whining to the Prime Minister. Hon. members over there on the Opposition benches are responsible for these things themselves, why do they not stand up and take the consequences and command our admiration, instead of our …. Shall I say it? No, I will not do so.

Hear, hear.

I also heard the hon. member for Piquetberg say that the Prime Minister had evaded all the questions put to him by the Opposition. I think the Prime Minister replied to all those points very well indeed when he said: “I have exercised great patience, I have treated everybody with great patience, because of the racial position in this country.” And he made a further promise. He said: “I shall still treat them with patience.” Well, I think the country will become very impatient if the Prime Minister exercises too much patience in the future. The country does not want to see too much patience, they want to see a suppression of these subversive movements and the people of Natal would like to see a little severity instead of all this patience.

Yes, that comes from Natal.

You would fight with bananas.

The trend of these arguments have been, as far as I understand them, that hon. members opposite would welcome a German victory in this war.

I suppose you read that in the English papers.

I cannot read the Afrikaans papers, and I can only say what has been translated to me. Now it seems to me from what I have seen and heard that there is a section of the Opposition who wish this war to end in a victory for Germany, in which case it must be their wish to have German domination in this country. I had the privilege of seeing a letter to-day from a man who had escaped from the Isle of Guernsey, and in that letter he described exactly what German domination meant. For instance, seven Guernsey islanders attempted to escape from the Island in small boats after the occupation by Germany. They were immediately shot. Others who aided and abetted those escaping were clapped into prison and the officials of the Island who declined to co-operate with the German invaders were also sent to prison and are still held there. The people who remained on the Island were set to repairing the aerodrome and so on. Those people were used in such a manner that their efforts are to be used against Great Britain. Their food reserves have been commandeered and they have been told that they have to fend for themselves — God knows on what. There was nothing there which the Germans had left. So that the position will be that in future these people will starve or will be on the verge of starvation. That is German domination. That is the domination which a section of the Opposition is inviting to this country. And yet they expect us to view the whole situation with equanimity, when they tell us that they are opposed to everything British. The Prime Minister told us that he was deeply shocked at the hostility shewn to Great Britain during the debates in this House — hostility to Britain at a time like this when she and her people and everyone connected with her are fighting for their very lives. They are enduring the blood and the sweat and the tears which they were told they would have to endure by their Prime Minister. And in the middle of their agony we have men here, members of this House, who are exhibiting a fierce hostility to the very defenders of the freedom they enjoy.

You talk and talk and do nothing.

I am here to represent quite as many people as the hon. member represents, and he asks me to go out and fight physically and let him and the people he supports supplant the Prime Minister in the Government of this country. Of course, we shall not go outside the confines of this Union!

Of course not.

You ask me to go and fight — go and fight yourselves for your manhood. Do you value your manhood, or do you look for the plums of office which you long for if you can supplant the Prime Minister? Your country means nothing to you, all you want are the plums of office, but we shall see to it that you never pluck them.

Quite eloquent.

I have heard during this debate so many references to the desire of certain people for a republic. Now I want to make it perfectly clear to members of this House, and to the country in general that this claim to a republic will be resisted to the utmost.

By whom — by Bananaland?

It will be resisted by Natal.

And should at any time a republic be declared in this country, we, the people of Natal, and I daresay the people of Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London, Johannesburg, and of many other places, will say: “We are going to maintain our allegiance to the Crown of Great Britain and His Majesty the King.”

You and who?

We shall see to that.

Why do you not go “home” if that is your feeling?

We are at home here in South Africa. This is our land — it is not your land exclusively. This is the home we are going to fight for.

A nice banana war.

Do not be cheap. I say that we are going to maintain our allegiance to His Majesty the King. We are going to maintain our membership of the British Commonwealth of Nations and if some of you succeed in your ideal of a republic, let me tell you that your republic will be more than one republic, you will be a congeries of small units, each having your own pettifogging President and authorities no larger than some of our local authorities — our minor local authorities, and we in Natal shall be free — free of you. And the people of Natal, Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London, Johannesburg and other places will all be free and build up a free nation associated freely and voluntarily and willingly with the British Commonwealth of Nations; whatever you may accomplish (I tell you, and I warn you) we are going to stand fast in our allegiance to His Majesty the King and our membership of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

I do not think it is necessary for me to reply to the wild and loose statement of the hon. member who has just sat down. We are accustomed to that sort of statement from that type of member. It is a typical example of the mental state of the real Jingo in South Africa, but because we know what the future holds for that section in South Africa there is no need for me at this stage to waste any time on that kind of statement. Before saying a few words about the powers which the Government is asking for in this Bill, I should like, as this is the last opportunity we shall have of doing so, to say a few words about the wool position and about the wool agreement which the Government has entered into. When I made the acquaintance of the right hon. the Prime Minister for the first time, after I had come to this House, he gave me some very good advice, namely, the advice which he himself as a young man had received from the late Mr. Merriman, and that was not to talk about things which he knew nothing about, because there were always people in the House who knew more about these things than he might pretend to do. I have taken that advice to heart, but what I fail to understand is why the right hon. the Prime Minister gives me that advice and does not give it to those members on the Government side who support him. Among his supporters there is only one person who really knows anything about wool, and he has kept as silent as the grave. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) made six or seven attempts to make a speech, and after he had got so mixed up that he did not know where he was he asked your ruling, Mr. Speaker—whether he was allowed to speak about wool. We then waited to get the facts from him as to why the Government with its support had entered into the Imperial wool scheme. But you, as well as we, were surprised to notice that that mountain too produced a mouse. Now we hear from hon. members opposite who know absolutely nothing about the subject that it is a good agreement. They have come here and they have juggled with figures and they have made all sorts of statements in order to deceive the public so that the public shall not be able to understand what the real position is under this wool agreement. We had the speech of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward), who comes from an area where more wool is sold than in any other place in the country, and we would really have expected that hon. member who is in such close touch with wool to have shown a greater knowledge than he showed in this House. He has come here as a man who wants to pose as one of those who have to support the wool scheme, and he came and told us how much the sheep farmers would benefit from it. He himself is a big sheep farmer, and I can only say that if that hon. member manages his sheep farming and calculates his position in the same way as he calculated the position under the agreement he will not remain a sheep farmer for very long. He told us that the average production from a sheep in the Union is 12 lbs. of wool. Has one ever heard anything more ridiculous? His own Department of Agriculture tells us that the average production per sheep is 7 lbs. and not 12 lbs. The whole of his argument is based on wrong premises. He calculates 12 lbs. of wool at 10¾d. in order to prove the fine income which the sheep farmer is making. I want to ask that hon. member to do a little sum and to try and make a little better success of his figures. If we take an average herd of 1,000 sheep and we calculate the average production on the basis laid down by the Department of Agriculture, namely, 7 lbs. of wool per sheep, that farmer gets a revenue of £313 19s. 2d. calculated on the basis of 10¾d. per lb. of wool. Then the hon. member told us that the wool is not the only income which the sheep farmer has, because there is also his lamb production. That is perfectly true. Take an average flock of 1,000 sheep; the hon. member will agree with me that with a flock of that size the farmer will not have more than 500 ewes. But surely the hon. member is not going to tell us that because we are under this Imperial wool scheme every ewe will raise a lamb every year. Only about fifty per cent. of our Merino sheep have lambs every year, that is to say 250 lambs in this particular instance. In addition to that every farmer knows that he has to give up 10 per cent. of his sheep every year—sheep which die, get lost or are stolen. So that leaves 150 of that increase. The farmer then sells his poor sheep and every farmer knows that for those poor sheep which are put out he does not get more than an average of 10s. per sheep. That gives the farmer who has 1,000 sheep an income of £388 19s. 2d. That is all he gets. Now what does he spend? And that is where the hon. member has gone wrong. The hon. member has forgotten the main principles of business, and he has not taken any account of the interest on capital. First of all we have to take the land which is required for those 1,000 sheep. Let us take average class veld and say that one needs two morgen per sheep. We will not take the land at £3 per morgen but at £2 per morgen. Calculated at 5 per cent. the interest on that money amounts to £200. Then there is the interest on the capital which is used to buy sheep. Let us reckon the sheep at £1, that involves an expenditure of £50. Reckoned at a low rate his shearing expenses amount to £7 or £8; the wool bags cost £7 5s. He has to employ a foreman, and if we take into account that man’s wages, his maintenance, Christmas present, etc., this will involve another £84 per year. It means that the farmer will have £40 left and that will be the whole of his income for the year and out of that he has to pay railway expenses, native labour, medicine, marking oil and all those things. He has to pay for all those things. Has the farmer got any money left then to put up a windmill, or to fence off a camp? But apart from that in order to prove that the hon. member does not know what he is talking about I want to point out that the hon. member has forgotten what the wool farmers have lost since 1932—blood money which they have lost. How many thousands of millions of pounds did not the farmers lose from the time of the depression until last year. We did not get a price for our wool. What has become of the money which the farmers have lost? And now that there is a chance for the farmers to get something back, now hon. members will not listen. They have no sympathy for the farmers. The great fact they have lost sight of is the losses which the farmers suffered in the bad years of the depression and the years subsequent to the depression, and now that the farmers have a chance to get something back, the Government comes along with this wool scheme. Our objection to this scheme is threefold. First of all the Government is not getting the best possible price for the wool farmers through this scheme. Our second objection is that this constitutes an indirect tax on the wool farmers to help in paying for Great Britain’s war, and in the third place, the third objection we have is that they are not yet satisfied with what they are getting out of the farmers of South Africa and that the farmer has to surrender what he actually sees before him, what he is able to make, but that even more of his income is to be taken away from him as I shall show in a few minutes. Last year we were told by the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler), who also pretends to know something about wool, that the comparatively good price which the farmers got was attributable to the wool scheme. Are we going to get a good price again this year, a better price than last year, because we have the scheme before us again? Of course not. Last year the price was a 1¾d. higher than what the Government is offering us now, but even this basis of 10¾d. is lower than last year’s price, taking into account the reduced purchasing power of our money. We are getting less than we got last year even, under this agreement, apart from the fact that the farmers as a resul t of the open market got more for their wool than was laid down in the price fixed by the agreement, and apart further from the fact that it was due to the action of the Department of Agriculture, which kept the market in a stagnant position last year for a certain length of time, that we did not get a better price than we did actually obtain on the open market. I say that the difference in price is an indirect tax which the wool farmers have to pay for Great Britain’s war. But in spite of the fact that we have to be content with a lower price basis this year — surely the Minister of Agriculture is not going to tell us that the purchasing power of our money has not gone down — notwithstanding that fact the department does not take account of the increased cost of production. What is the price of wool bags to-day? What do windmills and wire cost us to-day? Those articles are too expensive; farmers are no longer able to put up fencing wire, but the Government and its supporters are losing sight of all these facts. This wool scheme is clear evidence to us that the Government wants to assist Great Britain and is not out to help the farmers of South Africa. The Minister of Agriculture states that Great Britain did not want to enter into an agreement which would compel her to take only part of our wool. Our farmers asked that we should have the same position as we had last year put into force this year, but the Minister replied that Great Britain was not prepared to consider that. Is not that an admission by Great Britain and thereby also by our Government that they realise that South Africa would have been able to attract buyers if she had had an open market? If there had been an open market without buyers surely it would have been quite easy for Great Britain to have obtained all the wool? They therefore stand condemned out of their own mouths. There would have been a market, and that market has been taken away from us. If words mean anything we can come to no other conclusion except that not only Great Britain but our Government as well were aware of the fact that there would have been an open market here. The Minister told us over the wireless — and I believe he repeated it here — that the reasons why Great Britain did not want only part of our wool was perfectly clear. Has he ever mentioned those reasons? The Minister did not take the risk of announcing those reasons, and he is not going to tell us what they are, because if he did it would be proof that we are right. The reason is that Australia and New Zealand would again start agitating if we should get a higher price in the open market. Last year our farmers secured a better price than what Australia got under the Imperial scheme, and they therefore agitated against Great Britain. This caused an awkward position and they had to be kept quiet, and that is the reason why this agreement was entered into in connection with South Africa’s wool. South Africa’s interests were sacrificed in order to calm down the Australian farmers. A second reason why the Minister is unable to tell us why this scheme was entered into is because Great Britain will, as a result of this scheme, at least put half the amount that she will make on our wool out of neutral countries into her own pocket, and the money which she will put into her pocket is money which belongs to the South African farmers and which should go into their pockets. But the main reason why Great Britain entered into the agreement was that she was anxious to obtain a monopoly in regard to wool for two purposes. It was not only to make money for the purpose of helping to pay for the war, but also to stop Germany and Italy from getting our wool. That was the reason why Great Britain entered into this scheme. In spite of the recent diplomatic defeats suffered by England they still showed that they were too clever for our Minister of Agriculture. Imagine, the Minister comes and tells us that the British Government is not prepared to go in for a scheme under which it will only get part of our wool, and at the same time the Minister tells us that Great Britain does not want our wool at all. On the one hand he tells us that they will only take all our wool, and on the other hand he tells us that they do not want our wool at all. Surely we have the history of the past to guide us, and what is the use of history if it does not teach us anything? Even the official organ of the Wool Council and of the National Wool Growers’ Association tells us that America would have been a large potential buyer, that America would have bought a lot of our wool for the duration of the war. That large potential buyer has been driven away from our coasts. Japan and other small potential buyers have also been driven away.

What about Finland?

That hon. member is frivolous, but let him try to be frivolous when they have to face the wool farmers of South Africa. As I have said, our objection is not merely that the wool farmers are now going to get a lower price than last year, but we also have the other objections which I have just mentioned. Australia and New Zealand on a previous occasion had an agreement with Great Britain, and I want to ask the Minister whether he knows what was the effect of that agreement. After the wool season was over it was found that they had been paid 1d. per lb. too little for their wool, and that money was returned to the Australian farmers. Now I want to ask the Minister what arrangements he has made if it should appear at the end of the wool season that the farmers have got less than the average of 10¾d. — how is that difference to be made up? I notice from the Minister’s face that here again he has been tricked by the English diplomats. We have been told by the managers of large wool organisations that no provision has been made in that respect. Anyone familiar with the wool position and familiar with the way in which wool is valued knows how difficult this is, and how easily it may happen that the wool farmers will get too little, especially if the valuation is done by people who have not got the interests of the farmers of South Africa at heart. They will simply try to get the wool as cheaply as possible. Now the wool farmers are asking whether, if the price works out too low at the end of the year, steps will be taken to see to it that the difference is handed over to the farmers. Is the Minister going to see to it that the farmers of South Africa are not going to be made to make even greater sacrifices for the sake of Great Britain’s war? Now, I want to come to the Bill and the provisions which the House is being asked to pass, and I want to say that if we listen to the speeches made by hon. members opposite one is reminded of a farmer who has a whole crowd of Fox Terriers on his farm who are keen to have a fight, just like hon. members opposite. They chase after a wildcat, the cat gets up a tree, and then the Fox Terriers start fighting among themselves, as a result of their keenness to fight, and while they are fighting the cat jumps out of the tree and gets away. That is what hon. members opposite are doing. They do not want to go and fight, because if they do so they may lose their extra pay. The result is that they want to fight here while the enemy gets away. I do not want to spend much time on the question of the commandeering of rifles, but the Prime Minister told us that he had not disarmed the people, but that he had taken the rifles because he needed them. It is difficult to understand the position. Did the Prime Minister declare war so frivolously against the two strongest powers in the world, without even having enough rifles? But let us assume that to be the case; assuming the Prime Minister required the rifles for the purpose of waging war — even then, although he denies it, the Prime Minister shewed that he did not trust the people. We hear so much about our fighting for the preservation of Christianity. Is it in accordance with those Christian principles, and with his Christian conceptions, that we are going to fight with dum-dum bullets, because why otherwise did the Prime Minister call in all those soft-nose bullets? He knows that according to international law he is not allowed to use them. Can we really believe that the Prime Minister gave us the absolutely true reasons for his calling up of the rifles? And then I also want to know whether he requires the cartridges for shot-guns which our farmers are unable to get except with a lot of trouble. Are those cartridges required for the troops in the north? I mention these facts so as to make the Prime Minister realise what the people are thinking. Now there is another thing I want to ask on behalf of my constituency. Hon. members have been talking here about rifles which are required for protection purposes. It has been stated that provision has been made to enable people to get exemption. What kind of exemption has been given? In my constituency I have numerous cases where exemption has been refused by the magistrate. I have a case here of a constituent of mine writing to me that the magistrate has told him that his wife can apply to the police for permission to buy a revolver. Are we trying to cause those people trouble? Do we want to create bitterness? Let us assume for a moment that the Minister is sincere and that he wanted to grant exemption to certain people; surely he should have realised that a number of those magistrates are practically nothing but political agents and that they exploit the difficulties which people have to contend with. They are anxious to get certain people into trouble. I know the position in my constituency so far as people living along the borders on the outposts of civilisation are concerned. They really need those rifles, not only for their own protection but also for the protection of their wives and children. And then one gets this sort of reply: “You can make application for a revolver.” That is the reply which has been given to the people living near the Kalahari. And I also want to ask the Minister whether he cannot devise some scheme so as to allow people who really require their firearms for their own protection to obtain such rifles. The Prime Minister told us that he was only fighting this war with the aid of volunteers, and it was only this morning that he told us that if police officials did not take the oath it would not affect them in their work. How can he explain that? In my own home town we have five policemen. Three of them have taken the oath and two have not done so. Those two are men who move about among the farmers and they have been simply taken away from their work and put into the camp, the police camp, to work there. The red-tab police who provoke and disturb the people have to do the work. Why this sort of distinction which hits one in the eye? Why have those two men who do not wear the red tab been removed? And why the distinction between the police who are employed in the internment camps? Some of them have come along and begged and prayed to be allowed to leave there. Some of them have resigned but their resignation has not been accepted. One gets the case of a man who has committed an offence of this kind; he has said one word during the time he was on guard and he is fined £1 and threatened with discharge. But if a man wearing a red tab falls asleep at his post and is caught he is only fined 2s. 6d. That is the distinction, the differentiation which we find everywhere, and yet the Minister tells us that he is only fighting with the aid of volunteers. Officially that may be so, but does the Prime Minister know what is going on behind his back? I have eight names in front of me here. On Wednesday, 7th August, a certain Col. Loftus came to my constituency; he came to Andalusia and there he gave eight people exactly fifteen minutes to take the oath. They were employed in the kitchen of the internment camp. They had to sign within fifteen minutes or otherwise they had to go. After fifteen minutes they had to leave. I have the names before me. But on the 4th August two English-speaking troopers were caught in the native location at Border, and I challenge the Minister of Justice to prove that those two men were ever brought before the court. He knows that it is an offence for people to be found in the location, and that those people should appear before a court. They may have received some military punishment but they were never brought before the court. We have heard a great deal about secret organisations and the Minister of the Interior has told us a lot about them too. After the speech of the Minister of the Interior I understand why the names of members of the Cabinet are no longer mentioned when they travel, and why the Ministers, when seats are reserved for them, are only indicated as Mr. X or No. 13, because after the attitude adopted by the Minister of th e Interior people at every station would like to have the opportunity of having a look at the Cabinet’s joker. The Minister spoke about loose talk. Does he know what the word “loose” means? Judging by his speech he does not know. We hear a lot about the Ossewabrandwag and about knights of the truth. But hon. members opposite are afraid or ashamed to admit openly that they are members of this band of knights of the truth. Why are they so ashamed of it? Because they realise that future generations of the Afrikaner nation will despise them, and also because they know who their friends are. So-called information is now being supplied to the natives and a small paper is issued every week. We have to pay for it. Since when has the natives achieved such a degree of civilisation that they have to read papers in the location for which we have to pay?

At 10.55 p.m., in accordance with paragraph (2) of the resolution adopted by the House on the 3rd September, the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker and the motion for the Third Reading of the Bill was put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—72:

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.

Burnside, D. C.

Cadman, C. F. M.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Egeland, L.

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.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Rood, K.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Toroid, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Noes—52:

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Beznídenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer. K.

Conradie, J. H.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fagan, H. A.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. 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, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

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.

Verster, J. D. H.

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.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.