I move—

I think that it will be a good thing to say a few words in explanation of the provisions of this short Bill. Clause 1 contains a number of provisions of which the chief is the first sub-clause, by which power is given to the Governor-General to issue proclamations for certain purposes. The purposes are set out there, namely, the defence of the Union, the safety of the public, the effective prosecution of the war, and for the dealing with circumstances which arise in consequence of the war. Hon. members will therefore see that the ambit of the proclamations or regulations which can be issued is strictly limited to these purposes. But let me say in addition that the fear which was expressed yesterday in this place, that by giving such powers to the Governor-General the legislative power is practically being put into the hands of the Government, is unfounded. The Government—that is the Governor-General—is only getting the power in connection with the conduct of the war, military measures for the defence of the Union, and the internal safety.

“Any other war,” is a very indefinite phrase.

I think the powers are what this Government ought to have, if they do not as yet have them.

What is the difference between these powers and martial law?

I will come to that in a moment. In the second sub-clause it is laid down that persons or bodies can be given powers to issue orders, rules and regulations for the attainment of those objects for which the Governor-General can issue regulations. It goes without saying that it is impossible, even totally unpractical for the Governor-General to issue proclamations about all details. The ordinary rule is therefore being followed that proclamations are being issued by the competent persons or bodies authorised for the purpose. A proclamation may, for instance, have to deal with the public safety in towns. In such a case it will be a question of civil order, and the preservation of the peace, and safety in the urban areas, and then the power will therefore be placed in the hands of the local authorities, and no special proclamation by the Governor-General will be required.

They can impose penalties.

Yes, for a contravention of such provisions penalties can be inflicted.

By town clerks, for instance.

By anyone who is authorised by the Government to issue such orders and directions. Provision is made that a distinction can be made between different areas and different categories of persons under the regulations. This is obvious. You have, for example, in the Union, military areas where special defence measures are taken, and in connection with those areas special regulations have already been made to provide for safety there. The same applies with regard to definite categories of persons. It may be necessary to make separate regulations for military persons and civil persons. The sub-clause which then follows, and which restricts the powers of the Government in regard to the commandeering of citizens, is intended to keep in force the provisions which already are in the Defence Act. Yesterday the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) expressed doubt about the language of this sub-clause, giving sufficient expression of the position as laid down in the Defence Act, namely, that citizens can be commandeered for the defence of South Africa, within or beyond the Union. The intention merely is to confirm that, but if the provisions here are not sufficient for the purpose, I shall be prepared to accept an amendment which will express the actual intention of the Defence Act.

Why is it necessary to confirm an existing Act?

If the hon. member wants to move to delete it, he can of course do so.

Will you vote for it?

I fear that in that case the matter will again be abused in the country. I will see whether the hon. member will move such an amendment. The object of the Government is not to commit any encroachment by way of proclamation or any step which they may take on the provisions as laid down in the Defence Act, namely, that people can only be commandeered for the defence of South Africa within or beyond the Union. A further restriction in regard to the issuing of proclamations for carrying on the war, we find is laid down in (b) that no power is given to the Governor-General to interfere with the time of the sitting or the position of the House of Assembly or Provincial Councils. That speaks for itself. Then there is the approval of certain proclamations in Clause 3, and in addition, the approval of four Government notices, which is also asked for from the House. Those are, in brief, the contents of the Bill. The chief clause is 1 bis (1), which gives the power to the Governor-General to issue proclamations for the purposes already mentioned. That, in the main, makes the same provisions as were contained in Clause 2 of the Bill of last session, which clause I then withdrew. It is here being drawn just a little narrower. The old Clause 2 was slightly wider, and that also gave power to the Governor-General to issue proclamations and regulations for the public good. That lapses. It goes too far. Here the provision is strictly limited to defence matters and safety measures, and further it will not be possible to deal with matters which concern the general welfare by way of proclamation. I withdrew Clause 2 of the old Bill last year for the reasons which I then gave, namely, that the number of special emergency regulations, which the House was at that time good enough to approve of, and which the House actually did approve of, would in my opinion, probably give sufficient powers to the Government to deal with any stipulation which might arise in the ordinary course of business. I did not want to go further than was necessary, and I think I gave the proof that I did not want to go further than was necessary by voluntarily withdrawing clause 2, but the position has changed. I thought we could manage with the existing emergency regulations which were approved of, but not long after the parliamentary session it appeared that in these abnormal times things developed so quickly that in that way new situations sometimes arise, so that it is practically impossible to carry on, without special powers, under the ordinary statutes.

As in connection with what?

I am coming to that. It appeared that one, without acting illegally, sometimes could not carry on with the restricted powers which we had. In the first place, shortly after the parliamentary session, movements arose which were of a peace-disturbing nature. It was clear that if matters were allowed to follow their course, to develop on the lines they were actually busy developing on, then it would be possible to set up private armed forces in this country which would be a threat to the public safety and order. It would have been possible to acquire uniforms or badges for bodies which were engaged in going through certain exercises, and in taking oaths from their members, and no government which wanted to do its duty and which was worth its salt, would allow such a position to develop, and that there should be a semblance even of private armies developing in a country. Therefore we ask for confirmation of the first proclamation, namely the proclamation which prohibits the wearing in public of uniforms, badges or other emblems by organisations which might lead to a disturbance of the peace. When we met here during the last session of Parliament there were no signs of such a development, but hon. members know about the phenomena during recent times against which the Government had to guard against and take steps. You cannot allow such organisations to get a footing in the country and to become a threat to the public peace and order. The proclamation was issued at the time. Under the existing regulations which the Government was entitled to issue under the Act of last session I was not entitled to prohibit these things, and this is a new power which the Government is asking for. Without that power it would be possible for any member of such an organisation to take me to the court if I took steps against abuses of that kind. There was no legal authority to take steps against it.

Just as in connection with the rifles.

I am coming to that, but I am referring to the new position which arose after the passing of the Act last year. It became necessary to get further powers. I thought that it would be unnecessary for the Government to ask for further powers, but immediately after the last session ended it appeared necessary to take such a step. That is not all. That special subject which I am now touching upon, that of uniforms so far as bodies of a subversive kind are concerned, come under one of the proclamations which are mentioned here, namely Proclamation 105. That was the first proclamation which was published, and for which we are now asking confirmation. Then there arose other difficulties which were not foreseen at the time. The old regulations which were confirmed were applicable to the war position which arose between the Union and Germany, but after the 10th June, when Italy came into the war, the same regulations or similar regulations had to be applied to Italy. Under the restrictions under which we obtained powers at that time, it was possible to apply the regulations which applied to Germany, also to Italy. That is the second proclamation which comes before us for confirmation. Absolutely the same difficulties, the same matters of different kinds arose in connection with Italy as resulted from the commencement of the war between Germany and the Union. The Government had no power to act, and it was necessary to repeat and apply all the proclamations again in the case of Italy, and we now ask for confirmation of that. That is the second proclamation with which we are concerned here. Still further difficulties arose, which were also not foreseen, namely, the difficulties in consequence of the recruiting for the army of miners, for instance, with the result that a smaller number of workers were available on the mines, so that it became necessary to give a greater discretion to the Government Mining Engineer with regard to hours and conditions of working on the mines, to secure that the mining industry could be carried on in a proper way. It was therefore necessary to pass an amendment with regard to the work on the mines. We had no power to do so, and it was therefore necessary for the Government to get the power for itself by way of a proclamation. Such a proclamation was issued, and it is Proclamation 154, which is before us. The greatest difficulty arose in connection with rifles, on which I will dwell presently. I, however, mention these points to show that in spite of my expectations last session that it would be unnecessary for us to go further than the old regulations which had been approved, new conditions were gradually and fass arising in connection with which it was necessary to take action. The Government could not do anything else. It therefore appeared that my expectation that we could proceed with our work during the war, without general authority to the Government, was not realised. It therefore became necessary to come back, and to ask for the general powers for the Government which were contained in old clause 2, and with which I did not continue at the time. The Government cannot go on in existing circumstances. We are being met by new situations. In a war you must expect anything and any development, and the Government is now without the power to do certain things, with the result that in existing circumstances it is obliged to do things which are illegal.

Shame.

There was no other way out; there was no other way open to the Government.

Why do you not proclaim martial law?

That is why, so far as the continuation of the war is concerned, and the securing of the public safety, additional powers must be given to the Government, so that they can take action by way of regulations and proclamations in regard to special conditions which arise. The only alternative is martial law, general martial law, and I am astonished to hear that there are hon. members here who now say that I ought rather to proclaim martial law. We know what martial law means. We know that martial law is the most drastic measure, one which the Government should only adopt in the last resort, when things are so serious that you have to suspend the ordinary law and order of the country, and have to give arbitrary powers to the Government to regulate matters. There is no question that we ought not to proclaim martial law, unless conditions like a state of disorder were reached, that the Government had no other course to follow, and as long as we could by way of the regulations which are issued from time to time prevent trouble in a legal way, so long is it necessary to take that course, and not to go further. Conditions may become intolerable, so that martial law is justified, but conditions in our country are still far from that. Considered as a whole, there is a satisfactory condition of things in South Africa.

What difference is there between martial law and what you are proposing here?

The Government can do anything under martial law. The ordinary courts are suspended, and the law of the land is set aside. Martial law is military government, and the hon. member knows that as well as I do. ‘It sets aside the ordinary civil administration and the functioning of the courts and other authorities in the country. Here the functioning of the civil administration, of the courts and other authorities in the country is maintained with only the exception of military measures, which it is necessary for the Government to take. I now come to the most serious difficulty which we experienced after the last session of Parliament, and that is the question of rifles. It comes under the four notices of which I ask confirmation in this Bill. If I had continued with the passing of clause 2 of the Bill of last year, then there would have been no difficulty about the commandeering of rifles. Then the Government would, as it is a purely military step to provide the Government with the necessary weapons to fight with, have had that power to take action with regard to the commandeering of rifles. But the difficulty arose because that clause dropped, and we had to make use of the powers which we had under the Defence Act. If there is one power which the Government ought to have in time of war, then it is the power to provide itself with the necessary arms with which to carry on the war. In other countries, the Government has that power. In all countries that wage war, they ought to have that power. It goes without saying that if there is anything that can be commandeered then it must be the rifles, which are the necessary weapons to provide the fighting forces of the country with. Here in South Africa there can be no question about the necessity of them. I need the rifles. We need the rifles in order to supply our army. We have not got enough rifles, and I therefore say that the necessity is beyond question. We have many more people to-day in our forces than what the Government has rifles in the country, and the result is that it was necessary to get more rifles. We did our best to buy more abroad, but we simply could not get them. We went from one country to the other. We went to Great Britain, but it was out of the question to get them there. The scarcest war requisite in the world to-day is rifles. We applied to America, and everywhere we could, but we could not get the rifles. Nevertheless there were enough rifles in our country, but they were not in the possession of the Government. According to our system of registration there were in the possession of the citizens, between 90,000 and 100,000 rifles. The Government needed the rifles for the army, and it was necessary for the Government to commandeer the rifles. The charge was made, and it was used for political purposes, that it showed a lack of confidence and a sign of lack of confidence in the population. Except for certain small groups, which I fear will be subversive, and will become a danger, except for certain small groups in the country, there is not the least reason for not having confidence in the behaviour of the population of the country. The commandeering of rifles is in itself such an unpopular measure, that no Government which had any respect for public opinion, would take such a step unless it was absolutely necessary. It was a question of necessity; we had to have the rifles; we could not get them from abroad, and we had to get them in South Africa. We had the necessary power to commandeer them under clause 2, but we had allowed that clause to drop, and we therefore had to make use of the powers which we possessed under the Defence Act. It was a difficult question. We listened yesterday to the argument of the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) on the position that arose. I want to tell the hon. member that he used an expression here which, in my opinion, was totally wrong and out of place, when he spoke of fraud on the part of the Government. There has not been the slightest trace of fraud in the matter. The matter has been handled in an absolutely bona fide way, and without the least intention of doing anything which had a trace of fraud in it.

Why then did you commandeer rifles which you could not use for military purposes.

Those rifles can be given back again.

But in the meantime those people who would not hand over such rifles are in gaol.

We first of all made an attempt to make a partial commandeering of rifles. There was such a bitter feeling against it—A’s rifle was taken and B’s rifle could be retained— there was such a general feeling of hostility to that that the Government was obliged to go the whole length and to commandeer them.

But now you are sending people to gaol in connection with rifles which you cannot use.

There are no such rifles. I am speaking on the question of fraud, to which the hon. member referred. I say that there was not the slightest trace of it. We had to find a way because we did not get the power from Parliament last session to commandeer, and we had to act under the Defence Act. It was a question for the legal advisers to indicate a way in which it could be done. They indicated the way and it was followed. It was understood that the matter was not without difficulty, and it was a matter where we could not be completely sure of the course that we were adopting. I say that it is a way which was indicated in difficult circumstances and we followed that course.

Do you admit that the regulations are illegal?

No, I do not admit it.

Then give us the opportunity of going to the courts.

No, I will not allow that either. We are in the position that we had to act in the interests of the country. We took action and we stand by it. If we had the power, if I had not been so well disposed last session as to withdraw clause 2 then there would have been no question about the whole affair, but just because I wanted to meet the public and did not want to go a step further than what appeared to be necessary to me, the result was that we are now to a certain extent in a difficulty.

This is an orderly retreat!

No, it is nothing of the kind. I take up the position that if we had taken the power that was necessary, but which I did not consider necessary, then the difficulty would not have arisen. I do not admit that what has been done in the matter is illegal. On the contrary, I acted on legal advice, not quite sure that everything was in order, but on the best advice that I could get. Some of the cases came before the Court, but they have not yet been to the Appeal Court. There was, however, a review before the court, and in the Cape Provincial Division of the Supreme Court the matter came up, and it was confirmed by the court. It is therefore not simply a self-evident matter to say that it was illegal. I admit that the matter is not free from doubt, but the case was strong enough for us to follow that course, and for the Supreme Court in the Cape Province to confirm it. I am in this position to-day that I must have certainty. We must have the rifles, and the Government must have a lawful right, which is above all doubt, to get those rifles. We cannot have uncertainty about such a thing.

Are you not entitled, under the Defence Act, to get what you need for defence purposes, but that you cannot acquire what you do not need for that purpose?

So far as we were able to do so we acted in conformity with the terms of sections 86 and 116. Not only must our position be legal — we have those rifles — but we also have to pay for them, and the payment must also be legalised. So long as there is uncertainty about the position whether we acted legally, the Treasury cannot pay for the rifles, and we are already making payments. It is going to cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. I therefore say that the matter must be confirmed. The step which was taken by the Government, and which was a purely military step calculated to promote the defence of the country, must be confirmed. The commandeering of the rifles must be put beyond question, if there is any question, and the payment for them must also be put beyond question, or otherwise the payment would also be illegal, and therefore we must insist on this notice also being confirmed. I do not admit that it is illegal. All I admit is that there can be a certain amount of argument against its validity.

Why then cannot the court have an opportunity of deciding the matter?

When would that happen? We will confirm it here. Certain appeals have recently been noted. But the House must bear in mind that for a long time after the notice was issued the great majority of the public obeyed it, and there was no question as to the legal validity of the notice. That is a question which has recently arisen. In the meantime the orderly section of the public handed in their rifles by thousands and tens of thousands. That is a difficulty which arose in certain special cases, and the general public submitted to this action by the Government and conducted itself in a most exemplary way.

Cannot you review the exceptional cases such as those which I mentioned here yesterday?

That is a matter for consideration. I say that this notice must be confirmed. The position must be settled, and if there are special cases which must be taken into consideration then it is a matter for consideration. The Leader of the Opposition now asks why we cannot postpone the matter until the court has decided the question.

What hurry is there?

Because I want to know what the position is. We cannot leave such a position in doubt and cause total confusion. The only mistake, if a mistake has been made, was made in good faith, and then the mistake was that I took the step last session of allowing clause 2 of the original Bill to lapse.

But should you not now try to repair the consequences of that as far as possible?

The position must be put right, and if there is an exceptional case ….

You cannot make exceptions; the law must be carried out.

I move the second reading.

I think that no one outside of this House can form any conception of the lack of seriousness and lack of a proper feeling of responsibility there is in the Prime Minister and his colleagues, as has been again exhibited here this morning. The light-hearted way in which he stood here, when the House is concerned with the most weighty questions, questions which concerned the life or the death and the destruction of freedom in the country, the light-hearted way in which he handled and debated these questions, as if they could be disposed of by a joke, and if not by a joke then by empty words in which there was nothing, we cannot call anything else than a proof of lack of responsibility. I want to warn the Prime Minister again. The people of South Africa —and I want to confine myself to the Dutchspeaking or Afrikaans-speaking of the people —now feel completely averse to these irresponsibilities, and to this way of acting. I want to warn the Prime Minister that he will have to stand the consequences such as have never yet been borne by any Government, unless he is going to show that they will act responsibly in the country. We had the exhibition here of the Prime Minister occupying himself with pretences, pretences which were not correct, but by which he tried to protect himself. Here we have the serious question of the rifles. Everyone knows how those rifles were commandeered, in the most offensive way that it could possibly be done. I want to know from the Prime Minister how many rifles were handed over, and how many of those rifles have been used for distribution to the military unit. Be this as it may, the rifles which were commandeered—there are among them a large number, and it eventually made no difference to the punishment whether the rifle could be used for military purposes or not—I say that amongst them there were a very large number which could not be used for military purposes. If the rifles were required for military purposes, why then did you not put it in the notice by which the rifles were commandeered? This commandeering only had one object—whatever may have been done with those rifles subsequently—and that object was nothing else than to carry out what I have already called a policy of despair; a policy founded on a panicky feeling—the Government was out to see what they could save. This act is a desperate act inspired by fear, an unnecessary fear, which in the first place was suggested by the bad conscience of the Prime Minister, and which in the second place was increased by all the satellites of the Government who are used by the Government, on the opposite side, against the public in South Africa. Just look at the khaki knights in our country. We notice that they are constantly out to bring the Government and the whole country into commotion by the terrible statements that they make about so-called movements in the country, statements which are all lies. That, however, makes no difference, the Government nevertheless believes those statements, and the Government is stampeded in consequence of them, and then it runs away—at whose expense? That is what I consider so nauseating in the action of the Government. It does not run away at the expense of the public as a whole, but at the expense of those who do not see eye to eye with it in its political war waging, he runs away at their cost. What is still worse is the following. The action of their khaki knights and all that trafficking is, in the first place directed against the Afrikaans-speaking section of the people. I consider that so scandalous that I want again to repeat: The cup is becoming full. The Prime Minister may still escape now, but the time will come when he and his colleagues will have to give an account. I now want to come to this Bill of the Prime Minister’s. He came here this morning and told us that this Bill is the result of his having been so kindly disposed last session as to allow to drop out of his original Bill a clause which is now contained here in clause 1 of this Bill. He tells us now he immediately said: I do not think we shall be able to do without it, but to meet the public I will take it out. Is that true? The Prime Minister, when his attention was called to what the contents of the clause, which he had laid on the Table at the time were, represented that he was entirely innocent in the matter; he had never intended it in that way, and ultimately he yielded and said that that clause would be removed. So little did that idea arise with him, that he said: Yes, I must have it. He was nevertheless obliged to remove it. I have just said to my hon. friend here: He withdrew it, but it was for no other reason than that he thought that he would be able to do what he wanted to do without that clause. He did try to do it. That was the reason, and that is the reason why he has got into this mess with regard to the rifles and other things. And now, because in consequence of his action, his intention to do things without being entitled to do so, he wants to-day, and he is out, to make the people of South Africa pay for it. I cannot tell you how disgusted I am at this kind of action which we have been having in this time of war. But so far as the citizens in the country are concerned, what are we to expect if anything is done here which the Prime Minister, he knows it quite well, never would have dared to try to do in England. He goes and intervenes in the ordinary procedure of the courts in a way which was so gross that the British public even in this oppression and anxiety in which they are living to-day, would never allow such a thing. We ask him why. I say again that it nauseates me when I think of the answer of the Prime Minister. What was his answer? His answer amounted to this: How long then must we wait? If he has to wait for a decision of the court, what can it matter to him or the country whether that judgment is given now, or whether he has to wait two, three or four years for it. Would it matter to him in the slightest that Jan, Piet, Paul and Klaas had to pay a fine of £1, or had to go to gaol for a month when they were dealing with millions? I say again it revolts me when we have to be asked to do things here which are in conflict with what we have always yet regarded as the most sacred principle which a state has to observe. The action of the Government further testifies to a lack of seriousness and responsibility, and the state of affairs which has risen is the result of the bungling and scheming of an incompetent Ministry. Let us go further. We have only just heard from the Prime Minister that when he told us that the measures he was now taking were only intended to apply in connection with the war. That he says after he had himself read out to us what it states. Every one of us knows that that is not the case. Let us just go into things a little. The Prime Minister says that Clause 1 is the most important clause of the Bill, and if he says so it must surely be so. Let us just read it and see how little it is connected with the war—

That is one reason, only one, but there are other reasons why he can also make regulations—

Whether they have to do with the war or not makes no difference. Further—

Whether it has to do with the war or not makes no difference. In addition it says—

To what extent this has to do with the defence of the Union makes no difference to it one way or the other, as long as it only is concerned with the war, whatever the nature of that may be. There is no asking here for the powers with the view to the prosecution of a war “for the defence of the Union of South Africa.” No, it does not matter about that—they may, so far as that is concerned, also be involved in another war, and take the measures, and they need not ask whether it is a war for the defence of the Union. They can make regulations when they want to, and as often as they wish. That is intentionally being done here. The Prime Minister can say what he likes, but it is deliberately done, as appears from the amendment to sub-clause (3) of Clause 1. Clause 1 says—

Now what does sub-clause (3) say? It says—

1. (a) the liability is imposed to render compulsory military service.
   1. (i) Except against an enemy anywhere in South Africa within or outside the Union.

Here there have been intentionally left out the words which occur in the Defence Act “in defence of the Union.” Instead of that it states simply “except against an enemy anywhere in South Africa”—whether it is in defence of the Union or not. That has been done deliberately, and I will show why it has been done. This Bill is one which could only have been inspired by a panicky state of mind, by which all fairness, all rights, all protection which the people of South Africa have enjoyed up to the present, are thrown overboard. The one idea simply is: How will the Government save itself in this war in which it has plunged South Africa, inasmuch as it finds itself now in a messed-up affair, and so no longer knows how to get out of it. These straws are grasped at in order to lay further burdens on the shoulders of the people of South Africa, of a kind so bad that they could never have been placed on a people. Let me just point out that we are dealing with a war of aggression, not a defensive war. I am glad that the Prime Minister said that he would not commandeer for the war. When he says that, then it is no favour that he is showing to the people of South Africa. He is not entitled in an aggressive war to commandeer any citizen of the state. Now I want to tell you and again to point out, that under the Defence Act, he can only commandeer for the defence of the Union and nothing else. What has been done? One of the first acts of this Government, which is supposed to look after the welfare of its property, was to send troops to the North. To what extent the troops that he sent, the airmen and others were properly equipped when they were sent, will be enquired into later on, but now he comes and tells us that he needed the rifles. “We have no rifles,” he calls out. “We have numbers of troops but we cannot give them any rifles.” Notwithstanding that he holds out the prospect that there may be another war coming, in which we are also possibly going to be involved. Notwithstanding the position which we are in to-day, which is already a hopeless struggle, we are in addition informed that the Government needs further powers in case the Government might declare war against another country. And they even do not have rifles to shoot with, and they do not even have ammunition. That is the irresponsible way in which the Government of this country proceeds. And what of the people? They don’t concern it. It is the master. It will wage war. I think of the words—

The weeping of the parents, the sadness of the people, the anxiety of our people which we have to witness to-day, this does not worry the gods on the other side. They sit there, locked up in their offices surrounded by five bodyguards and feel safe. Let the end of the world come now. It may be so to-day, but I tell you again that the time will come that you will no longer be able to go on in that way. We are concerned here with a war which, as has been said over and over again, is not being waged in the interests of South Africa, but the war which is being waged because Great Britain is waging it, and the war is being prosecuted because Great Britain is going on with the war. That has been said over and over again. Could there be a grosser violation of the sacred duties of Ministers which they have taken upon themselves by an oath, to look after the interests of South Africa, and not those of any other nation? Although they have taken those sacred duties upon themselves, they are sending our sons to the battlefields not because the interests of South Africa demand it, but because another nation wants to continue a war.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but we cannot debate the reasons for the continuation of the war again.

We are concerned here with measures for continuing the war.

We cannot go back to the debate which has been concluded. We cannot now debate the causes of the war.

I am only thinking of the steps which the Government wants to take to continue the war.

The hon. member was engaged in quoting things which were in point in connection with a previous debate.

Then I leave the matter there. We are now asked to lay further burdens on the citizens of the country, not in our interests, but in the interests of another country and another people. I say again that I cannot imagine a greater violation of the oath which Ministers on the other side took, that they would look to the interests of South Africa and not of any other country. I have just said that this is an aggressive war. The Prime Minister is still dreaming of the time when he will have an opportunity of commandeering. I want to ask him: When does he think that will come? Because I want to warn him. When will it come? Immediately after the last parliamentary session he attacked Italy up in the north. Italy surely did not threaten us in the least, but they had to go to the far north and attack the Italians in Somaliland and Abyssinia. They did so. The Italians are already engaged in driving the troops of the Union and the other troops back. Imagine them coming over the Equator up to the south of Kenya. The Prime Minister told us that that is South Africa, and according to sub-clause (3) (1) he could commandeer in that case. Will you commandeer in this case? What are you going to do if the Italians come nearer, inasmuch as they are to-day engaged in driving back the men who attack them? Shall we then be commandeered? On what ground? The war remains an aggressive war, it was an aggressive war from the first day when our airmen entered Italian Somaliland. When will the time come? Will the time come if the Italians drive the people who attack them over the boundaries of the Union? But from what time is an aggressive war changed into a defensive war? Speaking impartially, we deserve this, because we made an unjustified attack on Italy and Italian territory, we deserve that the Italians should drive us away from there right back here if it is necessary. On what grounds will you then be able to make an appeal to us to fight against Italy? I want to point out to the Prime Minister the atrocious way in which he is trampling upon everything, and I want to tell him that he will himself in that way land in still further difficulties, difficulties which, just like the difficulties he is in to-day, arise from nothing else than from plunging us into a war with which we had no concern. Now I want to tell him this, that the Afrikaner people, in connection with our participation in this war, have now reached a point where they will no longer stand any sacrifices or burdens, and that if the Government should dare to commandeer for the further prosecution of this war, not only the commandeered but also every self-respecting Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaner will rise up in protest against any further participation or command to participate. I warn the Prime Minister. He now knows what is awaiting him. Just this, in addition. To my amazement the Prime Minister comes and tells us, as one of the reasons why he is introducing the Bill, that Italy has come into the war and that under the old legislation the regulations could not be applied to Italy which were issued in connection with Germany. The thing is now becoming quite an enigma to me. Why then did we go to war against Italy? Why? What in the wide world can we do against Germany which we cannot do against Italy? We were told that we had to declare war against Germany because the head of the German state was out to swallow up the whole world, and we had, therefore, to fight against him. But what has Italy done to us? On what grounds was war declared against Italy? Was it not on the same grounds that the war against Germany was based on? Why was war declared? Why cannot the regulations be promulgated against Italy? No, it can be done, and if there were to be any difference between the position of Italy and Germany, then the Prime Minister could just have done again what he usually does, because he would have got the necessary support from the Parliament in which he has this humble following. To come now and say that this measure is required owing to the entry of Italy into the war, is just as unacceptable as the other reasons. I say again that the reasons which the Prime Minister gave are not the real reasons. But because they have done unjust and illegal things, they now feel that they do not want to wait for the final outcome. Therefore they come now, before the courts have given a judgment, and want to make the illegal acts legal. They know that when the courts have once given judgment, they will not dare to come to Parliament to ask what they are now asking, and they know that in that case they would not get the support which they are now getting for this proposal, even of their humble followers.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) in a portion of his speech dealt with the commandeering of rifles and in the remainder of his speech—the greater part of it—he once again raised the issue of this war and the reasons why in his estimation South Africa should not have participated. I am certain, sir, that the House will not require any member on the Government benches to deal with the latter portion of the hon. member’s speech.

You cannot.

The Government has taken its decision; it stands by that decision; the House and the country has taken that decision.

Not the country.

The House reaffirmed that decision and there need be no further discussion about that. The Government will go on ….

Yes, go down.

The Government will go on and carry this country through the war and it will carry it through the war, both in regard to the dangers external and the dangers which are internal. But Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Smithfield has alleged that the Government, in commandeering rifles, was actuated by fear and he added, I think, that it was also due to an uneasy conscience on the part of the Prime Minister. I don’t know whether the hon. member for Smith-field intended that it was fear of what might happen inside the country, fear of what might happen through some of these organisations which we have heard about recently. But I can only reply to the hon. gentleman that, if the Government was afraid of the internal situation, why did it wait all these months to commandeer the rifles? We were told almost a year ago to-day by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (gen. Kemp) that if this country were not to remain neutral there would be a “blood-bath” in South Africa. We hear to-day certain stories about members on the cross benches making remarks but I would remind my hon. friends over there that we were told that if the country went into this war there would be a “blood-bath” worse than anything that happened in 1914. If ever there were a threat, that was a threat. But did the Government commandeer rifles? No, the Government was perfectly capable of dealing with the internal situation. But with the development of events with the magnificent response which the young men, both English and Afrikaans-speaking are making to the Prime Minister’s recruiting call, with the rapidly growing army it became necessary in the country’s interests to get rifles. The hon. member for Smithfield suggested that there was some inefficiency about raising an army without rifles. But if there was a fault, whose fault was it? Why was it that after eight months of war it was necessary in the country’s interests to commandeer the rifles? I do not think it is necessary for me to pursue that aspect of the matter any further. The Prime Minister has stated that the reason for calling in these rifles was a military reason, that it was necessary in order to equip the vastly growing army. South Africa to-day, sir, has an army larger than at any time in its previous history, a volunteer army. [Interruption.] I do not know, Mr. Speaker, why hon. members are so uneasy about it. No doubt, in view of their Cassandra-like prognostications at the last session, it must be irksome to hon. members over there to see the magnificent response of Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking young men who are rallying round the Government. But there are the facts. You may talk about red tabs, but they are the outward and visible sign of the magnificent response that has been made.

Pressure, pressure on the officers.

This allegation that pressure of any kind has been brought to bear on our young men is a scandalous observation. [Interruptions.] It is on all fours with the equally scandalous allegation made by the member for Marico (the Rev. C. W. M. du Toit) two nights ago in this House that 950 police had gone into an internment camp and acted like barbarians. That was equally untrue, equally scandalous and defamatory of the fair name of the South African police, of the fair name of the Afrikaans members of the South African police. If I might digress for a moment I would say that it was that kind of statement which brings our Afrikanerdom into disrepute. [Interruption.] Never mind, Mr. Speaker, I know the susceptibilities of these gallant persons opposite. I know they have thin skins and we will have to treat them accordingly. I am not referring to responsible members of the party opposite, but to the noisy element which delights in interrupting the Prime Minister in its usual courteous fashion. I am referring to the noisy element which repeatedly says strange things both here and outside the House and, when a few home truths are told them, feel they have to be wrapped up in cotton wool. I know the stuff of which they are made. I will leave the hon. member for Marico to his protectors. He may go on vilifying innocent, decent Afrikaners, either in the police force or outside it, and when one refers to it he is not able to get up and protect himself. I leave him to his friends. Mr. Speaker, one of the main purposes of the introduction of this Bill is to enable the Government in the prosecution of its war effort to take such steps as may be necessary from time to time for the maintenance of internal security.

I thought the Minister was going to tell us about the rifles which were commandeered and which were not wanted for the war.

The Prime Minister already dealt with that point, he has pointed out that the rifles that were commandeered were needed for military purposes. The right hon. gentleman has spoken as Prime Minister and Minister of Defence and it is unnecessary for me to pursue that point. I want to refer to the aspect of the Bill which refers to internal security, because an hon. member has rather suggested that the Government is afraid, that it has got into a panic and has become unnerved. As I pointed out the Government has for the past twelve months maintained internal security, it has a complete grip on the internal situation, it has dealt with enemy aliens by a policy of modified internment, selective internment. In view of the experience since gained by other countries that internment policy has had to be revised, and that was done at the end of the last session of Parliament. When I say that the Government has a complete grip of the position, despite efforts to stir up trouble, I would remind the House that there are undoubtedly tendencies which are of a disturbing nature. We have movements and organisations here which are foreign to our Afrikaans life and custom. There is no doubt that for years prior to the war an attempt was made to produce the usual Hitler technique in this country. There were efforts on the part of Nazi agents to spread the spirit of Nazism amongst our people, and efforts to create a spirit of defeatism which is showing itself at the present time. The Government has the evidence; there is abundant evidence of this Nazi agency, and many of the agents are at present in the internment camps. The tragedy of it is that those efforts have borne so much fruit among our own Afrikaner people. That was the plan all along; that is what Hitler and his agents have all along visualised happening in this country.

Are you a member of the Truth Legion?

May I remind hon. members of the words of Hitler—

Well, sir, it is a national tragedy the manner in which Hitler and his agents have been able to succeed up to a point in their work. This Nazi poison has permeated far, the plan has been pursued in insidious fashion, it has been diabolically clever, and no one who might be used for the purpose has been overlooked. In the old days the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) and his party were looked upon as useful ….

Are you in a circus?

The hon. member has put a question to me. I am not in a circus. I have no doubt, however, the hon. gentleman is rather sore because recently, I understand, the hon. gentleman’s claims to leadership have been challenged. I understand that recently a deputation waited on him and intimated that they wished to have a leader and not a jellyfish.

Where did you get that false information from; did you get it from Woodstock?

I said that this poison had permeated far. We find that in our national life, as a result of these pre-war efforts, these Nazi agitations, certain tendencies foreign to South Africa have manifested themselves, and one of the outward and visible manifestations of this movement is the appearance of a number of so-called cultural societies which have been formed for the ostensible object of safeguarding Afrikaans culture and the traditions of the Afrikaans people. Well, sir, sometimes when doubt is cast upon the bona fides of these organisations there are loud protests. I am not going to suggest that all the members who join these organisations are Nazi agents and do so wilfully in order to try and undermine the Government. That would be a far-fetched contention to put up, but I. do say there is abundant evidence that these organisations have been so abused as to become a potential danger to the state, and many innocent persons are being used for the set purpose, of undermining the state. They are unwitting agents of Nazidom.

What do you intend doing about it?

The hon. member need not worry about the Government’s intentions. The Government has controlled the position internally and externally in the last twelve months and it will continue to control the position. I think it might be of interest to the House, and possibly to the country, to know a little more about some of these cultural organisations.

Are we to have another Mr. X story?

We have had the growth of these organisations; we know they are spread throughout the country. We have had instances from time to time of persons who have been deluded into playing with their little swastikas and their “Heil Hitlers” to show evidence of their feeling. A good deal of it, of course, is merely clumsy imitation. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw),, I have no doubt, is listening and he will probably be interested in what I have to say. I have said that a good deal of this is merely clumsy buffoonery.

You should be a good judge of that.

Side by side with the machinations of these organisations a line of conduct is becoming more widespread. We have recently had quite a novel importation on the Witwatersrand, namely the introduction of sabotage. That is something entirely foreign to the South African people. There is no doubt that the sabotage which has been taking place on the Witwatersrand is not the work of isolated individuals. There is a connecting thread between all these activities; it is the work not merely of a few idle, irresponsible persons, but the work of an organisation, and I say to my hon. friends opposite, those of them who are responsible, that when they talk lightly about these organisations, these institutions and these movements being a danger to the Afrikaans state, they are on very dangerous ground indeed. I would ask hon. members opposite to bear in mind that when they make speeches of an inflammatory nature and speeches which incite to violence they are playing into the hands of these persons, these dupes of the Nazi tyranny, and its Nazi technique, who are at work in the country. They are, in fact, playing with fire. The Government does not intend to play with fire, but in the interests of the people as a whole it will take the necessary, steps to see that these dangers are averted. We have dealt with a number of difficulties, we have scotched the snake, not killed it, but the snake will be killed.

Are you also panic-stricken?

No, I think some of the hon. members opposite are panicky. I think the more responsible members on the front benches are perhaps a little alarmed at the extreme elements which appear to be taking charge. We hear about a “council of action,” and these are the things which are happening in the country, because the leaders opposite do not appear to be able to maintain law and order and discipline in their own ranks. Behind it all there is this foreign influence, directing the course of events, and I would appeal to the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) and the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) to be careful in the counsel which they give to the people and the country, remembering that what they say may have incalculable consequences throughout the Union as a whole. I have seen it asserted that these organisations have no political tendency, but are purely cultural. Well, sir, if that is so, some of these cultural organisations have very novel objects. I find, for instance, they have their generals and other officers; probably the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) can speak with better knowledge than I can on these matters, and also the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) and a few others can speak with better knowledge than I can on these matters.

What matters?

On the functioning of these organisations. I believe it is entirely novel to find that a cultural organisation has made provision on the Railways for storm troops, machine gunners, transport and medical services. In one of these organisations on the Railways, we find it consists of Brenn-gunners with 60 rounds of ammunition, rifles with 50 rounds, explosives and fuses, and so on. So we see that these organisations are moving along novel cultural lines and with novel objects. Of this railway organisation I have no doubt the hon. member for Moorreesburg will be able to speak with more knowledge. I have here a little book which was in the possession of a young Afrikaner who was employed on the Railways, and which speaks of “one people, one country and one Reich.” I believe these cultural organisations have also taken an interest in uniforms, and I have no doubt some of the utterances which have recently been made glorifying Hitler, must have inspired the members of these organisations. I have here a uniform which appears to be used by these young bloods who are so disturbing the leaders of the party. Here (holding up a tunic) I have an interesting uniform taken from a member of one of these cultural organisations who also works on the Railways. I have no doubt the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) will be interested in this. This delightful uniform has a red swastika on the sleeve.

Was it put on by one of your departments?

There it is, and yet, sir, there are responsible people in this country who delude themselves into believing that their speeches and their line of conduct are not misleading the young men of this country.

How do we know that it is not false, like Mr. X?

The hon. member for Moorreesburg is an expert in these matters, and he knows that that is not false. He knows that there are young men in these organisations who have been led astray by the big talk of certain politicians. These young men are the dupes and have to suffer. We know that this sort of organisation sprung up in Germany before Hitler got control. They were the prelude to the Nazi regime, these so-called cultural uniformed organisations. This, I repeat, is a foreign importation, a direct replica of what happened in Germany before the war. Here these so-called cultural organisations are developing along military lines, with generals, field cornets and all the rest of it, provision for storm troopers, machine-gunners, Brenn guns, ambulances, signallers, and all the paraphernalia of a military organisation. Sir, there can only be one army in the state, if the state is not to be disrupted. There will be only one army in this state, and that the Government will see to.

I think that we have been looking at a play here to-day, coming from a Minister whom we are with every right able to describe as not only minimising his position, but we can with every right say that the Minister’s speech and the way in which he behaved, is a proof of scandalous contempt of this Parliament. He tried to create the impression that there were organisations in the country which justify this Bill. In order to give the impression that we ought to go on with this Bill, he told us that there were said to be certain organisations in the country which constituted a danger to the country. But he gave absolutely no proof of that. He exhibited a uniform here with a swastika on it, but we have every right to say that the swastika on it was without any doubt false. Never before have we seen elsewhere in the country anything of those uniforms with a swastika on them. The swastika moreover is on a Voortrekker jacket. I can understand that the Government would sink to such depths to make use of fraud because it realises that it is in distress, and it must do something to justify its action. We have already had the case of Mr. X. from the Minister.

Here is the portrait of the man with the jacket on him.

When you had the Malay fez on did that turn you into a Malay?

The Minister further told us that the Government wanted to control the position in the interior, and therefore he considered this Bill necessary, and then in a voice from which we can infer that he is proud of it, he declared that the state of peace and quiet in the country was exclusively due to the action of the Government. I want to say this to the Government, that the fact that during the past twelve months there has been no bloodshed in this country was not due to the action of the Government, but it was due to hon. members on this side of the House, who on every occasion went out of their way to warn the public not to go to excess, and peace and order existed in spite of the most provocative attitude on the part of the Government. If the Government now in office in South Africa were in power in one of the states of America, then during the past year there would probably have been twelve revolutions, one for every month. The fact that there is peace and quiet in the country is not due to the actions of the Government and its supporters, but it is exclusively due to the calming and steadying lead which was given by this side of the House. I would now like to come to the Bill. I want, in the first place, to say that if proof had ever been given that the first clause of the Bill was unnecessary, then the Prime Minister himself gave that proof. Clause 1, as it stands in this Bill, was in the main, contained in clause 2 of the Bill which was moved during the last session of Parliament. The Prime Minister then decided to withdraw that clause. I have turned up his speech in which he gave the reasons why he thought it necessary to withdraw that clause, and when we examine the reasons we see very clearly that the Prime Minister is condemned by his own words. When he explained why he was withdrawing that clause he said this, inter alia—

For that reason he considered it advisable to withdraw the clause. In other words, now that he is going on with the clause he gives us the right to say that he is dictatorial and autocratic. The Prime Minister went further and said—

If that was so with the original clause, which in the main agrees with this clause, then the question involuntarily arises why the Prime Minister brings up this clause again now. A A further reason why he withdrew it was the following—

If the Prime Minister does not intend to make use of those far-reaching powers, why then is he now asking for those drastic powers? Are we not entitled to be suspicious that the Government intends now to go further than what they have hitherto gone? He further said that the regulations probably covered 99 per cent. of the requisites. Now what is the other 1 per cent. which is not yet covered? When he withdrew this clause a few months ago, he said that the regulations which then existed would cover 99 per cent. of the requirements, and we would now like to know what that 1 per cent. is for which those powers are being asked for again. Moreover, he added this—

What has happened in the meantime which has caused the Prime Minister to ask for these additional powers which he did not consider necessary six months ago? He admitted that that clause went too far, and he concluded his reasons by saying that he was not going to ask the House of Assembly to give him a blank cheque. For that reason he withdrew the clause. Now, however, he asks us to give him that blank cheque. I therefore say that if proof was ever given that this clause goes too far, that it is too comprehensive and too drastic, and that there is no necessity for its existence, then the Prime Minister himself gave the proof in the speech which he made six months ago. This Bill will give the Government very far-reaching powers. No limit practically is being placed on the regulations which he will be able to promulgate in terms of this Bill. I would like to refer to a few of these regulations. In this Bill it is laid down that the Government can even commandeer when it considers that it is necessary against an enemy somewhere in South Africa, both within and outside the Union. I hope the Prime Minister will make a very clear statement of what he intends by the expression “in South Africa, within and outside the Union.” During last session of Parliament the Prime Minister told us that in terms of the Defence Act he regards South Africa as Africa south of the Equator. Does he still stand by that, and if so does he intend to commandeer people when the enemy comes south of the Equator? Would he then consider that it fell within the provisions of the Defence Act? Two questions arise in connection with this matter. The first is whether the war operations which are being carried on to-day can really be considered as a defence in the spirit which the Defence Act intends it. The Leader of the Opposition has already referred to this matter. The question arises involuntarily whether the Government will be entitled later on, if the enemy should reach our borders, to resort to the commandeering of men. Would that be in terms of the Defence Act; will we on this side not have the fullest right to adopt the attitude that the Government has gone out of its way to bring the enemy to the borders of South Africa? Can the Government with any right under the Defence Act, allege that it is acting in the defence of the Union? We say that this war, in the first place, is an aggressive war. Germany did not declare war on South Africa. When Mussolini declared war he declared war on Great Britain, and deliberately left out the dominions. South Africa went and, according to the statement of its Prime Minister, declared war against Italy. South Africa was therefore the aggressor in that case.

The hon. member may not go into a matter again which was disposed of during the previous debate.

I am only elucidating the judicial position with a view to the possibility that the Prime Minister will try to commandeer us. We would like to have a definite statement as to in what circumstances he will take the course of commandeering us. The Prime Minister will possibly say that if the enemy pushes on into Rhodesia he (the Prime Minister) will have the fullest right to commandeer us, because the Union would then be threatened. But another question is whether the Italian troops ever would have threatened South Africa if South Africa had not sent her troops to Kenya, and had not gone over there to attack Italy. This is a real problem, and we have the right to ask the question. We regard this war as an aggressive war, and according to the statements of the Prime Minister he will have the right to commandeer us when an enemy approaches our borders. We say, however, that the Prime Minister, by his action, has attracted the enemy to our borders.

Is the attitude of the party that an enemy may invade the Union without your going to defend the country?

I only say that the Prime Minister attacked Italy, provoked and challenged the enemy. The Prime Minister attacked Italy. Immediately, on the first day the Prime Minister sent our aeroplanes to bomb the Italians. He acted aggressively, Italy did not, and in terms of the Defence Act the Government only have the right to commandeer South African citizens if South Africa is attacked. Now our question is whether the Prime Minister is going to commandeer, and when. Who is the attacking party in this case? It is a matter upon which we are entitled to expect a clear explanation. It will, of course, be said that South Africa was already threatened by Italy. Then I want to nut the following question to the Prime Minister: Does the Prime Minister want to assert that South Africa, if she had remained neutral and had not declared war against Italy, would have been more threatened than Egypt? Egypt lies, to all intents and purposes, much closer to the burning point of the war, but Egypt has thus far taken up the attitude that it is not in her interests to declare war against Italy. The Prime Minister, however, thought it necessary to declare war against Italy, notwithstanding the fact that Italy was thousands of miles away, that we were thousands of miles removed from the fighting zone. Let me explain what I mean. The old Cape Colony was often invaded by native hordes. They stole the farmers’ crops and plundered the farms. The British Government then sent out commandos to punish the natives. Can the commandos be regarded as the attacking party? Even if they went across the border and pursued the natives to their own country, then the commandos would still not have been the attacking party. Can the commandos in such circumstances be regarded as the attacking party? Certainly not, and this example coincides with our present position. We sent troops to Kenya and declared war to Italy. Suppose Italy succeeds — I am trying to explain the possibilities which exist — in defeating our forces and the British forces in Kenya and driving them southwards, what will the Prime Minister then do? Is he going to commandeer us?

Are you going to defend the Union?

The question is, who is the attacker? The Prime Minister went to look for enemies, and if he gets into difficulties, he expects us to rescue him. He wants us to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for him, after he has put himself in the difficult position, and has exposed the Union to the dangers.

He can pull the chestnuts out of the fire himself, with his knights of truth.

The Government declared war without even consulting Parliament. He got himself into difficulties, and now he wants to make an appeal to us to assist. Not only do the Government take powers in this Bill, but they also ask for the right to transfer those powers in turn to officials. Does the Government expect that we will willingly agree to the powers being passed on to officials, some of whom have oppressed the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population in all sorts of ways during the past year? It is very easy for the Minister of the Interior to say that everything is going well, and that only volunteers are being sent to the north. How much truth is there in that? We are quite entitled to say that the Government has already abused the powers which it now has and, therefore, this House is fully justified in refusing to grant additional extended powers to the Government. Let us see to what extent the Government has already abused its powers. In the first place, they declared war against Italy, a mighty empire, without consulting Parliament. I asked the Prime Minister during last session whether he would declare war on Italy, and whether he would consult Parliament ….

The hon. member cannot again go into what was dealt with in a previous debate.

I am only pointing out that while the Prime Minister is asking for greater powers, he is already abusing the limited powers which he has, and, therefore, I say that we are justified in refusing to give him further powers. The Government has dragged us into a war without consulting the highest authority in the country. Was that not abusing his power? The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) pointed out yesterday that the Prime Minister made the promise that the army for the north would be composed exclusively of volunteers. He solemnly promised us that no one would be forced to join up with the army. To what extent has the Prime Minister kept that promise? He certainly has not kept it. If the Government is not directly exercising pressure themselves, then in any case pressure is being exercised by officials on subordinate officials. Our sons are faced with the choice of taking the “red” oath, or having nothing to eat. I put a question on the Order Paper in connection with the action of one of our senior officers, namely Col. Pienaar of Brits. Inasmuch as the Prime Minister promised to get a report about it, I do not want to go more fully into it. I would rather refer to other cases of the exercise of compulsion on people. Col. Pienaar was in this case also the guilty person. I have a sworn declaration here. On the 18th May there was a parade of certain troops on the Premier Mine. Col. Pienaar addressed those who would not take the oath, and according to the sworn statement he said—

Hear, hear.

Whether the hon. member says “Hear, hear” is of minor importance, but it is an official who is talking here and he also said—

That was a responsible officer who was to address his troops. Can the Prime Minister now with any show of right still say that no compulsion is being exercised? In connection with another case I put the question to the Prime Minister. I put a question in connection with an ex-detective-sergeant, Christian Daniel du Plessis. He bad had 21 years service in the C.I.D. and I asked whether the case had been brought to the notice of the Prime Minister. I wanted to know whether the Commissioner of Police had the authority to exercise pressure on his subordinates. I further asked whether he would put a stop to that kind of pressure being exercised. The Minister replied that he had seen the report in the Press and then he proceeded and gave the unsatisfactory reply that the matter had been inquired into and that no improper pressure had been exercised. He does not, however, say by whom it was inquired into. From the reply it can nevertheless be inferred that compulsion was actually exercised, but that it was in the opinion of the Prime Minister not improper compulsion. It was further stated in the reply that Du Plessis had applied for discharge by buying himself out and that he stated that he intended to go farming. It is therefore represented that he left the service voluntarily. I will show in a moment why he left the service.

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

When business was suspended I was just speaking about the so-called voluntary recruiting that was being done for the army. I say that the Government in no way has the right of saying that everything is being done voluntarily, and to support my statement I referred to what had already happened during the past year. I have every right to say that the political fraud which has hitherto characterised the policy of the Government in connection with the war is also at the bottom of the recruiting for the army. I referred to the case of ex-sergeant Edward Christian Daniel du Plessis. He had for years been a detective and it was noted on his discharge certificate that he had rendered satisfactory service all those years. What fate befell that man? We find that he was asked on the 5th June to take the oath. He refused, and then the intimidation started. His lot was such that after a few days he asked for his discharge and decided rather to leave the service, notwithstanding all the years of faithful service to the state. He was threatened and insulted and even at his own home he was not left at peace. According to the sworn statement which he made we find that on the 5th June he was asked by his officer to take the oath and he refused. He now states in his declaration, which is declared under oath—

The oath forms were lying ready on a table. Du Plessis refused again to sign the oath. He proceeds—

Is it, not to say the least of it, scandalous action on the part of a senior officer to address the men under him like that? But we find that it did not end with that. After that threat had been used towards the officers and men who were there and who refused to take the oath, they went further. He further states—

Is that not a scandalous threat? Has the Minister of Defence any right to say that men are recruited solely on a voluntary basis? I say that the Government has no right at all to make such a statement. Du Plessis further declares—

They were all people who had not signed—

Du Plessis then had to wait his turn and was subsequently called alone to a sitting room where there were two officers seated at a table. He was asked “what he intended to do.” He continued refusing to take the oath and then applied for discharge and sent up the necessary £5 to the head office. Du Plessis further declares that the following day he was ordered to report to a highly placed officer at Marshall Square. Again he and the other sergeants who had refused were cross-examined and, inter alia, it was said to them by the officer “that he could not see how I (Du Plessis) could be trusted in command of men if I refused to give the Commissioner my full confidence.” I never knew that to refuse to sign an oath would necessarily amount to a police official not having confidence in his Commissioner. With what right can the Prime Minister in these circumstances make the allegation that people are joining voluntarily and are never being forced? In this sworn statement the Commissioner of Police is twice mentioned and it is a serious matter. Without the least doubt a certain amount of blame is being cast on the Commissioner of using his influence to recruit troops. I referred to the declaration that the Commissioner expected them to take the oath. The Minister will realise that the police also have a certain amount of military tradition and if a highly placed officer “expects” his subordinates to do something, then it practically amounts to a command. What does Du Plessis state in regard to the Commissioner? He says that the officer who addressed them made the remarks that he could not see how a police sergeant could exercise command over men if he refused to give his confidence to the Commissioner. I am bringing this point specially to the notice of the Prime Minister and I hope he will realise it is his duty to have the matter fully investigated, because otherwise some reflection will be cast on the Commissioner. The sworn statement accuses the Commissioner of having used pressure on his subordinates in the service. I, therefore, feel that a full inquiry is necessary. It is not sufficient for the Prime Minister to say that an inquiry was instituted and that it was found that no improper pressure had been exercised. That is not a satisfactory answer. I say with the utmost emphasis that in consequence of what happened there will be a slur cast on the Commissioner, to wit, that he interfered in a political matter, unless the Prime Minister institutes a proper inquiry and exonerates the Commissioner from the charge which has been made against him. Du Plessis did not leave the Police Force because he was as keen on going farming as the Minister states. That is not the case at all. Why did he decide to leave the service? I read his statement again—

It is a responsible person who is speaking there. He had been in the service nearly 20 years and he made his declaration under oath. Sir, there are hundreds of similar cases in the country. Can the Minister continue to say that volunteers only are being recruited? I say, in view of these facts, we have the fullest right to refuse to give further powers to the Government. In the past the Government abused the powers which they possessed and we cannot give additional powers to the Government because the Government are simply going to abuse the powers again.

There was not much in the speech of the hon. member for Brits.

(Mr. Grobler) worth replying to. He came here to show in which way certain people were being forced to join up. He did not prove this actually. I want to tell the hon. member, however, that we on this side who on the 4th September decided to participate in the war, are being intimidated to-day. We are not only being intimidated, but rail tracks are being blown up with dynamite by supporters of the other side of the House, and as yet I have not heard hon. members on the other side getting up and saying that those things must stop and that drastic steps should be taken. That is the fruit one reaps when one allows oneself to be guided all the time by party politics without giving a thought to the results your policy may have for the country. The hon. Leader of the Opposition intimated here that he protests against this measure on behalf of the Dutchspeaking people of South Africa. He may talk on behalf of his party, a party which is hopelessly divided, but he knows as well as I do that he has no right to talk on behalf of the Dutch-speaking Afrikaners. We on this side represent a large section of the Dutch-speaking Afrikaners, those Dutchspeaking Afrikaners who honestly and straightforwardly go their way and do not ask who is strongest, but support those who want to build up the world with right and honesty. The hon. Leader of the Opposition said that this is an aggressive war. This is not a war of aggression as far as we are concerned. On 23rd March, 1939, after England and France undertook to give a guarantee to Poland, the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition submitted this question to the Leader of the Opposition, the then Prime Minister.

We cannot now discuss the causes of the war. The hon. member should coniine himself to the Bill.

The Leader of the Opposition said that this is a war of aggression, and for that reason he opposes the Bill. I want to show that this is not a war of aggression and I want to say why I support the Bill.

The hon. member can state his reasons, but he may not now discuss the reason for the war.

I support this Bill because I consider this war to be a war of aggression, but the aggression did not come from our side. In his reply on the 23rd March the Leader of the Opposition declared that when a European war is of such a nature ….

The hon. member cannot now enter upon all those matters.

I submit to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I only want to say that I do not consider this war to be a war of aggression on our part. I consider this to be a war, and I consider this measure to be a measure to protect us against Nazism, so that we shall not be made into less than the henchmen and shoe-blacks of Hitler and Mussolini. We are defending our freedom. We have witnessed how Hitler went from one small nation to another and robbed them of their freedom. We on this side of the House know that we belong to the mightiest combination in the world, namely, the British Empire. The friends on the other side laugh. There was a time when they laughed just as much when their present leader said that no Englishman had greater respect for the British Navy than he had. For six and a half years they laughed at their own leader.

The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill and should not mention all those matters.

I give the reasons why I support this Bill. May I also give my motives for those reasons?

The hon. member may do so, but he cannot at this stage discuss matters which have already been discussed and disposed of.

For many years the Leader of the Opposition was my leader, and when I speak my mind here, I am largely inspired by his attitude in the past, and for that reason I think that I have the right to give the reasons why I support this Bill.

The fact that the hon. member once followed the Leader of the Opposition and his reasons for doing so are no argument in relation to this Bill. The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill and not refer to all those other matters.

The hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler) said that this war is not a war of aggression. May I say now that this is an aggressive war on the part of Germany.

The hon. member has said so before.

Then I should like to repeat it, if you allow me to do so. We laid down a policy on the 4th September, and notwithstanding all the abuse and all the intimidation from members on the other side and their friends outside, we shall give the Prime Minister all the powers which are necessary to defend this country against Nazism and Mussolini. We on this side value our freedom, and we are not going to exploit our freedom for the sake of political ends. A man who endangers the freedom of his country for the sake of party politics, is in my opinion nothing but a political exploiter of the people. We shall do our duty in spite of all the threats we receive from members such as the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) and the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman), that members on the other side and their supporters should have nothing whatever to do with the Dutch-speaking Afrikaners sitting on the Government side. In spite, of all this, we shall continue to give our support to this Bill. Objections have been raised here against the commandeering of rifles. The hon. Prime Minister has given his reasons, and those reasons are acceptable to the country. My friends on the other side accuse the Prime Minister and this side of the House that we are afraid to leave the people in possession of their rifles. There is no such thing. Members on the other side know that no rebellion in our country will be successful, just as little as it could have been a success in 1914. We cannot, however, say otherwise than that the rebellion of 1914 was one of the most tragic happenings in the history of South Africa, and if the responsible men at that time had given a warning, there might not have been a rebellion. In spite of the advice given by the hon. member for Beaufort West and the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg, namely that they will not associate with us, there are some of our most honourable Nationalists who are honest and honestly believe that we could have stayed out of the war, and who have told me that they are grateful that the Prime Minister commandeered all rifles, for they could see the way things were drifting, and there might have been bloodshed. But we now find the position that the Keeromstreet group which is represented by the other side of the House, has been busy for the last 7½ years to work up the people and to create bitter feelings. That is the group which repudiated the Leader of the Opposition for 7½ years and told him that he could not speak on behalf of the people of South Africa. I maintain that there are honest Nationalists who admit that they are glad the Government commandeered the rifles, for it might have come to bloodshed between Afrikaner and Afrikaner. The Government demanded the rifles. Our tradition in South Africa is to respect law and order, and the citizens of South Africa have once again on this occasion proved that they will maintain law and order. The citizens obeyed the law. Some of them were misled by front benchers from the other side, and as a result some of our honourable men are in prison to-day, and have to undergo that humiliation.

And have to wear convict clothes.

The Government has to maintain law and order, even if it becomes necessary to make those who infringe the law wear convict clothing. But the people who are responsible for that are the party politicians on the other side. It is said that we could have remained neutral. I have much esteem for the word “neutrality”. Thousands of our fellow-Afrikaners in the platteland honestly believe that we could have stayed out of this war. But what do we see here at present? This is no longer a matter of neutrality, it is a matter of Nazism. Every member on the other side who got up and spoke here, gave us the impression that they are jubilant about Hitler gaining one victory after another. It is said that the Italians threaten our troops, and the way it is said creates the impression that those people are glad about it. Do you not think that the time will come when we as Afrikaners will have to be ashamed of ourselves on account of those things? I am convinced that in the long run right will prevail and that this war will mean the doom of Nazism. The people of South Africa will remain grateful to the Prime Minister and this Government for having maintained law and order and having guided the Afrikaner people, a guidance and leadership for which the Afrikaner people will be grateful for many years to come, because in that way we have upheld our history and our honour. On the 4th September of last year there may have been a difference of opinion about the question of us participating in the war or not. You will not allow me, Mr. Speaker, to speak about the two proposals, for this is a matter which has already been disposed of. But there are thousands of Afrikaners with whom I have talked, and who at that time were in favour of neutrality, but who tell me that they are now able to see that we could not have remained neutral, for we can see very distinctly what happens to other neutral countries.

The hon. member is speaking about neutrality, and that cannot be discussed now.

I am speaking about this Bill, for as we did not remain neutral, we have to put through this Bill and give the Prime Minister the powers which he needs. Will you allow me to speak on the wool agreement? If so, I should like to say a few words on that subject in order to point out what it will mean to our farmers.

I may say that the new wool agreement is directly attributable to the war and forms part of the war measures, so that it can be discussed here.

Thank you. Mr. Speaker. The Opposition criticises this wool agreement. They also criticised the last wool agreement.

You also criticised it.

But I did not reject it. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) criticised the wool agreement here in this House, but to the wool farmers in Port Elizabeth he says that he did not condemn it and only pleaded for a higher price. That is the windmill politics we had from that hon. member. On behalf of the wool farmers, or at least on behalf of a large section of the wool farmers, I want to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on having concluded this agreement. My friends on the other side will say that the open market has now been closed. Who is the open market?

We shall tell you.

The most important wool buyers have collapsed. Only two of them remain for the open market, viz., America and Japan. Japan is not in a position to buy our wool, and thus only America remains. The British Government said that unless it could obtain the whole wool clip, it would not be willing to buy. Should we have let this opportunity slip; should we have let this buyer go and have kept America only, which can take part of our wool only? Where would we have been, and would the farmers not have held this Government responsible for the conditions which would have prevailed then? The Minister of Agriculture did the right thing, for what do we do to-day? We can sell any kind of wool. It is valued. It will be bought and paid for in cash. We need not worry about the transport either, for the British fleet will see to that, notwithstanding the derision of our friends on the other side. They win again hold protest meetings and processions. Here in South Africa we sing: We shall answer your call, we shall live and we shall die, we, for you South Africa. To me it looks as if our friends on the other side will now change the song to “we shall live and we shall hold processions, we, for you South Africa.” For they do nothing but hold protest meetings and processions, and they enjoy them. The tragic part of it is that when we attend those meetings, we see that Afrikaners who have the interests of the country at heart, are being besmirched and slandered. Those processions and protest meetings will take place, but I know that every farmer is grateful to the Government for having made this arrangement whereby he can sell his wool as long as the war lasts. I receive telegrams from important farmers’ associations, which tell me that the farmers cannot sell skins and asking me to approach the Government to try and arrange a similar scheme in regard to the sale of skins. The farmers cannot sell certain skins, and representatives of the farmers’ interests urge the Government to try to sell the skins to the British Government too. This is the reply to the agitation by hon. members on the other side. No, I am convinced that the majority in this country stands behind this Government notwithstanding the noise that is being made by members on the other side.

But you do not know your people.

I know them better, for I shared the good and the bad times with them. When members on the other side besmirched their present Leader for 6½ years, I helped to protect him. I know my people and my duty towards my people. We shall support this Bill, because we are sure that it is in the best interests of South Africa to do so.

When introducing this Bill this morning the hon. Prime Minister submitted all sorts of excuses in view of the fact that the section of the Bill which he dropped during the last session is now again being brought before Parliament, and in view of this House now being asked to approve of it. I think his excuses have been sufficiently exposed by the Leader of the Opposition, and I therefore need not come back to that. I only want to point out here that in my opinion he dropped that infamous clause 2, which he had in his old Bill, during the last session because he did not dare to leave it there and face the people. At that stage the people began to realise how autocratic were the powers which the Government tried to appropriate, and the people in general were not prepared to accept it at that time and not only the people who are represented by this side of the House, for it was a public secret that at that particular time the Prime Minister within his own party met with opposition, and very strong opposition too, against the passing of that clause. He did not dare to go on with it. He now brings it to light again, and again he cannot muster sufficient courage to tell the people what is the exact contents of the clause. This morning he devoted part of his speech to justify the fact that he is admittedly asking those powers, but that, if they be given him, it will be under certain restrictions, and he devoted much time to explaining what in fact those restrictions are. He started off reading out that clause, in which it says that the powers will be used in so far as the Government considers it necessary and advisable to make provision for the defence of the Union, for the safety of the public, for the maintenance of public order, etc. This will all be a restriction on the power he asks for. I think it will be advisable, in view of this belittling of the powers he asks for, to analyse those powers a bit more accurately. The first question I want to put is in how far these powers which the Prime Minister asks from Parliament, differ from the powers Parliament itself possesses. Do they differ very materially from the powers vested in Parliament? They are powers which he can make use of without coming to Parliament again and receiving authority for them by means of legislation. The reply I want to give is that there is no difference worth mentioning between the one and the other. It is said here that the Government may issue regulations which it deems necessary or advisable. It receives the authority to issue these regulations. It then depends on its own will and choice what it deems necessary and advisable in order to make provision for the defence of the Union. There is no further definition. Anything that in its opinion may be necessary and advisable for the defence of the Union, it may do. It may commandeer. Not only can the Government commandeer goods which are needed for the defence, but it may also commandeer whatever it thinks may be needed for the defence of the Union, as it has done at present in the case of the rifles. It may commandeer the person of the citizen of the country, and not only may it commandeer the European citizens of the country. It is empowered, if it deems it necessary for the safety and defence of the Union, to approach the non-European section of the population, and it may arm coloureds and natives. One would say that it is an unheard of thing that a Government of our country would do so. But this matter was raised in this House during the last session of Parliament, and what was the voice that went up from the other side of the House, even from a former Boer general? That he has no objection whatsoever against such a thing, that if the Union should be attacked, the Government can also call up non-Europeans, natives and coloured persons and arm them in order to defend the Union.

Why not?

There you have it again. Experience has taught us that the Prime Minister who apparently is dictated to by the most extremist imperial element on the other side, is urged on by that element, and if we openly hear the remark from that side, “Why not?” then I say that that in itself is sufficient reason why we should not empower the Prime Minister to commandeer the person of the citizen or of anybody in the country in order to effect what he deems necessary for tire defence of the country. It is furthermore said that they can exercise all powers which they deem necessary for the safety of the public. “Safety of the public” is an expression which is very comprehensive indeed. We can hardly imagine all things that may be included therein. One can rob people of their freedom for the safety of the public, and one can intern them. This has already happened on an extensive scale. With these special powers entrusted to the Government, I suppose that their idea is to do so on a still larger scale in future. In other words, the power is hereby granted to the Government to dispose of the freedom and the person and all the property of the peaceful citizens. And all that under the pretext that it is in the interests of the safety of the public. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to use those powers also to curb the freedom of the Press in our country? I believe that during the recess he already had that intention and attempted something in that direction. If the Press were to allow it and if he did not fear the Press so much, he would have used his powers in this respect already. “For the safety of the public” he can do anything he deems necessary or advisable and I anticipate that it will not be long before he starts meddling with the freedom of the Press and the country. But not only that. We continually hear from him and from his supporters that hon. members on this side by the attitude we take up—we are against the war and will remain against the war and we protest against the war and shall continue doing so both in this House and outside—that we by the attitude we adopt and the motions we propose to withdraw from the war as soon as possible, are an undermining influence in the country which must be suppressed and stopped. Under these powers he is entitled to do anything which he deems necessary or advisable for the safety of the public, and one has to expect that to-morrow or the day after he will make an attempt to curtail the freedom of conviction, the freedom of his political opponents. He will take steps to prevent them doing not only what is their conviction, but also what they consider to be in the best interests of the country. Furthermore, he appropriates full powers for the maintenance of public order and the efficient continuation of the war or of another war in which we may become entangled, and he furthermore desires powers for “dealing with circumstances” which in his opinion may arise as the result of such a war. Under this expression “all circumstances which in his opinion have arisen as a result of any such war” he can do practically anything; be can for instance deal with the produce of the farmers just as he likes to because he thinks that there are circumstances, arisen from the war, which necessitate his taking measures of that kind. I maintain that the powers asked for here, although the Prime Minister this morning described them as “restrictions” are nothing but an appropriation for himself and his Government of all the powers Parliament possesses. If you read through our Constitution, you will find that the powers of Parliament are also set out there in general terms, and the power of Parliament as described there is that the Parliament has the power to make laws for peace. Now the Prime Minister takes more powers for the continuation of the war and even powers to conduct a war which has not yet been declared up to the present. Parliament possesses the power to make laws for peace and for order and good government of the country! I now ask you which powers of Parliament the Government does not appropriate in Clause 1 of this Bill. Yes, there is one essential difference and this is that if Parliament exercises its powers here, it has to exercise its power in accordance with the prescribed law. Parliament has its Standing Rules and Orders and has to adhere to it and grant sufficient opportunity for the discussion and the exercise of criticism on the things Parliament does, or which the majority in Parliament intends doing. But this Government by virtue of the powers which it now appropriates, can go to sleep to-night and wake up to-morrow morning and have come to the decision overnight to issue a proclamation, without consulting anybody or allowing criticism, in any direction it wants. In fact the Government is doing this already as we have seen in the past and in a manner which, because its decisions are reached overnight, is thoughtless and shows all signs of proper enquiries not having been made before it took action. The proof of that we find in the proclamation concerning the disarming of our people. The proclamation to rob the people of their rifles has all of a sudden appeared. As soon as it appeared there were violent protests especially from the sections of the population living on the borders of native territories, where it is definitely a danger to them and their children not to possess fire-arms. Only then did the Government awake with a start and did it see that they had done something which was improper and which endangered the people. Thereafter they revised the proclamation. This shows you that we have a Government which is apt to do things thoughtlessly and which cannot be entrusted with more powers. Now they want to take unto themselves all the powers of Parliament, whereas we know that we have to deal with a Government which takes action in a rash and thoughtless manner, and also in an irresponsible manner. When the Prime Minister made his speech here, I asked him the question, in what respect the powers which he now demands, differ from the powers under martial law? The Prime Minister then answered and said that under martial law the courts are suspended and that the judicial power is then transferred to the military authorities. It may be true that powers are transferred to the military authorities on the declaration of martial law, but it need not be the case that the powers of the courts are transferred entirely to the military authorities, and as a rule this is not the case. When there is martial law, the rule is that the ordinary courts continue to function in the country. I ask again, however, those powers the Prime Minister appropriates, in how far do they differ from martial law? When he spoke this morning a question was asked him in connection with the cases now before the courts. He issued a proclamation in connection with the commandeering of rifles. It is most probably ultra vires. Recently a verdict was given in a magistrate’s court that the commandeering of rifles is against the law and in certain cases the accused have appealed. The Prime Minister was then asked whether he will allow those appeals going to court. In view of the fact that people have in their own opinion been illegally deprived of what they consider their property, in view of the fact that the people have been humiliated by being imprisoned and treated as criminals, he was asked whether he would, in view of those things, at least allow those people to appear in court, as action had been taken contrary to the law. The reply was, and it came quite heatedly from the lips of the Prime Minister: No, I shall not allow it under any circumstances. I now ask you, these powers he wants to appropriate, how much respect does he show therein towards the courts of the land? I, therefore, ask what the difference is between his demand, the powers he now desires to be given him, and martial law. Martial law, when proclaimed, gives power to suspend existing laws. Martial law is no law, but only the suspension of existing laws and only allows one law in the country, na mely that of a dictatorial authority. If these powers the Government now asks are accorded it, what then is its position as regards the existing laws of the country? If it may do anything it regards necessary for the defence of the Union, the safety of the public, the maintenance of order, etc., what else remains? If it should ever deem it necessary to use those powers to the utmost limit, what else remains? I, therefore, ask again what the difference is between that which the Prime Minister demands and martial law? There is one great difference between martial law and the powers he now asks, and that is that martial law, if it is proclaimed, does not relieve the people who have to give effect to the martial law from their responsibility. On the contrary, if martial law has been proclaimed, you have to come to Parliament afterwards and obtain indemnity for everything you have done, and it is for Parliament to refuse to give it or to make an exception, if it deems it necessary, in regard to the granting of indemnity. Under martial law too one remains responsible to the highest authority in the country. What does the Government do? It demands certain powers, full powers to do in this respect whatever it wants to do, and for everything it does under those powers it will not be liable to account for to Parliament. Thus it does not demand martial law only, but it goes much further than martial law. They do not need indemnity for any action taken under the powers now asked for by the Prime Minister. Everything depends solely on the will of the Government itself. Mention is made here of the fact that one important power it will receive is that of determining penalties. It can itself fix penalties for the transgressions which, in its opinion, have taken place. I should like to put the question, what the maximum penalty is going to be, which it is going to apply under the powers it now takes. Is it the death penalty? Is that included? One thing is mentioned, viz., the confiscation of property, but the Bill does not say what else is included. Is the death penalty included? I have the right to ask that question, for one of his Ministers recently declared from a public platform that the death penalty will have to be introduced for misdeeds in connection with the war.

Who said so?

I think the Minister of the Interior is the person who will be mainly in charge of the execution of these powers. He declared in public that the death penalty will have to be included, that powers will have to be appropriated to pronounce the death sentence. It will be a good thing that the people know what powers the Government is demanding. It is of great importance that not we only should know of the extent of the powers the Government is asking for itself, but that we should also enquire into the question who are the persons who will be entrusted with the execution of those powers. Are they people possessing sufficient sense of responsibility and sense of justice? On that everything depends. I understand that the execution of these powers relating to the freedom of persons and the property of persons in this country will be entrusted mainly to the Minister of the Interior. We know him well enough in this House, so that it is superfluous to say much about him. I only want to say that there are very few members of this House who have shown less sense of responsibility in the past than the Minister of the Interior. And the man possessing the smallest sense of responsibility is to be entrusted with the greatest responsibility in connection with the powers which are now being asked from Parliament. This morning he enlarged on all kinds of machinations which are taking place and movements of undermining character which have been at work for years already. After his attempt staged during the previous session with his infamous Mr. X story, after that story— it was obvious this morning on both sides of the House—not the slightest value is being attached to what he tells this House in connection with these matters. And this is the person who will be entrusted by the Government with powers such as these affecting the freedom, life and property of our citizens. But I want to come back to the Prime Minister, who after all carries the final and chief responsibility, being the head of the Government. I do not even want to say anything about the previous part of his career, but since the war started, right from the beginning, he has been proved not to possess the slightest feeling for the sentiment and rights of the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population. This started on the 4th September. When it was a matter of choice, he chose the other side. As a result of a declaration of war there would be dissatisfaction on the one side. And if you would keep South Africa out of the war, there would be dissatisfaction on the other side. The Prime Minister honoured, and was favourably inclined to, the sentiment of one section and the minority in the country and he simply trampled upon the sentiment of the Afrikaner. He does not care for that. He had been told previously by the Leader of the Opposition, then the Prime Minister, that if he were to drag South Africa into the war, there would be the deepest dissatisfaction in South Africa, more in particular amongst the Dutch-speaking section of the people. The Leader of the Opposition said that you cannot expect them to approve of this war. The Prime Minister simply ignored it, because the sentiment of the unnational, anti-national section of the population with its divided loyalty, counts more with him. He does not care tuppence for that section of the population which knows South Africa and South Africa only as its own fatherland. He is the man asking for the granting of those powers. He not only ignores the sentiment of part of the population, but, he tramples it underfoot and is busy and was all the time busy to provoke and annoy them. He was told this morning that coercion is being used to force unwilling people to sign the red oath, the khaki oath, and to enlist for military service. He flippantly replied that it is not true and the irresponsible Minister of the Interior thereafter said exactly the same. He said that it is nothing but slander to say that people are being forced. If somebody like the Prime Minister tells us that no compulsion is being exercised, one has to ask first what he understands by compulsion or coercion and what not. Does the threat of dismissal or dismissal itself mean that compulsion is applied or not? If he maintains that no compulsion is being used, I say that he is a stranger in Jerusalem, or rather he is a stranger in South Africa and is at home in Jerusalem. The Afrikaner, the national-feeling section of the population, does not receive any protection whatsoever from him. We have noticed the way he went about in commandeering rifles. I shall not go into that again, but I only want to point to the fact that some of our best and most esteemed citizens are to-day in prison and are being treated like criminals. This shows you the disdain he has for the feelings of the Afrikaner people. He does not give protection to the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population. By refusing to give such protection he has called into being a position which has become simply unbearable. Afrikaners are here being deprived of their rights. At a certain hour of the day they may not walk or move in the streets of Cape Town, and if they do they are attacked. The point is not whether it is right or wrong that we do not take notice of others who stand still and pretend to be praying. The point is whether the Afrikaner who walks because out of conviction he does not want to take part in that kind of political demonstration, has the right to act in that way or not. No attention, however, is being paid to this aspect. The Prime Minister does not want to lift a finger to remove the injustice which is being done and to give proper protection to the people. We can enumerate many other instances of what is happening in Cape Town. Let me mention a few. I just want to point out that those things arise from the Prime Minister’s attitude in refusing to respect the sentiments of the other section of the population and to protect that section adequately. There is a young lady from my constituency studying here at the University. She has been at the University for quite a few years already. She was sitting in one of the tea rooms in Cape Town. When the pause of prayer came all the people got up. Only she and her lady friend remained seated.

They ought to know better.

They did not disturb anybody, but only remained seated. When the pause was over, people thronged towards them. She was pulled at her hair and dragged around and a soldier came and grabbed her at her neck until somebody turned up to protect her. Those things do not all appear in the papers. Take the case of another lady also sitting in a tea room. She had the same experience. She disturbed nobody, she only remained seated and then somebody else took a cup of tea and shot it in her face. In another case two ladies, also as a result of the atmosphere created by the methods of the Prime Minister, had the following experience when they went into a shop to buy cake. They did nothing but ask to be served in Afrikaans. When there was some difficulty about it one of the ladies said that she would wait until she was served in Afrikaans. She wanted to uphold her language rights. An English woman standing next to her then bought the cake and paid 5s. for it and then took it and threw it in the face of the Afrikaans lady, just because this Afrikaans lady insisted on her language. I do not want to blame the English-speaking public as such. I know that the best among them also disapprove of these things, but nevertheless this is what has happened as the result of the mentality which is being shown by the Prime Minister and his refusal to adequately protect the Afrikaners. The other people look to him and think that if he acts as he does, they have the right to go further than he does. I want to protest in the strongest terms against the granting of further powers to the Prime Minister. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, we have learned from the most authoritative Opposition source that this is to be the last session of the eighth Parliament; that it is in fact merely the prelude to a “New Order,” out of which will emerge, clad in the familiar totalitarian paraphernalia and armed with all the weapons required for the physical coercion of its opponents, a German-African Republic in which there will be no place for the representatives of the African native people. In the circumstances they will, I hope, pardon my temerity in taking part in this debate while the going is good, and as it were enjoying for the last time my right and privilege as a member of this House. As a representative of a people, who for many years—without protest from the Opposition-have been governed by proclamation, and as an inheritor of the traditions of the freest Parliament and the freest people in the world, I have never been a lover of rule by regulation, and last session, I viewed with a certain amount of satisfaction the fact that Clause 2 of the Bill then before the House was dropped. But I must regard this thing from a national and not a sectional point of view, and the happenings of the past few months, which are familiar to all of us, have driven me to the conclusion that I too must support the proposal of the Government in order to safeguard the security of the state as a whole. As a result of what we have seen in this country, we find that the people, or rather let me say sections of the people, in this country, do things which normally they would not do—things which are completely un-South African, things which I am sure will eventually, when the dawn of normality comes, be greatly regretted. I am referring to these dynamite outrages on the Witwatersrand. To-day we have heard of other sinister things from the Minister of the Interior, but I doubt whether this House and the country realises the extent to which a certain section in South Africa, friends of Germany, are carrying on an insidious and cowardly propaganda in the Native Reserves of the country. It is significant that that propaganda is based on statements predicting an ultimate victory for Germany in this war. That propaganda is an appeal in the first place to the poverty of the poorest people in the country. They are informed that if Germany wins this war taxation will cease for them and everyone will receive at least 10s. per day; they will live under Arcadian conditions. On the other hand they are threatened that they may lose all they have. They are told that if Hitler comes to this country they may lose all their money, or otherwise this Government may take it. So we have had the happening that certain native people have withdrawn their money from the post office. I am glad to be able to say that this propaganda has failed completely—in spite of the efforts of the friends of hon. members opposite. The fact that it has failed is not the fault of those who seek to embarrass the Government’s war efforts by this insidious and cowardly attack. It is cowardly in this sense that, if by any chance those efforts had succeeded, the very people who use this insidious poison to create this situation, would have been the first to have insisted on the punishment of these people, and that is why it is so necessary for us to have those powers to deal with cases of this nature, so that this country may be made safe from the spectacle of these happenings. I do not want to make direct charges against members of the Opposition, but surely they must realise that people who do these things are not friends of South Africa, but friends of our enemy. Can the Opposition therefore acquit themselves of a responsibility for what has happened? If they have no direct responsibility, theirs is still a vicarious responsibility. I would like very briefly to refer to the unfortunate phase through which we are passing—the teaching of physical violence as a means to political ends. In such a country as this, with its different races, white and coloured, do we imagine that it is possible to have this sort of thing going on without its having an effect on the non-European population? Can we expect it to pass harmlessly over their heads? If we were in a European country, the situation would be bad enough, but when you are in a country with a population such as I have described, the dangers of this type of political method, of coercing people to accept the political doctrines of another section are obvious. I cannot too strongly emphasise this point, and I sincerely hope that members of the Opposition will take the opportunity of dissociating themselves from what is being done in their name. May I also refer even more briefly to a situation which has arisen and which caused a considerable feeling of sadness to many people. Whatever our differences may be politically, the fact remains that there are thousands of young South Africans who are to-day fighting side by side with the British forces in North Africa. It is regrettable to hear from the lips of a man for whom I have always had the greatest respect, from the lips of a man whom I have always referred to with respect—I refer to the hon. member for Smithfield—invidious and contemptuous comparisons between the forces which we have in the North and those of our Italian enemies. If it should happen that the determination of these young soldiers should be weakened by those remarks, should they be made to fear that while they are at the front in the North, the home front may be weakened, and their kith and kin endangered; and should, as a result of these influences, disaster come to those troops, how great would be the responsibility of those who have taken up the attitude to which I have referred. I venture to say that the mothers and wives of South Africa would never forgive them. I speak with diffidence as an English-speaking South African, but I have listened with great regret to the words of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). His remarks pained me as they must have pained many other people. One should not forget that there are many people here who have blood ties with Holland and blood ties with Great Britain. How did it come about that a man who bears an honoured military title and is said to have been a brave soldier could so far demean himself as to make a cowardly attack ….

The hon. member is now dealing with a matter which occurred in a previous debate. He must confine himself to the Bill before the House.

What I am trying to say is that sentiments of that kind create internal unrest and provide the reason for our needing those powers. I merely wish to say how sad it is for English-speaking people who feel that all these years we have been trying to work together …

The hon. member should not continue to deal with that point.

I bow to your ruling. I want to say in conclusion that it does seem to me that in times such as these it is necessary to take the powers which the Government seeks. It is a question of the safety of the state. The time has gone by when we could regard all these dangers with equanimity. The time has come when we must regard all these activities at their proper value, and we must not make the mistake which other countries have made, and that is why I support this Bill.

Yesterday afternoon when the hon. the Prime Minister asked leave to introduce this Bill I took the liberty to ask him a few questions, particularly in connection with clause 1 bis, the old clause 2. The Prime Minister was so kind to go into those points for a few minutes. I shall now try to compare those points as explained by the Prime Minister with the facts. In regard to my first question the Prime Minister said that as far as clause 1 bis was concerned its scope had been slightly curtailed if compared with the old clause 2. What is the actual position? I frankly admit that the Prime Minister was correct when he said that part of a sentence had been removed from the old clause 2, viz., this part, that this clause is also intended to ensure the well-being of the inhabitants of the Union. But the Prime Minister forgot to point out that in his new clause 1 bis the following words appear which did not appear in the old clause 2, namely that it secures “the safety of the public” by regulation. I think the Prime Minister will agree with me that as far as this is concerned he did not give us the full information. My argument is that clause 1 bis is more severe than the old clause 2. Our deputy-leader, the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan), spoke about these words in connection with the protection and safety of the public and said that those words were very comprehensive. I agree with him. They are more comprehensive than the words the Prime Minister removed from the old clause 2. In other words, if I may draw a few conclusions, the Prime Minister is wrong as far as this important point is concerned, and I was right. Furthermore the Prime Minister in reply to my question why the clause was introduced again, said that he does not want to proceed again with regulations which have to be approved of. He pointed out that he had to introduce four items by means of regulations after this Act had been approved of in February last. The first one was the prohibition of uniforms. This is terrible! The Minister of the Interior showed us exactly how terrible this is, and our hearts throbbed when we saw how he put that thing here in front of us. Anybody could, however, have told him that such things were done years ago already by irresponsible mischiefmakers, and even if we wanted to get a fright we could not manage to do so. The second item was the entry of Italy into the war. The third item was the difficulty in connection with the mineworkers, namely that the mines have to manage with less workmen and that therefore a change had to be made in regard to the wages and working hours. The fourth item concerned the rifles. Those four regulations he had to issue and that he had to do so is sufficient reason for him to reintroduce clause 2 in a more severe form in this Bill. In order to be able to do those things the powers and rights of the representatives of the people are curtailed and reduced to practically nothing. The Prime Minister in his speech in February last said that he would rather withdraw clause 2 because he reckoned that the regulations he had made already would cover 99 per cent. of the contingencies. He then had to issue another four regulations. If we calculate what percentage these four amount to, it will be certainly more than 1 per cent. There were definitely not 400 regulations and neither 200. Supposing that these four regulations meant an increase of 2 per cent. This is slightly more than he expected, and should this be a conclusive argument in favour of the introduction of this clause 1 bis? Surely not. I must say that in connection with this important matter I deplore the fact that our Prime Minister develops more and more the inclination to play the dictator. The hon. member for Piquetberg showed us in a very able exposition that the effect of clause 1 bis will in fact be worse than the proclamation of martial law can be. In this connection I now want to ask the following: Why go to all the trouble to state in (b) of clause 1 that as far as the elections for the Provincial Council and for the House of Assembly are concerned the Prime Minister will not introduce any changes? It seems as if the people have to be pacified by a feint. It definitely is a pretext. If the argument put forward by the hon. member for Piquetberg holds good, and I reckon that he adduced a very sound argument indeed, then the fact that this proposal is being made is nothing but an attempt to bluff the public. Then why not do as Hitler does and assemble Parliament once a year for a couple of hours?

They sail under false colours.

The position here in the House of Assembly is that we have to vote under false colours and on false pretexts. One important excuse I expected from the Prime Minister in favour of the introduction of this Bill was that the people had become unruly and uneasy. To my great satisfaction the Minister declared here to-day: No, the people are not uneasy, although there are a few individuals who are a bit difficult. His words were, and I jotted them down—

He said furthermore—

I congratulate the Prime Minister on having had the courage to use those words. This is the truth. The people are patient and loyal, and I wish I could use the latter word for the attitude of the Government towards the people, but unfortunately I cannot do so. If under these circumstances the argument is that this measure aims at the protection of the people, what then is the position in our country if compared to the position at the time when the previous Bill was introduced and when clause 2 was deleted and when the Prime Minister said that clause 2 would not be necessary? What was the position in the country as pictured at that time by the Prime Minister? During the declaration of war, just a year ago, there was the fear of the terrible “Marwick civil war.” This has gone now. The Minister expected disturbances in September last. It did not happen. There were fears for the expected coup d’état by Pirow, there was the danger of Communism and all those dangerous things the Prime Minister warned us against. All those things did not happen. I do not want to say that those things did not happen thanks to the wise policy and the regulations of the Government. I must say that in my opinion the people have remained loyal and patient in spite of the conduct of the Government. As the case may be, the present position in the country can certainly not be put forward as the reason for the introduction of this Bill. I have tried to imagine what exactly is going to happen if these dictatorial powers, such as are being asked here, are granted to the Prime Minister. What else will the Prime Minister be to us but a dictator? I must admit that the conclusion I came to is to my regret not very flattering for the Prime Minister. I do not even want to mention the rash decision that was taken on 4th September last year, that fatal and rash decision without we having been granted the opportunity to consult the people. In that resolution it is said that none of our people will be sent across the sea to fight there. Did the hon. the Prime Minister fulfil that promise? I see large photographs of ships full with troops, they hang there like bunches of grapes, so full are the ships going overseas. Furthermore I think of the red oath, the Africa oath, which the Prime Minister has prescribed. I do not want to make the Prime Minister personally responsible for everything that is being done, but if the Prime Minister and his Government ever took a stupid and silly step, it is the calling into being of this oath. What is the result of it? There are sections of our population which are practically being forced to subscribe to that oath. Take the police for instance. They are persons standing under discipline and who are directly dependant on the officers above them as far as their future is concerned. If these people do not subscribe to the oath for service anywhere in Africa, they are going to feel it. What is the result? That in many cases of those policemen and also of other officials, who are dependent, the Government forces them to commit perjury. This is not the work of a wise dictator. The result is furthermore that the loyalty of those people has to be doubted more than ever before. It is so stupid to do things like that. If they had told the world that they were going to send volunteers to the north, they would have had thousands and tens of thousands of young men who like to take part in a war, men who are of an adventurous spirit and like to wear uniforms. They would have got those men without the institution of that oath and then they would also have had an army without all this confusion and an army of soldiers who would have been more faithful. I asked a question in connection with the recruiting problem, and I hope to receive an answer very shortly. What hurt me so is that several of our young men, after they joined up, were treated so badly. Premier Mine borders my constituency and I know that many of these persons after having been put into uniforms, had to sleep during the night on a cement floor during the cold winter, with nothing but a blanket. I know what it means to sleep on a cement floor, though the circumstances compelling me to do so were different, and I can speak on their behalf with heartfelt sympathy. Unless all the complaints we hear about the treatment these young men receive have been grossly exaggerated, the treatment that is being meted out to them there is not a very great credit to the Government. I now come to the commandeering of rifles. This is a dictatorial measure on the part of the Government and has already been discussed here. And what the Prime Minister could not understand is this: What was the effect of this commandeering of rifles, what feelings were aroused by it? I am disarmed. I had to surrender my Mauser—for the second time in my life. What feelings did it arouse? It aroused in me the remembrance of the pining and difficulties we went through in the past. Is that a wise thing to do for a dictator with the powers and the past of the Prime Minister?

Look what the position is in Holland.

Let us leave Holland alone. We have enough difficulties here without talking about Holland.

Yes, that is very convenient.

Well, my hon. friend tries to make convenient interjections. We have many difficulties in this country and difficulties which have been created unnecessarily by the Prime Minister. What particularly hurts me is the treatment meted out to our Afrikaans women. I do not only mean the Afrikaans-speaking women but also the English-speaking women, for both were represented. I do not even want to enlarge upon the sympathy every man feels towards the ideals of the woman. I do not speak here to achieve some party political advantage.

Oh, no!

No, I shall leave that to my friend over there, but what has hurt me very much is that those Afrikaans and English-speaking women walked the tiresome road to the office of the Prime Minister on Meintjieskop—but the Prime Minister did not receive them and to their letter he replied that he will not take any notice of their views. By those actions the Prime Minister has shown that in spite of all his abilities he is not a wise dictator—he is a very feeble dictator, a dictator who in my opinion will not make a success of his work in the future either. There may be dictators and rulers who give satisfaction. I now think of an old king in the grey past. That king on his death bed said—

I hope I am not a pessimist, but I am afraid that we cannot speak here of the light at sundawn — I am afraid that South Africa is being driven to its doom. This dictatorship of the Prime Minister will lead to a further estrangement amongst the people. I ask the Prime Minister to remember that on the 4th September he undertook a heavy burden of responsibility. And he drove the people away from him. I did not speak here in a spirit of party politics. What I said, I said because I am afraid that we shall find great difficulties and tension in this country, and I ask the Prime Minister to treat the difficulties in a sympathetic manner and to do the right thing.

The hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) told the House that he did not believe that the Prime Minister was right when he said that he had withdrawn clause 2 from the War Measures Bill during the last session for the reason that he did not desire to take further powers than were strictly necessary, and the hon. member told the House that the reason why the Prime Minister took this attitude was because of pressure from this side of the House. I want to say at once that the contention of the hon. member for Piquetberg is entirely wrong. The Prime Minister told his followers on this side of the House that he was going to withdraw clause 2 of the last War Measures Bill, and the quarrel of the hon. member for Piquetberg with the Prime Minister is not that he withdrew clause 2, but that he withdrew it without the hon. member for Piquetberg knowing anything about its being withdrawn, with the result that he and his followers presented the most sorry spectacle seen in this House for a long time.

What a wonderful argument.

I do not propose pursuing that any further, nor do I propose following the wanderings of the Leader of the Opposition when he endeavoured in his speech to go over all the old grounds of the cause and the righteousness of the war, and whether South Africa had any connection with the war. If I follow that line, I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that you would call me to order, and in any case if the matter has not been made sufficiently clear, then I am afraid that nothing I could say could possibly convince the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or make him think any differently. I would far rather pursue the line which was taken by the Minister of the Interior when he spoke about the various organisations afoot in this country and their various peculiarities, because it is an undoubted fact, and I think members of the Opposition as well as members on this side of the House know that there are in existence to-day all sorts of societies of all kinds and conditions. This is a most peculiar and to a certain extent novel development in South Africa. Certainly in the old days there were none of these peculiar societies, nor do I believe that it is really a trait of the Afrikaans-speaking people or of the English-speaking South Africans to go in for secret societies, but the fact remains that there are such societies in existence to-day. It is perhaps the reflection of a world movement, a reflection of a youth movement which certainly exists in other parts of the world, and which has come to South Africa. But although it is a movement foreign to the characteristics of the Afrikaans people, it is none the less a very dangerous movement, and none the less a movement which, if allowed to go unchecked, may lead to all sorts of disasters. A lot of it may be froth, a lot of it may be, as the hon. the Minister of the Interior described it, a comic opera business, but underneath it lies a very dangerous development and a concensus of feeling which can only in the long run, if allowed to proceed, end in real disaster and become a menace to this country, and I do want to suggest to hon. members opposite that they should seriously consider what the effect upon all these organisations is going to be — what the effect of the speeches which they make in the House and outside the House is going to be upon those societies. The effect of those speeches is going to be deplorable. Hon. members go through the country making speeches which can only be regarded as being definitely inflammatory and inciting and definitely working on the feelings of the people. I would like them to consider what the effect of these speeches must be. I know that they are very careful to say: “You must be careful not to do anything which may lead to disruption or disturbance of the peace,” but the whole trend of their arguments and of these speeches is in the direction of quietly egging people on to do all sorts of things which eventually will be deplored, and people who in many cases are unable to think for themselves are carried away by these speeches. And, therefore, I want to say this, that when hon. members opposite get up and put up their hands in horror about having to pass regulations under a War Measures Bill, they must realise that they themselves are to a large extent responsible for the need for these regulations. Take the speeches made by the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow). I am sorry he is not here, he never is when I want to say anything kind about him.

Why should he listen to you?

He gets up and says that he offers to lead the country. What does he mean by that? In what direction does he mean to lead the country, and when? Is he referring to his storm troops and other peculiar armies which he wants to surround himself with? I do not know whether it is a threat or a promise, but it is a very wonderful thing because actually, from all we know of the administration of his Defence Department, I do not think he could lead a German band, nevermind anything else. I rather like the idea of a German band, because I like the idea of the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Rooth) marching behind the hon. member for Gezina blowing a trombone.

And you would play the Jewish harp.

I suppose he must have had the idea of putting on the mantle of a Gaulieter, which was one of the many raspberries he was promised when he went to see Hitler. I want to warn the hon. member that he cannot get any lighter than he is politically now without being blown out of the political arena altogether, because he does not count for very much now.

Then why do you worry about him?

His kind of speeches can lead to only one thing. I have said it before. Every session I marvel more and more at the hon. member’s attitude. He has told us, and so have other hon. members opposite, that they express the real feelings and the real thoughts of the Afrikaans-speaking people. If that is so, why then do they always try to impress the world that the Afrikaans-speaking fellow is such a very poor specimen? We on this side have a very much higher idea of the Afrikaans fellows than they have. We do not believe that he approves of this sort of thing, we do not believe that he is a hands-upper, or one who would turn his back on his friends in times of adversity. We do not believe that that is an Afrikaans trait. I have fought alongside Afrikaansspeaking fellows, and I have played games with them and I have never found that quitting was a trait of the Afrikaans-speaking people. Yet this is the kind of thing which members opposite are trying to make us believe is a national characteristic.

You are talking nonsense.

I am not.

Well, anyhow, you cannot talk anything else.

Let me say this. The result of the recruiting appeal made by the Prime Minister does not show that I am talking nonsense. That appeal has met with a significant and splendid response from the Afrikaans-speaking section. In the last war the Afrikaans man was a, fine soldier, and so to-day in every recruiting camp you will find the highest praise for the Afrikaans soldier by every commanding officer. They will all tell you what Splendid material they are. That does not show that I am talking nonsense, nor does it show that the opinions of hon. members opposite are the right ones. We have a much higher opinion of these young fellows.

Your opinion does not count.

The Afrikaans people, if they were left to express their own opinion, would not approve of the actions of hon. members opposite. They would not approve of getting out of the war as hon. members opposite are suggesting they should. When the South Africans come back after this war they will come with a greatly enhanced reputation, and the people who have taken part in the war will be the proudest people of all, and then hon. members opposite will also be proud. Then some of you gentlemen who have been misrepresenting them will know all about it. If hon. members opposite instead of trying to throw sand into the works on every possible occasion, instead of trying to do all they can to stultify the Govérnment’s war effort, were to lend a hand, if they were to give sound and sober criticism, if they were to offer constructive criticism, the need for half of these regulations which we have on the Order Paper would disappear. I am afraid it is too much to hope for. I am afraid it is asking more than one can expect. I am afraid you are not big enough to do it. But notwithstanding the attitude of the Opposition, notwithstanding their going through the country and making all these speeches, notwithstanding their efforts to stultify what the Government is doing, we are going on and we shall go on, notwithstanding what they do. If they object to the passing of these regulations, if they object to the passing of this War Measures Bill, let me say that they have largely brought it on themselves, and even if they do not like it they will have to put up with it.

This Bill of the Government’s, this War Measures Bill, is now going too far and that is why I rise to express my indignation and my disapproval of it. Sub-clause (4) of clause 1 reads—

“To have been.” In other words this Act is given retroactive force. It is intended to legalise the illegalities in respect of the people who are kept in gaol to-day, and to keep them there. It is a scandal. Here we have the proof that the magistrate at Worcester, Mr. Du Toit, has stated that the regulations are ultra vires. That was his judgment in the De Visser case, and I do not believe that it is necessary to look for stronger proof. But now we are told that the Prime Minister refused to allow the people to go to the Appeal Court with the cases. Herbert Smith of Bethal was sentenced by the Bethal magistrate to four months’ imprisonment with hard labour, of which two months were suspended for six months. That is the punishment he got because he refused to hand in his rifle. The Government on that day did not have money to pay for his rifle, and that is the reason why he refused to hand in his rifle. To-day he is locked up in a native gaol.

Shame, shame!

And moreover it is even illegal. But let me just go a little further into it. The same magistrate on the 22nd August this year — I am quoting from Die Vaderland of the 22nd August — convicted a white Jewish farmer in the district who was convicted on 137 charges — 68 for assault and 69 for withholding wages from native labourers on his farm — punished by a fine of only £8. The statement was that the accused was locked up with the first group and was guarded until the following morning. Herbert Smith is a member of the Boer nation. The Jewish farmer, it is unnecesary to say, is a follower of the Prime Minister.

What does the magistrate say?

He is sitting with the sign of the beast on his shoulder.

What is that?

They know very well what it is. It is the distinguishing badge which the Khaki Knights wear, the red tab and the national scout badge. It is the sign of the beast. Hon. members on the other hand are bellowing like a low-class ox. May I here say they possibly cannot do anything else. I foresee the day that they from loyalty to the Empire will yet, like Nebuchadnezar, still eat grass. I have here another report in connection with court cases. In accordance with this report there are a great many dealers being sentenced owing to usury, namely the following persons, inter alia, Herbert Rendell, of Hillbrow, fined £10 or 14 days hard labour, Aaron Dembow, £10 or 14 days, Wilfred Crawford, £5 or 7 days, Michael Zulberg, £10 or 14 days, Hyman Cooper, £10 or 14 days, Costos Vlaas, £10 or 14 days, Maurice Berson, Abe Esrock and Max Troupos, £5 or 7 days; and so there are even more cases than are mentioned here. They were condemned by the magistrate, Maurice Isaacs, to those light punishments, but the white Afrikaner who is a member of the Boer nation gets imprisonment without the option of a fine. Allow me to say a few words in connection with the Minister of Native Affairs. He and particularly also the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) beat their breasts and said they were such good Afrikaners. Allow me to give a definition of an Afrikaner. Any parasite or blackguard can also be an Afrikaner. As long as a man is born in South Africa he is an Afrikaner, but that is quite a different thing to being a member of the Boer nation. I want to address a word of warning to the Prime Minister and it is that the Boer nation by this humiliation of the disarmament and by locking the men in native gaols will be obliged to protect himself. This is not a threat that I particularly want to address to the Prime Minister, but I want to warn him and say that the Afrikaners will be obliged to fall back on the secret weapon. What is that? The Prime Minister may possibly imagine that it is the assegaai of a panda, possibly the sledge-hammer of Frank Johnson, and the nail of a Delilah. No, it is the weapon against unjust treatment of any respectable, decent human being. But what happened? The Prime Minister followed the advice of Achitophel, the advice of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) and of the Minister of Labour. They are the people who stand behind the Prime Minister and egg him on and say he must close down the universities, because they are exuding a Nazi spirit, who tell him that he should muzzle the Opposition Press. The Prime Minister knows better, and I hope that he will not allow himself to be led by those people. The Boer nation is now disarmed, but I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister to go further and please to take away the “kieries” from the Jews also. It is stated forsooth that the war is against Hitler, and if then the Jews flee and a kierie is left behind Hitler may possibly use it as the staff of Moses to hit the English Channel with. But, in all seriousness, I want to warn the Government to realise its responsibility towards the Afrikaner people as well.

You are now going too far.

Why too far? The day of reckoning will also come for them. The Prime Minister told us here that he commandeered the rifles because he needed them for the troops. He told us that he did not have the necessary rifles. That is not the whole truth. The Prime Minister knows that he has the disposition of a shipload of 6.5 Portuguese Mausers which he took over in 1915. There are, therefore, sufficient arms. This is only a method of deceiving us. Those rifles were taken away from the burghers out of fear and for no other reason, and seeing that he has now taken these weapons he exposes our people to danger on the countryside. It is a scandal against the women of South Africa. If it is true what the Prime Minister said, why does he then take away the .22 cartridges? That is sufficient proof that we are being misled.

The hon. member who has just sat down has once more said that the rifles should have been handed in because the Prime Minister wanted to disarm the people. Let us now, once and for all, put an end to that story. He referred here to the fact that the proof of that was that the Government did not commandeer the .22 cartridges as well. He was a soldier, and he knows it; but if he were to go to one of our military camps he would find that rifles with a calibre for which those cartridges are used are to teach people to shoot. He knows that the art of shooting can be taught with such rifles. The hon. member for Bethal (Mr. C. J. van den Berg) would have done the same thing if he was responsible for the training of troops. Let us now hear the last of that story. The second thing that I want to say in connection with this is that hon. members want to make out that our troops are badly armed. To let it be understood in this House that the Government should now have recourse to the calling in of all kinds of useless rifles, because the country is so badly armed, is to give information to the enemy which may be injurious to our country.

That is the information which you yourselves give to the enemy.

Then put an end to it. Moreover it has been stated here that many of the sporting rifles which are within the prescribed calibre are not .303, and that they cannot be used for military purposes. Those sporting rifles are necessary, and if hon. members go to the places which are being guarded then they will see that those rifles are necessary for inland armament. Those people are armed with these sporting rifles instead of with the ordinary military rifles.

What about the cartridges with lead points?

It does not matter whether they are cartridges with soft noses which are required for such rifles. They are good enough for anyone who has to do service in the home front, in order to prevent crimes being committed here. I can point out to the hon. member that the old Martini-Henri only shoots with a soft nose, and all the warders in our gaols always have had one of those rifles or revolvers which use cartridges with soft noses. No, those arguments simply will not hold water. The hon. member for Bethal with tears in his eyes gave a long list of names of people who had been punished. I hope that he will go and tell those people in the country that it is only due to one thing why they had to undergo a punishment, and that is that they do not obey the law of the land, and I hope that he will, in addition, emphasise that their sentence was specially attributable to hon. members opposite, who have induced those people to despise the law. I want to ask the hon. member for Bethal who told the people in the country that they ought not to obey the law.

It is not the law yet; the law is only now being made.

It is no use bringing up an attorney’s argument like that. The people refused to hand in their rifles, because their leaders told them not to do so, and not because a technical point in connection with the proclamation might be raised. It was a wilful contravention, not to obey the law. That is why the people were punished, and those leaders who gave that advice to the people are the cause of the suffering that they are passing through today. I think that it is a scandal that those people have to stop in gaol and that they should have to pay fines, and that the people opposite who are the cause of it now stand here and talk about it. I should feel myself deeply responsible if I were to be the cause of those people being in gaol because I had given them such irresponsible advice. Hon. members opposite will go on misleading the people in that way; they will continue agitating and talking about storm-troops, and then in the long run it will once more be those misguided people who will have to pay the piper, and they will come and weep with tears in their eyes.

Is this a threat?

No, it is not a threat, but these are facts which happen in the country. One cannot go and give advice to people in the country which gets them into difficulties and then subsequently come and plead on their behalf here. I would like to explain my attitude in connection with these measures. I want hon. members clearly to understand that I do not want this Bill to be applied in any way so as to encroach on the liberties of our people. I do not want to restrict the liberty of the citizens of the country nor do I want to hinder the freedom of expressing one’s opinion and the free national feeling. But if politics are being so much forced in our country that people for the sake of obtaining a political victory injure and bring into danger their country in time of war, then I say that we have no right to allow that sort of thing to continue. That is what happened in France. In France political feeling was so strong that for the sake of political victory the people and the country were brought into danger with the fatal consequences which we see there, and this is precisely what is going on in South Africa at the moment. I want to say this to the Prime Minister that it will certainly not meet with my approval if I as a parent had to see my son going to fight for his country or my friends having to go and fight for the country, and that this kind of action were tolerated to such an extent in the country, the things which are now occurring before our eyes, that the people who have to go and fight there are put into danger, or that they get into the position that they are under the impression that their families are getting into danger here—I want to tell the Prime Minister that it certainly will not meet with my approval, if such things were allowed. We dare not allow things to go on in our country which will undermine our military power with the result that we may possibly suffer reverses in the field, and I want to give the Prime Minister the assurance that we expect it of him that he will take timely steps to prevent such a state of affairs. I want again to say that I am expressing the view here, not to do anything at all to suppress liberty in the country. But we must remember that we are engaged in a war and we cannot tolerate things here which will bring our fighting forces into needless danger. It really seems to me that if the Prime Minister on the 4th September last year had then introduced a Bill like this and had enforced it in the country then much of this embitterment and division in the country would have been avoided. Why is it that we find to-day that a section of the people are advised to contravene the law; why is it that we find that people on the countryside freely speak of rebellion and of a German victory and that they will do this or the other; why is it that we hear of revenge, of a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye? It is simply because the Prime Minister was conciliatory in connection with the course of things. I therefore say that he is more than entitled to take the steps to-day which he is actually taking to put an end to that sort of thing. Hon. members opposite ought to know that they themselves will be protected by it if the Prime Minister takes this step. Feelings are already running very high and they will yet run much higher if we are to go on in this way in the country. If I were the father of a son who has to go and fight and my son were shot on the battlefield of his country and I had to listen here to the frivolous remarks which are made on the opposite side, which would welcome it, as it were, if the enemy should get the victory, and had shot my son, then I would feel very deeply aggrieved. I am a human being also and I think that the kind of thing which has been going on here will be the cause of unprecedented embitterment and hatred in the country. I therefore say that it is the best thing for this Government to take these steps in time, and I ask the Government to do so. Let us avoid things taking place which might land us in a position which might be very serious. These steps are the logical consequence of a declaration of war. We are at war. In the first instance an attempt was made to get the country to remain neutral. That attempt failed; thereafter two attempts were made to conclude peace. Those attempts also failed, and I think that it must be clear to hon. members opposite that this side of the House has now once and for all decided to go on with the war. They do not want to realise that however, and what is the result now? I say that the Opposition should now once and for all also decide whether they want us to win the war or whether they want us to lose the war. If they want us to win the war then they must either help us to win the war or they must leave us at peace to go on and win the war in our way. But to think of it that, after this democratic Parliament has twice decided that the war must continue, the Opposition is now going to adopt the attitude that it has the right to hold the view that it can undermine and weaken our forces and the spirit in the country, that I regard as an extremely unreasonable thing, as an extremely un-Afrikaans thing, and so far as I am concerned I cannot allow them practically to strengthen the hands of the enemy by this section. The Opposition must realise that now that we are involved in war and have once and for all decided to go on with the war their action can only have one result, and that is to weaken our hands, to diminish our forces, and to strengthen the enemy in consequence. To obtain the victory you can defeat the enemy in the field, shoot some of his troops, in order to diminish his strength in that way. In the second place you can apply the economic blockade to him and weaken him in such a way that he will eventually have to surrender. There is also a third way and that is a scandalous way of defeating the enemy, but it is possible to bring him to a fall by quarrel and dissension being caused amongst their own people. Why we now make an appeal to our people in our country to go and fight we find that hon. members opposite tell these people that they must not go and fight, that we have already lost the war, that our recruitment is so rotten and so insignificant that they are only going there to lose their lives. Can we win the war? Our young people are in that way made afraid to go and fight because they are told that they will have to fight with bad equipment against well-armed men. All those things are said, and then we still get threats such as those that lie before me on my table. The threat is, of course, not signed, but it is that I shall be shot dead if I continue to give my support to the war.

We get lots of those.

That is what is happening in the country, and in addition we have organisations which are carrying on in the country who devote themselves to this kind of thing. I say that if the Prime Minister does not use this measure, and use it within a short while, to put a stop to that kind of thing, then I and others who Support him in this war will have reason to blame him for not having acted firmly enough. We are going on with this war, whether hon. members want it or not, and whether they agree with us or not, and if we should possibly lose this war, which I do not believe will happen, then one of the great reasons for it is that hon. members on the other side have weakened our efforts. If they proceed from that point of view, if we lose the war, they will then negotiate successfully to establish a government which will be advantageous to them, then I say that we, as an Afrikaner nation must have fallen very low, if that is the standpoint we are going to adopt, and then we most certainly cannot hope to save the Afrikaner nation in that way. I want to mention a few things more why it is high time for the Prime Minister to take steps. The first is the so-called cultural associations which we have in the country now. There was a time when they were cultural associations, but even at that time I thought it necessary to warn some associations that they ought not to meddle in politics. I have been a member of many of them. We know that even the present Leader of the Opposition made an attack on the Broederbond. He made an attack on that organisation, and also on other organisations. There are the Ossewa-Brandwag and the Hand-hawersbond. These organisations are not even political associations any longer. They have become Nazi movements. Does it redound to our honour as Afrikaners that we have left our culture in the hands of movements like that? Is that the way to build up the culture of South Africa? I say that it is a shame that those who are responsible for it to allow the Afrikaans movements to be dragged into the mud in that way by becoming adjuncts of foreign movements and elements.

And what about the khaki knights?

A great deal has been said here about khaki knights. Let me here say that if there are people belonging to the truth association telling lies to get other people into difficulties, then I would like the matter to be brought to my notice and proved, and I will see to it that they are dealt with.

But they have been guilty of committing perjury and they were not brought before the court.

It is possible that people have committed perjury against other citizens in the country. Perjury was committed long before the war broke out. I, however, want to go further. The first motion was in favour of neutrality. Subsequently the Opposition introduced two peace motions. All those motions were rejected. If those motions had been debated purely on their merits, then I could have understood it, but in both cases the reasons that were given were not that we should remain out of European wars, not that we should separate ourselves to prevent disunion in our country. Those motions were not argued on their merits, but the first object was to justify Hitler, and thereafter again in order to show us how weak England was. That sort of thing cannot be permitted. Regulations are required against it. If we are to allow any further undermining like that of our cause, then it will be open support to the enemy, and we cannot, in a belligerent country allow organisations and persons to do things of that kind. References have often been made here to a republic. References were made to it in the old Nationalist Party. But now we find that the people who were opposed to a republic, and who also taught me to do the same, are now joining up with the old Nationalists opposite, and a republic is openly advocated. When they hold a meetting on the countryside then they put people under the impression that if Hitler wins then we shall get a republic in South Africa. Further, they say that Hitler is going to win, and that we are already finished. I know of over a hundred people who were ready to join up to go and fight, but after the Leader of the Opposition wrote his letter to the Prime Minister to make peace because England was already beaten, they refused to join up. I hear that hon. members opposite say that they are glad about it. Well, if they are glad about it that our numerical strength in the field is being diminished, then it is a proof that they want the enemy to obtain the victory.

The lives of those 100 men have been saved.

Hon. members opposite can say what they like, but a man who says that he wishes Hitler to win is doing something which ought not to be allowed in our country. They must remember that they are not only fighting against Germany. We are also fighting against Italy, and if our enemies obtain the victory, how do we know to whom we are going to be handed over? Say, for instance, that if it were to happen that it was not left to Germany but to Italy to attack this country, and they were then to defeat us, will hon. members opposite then tell me that they will be glad that the Italian troops have been victorious and that they are streaming into the country? To tell me that they did not know that Italy would come into the war is simply an evasion. They did know it. To sit and wait here until Italy tramples upon us is nothing else but cowardly. To talk of love for your country and your people, and then to act in such a way, well, a person would have to be a blackguard to believe in there being any love for their country and people on the part of such members. I want to mention something here which was published in the newspapers. I understand that the documents are in the hands of the Government, and I therefore, take it that what has been published is true, namely, that there is a German organisation being carried on in our country to gradually prepare our country for Nazism, to subsidise Afrikaans newspapers with money, as well as other organisations, in order so to undermine and divide us, so to set one section over against the other section, so that if war were to come Germany would be able to conquer us easily. We know the methods of Nazism. What is more, have we not found that since the first day of the war the Opposition newspapers have written embittered articles against England, bitterer articles than Goebbels himself could write? Indeed, I say that it is high time, and that it has long been time for us to have such regulations as those the Prime Minister now wants confirmed. If the Prime Minister does pot want the public to lose confidence in him, if he does not want the public to think that he is weak, then he must take steps now to stop this kind of thing in our country.

Do not encourage him.

Take another thing. It is spread about that England had something to do with the declaration of war which was decided upon in this House. Those are falsehoods which have been repeated right through the country, and then the public are made hostile towards England. Why not make an attack on us on the merits of the case? But here an attack is now being made specially on England, and attempts are being made here to give the deepest thrusts to England which one could give to any nation. Everything that is bad in history is brought up once more, and that even by our former friends in the United Party, who told us that England was the mother of our freedom, and who were taught by the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) to do so, and that the British Navy was our protection. To-day enmity against England is revealed, and it is daily becoming sharper and sharper. England is our ally. We are in with England in this war. If England is beaten then we are beaten, and then our ally is being treated in this way. Take the danger which all these stories involve in connection with the natives. I know how numbers and numbers of natives who are working in Vereeniging have been brought under the impression of these lies that Germany has practically obtained the victory, and that they would get 10s. a day from Germany. They have been so strongly put under the impression that Germany has obtained the victory, that they immediately asked for the 10s. a day. Can we now permit people to tell that sort of thing to natives? If those natives get out of hand, then not only will this side of the House suffer in consequence, but the whole country will suffer by it. I, therefore, say that we cannot do otherwise than allow these powers to be given to the Government, because it is the Government which takes the responsibility upon itself of protecting the country against these things. If the Government does anything which is wrong and which the country disapproves of, then there will be a day of reckoning, and then the people will settle with the Government. It is not necessary to say much about these things now. It must be clear to everybody that this sort of thing is going to cause trouble in the country. Just to show what regulations are required, we might refer hon. members to the atmosphere which was brought about in the country by the action of hon. members opposite, an atmosphere which we cannot allow in our country in time of war. Hon. members opposite and their supporters are holding protest meetings throughout the country. Unheard-of things are being said there. Those things are listened to by people amongst whom there are weaklings; they do what they should not do, and if they get into gaol the next day or the following one, then we have the position that innocent people are suffering in consequence of the irresponsible acts of people who ought to know better. We cannot allow those things any longer, and unless more stringent measures are taken now, we cannot stop it. It is no use for hon. members to rise here to disapprove of that kind of thing by their speeches, when their actions create that atmosphere in the country. I want to ask hon. members opposite this, that they really should realise that both sections are living in this country, and that both sections will have to continue living here. Let us not now unnecessarily act so blindly that when some day the war is over, it will be almost impossible for us to live together here. I especially ask them not to do things now to make the position difficult for our own flesh and blood, who are concerned in this struggle.

Do not oppress the Afrikaners then.

Hon. members opposite cannot tell me where Afrikaners are being oppressed. The free right that they have of expressing their views testifies that they are not oppressed. I say that hon. members opposite act in this House and in the country in a way which drives the population in the direction where people injure their own flesh and blood. It is going to make the position of the country very difficult later on. Let hon. members and their followers rather remain at home, and leave us to go on with the war. If we lose the war, then it nevertheless is their view that they will not lose anything in consequence.

But we nevertheless also have to pay for the war.

Yes, the whole country also has to pay for the fatal consequences of the maintenance of the gold standard, and those hon. members opposite are still following the same people who were responsible for those losses in our country.

You also supported the maintenance of the gold standard.

I did so because I was taught to do so; whether I voted for it or not, the fact remains that it was a great mistake that was made, which cost the country a great deal. Hon. members opposite all know it. I only want to say this, that if these measures are applied, and we still lose the war, then it will not assist hon. members to cherish the hope that we shall get a republic here. If there is one country that Germany needs, then it is our country, and this is the last country that she would allow to slip through her fingers.

The hon. member cannot go into that now.

I say that we require these measures so that we can take action to prevent the public from doing things which will hinder and handicap us to collect all our forces in order to carry the war through to a successful end. If we win the war, well and good, then hon. members opposite must conduct themselves in such a way that we can once more all live in the country together, so that we can continue our activities and the life of our people for the future of South Africa.

The hon. member who has just sat down told us that he was taught to vote for the gold standard. One must assume that he now has again learned to vote for the Government and for these measures. His speech is a proof of a guilty conscience. He spoke so loudly that he had to drown his conscience which wanted to speak to him. I can only say that if that is the sort of speech which we are going to get from the opposite side, if that is the kind of speech which recommends the Government to pass measures in order to be able to prosecute citizens of the country, then those hon. members on their side must also expect us on this side to say that if France could have instituted an enquiry into certain things which had happened in that country, then South Africa can also do so.

If an enquiry is instituted, then you will be in trouble.

In France an enquiry was instituted as to who was responsible for dragging France into the war, and if France wanted to institute that enquiry then I say that South Africa will also be entitled to institute an enquiry into who is responsible and who has spent foreign money to drag South Africa into the war.

I do not think that that is a matter which concerns this motion.

I am only trying to reply to the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) when he said that an enquiry should be instituted as to who was actually responsible for people being sent to gaol in consequence of the war. I only want to add, in passing, that in France an enquiry is being made in connection with the money that came into France, and which, inter alia, was made available to the Press and other people in connection with an attempt to drag France into the war. As that was being done in France, I feel that it ought to be done in South Africa as well, and that an enquiry ought to be instituted about the foreign money which came into South Africa from overseas in connection with the encouragement to enter the war. I say that if it was necessary in France, then it ought also to be done in South Africa, and I am saying this to the hon. member for Vereeniging. The hon. member for Vereeniging said that if we knew of people who did certain things, then we should hand over the names to him. I only want to say that we will not hand them over to him, but rather to the responsible people. The hon. member cannot act on our behalf, but the enquiry, if it is made in connection with all the injustice that is taking place, will be a strict enquiry, and then his offer, this we can tell him, will be no excuse. Stories have been told by the Minister of the Interior, and also by the hon. member for Vereeniging, of defeatism and underground activities. The hon. members there are supporters of certain associations which do underground work to get hold of money, to get money from England as well, in order by so doing to put through their war measures.

They get pounds instead of marks.

The Minister of the Interior, if I understood him rightly, said that there were movements going on in South Africa, and that the movements were framed on military lines. That is his great complaint. The Minister, who is such a fiery supporter of the truth league, should just examine the constitution of that truth league. That league has a commandantgeneral, and is constituted along military lines.

You are thinking of the storm troops.

The Minister produced an unknown tunic here. No one yet knows where he found it. Is it possibly a tunic which he got hold of at some political meeting or other into which he had speaked in again? I want to refresh the Minister’s memory a little. He is such an enthusiastic supporter of the knights of truth, who, according to him, do not work underground. He apparently does not know that they also are fashioned on a military basis. His objection to other movements is that they also are fashioned on military lines. The truth legion has the commando system, is based on the commando system of South Africa. The Minister probably did not know that. The Ossewa-Brandwag is constituted on military lines, and is therefore, in his opinion, an underground movement, and does the terrible things that the Minister spoke of. The knights of truth have a commandantgeneral. There he sits, the Prime Minister. The Ossewa-Brandwag also has a commandant-general.

Where is he?

The Ossewa-Brandwag has an oath which its members have to take. The truth legion under the commandant, Gen. J. C. Smuts, also have an oath which they have to take. I just want to quote that oath. A part of it reads—

“To spread the truth.” That is apparently why they appointed Wilson to spread the light of truth—

Now I just want to say where the money comes from to spread the truth, but first of all I want to compare that oath with the oath of the Ossewa-Brandwag—

Now I want to ask the Minister whether he cannot also sign that oath as an English-speaking person. So far he ought to have no objection against it, and after his speech I believe that he will possibly have no objection to signing it. It goes further. The knights of truth, some of whom are sitting on the other side of the House, have to solemnly promise to faithfully support the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior. Both the Truth League and the Ossewa-Brandwag have the commando system. They have a headquarters. The knights of truth have their adjutants under the commandant-general, and then also fieldcornets and assistant field-cornets, and then also flag officers as well. I suspect that the last-mentioned persons are those who have to lead with the Union Jack in front of the commandant-general. I want to inform Ministers a little about the movement which they are so enthusiastically supporting. The Ossewa-Brandwag is now being called an underground movement. It has a coat-of-arms. What is the coat-of-arms?

The swastika.

The coat-of-arms of the Ossewa-Brandwag is well known. It is the wheel of the ox-wagon, with the oxwagon in front of it, and the colours of the Vierkleur inside the spokes. The knights of truth also have their coat-of-arms. I suppose that it is not prohibited. It is a torch which is sketched on the map of Southern Africa. That is the coat-of-arms.

Is there not a Malay fez on it?

They say that we have storm troops, but if one goes to Adderley Street at 12 o’clock noon and see how the skollies act there, then you have to conclude that they are not knights of truth who have storm troops. I do want to ask the Minister of the Interior not to use such cheap arguments. He says that there are underground movements in South Africa which are so dangerous. Let him just put his hand on his heart and enquire whether the bodies which he supports are not possibly doing underground work. I have not been asked to speak on behalf of the Ossewa-Brandwag, but I am only speaking because it is an Afrikaans movement, and a movement of some status and which is doing good work.

What is your position in the Ossewa-Brandwag?

I am not a member of the Ossewa-Brandwag, but after the speech of the Minister to-day I intend to become a member very quickly.

Is the Minister a khaki knight?

Now let us see where the money for the movement comes from. This movement, of course, stands in close connection with the Union Unity Fund. Now I have here a copy of a letter which was sent out by the secretariat of the Union Unity Fund, and which is dated 21st December, 1939. If anyone wants to deny the validity of the letter, he had better just do so in or outside of the House. The letter is addressed by the secretariat to the general managers of the assurance companies in Liverpool. The letter is addressed to the managers of assurance companies, who have their head offices outside South Africa. The letter reads as follows—

Unfortunately I have not got the memorandum here. The letter goes on—

Now we know where the money comes from, and that is why I said at the beginning that if it had become necessary in France to institute an enquiry as to where the money came from, to excite the people there to war, then it is doubly necessary that we, when we get into office, should without delay institute an enquiry into that kind of thing. I am glad that I was able to quote the letter, because now the names of the insurance companies, who only want to use South Africa to make money, and then to do things of the kind with which the knights of truth are occupied, are known. It was stated here that no compulsion was used towards people to go and fight. That is a lie. If you go about our country you can find numbers of those people. That is the state of affairs which prevails to-day, namely that numbers of people have been pushed out of jobs, and for economic reasons and for the sake of the maintenance of their families they have to go and join up and to-day carry the brand of the Empire. They must wear that brand on their shoulders for the sake of their bread. Many of those people are not yet in a position to make a statement, but when the time comes they will have a reasonable chance of making such a statement, and they will — I assume it; I am only speaking as a simple backbencher — get the chance of mentioning names of people and firms and officials and members of Parliament who have brought them to the point owing to economic considerations of wearing the brand of the Empire under pressure, on their shoulders. I think the sooner we understand each other after the speech of the hon. member for Vereeniging, the better. I therefore say that the people should have the opportunity of coming out with the names. I just by way of anticipation want to mention one case now. I had a personal interview with a person, and can give his name. He was an official in the Native Affairs Department, an official of high standing. He had been in the service for sixteen months and was on the fixed establishment. Without being given any reasons he received notice that he was dismissed. He then went to the chief magistrate in the place, namely Mr. Fyffe King — I am glad to have the name — and spoke to the magistrate about his dismissal. The magistrate said that the only chance he saw of saving him was that he should sign on for service and say that he was prepared to fight; if he had the red tab then there would be an opportunity for him to get his billet back. This person, who drew a good salary, was threatened in that way. The words of the magistrate were: “Sign on and take the oath.” When after negotiation with the department he could get no reason for his dismissal he went to the same magistrate again. The magistrate told him that the only way to retain his appointment would be by joining up. Is that not compulsion? The man was pushed out of his job, where he had a good salary, and the magistrate told him that only by taking the oath would he have a chance of retaining his job.

Stories.

The hon. member can come and read the letter with me. It is a young advocate to whom this injustice was done, and then it is said that no people are being forced. Day after day these things are taking place, all in the name of democracy. If that happens in South Africa in the name of democracy, then we also will have the right later on, in the name of democracy, to institute an enquiry in order to expose such things and to allow the people to see what has been going on. I just want, in addition, to ask the Prime Minister what his plans actually now are about the people who have been imprisoned because they would not hand over their rifles. They have been treated as criminals and the Prime Minister has done nothing. It was very easy for him to write to the magistrates that they should not treat these persons as ordinary criminals, not to have their hair cut like convicts, and to have to pass through the streets of our villages with handcuffs on their hands. The people will possibly forgive the Prime Minister many things he has done, but never this. They will never forgive it, and still less will they forget it. You cannot so humiliate your own people before the coloured race as he has been doing during the last six months. Now the Prime Minister says that we will have to live together again in the future. First of all our young, highly respectable farmers’ sons are put into the garb of convicts and have their hair cut, and they are conducted through the streets like gaol birds, and thereafter the Prime Minister comes along and wants to co-operate again. I refuse that method of co-operation in South Africa. If the Prime Minister had a grain of human kindness he would see that the boys whom he put into gaol, under a provision which was illegal, were immediately granted an amnesty. If he still has any humane feelings he will acknowledge his people and he will admit that the people were imprisoned under an invalid Act. The Prime Minister now comes to Parliament to save his own skin, and wants to put a Bill through to legalise what he has done illegally. By the saving of his own skin he wants to leave the innocent people in gaol. If he does not grant an amnesty, if he does not possess sufficient humane feeling, he should see to it that the young boys should no longer walk about in convict garb and be given convict food. The Prime Minister, and with this I close, can listen to the Imperialists when they come and incite him to push into the mud everything that is Afrikaans, and those who are Afrikaners, and to keep the innocent boys in gaol. But those Imperialists will not be able to help him when the day of reckoning comes.

Mr. Speaker, this debate has been largely a repetition of what took place last session, but one or two new points have just been raised. I listened with a good deal of interest to the speaker who has just sat down, the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus). He has sought to make the Government writhe by reading out a letter which has fallen into his hands. I have not the honour to be a member of the Truth Legion, but as far as I understood the hon. member he apparently challenges those of us on this side of the House to face an enquiry into where the money comes from for organisations such as these. Well, speaking for this side of the House, I am quite sure I am expressing their feelings when I say we would happily face such an enquiry provided always that the organisations which support the Opposition would be equally happy to face an enquiry into their sources of supply. It has been common talk in this country for quite a long period, even before this country entered into the war, that these organisations which are now supporting the Opposition have been receiving sources of supply from a country which shall be nameless.

You know that is a lie.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw.

The hon. member did not say that money came from overseas, that we got money from overseas, but that the report circulated that money had come from overseas, and that the report had been circulating before the war. That is not true.

I say, sir, and I repeat, I am quite sure that the organisations that support the Government would willingly face such an enquiry, but I wonder if organisations supporting the other side would be equally willing. For my part I have yet to learn that organisations which support the Government of the day, duly elected by the people of the country and carrying out the policy voted by Parliament can be termed subversive organisations, for that is what the hon. member for Moorreesburg has sought to show. I have yet to learn that that is the meaning of a subversive organisation. As far as my knowledge goes, a subversive organisation is one that seeks to upset the Government and not one that seeks to support it. But one other fresh point has emerged in the course of the debate. We have had repeated objections to these regulations because one of them is alleged to be retrospective and these objections have been based on the fact that the Prime Minister has not waited for the judgment of the Appeal Court in a case that is pending. Well, sir, hon. members on the other side of the House apparently forget that the highest court in the land is not the Appellate Division. The highest court in this country, as in every other democratic country, is Parliament, and Acts of Parliament are interpreted by the court which cannot overrule them. Apart from the new points raised, as far as I have been able to judge, most of the protests against this Bill have been launched in the sacred name of democracy. Well, hon. members of the Opposition must forgive me if I say that we on this side of the House have received those protests with considerable scepticism, if not with a certain amount of amusement. Members on that side of the House apparently reserve their love of democracy purely for parliamentary consumption. Here they are very vocal in their love of democracy. When they go outside and address meetings on the platteland, then apparently they dissemble their love. On such occasions they have been known to toy and to flirt with other forms of government. On such occasions they have been known to threaten the people of this country with other forms of government which are completely contrary and foreign to the feelings and traditions of this country. They cannot have it both ways—they cannot plead for the rights of democracy in Parliament and flirt with Nazism outside. We have had the spectacle of the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) who so yearns for the Nazi form of government outside that he seeks for storm troopers, and he has even, speaking at a recent meeting held at Linden, evolved a form of salute which he is seeking to make popular. The only thing about that form of salute is that apparently (perhaps as a delicate compliment to the Stalin-Hitler Pact) it is a communist form of salute, at least so I am informed by a correspondent in Die Transvaler. Having urged outside the House all these other forms of government, here in the House they object to this Bill, and they object to it in the sacred name of democracy on the ground that it limits the rights of the citizen. In fact they try to have it both ways. They plead for the rights of democracy because they propose to use it, in fact they do use those rights to seek to stab democracy in the back on the platteland, and even here. But we on this side of the House are determined that they shall not succeed. We on this side, unlike the hon. the Opposition, realise that there is a considerable difference between liberty and licence. We on this side know that if democracy is to be preserved it has to be disciplined, and disciplined not only in war but also in times of peace, and we know that the average citizen of this country will gladly give up a considerable moiety of his rights in times of war so that democracy can be maintained and restored in times of peace. Now we have heard a great deal against these regulations; we have heard a good many epithets applied to the Prime Minister and to members on this side. But what does seem to be beyond the comprehension of the Opposition, what they will not understand is that they largely are themselves to blame for these allegedly unpopular regulations. In fact they offer to the sacred name of democracy lip service, but they themselves cannot abide and will not abide by the decision of the greatest institution of democracy, by the decision of Parliament, not only affirmed once, when the country decided to go to war but since re-affirmed on two occasions by Parliament. And since they will not abide by this decision, that is the very reason for the bringing into force of these regulations which they pretend to find so unpleasant. Had they followed the lead given by one of their own people, Senator Brebner had they followed the lead in which he suggested that inasmuch as we were at war, a party truce should be called, there might have been no need for these regulations. That was the lead of a man who was a realist, it was the lead of one of their own leaders, a man who shewed a statesmanlike appreciation of what was happening. He said: “I do not agree with this war policy, but since Parliament has voted that there shall be war, at least let there be a party truce in the interests of the country.” But the Opposition would not follow that lead. Instead they developed a system of peace meetings and of peace propaganda throughout the country, which so worked up the people that here in this country where never before have we had such things as dynamite outrages, we now have these outrages and we have indeed very many attempts which endanger the lives and the property of the citizens of the country. And while I do not say that the Opposition have directly instigated these attempts, I do say, and I affirm sincerely, that they must be held directly responsible for all these attempts, because they have so misled many simple people by these meetings and this propaganda, and by the opposition to the policy of the Government, that they have brought into being throughout this country a real danger of disturbance, and I say that it is at their doors that must be laid the responsibility for this Bill. If the Bill is unpopular, then the responsibility is theirs, not ours. We on this side of the House support the Government, and we want peace and order in this country, and we shall do everything we can to carry out that policy. There is one other thing that I want to say. The Opposition contends that democracy is at an end in this country. They contend that the country is being ruled by a dictator. It is quite clear that they have learnt nothing from the experience of other countries. It is quite clear that they know nothing of what goes on in dictator countries, else they could not with any pretence at seriousness make such statements. The very fact that they are here in Parliament to protest against these regulations is the greatest and highest tribute, if any were needed, that this country is still indeed a democracy. They protest and base their protests on this — they make their protests in the name of “die Volk van Suid-Afrika”. In every speech of theirs we have the same phrase. They protest in the name of “die Volk van Suid-Afrika”, but I say, and the facts support me, that their claim, their claim to speak for “die Volk van Suid-Afrika” is a false one. If they speak in the name of “die Volk van Suid-Afrika” at all, they speak in the name of a very small minority. If anyone in this Parliament represents “die Volk van Suid-Afrika”, it is this side of the House. Though it has been proved time and again by figures in this House that we represent the majority of the people in South Africa, I propose to attempt once more to enlighten the Opposition. I take it that even they will not deny that 100 per cent. of the English-speaking people of the country are behind the Government.

I am afraid the hon. member is now dealing with irrelevant matters.

I am replying to what has been said in the course of this debate on several occasions — that the Opposition pretends to protest against these regulations in the name of “die Volk van Suid-Afrika”. Well, sir, in accordance with your ruling I shall not give the figures, but merely say this, that we on this side of the House represent the majority of the people in the country, because we represent not only the whole of the English-speaking people but we represent also a considerable number of the Afrikaans-speaking people of the country, we represent all the Jewish South Africans in this country, and the overwhelming, in fact the unanimous views of the Native people, who too have a stake in this war along with the rest of South Africa. Then there is this point too which I want to make, that the Opposition’s real grievance against these regulations is not because they believe in democracy and not because they think that their democratic rights are being interfered with, but the real grievance they have against these regulations is that they will make it even more difficult for their inconsiderable minority to rule the considerable majority of this country. Sir, I propose for my part to vote for these regulations, because I believe with the utmost strength of my soul and of my heart and of my mind that they are necessary for the successful prosecution of the war. I propose to vote for them for that reason, and also because I believe that they represent the feelings of the vast bulk of the people of this country who want this war to be fought to a successful conclusion. And the only way to do that is by bringing in regulations such as these which will give the Government the powers which are required in a country at war. And for my part, I think that despite the protests of the Opposition, despite their protests against what they term these undemocratic actions, I believe that in their hearts they too realise that without such regulations this country could not carry out its declared policy to bring the war to a successful conclusion.

We were dragged into the war by the opposite side of the House, and now they want us to approve of everything which they propose in order to be able to carry on that war. We have consistently been opposed to the war, and we on our part will not vote anything for the continuation of this war. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) said that we were going about the country talking about a republic. That is no new thing. It was always the policy of this party, and we say that that is the only thing which will bring a true peace in South Africa. He also tried to defend the Prime Minister in regard to the commandeering of rifles. I can tell him that no one in this House, except myself, believes the Prime Minister when he tells us that he commandeered the rifles because he required them for military purposes. I think even the Prime Minister himself does not believe that reason. Rifles were commandeered which were entirely unserviceable. I know of rifles which were commandeered which are not even of any use to shoot game with, and of others for which cartridges could no longer be obtained. What does the Prime Minister want to do with those rifles? The hon. member for Vereeniging further said that the .22 cartridges were commandeered because they were used to teach people to shoot. He can only tell that to the other side, but he need not tell it to this side. A child would not believe it. I am convinced that his own side does not believe it either. Let the Prime Minister be honest and tell us why he commandeered the rifles. The reason is that he was afraid that there would be a rising, and he wanted to disarm the people. It is a great insult that he has done the people. I can give him the assurance that the Afrikaners will not rebel. They have more sense than to do that, than to seek their salvation by taking up arms. They have something better to use, and they will use it when the opportunity comes. It is necessary for him to use weapons. The smoke screen is now however being put up that the rifles are necessary to see the war through. When the hon. member for Vereeniging was asked what he wanted to do with cartridges with soft noses—the English of course do not shoot with things like that: it is only the Germans who do so—he said that those cartridges would be used if the Government had any trouble in the interior. The intention apparently is to tackle our own people with soft-nosed cartridges. Those stories about the soft-nosed cartridges and about the .22 cartridges we do not believe. They are not of such a kind that we need bother our heads about them. I say that a great insult has been committed against the Afrikaners, because their rifles were taken away from them. It is not the leaders and the members on this side who told the people that they should not surrender their arms. We told the people that they could do nothing else. The Government had the supreme power, and issued the proclamation, and if people did not hand in the rifles then they would possibly have to stop in gaol for a month or two, or be fined. We advised the people to surrender their rifles, although we disapproved of this proclamation by the Government. But there really were people who were not aware of this proclamation. They lived far away. They did not get the newspapers, and they do not have any wireless sets. And here I want to take off my hat to the magistrate of Willowmore, for having taken those circumstances into consideration. Well-disposed magistrates take that into consideration and do not inflict imprisonment. But I want to mention the case of the magistrate of Klerksdorp. I think that if there is an opportunity of settling accounts with anyone, then we should settle accounts with him. He was out to put every Afrikaner into gaol, if he could only get the chance. It is he who was giving so-called information to the natives, and who did everything in his power to stir up the natives against the farming population. He is out to put the Afrikaners into gaol, and he insulted them in a disgraceful way. I say that South Africa has no room for people of that kind. They ought not to be allowed to stop here when the war is over. The hon. member for Vereeniging said that we on this side wanted Germany to win. It makes no difference to me which of those two wins the war, so long as South Africa wins. I can give him the assurance whether England wins the war or whether Germany wins the war, there will only be one direction for us, and that is to get a republic in our country, and to purify our country from the class of man who is like the magistrate of Klerksdorp. We are not pro-German, but we are not pro-English either; we are pro-Afrikaans, and we hope always to remain pro-Afrikaans. Hon. members opposite who are now proEnglish will probably become pro-German if Germany wins the war. It makes no difference to us who wins it; we will always remain pro-Afrikaans. We do not want to flee to Canada or to go over the water: if trouble comes to South Africa, then that trouble will find us here. If the Prime Minister wants to be fair, seeing that he is now bringing this Bill before Parliament, then he should not take away from them the rights which people have. We cannot take away a vested right from a man. That is one of the great principles of British jurisprudence. They speak on the opposite side about British jurisprudence, and of British fair play. They talk every day about fairness, and now I ask the Prime Minister, and those hon. members opposite, whether it is not an essential principle of British jurisprudence, and of our legal system, that a man’s vested rights must be protected. If a man is put into gaol as the result of a proclamation which is ultra vires, then that man has a vested right to prosecute an appeal. This proclamation may be ultra vires. The magistrate of Worcester said that that was so. Now admitting that that proclamation is ultra vires, then those who were condemned under that proclamation have the right of noting an appeal. Is it not possible now to include a clause in this Bill that such men will be excluded, so that they can prosecute an appeal? If the Prime Minister only had a little Afrikaner feeling in him, then he could do so. But it looks as if he no longer had any sympathy with the Afrikaners. Now look at the peculiar position we are in. In Johannesburg a case was heard — I think that it was in Johannesburg or in the neighbourhood of it — and the exception was taken that the proclamation was ultra vires. The magistrate dismissed the exception. In another case in Johannesburg the magistrate postponed the case to consider his judgment. The public prosecutor agreed that the case of the attorney for the defence in favour of the exception put him into a difficulty, and that he must admit that he had no counterargument. The magistrate then adjourned the case to consider his judgment. In Worcester there was also a case before the magistrate. The attorney raised the exception, and the magistrate decided that the proclamation was ultra vires. Here now we have three cases. In the one case the magistrate gave a judgment that the proclamation was valid; in the other case he reserved his judgment, and in the third case, namely at Worcester, the exception was upheld and the accused was discharged. The man at Worcester was discharged, and is justice now being done towards the other people who are in gaol? I challenge anyone to tell me that I advised my constituents not to hand in their rifles. I condemned the proclamation. I said that I thought the proclamation was a scandal, and that it was an insult on the part of the Government to do such a thing to our people. I told the people that it was a sign to them that they should throw this Government out of office as soon as they got a chance to go to the ballot box again, but I added to that that at the moment we were in trouble, and I advised them to hand in their rifles. But there are people who are in the position that they were arrested because they did not know in time about the proclamation. I ask the Prime Minister to assist those people. The hon. member for Vereeniging further said that we went about the country advising people not to go to the war. Where the question was put to me at meetings by people as to whether they should join up or not, I said they could join up if they wanted to, but I was not going to join up. I further told them this, that my son was in the public service and I had also told him not to join up. I also told him this, that if he were dismissed because he did not join up, then there was always a divisional council and a town council at Willowmore where the majority were Nationalists, and he could then go and work on the roads for 3s. a day. We will provide for him before he sheds a drop of blood in England’s wars, because I do not want to have the scandal in my family that one of them had sacrificed a drop of blood in England’s wars. Take all the misery that we have here in, our country. Have we to blame Germany for that? I am not pro-German but I am just as little pro-English.

You are antiEnglish.

Of course. Look at the monument at Bloemfontein.

The hon. member is now wandering away from the subject before the House.

I say further that I do not want to be commandeered, and therefore I am against this Bill which is before the House. There are members sitting opposite who are dependent entirely on their parliamentary salaries, and we can understand them joining up in order to draw the additional salary. They can join up; the “loyal Dutch” will join up, and then the Jews and the Englishmen. They can go. What we feel in the country is that our young people are simply being forced to join up, and if they do not do so then the position is made impossible for them. I have a letter here in my possession from a boy at Willow-more who was dismissed here in Cape Town. He was in the Service Battalion; he was sent to Pretoria and subsequently to Potchefstroom, where he landed in the artillery. He tells me that he was not prepared to take the oath, and that they then gave him no rest and he has left the service.

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

When business was suspended at 6 o’clock I was engaged in proving that pressure was actually being exercised on people to join up with the army. I want again to raise the case in connection with which I have already written to the Prime Minister. It is the case of a boy at Willowmore who at my instance joined up with the Special Service Battalion. At the end of last year, or early this year, he was transferred to the artillery at Potchefstroom. During March and April the boy was asked day after day, or in any case quite a number of times, whether he was not prepared to sign up. He said that he was not prepared to do so. On the 28th April he went on vacation to Willowmore to visit his parents. He was paid up to the end of April. On the 20th May he received a telegram in Willowmore to come back to Potchefstroom. He then went back, and when he arrived there he was asked again why he would not sign the oath. He said that he did not want to talk politics but that he was prepared to do his work. He was then transferred to the Cape. There he was asked four times at the Castle why he did not want to take the oath. He asked whether he could talk politics, because otherwise it was useless to say anything. He said that he would do his work, but was not prepared to take the oath. In June he was dismissed. In May and June up to the time of his discharge at the end of June, he did not get a penny salary. I wrote to the Prime Minister, and after I had waited a month the reply came that the boy was never asked to take the oath. I do not believe it. I cannot believe it. I know of many others who were pressed to sign. That boy worked two months longer without getting any pay. The Minister wrote to me that he was paid up to the end of June. I shall be glad if the Minister will investigate the case, because the boy says that he only received pay up to the end of April, and that he was thrown on the streets without a penny. With the assistance of friends he had to find his way home. This is one of the scandalous ways in which we want to wage war on behalf of England, a war with which we have no concern at all. It is the children of the poor people who are treated in that way. They would not do it in regard to your children and mine, who can possibly still get some assistance, but the poor class of the population who are not able to offer any resistance are treated in that way. That is your method of action, and you know that it takes place.

The hon. member must address the Chair.

Those are the methods which are employed on the other side. They see to it that they can remain here. They cannot go to the war, because then we will outvote them, they say. They have a large majority of eighteen. A batch of fifteen could go, anyway, but no, the poor class of Afrikaner must be forced in that way to take part in the war. The Prime Minister introduces this Bill and says that it will only apply in connection with the prosecution of the war, but what is necessary for the prosecution of the war? According to this Bill, you can bring anything under it. Everything can be brought in in connection with the war, whether it is road making or the railways, everything. That is why we are opposing the Bill, because we think that we cannot grant the powers of the Prime Minister which even a Mussolini or a Hitler does not have. Mussolini and Hitler still have a policy which they are following, but the Government over there has none. Now the Prime Minister says that if he does anything which he may not do under the law, then we can go to the court. But numbers of people are now in gaol who did not hand in their rifles, who reckoned that the proclamation under which the rifles were demanded was ultra vires. Then they noted an appeal, and now the Prime Minister comes to thwart them and to prevent them from going to the court. The same thing will happen in the future, if the Minister wants to do illegal things. If he does things for which he has not got the power, then he will come to this Parliament before people can test his action in the courts. But what is so wonderful, and I can hardly find a word strong enough, which is in order, is that it looks to me as if a misunderstanding, wilful misunderstanding is pretended by the other side. If you look at Clause 1 bis. (3) then you find there —

1. (a) the ability to do military service is imposed—
   1. (i) except against an enemy anywhere in South Africa, within or outside the Union.

When the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga)—I think it was he—said to the Prime Minister that that was not the provision in the Defence Act, the Prime Minister said that it must be the same, that at any rate in his opinion it was the same. The Prime Minister must know very well that it is not the same. In the Defence Act it expressly states that no one can be called up for compulsory service except in the defence of the Union?

Where is that contained?

In Section 1 of the Defence Act. The whole of that Act is based on the defence of the Union, but here there is no mention of it. Accordingly, in other words, when the enemy is in Kenya to-day, which the Prime Minister himself went and attacked there, he can now commandeer our people to go and fight that enemy, because here it says that people can be called up to fight against an enemy elsewhere in South Africa, within or outside of the Union.

We will not do it.

I have little confidence in hon. members over there. If anything is put on paper then you must state What you want. If you draft a document you write in it what you really want to say. If we can take each other’s words in good faith, then we need no laws. Let die Minister at least see to it that citizens can only be commandeered when it is in the interests of the defence of the Union. The Minister of the Interior, with a great lot of acting, showed us this afternoon the Nazi flag and a uniform, and he said that it was the uniform of the Ossewa-Brandwag. I can tell him that it is anything of the sort, and the Minister knows it himself.

How do you know?

I know what my uniform is. It is what I have on here. The Minister also knows. He also knows that about seven years or more before the war started there was a Greyshirt movement here, and they carried the swastika on their sleeves. Now the portrait of a Greyshirt uniform is brought forward, and they want to say that it is the uniform of the Ossewa-Brandwag. That is a distortion of the facts. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) exposed the character of the Truth League, the Truth Legion very well. They can do all the things, and can hold meetings secretly in Syfrets Trust building, and can get money from insurance companies from overseas which take the Afrikaners’ money, and then use it to do what? To work to put the policy of the Prime Minister in the right light, forsooth, and in order “to oppose the gradual tendency to republicanism.” The Ossewa-Brandwag or the Nationalist Party need the money to put their acts in the right light. Everyone knows what those acts are, we are working above ground and do not get the money from other countries, but all our contributions come from the poor people in the main, who support us, and who stand by us. But because hon. members opposite are fighting the war for England, they of course expect that the insurance companies in England will contribute £25,000 to the funds in order to strengthen the Truth League. As the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) said the other day, we know who established the Fifth Column in South Africa, and how even in the days of the Transvaal Government, that republican government and Kruger were stabbed in the back. Now we are dragged into a war, not by our votes, but we are forced to contribute. The Government have linked up our wool farmers, hand and glove with England. Our farmers would to-day possibly be able to get a few pennies or shillings extra for their wool.

Where?

We are prepared to run the risk. Í know however that England has never yet in its life fought a war alone, and that England is not prepared to buy our wool if it cannot, in turn, sell it at a profit. They want to make a profit on it at the expense of our farmers, and the Government is assisting in order to make us pay. Hon. members will not persuade me that England is a country which will give anything to us for nothing, and which will fight a war for us. They have to get money to pay off their debts to America, possibly, and our wool farmers have to help.

Put your wool into cold storage.

I would rather do that than sell it to England, but unfortunately many of our peoples are in the position that they have to sell their wool in order to be able to pay their debts. Those are the people who are suffering under these conditions. If this time we get something extra for our farmers it would at least have compensated for the higher prices that the farmers have to pay to-day for plough shares, tractors and everything that they need. While they would have had an opportunity of getting an extra 6d. or 1s. for a lb. of wool the Government comes and deprives them of the chance, and England is getting the profit on it. England will make a good profit, otherwise she would not buy our wool. This is not a defensive war which we are in, but an aggressive war, and tell the Prime Minister that we will not allow ourselves to be commandeered for the war. If he wants to bring an enemy in the North into Abyssinia, and wants to be more loyal than England herself, then he and his hon. memmers opposite must also fight the war. They cannot expect that we will allow our children to fight for England, for a war which was unnecessary, and with which we have no concern. To-day it is not England who is protecting us, but we are protecting England The hon. member for Vereeniging pleaded for toleration. Toleration, yes, but can toleration be expected on our side if the things go on which have been mentioned by the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) if those things continue at the pause at 12 o’clock? Let me give good advice to hon. members there. If they want to pray the evening at 7 o’clock, when they sit down to table, and eat, is a good time to set apart a moment for prayer. But they want to pray in the streets, and look at what goes on, and how fighting takes place. They know that there is no praying but we have merely to be provoked. The hon. member for Moorreesburg rightly said that the day of reckoning will come, whether it comes now or whether it may take a year or more years. It will come, and we will settle account with the people who are wasting our money to-day in this way on this foolish war. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) said that Germany wanted to appropriate small nations. He is not the man who should speak about the appropriation of small nations. England has appropriated all the small nations, and Germany is only now following that example. The hon. member said that wherever he had travelled the Nationalists to-day were very well satisfied with the Prime Minister. Let them hold an election, then he will have had a disillusionment such as he has never had before. The hon. member for Vereeniging talks about cooperation when the war is over. He says that whoever wins we will have to try and maintain and retain our language rights etc. Does he not know how we had to fight for all those things? Now he sits on the other side, against whom we have to fight in connection with all these things. There are hon. members sitting on the other side who have been 40 years in the country. I see one there who was born in South Africa, and they cannot speak Afrikaans.

The hon. member must keep to the Bill.

I want to have a free republic. I have always been in favour of it, then I know what I have.

Mr. Speaker, it is almost a year ago within a few minutes that this House took a very serious decision. I will say that on that occasion I think the dignity of Parliament was upheld. I do not think it was possible for any debate or anybody’s behaviour to be more dignified than on that particular day. I am sorry to say I cannot say the same about Parliament in the many hours of debate that have taken place here since. I do believe that on that night everybody in this room acted according to his candid convictions, I do believe everybody was actuated by their consciences and that he was honest to the dictates of that conscience. Probably that accounted for the extremely dignified attitude that Parliament displayed on that occasion. But, sir, I do not think that many of the hon. members on the other side have, between that period and now, acted strictly in terms of the dictates of their consciences, and I think the manner in which they have conducted debates in this House since then is a clear indication that their consciences have worried them to such an extent that they have been unable to control themselves either in debate or in interjections across this floor. To-day, sir, we have had under discussion in the main this question of secret associations, secret societies, secret meetings and all that sort of thing. I would like to assure hon. members on the other side that I belong to no secret organisation. [Interruptions.] In saying that I want to tell them without any regret, without any blushing, or shame, or effort at confession, that I am a very staunch supporter of the Union Unity Truth Movement. [Interruption.] My one regret is this that the position in this country has occasioned the formation of an organisation of that nature. The Union Truth movement has been accepted by those people over there as something that came into being to oppose them politically. Mr. Speaker, that particular feeling has been induced by a guilty conscience. The Union Unity Truth Movement has not set out to upset those gentlemen over there.

They can’t upset us.

It has not set out to do that although it could do so and by the way they have referred to it in this House in all kinds of abuse and the usé of fancy names shows, sir, that it has cut very deeply into that organisation, that they are so fond of, and that they are virtually part of, and that is the Nazi organisation in this country. [Interruption.] Mr. Speaker, they deny it, denial is easy. There is not the slightest doubt about it. I won’t say all, but 75 to 80 per cent. of those members are sincerely trusting that this war will go in favour of Germany in order to justify the attitude that they have taken up in this House. That is why they are sincerely trusting that the war will go in favour of Germany to suit their own mean and base political ideas, because if it does there is a likelihood of it repercussing against the attitude adopted by the Government. That is what is closest and dearest to their hearts, whether they like it or not.

What a splendid clown you are.

I want to tell the House that the Union Unity Movement came into being to combat the efforts of their friend of Zeesen. The Union Unity League would never have been thought of or would never have come into being had it not been for that pernicious propaganda which came over the air night after night. That was the cause of the Union Unity League being formed.

You seem to be concerned about it.

I ask hon. members, do they prefer what the Union Unity has said or what Zeesen says? Do you prefer Zeesen?

You are both mad.

What does Wilson say?

I know what they prefer, they prefer what Zeesen has said, and that is why they do not like the organisation which is opposing the propaganda of Zeesen, and liking Zeesen as they do, being the victims of Zeesen, the apostles of Zeesen, they like it very much and yet they turn round and they say: “We are not pro-Nazi, we do not favour anything pertaining to Nazism.” How can you reconcile those statements? These people have been the apostles of Goebbels. Their speeches across the floor of this House for the last twelve months have been nothing but echoing the voice of Goebbels, the pernicious propaganda of Zeesen—

What a lot of nonsense you talk.

And the very desperate position they find themselves in is proof positive that they must carry on with that attitude. Now I want to address a few remarks to my very good friend, the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus).

Since when has he been your very good friend?

It is a new friend he has found; he needs friends.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg came to light here this afternoon with a letter ….

Well, you will never come to light.

The hon. member for Zwartruggens has no light to come forward with, he hides everything.

Still he is shining all right.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg came to light with a letter and I was very much interested in it chiefly because 99 per cent. of the letter was the truth which is something quite rare from that side of the House. It is something foreign to what we hear from that side.

Now, now, George, keep quiet.

There were one or two minor things which were not right, but that letter was the truth and I want to explain what happened there and why. In an endeavour to serve the people of this country in combating the poison of Zeesen with which my friends there have become thoroughly infected, I became actively interested in this Union Unity Movement—and it was no secret to them.

What are you — a corporal?

In order to combat the propaganda of Zeesen it was necessary to put counter-propaganda across this country.

Surely you are a sergeant.

I do not take much notice of blow flies, they get too much mixed up in wool.

You are an Imperial blow fly.

I started collecting money and I chose the insurance companies as an organisation which I thought should contribute to this counter-propaganda, and I addressed the leaders of the insurance industry in this country. Perhaps it might interest my friend to know that in addition to the meeting I had in Cape Town, I had another one in Johannesburg. I addressed this meeting and I told them that in the interests of this country and in the interests of truth I thought it was up to the insurance industry to make its contribution. Now to contribute to a thing of this nature is against the policy of all insurance companies, and in order that the matter might be fully ventilated the South African managers of the insurance companies communicated with their head offices in Great Britain.

Oh!

What is wrong with it? But I am sorry to admit that my efforts as far as the insurance companies were concerned proved very abortive and I would like hon. members over there to believe me that on the donation lists of the Unity Fund does not appear the name of one single insurance company, whether British or otherwise, and I go further and say that we are not aware of one single sixpence having come from insurance.

It had to be anonymous.

No, nothing anonymous. I ask hon. members to believe that no one associated with the Union Unity cause has any knowledge of any money contributed by an insurance company. The companies took up the attitude that they had business with all sorts of people, of all nationalities and all classes and they did not care to associate themselves with anything that might be described as a political movement. I would ask hon. members there whether if a British insurance company offers an advertisement to Die Burger they will accept it?

That is business.

Of course they will. Why stand up here and accuse other people of attempting to do something which they readily do themselves.

There is no analogy.

There is a difference between business and Jewish business.

My hon. friend over there who was asked by the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) to deny an allegation made about him when he misled the people of Burgersdorp, refused to accept the challenge.

On a point of explanation, I think the hon. member for Springs refers to what the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) said this afternoon, that the Nationalists made common cause with the khaki knights.

The hon. member for Kimberley (District) accused the hon. member last week of having made misstatements and he (Mr. Steytler) repeated what the hon. member had said at a public meeting in Burgersdorp. The hon. member never got up to deny it.

The hon. member is out of order in referring to a previous debate.

Now, hon. members opposite have called the Union Unity Movement by a great many names. Well, it has become necessary to meet the false propaganda such as was spread in the town hall at Burgersdorp on a certain occasion, which was not denied here in this House. I say it is a tragedy that an organisation has had to be brought into being to correct what undoubtedly is a falsehood. It is taking advantage of the less literate and poorer types of this country, and I am very sorry and deeply grieved that a citizen of this country has associated himself with the German Reich and is using his knowledge of the Afrikaans language to put that poisonous propaganda across to the people of this country. And that propaganda is not used for any other purpose except to help the enemies of the country.

What about Lord Haw-Haw?

Yes, hon. member opposite like that sort of thing. Now let me get back to the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus).

Tell us something about Springs.

I should like to tell the hon. member that I am very sorry that British insurance companies did not give £25,000 to this movement, or even £125,000, and I make an appeal to them to-night from the floor of the House to support this movement in the interests of law and order in this country.

The hon. member should not make appeals of that nature here. He should confine himself to the Bill before the House.

I am sorry. I sincerely trust that the hon. member for Moorreesburg, in connection with the so-called secret society, which is not secret at all, will see the error of his ways. I have given him all the information at my disposal. There are two or three minor things in that letter which are not correct, but in the main it is correct, and there is nothing to deny; everything is open and above board.

That is funny.

It seems to me that things that are open and clean are amusing to these people. When something is amusing it is something new and foreign to them, and that is why they are laughing. If anything honest and clean is amusing to them, it must therefore be a novelty to them. They are not accustomed to it. I sincerely trust that they will believe what I have said.

How can we?

Methinks you protest too much.

A man who is a normal liar never believes anyone. When a man is not used to being believed he believes no one else.

Tell us another one.

Well, I am sure the hon. member for Moorreesburg will believe me. Now as far as the Union Unity Service is concerned I want to extend an invitation to any hon. member over there to come to the office and see the organisation. We shall put everything at their disposal.

Have you got a bank balance?

Yes, but there is not very much there unfortunately. But we are quite prepared to show hon. members everything. We have no generals A, B, C and D; we do not indulge in that; everything is open and above board. We are quite prepared to show them how things are run.

Well, we do not accept your invitation.

We have no uniforms in this organisation, we have no sacret signs, no swastika; everything is done on letterheads with a torch of truth.

And red tabs?

Well, I hope some hon. members will accept my invitation; and if they come some of them may even become members.

Perhaps the hon. member will now come back to the Bill.

Yes, I think after what we have seen and heard about secret organisations, of which the Union Unity Movement is not one, the Prime Minister is more than justified in asking for these powers. Hon. members opposite have complained of these powers. May I take the opportunity of telling them that had they conducted themselves decently in the last twelve months powers of this nature would not have been necessary. They themselves are more responsible for the introduction of this Bill than anyone else; they have inflamed the minds of people all over the country and they have made it necessary for powers of this sort to be invoked. I stand here as one who never in any circumstances has taken a mean political advantage in public life of any individual, and yet as a result of Speeches that have been made here my office was dynamited. What for? What have I done? It is the incitement that has come from those mouths across this floor.

Rubbish!

One tradesman alongside of me had to pay £318 for plate glass, leave alone the signwriting and things like that.

What about the bombing of the Dutch Reformed Church?

These gentlemen are responsible for it, including that Nazi over there whose brother is a Gauleiter. The hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Lindhorst) has a brother who is a Gauleiter in Hitler’s army.

Order. The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill.

These regulations are necessary in order to keep peace and order in this country and if the hon. member over there who has been interrupting me all the time had the peace and contentment of the people of the country at heart he and his colleagues would willingly give the Prime Minister the powers asked for to suppress this sabotage which is endangering the lives of people. It is getting worse and worse; what do we hear now? Some time ago the man responsible for a certain outrage had the courtesy to ring up a station master telling him to stop a train, but the other day it was more by good luck than anything else that a native found a charge of dynamite before a train passed a certain point. Had he not done so there might have been serious loss of life. I appeal to hon. members over there through their Press and in their speeches to condemn that sort of thing. Silence in regard to this sabotage means approval. I appeal to these hon. members to do their utmost to assist in the maintenance of law and order.

We do not need you to tell us.

I appeal to them to condemn violence. Finally I want to say here that the Union Unity Movement is a very necessary organisation in this country to combat that poisonous propaganda which is spread over the air nightly. Union Unity was not brought into being to combat ordinary political propaganda.

It definitely was, I can prove it.

I assure hon. members that the propaganda of Zeesen was the reason for the establishment of this organisation.

The ostensible reason.

Before I sit down I again ask them to say whether they prefer the propaganda of Zeesen or that of Union Unity?

The hon. member for Springs amused the House with a fiery plea which he put up on behalf of what I can only call the paid cowards of the Prime Minister’s, who are usually known in this country as the knights of the truth, the Truth Legion, and all the rest of it. We usually call them the khaki knights. They are an organisation which has been formed to spread lies. One cannot even call them spies because a spy is a fairly honourable person at a time of war; he is prepared to risk his life for his country and his people. These khaki knights are much lower and dirtier than spies can ever be. They are nothing but the paid cowards of the Prime Minister.

On a point of order, is an hon. member entitled to refer to other hon. members as paid cowards of the Prime Minister?

Did the hon. member make that charge against another member of this House?

I described the members of the Truth Legion as the paid cowards of the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Springs told us that he supports that movement, but he did not tell us that he is a member of the movement.

I said I was a member.

The hon. member is not entitled to use that term in regard to any hon. member of this House. Did he intend applying it to a member of this House?

No, I referred to the whole organisation which is known as the Truth Legion, and I stigmatised them as the paid cowards of the Prime Minister. I did not refer to any member in particular, but if there are any members in this House who are members of that organisation, then apparently they have not got the courage to say so here openly. It is an organisation which ostensibly has been established to come into the open against Nazi propaganda, but in actual fact it is an organisation which is being used for the purpose of persecuting one section of the population in a disgusting and scandalous manner. I said to my hon. friend that I could prove that that was so. I have before me here a periodical of one of the largest trade unions in South Africa. In that periodical there is a leading article written by the editor, and in that article, inter alia, the things I am going to quote are stated. I want my hon. friend to listen carefully to what I am going to quote. This is not an irresponsible statement, it is the paper of a responsible society which makes this statement. This is what it says, inter alia—

That is what this Railway organisation declares to the world.

Is that all the evidence you have?

It must be the Ossewa-Brandwag.

What is really going on is that the members of this organisation are being used as spies among their fellow-workers. As soon as they hear anything, as soon as they hear this or that person saying anything which tends to show that he does not support the Prime Minister and his Government, they make charges against him, with the result that the person concerned is victimised in a most scandalous manner. These paid cowards of the Prime Minister's are used for the purpose of having innocent Afrikaners interned. They are nothing but what I have just called them. We are dealing here with one of the dirtiest and most scandalous organisations that has ever existed in the country. It shows us how honoured they feel to be a member of this organisation, that not one of them who is a member of it has the courage to state openly that he is a member. The hon. the Minister of the Interior played his usual part here again to-day. In passing I just want to say that the Minister of the Interior is wasting his talent in this House. He should have found a career on the stage.

In the circus.

No, not in the circus but on the stage. It would be much more appropriate if he could perform there as a juggler, so that he could get hold of a jacket one moment and a book the next, and try to shock the audience in that way. In his usual manner he again produced a jacket here with a swastika on the armlet to prove to the House the existence of certain societies which were trying to undermine the country. But he did not have the courage to say what those organisations are and what is the name of the man who wore that jacket. He comes here and insinuates that he found a book in the possession of a certain Railway man containing Hitler’s photo. That has to be used in order to prove that that Kultuurvereniging whose name he does not mention and whose name he will not mention has as its special object the undermining of the Government and the promotion of Nazi propaganda. This House has had experience of that type of disclosure from the hon. the Minister and his own party and his own papers do not attach much value to it, but now I want to come to the provisions of this Bill. I want to say that it is a very peculiar phenomenon that members opposite who in the past also had a certain sense of responsibility, and a certain feeling of independence, are now quite prepared to vote away the rights which they still possess without saying a word. They are quite prepared to give the Prime Minister greater powers than any other Minister in the British Commonwealth of Nations possesses. They will not protest. Those poor people who sit over there and who are Afrikaans by birth, but who are no longer Afrikaners to-day, are being made use of in order to make constant declarations of loyalty towards the Prime Minister and Great Britain. They are so blinded by Empire idolatry that they are willing to support anything for the sake of the Empire and the Prime Minister’s war policy, but those powers which the Prime Minister is now taking unto himself are powers which go beyond those which he had in the past under martial law. The Prime Minister told us here that he does not want to proclaim martial law. He stated that martial law goes too far and gives greater power to the Government than this Bill will give to the Government, but I have before me the proclamation of martial law which was issued in 1922. If one reads that proclamation one finds that that proclamation of martial law in reality was a very innocent thing compared with the powers which the Prime Minister now wishes to take unto himself under this Bill. The proclamation which declared martial law in 1922 among other things provides that the ordinary law of the country will continue to be in force, with the exceptions mentioned in the proclamation. It referred to people who have to give their names and addresses; it prevents alarmist statements; it imposes a censorship on the postal and telegraph service; it appoints additional officers, and it gives the Minister the power to commandeer. It gives him the power to prohibit an increase in prices and so on. The only thing for which no provision has been made in the emergency regulations so far is that under martial law troops have the right in certain circumstances to shoot people without any warning. If this Bill is passed, the Prime Minister is also given that power. Now the Prime Minister can do so under these powers. He now wants to take unto himself greater powers than he had under martial law. We know what the conditions in the country are to-day. Accusations are made against us here that we are responsible for the bomb outrages and the acts of violence which have taken place, but it is perfectly clear that the Prime Minister and his party are directly responsible for those acts of violence, and not this side of the House. I should like to know why people who support this side should be so stupid as to blow up their own Afrikaner churches and schools. Would it be done with the object of hurting the Prime Minister and his party? What has actually happened? For months an agitation has been going on by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) and the Government papers in favour of the Prime Minister taking more drastic action. The Minister of the Interior went so far recently as to issue a threat when addressing a meeting. So far, however, the Prime Minister has not had the courage to take drastic action. Now, their own people want to force the Government by acts of violence to take more drastic action. They want to commit acts of violence, and then they want to put the blame on us, so as to get an excuse for getting the Government to take more drastic action. Now the Government is assuming unto itself these greater powers, so that it will be able to act more drastically, and prosecute people more drastically than is the case to-day. What has the Prime Minister and his Government in view? What are they aiming at? When I ask: “What are they aiming at?” we always have to bear in mind the Prime Minister’s record in the history of South Africa. If we study the Prime Minister’s record during the time he was in power, we find that in 1907, when he had just come into power in the Transvaal, industrial difficulties broke out. The first thing the Prime Minister did was to call in the aid of the military. In 1913 industrial difficulties again arose, and twenty-two men were shot down on that occasion, and 100 were wounded, and the Prime Minister was the cause. In 1914 there were further industrial difficulties and the Prime Minister proclaimed martial law and brought in commandos in order to suppress the strikers on the Rand. After that, in 1914, there was an armed protest, and it is still being contended that the Government was responsible. We know what happened after that.

That armed protest was again suppressed, and in exactly the same way as to-day Afrikaners were sent to gaol. On that occasion hundreds of them were put in gaol, and we still remember the shooting of Jopie Fourie. We had Bulhoek in 1920, and in 1920 the rising of the Bondelswarts. In 1922 we had the big strike on the Witwatersrand; during the period of the Prime Minister’s reign he proclaimed martial law three times, and three times he had to come to this House for an indemnity. In the course of 11 years 250 innocent white men, women and children were shot as a result of his actions. What has happened during the past twelve months? If we look at the Prime Minister’s record, we can well understand what is going on. In 11 years he has caused 250 white men, women and children to be shot down, and now acts of violence are starting. The dirty organisations they have are used for the purpose of persecuting people, for the purpose of continually intimidating and of victimising them. The Afrikaner has to be persecuted and provoked in every possible way, until he resorts to acts of violence. If acts of violence take place, then the Prime Minister wants to make use of him to pin the blame onto the Opposition in order to oppress and destroy the Opposition; that is the plan. Hon. members opposite talk about the so-called volunteers. Let me say that we have never taken up any offensive attitude towards the soldiers who are sent away, because more than fifty per cent. of them are people who have been compelled directly or indirectly to go. Hon. members now imagine that those people will take up the cry of “Crown him, crown him” towards the Prime Minister. I say that these people, when they come back, will shout out “Crucify him”. And for that reason we have never yet insulted any of the so-called volunteers who go north, because the majority of them go there under compulsion, but what we do say is that the people who are responsible for exerting the pressure are the people who will have to nay and not the people who are compelled to go and fight. Look at hon. members opposite, they tell us that they are unable to get away and fight, because their duties to the people demand that they shall take their seats in this House. We on this side of the House have repeatedly made the offer of pairing off with them if they want to go and fight. The hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit) whose services are only being used for the purposes of recruiting coloured men and natives, said that if we would join up too he would go and fight. I say that he has the finest opportunity in the world to go and fight, but he will always look for an excuse to stay behind with the coloured people. Those are the heroes who declared war and who on the 4th September told the world that they were going to fight against Hitlerism and for the preservation of democracy. But they prefer to stay here and persuade others to go and fight. I know of a few who are annoyed because they have not been allowed the privilege of wearing uniform and drawing a double salary. But if they are compelled to go and fight, can one rely on them then? No, they stay behind and try to recruit others to go and do the fighting. It seems to me that the whole world is in flight. Since the beginning of this session hon. members opposite have been running away all the time, and they are still in full flight. I believe that that spirit of running away has taken such a hold throughout the world that this Government as well is unable to think of anything except running away. I take it, however, that the Prime Minister regards them as key men. I notice that the Prime Minister has gone so far as to have stated that the Mayor of Cape Town should not go to fight. The Prime Minister told him that he was doing such good work in Cape Town that he could not go. Apparently he had in mind the maintenance of the midday pause for praying. One could mention other instances. They themselves will not go and fight, but what disgusts one is that while they themselves stay at home they bring pressure to bear on other people to go and fight. We protest against the granting of further powers to the Government as proposed in this Bill. It is a violation of all the rights of democracy on which hon. members opposite always have so much to say. They are prepared, however, without saying a word, to take away the rights of the people and to give the Prime Minister unparallelled powers. Why? They say that the Prime Minister must have those powers in order to oppress us and keep us in our places. No, Mr. Speaker, they have become so degenerated that they are prepared to sacrifice everything we hold dear for the sake of the Empire.

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief, but I want to take this opportunity of saying that nothing in all the 40 years of my life in this country has caused more genuine distress than to listen to the dominant note of defeatism, what the Prime Minister calls hand-upperism, that has run through and through the speeches of the hon. members opposite, speeches, sir, I am loth to say that are deliberately calculated to have that effect, but speeches that can only have one effect on those of our people who believe them, and that is to create a spirit of defeatism in a war in which, as the Prime Minister has said, the first shot has not yet been fired. Have hon. members opposite considered for a moment the effect that their speeches with that element of defeatism running through them, is likely to have upon the thousands and thousands of young Afrikaans-speaking members of our community who have joined up with our fighting forces? Sir, I do not know whether hon. members opposite themselves have any of their own sons who have joined our South African fighting force, but I do know that thousands of their constituents have sons and also daughters who have joined our fighting force, and I would like to ask them, what do they think is going to be the effect on the spirits and on what we call the morale, of these Afrikaans-speaking lads when they read or listen to speeches made by hon. members opposite, who are after all responsible men, as we all consider ourselves to be? Hon. members opposite always assert that they, and they only, are entitled to speak for the Afrikaans section in this country. If these young soldiers of ours read those speeches, what effect is it going to have? I ask hon. members to consider for a moment if the spirit which they are trying to create in this country is likely to give strong hearts and stout arms to the young men who are going forth and on whose shoulders rests the honour and safety of our country. Those speeches are doing the greatest disservice possible not to the English-speaking but to the Afrikaansspeaking section. The right, hon. the Prime Minister said earlier that the spirit of defeatism was never the spirit of the old fighters of the old Boer republics. I know it was not because I, for two solid years, fought against those old republicans, and even when on occasions they were faced with overwhelming odds, they may have run away, but they came back to fight again. I can only hope, I can only pray that our fighting forces do not read the speeches of hon. members opposite. I am reminded of a story of a soldier who, while fighting at the front, received letters from his wife couched in the most lugubrious terms, complaining of the hardships she had to suffer, and reeking of defeatism, saying, “Why don’t you give up the war, the war is already lost.” The soldier replied, “For God’s sake stop sending me any more letters. I want to enjoy this war in peace.” I can imagine some of our young stalwarts sending telegrams to hon. members opposite saying, “For God’s sake don’t make any more speeches, we are going to win the war.” I have referred to the courage and tenacity of those old Boer republican fighters, and if I have one thing in life to be proud of to-day, it is that I have three sons, all the sons I have, who are to-day fighting or will shortly be fighting shoulder to shoulder with the sons of those brave men against whom I fought 40 years ago. At the end of that three-year war, I had a deep respect and a warm regard for the men I fought against, and I deeply regret, and I say this with all sincerity, that I have lost respect for most hon. members opposite. I wish to briefly refer to an aspect that has cropped up several times in the debate, and in a speech of the hon. member who has just sat down. I am not a Jew, I am not even pro-Jew, but I am pro-honesty, and pro-truth and fair play, and some of the gibes and innuendoes that have been thrown across the floor of the House in regard to the recruitment and enlistment of the Jewish people require to be met and refuted. I am going to submit very briefly figures obtained from the only reliable source which is as open to hon. members opposite as to members on this side. There is a link committee, a liaison committee, between the military authorities and the Jewish Board of Deputies. I do not know any of the Jewish Board of Deputies, I would not know one if I saw one, but this committee is the only reliable committee to whom you can go. From them I learn that out of 292 Jewish firms in Johannesburg employing 1,968 males, 730 have joined up; 410 are over age or under age or medically unfit, and 64 are key-men, what you no doubt would call “Ikey-men.” That gives you a percentage of eligible men of 53.32 per cent. These figures are obtained from the military authorities. The percentage of Jewish men who have joined up with the regiments on the Witwatersrand is 15 per cent., in Cape Town it is 9 per cent. and in Durban 8 per cent. You have to remember that the ratio of Jew to Gentile in this country is only 4.4¾ per cent., that is the normal ratio of Jew to Gentile, and the Jews show a proportion in joining up of double what one would be entitled to expect based on their ratio proportion. There is one significant factor, and that is this. I do not know whether it shows an affinity of racial types or not, but the Jewish men who have joined up have shown a marked predelection for the Scottish regiment. Hon. members may laugh, but I can give them and their Nazi friends this assurance that when you join the Jew with the Scotsman, God help Hitler.

We have been listening here this afternoon to a few speeches which were rather painful to us to hear. I am referring to the speeches of the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) and the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood). These two gentlemen, especially the hon. member for Vereeniging, put up a strong plea that we should step forward to help win the war, and he launched a tremendous attack on this side of the House because we were not prepared to help. In what way is he helping? I only want to say, however, that on the 4th September of last year we said that we were not going into the war and that it would not benefit us to do so. We said that if they wanted to wage war they themselves must go and fight, but that we would have nothing to do with the war. What struck one, however, was that those two hon. members proved themselves to be more British than any British-born person. I only want to say this to them that even before their days there were Afrikaans-speaking people who wanted to be more pro-British than the Britishers themselves, and those people were made use of to do the dirty work which the others were not prepared to do, and when they finished their ditry work they were

Here they tell us that the Nationalists are getting too strong and that they must get money and further help from outside the Union—

We notice that they are anxious about the Empire, and not about South Africa—

Everything that is pro-Afrikaans is antiBritish! In regard to the Blue Book, so far we have only received pamphlets which mainly deal with the Germans in Natal, and the mountain has produced a mouse—

Now the House will see how they propose to undermine the position—

As if we do not know what happened—how a large power deprived us of our freedom in South Africa! But now we have an interesting paragraph—

The Minister of Lands, one of the directors of Die Suiderstem, sends an S.O.S. to England “Send money”. He is unable to draw from South Africa’s vital strength and from South Africa alone—

Even the small papers in the country have to be influenced with the aid of foreign money. Often they are small papers which pretend that they do not belong to any party. I read further—

The Minister of Lands recently visited Upington. He was unable to get a meeting together there and thereupon got a small crowd of his supporters together in the bioscope where he addressed them. On the platteland members of the Opposition are unable to function. The hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. Steenkamp) and the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha) dare not show their faces in their own constituencies, and now they are busy undermining their own nation from the inside—

It is a public document.

It is anything but a public document, and you will not publish it in the Press. It has been sent overseas secretly and they are making use of insurance companies which in this country are also supported by all sections of the community for their dirty work. They want to get the support of those companies for what they are doing. They want to use those companies and those concerns to foster racialism in order to promote their cause, and then they say that it is not politics? I go on to read—

Yes, but it is a source of revenue which perhaps may not always be there. They cannot continue to beg. They have no vital strength in themselves and they have to send an S.O.S. to other parts of the world in order to get assistance. And there is the Minister without Portfolio—I know his constituency. There are many well-to-do S.A.P. farmers there but very few of them have done their duty, very few of their sons are at the front to-day. They sit like rocks behind the Minister in their homes. I go on to read—

The Minister of the Interior comes here and talks about secret organisations.

There is nothing secret.

They do not appeal to the public of South Africa, but they came together secretly in Syfret’s Buildings and the English insurance companies were invited to attend, and they sent out letters to the general managers of those insurance companies overseas and to our Minister Plenipotentiary in France who was there in an official capacity to represent the Union, and his position was abused to do political work for them. Is not that a reprehensible condition of affairs? Our ambassador has to get into touch with those people in England, he has to hold conferences with i them, and together with the letter of introduction they sent a memorandum. Talk of foreign money; there we have it. They are so weak there, they can draw so little strength from South Africa, that they must get help overseas. The Minister of Lands with his Suiderstem says: “In Heaven’s name give us £500,000; come and save us, because otherwise we shall be unable to inform the public of South Africa of our attitude.” Now it is further contended that no intimidation whatsoever is indulged in in this country to get people to join the army. I have a letter here from a young Afrikaner who before the outbreak of the war was in the Air Force. He obtained his wings and this is what he writes—

That young fellow has gone. Hon. members say there is no intimidation. Here we have evidence of what is going on and that is why we say that 50 per cent. of those people who go to fight are forced by economic circumstances to go and fight. They are not all sons of members who have a lot of money and can stay out. I have been living in Cape Town for a number of years and my experience is that the sons of less privileged families when joining up are sent away very quickly. A great many of them are already in Nairobi. But on the other side we have men who are in a privileged position. They hang about the clubs. They are the great Imperialists. They travel up and down to Pretoria to get commissions, but they do not go to the battlefield. The man who has never yet had a rifle in his hand goes to Pretoria and when he comes back one hears that he is a captain or a lieutenant and that he is attached to the staff of the Chief of Staff. There are many of them too who have been away and who have come back, and who are sitting in offices to-day, and then they come and tell one that they are fighting against Hitler. If those people were in earnest one would say that they would not be kept back. If they are so sure — I am now speaking about hon. members opposite — that their seats are not in danger, why then do they not do what the members of Parliament in Rhodesia have done? They have resigned their seats and have gone off to fight. The hon. member for Kingwilliamstown (Mr. Baines) praised the courage of the Afrikaners here. As long as an Afrikaner allows himself to be used as the Englishman’s dishcloth he is a good fellow. If the Prime Minister were to turn against him to-morrow he would be abused even more than Pétain is being abused today. I want to warn the Prime Minister and I want to tell him that the day may yet dawn when those who to-day are shouting “Crown him” will shout “Crucify him,” because according to the views of a number of them the Prime Minister is not yet going far enough. Signs are already evident on the other side. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) who is in this House in the capacity of England’s watchdog, and of everything that comes from overseas, says “Sa-sa!” and the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) and other members over there make threats. The Minister of Justice, as a result, has already had to be relieved of many of his duties and he is to-day merely Minister of Justice and nothing else. He is not allowed to say anything in this House, and he is merely allowed to sit there because they can make use of him. He sits there together with the people who in the past got his father into difficulties when they wanted him to become a hands-upper. In spite of this one finds the Minister now on the other side. We know the Prime Minister. In 1922 I was a student at the University of Cape Town and a revolt broke out on the Rand at that time. Parliament was in session and the Prime Minister came here after he had gone to the Rand to see what was happening, and he spoke of a terrible Bolshevik conspiracy, and in the same way as the Minister of the Interior came here to-day, he showed a red jacket and a black cap in Parliament on that occasion and said: “This comes from Moscow.” The Minister of the Interior is only apeing the Prime Minister; he is only imitating what the Prime Minister did in 1922. His evidence is evidence which no court will regard as sufficient to find anyone guilty.

I rise to support this measure which is now before the House and in doing so to say that I represent the views of a large majority of my constituents and also the views of the majority of the people of the eastern borders of the Cape. During the discussion this morning the Beader of the Opposition spoke of the great responsibility resting on the shoulders of the Prime Minister. We on this side of the House realise the great responsibility which rests on the shoulders of the Prime Minister from a different angle and we regard it as the duty of all members of the House at this time of crisis to lighten that responsibility and to throw in their lot so as to make his duties easier. Every loyal South African to-day will welcome this measure. I may state that I have had the opportunity of reading measures which have been passed in the other dominions and in Great Britain and I would like to tell members on the other side of the House that some of the war measures in Great Britain are far more drastic than those presented to us in this Bill. The question was often asked by people during the recess, why does not the Government make its regulations more drastic in order to meet the serious situation in the country? Well, I think, Mr. Speaker, that if we turn to the Bill we will see that in Clause 1—

People outside are sometimes astounded at the latitude that is allowed to members of Parliament and others when they address meetings outside the House. Sometimes statements are made which are bordering on treason and I know that when this Bill has been promulgated any such remarks can be dealt with. It has been pointed out already that there are many Quislings still in South Africa and the time has arrived when we should see that they are rendered harmless. I am astounded at times when I hear people speak in the way they do with reference to the attitude of our South African Quislings. Do these people realise what happened in Norway, do they realise what happened in the mother country of many of the hon. members on my right, I refer to Holland? Do they realise how these agents of Hitler entered Holland as industrialists, educationalists, farmers and in other capacities and when the moment came that the German Army entered Holland, 40,000 of them in one day ran into uniform? That is what we have to watch in South Africa and watch very carefully. If the day of trial should come we must look out for our Quislings I fail to understand why the radio station in Germany known as Zeesen is able to get its information from South Africa. We have information from that well-known gentleman, Lord Haw-Haw, which astonishes us. Nearly two months ago we knew from Zeesen that a certain regiment in South Africa was proceeding to another part of South Africa and we who lived in the town did not know it. The Kaffrarian Rifles were stationed at East London and were proceeding to Maritzburg on a certain date and that regiment did move on that date. There is a leakage somewhere and I hope when this Bill is framed and regulations made under it these informants of Zeesen will be laid by the heels and put in the place they ought to be. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that members who are opposing this measure are enemies of the country. The attitude of South Africans at this stage should be the attitude of the people of the old Roman Empire. When the old Roman Empire was threatened the cry went forth, “None for party but all for the state.” And that is what is wanted in South Africa to-day. If that were the universal cry this would be a better and brighter South Africa for all of us. These people have had their way too long and the time has come for us to cry halt. We know that South Africa has taken on a tremendous and unprecedented responsibility and we are determined to carry on and see it through because we know that the responsibility for this terrible catastrophe lies on the shoulders of one man who has plunged Europe into war and caused misery owing to his own senseless ambition. We know what the countries in Europe have suffered through the work of the German Führer. We are not in this war for the love of fighting, we are not the aggressors. Ours is an implacable determination to preserve our liberties and to stamp out Nazism which is the scourge of the modern world. We are fighting for the ideals of humanity, justice and freedom.

We had to endure having to listen this afternoon to a speech by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) who has just left the House, and also to a speech by the hon. member for. Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler), both of whom made serious charges against this side of the House. I want to refer to the hon. member for Vereeniging as the man who stands in England with one and nine-tenths of his feet—that is how he described himself; and then I also want to say that we are not prepared to put up with threats and with intimidation against Afrikaners from people like that. In view of everything which we have had to listen to from those two hon. members I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he imagines that all these things tend to induce us, who differ from him in regard to participation in the war, to agree to grant him those powers which he asks us to grant him in this Bill? I was one of those members who in the past got up here and pleaded with the Prime Minister and who begged that if he wanted such regulations, to apply those regulations in such a manner that they would not become an unbearable burden on the country. And I did so because even though I am still young I am living in the middle of a district where the Rebellion broke out in 1914 and I have seen with my own eyes what irresponsible people can do if they get into their hands powers which they are not accustomed to handle. I still shudder when I think of the scenes which were enacted on some of the farms, and it was for that reason that I pleaded in all humility with the Prime Minister and begged of him not to allow this to happen again, and to apply these regulations in a spirit of moderation and tolerance. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) and other members too come here now and bring pressure to bear on the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice who have been trying perhaps to display a degree of common sense in regard to that section of the population which differs from the Government’s war policy. That is what the hon. member for Kensington is doing, and we know that his section is doing so too. But it is tragic that a man like the hon. member for Vereeniging, a man who is a fellow-Afrikaner, should come here and practically threaten the Prime Minister in order to induce him to take steps against his fellow-Afrikaners. What was the idea? Why did the Prime Minister call this House together if we were not to have the right to express our views about matters? But if we do so here, we find that members opposite get up and tell us that, we are traitors of our country.

I always heard that I was a traitor.

They call us traitors, hands-uppers and satellites, but if we look at hon. members opposite we see those who have fallen by the way from the one side of the House to the other. We do not see them on this side. We are prepared to give hon. members opposite, who differ from us in regard to this war, credit for their convictions, but let them remember that they are Afrikaners, even though they are sitting over there among Jews and Englishmen. We want to tell them that they can sit there and render a service to our people, because they can assist in inducing the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice to be tolerant, and they can assist in keeping members like the hon. member for Kensington and the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) in check, in regard to the extravagant efforts which they are making towards continuing the persecution which has been going on in this country for 150 years, and which has caused all the sorrow and all the suffering in this country. They have a responsibility resting on them, and I want to tell them this. My friends must beware lest they should adopt an attitude which will estrange them entirely from the Afrikaner nation so that they will have to go and cast their lot among strangers in our country, and it will go with them then as it is going with those children in our country who are to-day suffering on account of the fact that there rests on their ancestors the stigma or the blot that they had been hands-uppers. The present generation has to suffer for the sins of the fathers. Why do not those hon. members adopt a dignified attitude; if they must differ from us, why cannot they do so in a dignified manner?

Why do you talk about hands-uppers here then?

That to me is the most unpleasant subject to talk about, but hon. members opposite seem to be very keen to talk about hands-uppers in this debate. They are so keen that we have to warn them. When we talk here about the children of hands-uppers, we cast a stigma on a section of the population which is not responsible for the actions of their parents.

Then why do you want to be hands-uppers now?

Mr. Speaker, if I were to be a hands-upper I would not be able to sit here as the representative of Delarey, and I want to ask my hon. friend to come and test it. Let him resign from his constituency and I am prepared to resign from Delarey, and I will invite him to come and contest an election against me at Delarey, and I would even be prepared to pay his election expenses. Let him come and call me a hands-upper there, and let us see what the electorate of Delarey thinks of it. My history and the history of my ancestors is too well-known there. Since the days of the first spies who went to Natal to spy out the country on behalf of the Voortrekkers my ancestors had been there. But I feel resentful against the regulations which we are now asked to approve of, because this war is not being carried on by means of volunteers. I would have had no objection whatsoever if a man who wanted to go and fight could voluntarily be sent to East Africa, and not only there but also to Europe. The man who feels in his heart that he must take part in the war, should go and help in Europe to get the war decided there, because that is where the war will eventually be decided. But I have before me a letter from a mother who writes to me that her minor son who works in the post office has, as a result of improper pressure, been induced to join up simply because he was afraid that he would be put into the street. I am prepared to lay that letter on the Table of the House and to give it to the Prime Minister, or to the hon. member for Kimberlev. The hon. member for Vereeniging told us that we should tell him if there were such cases of compulsion, and he would see to it that those people were released. Will the Prime Minister say that too? Has the hon. member for Vereeniging the right to make a promise like that to us from the floor of the House, that if it can be proved that such a person has been intimidated he will be released? If so, then that mother’s trouble has been solved. That particular mother went to Pretoria where she saw a certain Major Hearn, who is the officer commanding the particular regiment concerned, and he promised her that her son would be released. What has been the result? He cannot get his release, and the mother has now asked me to see what I can do. That is the type of volunteers, the unvoluntary volunteers, with whom the war is being waged. The hon. member for Kingwilliamstown (Mr. Baines) tells us that a great many Afrikaans young fellows have gone forth.

My son has also gone.

I should think so. It is Afrikaner young men who go, but it is the poor Afrikaner young man who is being compelled to go. My experience shows me that it is the sons of the supporters of the Prime Minister, the sons of the rich farmers who are overfed, and who are thoroughly fit who stay back on the farms. But it is the man who has a family to keep and the poor young fellow who have to go and who are induced to take the “Red Oath”. No, I say again that we are unable to grant these additional powers which we are asked to grant. I strongly object to those powers being granted, and my main objection is that as the result of the application of those regulations a section of our people have got into a position of humiliation. Now I come to the question of the commandeering of rifles, and that is the main point I wish to bring to the Prime Minister’s notice. Hon. members opposite will say again now that we have stirred those people up and told them not to hand in their rifles. That has been flung at us repeatedly across the floor of the House. May I be allowed to tell hon. members that I attended a large meeting at Rustenburg, one of a series of eight meetings which were to have been held the same day, and that particular meeting was attended by 4,000 people. I was there together with ex-Minister Grobler, and after the meeting somebody got on to the platform and said: “What are we to do in connection with the handing in of rifles? We live in the Bushveld surrounded by wild animals.” That man was trying to impress upon people that they should not hand in their rifles. I pushed him aside, away from the loudspeaker, and I said to the people: “Look here, we live in this country and the Government has issued a regulation, and in the circumstances we are obliged to obey that regulation.” That was the attitude I adopted before those people. It may perhaps not have done me much good to ask those farmers to hand in their rifles, but I realised the responsibility resting on me at that moment, and that is the attitude which has been consistently adopted by this side of the House since the 4th September.

What about the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus)?

Am I to answer on behalf of the hon. member for Moorreesburg who is here himself? He is more than able to give my hon. friend all the information he requires. I am speaking for myself and I say that I have done everything in my power to maintain peace and order in the country, and I have done so under instructions from my hon. Leader. When at the end of last session we left here he said to us: “You must see to it that nothing is done which may tend to disturb peace and order in South Africa.” I acted as I did under his instructions, and I am standing here to-night under his instructions, and I want to give the Prime Minister the assurance that no rebellion will break out in the constituency of Delarey even though it is a constituency where one gets men who have never yet stood back if they thought they had to do something for the sake of their convictions. I can give him a promise that nothing will happen there to undermine the authority of the country, provided always the Prime Minister does what I think I have the right to ask him on behalf of those men who were his brothers at arms. The Prime Minister commenced his career as a Boer general in the Western Transvaal, and he knows, and I know, that there are men there who have stuck by him through thick and thin. They are not noisy people; they are not the people who are causing the trouble to-day; but the trouble is being caused by those people who feel that it is a sacred thing to them not to go and hand in their rifles away to the police stations. I have had to deal with a great many such cases in my district. I have gone out of my way to speak to a great many of them, but there are men too whom my conscience almost forbade me to advise that they should hand in their rifles. Whenever I meet them they put their position before me and they cut the ground from underneath my feet when I tell them that they are expected to hand in their arms. In spite of that I have done so and I have advised them to hand in their rifles. When I found that the time had passed and that a number of rifles had not yet been handed in I sent a telegram to the Prime Minister and I pleaded with him to be good enough to give a further extension of time, because when the Prime Minister gave an extension on the first occasion he had a tremendous reply in the number of rifles which were handed in. The Prime Minister sent back to me a courteous telegram but he did not comply with my request. He did intimate, however, that where such people were being prosecuted on account of their having handed in their rifles too late, a case would probably not be brought against them. But what happened? People handed in their rifles late and the case was brought against them, with the result that, others were scared off.

Did the Prime Minister promise that there would be no prosecution?

I shall read out the telegram just now as soon as I can lay my hands on it. The Prime Minister gave me to understand that if those people handed in their rifles late all that would be necessary for them would be to give a reasonable excuse as to why they had not handed in the rifles sooner, and no further steps would be taken. I think the Prime Minister will remember it.

I believe those were the general contents.

I take it that the Prime Minister did not actually send a circular letter to his magistrates not to prosecute those people, but that can still be done. Now I come to a point in regard to which I want to put up an earnest plea with the Prime Minister. I have told him that in my constituency it is not the noisy crowd who still have their rifles, but that it is the men who feel that it would be an insurmountable humiliation if they had to lay down their arms. They expected that the Prime Minister would commandeer the rifles, that he would send the police with a lorry and that they would be told that his rifle was being commandeered for defence purposes. If that were done a great many of those people would have no objection. The main objection is that the Afrikaner who attaches so much value to his rifle feels that he is practically turned into a coward if he has to go to the police station and throw his rifle on a heap with other rifles. That is the great objection, and for that reason I feel that we should not try to find arguments and excuses here, but that we should face the real facts, and I hope that I shall not be disappointed in the Prime Minister. There have already been judgments in the courts and yesterday a magistrate felt convinced that this provision of the notice was illegal. Let the Prime Minister come forward now and say: “Look, in view of the fact that we have had this general experience in regard to this matter, I am willing to give a reasonable time for the handing in of the rifles.” A man does not weaken himself by being reasonable towards those who are weak. The Prime Minister’s prestige will be added to if he does that, and it will be added to among people who in time of stress will be indispensable to the Prime Minister. I have the telegram which I received from the Prime Minister here—

Hon. members will agree that that telegram is in the spirit which I mentioned here. In those circumstances I now wish to put up a plea on behalf of the Delarey constituency and I want to tell the Prime Minister of an experience I have had with a farmer in my constituency on the Malopo River. Before doing so I want to say this: in view of the fact that the hon. member for Vereeniging has advised the Prime Minister to act drastically, and in view of the fact that he and other members have stated that he and the people of the platteland have no objection to the handing in of rifles I say: “General, they are misleading you.” I spoke to one of the Prime Minister’s strongest supporters on the border the other day and he said to me: “What is going on now? Here I am, I have been disarmed, and there are natives over there under the British Government, and they are armed. We can see the huts of those armed natives.” He further said: “Look here, I have always stood by Gen. Smuts and I still stand by him, but I would go into rebellion sooner than hand in my rifle.” I told that man that he should not say a thing like that. I told him that he should call together his farmers’ association, of which he was the chairman, and that he should send a delegation to the magistrate and write a letter to the Prime Minister. I told him that that was the course he should follow and that I thought that they, the people living on the border, would get an exemption because they were living close to armed barbarians. I told them that I had every reason to expect that they would be granted such an exemption. It would have been very easy for me to try and stir up that man, but I have a sense of responsibility, and I acted on the instructions of my leader to maintain peace and order in the country. I even gave the best advice I could to the Prime Minister’s supporters, although I could easily have tried to stir them up. I am quite prepared to mention the man’s name to the Prime Minister and to give him his postal address so that the Prime Minister can write to him. I felt that a calamity was being worked up and I had to act in accordance with my sense of responsibility. I have something else here which I want to read out to the Prime Minister.

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 5th September.