I move—

1. (a) Two hours shall be allotted for the motion for leave to introduce the Bill;
2. (b) two days shall be allotted for the Second Reading;
3. (c) two hours shall be allotted for instructions to the Committee of the Whole House;
4. (d) one day shall be allotted for the Committee stage;
5. (e) three hours shall be allotted for the Report stage; and
6. (f) one day shall be allotted for the Third Reading.

For the purposes of this resolution—

1. (1) Definition of “day”.—“Day”—
   1. (a) shall mean a day on which any stage of proceedings specified above stands as the first public business on the Order Paper on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday and is so taken; and
   2. (b) when the stage of proceedings for which a day or days is allotted—
      1. (i) is commenced on a Saturday or on a day on which by resolution the House meets later than 10.30 a.m.; or
      2. (ii) does not stand as the first public business on the Order Paper; or
      3. (iii) is interrupted by the adoption of a dilatory motion that the debate be adjourned or that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again,
         “day” shall mean a period of eight and a half hours, and “two days” shall mean a period of seventeen hours.
2. (2) Conclusion of stages.—At five minutes to eleven o’clock p.m. at the conclusion of any allotted day or days (as defined in paragraph 1 (a)), or at the conclusion of any period of hours allotted, Mr. Speaker or the Chairman shall forthwith put the question before the House or the Committee and any amendments (other than amendments proposed by a Minister) which have been moved but not disposed of shall drop. Mr. Speaker or the Chairman shall thereupon proceed to put forthwith without debate any amendments which have been moved or may be moved by a Minister and thereafter only such further amendments as may be moved by a Minister and such questions, including clauses as amended or as printed, as may be necessary to dispose of the stage. The date for the next stage shall thereupon be fixed by a Minister.
3. (3) Report stage.—At the conclusion of the period allotted for the Report stage any amendments (other than amendments proposed by a Minister) which have been moved but not disposed of shall drop. Mr. Speaker shall then proceed to put forthwith without debate any amendments which have been moved or may be moved by a Minister. Mr. Speaker shall next put the question “That the Bill as amended be adopted”, which shall also be decided without debate and shall be deemed to include any amendments made in Committee of the Whole House which have not been taken into consideration.
4. (4) Eleven o’clock Rule.—When the question has been put from the Chair at the conclusion of any period of hours allotted for any stage of proceedings specified above, the application of Standing Order No. 26 (Eleven o’clock Rule) shall be postponed until the proceedings on that stage have been completed.
5. (5) Dilatory motions, etc.—At no stage shall Mr. Speaker or the Chairman receive a motion that the Chairman report progress or do leave the Chair, Or a motion to postpone a clause, or a motion for the adjournment of the House or of the debate, or a motion to recommit the Bill, unless moved by a Minister, and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith without debate.

As hon. members will see the Bill to which this motion relates is very short. It is an amendment of the existing War Emergency Act, and the principal points of this Bill were fully discussed during the last session in the circumstances I feel that the time-table which we are proposing for the consideration of the Bill is a very fair and reasonable one. I doubt whether we shall take up all the time which we are placing at the disposal of the House.

I second.

I want to protest in principle against the curtailment of the time. The right hon. the Prime Minister stated just now that during the last session already a great deal of attention had been devoted to this matter, and that he therefore appropriated unto himself the right to curtail the discussions; but if during the last session we had the right to protest against this Bill, we have a much greater right to do so to-day. The state of tyranny is continually increasing in this country, more and more is the noose around the necks of the Afrikaner nation being tightened. The Prime Minister says that this matter was fully discussed during the last session, but he is now by means of compulsion trying to introduce what we rejected during the last session. Last session he himself withdrew certain proposals as being unsuitable, and now he wants to push those proposals through. As a result of the criticism of the Opposition he had to withdraw certain clauses which he now wants to reintroduce. Now he comes along and with the aid of his guillotine motion he wants to force the same clause through the House. And then the Prime Minister comes along and blithely tells us that these matters have already been discussed during the last session, and that being so there is no need for them to be again discussed this session. That is evidence to us of the fact that the Prime Minister realises that he cannot face the criticism which has been brought forward by this side of the House; And that is why he is now proposing this motion which we are now discussing in order to shut our mouths. I protest also against this motion because the Prime Minister misled us so far as this question was concerned. When be introduced his first motion he told us that the guillotine procedure would only be resorted to in the event of excessive discussion. He told us that he was only proposing it in the meantime so that the Government would have that power, and after that he stated that time had been wasted during the previous session. We proved by chapter and verse that during the previous session no time had been wasted, because as a result of the discussions which we bad had in the House the Bills introduced by the Government had been improved so far as they were amenable to improvement. He told us that it was not really the Government’s intention to apply the guillotine measure to the discussion of the Government’s Bills and that they would only do so if they were forced by circumstances to do so. Did the Prime Minister adhere to that assurance? No. On the contrary they are now applying the guillotine resolution in anticipation to every measure. It has been applied to the estimates and it is now proposed also to apply it to the War Measures Bill which is to be introduced. The Prime Minister stated that it is in the interests of the House to restrict the debate.

Hear, hear.

Yes, I expected that chorus of hear, hears from the other side of the House. It is not in the interests of this House that this restriction should be applied to us, but in the interests of those people who are not able to face or to stand the test of our criticism. It is in the interests of those people opposite who come here not with the object of doing any work. None of the hon. members opposite have said a word on this question; their mouths have been shut. The Government prepared these plans in Pretoria and they have already closed the mouths of members opposite. The Cabinet in Pretoria decided, and those followers of the Prime Minister opposite must be prepared to swallow everything. They have not the right to discuss these matters. They are subject to the tyranny of their dictator. Well, they must not expect us to be prepared to do that. The Prime Minister in Pretoria already decided that he would do everything in his power to thwart Parliament, and. to stop the representatives of the people from having the opportunity of giving expression to the will of the people. He comes here and tells us that he does not intend applying the guillotine to every measure. The Prime Minister never tells us straight out what he intends doing, but after having obtained the necessary power in that way he immediately proceeds to use his powers in connection with every measure, no matter what promises he has made beforehand.

He follows the methods of Mein Kampf.

No, I do not quite agree. It may be Mein Kampf, but Kampf here in this case means the internment camp where members of the Government side have already been placed so that they shall be prevented from giving expression to their views. Now what is the implication of this measure which we are not allowed to discuss fully? The implication of the Bill, inter alia, is that we are to give the Prime Minister a blank cheque in regard to the property and the blood of the Afrikaner, so as to enable him to use everything in the interest of his Empire loyalty. It does not only relate to the war in which we are now, but it goes much further. We have already seen bow the Prime Minister, since the last session of Parliament, on his own responsibility, and like a dictator, has declared war against Italy, without having the consent of the people and of Parliament. And this measure also applies to future wars. The Prime Minister wants to have the dictatorial powers to enable him in future to declare war against other countries and he applies this guillotine measure against us so that we shall be prevented from properly raising our protest. He also wants to have the right to take full power in any war in which South Africa may be involved. Unto himself he takes the fullest possible powers, he goes to the greatest extremes, but he wants to muzzle the representatives of the people. There is another very serious characteristic in this Bill which we have to protest against, and in connection with which we are being curtailed. Powers are being granted by means of regulations, rules and proclamations, which enable certain people and bodies to issue commands and to impose the penalties mentioned in certain orders, rules or proclamations, and to provide for the carrying out of those orders. What is the Prime Minister doing here? He is depriving the courts of their functions, and he is placing those functions in the hands of the satellites whom he appoints. And then he is surprised at our getting up here and protesting against curtailments which will have the effect of our being unable properly to discuss this Bill. A pen is simply put through the functions of our judiciaries in this country, and whether a person is guilty under these regulations or proclamations will depend on the satellites who are appointed by the Prime Minister. Have we not had enough of this sort of thing in South Africa, seeing that honourable people are put into the internment camps as the result of false statements, as the result of perjury, while those people who commit perjury are allowed to carry on without hindrance?

The hon. member is going too far into the details of the Bill now.

I only want to show this House what we are to expect if this Bill is passed. It is going to be an aggravation of the position which we have had under the previous Act. There will be more cases of defiance, more persecution of honourable Afrikaans citizens. That is what we can expect, and yet we are told that we must acquiesce to the guillotine which prevents us on behalf of our constituents properly to protest against such steps being taken by the Government. The Bill, however, goes further than that still. In this Bill the most extreme class legislation South Africa has ever had is being contemplated.

The hon. member cannot discuss the details of the Bill now.

I only want to show how far-reaching this measure is going to be, and I want to know why we cannot have a full opportunity properly to discuss this Bill? If the Government is prepared to stand the test of our criticism I do not realise why the Government should try to muzzle us. This proposal which we are now asked to pass within a limited time, and which we cannot discuss freely at length, is the extreme form of dictatorship, and a dictatorship which, as I have said on a previous occasion, is forced on to the Afrikaner people under the name of democracy. The Prime Minister as the chief leader of the knights of the truth wants to tell the country that they are fighting for democracy. I say again that that type of democracy which we get from the Prime Minister is nothing but a white-washed grave. I want to protest most strongly against the curtailment of the time and the rights of the members of this House.

The name of the Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa will become known in the history of our country as that of a second Tamarlane. Tamarlane wanted to build for himself a pyramid out of the skull bones of his opponents. Our Prime Minister wants to build for himself a pyramid for all the dictatorial malpractices which in his short term as Prime Minister have been committed by him. We are told that we are fighting for democracy. Democracy is now becoming a farce here in South Africa. The finest institution of democracy which we have is this Parliament of representatives of the people. This is the place where the will of the people is interpreted, but the voice of this great institution is simply stifled by the Prime Minister. The other side of the House has been smothered to death and they are quite satisfied to have been smothered to death. The Prime Minister would be very pleased if he could stifle Parliament, and if he could simply rule on his own. This Bill which the Prime Minister is going to introduce is clause 2 of the first Bill which he introduced last year to which there was so much objection that the Prime Minister eventually withdrew it. That clause 2 amounts to this, that the citizen of the state is deprived of his most elementary rights, and then we get no opportunity of making our protests properly heard against this sort of thing. People are arrested without their being told what the charge against them is, and they have no right to a proper trial. The law of the country is practically suspended and we are governed by means of proclamation. The greatest criminal, the most scoundrelly native, has the right to hear what he is accused of and to defend himself. Here we have the most noble among our Afrikaner people, the noblest of the noble, and the greatest sin in the world is committed against them. They are shaved clean, their fingerprints are taken, and they are put into the clothes of convicts.

The hon. member cannot discuss these matters now, the time for doing so will come later.

The House is asked to vote large sums of money, but we are not given a proper opportunity to talk about these things or to criticise them, and the Prime Minister now comes along and wants to do something in South Africa which is unprecedented in our history, not only does he want to apply the guillotine to the will of the people, but he also wants to stifle the soul of the Afrikaner nation. This action of his is going to have serious repercussions throughout the country. The public are being acquainted with the contents of this Bill and then I do not know whether the Prime Minister will be able by force of arms to keep the people quiet; why fly in the face of public opinion, why tempt the patience and the toleration of the people now in such a disgraceful manner? Stalin is a baby in comparison with this measure. The Prime Minister could put Hitler in the shade. We may just as well prorogue Parliament. Why do we sit here? I wish to lodge my most emphatic protest against this curtailment of our rights. The Minister of Finance a few days ago got on to the platform and spoke about the new world order. If there has ever been anything to expedite a new world order it is this kind of curtailment of the rights of the representatives of the people. The Prime Minister by this sort of thing has assisted us considerably in expediting the day when we shall have a free and independent republic in this country. The Prime Minister is making a farce of this Parliament, so we may just as well have a dictatorship, and perhaps some miracle may happen and he may become President of the Republic. I want to draw the Prime Minister’s attention to this fact, that by acting in this manner he is rendering a great disservice to Great Britain. By taking steps like this he is driving the Afrikaner with a hard hand, and the more the Afrikaner is driven with a hard hand the stronger he becomes. By passing all these measures you will not stifle the voice of the Afrikaner nation. Like a tree that is trampled down it grows again and becomes stronger.

I wish to protest briefly but strongly against this proposal to make the restriction of debate applicable to this particular Bill. If we take into account again the fact that we are here with one great object, to make provision for the continuance of the war, and to pass a war measure, then I ágain ask the Prime Minister why a restriction has to be placed on the discussion. This is the main business for which we have been brought together. I want to warn the Prime Minister that if he is keen that the people outside should have a certain amount of respect for Parliament, and if he is anxious for Parliament to exercise a certain degree of authority, he himself will be to blame if instead the public look down with contempt on this Parliament. They already consider that this has become a farce, because we come here as their representatives but are not given the opportunity of acting on behalf of our constituents, and of placing their interests before the country. Their hopes are centred on us as the highest authority in the country, but as a result of this attitude adopted by the Prime Minister we get the position that the public are losing their Confidence in and their respect for Parliament. Every Bill, every measure introduced here is restricted in the sense that no full discussion can take place. Is there one single measure which the Government is introducing this session on which we are getting full opportunity for discussion? We are dealing here with an extraordinary measure which is of great importance to the country. We have not yet had the opportunity of studying it, and even before having heard what the attitude of the Opposition is going to be the Prime Minister comes here in anticipation and tells us that he is not going to allow us fully to discuss the matter, and that he is only going to give us a short space of time to do so. If we look at clause 3 of the Bill we find that there is a reference there to a large number of figures and dates. One would have expected the Government to have explained to us what it all means. On the previous occasion we had the different Government notices before us, but I now ask any hon. member opposite what any of these things referred to in clause 3 mean. They will have to tell me that they do not know, yet the discussion of this Bill must start to-day. I understand that later on in the day we shall have the Government notices placed before us on which we shall have to base our arguments. I say that it was the Government’s duty to see to it that every member of Parliament had the notices in his hand before the commencement of the discussion. I say again that this action of the Government’s will be the cause of the public having no respect whatsoever for Parliament. Take the commandeering of rifles. I would have imagined that the Government would have welcomed a full discussion on this step in this House, so that it would have been able in future to avoid the kind of happenings which have occurred. If the Government, for instance, had known beforehand what would have happened as a result of the commandeering of rifles it would have been grateful for a full discussion, so that it could have heard in advance what the reaction of such a step might have been on the minds of the people. If that had been done there would have been no need for the Government, within a week, to amend its proclamation under which the rifles were commandeered, and there would not have been the bitterness which has now been caused. It is in the interests of the Government itself that there shall be a proper discussion so that the Government may hear what are the feelings of the different sections of the country, but in place of that the Government is now busy humiliating this House of Parliament, so that the public will no longer have any respect for it, and once the public get the impression that Parliament can no longer act on its behalf, and that the Government does not take any notice of Parliament, a strong tendency will develop among the public to take things into their own hands. If that were to happen the Government would be to blame, because it is the Government which humiliates Parliament and makes it useless. With these few words I wish to lodge my strong protest against this motion which curtails our rights. More and more it is no longer the House of Assembly but the Government, and even here the Government does not accent advice but does as it pleases.

I have now been in this House for two days — which, of course, I cannot expect anyone to notice as clearly as I have noticed it myself — and for a good deal of that time I have been upstairs sending directions to my underlings in a far distant camp, but I have been listening at other times, wherever possible with respect, to the speeches made in this House, and I have gathered an impression of fiddling while Rome was burning. May I say it does seem to me a pity that unimportant people like myself cannot give their vote by deputy and get on with their work, which in some instances is of more value to our country than attendance here. That is the point at issue: how we can best serve the Union. To accomplish that is the desire of all of us. If it is in order I wish to refer to a statement by the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit).

I am afraid it will not be in order. The hon. member cannot deal with matters which occurred in other debates.

In this debate.

No, the hon. member for Cape Flats has not yet spoken in this debate. The hon. member seems under the impression that we are still discussing the question before the House yesterday. We are now discussing another matter.

The hon. member who has just sat down gave us a very fine example of what is actually taking place on the Government benches. Those hon. members are not even aware of the subjects which are under discussion here. I wish to utter my strongest protest against the action of the right hon. the Prime Minister in proposing a guillotine motion in connection with this Bill. The Prime Minister is engaged in stifling the soul of democracy in a shameless manner. He likes to pose on public platforms as the protector of democracy, but here in this House he restricts us, and since we have come together here we have already had a number of happenings which make him stand out as a man who in every respect is busy curtailing the rights and privileges of Parliament. He is engaged in violating the spirit of democracy. When the right hon. the Prime Minister delivers a learned lecture at Oxford or elsewhere, he uses very fine language about democracy, and the freedom of speech. On the platteland he can stir up the public into taking part in the war in the name of democracy. But when he comes here in the only institution placed here by the public to act on its behalf, he busies himself in violating, in the most shameless fashion, the rights of this very House. The Prime Minister is asking for powers here practically to do what he wants to do in the country, but at the same time he curtails our rights to discuss those powers. During the last session the Prime Minister proposed a clause in his Bill which was so strongly objected to that he himself became scared of it. He felt that he had not the right to appropriate those powers unto himself. Yet now he comes along to do the very same thing and he does not give us the right freely to express our views. In other words, he is deliberately busy stifling the rights of hon. members by shutting the mouths of the representatives of the people. I can quite appreciate hon. members opposite welcoming his actions. They are pleased with this war, but we on this side of the House represent a different section of the community. We represent the larger part of the public which is definitely opposed to the war, and that being so, we at least have the right to express ourselves in regard to these powers which the Prime Minister is now asking for. Why does the Prime Minister want to restrict us to a few hours on the discussion of a measure which gives him practically dictatorial powers for the rest of the war? The individual is being deprived of all his rights, and we, as the mouthpiece of the people are restricted to a few hours. When those few hours have lapsed, we have to vote and by means of his majority the Prime Minister is then able to take those powers. We have not got the majority, and we know that the Prime Minister is going to take mighty little notice of what we may say here. He wants by means of his conglomerate majority to obtain the necessary powers, exactly as he did on the 4th September, 1939. But why should we be prevented from giving expression to what is felt by a very large section of the people? Simply because he is afraid that we may throw a light on his actions, and on his doings in the past. We have another important reason why we must resist the curtailment of the rights of Parliament, namely that the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population, which is largely represented by us on this side, is being oppressed with the aid of such powers as are now being asked for. We have always found that the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population is discriminated against. We oppose those powers being granted to the Prime Minister. We do not trust him with those powers and that being so, we must have the right to show to the public from the floor of this House what the Prime Minister is busy doing. The Prime Minister has pleaded with us not to do anything which may have the effect of stirring up the feelings of the people, but if he will not allow the feelings of the people to be given expression to. if he tries to stifle those feelings, he will cause disquiet in the minds of the people. We have done everything in our power to calm their feelings, but the Prime Minister is busy in an unheard of way trampling on the people and depriving it of its rights, and by doing so he is creating bitterness in the hearts of the people.

I believe the Prime Minister will admit that the application of the guillotine is a very undesirable step of which one Should only avail oneself in the most extreme circumstances. I think the Prime Minister will also admit that a step of that kind is very rarely resorted to. I do not think that it was ever made use of in the last seven or eight years, but it is only since the outbreak of war, since the Prime Minister has come into power, that such drastic action has been taken. Before the Prime Minister came into power there were many important Bills which were extensively discussed, but it was never considered necessary to take such drastic action and to curtail the liberty of members in this House to such an extent. Why must we be hurried like this? Why cannot we be given the fullest opportunity thoroughly to discuss these proposals? If the position in connection with the war were extremely critical, one could understand that the Prime Minister could not stay in Cape Town for any length of time, but according to the reports in his own papers conditions in the north are perfectly quiet. That being so, why cannot the House stay here for a week longer and do its work properly? I believe that there is not the slightest reason for the Prime Minister to drive the Opposition as hard as he is doing. If there was evidence of our obstructing the business and wasting the time of the House surely there are other steps besides the guillotine which could be applied? The Prime Minister and his side of the House are entitled to move the closure to the debate if they are convinced that we are intent on wasting the time of the House. True, it is left to Mr. Speaker to judge whether the time has arrived to accept the closure, but I want to ask the Prime Minister whether a question of that kind cannot be left with the greatest confidence to the judgment of Mr. Speaker, whether it cannot be left to him to say whether or not the time of the House is being wasted? If the other side of the House moves the closure and Mr. Speaker is of opinion that the subject should be further discussed. it proves that the Opposition is entitled to have such further discussion. Therefore, there is no necessity for such drastic action to be taken. What happened in last year’s session in connection with this Bill which is the same one now affected by this guillotine motion? This side of the House moved most important amendments, and I remember one amendment which I myself proposed. I moved an amendment that before an individual was interned there should be at least two affidavits in connection with charges made against him. That amendment was never even put. And thus there were numerous other important amendments aiming at improving the Bill and its operation. But when the time laid down had passed, the amendments were automatically disposed of by the application of this guillotine. We are living in critical times and this Bill is very far-reaching and most drastic. If the right hon. the Prime Minister really wants to show a little respect for this House, as we may expect of him in a democratic country, he should withdraw this proposal. In a democratic country the Opposition is expected to be given the opportunity of properly discussing measures placed before the House, and it is expected to put forth constructive criticism. That is all we want to do. It is not our intention to obstruct in any way. I feel that we have already proved during the present session that we are in earnest in our desire to try in existing circumstances to make the best of things. We have proved that in connection with the motion which was introduced by the Leader of the Opposition, and that being so I feel that we are not being treated fairly, and I therefore appeal to the Prime Minister to reconsider the motion now before the House.

Up to the present I have not taken part in any debate in connection with the curtailment of our rights, but the time has come when I feel that I would be failing in my duty if I did not raise my voice. Why all this unnecessary haste? There are a great many matters which we would like to discuss but from the very start we have had our wings clipped. Private members’ days have been taken away. The eyes of the country are to-day fixed on Parliament, which is the only channel through which we can give expression to the feelings of the public, and if we are to be curtailed in our rights in this manner, an injustice is being done to us and to the public. I wish to protest most strongly against the curtailment of our rights.

It was a striking fact that the Prime Minister said as little as possible when he introduced this motion. If one has a good case one is not afraid of criticism; on the contrary one welcomes it. But it appears to me that the Prime Minister has a guilty conscience and that he does not want to make use of the House in the sense in which it should be used according to the original intention. I do not want in any way to defend the existing democratic system. If there is one thing which the public are more tired of than they are of the Prime Minister, it is the democratic system which we have to-day. But we are not given the opportunity of elaborating any questions raised here, and if one puts a question to the Prime Minister and wants to obtain information he evades the question in his reply and we are not given the opportunity afterwards in this House to discuss the matter. Let me give an instance of a reply which I got to-day from the Prime Minister. I asked whether his name appeared in certain documents sent out by the leaders of the Knights of the Truth.

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member but he cannot discuss that question now.

I want to point out how we are treated in connection with questions which we put on the Order Paper.

The hon. member cannot now discuss the contents of questions which are put here.

I should like to have pointed to the evasive answers which we get from the Prime Minister. I have copies here of documents which have been sent out by the head office of the Knights of the Truth, and the Prime Minister ….

The hon. member cannot discuss that.

Try again!

The hon. member is not allowed to talk at all; he is only allowed to sit there and all he can do is to make interjections. We have been sent here by our constituents, and we are not here merely to accept such proposals which curtail our rights. If the right hon. the Prime Minister considers it necessary only to give three hours for the discussion of a subject, he might just as well not have called Parliament together at all. The Prime Minister knows, of course, that his slavish followers will support him even if they feel that what he has pronosed is wrong. If we are not to be allowed to speak the Prime Minister should rather have stayed in Pretoria to see the war through. I do not know where he wants to see it through. Why did he call us together if he does not want to Rive us as the representatives of the people the chance of throwing a light on things that are going on? I do not know whether it will be any use asking the Prime Minister not to apply this rule, but if it is his intention to kill the democratic system then all he has to do is to introduce motions of this kind. The Prime Minister is often called an autocrat, (democrat and sometimes he is also called a democratic autocrat. Both are wrong at the present time. We still have a democratic system here and the rights of members of this House should be protected.

The question at issue is not so much one of waste of time. The restriction of time which is proposed here in connection with the different stages of the Bill may in the one instance be too long, and in another instance too short. Even if the Prime Minister were to double the time the principle which we are contesting here would still remain. That is to say, we regard this motion as a curtailment of the liberties of members of Parliament. The Prime Minister may argue that he is not curtailing our liberty, but what else does this motion amount to? A statesman of olden days describes freedom as the possession of those who have the courage to defend it. We have the courage to defend our liberty, to defend our democratic rights when the Prime Minister wants to interfere with them. Have the so-called champions of freedom on the other side the courage to do so? They appropriate unto themselves the name of champion for the freedom of the people, but I regard their claim as a case of sheer hypocrisy. They have not got the courage to get up here and defend their liberty as members of Parliament. They are so slavish and so tame that they do not even take an interest in the proceedings of this House. That was clearly shewn when one member on the other side of the House who wanted to take part in the debate got up and thought that we were still busy with a discussion of a motion which was under discussion yesterday. They have been so blunted into their very souls by the autocratic actions of the Prime Minister, that they have no longer got any ideals left to live for, and they never think of defending their rights as members. The words which I quoted a moment ago were quoted recently by the Minister of Finance, but where is he now? When the scheme for the curtailment of our rights was drafted in Pretoria he did not have the courage to defend the freedom of members here. Hon. members opposite are in flight. They say that they are retiring according to plan, and it suits their plan to shut our mouths and to trample on our freedom. This motion relates to a Bill which was a clause contained in last year’s Emergency Bill; the object of the Bill is to restore a clause which was rejected last year. Last year the Prime Minister did not have the courage to proceed with this clause. But he is now resorting to the guillotine to get this clause passed. Last year, when the Electoral Act was under discussion, sixty-two amendments were passed and most of those amendments were moved from this side of the House—useful amendments. If hon. members of this side now propose useful amendments, and the time laid down has expired, then the amendments drop. The result will be that we shall get an ill considered Bill. We are already finding that the Prime Minister has come here to legalise the illegality committed—that is what the Bill is for, and it also aims at giving the force of law to penalties which have been illegally imposed. A man who has degenerated to such an extent that as an Afrikaner he is being turned into a full-blooded British Imperialist, is no longer able to think clearly and to explain matters clearly. When the motion was discussed to limit the discussion on the guillotine motion to three hours the Prime Minister said that it would not be unfairly applied. Well, if I may give the Prime Minister a word of advice, I would advise him never again to come along with such a guillotine proposal.

I do not wish to trespass on the time of the House for any lengthy period. In response to the appeal from the eloquent member for Witbank (Mr. Bezuidenhout) I wish to say that I am perfectly satisfied that the institutions of true democracy are safer in the hands of our Prime Minister than in the hands of the Opposition.

Did you understand what I said?

And the fact that this procedure was discussed at Pretoria before coming to Parliament is in itself evidence of the care exercised in regard to the legislation placed before this House this session.

It was not discussed, it was decided.

To say to-day in this House that discussion on the War Measure will be limited to a couple of hours is altogether a contradiction of the facts as laid down in the Notice of Motion.

Have you read it?

Provision has been made according to my calculation for approximately five days for the discussion of this measure. I want to say that at a time of crisis it is necessary for every democracy worthy of the’ name to show its efficiency, to take steps for its own preservation and to face great national issues so that in the future it will not be held up to ridicule and have the way paved for its own destruction. This measure is calculated to preserve South African democracy. It has been evident in previous sessions of this Parliament that democracy in South Africa has been threatened not by measures of this kind, but by the inefficiency of this Parliament.

By the autocracy of your leader.

The ordinary system of unbridled unlimited speech by the Opposition which has led to the absolute futility of all night sittings with their empty heroics has constituted a great danger to the real freedom of South Africa.

What absolute nonsense.

It has threatened this Parliament upon which our people place so high a value. The time has come for democracy to have a tonic of discipline, and that discipline must be applied during this time of crisis; and I want to assert in this House that, were the Opposition sitting on these benches, were they the government of the day, they would not have allowed their Opposition such a lengthy period to discuss a measure which is in the interests of South Africa at a time when she is being attacked within and without. That is the whole position as I see it. The country can rest assured that a measure of this kind will mean efficiency in this the highest deliberative assembly in the Union. This measure has been rendered necessary for the efficient conduct of business. There is a dictatorship in this House when the Opposition has practically unlimited time at its disposal, and the use of that unlimited time has meant that members on these benches have not been able even to express their appreciation of the magnificent work that has been done by the right hon. the Prime Minister and those who sit with him in the Cabinet, in the interests of our beloved country. Afrikanerdom, the true, wise and broad Afrikanerdom which we represent on this side of the House, will show in no uncertain manner how highly they appreciate what has been done for the future of South Africa, not for an attenuated exclusive limited Afrikanerdom, but an Afrikanerdom that will live because it stands upon the principles of brotherhood, and the free association of people within the Union. I want, in conclusion to say that I welcome this measure because I. representing a constituency wide in its representative character, am standing behind the Prime Minister togive him 100 per cent support in measures of this kind which are so necessary to enable us to do our duty not only to those who are living in South Africa, but to the flower of our manhood who have gone to protect us in Kenya and other parts of this continent. Therefore, sir, the only thing to-day that should motivate us in our discussions concerning this matter is the desire to get on with the war, which we have undertaken by a majority vote of this House, and to get on with it as quickly and efficiently as possible.

It is perfectly clear that it has taken the supporters of the Government an hour and a half to get going and to realise what we are speaking about. The hon. member for Durban (North) (the Rev. Miles Cadman) told us here that he has lately been living upstairs. What is he doing there? He is busy earning an additional £1 3s. 6d. per day. and he does not know what is going on in the House. He shewed us here a short while ago that he does not even know the motion we are discussing, but he is here when the bells ring for him to come and vote. We are dealing here with a serious measure, and we find that here too our rights are being curtailed. When the first motion was discussed in this House, the Whips approached us and told us that a definite time had been fixed for the discussion of that motion, and that those of us who would be unable to speak on that motion would get their opportunity on the Estimates. Forty-three of our members did not get a chance to speak, and they have been waiting for the Estimates. The Prime Minister thereupon fixed a time limit for the discussion of the Estimates, and now we have those forty-three members who still want to speak on the Estimates, and the time has been limited. As a result the Whips had to approach us again and they had to tell us that we would have to wait for the War Emergency Bill. Now, the Prime Minister comes here again this morning and says to us: “No, you cannot speak on that either.” Now, I ask you in the name of democracy, when are we to get the opportunity in this House to submit the interests of our constituents here? I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister. If he has a grain of democratic spirit left in him, let him remember that in these serious times, probably the most critical which we have ever experienced, we are being deprived of the right to come here and say what our constituents have instructed us to say; let him remember that we have now reached the third item of business of the session, and that there are still a large number of members who have not yet been given the opportunity of speaking. Surely it cannot be the intention of the Prime Minister to treat members in that way, when all the while we are being told about the aims and objects of democracy. I cannot understand the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen). He welcomes this proposal of the Prime Minister. Why? Because he has had no instructions from his constituents to place before the Government. He does not know what he has to do. He reminds me of the days when we still had a lot of dipping of sheep to do. The sheep are put into the dipping tank. They have to jump about and there is only one place they can get out. The Prime Minister has put members opposite into the dipping tank; they have no say, and they have to jump about until they can get out on the other side. But I have actually had experience of sheep being drowned in the dipping tank, and I am afraid that some of those hon. members will also get drowned in the process, and those who get out on the other side will be unrecognisable in body and colour. If that is the policy of the other side of the House, if they acquiesce in the Government imposing the guillotine in regard to any subject, then we want to tell them that that is not our attitude. We are not like members who live upstairs and who do not know what is going on. We have been sent here by our constituents, and we on this side of the House to-day have to give expression to the serious complaints of the platteland. As we are dealing here with a proposal which is as drastic as this War Emergency Bill, a Bill which is retrospective in its effects, which is of such a highly serious character, we feel we should be given ample time to bring our views to the Government’s notice, and also to the notice of the supporters of the Government who sit on the other side of the House and do not know what is going on.

We have now at last heard from the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) what is the real reason why the right hon. the Prime Minister has introduced this guillotine motion. He told us in his usual bombastic manner that the Prime Minister had introduced this guillotine motion in order to maintain democracy in South Africa. Now the Prime Minister is going to restrict the discussion on this War Emergency Bill to about five days, so that he may maintain democracy in South Africa and so that he may protect democracy against all the venemous onslaughts which the Opposition is making on it. That really is a very interesting reason. My hon. friend says that he fully supports it because he is such a democrat that he would never be able to tolerate the Opposition in any way detracting from these things. He is perfectly satisfied that the Cabinet had decided in Pretoria to restrict the debate on this Bill to four or five days; he is quite satisfied although he and other members opposite have not even been consulted., because he realises that they are of so little importance that they are never in the slightest being taken into account by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet, and that even at the best of times they cannot expect to be consulted. Now that hon. member is the gentleman who on one occasion complained, when a resolution on an important matter was arrived at, that they had not been consulted in caucus. But now they have surrendered all their rights, and they so little appreciate those rights that they have given the Prime Minister a blank cheque to do as he pleases. And they are the very gentlemen who, with their papers, have had such a lot to say about the French Government, and who have condemned that Government because it had voted its rights away and handed them over to Pétain. I contend that those hon. members will do exactly the same thing without saving a single word. They would be pleased because that is the only way in which they can possibly be protected from having to bear the criticism of the Opposition. Those hon. members have not got the courage to meet the public and to address meetings. They do not know what the electorate wants. The only meetings which one or two of them have addressed are ticket meetings with guards at the doors so that nobody whom they did not expect could come in. We further have the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) who tries to induce other people to go and do his dirty work in the north so long as he can draw his salary here and thus show his loyalty towards his country and his people.. That is all they have done. My hon. friend the member for Roodepoort is so concerned about the maintenance of democratic rights in South Africa. Well, I remember that hon. gentleman who in the long ago past was a leader of a trade union; and when he was leader of that trade union he was very much concerned with the rights of the ordinary man than he is to-day. Now he says: “No, we are going to be silent; we want the war to be carried on; we do not want to hear the criticism of the Opposition, and we want to be free so as to induce other people to go and do our dirty work in the north while we sit here.” I very much doubt whether my friends opposite have ever read the Bill which we are now discussing. My hon. friend here behind me says that they state the Bill is not drastic enough. The Bill which is to be introduced practically has as its aim and object to give the Prime Minister greater powers than he would have under martial law. In 1922 he proclaimed martial law and after that there was an Indemnity Act. Now he is trying to obtain his powers in a different way. In this small Bill he is asking for certain powers, and those powers in actual fact are unrestricted powers. The Bill is going to give him the power of a dictator in South Africa and he can do practically everything, except certain things in connection with Parliament. Hon. members opposite are prepared to give the Prime Minister all those powers and then they are not prepared to allow the Opposition to have sufficient opportunity to discuss those powers. The right hon. the Prime Minister would have been very much more honest if he had rather been true to his own past and if he had done what he has always done, namely illegally to declare martial law. If we take the proclamation of martial law of 1922 and compare it with these Emergency War Measures we find that there is very little difference between the two. Instead of our placing the control under this Bill into the hands of the military authorities we are giving ft into the hands of the Prime Minister and his Government. It is no more than right that we should object to the scandalous way in which the Prime Minister treats this House. The public, outside especially, will take very much interest in the attitude adopted by my hon. friends opposite. The only important contribution they have made to this debate has been to say “Hear, hear” now and then. If the electorate should one day ask them what they have said in connection with these matters they will be able to point out that here and there in the Hansard report the words “Hear, hear” are recorded against their names, and also here and there stupid interjections which they have made across the floor of the House. We want ro register the strongest protest against the curtailment of the rights of Parliament. What is a striking fact is that this will be the first time in the history of South Africa when the Government has applied the guillotine to every measure introduced during a session of Parliament. Two measures have been introduced, namely the Estimates of Expenditure and this War Emergency Bill. These will probably be the only two measures of the session, and on each of these the Government has applied the guillotine in order to a large extent to prevent the Opposition from speaking on these measures. We may take it that that is a typical example of what is happening overseas. There they are running away, and they are also running away here. They are running away just as fast here and they are in just as much difficulty as the troops were at Dunkirk. This proposal is a plan of the retreat of the Prime Minister. He prepared that plan in Pretoria and he has now given the order to retreat. It is unjust towards this House and towards the people. Representatives are sent here to look after the interests of the people, and to shut the mouths of those representatives of the people is a crime to the public outside.

I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but after hearing that violent outburst by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) against my colleague, the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen), which amounted only to personal abuse, I felt that I had to get on my feet. When the hon. member was sitting on the Government side of the House we thought he had a promising political career in front of him. We all thought that, but now, sir, I am afraid we have changed our opinion as far as his political career is concerned. He is very very young, very young indeed, and abusive tactics will get him nowhere. We have all got to learn, and if I may give the hon. member a little bit of advice, the best way to learn is by keeping quiet. I hope the hon. member will take that little bit of advice from one who is also young but a little bit older than he is. I think it will do him some good. While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I am happy to support this motion. I have listened with interest to some of the violent protests that have come from the other side of the House, I have listened with interest to the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) and the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Bezuidenhout) also started to blow himself up into a balloon over the word “democracy”. The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) also got very concerned about it, and the thought ran through my mind whether this cry from the other side that the Government is trampling upon the rights of democracy, and, upon the rights of Parliament, they were not mixing up hypocrisy with democracy. The thought ran through my mind also whether they were not playing the part of hypocrisy. I feel confident that the Prime Minister, in bringing forward this guillotine motion, is doing the hon. gentlemen over there (the Opposition) a very good turn, and in doing so he has also done us a good turn; we who have to sit and listen to some of the weak speeches that are being put up over there.

Order, order. The hon. member must not refer in those terms to the speeches of hon. members.

I am just wondering whether the Prime Minister is not doing them a very good turn, because yesterday it was very difficult for them to keep the debate alive. The criticism which we are getting to-day is just like one gramaphone record being played, the one man makes a speech and the others all follow him with the same tune. Another little point that has struck me is that I would like to see in the centre of this floor a broadcasting microphone, so that the speeches delivered here could be broadcast to the whole of South Africa.

I think the hon. member should come back to the motion.

I am on the motion, sir, because I am dealing with the waste of time, and with all due deference to you, sir, this is a time measure which is being discussed. Am I in order in discussing this?

I don’t see how the hon. member’s remarks can be connected with the motion at all.

That is unfortunate, sir, but I do feel that if the country knew the amount of time that is wasted here in this House with idle talk, I am pretty sure that there would be quite a lot of new members and new faces sitting on this the Government side of the House and quite a lot of vacant seats over there.

I just want to ask the right hon. the Prime Minister whether he does not think that this method of applying the guillotine to every measure in this House will create a feeling of contempt for Parliament in the minds of the people. I want to assure the Prime Minister that the public expect that when Parliament meets an opportunity will be afforded to members to raise certain questions and any objections they may have. I have in mind for instance an instance which I wish to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister, namely, the handing in of rifles, because there is a condition of affairs prevailing in the country which the Prime Minister should realise. There is a condition of affairs which we desire respectfully to bring to his notice, and we also trust that he will put things right, but we are not given the opportunity to do so. I cannot for one moment imagine that a man like the Prime Minister who, together with our burgers in the Second War of Independence, stood the heat of the day, and who faced all dangers with them, now wants to put those burgers into gaol if, because of conscientious scruples, they refuse to hand in their rifles. Those things, however, are happening, and the public are very much upset about it. There is a strong feeling in my constituency and these are matters which we are anxious to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister. I shall be very pleased if the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha) will give the Prime Minister a chance of listening to me. I am very anxious to have the attention of the Prime Minister, but it seems to me that I am unable to get his attention, or that he is not prepared to listen to this side of the House, and in those circumstances I think I prefer to resume my seat.

I am one of those who since the commencement of the session have not been given the opportunity of taking part in the debate. What has struck me is that from the very first day since the Prime Minister got into power he has been introducing these forcing measures. He started in the first session—that is the last session we had, and he started just as he is doing now, and he put forward proposals to make us sit right throughout the night. Matters even got so bad that there was nobody on the Government side of the House while we were busy here discussing an important matter. Things got so bad that the Minister of the Interior used to be sitting there without having anybody with him to advise him. The Prime Minister was away; the Minister of Finance was away, and his advisers were away, and the result was that he accepted a proposal which was wrong, and the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Rooth) had to point cut to him next day what was wrong. That was the consequence of the Prime Minister’s forcing methods. If we read books dealing with the Prime Minister we find that that is one of his characteristics; we find that he forces everything that he takes part in, and that for that reason he has failed to make a success of so many of these things. The Prime Minister is not prepared to give us a reasonable amount of time for the discussion of important matters here. If wo look at this motion now before the House we notice that no dilatory motions are allowed to be put, no proposals can be put to postpone consideration of a clause, and when the time comes for the conclusion of the debate, all amendments simply fall away. Now I ask whether that is the right thing to do? From the very start of this session we have not given any cause to the Prime Minister to take up this attitude. All the amendments that are proposed will, at a specified time, simply drop. I feel that this way of the Prime Minister’s to force measures through Parliament will sooner lead to the fall of the Government than help to keep the Government going.

I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes, but I want to put my point of view because I feel it is probably at heart the point of view of the whole country, and I say so because I believe in the innate underlying decency of human nature, and therefore also of members of the Opposition.

Thank you.

I think there is one vital reason, the most vital reason of all, why this guillotine measure is a necessity; and though perhaps it does not appeal so much to the other side of the House I want them to realise how fully it does appeal to me on this side of the House, and others on this side of the House—for one reason and one reason only, and that is because the soldiers, whom, in my belief, this measure is meant to protect, are our own flesh and blood. They are those who are dear to us and they represent probably the only thing in life that we feel is worth living for. I put it to hon. members opposite that every moment we sit here in this House and keep the Prime Minister away from his defence work is endangering the life of a citizen of this country. Now that is why I feel that this House should not delay this session. Surely there can hardly be a family in this country which is not represented on the front by some of its own members, and if it does not appeal to you as a motive to protect their interests, it does appeal very deeply to us. I say that every hour spent in this House is time wasted, and is in the end probably going to cost the life of a soldier of our country. We are at war ….

Are we?

Surely, that is not an arguable point any more. Surely the lives of our citizens, the lives of families of Afrikaners, as well as the lives of the members of the families, English-speaking as well as Afrikaans-speaking in this country, cannot be looked upon as a matter of no concern to hon. members opposite. Evidently it is a matter of ho concern at all whether the citizens of this country are safeguarded or not, and if they are not properly protected, as a matter of fairness, I say that hon. members opposite are responsible for the death of our citizens if they waste the time of this House. That is the only point I want to make. That is our point of view, and that is why we feel so deeply on this side of the House, because if our people are not protected ….

Are you putting up a plea for a dictatorship?

That is the plea I want to make. I support the measure with all the force at my command, because I say it is going to safeguard the lives of our soldiers. Whatever you may say about our protecting our freedom, or our protecting our women and children—I say that our soldiers are protecting your women and your children, and they are protecting your farms and everything you have grown up with and that you hold dear, and I say that I am convinced of this, that deep in your hearts a great many of you feel ashamed of the attitude you have adopted.

The hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. L. A. B. Reitz) has taken it upon herself to say that she is of opinion that the whole country will support these forcing measures of the Prime Minister’s. Hon. members opposite have no right to talk about the country. The country did not send them to Parliament on the issue of war or peace. On the 4th September they slavishly followed the Prime Minister’s example by voting in favour of plunging this country into war, without any instructions from their constituents.

What instructions have you got?

After that, with possibly one or two exceptions, they failed to submit the Government’s war policy to the approval of their constituents; they did not get the approval of their constituents for their misdeeds. We in any case did our duty and we submitted our attitude to the notice of our constituents, and in practically every constituency, and not merely in our own constituencies, large meetings were held. What was the reply given by the public? They stated that they condemned the attitude of this Imperialistic Government, that they would have nothing to do with this war, and that the war overseas did not concern our interests. They have been asking for peace. The Government have been asked to surrender the rights which it has appropriated unto itself to govern the country, so that peaceful citizens may take control, citizens who will look after the interests of the country.

Will you come to the motion now?

The actions of the hon. member have not got the approval of his constituents, and he knows it. He is unable to show his face in his constituency.

The hon. member must get back to the motion before the House.

That side of the House is now supporting these compulsory measures.

We are not dealing with the Bill at the moment, but with a motion for the fixing of a time for the debates.

Hon. members opposite say that this step is required so that we shall not sit here too long, because they say that the Prime Minister cannot stay here too long as he has to go back to Pretoria in order to protect his unvoluntary volunteers. But it makes no difference whether the Prime Minister is here or whether he carries on the war from his office at Irene. It is true that he is the Commander-in-Chief of the unvoluntary volunteers, but he is not on the field of battle. He merely sits in his office. Now he wants to confirm his illegalities here by compulsory measures. I want to tell him that whether he is at Irene or here the day of judgment is coming and the Prime Minister cannot escape the judgment of the people. They talk about democracy. The right hon. the Prime Minister has forsaken democracy a long time ago. They have no right to talk of a dictator; the Government is busy violating democracy and applying a dictatorship of the very worst kind. It is no use inside and outside of Parliament talking about a democratic system when at the same time one oppresses the people. Have we, nearly seventy members who represent the major portion of the people, no rights at all? Are we not entitled to look after the interests of our constituents, and to plead for those interests? Private members’ days were appropriated at the start, and now we are being further curtailed in our rights, and what do these measures which are introduced here contain? They are of a most drastic nature and they affect the lives, the property and the blood of the people. Hon. members opposite do not care; they allow the Prime Minister to carry on. They are not concerned with the interests of the people; all they are concerned with are the interests of the Empire. I protest against this autocratic attitude of the Government and I protest against the curtailment of our rights as members of the Opposition. The people demand that their rights and their interests shall be looked after.

If one listens to hon. members opposite it would appear that they want to create the impression in the country that they are not given the opportunity of criticising at all. They have been telling their constituents that by this time they would be in power, and now they want to deflect the attitude of their constituents from that prophesy so they are now telling the country that we have an autocratic Government here which does not allow the Opposition to put forward any criticism. But what does the motion say? It says that in respect of the stage for leave to introduce the Bill two hours will be allowed. As a rule a Minister just gets up and simply introduces a Bill, but now they are given two hours to raise objections. After that they get another two days to say why the Bill should not be accepted. When they have wasted that amount of time they are given another two hours for a motion that certain instructions shall be given to the Committee of the Whole House. When that is passed they get another day which they can waste on the Committee stage and finally they get another three hours for the report stage. Then, when they have wasted all that time they are given another full day for the third reading. If one listens to them one would get the impression that the Prime Minister has come here and has told us that the Bill is to be passed without our being allowed to say 3 word about it, but we find that the motion gives us ample time to discuss matters. They talk about democracy. This country is at war, and is fighting for its liberty, and then the Opposition comes along and, as happened last session, deliberately introduces amendments in order to hold up the work and in order in that way to trample on democracy. They tell the platteland that our Prime Minister stands with one foot in England and with the other foot in South Africa. They stand with one foot in Nazi Germany and with the other foot they trample over the rights and liberties of South Africa. It is high time that we put an end to these things. I know that they are playing their party game, and I agree with the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. L. A. B. Reitz) that many of them realise that they will one day be ashamed of the things they are doing. Perhaps they may not agree with us on every point, but let them remember that thousands of young Afrikaners have gone north and are going north to offer their lives for the freedom of South Africa.

To protect Great Britain’s colonies.

In any case they are prepared to sacrifice their lives, to give up good positions to go and fight, and to take a few shillings per day. Do not these young fellows compel the respect of hon. members opposite? Why are those young fellows stigmatised as “hanskakies”?

No, you are a “hanskakie.”

Anyone who agrees with the Prime Minister is a “hanskakie.” Do you know, Mr. Speaker, how they are trying to intimidate the people of the platteland?

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

I had said when business was suspended that hon. membérs opposite are doing everything in their power to waste the time and the money of the country by unnecessarily detaining the House. I read out all the hours which members will have at their disposal to criticise the War Emergency Bill, but their sole object is to ridicule the Government’s war efforts; however, they are only making themselves ridiculous. The farmers in our country, whom they pretend to represent, are getting tired of these things. In suite of the advice of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) that their supporters should have nothing to do with us — something which the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) has tried to ape ….

That has nothing to do with this debate.

I only want to say that the sooner hon. members realise that we on this side are determined to stand by the Prime Minister on the course he has taken to bring the war to a successful issue the better for them.

That has nothing to do with the motion.

This motion has been placed on the Order Paper in order to promote the business of the House so that the Government may proceed with its work, with the important task it has taken upon itself.

Yes-boy!

The hon. member talks about yes-boys. He is called the windmill in his constituency because he changes like a windmill.

I like following the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) in his arguments, but Mr. Speaker, you rightly called him to order because he diverted from the protest against the curtailment of our rights which we are now dealing with. The hon. member is called Lord Whitecliffs of Dover, but it is so small-minded for a man to make the type of remark which the hon. member did and which has nothing to do with the debate. I, therefore, wish to confine myself to the curtailment of our democratic rights. Even in the days when the Opposition consisted only of seven members, those rights were recognised and protected. How much more should not those rights be protected when we have as large an Opposition as we have to-day? We are dealing here with a question affecting the very existence of the people. It is admitted that we do not all hold the same views as to what is demanded by the wellbeing of South Africa, but that does not alter the fact that the people of South Africa have not had a say in the decision about the future of the country — the declaration of war. Where we are dealing with such a serious matter it does not become us to make jokes and to cast reproaches at each other, but we should give our carefully considered views about the matters placed before us. The people have had no say in the decision ….

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

Yes, I realise that I must keep within the scope of the Standing Rules and Orders, but we are dealing here with the curtailment of our democratic rights, and in view of the fact that between the 4th September of last year and the 3rd September this year there has been such a far-reaching development, we cannot tolerate any curtailment of our rights. For that reason I regret that those who pretend to fight for democracy are undermining the democratic system of our Parliament in a way which cannot be tolerated by a democratic people. I just want to express a thought ….

Louder!

Mr. Speaker, you told me last time that I must not take notice of fools. I know that if I raise my voice it will be heard throughout the whole of South Africa if a broadcasting station is anywhere near. The Prime Minister is the leader of that section of the Afrikaner people who with both feet stand outside of South Africa, and of which not even a small portion is in South Africa. That cosmopolitan conglomeration is not the South African nation.

The hon. member is again straying from the motion.

If that is so, that we are not allowed to discuss the composition of the South African nation, it is unfortunate that you are tied down by the Standing Rules and Orders of the House so that you cannot allow me to proceed. I ask the Prime Minister: Are you in earnest? Are you in earnest when you say that it is in the interests of the wellbeing of this country to introduce this motion? All I can do is to raise my strong protest against this proposal.

The one member after the other has got up to protest against the introduction of this motion, and the protests have ranged over the principle of the curtailment of the discussion, over the restriction placed on the House, over the democratic system which is being undermined, and all kinds of objections on principle of that kind. But those hon. members who have adopted that attitude have for the moment lost sight of the fact that we have already adopted the principle of a time-table. That no longer is a question against which protests can be registered, because the House has already passed a resolution to the effect that the guillotine shall be applied. Here we are only dealing with a specific proposal in connection with a specific measure. We have proposed a time-table in respect of the Bill which is to be introduced. Not the slightest objections have been raised against the details of that time-table. No criticism whatsoever has been expressed against that time-table, not a word has been said about it. In my introductory remarks I explained how much time we are giving for the various stages of the Bill. If hon. members had any objections to the time provided for a specific stage justifiable criticism might have been put forward by them. But not a word has been said about that. All the speeches dealt with the principle of democracy, in which very few hon. members opposite believe. We heard members opposite openly admit that they were opposed to the democratic system. They are in favour of a new world order, but they use the democratic system as a stick to beat me with. We are not concerned here with the principle but with the application of the principle, and I say that not a word has been spoken, not a word of criticism has been heard about the time-table itself. If an hon. member had said that he felt that too little time was given for one stage, and too little for another stage, I would have been prepared to consider those objections.

But the whole session is under the guillotine.

The hon. member forgets that we are at the beginning of a session. With an adjournment in between, this session is to continue until next year, and the resolution which has been passed in connection with the guillotine applies not only to this short session, but it will also be applicable to the rest of the session if the Government wants it to be. We have no intention, however, of doing so. We have no intention of applying the guillotine to the ordinary Bills which will be introduced during the remainder of the session. These two measures, for the consideration of which we have specially met, the financial provisions and a Bill for the security of the country—those are the measures to which we are applying the guillotine.

Can you mention anything to us to which it will not be applied?

The hon. member can wait until we come before the session with the ordinary measures. An effort has been made to discuss all sorts of questions which have nothing to do with this, and those questions can be dealt with later when the Bill has been introduced. I do not propose going into those questions at this stage. You would not allow me to do so, Mr. Speaker, and there will be another opportunity to do so. I only say that no specific attack has been made on the time table which we propose. All we have had has been a general protest about the principle which has already been accepted, and that being so I see no reason why this specific motion should not be accepted.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—82:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

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.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp. W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—54:

Badenhorst. C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conroy, E. A.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fullard, G. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Havenga, N. C.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux. S. P.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, O.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Swart, A. P.

Theron, P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

I move—

I second.

I am taking this unusual step of contesting the motion for leave to introduce this Bill for various reasons, but in the first place because the basis of this Bill is not honest. I leave out of the question for the moment the fact that we are opposed to any legislation of this kind. What I specially want to emphasise is that particularly that part of the Bill which purports to legalise certain proclamations is nothing short of fraud towards the public of South Africa. One would be able to understand that in certain circumstances where it is necessary to act speedily the Government has to take steps and has to issue certain proclamations without their having any legal ground for doing so. That actually also happened during the last session, and the Government then came to this House for the purpose of asking for condonation as well, or as badly as it could do so, for having acted illegally. But, the most important part of this proclamation is the treatment. We can appreciate that where the Government has declared war on Italy — even though such a declaration of war was an unconstitutional action — certain proclamations had to be issued in consequence of that declaration of war. Those proclamations are contained in an annexure to the Bill, or rather I take it that they will be so contained. What we have before us at the moment are two portions of the Government Gazette, the one part which sets out the Bill and the other refers to proclamations which have been issued. We can quite understand that after the declaration of war against Italy proclamations had to be issued. But what I want to object to, and I hope that this House will associate itself with that objection, is that where the Government had had powers conferred upon it under one Act it used those powers for a totally different purpose, and as it is now on the point of being found out — a case is to to heard in the high court — it now asks this Parliament to legalise that illegality; the Government now asks us by means of this omnibus indemnity to gloss over that dishonest action. That more particularly is the reason why I have got up and why I want to ask the House to refuse leave for the introduction of this Bill. Now may I be allowed to explain what I mean when I say that powers which have been given under one Act, without the public having been conversant with it, are being used under a different Act. I am dealing here with powers which the Government has obtained under the Defence Act. Let us clearly understand that we are concerned here, so far as the proclamations are concerned, with two separate sets of legislation. We are concerned here with the law dealing with emergency regulations passed during the last session. Certain provisions which are now being made show that if the Government had given its attention to the matter in time that Act need not have been passed. We are now dealing with another set of regulations, which purport to have been issued under the Defence Act, and it is more particularly those regulations to which I want to draw the attention of the House. I say that those regulations to which I more particularly wish to draw attention were issued in accordance with clause 86 and clause 116 of the Defence Act. That is to say those clauses of the Defence Act which deal with commandeering. If hon. members read the summary of the proclamations which are to be legalised they will see that there are several of those proclamations which purport to have been issued under clauses 86 and 116 of the Defence Act. More particularly will they see that under these particular clauses the Governor-General has taken it upon himself to authorise the Secretary of Defence to commandeer rifles. I do not propose going into details. What I am concerned with is that the Government has deliberately availed itself of one Act for the purpose of achieving an object which it could not achieve under that Act, but by which it wished to give the impression to the public that it had the right to take action under the Defence Act. I am not exaggerating when I describe this as fraud towards the public of South Africa, when I describe as a fraud the issuing of regulations of one Act knowing that one has not the power under those regulations, and then to come to this House and to say that we are passins a new Act or new emergency regulations in order to legalise the illegality. We are accustomed to illegality from this Government — we have had it not once but several times, but illegality which is associated with deliberate deception of the public, and together with the public also their own supporters, because they, the Government, do not state what their actual purpose is, is an action which even so far as this Government is concerned, is something novel. In clause 86 of the Defence Act the Governor-General, inter alia, is given the power to do the following things—

The Government has issued a proclamation under this section which purports to have been issued by virtue of this clause, giving the right to officials to obtain supplies of foodstuffs, forage, etc., and let us take it that this would also include firearms. They can authorise somebody to secure the goods on their behalf, and here we have the important provision—

If those forces are in want when they are in the field the officer is allowed to take those goods from the civilian population. Those goods can be commandeered. That is perfectly clear. But no right is conferred here for anything to be taken away which is not required for the purpose of maintaining the forces in the field, and when later we get to the merits of these proclamations we shall want to know why .22 cartridges are needed for our troops in the field, why soft-nose bullets, why bullets of savage rifles, all of which have soft noses, have been commandeered in view of the fact that the use of such bullets would be illegal under International law. That is the first point to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. The second point is that the taking possession must be in terms of the Defence Act under which that proclamation is authorised. Even if we accept the definition of our borders which the Prime Minister laid down during the last session—I do not know whether he has diverted from that now—but even if we accept his definition that the equator is the border under the Defence Act, we find that these goods are being commandeered for troops above the equator, which is clearly outside the scope of the Defence Act. In the third place those goods have been commandeered in such a way—not that the Government has done what clause 86 demands, namely, that it should appoint officers to take possession of the goods—no, a general disarmament proclamation has been issued allegedly by virtue of this clause which informs the people that their rifles are being-commandeered. The proclamation states that the rifles are Government property and the public are instructed to hand over this Government property to the nearest police station, and if that is not done such a person is liable on conviction to imprisonment without a fine to a maximum of twenty years. Where that power comes from is a puzzle which the Prime Minister may be able to solve for us. But even that does not satisfy them. If we look at the proclamation we find that it is not the Governor-General who orders that commandeering to take place but the power entrusted to him has been transmitted to the Secretary for Defence. If we look at the proclamation we find that the crime is created not by the Governor-General by way of proclamation issued under clause 86, or of clause 116, but the crime is created by the Secretary for Defence in his notice. The Secretary for Defence notifies the public that they must do this or that, and if the public fail to do so they commit an offence. It is an elementary rule that a person like the Governor-General to whom certain powers are entrusted which give him the right to say that certain things shall be a crime, or to give an order, the contravention of which will constitute a crime, shall himself exercise those powers. But here those powers are conferred on the Secretary for Defence without any further authority. We can well understand that in those circumstances the proclamation which states that these powers have been granted under the existing Act now has to be legalised by this special Emergency Measure. For that reason I say that we are justified in assuming that the Government itself realises that that proclamation was illegal, but I go further and I say that they knew it. They have their legal advisers and I take it that they would not act without consulting those legal advisers. Anyone of those legal advisers would have told them that they could not do what they did do under the Defence Act. But they did not have the courage to issue a proclamation in respect of which they would admit that it was illegal, and that it now had to be legalised. No, they had to deceive the public and give the public the impression that they had the right to act as they did in accordance with the Defence Act. Consequently they did not only create offences under the Defence Act, offences of which the Defence Act knows nothing, but they did so deliberately knowing that it was illegal. They simply disarmed the people. They knew what the effect would be on their own supporters if they let those supporters realise that the Government did not even trust them and that the Government wanted to disarm them together with the others. That is the reason why an ordinary proclamation was issued and it now has to be legalised during this session. They created the impression among the public that they were only commandeering rifles for military purposes, while all the time they were engaged on disarming the people. They gave their own supporters and the people to understand that the Government had such powers, well knowing that they did not have such powers. And now they come here piously, and this fraud is hidden away in the schedule of this Emergency Bill. In the schedule the fraud has to be stuck away, now just before the case has to be shewn up in the High Court. There are people in gaol, illegally in gaol, people whose appeal in the ordinary course of events would come before the High Court, and I believe that the High Court would have expressed itself about these illegalities. All this has to be glossed over by this Bill. Consequently, as the Government has not even had the courage to be honest with its own supporters and put all its cards on the table, I hope the House will refuse leave to the Minister for the introduction of this Bill.

I wish to associate myself with the protest made here by the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) and I also wish to raise objections to leave being granted for the introduction of this Bill. One of the grounds on which we protest is that we now have the spectacle in the House day after day, hour after hour, of members being brought under a wrong impression in exactly the same way as the people outside are brought under a wrong impression. If the people see them in their true colours hon. members opposite will no longer be allowed to retain their seats. They are not entitled to sit there, they have got there by means of a political coup d’êtat. Getting a little nearer to the manner in which the public are being deceived I want to refer to the Prime Minister’s own words at the last session of Parliament in his well-known speech of the 7th February, when he said this—

He deliberately framed his remarks in general terms: “Any form of compulsion or commandeering.” He tried to give the public the impression that he was going to conduct the whole of the campaign with volunteers and afterwards he broke his word, and on a large scale, and in a way depicted by the hon. member for Gezina, he applied compulsion and commandeering. We know the Prime Minister. His whole history is replete with that sort of thing. There is one thing which he knows how to do and that is so to express himself that any interpretation may be given to his words.

When was there any commandeering?

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) takes unto himself the right to talk about commandeering. Let me say to his face, what I have already said outside, that if he takes unto himself, as he has done, the right to plead for commandeering the burgers, then we have the right to talk against commandeering. I think that is enough for the hon. member. But I quote again what the Prime Minister has said. He gave his solemn assurance that there would be no commandeering in the general sense of the word, and now the people have to be made to drink the bitter cup, drop by drop. This is what he said—

That was the Government’s policy. He had to give the people the impression that the Union was going to be defended, and that the British territories up to the Equator were going to be defended on a voluntary basis. He spoke about up to the Equator, but to-day our people are already beyond the Equator. But he further said this—

Now let us for a moment refer to what he has done in the past.

What is the date of that speech?

I now want to put a question to the right hon. the Prime Minister, as I have also done outside. He has acted illegally here, and he has humiliated and disarmed the people, to the great displeasure and indignation of the people. We are often accused of there being a fifth column in South Africa, but this is the first column. The people he has disarmed are the people who are prepared to defend South Africa without their getting any special pay, such as hon. members opposite appropriated unto themselves at the last session of Parliament. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he has lost touch with his people to such an extent, whether he so little understands the people, that he does not know that he cannot humiliate them to any greater extent than by this action of his to take their rifles from them? He did not even have the right to do so. There are such things as statutory rights, and here the Prime Minister, as has already been shewn, has demanded the surrender of all the rifles without having the right to do so. But apart from that, there is also such a thing as a moral right, and I pertinently put the question to the Minister and I ask him, what right he, or any other head of state in the world, has to call up burgers whom he has first of all humiliated and disarmed, to-morrow or the day after, in order to make use of them for his imperialistic purposes? The Prime Minister laughs.

Who has been commandeered?

The Prime Minister has taught us that we must catch him, like a jackal, before he creeps away into his hole. He is again, by means of this Bill, creating a refuge for himself in order to cover his sins, so that the people should not be able to see him in his true colours. Let him deny it if he wants to. I strongly object to leave being granted for the introduction of this Bill, because clause 1 (3) says this—

1. (a) the liability is imposed to render compulsory military service;
   1. (i) except ….

And here one half gets the impression that compulsory military service cannot be enforced, but still there are certain exceptions saying when such compulsory military service can be imposed. Those are the funk holes which the Prime Minister provides for. And what are they? First of all —

Now we again put the question, which last time was left unanswered, and which the other side dare not answer in this House: “Where, according to his terms, are the borders of South Africa?” He has elastic borders and an elastic application of the Defence Act, and now the Prime Minister wants to create the opportunity for the commandeering of burgers, so far as it suits him, to go and render service to the empire, even in Northern Africa. In accordance with this Bill he is obtaining powers to commandeer people for compulsory military service against an enemy anywhere in South Africa, inside or outside the Union. We know the Prime Minister’s history, and we are nervous of him.

Hon. members are allowed to cover a fairly wide field, but they cannot discuss all sorts of matters here.

This relates to this clause. I shall put the point in this manner: The consequence of this clause will be that burghers will be commandeered as a result of the fact that the Prime Minister’s geography is just as muddled as it was at the time of the Nakob incident. Why cannot we have some clarity? If the Prime Minister wants to commandeer the burghers for the defence of the Union, then there is no need for him to pilot a special Bill through this House in order to enable him to do so, but he can make use of the Defence Act. But now he wants to obtain, by means of these special measures, powers to enable him to act outside the scope of the Defence Act in conflict with what was intended by the fathers of the Defence Act, and in that way he wants to use the Afrikaners in his empire service, as a peace offering for his British loyalty. I have particularly referred to this part because to-morrow or the day after Parliament will no longer be in session and new proclamations and regulations will be published, and the last drop of blood and the last penny of the Afrikaner people will then be used in the service of the empire, because that is his policy. So far as this Bill and its, consequences are concerned….

The hon. member must not go into details; he can only speak on the question of leave to introduce the Bill.

My objection to the introduction of this Bill is that it is the Prime Minister’s plan to discriminate by means of this Bill between burghers and burghers, that it is his intention to introduce class legislation. He wants to grant certain privileges to his own people and by those means he wants to defy the Opposition and he wants to discriminate against them. I protest against there being discrimination in a democratic country, and against the possibility of discrimination as between the one citizen and the other. This Bill is very far-reaching. We have in South Africa a judicial system of which Afrikanerdom is entitled to be proud, we have a judiciary which is clean. Why then should the Prime Minister come along with a Bill of this kind which practically has the effect of creating a new military judiciary and of pushing aside our blameless judiciary? This is being done with the sole object of exterminating, destroying and grinding down the Afrikaner. That is being done while he has not even got the moral courage to test public opinion, because he knows that the people will reject him just as they did in 1924. Now he comes here and asks for leave to introduce this Bill, and he asks us for a blank cheque to enable him to do as he pleases with the lives and the blood of Afrikanerdom. That being so, we have the right to refuse leave being granted for the introduction of this Bill, because we cannot entrust him with those powers.

When this Bill was submitted to us we naturally were at once surprised at the fact that the old clause 2 of the Bill, which on the 5th February was introduced by the Prime Minister, should be taken up again in this Bill in an aggravated form. We had expected — at least I had expected — that the Prime Minister would have had to come to this House during this session with an Indemnity Bill, because the steps which the Government had considered it necessary to take had made this unavoidable. I do not want to criticise it here, but what greatly impressed me is the fact that the Prime Minister has not only come along here with an Indenmity Bill, but he has come here with a special measure which is intended to save the country being governed any longer by means of legislation, but by means of regulations. That was the great issue in February, and that undoubtedly is going to be the great issue again, and the Prime Minister himself encourages us to take up that battle. May I read what he himself said on the 7th February when he introduced the second reading of the Bill? He said in regard to clause 2 that if it was dropped there was a possibility that an Indemnity Act would again be required. He first of all pointed out that certain things had already been done for which indemnity would have to be obtained, but he then came to clause 2 and he said that he had come to the conclusion that it was better to withdraw that clause. That was the same clause as the one which we have now before us in an aggravated form in clause 1 bis. In connection with that old clause 2 which was killed before it was born, the Prime Minister at the time said this—

The Prime Minister took up the attitude that he could arrange for all the other things by means of the then existing regulations. Only 1 per cent of the things he could not do, and in connection with that 1 per cent he would have to ask for an indemnity. I must say that it is a very large percentage, but in any case that was what the Prime Minister said. He thereupon announced that he was withdrawing clause 2 and he said he thought it would be possible to carry on with the regulations and he would not have to ask for a blank cheque for the future. Six months ago the Prime Minister stated that he did not want to ask for a blank cheque, but to-day he asks for a blank cheque: to-day he has the courage which he did not have six months ago. It seems a sad kind of courage to have and I should like to ask the Prime Minister to tell us when he replies to the debate where he got that courage, because he went further in his speech and he said this—

That was the whole trend of his speech, and it shows clearly that the Prime Minister was just as much opposed to a blank cheque as we were and as we still are to-day. In any case he therefore owes an explanation to Parliament of the attitude he adopts to-day. What is the cause of this change in his attitude? It appears to me that the real reason which the Prime Minister then had for withdrawing clause 2 was this, in February last: that without the withdrawal of clause 2 we on this side would be able to accuse him of being a dictator and of being an autocrat. He said so straight out in his speech. That is the essential point. This clause 1 bis is now going to give us and the whole country the right to accuse the Prime Minister of being a dictator and an autocrat. I hope on the second reading to have the opportunity of asking the House, and especially of asking the Prime Minister how he is getting on as an autocrat. We shall have to go into details somewhat; he will have to excuse me if I say — perhaps he regards it as a tribute — that he is now going to be accused of being an autocrat and a dictator. Undoubtedly the position of our country is serious, but I fail to see what has happened in the past six months to justify the Prime Minister exposing himself to that charge of autocracy and dictatorship. Undoubtedly the result of an attitude of this kind is that the feeling of anxiety must increase throughout the country, that confidence in the actions of the Government must be affected more and more as time goes on, and that the tendency for resistance must increase. Such resistance may be useless and hopeless and people may not realise its hopefulness, but the feeling of resistance will develop. I fear that if we are not careful— and that is the only reason why I have got up here to-day — this poor people of ours is going to be pushed into a corner which is going to be fatal. They are going to be forced into disastrous actions which will have a serious effect on the future. The Prime Minister knows that I am not animated by any personal hostility but that I speak from a sense of duty towards, and love of, our people. That is why I am making an appeal to him — seeing that on the 2nd February he decided to withdraw clause 2 — now to withdraw clause 1 bis, in view of the fact that in the past six months nothing has occurred so far as I am aware to justify him committing this reprehensible act. On the second reading we shall have the opportunity of going more deeply into matters, but in the meantime I cannot refrain from raising my voice together with other hon. members who have already spoken, and others who will still speak against the introduction of this Bill.

The right hon. the Prime Minister naturally is not surprised that this unusual step is being resorted to of having a discussion at this early stage in connection with the Bill which the Minister wants to introduce. The right hon. the Prime Minister must naturally have expected it, and that is why in his guillotine motion he has also provided for time for the discussion of leave for the introduction of the Bill. In those circumstances I feel that the House is surprised that the Prime Minister has not already at this stage made a statement in regard to certain aspects of the legislation which he intends introducing. The Prime Minister knows how disquieted the public are, and he knows of the feeling which prevails as a result of the steps which are being taken with regard to proclamations which are being issued and for which indemnity has to be sought later. First of all we are concerned here with the reintroduction of legislation which was introduced on a previous occasion. I believe that clause 1 of the Bill to be introduced is identical to clause 2 of the first Bill which was introduced last session and which the Prime Minister felt at the time to be so unreasonable and so unfair that he himself did not dare to force it on to us. Even before any opposition had been voiced against that clause he himself wisely realised that that clause had to be withdrawn, but now that clause is again being introduced in this Bill. We would have expected the Prime Minister to have told us straight away what is the necessity for these most extraordinary powers which he now wishes to appropriate unto himself. I think it is necessary that we should at once be told what are the reasons for his proposal. There are certain questions which the people outside are putting and which have to occupy us here. I understood when the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) was speaking here that the Prime Minister remarked, “What right have you to anticipate that I intend commandeering the people for compulsory military service?” Reference has been made to the definite and special promises and solemn undertakings by the Prime Minister that he had no intention of doing that, but I ask him whether he still stands by that undertaking?

It is in the Bill.

Is it not the object to do it?

It is in the Bill.

Can the people depend on the Prime Minister’s solemn promise?

The hon. member has not read the Bill.

I have read the Bill and I shall tell my right hon. friend why I am not so sure of the position. There are two safeguards in the Defence Act for the public in connection with compulsory military service. The first one is a geographical safeguard. We have that in this Bill. Then there is another most important safeguard in the words: “for the defence of the Union.” Is that in this Bill or has it been deliberately left out? Why has the wording of the Defence Act not been followed?

It is here.

In the first clause of the Defence Act we read this—

I take it that it was found that under clause 1 of the Defence Act a regulation could be issued, as in fact it was issued, but because of the fact that that safeguard for the public was contained in the clause as I have explained, it was considered necessary to insert a proviso in the Bill as follows—

What about the safeguard that the military service shall be for the defence of the Union?

I took it that that was intended.

My hon. friend may have taken it in that way, but he must not take it amiss when we read the Bill and find that he has left out an essential requirement of the Defence Act. Very well, let us take it that way. I hope my hon. friend will see to it that the Bill is amended so that no doubt shall be left that the public will also be given the safeguard “for the defence of South Africa” which was the intention of the Defence Act. I do not know whether even that will satisfy the people because what have we had here? We have seen how, notwithstanding the provisions of the Act, as shewn by the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) the Government has acted in connection with this important matter in regard to the handing in of rifles. Well, I do not know whether my hon. friend has any conception of the bitterness which has been aroused in the country in consequence of his action in this connection, an action which was illegal. The Defence Act is there, but that did not protect the citizens of the country, and in spite of that Act hundreds of our citizens are now in gaol where they have to do hard labour, and there is a possibility of perhaps thousands still getting into gaol. I assume that no exceptions can be made. Are we now going to get something here which has been totally unknown in the history of British jurisprudence, that a person can be put into gaol for an act which he has committed, although that act was legal. The action of the Government which prevented him from doing so was not legal, but after he had committed the act a law is made to justify the punishment which has been imposed on him. We hear such a lot about Magna Charta, and the rights of the individual. Is this Parliament which the citizens of this country have always looked upon as being there for their protection, which they have always looked to as the protector of that great cardinal principle, going to allow such a thing to be done? Is my hon. friend going to give the citizens of this country the right to test that matter in the courts of the country which are there for the protection of the citizens, and if the courts should find that the Government has acted illegally, is my hon. friend going to allow the citizens to be deprived of their rights? Is it the intention to put people into gaol for an act they have committed which was not a contravention of the law? Well, that is a question which I am putting to the Prime Minister, and I hope he will answer it. We should like to know what the policy of the Government is in regard to these prosecutions? Is the Government going to continue with these prosecutions, and are the hundreds of people who are already in gaol to be made to stay there, and will thousands more be put in gaol? Is that the policy? I hope that however much we may differ about matters and whatever opposition there may be, and however little notice the Government may take of the Opposition—I hope that none the less there will still be a sufficient sense of independence and a sufficient sense of duty to enable hon. members to see to it that this disgraceful injustice shall not be committed against citizens of the country. Let those citizens be allowed to bring their case before the courts, do not deprive them of that right in anticipation. If it is found that that action of the Government’s was illegal, take the necessary steps to see that this stigma shall not be placed on the country and that people shall not be put in gaol for an action which was not a crime.

I am unable to vote in favour of leave being granted for the introduction of this Bill. When the regulations were published in connection with the handing in of rifles I did not for one moment imagine that the Prime Minister was going to issue anything which was in conflict with the Defence Act. I advised all the burghers in my constituency to hand in their rifles, and all with the exception of one have done so. If the Prime Minister enquires from the magistrates and from his khaki knights he will find that I have not incited the people in my constituency because my conception has always been that anyone living in this country must be obedient to the laws of the country, failing which he should go to another country. After the speech made by the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow), however, it appears that to his mind the actions of the Government were in conflict with the law. And what can my voters think of me now? Before I am going to vote for any regulation of this kind I want the Prime Minister to explain the position, and I want him to give us the assurance that the one case which is pending in Kroonstad of a man who has not handed in his rifle will be allowed to be disposed of without this regulation being applied to that case, so that the court will be able to decide whether or not that individual has contravened the law. The people in Kroonstad have handed in their rifles because they want to maintain law and order, and we were not aware of the fact that that instruction was illegal. I am therefore anxious that the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Defence will allow that man’s case to be disposed of, as he has noted an appeal. I want to express the hope that this regulation will not be made use of to put that man in gaol.

We know now that this notice that rifles had to be handed in was an illegal notice. Now I want to know from the Prime Minister why he asked the people to hand in their rifles? There can be only two reasons for his having done so. The first is that the Government requires all the rifles for its large army. The Prime Minister in this connection sent me a long telegram which I should like to read.

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion for leave to introduce. In the special circumstances I have allowed the regulations also to be discussed, but I cannot allow the administration to be discussed as well.

Well, I shall say that the Prime Minister’s telegram told us that the rifles were required for the tremendously large army which he is mobilising. Well, if a large army had to be mobilised and the Government did not have rifles for that army I can only say that the man who goes and declares war without being armed must be a lunatic.

The hon. member must confine himself to the regulations and the Bill which is to be introduced.

I wish to register my protest against what the Prime Minister has done. He has gone out of his way and by this illegality he has humiliated and insulted my constituents. The Minister has gone out of his way to insult and humiliate us who live close to the Native areas; he has disarmed us who are near to the Natives so that we are actually in danger there. That is what he has done.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it would be better if he waited until the second reading before raising those matters; we must now confine ourselves to the regulations and the Bill and to the motion for leave to introduce.

Then I want to come to the fact that to-day some of my constituents are nearly in gaol, and in the district of my birth, Calvinia, ten or twenty of them are actually in gaol, and that as a result of an illegal act on the part of the Government. I say that I take off my hat to the man who tells the people that they must not hand in their rifles.

Have you handed in your rifle?

I am not going to fall into the trap that that hon. member has put for me. The Prime Minister in the district of Calvinia and in Namaqualand put people in gaol because they are supposed to have acted against the law, and he is the man who during the Second War of Independence….

The hon. member cannot discuss those matters now.

And what is worst of all, is that the Government has put these people in gaol knowing all the time that its actions were illegal.

The hon. member must deal with the regulations and he must not raise all these other matters.

I am anxious to show what the result of these illegal actions of the Government are.

The hon. member will have an opportunity of doing so during the debate on the second reading.

I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to show the results of this illegal act of the Government. In consequence of this illegal act people are in a position to-day that they have lost their franchise and it seems that the Prime Minister knew it. If we look at the large number of people who have been dragged into this unfortunate position, with the result that they have been deprived of their franchise, it looks as if this is another way which the Minister follows to remain in power and play the dictator. If ever a scandalous thing has taken place in this country it has taken place in connection with the handing in of rifles. Every time the Prime Minister got up here he has told us during the last session that he is not going to commandeer. He has told us that the people can take his word of honour that he is not going to commandeer people, but when we look at the speech which the Minister of Labour read out a little while ago we find that we are on the eve of commandeering. And he is one of the Prime Minister’s colleagues. Will the Prime Minister deny it? No, he does not deny it. I have never yet seen him contradict the Minister of Labour. All these things have the effect of our no longer being able to accept the Prime Minister’s word of honour. During the consideration of the previous Bill last session he withdrew clause 2, now six months later he comes along again with the same clause, only in a different way. I want to lodge my strongest protest against this, and I want to say this. My people are being humiliated, they are put in gaol; I have never yet told hon. members opposite that the day of reckoning will come, but I say this to the Prime Minister, he can carry on insulting and humiliating my constituents, but if we do not settle with him here in South Africa, he must remember that one day he will have to appear before a tribunal where he will have to give an account.

I cannot refrain from raising my voice against this action that people in the past have done things which were not illegal, but they have been punished none the less, and that the Bill is now submitted to us to ask us to legalise that punishment which has been imposed upon them. This conflicts so strongly with a man’s sense of justice that it nauseates us. There is no doubt that there are many things we can do in this life, but when we touch the string of right and justice in a case such as this, we feel that we are entitled to make an appeal to hon. members opposite who talk such a lot about British fairplay. Is that British fairplay? On the next stage of the Bill we shall have an opportunity of going into details and of shewing the Prime Minister what is the result of these regulations and of the way the rifles have had to be handed in, and I hone that when we put the case to him in all its nakedness, he will realise the gross injustice which he is committing with the introduction of this Bill to legalise that illegal action of the Government’s. But it is not only the Government’s supporters who must feel the matter keenly. Everyone we meet in the street, if he only has a grain of a sense of justice, will be filled with contempt for an action of that kind. May I be allowed to touch on two points which I wish to mention. What I am afraid of is that in these regulations we have the forerunners of conscription. We must take it that when a member of the Cabinet makes a statement he does not say anything irresponsible. If I, as a member of my party, make irresponsible statements in connection with party matters, I am at once called to book, and I am warned. In can only make statements if I have a certain amount of authority for making those statements. This applies to an even greater extent to a Cabinet Minister, and I should like to know from the Prime Minister now whether he approves of the statement made by the Minister of Labour on the 28th June, according to a SAPA message — it was not a Burger report — a statement made in public by the Minister to this effect: “If South Africa is unable by voluntary means to achieve what it is anxious to achieve, conscription will be introduced.” What right has the Minister of Labour to use the word “will”, unless he was speaking on behalf of the majority of the Cabinet. We thereupon had the rumour that a split had almost occurred in the Cabinet about this matter, and because such a thing had been proposed in the Cabinet — and perhaps that rumour may have been correct. If the Minister of Labour had used the word “may”, I could have understood that he might perhaps have expressed his own opinion, but he used the word “will”. He said that conscription would be introduced. Let the Prime Minister tell us whether the Minister of Labour had authority to use that word, and if not, let him tell us that the Minister of Labour did not have the right to make that statement, and that he will bring him before the Cabinet to make him withdraw it. The Minister of Labour went even further and said: “We are to-day practically on the threshold of conscription.” Cannot the right hon. the Prime Minister see that we are afraid of this Bill he is now introducing? Let him see what the results are going to be to South Africa. During last session we heard of the black hand. Here again we have an example of the black hand. Ôn the same day SAPA again sent out another report. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) either the same day or the next day also held a meeting. He may perhaps have been encouraged by the words of the Minister of Labour, or perhaps he had received some information and he may have had reason to say what he did. In any case we find that in a speech at Malvern according to the report he stated that the Government should be urged at once to proclaim martial law. And he went further and he said that a series of political meetings of the Opposition, and all other political meetings, should be prohibited for the duration of the war. According to the hon. member this should be done so that the Government could carry on with its work. The object of course was. that the Government should be elven the opportunity of carrying on, and that the people should be kept in the dark until conscription was actually brought in. There are some Government members opposite who are laughing, but we know what we can expect from this Government. They are now asking us to approve of their illegal actions. The hon. member for Kensington further, according to the report, proposed that there should be a Press Censorship. If that is so, have we not the right then to begin to feel that this Bill is something of which we as an Opposition have to be afraid and that it is something which we have to fight tooth and nail with all the force and all the power at our disposal, because it constitutes a terrible menace to the people of South Africa. We dare hot allow this bill to pass through the House in the form in which we have it before us. If the Government allows this illegal action which it has committed to be approved of now, and if it allows the citizens of South Africa who have been illegally put into gaol, to remain there, and to be branded as convicts, then I want to state that they have not the courage to get on to the platform and address the electorate at public meetings. I make an exception of the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. Steenkamp) who challenged me the other day to meet him at a meeting at Brandvlei and at Carnarvon. I want to say here across the floor of the House that I accept that challenge and that I hope the hon. member is not going to run away. If this Bill is accepted he will not even dare to come half way, but he will turn round and will stay in Cape Town to find a refuge here. The people of South Africa dare not allow this kind of injustice to be committed.

I wish to oppose the motion for leave to introduce this Bill for the simple reason that if this Bill is passed it will practically—I deliberately use the word “practically” — mean that South Africa henceforth is going to be ruled without Parliament. and to the extent that the Government wants to do so. If we pass this Bill here to-day we shall have to bear in mind the fact that every one who votes for the passage of this Bill is voting for the destruction of our Parliament in South Africa. The Prime Minister six months ago did not risk introducing this Bill in the form in which it is here to-day. He then realised what a storm of opposition such a Bill would raise in South Africa, and he gave way to that storm of Opposition. But like a savage animal which stealthily creeps up to attack another animal and then finds that its prey is becoming nervous, he went and lay down quietly in the undergrowth until the other animal had quietened down, so that in his second attempt he could overwhelm his prey. I say that this Bill means the end of Parliament. If it is passed the Government will be able to rule South Africa for years without calling Parliament together. If we study this Bill it will give us an idea of some of the powers which the Government wants to appropriate unto itself. Clause 1 says that subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) the Governor-General may, by proclamation issue regulations in respect of a number of things. It is only the provisions of sub-section (3) which restrict those powers of the Governor-General. Now what are those things which are not allowed to be done under sub-section (3)? They may not commandeer for service to the North of the elastic borders of South Africa. Secondly, they are not allowed to do anything concerning the qualification, nomination, election or length of service of members of Parliament, the Senate or a Provincial Council, but under clause 1 they can do everything except this, provided it is done in order to deal with certain conditions which in the opinion of the Governor-General have arisen in consequence of a war. I want hon. members to remember that those conditions must in the opinion of the Governor-General have arisen in consequence of a war, any war in which we may become involved. There are very few changes which may take place in South Africa in the next few years and which will not take place as a result of conditions which have arisen in consequence of the war in which we are involved. If we look at the powers which are taken in this Bill, they mean that to all intents and purposes an end is put to Parliament. The Governor-General may by proclamation issue regulations—which will then have force of law—such as he considered necessary for the security of the public, the defence of the Union, the maintenance of public order, and the effective prosecution of the war. It has been put so widely that there is very little which cannot be brought under it. The next provision is that he can issue regulations in order to deal with conditions which in his opinion have arisen in consequence of such a war. Consequently, the very small fish which may possibly still get through the first net will be caught by the second net, and not even a sardine will escape. The vagueness of this provision is such that it can catch anything, even concrete. Now I ask hon. members what there is that the Government is unable to do without calling Parliament together? If the Bill is passed the Government can take powers to deprive an individual of his liberty; it can create new crimes. The Government will be able to, to mention an instance, institute a large-scale immigration programme, and impose taxes to make the public pay for such a programme. It will be able at the expense of the State to bring thousands of immigrants to South Africa for which the taxpayers will have to pay without parliamentary approval being obtained. The clause also takes into account further possible wars. We know that there is a threat of war betwéen Japan and England. If such a war should be declared I am quite convinced that the Prime Minister will at once realise that we in the Union have also to declare war against Japan in our interests. Then the Minister of Finance will have to impose still further taxes on the shoulders of the people. but if within a month of to-day war is declared in Japan, and if it becomes necessary before the end of the year to impose further taxation on the people to cover the expense of such a war, there will be no need for the Prime Minister, if this Bill is passed, to call Parliament together for the purpose of imposing such new taxation on the public. Under this Bill he is given absolute dictatorial powers. He has the right to impose any taxes on the public without Parliamentary approval and without having to come to Parliament later on for an indemnity. There is not a single power which in ordinary circumstances is possessed by Parliament which is not now being placed in the hands of the Governor-General in Council; the rights of taxation, of legislation, everything is handed over to the Prime Minister and his Cabinet by Parliament. The reason why I feel that we cannot even grant leave for the introduction of this Bill is that if we do so, and if this Bill becomes law it will mean that Parliament is simply passing its own death sentence and is giving the Government the power to rule for years and years without ever calling Parliament together.

I also wish to protest against this Bill. It is quite clear that this commandeering of rifles has to be legalised. It was illegal and I want to ask the right hon. the Prime Minister why he has not waited until the appeal cases which are pending have been disposed of. Now he comes here in a hurry to legalise what has been done illegally. I consider such a condition of affairs to be unsound. In my constituency with the exception of two people everyone has handed in his rifle. In the one case the man was somewhat headstrong. I advised him to hand in his rifle but he was stubborn. In the other instance the man was perfectly innocent. His wife was ill and he was unable to go to town; he is fifty miles away from the town, so he went to the nearest telephone and he told the police that his wife was ill and that he was" unable to come in, but that he would send in his rifle by train. The police replied that he could not do so and that he had to come himself to sign. He was summonsed and when later on be was able to go to town he brought his rifle in. He had to appear before the magistrate and was punished with a sentence of six weeks imprisonment, suspended, and his rifle was confiscated. I told him to wait until the appeal cases which are pending have been disposed of, and that after that we might see what could be done. But according to these new regulations the appeals will have no value any more. This illegal action is being given the force of law. Today I received a letter from another individual. He thought it was unnecessary to hand in his rifle and he said, “My rifle is my property and there is no need for me to hand it in”. That man will also be summonsed one of these days, in spite of the fact that the Government’s action has been entirely illegal. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) has already read to us what the Prime Minister has said. I remember perfectly well how the Prime Minister told me here that he would not commandeer people. When I met the Prime Minister in the lobbies, the day after the 4th September, I said to him—“I congratulate you on having succeeded in tricking your opponents and in becoming Prime Minister”. I said to him, “Oom Jannie, difficult times are ahead of us”. I thereupon told him that he should in no circumstances commandeer our people. He thereupon said that he would not do so and that he would not send any people overseas either, yet people are to-day being sent overseas to Kenya. I take it that if necessity requires it they can also be sent over land, but under the new regulations the Prime Minister can also commandeer people, because clause 1 (3) says this—

1. (a) the liability is imposed to render compulsory military service—
   1. (i) except against an enemy anywhere within South Africa or outside the Union; or
   2. (ii) except for the suppression of internal disorder and the restoration of peace and good order within the Union.

In the North on the borders of Kenya we have now created an enemy. The Union has declared war and has made an enemy for herself there, and in accordance with the regulations the Minister can commandeer our people to fight so long as they stay in South Africa. But where is South Africa? Where are our borders? That is what we are anxious to know. It is perfectly clear that under this provision the Prime Minister can commandeer people to go there; that is in conflict with the assurance which the Prime Minister gave me personally, irrespective of the statements which he has made in the House.

I just want to tell the Prime Minister that one would have expected that where he brings his well known perserverance to bear there would have been some thoroughness in his work. But now he has to come over and over to Parliament to ask for indemnity. Now what is this Bill which he is asking leave today to introduce but an indemnity measure? He went and issued a number of regulations which were illegal and now we are asked here in anticipation to legalise those regulations. But the Prime Minister knows what is awaiting him. Why all this carelessness in the administration of the country? This careless way of doing things? Why does not the Prime Minister come before Parliament with proper legislation as the English Parliament does, which since the beginning of the war has passed more than 200 laws? Legislation of this important character requires careful study so that the Bills can be properly drafted. In this country we have practically no legislation in connection with the war— everything has to be done by means of regulations, and those regulations are drafted just anyhow, and the question whether they are legal or otherwise is not even taken into consideration, and then the people are plunged into the greatest misery. The Prime Minister was not here yesterday when we were discussing other matters, but he said to me “Look, a very ugly spirit is being created in the country. Do not allow that spirit to go any further.” Well, these are fine words, but the Prime Minister himself is the cause of that spirit having arisen.

No, you are the cause.

No, I deny that, it is not so. I say this definitely. I have not the time now to make that clear to the hon. member, but the hon. member is unable to mention one instance to me where the Opposition has held meetings, peace meetings, where they have incited the public to do anything wrong. I say so definitely. The misdeeds which have been committed have been caused by the Government people.

That is not so.

What was the object of other meetings which they have held? When they held a meeting here in the town hall they worked up the people to such an extent that they went and attacked the offices of Die Burger. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones, and I want to say this to the Prime Minister, and I say it in all earnestness—he is causing such a feeling of resentment that he will never get things right again. I say that if leave were granted for the introduction of this Bill without any criticism from our side we would be failing in our duty. This Bill is nothing but a blank cheque. The Government again wants to appropriate all kinds of powers unto itself. Regulations may be issued, and we already have a number of regulations, and afterwards I propose going into the contents of those regulations. Now I want to deal with the question of regulations “which are considered necessary and advisable”. That is what the Bill says — although not necessarily must they be advisable in their opinion. It may be advisable to disarm the public although it may not be necessary, and then they can simply go on issuing regulations. Provision also appears in the Bill under which the Government can simply appropriate a man’s vehicle. Let hon. members read clause 2. Provision is made there in connection with confiscation. I say again that we are asked here to give the Government a blank cheque so that it can carry on as it pleases, merely in the interests of England’s war. Now I want to say this in connection with what the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) has said. He raised an important point here regarding the possibility of people being commandeered, and the Prime Minister interrupted him. Assuming the Prime Minister is correct in the way he reads this Bill. I ask hon. members to read clause 1 (3)—this is what it says—

1. (a) the liability is imposed to render compulsory military service—

Assuming the Prime Minister’s statement is correct—I am now referring to the statement made by him by way of an interruption. The Government had made a verbal statement here that the borders of the Union went up to the Equator; assuming that they go and challenge the enemy in Somaliland or in Abyssinia by means of their aeroplanes and the enemy should turn round and chase them right into Kenya and Tanganyika? In that event the Government would be able to commandeer us here and then we would have to go and meet the enemy there and we would have to allow the citizens of the Union to be commandeered to go to Kenya and Tanganyika to fight there.

Now you do not know what you are talking about.

I do not want a reply from the hon. member, I want it from the Prime Minister. There is a possibility that as a result of the way we are challenging the enemy in Somaliland the Italians will come and attack us in Kenya and even closer home, and it seems as though the Italians are pushing us back now. That is the impression one gets from the reports in the papers. I want to know whether in that case the provisions of this Bill mean that the Government will have the right to commandeer our burgers in those circumstances. I would like to get a reply from the Prime Minister on that point.

As a result of the experience which we have already had in connection with the War Emergency Act which was passed last session, we know that it is not safe to entrust further powers to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, as the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) has already shown, has called up the rifles, and numerous old veterans with whose feelings he should be familiar, have been locked up as criminals behind bars because they failed to hand in their rifles in good time, although it now appears that the steps taken by the Government were illegal. The Government therefore cannot be trusted with greater powers, and for that reason we have to contest a further extension of the legislation in connection with war measures because we feel that the Government may again exceed its powers in the application of those war measures. This Bill now on the Table of the House goes so far that in the penalty provisions there is a provision under which even the property of citizens who have been punished under the war emergency measure may be confiscated. This is so drastic that I am unable to vote for leave being granted for the introduction of a Bill which is going to confer further powers on the Government, but I go further. Under the previous War Emergency Act the Government appropriated powers unto itself for the internment of people, and I say that every Britisher should object to a provision under which the old principle which has been developed under the British constitution, the principle of habeas corpus is being violated — the principle that every Britisher has the right within a limited time to know what he is accused of. Even that right has been violated by our Government under the powers it has obtained under the previous War Emergency Act. It is painful to me to have to put it in this way, but it is a fact which nobody can get away from, that even that principle which has been so carefully guarded by the British public, and to obtain which they have fought for years, is being destroyed and pushed aside here. But I. have another reason for resisting the introduction of this Bill, and that is that the Government is busy bit by bit introducing martial law here. Why has it not the power to propose martial law in its naked form? Then the people will know where they stand. But the Prime Minister follows the example set by the Minister of Finance, who also bit by bit comes along with his taxation proposals and systematically and gradually introduces his taxes. Here, systematically, step by step, martial law is being introduced, and for that reason I am unable to vote for leave being granted for the introduction of this Bill.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that you will be very tolerant with me because I live an earnest life. On a previous occasion already I have expressed myself on the condition in which we find ourselves, but now the Prime Minister assumes additional powers in order to strengthen his position as dictator even further, and to that I must object. This affects the interests of my people, and it is difficult to keen cool, because when the interests of my people are affected I get excited. The Prime Minister first of all is trying to justify what has already been done. I do not want to repeat what legal men on this side of the House have already said about the commandeering of rifles; they have shown that people have been innocently put into gaol. Surely the object of legislation should in the first place be to have justice done, but when I look at this Bill I find that the object of this Bill is not to have justice done. This Bill refers to the continuation of the war in which we are involved and to conditions which may arise as the result of another war in which we may be involved. Now, unfortunately, the Prime Minister is not here, but I want to put a question to him, which I hope will be conveyed to him by the Ministers who are here. I want to ask why the present Government requires its subjects to take a new oath under the Defence Act? Is that not due to the fact that the Government knows that it has violated the Defence Act of South Africa? Is not this, according to the statement which the Prime Minister made in this House on the 4th September, something which he expressly promised not to do? Did he not say that he would do nothing except what was permitted by the Defence Act, and that the war would be fought by means of volunteers? Volunteers certainly, but the recruiting of those volunteers is taking place in a deplorable manner. I am not allowed to go into that question at the moment, but the young men who are sent have to take a new oath. The Minister of Lands says that no compulsion is being brought to bear, but why then must every official be asked to sign the oath and ….

The hon. member cannot discuss that now.

I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he is in earnest with the step which he is now proposing to take? He has committed numerous acts which he was not entitled to commit. No Government has the right to exercise pressure on its people. I shall perhaps have to say something about that on a later occasion, but I only want to say here that the Government has not the right to force people in its service who honestly give of their best to do such a thing as it is now asking them to do. I would not persecute my subordinates because of their political views.

The hon. member must coniine himself to the motion that leave be granted for the introduction of the Bill.

It is because these things are being done in this country that I am definitely opposed to this Bill being introduced, which aims at conferring extensive powers on the Government. Mr. Speaker, you rule this House in accordance with the rules of democracy, in respect of which you ask for the guidance of the Lord every day, with the full realisation of the responsibilities of this House which has to sit here and deliberate on the future of those whose interests have been committed to our care. Because of that I feel that I must again, for the third time, ask the Prime Minister: Are you in earnest? Do you believe that South Africa has its own destiny which it can work out under the guidance of the Almighty whose protection we ask for every day? If you do believe that how then can you come before us with a Bill such as this?

I would be failing in my duty if I did not rise at this juncture to protest against the introduction of this Bill which has as its aim the legalisation of an illegal act by the Government. When I say this I am referring to the commandeering of rifles. We know what has been the consequences of that action of the Government. Hundreds of people are in gaol to-day and it now turns out that they are in gaol in consequence of an illegal act on the part of the Government. I do not want to enter into general questions, but I wish to raise a few special matters which have occurred in my own constituency. I have received a telegram from an old man of 64 years of age who, together with his two sons, has been sentenced to a month’s imprisonment with hard labour. I have another letter from an officer in the Defence Force who continues to be an officer, although he said he was not going to fight outside of South Africa. He did not hand in his rifle and he was sentenced to six months imprisonment with hard labour, three months of which are suspended for three years. We cannot allow that sort of thing to go on. I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister. Let him be big, and admit that he has made a mistake; and then to be just he should release those people who have already been sentenced, and the other people should not be sentenced. Give those people a further chance, say up to the 15th September—just to mention a date, so that they can hand in their rifles. That would be evidence of the Prime Minister’s willingness to meet the views of these people. All of us can make mistakes. It is the big man who can admit his mistakes, and I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister to show that concession.

I want to associate myself with the protest against leave being granted for the introduction and the passing of this Bill. I well remember the Prime Minister solemnly promising that he would not commandeer and telling us that he would perform the task resting on his shoulders with the aid of volunteers. When we doubted his word of honour he was insulted, and he reproached us by saying that he did not need us, and that he would never need us. He would do his duty with the aid of volunteers, and we accepted his word. At the first opportunity he went along and commandeered the arms of the citizens of this country. He broke his word of honour, the word of honour which he gave to the Opposition in this House.

To commandeer burgers?

No, generally that you would not use any compulsion and you took it amiss because we cast doubt on your word of honour. The Prime Minister now actually comes along here with this Indemnity Bill, and without blushing he breaks his word of honour. I take it that the Prime Minister made a mistake in commandeering the rifles, and he admits having made a mistake by introducing these regulations which he now wants us to pass. He admitted having made a mistake, a tactical error, and by this fact he has now proved to this House and to the country that he is fallible. He has made a mistake and now he is trying by means of these regulations to cover up his mistake. The rifles have been commandeered in an illegal manner and the Prime Minister knows it. He also knows that the citizens of this country who are in gaol, who are sitting in gaol like convicts, wearing convict clothes, have been put there illegally. They have not contravened the laws of the country, yet they are in gaol to-day like ordinary convicts. I have letters here to prove that honourable citizens who have always obeyed the Government, and who have always lived honestly and cleanly, without any stigma on their names, are to-day in gaol, their hair having been cut short, and their faces shaved. This is a crying shame. I wish to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that that does not end the matter, but that in addition to that these citizens of the country are deprived of their franchise in consequence of this alleged crime. I again want to explain that according to the law these citizens who have been illegally punished lose the franchise. It seems to me that the Prime Minister was not aware of this fact and that the Minister of Justice did not know it either. These people are in gaol in consequence of an alleged crime, and because of the fact that they have been sentenced they lose their vote, and that as the result of a regulation which is illegal. What is the Prime Minister going to do with them? I ask in all earnestness who has committed a crime in this particular case? The Prime Minister who in an illegal way has condemned innocent burgers to become convicts or the people who have been condemned? Should not the Prime Minister be in gaol on account of his contravention of the law? He should be there, and not they. He has committed a crime against innocent people by putting them in gaol illegally. The same thing would apply if I went along and committed a serious wrong against an innocent person, and then pretended that that person was the guilty party while I got off scot free. And now the Prime Minister comes here to Parliament and asks Parliament to condone his action by means of an Indemnity Act. And with the great majority behind him he will get that indemnity. But is it just? Is not this a second crime, and an even greater crime than the first one—his coming here to ask for condonation in this way, instead of his admitting openly that a tactical error has been committed? No, I ask the Prime Minister in all earnestness to abandon his intentions, or otherwise to accept the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Jan Wilkens) to release the citizens who have already been sentenced, and to give them a fresh opportunity in accordance with the law, so that they may hand in their weapons. That to a certain extent will calm down the people outside, and it will restore peace. But this criminal action of the Government’s, to put those innocent burgers into convict clothes and then simply allow it to pass by, by piloting this Bill through the House, cannot be tolerated, and I say I do not know whether the people will ever forgive the Government, and whether they will ever forget. The Government are, furthermore, depriving the citizens of the country of their right of appeal. There are numerous people who have been punished and who have appealed, and who know that they have been innocently punished. All our lawyers know it; the attorneys, advocates and judges know it. What is the impression which will be created in the minds of our legal practitioners … in the Union if a crime is allowed to be committed in this fashion and if it is then allowed to be covered over by an indemnity Bill. I say definitely that an even greater crime is being created here. I urgently and courteously ask that those citizens of the country who have been landed into this unfortunate position, and who innocently are in gaol, and all the others who are still to be punished, will be given consideration by the Government. They are now being held as hostages. Those people felt that to a certain degree they were entitled to act as they did act. There is no alternative of a fine. They have been punished without the alternative of a fine, and they were under the impression that they would be given an alternative. Now they are being deprived of their honour and they are held up as ordinary criminals who have broken the laws of the country — they are held up as ordinary criminals who have not been given the option of a fine. We know that it is only for the most serious and most reprehensible crimes that the option of a fine is not given. They have been punished in the same way as the biggest criminals in the country are punished, because they have not been given the option of a fine. It will remain like a blot on the Government for all time to come if those citizens are not released.

If we cast our minds back to what has happened during the past year, then I feel that everyone of us will refuse to grant leave for the introduction of this Bill. I remember that during the last session of Parliament we asked the Prime Minister, and I did so myself, whether he would give us a promise that no pressure would be brought to bear on the citizens of the country who did not want to take the oath. The Prime Minister gave us that promise. What do we find now? Let me say that that promise has not been carried out, because that pressure has been and is being exercised. The main reason why. I have got up here is this: If we think of what has happened to many of the people who are to-day in gaol because they have not handed in their rifles, then I want the Prime Minister to remember that people are in gaol to-day who are regarded as criminals because they have not handed in their rifles, burghers of this country who, together with the Prime Minister, and together with me, have gone through the Second War of Independence. I want him to remember that those people never thought that they were doing anything wrong. These people felt that their rifles were safe with them, and that they would not do anything with those rifles in contravention of the law. The Prime Minister should consider, in fact he should see to it, that these people are released. Some of them have been sentenced and have appealed. The Bill now before the House will prevent those appeals from being proceeded with, and the Prime Minister should take this into account.

At 4.49 p.m., on the conclusion of the period of two hours allotted for the motion for leave to introduce the War Measures (Amendment) Bill, the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the resolution adopted by the House to-day (3rd September).

Original motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—81:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

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.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock. F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—52:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conroy, E. A.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fullard, G. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Havenga, N. C.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, O.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Swart, A. P.

Theron. P.

Van den Berg, C. J,

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl. J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

The MINISTER OF DEFENCE thereupon brought up the War Measures (Amendment) Bill [A.B. 45—’40].

Bill read a first time; second reading on 4th September.

When the House rose last night, I was saying that nobody in this House had raised my admiration more for the conscientious manner in which he had acquitted himself of his duties during the period that he was Minister of Finance than the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga). There is no doubt in my mind that he, in his capacity as the former Minister of Finance, inspired all of us with respect and esteem. I admit his ability as Minister of Finance and as a financier. With his experience, with which for sixteen years he watched over the finances of the country, he has tried to criticise and to analyse the Budget of the present Minister of Finance. I listened very carefully to his criticism, and I came to this conclusion, that if the former Minister of Finance, with all his ability and all his experience as Minister, found it so difficult to find any weaknesses in the Budget of the present Minister of Finance, then undoubtedly it will be very difficult for anyone else in this House successfully to criticise that Budget. The hon. member for Fauresmith principally dealt with the gold mining taxation as laid down by the present Minister of Finance, and the thought came to my mind while I was listening to him and to his criticism of parts of the gold mining taxation, how year after year I have sat here and have listened to the criticism which was levelled against him by his Opposition in respect of the gold mining taxation, no matter in which form he introduced his taxation proposal before this House. We have learned in this House that the gold mining taxation is the stock in trade of any Opposition in this House, and that as much political capital as possible has to be made out of it on the discussion of any Budget. It is a gigantic amount which is being asked here by the present Minister of Finance. The saving grace in regard to this gigantic amount is that the major portion of the money will be spent in this country, and consequently the main part of the money which the present Minister of Finance is asking for war expenditure will in one form or another find its way back into the pockets of the taxpayers of the country. I just want to urge that the Minister of Finance should keep strict control and supervision in order to see that the money which he is asking for here will not by some channel or other, in an unfair manner find its way into the pockets of certain sections of the population, or into the pockets of other individuals. I know it is impossible to always prevent this happening, but while it is impossible to prevent it entirely the Minister will have to see to it, and will have to try to get that money back out of the pockets into which it may find its way on this occasion in an inequitable manner. We should see to it that no usurious profits are made by some individual or other out of the moneys which are to be spent. It is perfectly evident that in the purchase and sale of merchandise and products certain people will benefit; that will be a natural consequence. I do not call that a usurious profit; but where people do make usurious profits, where people are out to get as much money as possible by unfair and unjust practices into their own pockets, there the Minister must see to it that that sort of thing is prevented, and where it cannot be prevented he must see to it that the money shall revert into the Exchequer of the state. War involves waste. One may be as strict as one likes, but war always and invariably means waste, and where there is waste there one finds the vultures coming in to prey wherever they can. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to warn the Minister that he should see to it that that kind of thing is not allowed. When a war is being waged, certain people will prey so long as there is anything to prey on. And so long as those people are able to prey on something, there will be love and peace, but as soon as there is not sufficient to prey on one often finds dissatisfaction prevailing among certain classes of people. I want to know that the Minister shall watch against there being any preying of that kind; I want him to see to it that there shall be no opportunity for that sort of thing. War is a national matter, it is a matter of the people; it affects the public as a whole, and nobody has the right to fill his pockets out of an emergency condition at the expense of the state, and much less at the expense of the individual in the state. If there is one section of the people which is entitled to proper compensation in a time of war, it undoubtedly is the soldiers who offer their lives for their country and their convictions. I want to put the request to the Minister of Finance that our sons who are to-day going to the front and who are already there, who are prepared to sacrifice everything for their convictions and their liberty in the service of the country and the state, shall be cared for as well as possible afterwards. I want the soldiers in the trenches and on the fields of war to be well cared for. They must be equipped with the best possible war equipment; they should have the best comforts available placed at their disposal, and they should have the best things the country can provide them with, given to them. If there is one man who is entitled to benefit from the war, it is the man who is prepared to endanger his life for his convictions and for his country.

Who are they?

The greatest sacrifice which any individual can make is made when he shows himself willing voluntarily to place his services at the disposal of the state, thereby endangering his life. This definitely applies to people who are compelled to go and fight, but it applies just as much to those volunteers who are engaged on the battlefield to-day and who are prepared to sacrifice their lives. Many of those young fellows were used to the comforts and conveniences of the parental home; they have voluntarily given up those comforts and conveniences; they are prepared to give up everything in the interest of the freedom of our country, but I say that nobody else is entitled to gather wealth as the result of the sacrifices which these people are prepared to make. Nobody else should be allowed to gather wealth as a result of the perils which those young men have to pass through and to brave. A great deal has been said here about intimidation. I make bold to say that of all the platteland districts there certainly is no other district which has sent more volunteers to the front than that which I represent here, and I do not know of any instance where there has been intimidation of any kind in connection with the sending of those volunteers, but what I do know is that a great many attempts at scaring off those young fellows have been made, that people have been trying to keep them back by means of all sorts of arguments, and by means even of threats, but those efforts came from the supporters of the Opposition. What I also know is that the flower of the district which I represent has placed its services at the disposal of the state, and that applies to the farming population as well as to the people from the towns. These young fellows have given up the comforts of their ordinary lives and of their parental homes, to go north, there to defend their country. I say again it is a gigantic amount which is being asked here simply to be wasted, because what is war except a’ waste? Everything that is manufactured for a war is manufactured for the purpose of being destroyed. It is produced to-day, to-morrow it is destroyed. On the battlefields the things which are manufactured in the factories to-day are destroyed to-morrow, and for that reason I say that strict supervision should be exercised, so that there shall be no unnecessary waste. I know that it is impossible to have complete control over a large amount which has to be spent. It is impossible to exercise the necessary supervision and control. We know that the state has to incur that expenditure, and there are many people who are only too prone to avail themselves of the opportunity, and to take whatever they can in the circumstances in order to fill their own pockets, and the state simply has to pay. It is impossible completely to control the amount which has to be spent, but I want to ask that the Minister shall do his best to control it as far as possible. I say the amount which is being asked for is a gigantic one. That amount affects me together with thousands of others. The taxes affect me as well as they affect thousands of other citizens of the country. I do not want to say that that is so in connection with whisky and beer, because fortunately I shall not have to pay for that, but so far as the rest of the amount is concerned, so far as the other taxes are concerned, I want to say that if that is the price for my freedom, then it is a small amount which I, and all the thousands of others who think as I do, are prepared to pay for that freedom — it is so small a price that I and thousands of others are prepared to make very much greater sacrifices than the amount which we are asked for here.

That amount is only the start.

We believe, and we fully believe, that our freedom is at stake. We are entitled to say that we believe so, speaking from our experiences. We further believe that if England, which to-day constitutes the last fortress between the attackers and our country, is beaten—if England falls—then it is the end of the Union of South Africa as well. If that is not so then in passing I want to ask my friends over there to tell me in which country under German rule there is any freedom? I want to ask them whether in all these years that Germany and Italy have been powerful countries, has there been any country which has stood under their control which has had the right to work out an independent existence? But I leave that point. Now I wish to say a few words to the Minister in connection with the petrol tax. Lorries are a necessary requirement in the business of the farmer. I am not speaking now about the farmers’ motor cars, because I see no reason why the motor cars of the farmer should have a special exemption as against the motor cars of other individuals, but in respect of his tractors and lorries something should be done. I know that this is a difficult matter and I know that there are openings for grave abuses if exemption is granted for the lorries and the tractors of the farmers so far as petrol is concerned; but I also know that the same difficulties have in the past arisen in regard to paraffin. Later on we got paraffin free of those charges. To-day paraffin, which is not subject to the restrictions of burning paraffin for lamps, has to be coloured, so that there is a differentiation between that paraffin and paraffin of a higher grade. Perhaps we may be able to get a certain grade of petrol for our tractors, and perhaps some scheme or other may be worked out in regard to petrol for the tractors and the lorries, so that an exemption may be granted from that tax for the petrol used by the farmers for that purpose.

Will you make such a proposal when you are in Committee?

We know that business people are able to off-load that tax on to others, they can pass it on to others, but the farmer is not able to pass on the extra cost of his petrol to other members of the public. He has to use petrol in connection with his farming, and he is not in a position to pass on the extra cost to others. He cannot place the extra cost on to his products; he himself has to pay the extra 3d. This House has decided to take part in the war and the money for that participation in the war has to be found. That has been settled. But it is easy to criticise the way in which the money is obtained. Criticism sometimes is not merely easy, but it is sometimes even very cheap to say that this or that is wrong, but where is the money to come from? The money has to come from some source or other in order to cover the expenditure. It has to come from somewhere and I have never yet heard of a tax which is popular; in whatever form it is imposed it is always unpopular. The Minister was obliged to levy taxation in these circumstances, and in my humble opinion I must admit that the Minister has obtained his taxes from the sources which are most suitable.

What about the gold mines?

Last night in this House a strong protest was lodged against the handing in of rifles. I want to know whether the Government’s supporters on this side of the House did not also have to hand in their rifles?

I believe most of them got an exemption.

So far as I know the exemption were given to supporters on the other side of the House. Unfortunately I perhaps know too much of what has taken place among the Opposition, but I say too little about it. Our people have also handed in their rifles, but so far as we were concerned there was no objection to our doing so. Our people have exactly the same difficulties as supporters of the Opposition have, but how is it that there has been no outcry from the side of our supporters against the handing in of the rifles? I would rather not say anything about members of Parliament because I am really more concerned with these little paid political agents who go travelling through the country egging on people against lawful authority and telling them not to hand in their rifles. Those people believe and obey those little agents, and as a result of their doing so they render themselves liable to some offence and they are punished.

Illegally punished.

These people are punished but those little agents who are the cause of all the trouble get off scot free and keep on drawing their salaries all the same. I am able to prove what I am saying. The people are not only advised not to hand in their rifles, but the agents even try to scare our people and they threaten them that their names will be recorded against the day of settlement.

It is the khaki knights who do these things.

Now we are told about the state of irritation and fury prevailing among the people. Let me tell hon. members that that fury is not just on the one side. I can assure them that there is a state of considerable excitement among people on our side as a result of the incitement which is taking place.

Go and cool your fury on the Italians. Your people are too frightened.

It has been stated here that the day will yet come when we shall be grateful for the attitude which the sixty-five members have adopted. They probably mean if Germany wins the war.

The hon. member cannot discuss that again.

Very well, Mr. Speaker, then I shall leave it. We continually hear the other side talk about “die volk van Suid-Afrika.” Who are the people of South Africa? Who gives hon. members over there the right to claim for themselves a monopoly of being “die volk van Suid-Afrika,” while they are only representing part of a section of the people? We again have the same state of affairs here as that which prevailed during part of the previous Great War; and we are going to get the same position again as we had after the last Great War. After the sons of South Africa who had the courage to go and fight, and who maintained the reputation and the honour of South Africa, and who in that way had been true to their word of honour, had been called everything that was low and dirty, the Leader of the Opposition, when he went to unveil the war monument at Delville Wood, paid a great tribute to the courage and heroism of those men. The soldiers who had fought and who died there for South Africa secured a higher status for South Africa, and secured the independence of South Africa—it is not the statesmen who went to England to fetch it, but the South Africans who sacrificed their lives on the battlefields of Flanders and elsewhere who did so. To-day I again hear just as I did when I was a young man in those days how the young fellows and the men who are prepared to give everything for the sake of their fatherland are being held up to contumely and contempt. My time is up and I have to finish. I only want to say this: to-day there are railway tearooms at our stations which refuse to serve our young men who are in uniform. They are sons of South Africa just as much as any other young fellows in the country, and to my mind they are better men because they have the courage of their convictions, and because they are prepared to take up arms against the menace which is threatening South Africa.

Go and fight yourself.

Let me say this to my hon. friend over there, that the Minister of Defence knows what I am doing, and what I am prepared to do, but even more so my own son, together with other young men, is leaving on Monday for the North to go and fight there for our country. Those young men are just as good Afrikaners as anyone else, and they are just as much entitled to decent treatment in their own country as anyone else. If those tearooms persist in their refusal to serve our young men the Government will be compelled to take steps in the interests of the young men who are prepared to sacrifice their lives for their country, and even for the people who want to close their tearooms to them.

The last speaker paid a tribute to the young fellows who are making sacrifices and who go to the battlefields and he said that so far as comforts and their stomachs were concerned the best possible had to be provided. He also made an appeal to the Minister of Finance that he should see to it that the money which was being voted here shall not find its way into channels where it should not go, and he put up a plea that the money should not go to people who did not deserve to have it, and that from those who make money out of the war shall be taken that which they get out of the war. Now I want to ask the hon. member: What about those people who join up and who know that they will not go to the front and to the fields of battle, but who draw a big salary, a double salary? Is it not better to start with them here in Parliament? I want to ask the Minister of Finance whether he will see to it, in accordance with the plea put up by the hon. member, that the members of Parliament who join up to-day, well knowing that they will never be able to go to the front, and who none the less draw a big salary, totally out of proportion to the services they render, should be made to pay back that money to the state.

Must those members sacrifice their leisure time in your interest?

I could still understand it if they went to fight. But well knowing that they will not have to go they draw a double salary while they are here all the time. I hope the Minister of Finance will see to it that that money goes back to the state. We want to give the Minister of Finance credit for doing his best to make a good case out of a bad one—or rather out of no case at all. Assisted by his usual eloquence he pointed out to us when he introduced the budget all the benefits which South Africa is going to derive from the war, not the least of which is the fact that our young men will be able to be trained in certain trades and that they will be able to learn something which will always be useful to them. At the same time he spoke about industries which will be established here. That is all very well as far as it goes, but I am afraid that those industries will merely be war industries. We remember the way in which the other side opposed us when we wanted to establish the iron and steel factory. The Minister should therefore not take it amiss if we honestly think that they are not in earnest in regard to the establishment of permanent industries in South Africa as a result of the war. The Minister put everything so nicely before us that one would be led to believe that South Africa will be prosperous at any time, so long as it only takes part in the war. In whatever way he put it, however, he could not argue away the fact that £32,000,000 have to be found by means of taxes or by means of loans. The taxes will have to be paid now; the loans will be a liability for the future, and we shall have to pay the interest on those loans; and will it stop at this £46,000,000 which the Minister has alread asked for and which he is asking for again now? At the rate at which we are going on now it will not surprise me if Parliament will have to be called together again before the end of the year to pass further additional estimates. Failing that it will be the first work to be done next year when this session is continued. The money which is being asked for here, I believe, also includes the payment for the rifles which have already been commandeered. The rifles have been commandeered, and after that the owners were able to value them at the price which they wanted for them. It is now left to the authorities to place their valuation on the rifles. I understand that they are busy doing so, and I therefore think that we can also talk here about the commandeering of the rifles and the procedure which has been followed. I do not want to take up too much time on this point on the question whether the Government’s action was legal or not, but the procedure which was followed in the commandeering of the rifles was such that some of our farmers nearly committed some offence. They were challenged and defied most severly. On Tuesday evening the Information Officer stated over the radio that the Commissioner of Police — I do not know whether that procedure was laid down by him or by the Government — had been instructed to commandeer the rifles and on the Sunday all the rifles had to be handed in. Many of the people immediately went and handed in their rifles, but on the Wednesday following it was announced over the wireless that the Government had decided to form a regiment of 4,000 natives for the Defence Force. If we take these two facts together it must be sufficient to give the country a severe shock. On the Tuesday the rifles are commandeered and they had to be handed in by the Sunday. On the Wednesday it was announced that an army of 4.000 natives was being raised. It is true that it was stated they were not to be armed with fire arms, and that they would be supplied with the arms of the ordinary native police. It was also stated that they would he under the control of white supervisers. But only two days later, on the Friday, a report came through that a coloured regiment was to be raised. Now, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what effect this must have on the minds of those natives and coloured people. The farmers’ rifles are commandeered and natives and coloured people are called up to serve, and they know very well that the farmer’s rifle has been commandeered. What effect is this going to have on the minds of the natives and coloured people? I wonder whether it makes the Prime Minister feel satisfied when he knows that hundreds, or perhaps thousands of his fellow-Afrikaners are in gaol and are being treated like ordinary convicts and that because they retain their own property which they bought themselves, and which they paid for, and which they are convinced is not of the slightest value to the Government, and cannot be of the slightest value for the continuation of the war. Surely that sort of thing constitutes a challenge to these people. The Afrikaner felt it very deeply, but fortunately not one of them committed any offence. Hundreds and thousands of them, however, are in gaol to-day because they resisted this illegal act of the Government. Not satisfied with all these things we now find that the Government comes along with an amount of £500 for information to be supplied over the radio to the natives. I should like to know from the Minister of Native Affairs what his idea is with the erection of these loudspeakers to supply information over the radio to the natives. Even if I were to hear that news I would not be able to understand it, and I should like to know from him what kind of information is supplied to the natives. All we know is the kind of news that is supplied to us. We know the terrible kind of war propaganda instead of news which is broadcast to us over the radio. When Daventry broadcasts we are told what the New York Herald or the Tribune say. or what this or that statesman has said. All that sort of thing is pure war propaganda, and for that reason I am anxious to know from the Minister of Native Affairs, and I hope he will answer me, what kind of information is supplied to the natives over the radio. What we also resent is the fact that so much indirect pressure is being brought to bear on our young men. Let me give an example. This applies to a young fellow who is not yet 21 years of age. He was in the public service and there, too, indirect pressure was brought to bear on him until eventually he took that oath to go and serve in any part of Africa. His father is a farmer, and when he heard about it he at once went to the place where his son had been employed, to go and say that the youngster was not yet 21 years of age when he took the oath. It was illegal. But was the boy released? The father came back home without having achieved anything. Eventually the matter was taken further and the boy was given two months leave, but the authorities are not prepared to relieve him from the oath which he took before he was 21 years of age. Was that oath legal? Now I would like to come to another section of the community on whom a terrible pressure is being brought to bear, and there too the Government has great powers in regard to bringing pressure to bear. I am referring to the police. I personally know of cases that have come to my notice, but before I deal with those I want to point out that the Commissioner of Police has made an appeal to the police to join up to go and fight in any part of Africa. This, to say the least of it, is abusing his position in order to influence those people. The fact that the Commissioner of Police has made an appeal is sufficient to make a great many of those policemen go against their own wishes. And what has been the result so far as those are concerned who had a bit of backbone and who did not go? They were made to understand that their attitude did not meet with the approval of the Government. Some of them have been transferred with twenty-four hours notice, although they have families, to some out of the way place in the Union. A great many of them have not taken the oath and they are in a difficult position to-day. We are proud of our police. They are people who have honestly performed their duty wherever they have been sent to do their duty, and whatever dang ers may have faced them. But now pressure is being brought to bear on them to go to any part of Africa, which I say is unfair. That is what the Government has done. It is one of the greatest scandals among the many scandalous acts committed by the Government. There are a few other points I wish to refer to. Seeing that such a large amount is being asked for the internment camps I wonder what the Government’s intentions are under the new Bill which is being introduced, whether the Government intends putting thousands of our people into the internment camp? An amount of £330,000 is being asked for here; an amount like that would pay for a tremendously big camp. Is it the intention to fill that camp with Afrikaners? The unfortunate part of the whole business is this. Under this system one gives one’s enemy who may be the greatest scoundrel in the world the opportunity of making any allegations of the dirtiest kind to the authorities and a man may on that information be put into an internment camp without his knowing what he has been charged with and who has charged him. At least let us be fair. If the Government has any information against any individual it wants to intern let it be fair and submit the charge to the man so that he may know what he is charged with and may know what he has to defend himself against. Give that man the right to do so. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) said in connection with the taxation proposals that only those members sitting opposite would pay these taxes. I wondered at his conceit. Is it only members on his side of the House who use motor cars?

And who drink whisky?

Yes, and who drink whisky? No, all these taxes which are being imposed, with the exception of the companies tax and the income tax to a certain extent, will in just as large a degree be paid toy this side of the House as by the other side. I would further like to say this, that the farmer in South Africa is being exploited for the continuation of this war and it is being done in many ways. The most recent and worst thing of all is that all our wool has to be sold to England and at a price which undoubtedly is going to be unprofitable to us. Indirectly the wool farmer is going to pay most for the war, not in this country but in another country. In conclusion I only want to say that the farmers pay just as much in taxation as our friends opposite do.

Mr. Speaker, I have but one suggestion to make, and I want to make that as shortly and as simply as I can. At an earlier stage in this debate the oath which is taken by soldiers on joining our army was mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit), and it does occur to me as a hope that the Government may be prepared to contemplate the possibility of having a second oath differing from the first in one respect, and one only, namely, that it does permit of service within the borders of the Union, and only that. I am thinking very specially, Mr. Speaker, of men who are marvellously suited as candidates for the army, men from the farms of the platteland, men who are specially fitted to take part in a campaign which will be on an extended front, which will be in open veld and bush country, men who know the countryside and all the sounds thereof. The men I am thinking of can see and hear and shoot, and when they shoot they hit the mark. These men can interpret the ordinary sounds of the night, in the open. If they heard a rabbit twenty yards on the right flank I am quite certain they would not present arms, thinking it was a General coming down the line, nor would they sound an alarm imagining that 50,000 German or other troops were upon them. These are very steady men who would be of enormous service in the line, and I am putting it to the Government to consider, if they will, a tremendous number of men in regard to whom we must not insist on the one existing oath, without giving them an opportunity of, as it were, home service. The course I suggest was followed by Britain herself throughout the duration of the last war. It is necessary that we should have vast quantities of men, and I take it that it is impossible to put more than two men at most out of five in the front line. We used to say in the late war that for every man in the firing line we wanted four between that point and the base ports. I am aware, and I think we all are, that there are different points of view, that a man may perfectly conscientiously refuse to go abroad, but is nevertheless quite prepared to fight for his own country. It is not everyone who is prepared to serve outside, and there are many who, from conscientious, parental, or business reasons, are not able to go far abroad. Unless we do make some such change as this, we are missing thousands of suitable men in our country. I am perfectly certain there is not a man of whatever nationality in this Union who would not fight, as we used to say in Ireland, like a Kilkenny cat, or to be more dignified, like a raging lion in defence of his own home and country. It may come to a point where we need every single man, and I hate to see any obstacle put in the way of men who are suitable for service. I express a very strong hope that this change may be made. It would, of course, cost extra money, but I can suggest how some portion of that amount of extra money might be saved. It was said by the same speaker, the hon. member for Cape Flats, that we do not admit unfit men into our army. But that, I submit, is a quite unfounded statement. I assert that we do admit unfit men in great numbers. From my own personal knowledge I am sure that hundreds of quite unfit men are at present trying to serve with our armies, and I think that the money that is paid to them in the form of wages, not so much in so far as any individual is concerned but a big sum in the aggregate, could very well be saved. I submit that this matter should be very carefully gone into, and the money at present expended on soldiers who cannot soldier, who are not physically capable of soldiering in the field, should be saved and devoted to that other object of paying soldiers who, I am perfectly certain, wish and are specially competent to fight for their country. We have to respect the consciences of other men, and if we do want the country defended, as surely to goodness we do, we have to look all round this problem and see it from every possible point of view. There is a possibility that we shall be invaded, and I want to express my assurance that there is not. a man in this House who is not prepared to fight for his country in that event. I should be quite content to lie on the Bluff at Durban, with a rifle in my hand, alongside any member of this House, to defend that little corner of South Africa. I am satisfied that every man here in the Union is not only willing but anxious so to do, if that need does in fact arise; and I hope it will be found possible to adopt the suggestion I have offered, because not only will it add to the security of South Africa, it will do much to consolidate and unify the peoples of our land.

In view of the peculiar history of the people of South Africa one can well understand that on a burning question such as our participation in the European war we may easily differ from each other.

But now we are in this unfortunate position that where part of these people are strong supporters of the policy of participation in the war, and the other section are hefty opponents, when expenditure has to be incurred in connection with the views of the one section of the population it is not only that section which has to pay for it, but the other section as well which is against such participation; they also have to pay the taxes and bear the war burden, together with the other section. If the position were that the tax which is being imposed were only put on the shoulders of the protagonists of the participation in the war this side of the House would have nothing to say; but in view of the fact that both sections have to bear the burden we definitely have reason in accordance with our attitude to protest strongly against the expenditure of this large sum of money. Before making a few general remarks I want to say a few words about the form of the tax. In the first place I want to point out that whisky, which is consumed by the more well-to-do people in the country, has an increased tax imposed upon it of from 45s. to 52s. 6d. per gallon, that is to say an increase of 16.6 per cent. As against that we find that the tax on petrol has been raised from 5d. to 8d. per gallon. Petrol is a commodity which is used not only by the well-to-do people but also by the less well-to-do section of the community. It has been pointed out repeatedly that petrol is an indispensible commodity even for the poorest amongst our people. In this instance the increase in tax is not 16.6 per cent. as in the case of whisky, but actually 60 per cent. Now I want to compare two luxury articles. As against an increase of 16.6 per cent. in the case of whisky we find that the excise on Cape brandy has been raised from 12s. 6d. to 15s. per gallon, an increase of 20 per cent. In other words the imported luxury article is taxed with an additional 16.6 per cent. while the local luxury article, produced by an important industry in the country, is increased by 20 per cent. Now we come to a very important item. In the case of the ordinary personal income tax we find that, as has already been shown by the former Minister of Finance, there is an increase, if we take the tax year which ended on the 30th June, 1939, and we compare it with the tax year which ended on the 30th June, 1940, to the ordinary taxpayer, with the exception of super tax, and leaving out the war excess profits tax, of 71.4 per cent. As against that we find in the case of the gold mining taxation — and as the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) has also shown this is only part of the gold mining tax — there is an increase of from 9 per cent. to 11 per cent. I agree with the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) that it is not 2 per cent. but actually 22 per cent., but then we still are concerned with an increase in the income tax of 22 per cent. in the case of the gold mines as against 71.4 per cent. in the case of ordinary individuals. If the mines had to undergo the same taxation treatment as ordinary individuals are subjected to, then an additional amount would have to be collected from the mines, not of £855,000 as the Minister of Finance expects, but it would have been £2,774,863. In other words, of the total of £4,825,000 which, according to the Minister of Finance, is required, the mines would have produced so much that the rest of the population would only have had to pay £2,000,000 But now I want to put this question. The increase which we have before us, from £14,000,000 to £46,000,000 in the case of war expenditure, means an increase of £32,000,000 which is the amount asked for by the Minister of Finance. That means an increase of 228 per cent. on the estimates which we dealt with in February. The £14,000,000 is only 30 per cent. of the total amount which is now required. If we take this fact into account then one must ask oneself what is the reason for the Minister of Finance and the Government having made this great mistake, that in five or six months time, in the short space of time, they have had to alter an amount of £14,000,000 into an amount of £46,000,000. In other words, an additional amount of almost £33,000,000 has to be asked for. What can be the reason that the people who are in charge, people whom we are entitled to look upon as sensible people, have made this great mistake, and that they have made such a serious miscalculation? The hon. member for Fauresmith rightly said that it was due either to ignorance or to deception. Now I want to put a few questions. Is the increase in this amount due to Italy’s entry into the war? If that is so, then I take it upon myself to say that if the Government and the Minister of Finance when drafting the estimates in February — with Italy’s position being as threatening as it was then — if they drafted estimates without taking into account the possible intervention of Italy, they failed to show a sense of statesmanship.

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

When business was suspended at 6 o’clock I was dealing with the question as to what the cause possibly could be of the tremendous miscalculation of the Minister of Finance, that instead of our spending £14,000,000 this veer we were now being asked to vote £46,000,000 for the war. I have already pointed out that it cannot be the intervention of Italy, because the Government must have known that there was a great possibility of Italy coming into the war. and it surely was also a matter pre-arranged by the Government that if Italy did come into the war, then they would also declare war on Italy. Was that then ignorance? Was it misleading? I want to leave it to the Government and to other hon. members opposite to answer this themselves. I do not care about attributing motives to people, but I want to say that however it came about the amount of £14,000,000 which we were asked to vote last session, has now been pushed up to £46,000,000. It is useful when one wants to get a large sum to start with a small amount and then gradually to make the amount larger. When one buys a child’s ladder — about which the Minister of Finance unfortunately does not know much — then you first of all teach him to walk one step, and then another step and yet another, until he can walk. The system of the thin end of the wedge is used. The Prime Minister said a few days ago that the national character of the people of South Africa was such that one had to deal slowly and carefully with them. He possibly said it in another connection, but it also applies in regard to the matter which we are considering. May I give you a report of the steps which have been taken since we went to war? Not many years ago the then Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan) referred to the danger of a war threatening in Europe, and then he and we were literally ridiculed about the possibility of such a war. The Leader of the Opposition told this House the day before yesterday that in 1935 the Cabinet — the previous Government — discussing the possibility of a war in Europe, decided that they would not take part in such a war.

We cannot now debate the participation in the war.

Then I come to the resolution which was passed here in September, 1939, when the Prime Minister and a part of the then Cabinet and hon. members opposite voted to take part in the war. During the previous session £14,000,000 was voted but now, hardly six months later, the Minister says that he needs £46,000,000 for the war this year. Step by step it is mounting up. At that time it was also stated that no one would be sent overseas, and that only volunteers would be used for service beyond South Africa. That promise that no one would be sent overseas deliberately, or the reverse, was misleading. The impression which we received was that no one would be sent outside of South Africa, whether to Egypt or to Europe. But the other promise was much more important, namely that only volunteers would be used. Hon. members opposite should now be honest and admit that to-day it is not merely volunteers that are being used. I want to put it in this way: it is an artificial voluntariness. There are numbers of examples of intimidation, directly and indirectly. There is, for instance. a man in my constituency who lost his job. He was in the employ of the monumental mason, but in consequence of bad times there was no work for him. He then came to the town where certain firms offered work. He was then asked whether he was unfit for war purposes. He is 35 years old. He replied that so far as he knew be was not unfit. The answer then was: “Very sorry, there is the door. We only use people who cannot do some form of active service or other.” If that man wants anything to eat, and for his wife and children to wear, he is obliged to become a volunteer also. That is the kind of volunteer whom we do not regard as a volunteer.

Will you give us the names of those people?

You have the people with the red tabs here. Is it not true that a distinction is immediately made between the man who is willing to serve at any place in Africa and those who are not prepared to do so? Is it not true that the man with the red tabs counts more in the eyes of hon. members opposite than the others do?

Give names.

I am able to supply the names, but that is not the point. I assume that the hon. member regards me as honourable, just as I do him. But what security have we that the £46,000,000 which the Minister of Finance is now asking for will be adequate up to the 31st March, 1941? If the Government made such a gross miscalculation between March and September of this year, why may he not miscalculate again between now and March, 1941? Will any hon. member opposite, will the Minister of Finance, rise and state here that they definitely will not need more than what is now being asked for? We do not know how long the war is going to last.

Surely you say it is over.

We say that the war is practically ended, but hon. members opposite say that it will possibly last four or five years. If they take up that attitude they should also be prepared to look the expensein the face for four or five years. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) this afternoon deliberately — I will say that — also tried to shield behind the statement that this side of the House said that the war was nearly over. If the Government side, however, says that it will be a long war they must not create the impression as if the expenditure was limited to £46,000,000. Now the Minister of Finance has created or tried to create the impression in his budget speech that the financial position of the country is so favourable that it is almost a pity that our country is not always at war. That is the impression which one got. Now I can quite understand that the Minister of Finance, in his speeches, must adopt an optimistic tone, because people would otherwise be despondent. And I want to point out how we are already commencing to suffer under the conditions we are in: works are being suspended in consequence of the war. I think I could give a dozen examples. In my own constituency a station has been built, the money for which was voted during last session. Although a start was made with the building, the work was stopped, and it was said that it was stopped in consequence of the war. But I can mention another instance. During last session I asked the Minister of Labour why women social workers under the Department of Social Welfare, trained workers, were not getting the usual increase that they ought to get. The reply of the Minister was that that was due to the war. In that way one can mention dozens of examples. Not only are heavier burdens being laid on the population at the present time, but burdens are also being laid on the shoulders of posterity. The Government and its party or parties, with their small majority in this House, and with no majority outside in the country, should at least exhibit more sense of responsibility in connection with this tremendous expenditure. That is not being done at the moment.

We heard from the Minister of Finance that he wants to saddle us with an amount of £46,000,000 up to the end of this financial year. We have already voted £14,000,000 last session, but now I want to know from the Minister whether this £46,000,000 will see the war through, or is it only for a certain period?

Up to the end of the financial year.

If that is the expenditure up to the end of the financial year, according to the estimate of the Minister, will he then give us the assurance that he will not subsequently come again, before the end of the year, for a further amount? Things develop quickly, and seeing that only six months ago £14,000,000 was asked for, we are now given to understand that £46,000,000 will be spent during the current financial year. The country would like to know whether it will stop at that. It was said here that the Minister had made a bad estimate, or was too optimistic about the money that was required. It seems to me that our financial affairs are being controlled without much responsibility. It reminds me of the man who was fond of his tot. When he was asked how he felt now and why he was so fond of his tot and of feeling intoxicated, his reply was that there was nothing nicer than going into a bar and Spending one £5 note after the other inviting your friends to drink. He said that there was no pleasanter feeling, and that you become intoxicated by the feeling of extravagance. It seems to me that the Minister has also become intoxicated, that he is living in an orgy of extravagance. We would not have minded so much if it were for the development of our own country and for the benefit of our people, but the Minister of Finance is obsessed with an imperialistic spirit, and is prepared to sacrifice everything in the interests of the Empire. The interests of South Africa, just have to play a second part; they have to be sacrificed.

The hon. member is now wandering too far from the estimates.

I just want to point out that the extravagance of the Government is in conflict with the interests of South Africa. Millions of pounds which we have to borrow are being wasted, and the money will have to come out of the pockets of the taxpayers. The Minister says that posterity would not suffer in consequence, but he knows that posterity will have to pay interest every year on the amounts which are being borrowed for the war now. That will be a burden, a servitude, which is now being placed on posterity. I do not believe that posterity will praise us for the wasting of money which is now going on, not for the benefit of South Africa. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance remained in default of proving to us that the money was being spent in the interests of the country. The Minister of Finance said that factories were being put up, that work was being provided in the factories for our people, that more technical people were being trained. But these people are only being trained in one direction, and after the war there will be no work for all those people in that one line. There will be numberless workers who will not be employed in that circle of work. The misery after the war will be great. The Minister cannot say whether the war will be ending soon. They are preparing for at least two or three years, and instead of £46,000,000 the amount according to their showing, will be £200,000,000 or more. Can our country stand that? The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) also issued a warning that there should be economy where it was possible. Money is being wasted in numbers and numbers of respects. We are, however, being asked to indicate where money is being wasted. I have a newspaper here from my village, Lydenburg, to which half a regiment came from Barberton last Friday, with the intention of holding a recruiting meeting. A few weeks ago the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) came there to hold a recruiting meeting. He did not get one recruit. Then half a regiment was sent to do the work. The troops had to make a journey of 90 miles there and 90 miles back, in all 180 miles. Just think of the expense of transporting the regiment across, and keeping them there a few days in order to get two or three recruits in that way. That is the way money is being wasted. Then it is said by the other side that no compulsion is being exercised on people to join up, and to take the “red” oath. I have received a letter from a friend in Lydenburg in connection with it. We have a group of road workers there. The road inspector gets his workers from different sources, from the poorer section of the population of the district. A few months ago most of the men had left. They had to take the oath.

According to certain information which they got they would lose the work if they did not take part. Now those friends write to me—

It was probably from the Provincial Administration, which is also a Government institution—

Those are the conditions which are prevailing on the countryside. And then hon. members opposite say that there is no intimidation and compulsion to induce people to take the oath. I have here another case. There are many mines in my constituency. The mine owners simply say to the miners that they must join up, and if they fail to do so then they are in danger of losing their work. I had the case of a farmer’s son who was working on a mine, and when he refused to take the oath, the mine captain said to him, “You dirty white-livered rat.” That boy then fortunately said to him: “Give me my ticket.” He went back to work on his father’s farm. There are however hundreds of others who do not have the opportunity of going to work on a father’s farm, and they are being forced to go and fight for an interest which they know is not the interest of South Africa. Those cases we could give by dozens. But I just want to mention one more case. A miner was given his discharge with 24 hours notice simply because the man’s wife, in a conversation, let it come out that he was a Nationalist, and did not support the policy of the Government. That is the sort of thing that happens on the countryside. Now I want to say a few words about the taxation which is being imposed by the Minister of Finance. The first matter I want to mention is that the taxation of the Minister now has to be paid in advance by the taxpayers. The man who goes to buy a packet of cigarettes has to pay the tax at once, though the Act has not yet been approved which will levy that tax.

The Act provides that the tax will come into force immediately.

The Minister specially mentioned that this taxation was being levied to assist him in getting the £46,000,000. That is the immediate effect of the additional money which the Minister wants. The public already has to pay this taxation now. I am thinking of the tax on petrol. Several hon. members have already mentioned that the farmers are using motor cars to-day, and their motor lorries are not a luxury, but in order to make their living. In connection with the chrome, asbestos and manganese mines, contracts have been entered into to carry the ore by motor lorry from the mines to the station, in one case a distance of about 40 miles. There is great competition, and those people who enter into the contracts charge the price of petrol at 2s. a gallon, which is the price we have to pay. Now those people will suddenly be obliged to pay an additional 3d. or 4d. a gallon to meet the war expenditure of the Government. It is going to press very hard on those people. Then there are school buses. In my district there are several. Those people have to send in their tenders for the transport of the children at the beginning of the year. Things are cut so fine, that 3d. on a gallon will possibly take away all the profit, with the result that the people will have to do the work at a loss. We would like to bring these things to the notice of the Minister, because these are the cases where the taxation presses heavily on the people. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) has already pointed out that the mines, who can well bear the burden, are not taxed to the same extent as ordinary people. Then we find that there is a general addition of 20 per cent. to the income tax. Why must the man who has an income of £700 pay the same percentage as the man who gets £5,000? Why cannot the Minister make the percentage payable by way of an ascending scale? He could then get the same amount. But the man with an income of £5,000 would possibly have paid an additional 35 per cent., while the man with £700 would possibly have paid 10 per cent. The burden does not press evenly, and we would like to see the tax pressing evenly. We, on this side, have been called hands-uppers by the Prime Minister. I am sorry that I cannot say much about that now. I only want to say this about it, that the Prime Minister laid a report on the Table to-day about the “burnt-out war veterans,” as he called them. They are the oudstryders of the Boer War, and those oudstryders are now characterised by the Prime Minister as people who were not hands-uppers in the war.

The hon. member cannot debate that matter now.

I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I would like the Minister of Finance in future to bear in mind that it will be necessary to pay pensions or grants to these people who have sacrificed their lives for their country.

These estimates do not make any provision for pensions, and the hon. member cannot debate that matter now.

Then I come to the question of the surrendering of rifles. The prices paid for these rifles, which were ly taken away by the Defence Department, are very unsatisfactory, especially when we remember that these rifles were taken away against the wishes of the owners. I know of a case in my district where a man paid £4 or £5 for a rifle, and he received £1 for it. He surrendered the rifle on the order of the Defence Department, and that is not the way in which he should be treated. I know of another case of a person who paid £25 for his rifle. He said that he would not get it back again, because it was such a nice rifle that one of the officers would take a fancy to it and he would probably receive £4 or £5 for it.

Officers do not now use rifles.

As soon as arguments are used on this side hon. members opposite have something to say about it. I can prove the things that I am saying here, and therefore we on this side will welcome a judicial commission to investigate these matters. The farmers in my district are much upset about the rifles that are being taken. We expect the Prime Minister to take steps to release the people that are in gaol and to suspend the prosecution of those who are still to be prosecuted. There was a reference to new legislation which was coming, and we hope that the Prime Minister will take the necessary steps not to persecute our people in that way again.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite evident that no matter what kind of budget the Minister of Finance brought before this House as a supplementary budget it would have been received with uncompromising opposition by hon. members on that side of the House. Listening to their speeches makes it quite obvious that they are against this budget because it is a war budget; they are quite honest about it that they object to any expenditure on the war. It is not the case that they really object to the form of the budget but it is the case that they do not want to vote any money at all to carry on the war. The reason underlying the opposition on the other side has been that we should not have embarked upon this expenditure at all, and as far as the details are concerned there has been no constructive criticism. Take the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) and his amendment. He is concerned about the effect of the budget on the poor man, but I say that any fair-minded man, will admit that this budget is favourable to the poor man; it is a budget which is in the interests of the poor man, it is a budget in the interests of the sober man and in the interests of the thrifty man. Those who are opposed to the war seize every opportunity of trying to hamper the Government in carrying out its obligations as a member of the British Commonwealth.

They are against this budget as they would be against any budget which made provision for the war. We have been told by hon. members opposite that the Minister of Finance should have told them at the last session what expenditure would be necesasry, yet during last session we were asked why we voted money as there was no real war being waged by South Africa. [Interruption.] Last time when we voted the money to which this is supplementary they said: “You are playing at soldiers; you don’t require money.” Imagine what they would have said if the Minister had come for this large amount when he presented his main budget. They did not want to vote the comparatively small amount which was then required. The Minister is perfectly right; it is no good asking Parliament for globular sums unless they are required, it is no good asking for it in advance, it is no good taking money out of the pockets of the people until it is required. No doubt it would be much more convenient to the Government not to call Parliament together again, but it is quite obvious that it had now become necessary. So far as South Africa is concerned the war at the time the Government asked for the first sum of money was a very different thing to what it is now, and one is not at all surprised that the Minister has had to ask for this increased amount. The speaker before the last rather gave the show away when he said the war is going to last for a very long time, because his friends have been telling us that the war is lost. When this was pointed out to him he said: “That is what we think but you don’t think so.” Then the hon. member went on to say the war is going to last a very long time, and if that is true it is obvious that a very large amount of money will be required, much more than the Government is asking for now. One member went so far as to say that we might want more money before March. Well, if we do Parliament will have to be called together again to vote that money, and further special taxes may be required. I said before that this is a budget that has regard to the poor man. We know that in this country, compared with other countries, the poor man gets off almost scot free. The hon. Minister’s proposals affect almost entirely the man who cannot be regarded as the poor man. With regard to this increased income tax nobody is going to tell me that the poor man is going to pay that. An hon. member has spoken about the petrol tax and he talked about the man who uses a lorry to get a living. The hon. member went on to make a statement about the petrol used by the lorry owner who has made contracts in advance, but what about the rich joy rider; are you going to let him off? How are you going to work it so that the poor lorry owner is not hit but the rich joy rider is penalised? I personally would like to see the joy rider, the man who uses petrol for joy rides, taxed more heavily than the man who makes a living out of a lorry, but how are you going to do it? It might possibly he done by way of a rebate to the man who can show that he uses his lorry for his living.

[inaudible].

No, it shouldn’t be applicable to lorries used for election purposes, they should not be included in a rebate system. There was a group of philosophers once who were called peripatetics, and people who use lorries for election purposes are like peripatetics, they go about all over the place. I personally would like the Minister to consider whether it is possible to give some consideration to a rebate in the case of a person who can prove to the satisfaction of the Treasury that he makes a living out of a lorry. I would be in favour of that, but a general proposition not to increase the tax on petrol is not only going to help the poor man with one lorry but it is going to help all the joy riders in the country and that is not feasible. With regard to the question of yeast no one is in favour of an increase in the cost of bread and I think perhaps here there is something for the Minister to investigate. I understand representations have been made by the master bakers that this extra shilling a pound on yeast is going to lead to an increase in the price of bread because it means that the existing profit will be eliminated. That statement may be exaggerated but something possibly will have to come off the present profit and whether it will be worth while to make bread under those conditions I do not know. It has been suggested that there might be a rebate in favour of yeast bona fide used for the manufacture of bread, but there again I do not know whether the Minister’s advisers can show him a feasible way by which that can be done so as to protect the Government against any evasion. If it can be done I think personally that the tax should toe made even steeper for the yeast used in the manufacture of illicit liquor, skokiaan, etc. If you could trace it and could tax the yeast for illicit purposes it would be a good thing to increase the tax on that. I would not like to say whether that is feasible or not, but I think the Minister should go into this question, because no one wants an increase in the price of bread. With regard to another point made by the hon. member for Faurésmith, I do not think it is fair to the Government to suggest that there has been a general rise in the cost of living. The Public Service were at one time pressing for a cost of living allowance but afterwards it was said that in view of the fact that the cost of living had not actually risen that question was being left alone for the present. No fair-minded man can say that taking the necessaries of life as a whole there has been any general rise in the cost of living and that is largely the result of the measures taken by the Government in their emergency legislation. If it had not been for those measures taken by the Minister of Commerce there would have been a rise in the cost of living. There has not been such a rise and one of the best things the present Government has done was to prevent a general rise in the cost of living. Again as a justification for not agreeing to this war expenditure the member for Fauresmith and other members have given a general impression of “why should we go in for this expenditure when other dominions are considering seriously a shortening of their war effort?” Surprisingly enough the member for Fauresmith actually mentioned Australia. Now if there is one country that is all out to win this war, that has done remarkable things to win this war in the way of creating armies, enlarging their navy and building armament factories, aircraft and so on, it is Australia, and to found an assertion that Australia is shortening her war effort on the figures of one by-election, is not fair. It is quite true it was a Government seat at the time, but it was a pure Labour constituency and returned to its Labour allegiance. In any case the Labour Party of Australia is not saying that Australia should not take its full part in the war. On the contrary, what is happening in Australia is that the people there see serious enemies very close to their coast, and Australia realises that she must have a sufficient number of troops in the country to deal with possible enemies. Anybody who takes the trouble to go into the matter must know that the position of the Dutch East Indies was a serious problem. When Holland was overrun by Germany, the question was what was going to happen in the Dutch East Indies, because if they were taken by Japan it would be a serious menace to Australia, and Australia would have to keep a very large force there. But troops are still being sent from Australia all over the world; there is no slackening of the war effort, and anybody in Australia would be very much surprised to hear that anyone has suggested that there was any weakening in the war effort. On the contrary, Australia has set an example to the rest of the Commonwealth. [Interruption.] Well, I have the evidence of my own eyes as to the Australian soldiers who have been sent overseas, and I have seen some since that statement was made. The fact is Australian and New Zealand troops are still being sent to the various theatres of war. Take Canada again. Who would suggest that Canada is weakening because of certain negotiations with America? One member has seriously suggested that Canada is seeking a way to leave the British Commonwealth and becoming part of America. Well, really that is too absurd. Canadian troops and Canadian forces are still playing a foremost part, and what hon. members do not realise is this, that instead of Canada leaving the Commonwealth and going to America, America is every day coming closer to the Commonwealth. Now, I want to touch on another point. Hon. members have referred to the £9,000,000 odd required to be taken from revenue account. But I don’t think they have noticed that the farmers are getting nearly £5,000,000 out of it. [Interruptions.] I wish hon. members would read their papers. I am referring to the expenditure on revenue account included in the £9,000,000. I have been rather amused to see what the Nationalist organs are saying. They are saying that the budget is taking £9,000,000 from the poor man, in fact robbing the poor man and helping the rich man by borrowing from him and paying interest. That is how they represent it. I am pointing out that in the £9,000,000 referred to nearly £500,000 is an extra amount given by way of assistance to farmers. The actual amount is £458,000. Hon. members must take that into consideration, although I suppose they will not tell their constituents that. My argument about this £9,000,000 and the loan money is that it is money which will circulate among all sections of the people, and the farmers will get their share. No doubt the townsmen get some of it too; all sections are all getting some of it. But I want hon. members to be honest about it and acknowledge that the farmer is getting his share.

Is your argument that the more war the better it is for the farmer?

Mr. Speaker, there are some questions that answer themselves. Another point is that the actual sum we are going to borrow is not the £23,000,000 referred to in this statement, because the Minister has certain savings and certain moneys he can lay his hands upon, and he is only going, to borrow £18,000,000. And he says quite rightly that he is going to borrow it in South Africa. I quite agree with him. I don’t think he will have any difficulty. There are many people who like to invest their money in Government loans in South Africa, which has a high place in the markets of the world. I think the whole of that £18,000,000 will be obtained without any difficulty. Let me come to another point, and that is the money that is being spent as part of the war effort in connection with the vocational scheme already referred to shortly by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). That is expenditure which has come about as a result of the war, that is war expenditure, and yet it is money that will be spent in the permanent interests of South Africa. The war has proved that the whole world to-day is suffering from a shortage of technicians. Germany was the only country apparently that realised the importance of mechanised forces in time of war. They spent nearly all their money in providing these tremendous mechanised forces, and the rest of the world, particularly we in South Africa, are short of technicians. It has been estimated that there is room for some thousands of technicians in South Africa. Now here the Government has done a Very wise thing, because they are using that as part of their war expenditure — coming out of the Department of Labour but still part of the war effort. These people are becoming technicians, they get their six months training, and they are drafted away either as engineers or to industrial establishments doing war work.

What about the unemployed?

They will soon be eliminated. You cannot eliminate unemployment in a day, but undoubtedly schemes like this eliminate unemployment in the only sound way possible by giving men training which will enable them to make a decent living. Their slogan is “Earn while you learn,” and a young man of 18, unmarried, earns £2 2s. per week; a man, married, with a child, earns £3 16s. per week, and if he lives away from his home because the training is in another area it comes to £4 0s. 6d. per week — that is while he is being trained. Never before has there been such a scheme.

And what a wonderful wage.

The hon. member need not sneer. It certainly is a very good scheme.

Did they have to wait for a war before they took this up?

You had to have a war to teach you that mechanisation is one of the necessities of the modern state. And if you had not had a scheme of this kind, and if you did not train these people, they would simply have gone to swell the unemployed army.

There is nothing new in that.

Well, if the hon. member knew all about it, why did he not see that it was started before? Now the question of saving has been referred to by hon. members. They cannot believe that the Minister is able to provide so many savings so that he need not put his hands into the pockets of the taxpayer. There again they can learn something. If the Minister had been unable to find these savings there would have had to be more taxation. One would have thought that hon. members would have applauded the Minister on account of these savings being there, but instead they are annoyed.

It depends on what the savings are made on.

Now let us deal with the specific taxes. Take the question of brandy and beer. Surely hon. members opposite are not going to tell me that by taxing brandy and beer in this way the Minister is persecuting the poor man.

It is the poor man every time.

I am sure the poor man is much more moderate in that respect than the rich man. If he spent much more money on brandy and beer his family would be destitute. Then take the tax on cigarettes. What harm is there in this ½d. extra on an ordinary packet of cigarettes? Surely cigarettes are a legitimate means for getting extra money?

Why should you tax it at all?

There is nothing wrong with it.

Why did he not tax the cigars of the rich man?

I would have no objection to that. Then take tyres and tubes. It is quite true that the possession of a motor-car does not mean that you are a rich man, but if there were a way of differentiating between people who use a car for legitimate business and people who use it for joyriding it would be worth while considering it. The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) suggested that these taxes are going to be borne by the people represented by members on that side of the House. I do not think he will find anyone in the country to believe him. Everyone knows that if you want a fair distribution of taxation you will have to relieve the present burdens on your urban population. To suggest that under the existing system we on this side pay nothing is something which I do not think anyone will believe. It is so fantastic that no one will believe it.

It is true all the same.

The fact of the matter is that you have a very good budget indeed. The Minister of Finance graduated in public finance when he was principal of the Witwatersrand University and afterwards when he was Administrator of the Transvaal, and in his two budgets he has shewn that he has an original mind. He does not simply follow the path pursued by previous Ministers of Finance. There was one decision which he made last time in which he did away with the artificial limit in the price of gold obtained by the mines. He did not interfere with the price obtained for gold by the mines, but in actual fact he received more than was received from the mines under the system of the previous Minister.

And the shares went up.

Well, that shows that the system was sound, and that it had the. confidence of the people. The point which hon. members will not meet is that the contribution of the gold mines to ease the burden of this country has been greater under the present Minister of Finance, although he did away with the artificial limitation imposed by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga). In other words, he solved a very knotty problem to get the same amount of money and even more from the mines, while allowing them at the same time a greater opportunity of development, with the result that the low-grade mines have been able to carry on, new mines have opened and no mines have closed down. There have been greater profits, that is true, but what does that matter, if the state gets its money out of the mines.

The price of gold has gone up.

If the price of gold has risen the Government gets a larger contribution. My hon. friend need not be alarmed, he need not think that if the gold mines are getting a bigger profit that fact will be overlooked by the Minister. At the same time there is not going to be any confiscation which would have ruined everyone. We do not want that. What we want is that those who can pay the burden should have that burden placed upon them. That was the distinguishing feature of the last budget. This is also the distinguishing feature of this budget. Having been called upon suddenly to raise large sums of money the Minister has raised it in such a way that it will not harm the poor, the thrifty and the sober man; his taxation is calculated to rest on these people who can afford to pay it, and history will show that the way in which the Minister has dealt with the position has been a very sound and a very good way.

The budget that is now before, this House and the country I think is first of all remarkable for shewing in what a sound position the commercial and industrial activities of South Africa find themselves. I know this, that even members on the Opposition side, when they came to Parliament, expected that the taxation to be proposed and placed upon them by the Government would be very much more than it turned out to be, the principal reason being the healthy state of the finances of this country. When war broke out we all felt that we were entering a period, so far as our finances were concerned, of possible gravity, of possible difficulty and that certainly we could look forward to times far less prosperous than the times of peace had been. And yet we have the results of the working of our financial system, and generally of our economic position put in review by the Minister in this first year of the war, and what do we find? We find that we are really already budgeting for a surplus in this first year of war of some £6,000,000. I ask you is there any other country in the world where such a state of affairs can be revealed as was revealed by the Minister the other day? Of course, the new taxation as a result of what was there revealed has been reduced by just half, and no matter what members on the Opposition benches may say I can tell them that the taxpayers of the country were relieved and surprised to find that they had to pay so little. Now that is a great tribute to our country. I often notice that members of the Opposition never say a word that is praiseworthy about South Africa. They tell us often that they are South African first and alone, and then they start to traduce this country, to question its resources, to belittle its efforts in every possible way. No worse advertisement could be got for South Africa than any afternoon to listen to speeches from the Opposition benches. They may say that they are patriots but the kind of speeches they make about their own country show them to be a very funny kind of patriot. Then we come to the question of war expenditure, and the spending of war taxes. I do not think it surprised any thinking man in this country—and so I gathered speaking to people also outside of this House—indeed the great majority of them were really surprised that we were asking so little instead of asking very much, because what the Minister of Finance had to face was this: Not only had the defences of this country been neglected for a number of years before the outbreak of war, but they had been constantly neglected for the past thirty years. When we in 1913 passed the Defence Act we legalised a form of conscription. We were going to see to it that the people of this country were trained to defend their liberties, and had that programme of defence been carried out for these twenty-eight years, I suppose in that period of time we would have spent nothing short of £100,000,000.

I want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that these matters should be discussed on the Main Estimates, and not here.

I want to point out this if I may, that the reason why we have such a large expenditure to-day on our war account is because in the past we have neglected our war requirements.

These arguments would apply to the Main Estimates and not here.

False start.

I am sorry I cannot go on with that part of my speech, because I think it applies to the criticism we have heard about this sudden large expenditure, as this expenditure is due to all the new things that had to be provided for. When our war expenditure had gone down to £500,000 per year it was to be understood that the present Minister of Finance and the present Minister of Defence had to face a very difficult situation when they suddenly had to equip—and that de novo—a large army with modern weapons. Now it has been argued by Opposition members that here we can find £46,000,000 to spend on war, but when money is wanted for social services it cannot be got. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) in particular waxed eloquent on the pleas he had made for years for money for housing schemes, for social welfare, for public health and so on, and he told us that that money could never be got in anything like the volume he wanted it, but here, when a war was on, money to the extent of £46,000,000 was found immediately.

We could never get anything.

Oh no, you got a great deal of money for social welfare, for which the present Minister of Finance was largely responsible. But is it a fair thing, particularly to go to the platteland and tell the people there that if war had not come, if we had not gone into this war, we could have got £46,000,000 for poor relief, for housing schemes, for social welfare, for public health schemes and so on? And they want to impress the country that the question is: “Shall we spend £46,000,000 on social services, or on a war?” The question is, so they say, that Parliament has to decide whether the £46,000,000 should be spent on a war or on social services. That is what they tell the simple-minded people of the platteland. But they are not all simple-minded.

No, that you will find out.

Some are not taken in by these stories. We know that a modem state must be prepared to defend itself, and must be prepared to pay for its defence, and when the challenge comes to us as it has come, if a modern state cannot accept that challenge — if a modern state does not prepare itself for such a challenge, it is lost, and I am afraid it deserves to be lost in many cases. We were called upon to face the problem of defending our own liberty. And when that challenge came to us, we were man enough and prepared to accept that challenge.

We were the challengers.

Surely it is a poor argument to say that when a war is upon you, you must spend more money on housing schemes? Housing schemes will not help us if we have to fight a war.

Hitler would like that.

Other countries overseas have spent money on social services instead of preparing for their defence. We saw the other day that in Holland vast quantities of food which had been laid up for the next winter for the poor — the people of Holland who took a great interest in social services had even bought the food and stored it — never got to hungry Hollanders. Where is that food to-day? Is it left for the poor of Holland? No. it is feeding others who are not poor perhaps. It is extraordinary that we set responsible members getting up and talking in this way when we are faced with a menace to our liberty such as never before faced us. Another thing is this, that one would think that we are taking this £46,000,000 and that we are putting it down the sink — that we are merely shooting it away. It is interesting to know that of the £46.000.000 which the Minister is spending on the war here, at least £11,000,000 goes to soldiers’ pay and allowances to soldiers’ dependents. The hon. member for Cane Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) was talking of how this money is being circulated among all sections of the people. It is circulated throughout every section. And then at least another £11,000.000 is being spent in wages in our factories and work-shops. and in buying South African products to help our war effort. That money surely is being well spent. It is giving employment to hundreds of thousands of people, it is helping to support the farming industry of the country, it is helping to support the iron and steel industry and so on, and the money is circulated throughout the country. The expenditure of this money on this war effort of ours has, so to say. proved to us that we have resources in South Africa which we should be very proud of indeed. When I think of the conduct of the last war and think of our helplessness, of our almost impotence to do anything for ourselves at all — we had to wait for ships to arrive to put clothes on our backs, to put boots on our feet — for everything we had to depend on ships bringing goods from overseas. Now we do mostly everything ourselves. We are proving to Hitler that our people cannot only fight, but that we can make the implements of war, even modern implements of War. to help us to fight. I would like some of the Opposition members, if possible, to be taken round on a tour of our factories, to see what South Africa is doing to-day. South Africa is doing that in order to protect her liberty. We know in totalitarian wars it is not only a matter of soldiers. The soldiers will not win the war unless you can support the soldiers with the goods they need to fight. You are hopeless against the modern foe unless your soldiers are property equipped. But to a very large extent to-day we can go and meet the most modern equipped army by the output from our own workshops. That kind of thing makes me feel that, despite the war, South Africa is going to go ahead, and it will be found that the people who are helping South Africa to go ahead are represented mostly by the people on this side of the House.

Surely you do not believe that?

In that sense we are proving that we are true South Africans, ready to defend our liberty. We are putting every ounce of our strength, every bit of our brain power in, to defend our liberty. In conclusion I want to ask my hon. friends opposite to realise the great chance they are losing at the present time in not standing with us at our side. Philosophers have said that the day when we find the two sections of the people of this country fighting side by side in the defence of their liberty, on that day it will be found that South Africa has been born. That day has dawned. You gentlemen on the Opposition benches, and the people you represent, if you would lead them the way they should go. would be on our side to-day with every ounce of your strength, doing everything you could to defend our homes and our liberty, and to make South Africa a land fit for our children and children’s children.

I do not now want to go into the question of whether we ought to be in the war or not, but would like to say a few words heart to heart to the Minister of Finance. I assume that the Government certainly needs money for the war, but why is the taxation being imposed so badly and unreasonably? I would like to work out a few little sums with the Minister. I take, first of all, the excise on brandy. Why has he in this budget only provided for the wholesale merchant? Why has he not in this budget provided for industries overseas? The last speaker became eloquent about the development of manufactures in our country. Let him just listen a little. In the first place 2s. 6d.. is being put on brandy. That means in the case of A class brandy 12s. 6d. to 15s., for the B class from 17s. 6d. to £1, and for the C class 22s. 6d. to 25s. The wholesale merchants are tremendously pleased with the budget, and they say it openly. A tax of 2s. 6d. is being imposed on brandy, which works out at 5d. a bottle if it is proof. According to law no brandy ought to be sold which is not proof strength. That does not happen however, and the brandy is sold at 25 per cent. under proof, so that the tax works out at 3d. a bottle. I can give you the assurance that the wholesalers are going to put on 6d. In other words, they now make 2d. and 3d. profit on a bottle of brandy which they never made before. It seems a small amount, but on a leaguer of brandy containing 127 gallons, that is to say 762 bottles, it means a profit of £8 14s. When you remember that the average consumption is 60,000 leaguers of distilling wine or 1,500 leaguers of brandy per annum, then it means that they are making £120,000 a year out of the budget of the Minister. That is the position. Now he will say that it makes no difference, that the farmers decide the price that the wine merchants have to pay, and that the farmers therefore still get the same price. But I do not think it is necessary for me to tell him in this connection that we are already handicapped with a surplus of over 50 per cent., and that if the price of brandy is increased, then the consumption would decrease and the price drop more. We shall then in any case once more have the position that the wholesaler will get away with the profit, and the wine farmers will be in a sorry plight. I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that the wine farmers constitute a considerable part of the population. The whole of the Western Province, and to some extent also the South-Western Districts, are dependent on the wine industry. Millions of pounds have been invested by the farmers in that industry. I just want to tell the Minister that to put a morgen of land under grafted vines and to look after it up to the time that it comes into full bearing, costs about £100 a morgen. The farmers have therefore put millions into the industry, and they are being robbed of their livelihood in all sorts of ways. Restrictions are being made on the sale of their produce, and all kinds of difficulties are put in their way, apart from the taxation which is imposed. I want in addition to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that while he is imposing taxation on the farmers in our country he is treating the whisky manufacturers in Europe more kindly. I know that the Minister is a teetotaler, and does not in his heart sympathise with us as he should do, but as he has put one-fifth of the excise tax on beer, and also one-fifth on 12s. 6d. on brandy, he has not put one-fifth on whisky, which would be 9s., but only 7s. He is therefore going out of his way to assist the whisky makers in Europe, and is not fair to the people of our country, because he is taxing them to a greater extent than those people. I want to refer the Minister to another point. The Turkish tobacco farmers have practically been ruined by the Government. The Minister is now putting a higher tax on cigarette tobacco in this country, but on imported cigarettes there has been no increase in the duty. Now let us assume that the Minister wants to raise money for this war, although we, of course, are against the war. Let us assume that he, as the responsible Minister, has to find the money, but why then is he doing so in such a way as to squeeze the local industry to death for the sake of the people overseas? He cannot tell us that whisky is taxed too heavily, because he knows just as well as I do that for every gallon of brandy that we export to England, there was before the war — I do not know what the duty is now, but I understand that it is very high — a duty of £3 13s. 10d. in England. The duty in England itself on whisky is 72s. 6d. a gallon, while with us it used to be £2 5s. a gallon, and it is now being increased by a paltry 7s. 6d. when it ought to have been 9s. or 10s. more. Then I want to ask the Minister a question, whether he has heard of the whisky ring? Is he has not heard of it then he ought to ask his experts to enlighten him about it, because the people are now commencing to say that the whisky ring is dictating to the Government. I do not say that it is so, but then the Minister should be more logical with his taxation. That means distributing it evenly, and not squeezing one to death for the sake of the other one. I again ask the Minister to work out a little sum. The excise on brandy is £1 5s. a gallon. The farmer gets approximately 10d. a bottle for his brandy, that is 5s. a gallon. The duty is therefore 25s., or five times as much as the farmer gets for his brandy. If that is the position — it is the tax on the sale — what will the position be if other agricultural produce sold by them is taxed to the same extent as this produce of the wine farmer? Just think of a man who sells a skin for 2s. 6d., and the tax were 12s. 6d. If he sells a bunch of carrots for 3d. then the tax is 1s. 3d. That is the sort of thing that is being loaded on to the shoulders of the wine farmer. It is said that we must have the money for the war. Well, the last 2s. 6d. which was put on to brandy was imposed in 1919, and then it was the same thing; it was to be a temporary tax. It was put on and never again removed, and the same thing will probably happen again now. The wine farmer can apparently go to ruin. Now we are told that we have got a good market for our brandy in England, and the newspapers say a great deal about it. I want to tell the Minister that we have not sold one gallon more brandy in England as yet than we did before. We sent samples because we heard that there was to be a good market, because French brandy could not come in, and they only had stocks for six months. We sent samples, because we hear all the news from London, but we have not yet had any demand. It still remains at what they are going to do. But even if there were a market there, and we could send brandy there, I still say that it is unfair that in England a duty of £3 13s. 10d. should be imposed on a gallon of brandy, while whisky can come in here at a duty of £2 12s. 6d. I have nothing against the whisky drinkers. If their taste is such that they prefer to drink whisky instead of their own national drink, which is more healthy and which will enable them to live longer than they would with their whisky drinking, then I have nothing against it. But what I want to ask the Minister is this: What right has he to put on proportional duties and then to make them proportionally higher on our own article in comparison with the imported one?

Will it affect the sale of brandy?

Of course it will be affected. The people who drink whisky think that I have something against them. I have nothing against them, and I am only sorry for them. I only want to ask that hon. member how he would feel if duty of 1s. 3d. a lb. were put on sugar when the sugar was being sold at 3d. a lb., and whether he would then still ask whether it would affect the sale of sugar? If the Minister of Finance wants to be fair with his taxation, then he must put it up proportionally. I think that it is wrong to increase the taxation, because I am against this war, but at the moment I say that the Minister has no argument why the taxation should not be imposed proportionally. At the moment the whisky ring has obtained the advantage. He did the same thing with tobacco. The position is that the duty on imported cigarettes has not been increased, but cigarette tobacco which is produced here has to pay 1s. 6d. more. He says this makes a difference of 45d. per packet of cigarettes. They demanded 1d. more from me.

That is not on a packet of ten.

If the Minister will meet me on what I have asked for here, then he will be doing a service to the wine farmers. As the matter now stands, he has imposed taxation which will put £120,000 additional profit into the pockets of the wholesalers. They will put up the price by 6d. If they do that and they pay 3¼d. additional taxation, and we know what their turnover is, then they will make £120,000 profit on the deal. That being the position, I ask the Minister whether he will take steps to prevent them putting up the price by more than the tax. If he does not do that, then I want also to ask him whether he will not reconsider the duty on whisky, and whether he will in any case increase it to the same extent?

I am treating brandy better.

Proportionally the increase on whisky should not have been 7s. 6d. but 9s., namely l/5th more.

On brandy the increase is one-third, one-sixth and one-fifth.

The Minister cannot take the 22s. 6d. He knows just as well as I do that the brandy that is sold in hotels is A-brandy, on which the tax is 12s. 6d., so that the increase is one-fifth. In the case of whisky it is an import duty, and it is a fixed amount, whatever the quality of the whisky is. The Minister will see that one-fifth of the duty on whisky is 9s. I think that it is only the Minister’s inexperience in regard to this matter which has caused him to allow the duty to be levied in this way, and I say that something ought to be done in connection with the matter. I do not want to spend the whole day talking about the excise duty, but it is nevertheless my duty, because I represent a wine district and the wine industry. If the Minister wants to go on with his tax, then we must simply take it that the wine farmer can just be ruined. I now come to another matter. There has been boasting about the assistance which is being granted to farmers, and in this connection I would like to know from the Minister how much of the money which was voted on the last estimates for the assistance of farmers, has again been withdrawn. They come here and boast about the assistance which is being given to the farmers on this budget, but they have already pressed the farmers down, and therefore they ought now to help them with advances in regard to mealies and wheat. The price of wheat has been fixed so low by the Minister of Agriculture that when wheat had to be imported owing to a deficit, it could not be imported at the price which the farmers were getting here, and the Government had to pay the millers £10,000 because they had to get the wheat at a fixed price. In the circumstances I ask the Minister why the price was fixed so low?

It is a subsidy to the bakers.

Yes, and to the millers, and now they say that it is assistance to farmers. I come to another point. There are hundreds of people who have worked on dams and who are now walking the streets in consequence of the withdrawal of the subsidy. I wrote to the Minister of Labour about this arid pointed out to him that these people were almost helpless, that it was no use asking them to go to the war, because they were either too old or they were semi-fit. I asked the Minister to write me what he intended to do for these people. We issued a warning at that time that if assistance were given to those people in this form, then we were looking for trouble. On the day when that work was stopped on the dams, then those people would be on the roads. The reply of the Minister of Labour was briefly this: Yes, but so many dams have been made now that there ought to be much work for these people below the dams. The farmers are being oppressed in all kinds of ways. The value of the articles which they produce is being undermined and reduced. They are not able to pay the wages which these people should get, and they cannot do charitable work. It is the duty of the state to do so, and not of the farmer. The farmer cannot employ these people, because they cannot do a day’s work. He was able to do so in the past when the state paid a subsidy, but now that the subsidy has been withdrawn, the farmer cannot give work to those men, with the consequence that they are on the roads. I make an earnest appeal to the Minister of Finance— because he represents that he takes a great interest in social work—to grant assistance in this connection. I would like him to know that people come to me every day. Some of them have not any food to eat; they have no money to pay rent with. Their wives and children have no food and clothing, and they have nothing. And then we have a Government which goes and makes war. If the Government want to make war then they must provide for those people, and if they are not able to do so then they are not in a position to do their duty.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, when an hon. member is engaged in dealing with such a serious matter, cannot we have the attention of the Minister?

He has the attention of the Minister.

I would like the Minister to give me an answer as to what he is going to do for these people. If he heard what I said then I hope he will give me a reply.

It is not a thing which comes under this budget.

But cannot you all the same give me an answer as to whether you are going to do something for these people?

No, I cannot reply, because it does not come under this budget.

Can you not reply to me, apart from the budget, whether in the ordinary course of things anything will be done for these people? If the Minister is not prepared to give an answer then I must assume that nothing will be done for them. Well, the unfortunate position of those people will be laid to his charge.

Mr. Speaker, I think the public has been astonished to find how very low the taxation is that is imposed upon the country as the result of all this extra expenditure. The people had quite made up their minds that the excess expenditure the Government would incur in raising this big army, equipping it, building tanks and making guns and all the other necessary munitions, would necessitate very high taxation. But we have been astonished to find that the taxation is so low. I have spoken to many people, and they have been astonished to find that our finances are in such a healthy condition in spite of the extra expenditure. Some people seem to think that this taxation has been put upon the poorer people. Nothing of the kind. The poor have been left almost exclusively out of this extra taxation, if we except the small tax on tobacco. Now if you compare the income tax payable by the moderately well-to-do man with that paid by the rich man you will find that the man whom you may call moderately well-to-do is paying nothing like an excessive amount. Take a man who is earning £600 a year and has two children. The remission that he gets in respect of the children puts him in the position of paying no income tax at all, in spite of having as much as £600 a year which many people would consider as ample income. Now take the man earning £1,000 a year and many people would think the globular sum of £1,000 a year is a large income, yet that man, if he has two children, will not pay more than £4 a year extra because of this 20 per cent. increase. It is a mere bagatelle when you consider all that is happening to-day. On the other hand, if you come to the wealthy man, the man earning £12,000 a year, who has to pay super tax the extra amount which he will have to pay is £540 as against £4 for the man who gets a twelfth of that. It comes to this, that instead of paying £48 a year, which is twelve times the amount which the £1,000 a year has to pay, he has to pay £540. I congratulate the Minister of Finance on this because I think he is putting the burden where it can best be borne. I believe that to be a sound policy and it is entirely wrong for people to say that the poor man pays the tax and the rich man is let off, because it is the rich man who is carrying all the burden and the poor man is paying practically nothing at all.

What about petrol?

I will touch on that presently. The man who is earning an income of £1,000 a year pays in income tax plus the 20 per cent. extra an amount of £27, whereas the man who has twelve times that income will pay a gross income tax of £3,735, far more than his due proportion. Now we will come to the man who has £1,000 a year but who is retired and gets his income from industrials. He may have retired from a business and allowed his money to remain in the business; many men do that, and draw their income in that way. He will now have to pay £150 a year, an extra amount of £25. That man is mulcted to the tune of £25 as against the extra £4 paid by the man who earns his £1,000 a year. Again, the rich man, the man of leisure pays. Then let us come to the tax on petrol. You have a man who is moderately well off and who has a small car, which does 30 miles to the gallon, for instance a small Austin, which many people go in for nowadays. He takes a trip to Stellenbosch and back and the extra cost of his petrol will come to about 6d. The well-to-do man, who has a large car, an eight cylinder car, his extra cost will be about 1s. 3d. Here again you see the man who is wealthy pays more. I don’t agree with people who say that in war time they should economise, I think everybody, especially in war time, should carry on as usual, otherwise you cause a decrease of employment and bring about a cessation of other activities. Another thing I want to touch upon is the way in which our income tax is calculated. When we started the income tax years ago, we were taxed on every pound over £1,000, a shilling in the pound. We still have that shilling in the pound, we stick to that, but we have camouflaged the tax by adding so much per cent. here and so much per cent. there. Why don’t we have a straightforward tax, because I believe a straightforward tax is very much better than this roundabout way of getting the money.

What do you mean by a straightforward tax?

There is always a feeling when you camouflage that there is something wrong about it. You always feel a certain lack of confidence in a government that does that kind of thing, it is very much better to come out and show exactly where one is so that you know where you are. There was a case I knew of. Two old ladies, widows and therefore, unmarried persons, and unmarried persons get no remission — I speak under correction. In the case of these two ladies who lived not very far from one another, one had an income of just under £300. and because it was under £300 she made no annual disclosure of her income and consequently she paid no tax. The other had an income of just over £300. and conscientiously made a disclosure and she was mulcted to the tune of £16 or £17, while her neighbour got off scot free. That certainly seems to be wrong.

That cannot be right.

It was the case some years ago. Another thing I cannot help thinking about in regard to this taxation is that while it is very easy to overtax the rich man, in doing that you are doing harm to the poorer man, because it is the rich man’s savings which enable many speculative undertakings to get a start in life. Without the savings of the well-to-do, you would probably have nothing like the prosperity we now boast about in connection with our industrial undertakings. It is the savings of the rich which has brought those industrial undertakings into being, and which enable an increase in gold mining activity and industrial concerns. Therefore, I say you have got to be careful that you do not, go too far, otherwise you may kill the goose that lays the golden egg. This applies to the gold mining taxation, and I hope the Minister of Finance will bear that in mind. There is a tremendous amount of risk in putting money into gold mines, and in some cases it takes years before there is any benefit from the investment, consequently the investor, if he knows that the tax on gold mines is going to be increased out of all proportion to other kinds of taxation, he naturally hesitates before he invests in mines. That is a point to be thought of by the financial pundits. Then the tobacco tax is another point I want to touch upon. We have heard a great deal about it. In this regard there is a small increase of ½d. on 20 cigarettes. Surely there cannot be much objection to that? If one bears in mind that about three-quarters of the cigarettes are smoked by the fair sex, and remembers that there are no more loyal people than the smoking members of the fair sex, I am sure they will not begrudge the extra ½d. they have to pay for their 20 cigarettes — in fact I think they will welcome it. Before I sit down I also want to ask the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Social Welfare whether they could not go a little further in connection with the amount put down for the evacuation of children. There is an amount of £5.000 down for that purpose. That amount seems very small, especially for one of the best things undertaken by this country for many years. If you think of the children brought here who will reinforce our stock, surely we should go much further than we have done, and we should do all we possibly can to encourage the children coming here to take advantage of the sunshine and the safety of this country, and I hope a more liberal attitude will be adopted, and that we shall not leave the care of these evacuated children to the generosity of the private individual.. I am perfectly certain that when a spate of evacuees arrives here the Government will be glad to spend a far larger amount in order to support these evacuated children. I do not think it can possibly be left entirely to private enterprise. In conclusion I want to congratulate the Government very heartily on the excellent work they have done. I hope that this new army, when it goes north to meet the enemy, as it will, will prove itself, as I am sure it will, and I hope these men will bring their flag back covered with glory so that both sides, both sections of the community, will honour it in the way it should be honoured.

I am sorry that there are so few Ministers in the House when we are debating several of their votes, but I hope that the Minister of Finance will convey to the Ministers concerned what I am going to say. I would also like to ask for the attention of the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. L. A. B. Reitz) for a moment, in connection with a matter which I will raise first, namely, the fact that the building of the Kappie Commando at Pretoria was taken over by the Department of Defence, and is to-day being used for the women’s air service division. It cost us years of effort to get the Government to the point of putting up a building there for the training of the girls, who come from the poorest families of our people. Girls have already been trained there with great success. Several of them have been placed in service, and they have done such satisfactory work that people who employed them asked to be allowed to obtain more of the girls. Recently, however, the Minister of Social Welfare offered the building to the Defence Department to be used for the women’s air force division. It was not necessary to take that building away from the management which was in control of it, and to transfer it to the Department of Defence. There are enough buildings in Pretoria which can be used, and in other ways it was easy to put up a building for the women’s air force division. Many buildings have been put up in Pretoria lately. I cannot understand how the Government, which can spend so much money on this war, is not able to make a building available for the training of the girls. I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter, and that an injustice will no longer be done to that poor section of our population. Further, I want to return to a matter which I brought up during the previous Budget. As the Minister is engaged in spending £46,000,000 in waging war, we surely have the right to say that the wages of the “5s. a day” people should be increased a little.

The hon. member cannot debate it here.

I realise that there is no special vote on these estimates for the purpose, but I thought that the Minister could make provision, seeing that he has so much money for other purposes. In addition I want to bring to the notice of the Minister a few matters in connection with defence. We are constantly hearing that no compulsion is being exercised over members of the Police Force or of the Defence Force, or people in private employment, or in the public service to join up, and to take the voluntary oath. I just want to give the particulars to the House of a report which I got from teachers who went voluntarily to be trained at Voortrekkerhoogte during the last vacation. They offered themselves for the cadet officers’ course, which was held in 1940. They received notice to attend the course, as teachers had also received notice in the past. When they arrived at Voortrekkerhoogte they were told that all officers who were trained at Voortrekkerhoogte had to take the Africa oath. About 30 of the 100 persons refused, and after they had been addressed by a colonel they persisted in refusing. They were then asked to wait until the next day; then thëy were addressed by a lieutenant who probably had the supervision of the course or had to train teachers, and when they continued to refuse he made the following statement, inter alia, to them—

Has an officer like that the right to use such threats to officers who are not prepared to take the Africa oath? They came to attend the course, but were not warned beforehand that they would have to take the oath. There was also another course in physical training, and the same thing was said to the teachers who wanted to take part in that. If they were not prepared to take the oath they could not remain at Voortrekkerhoogte. The result was that most of the people were sent back, and did not take the course, naturally to their great disappointment. But we go further. In April this year the annual training of the second battalion of the Pretoria Regiment took place at the Premier Mine. Shortly before the men separated a lieutenant came along and asked them to join up. It was not so bad then, but the next day before they were dismissed they were addressed by their lieutenant-colonel — they were all boys under 21 years of age — and he said that they were nothing else but cowardly yellow-livered people, that they should not allow “Die Stem van Suid-Afrika” to pass their lips again, because they did indeed sing “We will answer your call,” but were too cowardly to obey it. Does the Government know about the things that are going on? When people go to the Department of Labour to look for work, and they are between the ages of 18 and 45 and physically fit for war service, then they are told that they cannot get work but can join up with the army. This is the first time in my life that I have heard that that is a way of recruiting soldiers voluntarily. We can in addition refer to the Special Service Battalion, which has been changed into a permanent regiment. When some of the boys joined up they did so without the consent of their parents, and they were in many cases still minors. I have a letter here from a brother of one of those boys who writes that their mother is seriously indisposed and sick of grief because her son has joined up. The brother writes that they have sent a letter by registered post to the adjutantgeneral, but they can get no answer. The minor son will now probably go to the north without, the consent of his mother. Does the Government know about the conditions and the dissatisfaction that is being created? In a direct and indirect way boys are threatened in the various departments to join up, and when they do not do so they are transferred. That, for instance, happens in the case of the police. At present there is quite a large number of the police constables near the police depot who are employed in digging trenches as a kind of punishment because they will not join up. Then I would like to bring the following to the notice of the Government. I understand that the position in the hospital at the Premier Mine towards the end of June this year was particularly bad, and I was informed that there were no less than 100 cases of pneumonia, while only six out of the eight nurses were available to nurse the invalids, and there were only 30 beds for the sick. On the 9th June there were 300 cases of pneumonia, and there were no pillow slips or proper bedding for the soldiers. My information has been got from a good source, and I have no reason to doubt it. These are matters to which the Government should give its serious attention. Then I only just want to add, in passing, that I learn that the price of petrol has not gone up by 3d. in Pretoria, but by 4d„ and that motor-tyres have not gone up 3d. a pound in price, but that 2s. 6d. to 3s. more is being asked than the extra tax which has now been put on motor tyres by the Government. I hope that the Minister will protect the public in this respect, and will give his immediate attention to the matter. The extra duty on petrol affects the poor man badly. To-day there are many people who have to make a living with motor lorries, and they are having a very bad time in consequence of the extra duty.

I want to express my congratulation to the Minister of Finance on bringing forward this war budget. When we come to realise the very fine financial position in which our country finds itself it should be regarded as a source of congratulation to the country as a whole. We have been at war for twelve months now and we can say that the position to-day is thoroughly satisfactory. The Government is rehabilitating the Defence Force, and in this connection I should like to quote a remark made by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) in a speech in which he referred to the former Minister of Defence when he said that our Defence Force was in such a state of inefficiency that it would be a case of sheer murder to send it into the field against any enemy. I understand that the Defence Force has been brought up to a strength of 100,000 men; not only has it been brought up to that strength but they are well equipped and well trained for any fight that may come along. As a matter of fact we know that the previous Minister of Defence was responsible for neglecting to equip the Defence Force as he should have done, but his neglect has been more or less a blessing in disguise, because instead of the large amount of money which has had to be spent being sent overseas, that money has been spent in our own country, with the result that we have been able to establish and build up industries here which we hope will continue to flourish for many years to come. Great development has taken place in our industrial position. I might be forgiven if I refer particularly to the Rand, but I believe this development has taken place in every big town in the Union. Industrial development has gone ahead at such a pace that it has been a cause of general surprise. I believe that this Government can boast of a condition of the greatest industrial co-operation — of greater industrial cooperation than the country has ever seen before. Take the gold mining industry. I have been informed that the mining industry and those engaged in carrying it on are heart and soul on the side of the Government, and in many cases I have been informed that men in the industry, both underground and on the surface, are doing all they can to help the Government to carry on the great war, so much so that in many instances two men are doing the work of three, so as to enable other men to join up. That is a very fine spirit in connection with the mining industry, and one finds the same thing in the machine industry and the engineering industry. It may surprise hon. members to know that these industries have developed tremendously, and that the Government has the support of the main industries in the country. Right throughout Johannesburg and the Reef the machine shops are putting in overtime in the manufacture of war supplies—they are not mainly putting in overtime, they are working full time over the week ends—and all the employees are keen and willing to assist the Government and to help in the establishment of a well-equipped army. There is a system of cooperation such as has never before existed in the country. That speaks well for the industrial side of the country. I think the Government can rest assured that they have the bulk of the country behind them and they need have no fear of the criticisms which have been levelled at them from the Opposition benches. I just want to say this —this extra taxation has been necessary on account of the inefficiency displayed in the past in equipping our Defence Force. If the former Minister had done his duty a great deal of the present expenditure might have been avoided, but as I have said this has been more or less a blessing in disguise, because the money is now being spent in the country. I know hon. members opposite are keen to know something about republicanism. I just want to give a few facts in that connection.

That cannot be discussed now.

I thought you would pull me up. Very well, may I be allowed to make a brief comparison in regard to these taxation proposals. I was in the United States of America last year and while I was there, their yearly budget was introduced, and I should like to give the House some figures which I obtained while I was there. The figures which I have before me are fifty to sixty billions. I do not know whether everyone knows what a billion is. I went to the Minister of Finance and I asked him what a billion was and he told me that a billion was no less than a thousand millions.

He must be a financial pundit.

Well, that is what he told me. Now America has increased its debt by no less than ten billions in the past financial year. If hon. members look at these figures, they will realise what a favourable position South Africa is in. Yet, just before the war, America had over 10,000,000 unemployed. Now I want to touch on another matter in connection with the soldiers. I believe the soldiers’ widowed mothers are very grateful for the extra grant the Minister has made, but what they have a grouse about is the way in which that grant is distributed. I understand it is distributed through the Social Welfare officials, and it seems that when they have to make their application it is regarded as a sort of charity. I would ask the Minister to remove that stigma if possible by having that money paid out in the usual way. If that were done those people would be very grateful. I would like to say that the Government, as far as I know, has nothing to fear in connection with this budget. I know a little about Johannesburg and I know that there is very little grousing there. We should be very grateful to the Government for the very favourable financial position we are in in this war time, and we are grateful to the Government for carrying on in the way they are doing.

As I stand here I am imagining myself in my constituency, and then I feel myself among my people, who are in the greatest trouble there, and I want to bring the position, which I am representing as it exists in the Western Transvaal, very strongly to the notice of the Government. When I think of the feelings in the Western Transvaal, how our feelings are boiling there now, then I feel that we want to pour out our feelings, but we nevertheless have to restrain them. I shall try to state them with my brains, and with a flame which will be destructive to those hon. members opposite. Why? Not only do we have to put up with insults there, but also in this Parliament. We have twelve Ministers, but there are only eight point something per cent. present here. If the same percentage of members of Parliament were here then we would not have a quorum. Why have we only got one Minister here now? Because they are contemptuous of the Afrikaner people, and want to show it to us, not only on the countryside, but also in this House. You cannot blame them, because we have the position that the Minister of Finance does not tax the old bachelors. They always remain safe. When we speak here about taxation, then I ask myself quite seriously, what do we have a Cabinet for, when it levies such taxation and puts its hands into the pockets of the public, and robs them of their pennies? Why is there no tax on old bachelors, because there are so many old bachelors in the Cabinet. The Minister of Finance can also deduct his £400 exemption.

You are wrong. I have to pay on every penny.

Perhaps he can only deduct £300, and that is the only extent to which the old bachelor can be taxed. I come now to the petrol duty. The hon. member for Mowbray (Capt. Hare) told us here that the rich man paid that duty. We, as farmers, do our transportation with lorries, and let me say this, that the additional tax means a farthing per bag more transportation costs on every bag of mealies that I produce. Work out now what it is for the poor man who sells 500 bags of mealies, and then you will see what tax that man has to pay. And then the hon. member wants to come here and represent that it is the rich man who pays that tax. No, it shows the hypocrisy and Pharisaism of the Government, and that they are only protecting the rich man, and then he comes here and says that it is he who pays the tax. It is untrue. It is not loyal to the poor man. Do you know that the people who drive the lorries as transportdrivers, are mostly poor people who used to work on the roads, and then managed later on to buy a lorry. This tax is an additional burden on them, and it is useless to represent that it is the rich man who is paying the tax. The rich man always shields behind the poor man, even in the war as well. Hypocrisy and Pharisaism is to my mind the greatest sin, but a greater sin still is that of being a traitor. Then I come to the income tax about which a lot has been said. You may remember that when the previous member for Wakkerstroom objected to the farmer having to pay income tax, I said that there was one just tax, and that was the income tax. I took the field against him. But what are they doing now? They are increasing the income tax, but what they are not increasing more is the super tax. Take the Hoggenheimers, Martin and such people, who were sitting in the gallery here when the Minister of Finance introduced his budget. They are the people who pull the strings as they wish, and the poor man has to pay. The Minister said little to us on this budget as to what the revenue was that he was going to get from the rifles that were confiscated, and in an unjust way too. That is an asset, and he ought to have told us about it. Those rifles were confiscated in an unjust way, and I say that they are an asset to the state, which ought to have been included in the revenue. But that shows the fraud they are guilty of in not including these things. Rifles have been confiscated from my own flesh and blood, and why does he not bring the matter up here? Those are facts which they suppress. Where are their officials? Not one of them is here, and that shows that there is no discipline on those benches. The Minister is not in his place, and their officials are not here to hear what the Opposition has to say. If they cannot even maintain discipline in that connection, can we then blame them for not having any discipline amongst the military? I feel that in this respect the only object is to show us their contempt for the House of Assembly, and if things are to go like that here, then to my mind it is much better for me to be amongst my mealies and my pigs, because I feel happier with my pigs than here with them. I am glad that I have hit so hard that there are at any rate two persons now on the Government benches. I trust that this side will continue to hit so hard that all twelve of the Ministers will be sitting there, or that all of the twelve will be out of office. I myself used to be a poor man. I worked myself up by discipline. If there is no discipline then one may as well throw up the sponge in all respects. I want to say that if my foreman were to bring in a budget such as the Minister of Finance has put before us, then I would immediately dismiss him without giving him a moment’s grace. I will tell you why. If he were to make an estimate that I would reap 9,000 bags, if all the estimates were on that basis and the expenditure were consistent with it, and if when the harvest came in, there was only 3,000 bags, then it would mean my going bankrupt if I were to farm like that. It will be the same thing with this Government with its Minister of Finance. He is hopeless on finance, and if he did not want to be hypocritical then he should have been stupid. But it looks as if the budget was originally drawn up to cheat us, and to put as under the impression that the war expenditure would not be so high; subsequently they went a step further, and now that we are in it, now the expenditure is more than 200 per cent. more than the original estimate. What can we expect in the future? How can this House and the people have confidence in such a Minister of Finance? As already mentioned, the excuse about Italy’s entry into the war is also mentioned here. But what were they preparing themselves for all the time, even it is was not mentioned? I say that the feeling here always was that there would be a war with Italy, or were the Government so stupid as to think that Italy would not come in? I said that, to my mind, there was a greater sin than hypocrisy. The great book teaches us that hypocrisy is a great sin, but to my mind a traitor is worse. Now I want to come to the statement which is made here, that provision is being made on these estimates for an amount of £500,000 which is to be given to the mealie farmers. It is only a few months ago that we voted £300,000 here for the same purpose. The Minister of Agriculture is now in his place, and I would like to talk about this. Our harvest is just over 21,000,000 bags; the highest that the export can be is 6,000,000. If then we divide the £800,000 over it, then it comes out to 2s. 8d. a bag. I would now like to know from the Minister what he sold our mealies to the British Empire for? Why does he not get up here and explain to us that contracts were entered into with the British Empire, according to my calculation, at 5s. 4d. a bag?

You are just as wrong as ever.

No, I have always yet been right. Where you made a mistake I did not, and it was not necessary for me to roam from Ermelo to Wakkerstroom. But suppose now I am wrong. Let the Minister get up in that case and tell us what that £800,000 was spent on. We farmers do not get more than 8s. a bag, and the Minister can work out the sum himself, just like any hon. member. If the Minister wants to work for the British Empire he can, if he wants to, but not with our mealies. He is the man who spoke here about “lying and rotting,” and he apparently has to do anything now on account of that story, and the public have to pay for it.

But you were a member of the Mealie Board.

You will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to reply to this charge by the Minister. Every person has a principle in life, and I have no time for the man who is without principle. In my case it is a principle that we should treat all the producers on an equal footing, and if there is to be any deviation from that principle, then I prefer to give the benefit to my own blood rather than to black blood. A concession has been given in an unjust way to the natives in the territories which give them an advantage of 1s. 6d. That was the last straw, so far as I am concerned, and I withdrew mine. If there had been any doubt then I would rather give the benefit of it to the natives on our farms than to the natives in the native territories, because the former are of more value to us than the natives in the native territories. Do you think that I could remain there, and that I could mix up with that dirty crowd in doing what they want to do? The hypocrisy which went on on the sly was too much for me. They allowed themselves to be led by the Minister and the Secretary for Agriculture, and I could not follow the course that they took. If I wanted a job, then. I could have had it, and if I wanted to vote as members opposite voted, then I certainly would have had just as good a job as some of the captains opposite. We mealie farmers could have stood on our own legs, but in consequence of the action of that Minister, we did not succeed in doing so. He would not approve of the resolutions which we passed We wanted the mines to pay a levy of 3s. a bag, and then they would not be paying more for their mealies than before the depression. They would then have paid 12s. 6d. for them. The Minister however would not agree to it. If he had allowed that then it would not have been necessary to take it from private persons. He was fighting on behalf of the mines at the expense of the mealie farmers and of the taxpayers. And do you think that I should have remained sitting there to be handicapped, because everything that is done there is secret? I feel that I am of greater use to the mealie farmers in being free in this House, so that I can criticise them when it is necessary. If you want any more, then just make an interjection. What is going on with our mealies now? Do you know that the Mealie Board only buys mealies in the elevators? There is no more room in the elevators, with the result that we are dependent on the dealers. They do not make use of the storage scheme. There has never yet in his life been such a chance for the mealie farmer to get sale through one channel as there is to-day. But there are a number of dealers on the Mealie Board, and they may not allow it. Why did not the Minister and his Mealie Board apply the same section as the Wheat Board did? The co-operative societies could then have acted as their agents. No, those dealers stopped it, and that is the sacrifice which our mealie farmers now have to make for that war spirit which prevails. I ask why the Minister of Agriculture did not apply the same scheme that the Wheat Board applied, so that the mealie farmers could go and deliver their mealies and get the full 8s. The Minister states that I know nothing about mealies. Then let him give an explanation why it was not done. The Minister of Finance wants to persuade us that the country is flourishing. That reminds me of the foreman on my farm. Suppose that he brings the balance sheet to me, and the expenditure is twice as much as the income, and he should then say to me: “Do you know our financial position is sound”. What would I think of such a foreman? If I had started farming at the beginning of my life, in the way this Minister of Finance is dealing with the finances of the country, then I do not know where I would have landed by now.

At 10.55 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on the 4th September.