When the House adjourned I was just pleading with the Prime Minister to prevent the disaster which was staring the country in the face in consequence of the commandeering of rifles. I wish that I could find language in order to put the matter still clearer, but I will do my best. Yesterday it was precisely a year since South Africa was plunged into war, and now, precisely twelve months later, it is my duty to rise here as representative of my constituency to make a plea on behalf of my fellow-Afrikaners, men with a history in the country, because they are being oppressed by the Prime Minister. They are men who have supported the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister started as a Boer General in that part of the Western Transvaal which I represent, and those who stood loyally by him in those days are now being put in gaol by him. Hon. members on the other side will possibly not know the type of man I am speaking about, but the Prime Minister knows them. They are the men who are now in danger of being locked up and having to wear convict clothing. I have before me here the newspaper which I have just received, and in which I notice that a farmer at Klerksdorp — I am told that he is one of the prominent farmers there — was given six months hard labour because he did not hand in his rifle. Six months hard labour for a son of the Voortrekkers, and that although the magistrate at Worcester found yesterday, and so did a magistrate in Johannesburg to-day, that the regulations under which those people are being punished are ultra vires. I would like to take hon. members opposite with me to the farmers that I visited after I had received a telegram from the Prime Minister in which he asked me to try to persuade the people to surrender their rifles. I went to old greybeards, like the Prime Minister himself, and when I put the position to them and tried to persuade them to hand over the rifles I could see by their faces that I was touching on a matter which was a sacred one to them. The Bible and his rifle are two things which are sacred to a farmer. The old men sat looking at me when I advised them to hand over their rifles. It is some of them who are in native gaols to-day. I want to ask the Prime Minister not to become a second Lord Charles Somerset. Surely he knows the character of the people of South Africa. He is not a stranger like Lord Charles Somerset, but was once a Boer General. Those people who are in the gaols are not criminals. I want to give the assurance to the Prime Minister, on their behalf, that the men will do nothing which will occasion unrest. I am prepared to be their surety, and if they do anything contrary to law and order the Prime Minister can do with me whatever he likes. This matter has now gone far enough. Now the Prime Minister gets up and says that he is going to give the wrong things that he has done the force of law. First of all he does something in conflict with the law, and the people are sentenced, and then he comes and asks for the sentence to be confirmed. If the Prime Minister had taken the step of sending a lorry about saying “In the name of the Union of South Africa I commandeer the arms” it would have been a different matter. Then he would not have committed this insult against the people, but have handed an order over to the people to hand in their rifles. But to call upon the people to bring in their own rifles themselves is what sticks in their gizzards. Do you know what an old farmer told me when I was chatting with him in order to induce him to hand over the rifle? He asked me: “Am I to go and experience a second Vereeniging? At that time I went and had to lay down my rifle and hand it to the British, but to-day it is not the British but Gen. Smuts. I refuse to do it. He can do whatever he wishes. What he can do to me is a small matter compared with what I should have to suffer if I had to go and hand in my rifle.” Do you see? What counted with him were the things which lived in his soul, and he did not mind putting on convict clothing, or whatever it might be, but he would not stand the humiliation.

The hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) has apparently undergone a slight change during the night. Last night when he addressed the House he was so reasonable and wise that he hardly got any support from this side of the House. This morning he has spoken differently, and now he is being more supported. It seems to us that as a result of the struggle overseas the enthusiasm of the members of the Opposition has cooled down a bit, and we are now having the phenomenon that hon. members opposite are much concerned about the wool scheme and the mealie scheme.

Irresponsible talk.

Yes, we only heard a little while ago from hon. members opposite that the war would only last a few weeks. Why so anxious about the scheme now? I am certain that they will not sell much wool during the next few weeks ….

What will happen after the war?

But you yourselves say that the war will soon be over.

What do you say?

And then we sell our wool under the direction of Hitler, which, of course, will suit the taste of hon. members there better. The hon. member for Delarey spoke about the commandeering of rifles, and he told us that he had used his influence to induce the people to hand in their rifles, and I felt that the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) looked at him contemptuously. That hon. member for Albert-Colesberg spoke with admiration of people who advised their constituents not to hand their rifles over. Now the hon. member for Delarey comes here and says that he advised the people to hand in their rifles. The hon. member told us of farmers who had armed natives as neighbours, but he forgot to tell us that the Government had made provision for such cases. They could get exemption. That exemption was not intended for such cases as that of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp).

Those people did not get exemption.

They could have got it. The hon. member for Bethal (Mr. C. J. van den Berg) has again made another very unfortunate attempt which we certainly cannot admire. He was trying to bring our courts of justice into discredit. The hon. member made certain comparisons between the way in which the Afrikaners were treated in the courts, and the way in which other people were treated, with the implication that it was happening under the influence of the Prime Minister. He compared the treatment of Afrikaners by the courts with the treatment of Jews, and he referred to sentences which were passed by a Jewish magistrate in connection with certain contraventions which he did not name. But we know those contraventions were that certain persons charged people too much fcr certain goods under the war regulations.

Yes, the Jews can just do whatever they like.

He read out a list of names of Jews to us who had been convicted, and he let it come out in that way that the Government did not allow those people to exploit the public.

The Jews got less severe punishments than the Afrikaners got.

They were fined up to as much as £15 for comparatively slight contraventions. He read out a list of names to us, and then he reached the climax of his argument, the name of the magistrate, Maurice Isaacs. The implication is that Mr. Isaacs, who very probably was put on the bench under the Government which the hon. member supported, that that Mr. Isaacs gave judgment under the influence of the present Government in a way which would presumably suit this side of the House. But the hon. member spoke a little too soon. This morning’s newspaper tells us—

The attempt which was made by the hon. member for Bethal is an attempt to bring the fairness of our courts of justice under suspicion, but the result of his action was more than ever to place the Bench beyond all suspicion. I know of other countries where South Africa is often quoted as an example so far as judicial, procedure is concerned, but hon. members opposite do not do that, and try to throw contumely on our Bench. The propaganda which the hon. member is trying to make here is rendered futile by what 1 have just quoted ….

“Give the devil his due.”

While I was listening last night to the speech of the hon. member for Delarey I commenced to hope that the atmosphere in the House would possibly become such that one might perhaps make friends. Well, I do not want to make enemies of hon. members opposite, but I feel that the custom which has arisen here lately of constantly talking about settling accounts, is not exactly calculated to create a feeling of friendship here.

Are you afraid of a settlement?

We had cases of threats about settling accounts which made us think back of the past. I am thinking of such a case as that of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy). There were repeated occasions in the life of the hon. member for Vredefort when accounts could have been settled with him. There were repeated occasions. To-day we have the phenomenon here that the hon. member for Vredefort comes and bellows about settling accounts in the sweat of his countenance. It does not befit him to speak about settling accounts. I would like to point out that if a day of settlement should come, then the example which the Prime Minister has set us will once again be the best for South Africa.

Yes, he shot Jopie Fourie on a Sunday, that is a nice example.

I hope the hon. member for Vredefort will think over the fact that that did not happen to him and that under the Hitler regime the Native Affairs Commission may possibly be abolished.

If that day comes then you will become just as good a German as you are a Jingo to-day.

But that question of settling accounts goes even further. The hon. member for Vredefort is a front-bencher, and his speeches are followed by the backbenchers, who go to work in the same way. But what shocked me more than anything else was to hear the words which were used here by the Leader of the Opposition. He spoke about the “fury of Afrikanerdom” and said very deliberately that “isolation, barricades and body guards” would not be enough. Apparently the Leader of the Opposition is thinking, in his imagination, about some occurrence or other during the French Revolution. What else can it mean when a responsible man gets up and says that “isolation, barricades and even body guards” will not be sufficient to protect people against the “fury of Afrikanerdom”—what else can it be but a threat that force will be used, and what else can the implication be than that he, by anticipation, refuses to disapprove of it?

You have no right to say that.

Oh yes, I have. But there were also cases of settling accounts which the Prime Minister could have used against the Leader of the Opposition—cases of political settlement which the Prime Minister could have effected. In 1933 the Prime Minister took the Leader of the Opposition with the whole of his following under his protection politically. To-day there is a reference to settling accounts, and the word “loathe” is used so much. This is not the first time that we have had that weak tendency in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, to make his speeches as strong as possible. This is not the first time in the history of South Africa that he has used that kind of language. The Leader of the Opposition can consult with the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom). It is not two years since the hon. member for Waterberg said over the floor of the House to the face of his present leader that the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition had contributed more than anything else to the rebellion of 1914, and he used many more uncomplimentary words.

What about the Bill?

What about the July Handicap?

In the course of the debate we had a few astonishing revelations. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) mentioned so-called revelations. He had a small blue book in his hand, and he quoted from it and made so-called revelations that there was an organisation in existence here, among supporters of the Government, which was run on military lines. He said that in answer to a reference by the Minister of the Interior to other organisations of which the Minister said that they were subversive organisations which were constituted on a military basis and that it aimed at an armaments programme.

He proved nothing.

Those are the dead characteristics of that underground organisation. And in answer the hon. member for Moorreesburg came and, with full assurance, he pointed out that the Minister also had an organisation run on military lines — the only characteristic of the three which is truly Afrikaans. What was there improper in an attempt to acquire funds? No, the objection to that by hon. members opposite is that those funds had to come from London and not from Berlin. I fully agree to our receiving support from our allies. The attempt of the Truth Legion to fight Nazi propaganda in South Africa is an attempt which deserves support, and it is an attempt which has to show resistance against an organisation which has tremendous support of funds from overseas. I am not now referring to Afrikaans organisations. The propaganda from Zeesen has the mighty German Empire behind it, both financial and otherwise, and it is aimed to attain a definite object in South Africa. In order to fight that object there is no question that an insignificant effort cannot succeed, and we must collect all the help that we can get to oppose that German propaganda. The objection of the Opposition to funds being used by well-disposed persons is a very weak one. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) said that he would make revelations; he said that he would give proofs, and he stated here with the greatest confidence that he would prove that the Truth League actually exercises compulsion and makes use of unlawful means to force people to join up, means which cannot face the light of day. What did he do here? He read out to us a quotation from an article of a writer who himself says that he suspects the Truth League.

Are you a member of it?

No, I am not. The hon. member for Fordsburg quoted from that article, but he carefully suppressed the fact that there was another statement in the same article, namely, a declaration of policy by the Minister of Railways, in which he explained that he would take most stringent steps against any compulsory measures which were applied to any railway official or railway worker. This declaration of policy is not being quoted by the hon. member, but the part which relies on suspicion he uses here as a so-called proof. I am convinced that in South Africa there are private businesses, and also in state departments cases occur where individuals abuse their position. I am quite certain that the Prime Minister is not in a position to control the actions of every individual who is well disposed to him, and because I am certain that there are actually such instances, I want very earnestly to ask the Minister of Railways to do his utmost to prohibit and to prevent such cases taking place. I admit that there are such cases, not thousands or even hundreds, where compulsion is used. Out of hundreds of thousands of people who are wearing the red tabs, there are possibly a few dozen who have been compelled. I expected hon. members on the other side to mention hundreds of cases of compulsion to the House, but when we make an attempt here to get proofs of compulsion from them, then we are e.g. referred to a speech which an officer made. Possibly half-a-dozen cases may have been mentioned here, but when we ask that proof should be given of the statement that compulsion had been used on a large scale, then we are referred to the speech of an officer as if that were compulsion. He is supposed to have said in his official capacity that a man who would riot go and fight was a coward, and then hon. members say that that is compulsion. That puts the position of those hon. members in a very poor light. I put the case on this basis, that we should bear in mind what human nature is, and for that reason I know that there most probably were cases where compulsion was used. But those individual cases definitely do not justify the impression which the Opposition is trying to create here. I want the Minister of Railways to take very strong steps to prohibit, and to see to it, if it is in any way possible, that no officer in his department will abuse his position, to put in a difficult position and to force people who differ on this war question in a difficult position. Put at the very lowest, it would be short-sighted to allow railway officials to bring a spirit like that into the Railway Administration. The figures which have been quoted here in connection with recruiting are incontrovertible proof of the support which the Government is getting, and the Opposition now comes here and makes use of individual cases of compulsion, and of wrong measures by individuals to try and depreciate the demonstration in favour of the policy of the Government. In the course of this debate there has been a reference to the attitude which may be expected from the side of the Opposition in connection with a possible unfavourable turn of the war in Africa. Out of that this question arose, and it was dealt with here by way of interjections and speeches, in what circumstances can South Africa expect from the Opposition that they will want to do something by force of arms on behalf of the country against a possible enemy? The prospect of a possible annexation either by Germany or by Italy is regarded by the Opposition with the greatest equanimity. The argument is used that we may expect from a victory by Germany either a republic or annexation. In the case of annexation are we then simply to accept it? I want to know whether we may expect it of the Opposition that they will oppose a possible annexation. The policy which was followed by the old Nationalist Party is often represented in the country by hon. members who now sit on their side in a way which amounts to a misrepresentation. It is said that the old Nationalist Party stands for a policy of neutrality in all circumstances. That was the greatest misrepresentation. The policy of the old Nationalist Party was a policy of neutrality in connection with any war which did not threaten our independence. They do not worry themselves with regard to our other interests. But now we find that the Opposition is accepting the misprepresentation of that policy as its policy. It has become very clear this session and it amounts to this, that in case Hitler obtains the victory, then we will try to persuade him not to annex South Africa, and to give us a republic. But if that does not succeed, then we are willing to accept annexation and any opposition remains out of consideration. The people of South Africa, to whom it was represented by the Opposition that this session was going to be of the greatest importance, expected that this session would produce something to realise the prophesy. There was to be an astonishing development in this House. Well, it is an amazing development. The people of South Africa who listened to that talk, the section of the people who, to the extent of almost 90 per cent., believed that a victory for Germany meant nothing else but a republic for South Africa, well, this session allows them to know that a victory by Germany probably means annexation, but they must not look to the Opposition to offer any resistance to such an annexation. The Opposition will accept it unenthusiastically. Hon. members opposite must not hold demonstrations under President Kruger’s Vierkleur. They should use a big white flag and they should write on it with a very trembling hand, “We are very frightened.”

At the very introduction of this Bill there were certain relevant questions put to the Government party as a whole and to the Prime Minister in particular. The Prime Minister has since that time moved the second reading of this Bill, but he did not consider it worth the trouble of giving any attention to those direct questions and he confined himself to what he hopefully called an explanation of the Bill, an explanation which unfortunately was just as misleading as the behaviour of his department in connection with which those questions were put. What was that explanation? It was: you can safely entrust these powers to the Government because those powers have been stringently restricted and moreover the Bill contains full guarantees which will prevent the Government if it were so inclined from being able to abuse those powers. One need only read through this Bill once to realise that the subject is so wide, yes, as wide as the Government’s own conscience— i.e., unlimited; and the guarantees are as valueless as the promises of the Government are valueless. Now, just let us examine it for a little. What can be done under this Bill? I do not say that the Government will do it all because there are stupidities before which even this Government will hesitate. But let us examine what the Government can do merely in order to fix how wide this Bill is. The Government can inter alia under clause 1 (bis) make regulations and the rest—

The opinion of the Government, the opinion of the Prime Minister is the only test whether circumstances have arisen or not in consequence of the war. No court can give any judgment about it. He can on his own account decide that any state of affairs, that everything in the world, has arisen as a consequence of the war. And what conditions are there in our country which are not influenced by and which have not arisen in consequence of the war? I say, as a lawyer, that as the Bill stands here, the Prime Minister has the right of commandeering the produce of the farmers.

Why not?

There are apparently some hon. members opposite who are expecting it, I was just explaining that he could commandeer just what was required for purposes of carrying on the war. I was dealing with circumstances which according to the view of the Prime Minister, would have arisen in consequence of the war, and I say that the produce of the farmers can be commandeered, because the Prime Minister thinks that circumstances which arise out of the war make it necessary. Workmen can be commandeered, and all the existing labour relations, which the trade unions have won, in a big struggle in the course of years the Prime Minister can, if he thinks it necessary —and in the past he did not use gloves in dealing with those trade unions—he can by a stroke of the pen get rid of them again, The colour bar which has always yet stuck in the throat of the Prime Minister, he can so easily, if the gold mines wish it, remove under this Bill for the duration of the war, and even longer. They have already commenced to tamper with the safety measures in the mines, measures which exist there to protect the lives of the miners. They can go further. I am speaking here of what can be done, to show how childish it is to try to explain to us that we are dealing here with restricted powers. They can confiscate every possession if they wish; they can apply the death penalty, there is nothing to prevent it. They can go further and they can apply the death penalty, as they are now acting in connection with the rifle regulations; they can apply it with retrospective force. Everything is possible under the terms of this Bill. They can abolish the courts, they will very probably do it in this respect that no regulation can be tested by the court. To a partial extent they will eliminate the courts, but they can eliminate the courts altogether. All the existing laws can be amended and repealed, with the exception of those slight guarantees in clause 3. With the exception of those there is no Act, not even the Act of Union, which they cannot amend or abolish. I mention these things so that we should realise how much value we can attach to this explanation of the Prime Minister that we are dealing here with strictly limited powers. What is still worse is this, that they cannot merely exercise these powers, but can delegate the exercise of these powers and the trial of crimes to the lowest knight of truth. I mean the lowest in rank, and not lowest so far as disposition is concerned. In that respect there is no difference between the first and the lowest. The Government can give the most irresponsible among them all these powers. Why I am emphasising these things is because of the attitude of the Prime Minister. What is alarming is this, that the Prime Minister does not come here and say that he denies that this Bill is a wide one, and that it gives him unrestricted power; he does not come and tell us that he is prepared to accept amendments which will put these powers on a reasonable basis, or to tell us — for what it is worth — that the Government gives the undertaking not to do certain things, e.g. that crimes which are punished by imprisonment and fine, these will only be carried out a certain time after the punishment has been imposed. What is so alarming is that instead of the Prime Minister admitting that he is here asking for unlimited powers, he brings up the story that they are strictly limited powers. Whether he does that to poke fun at us, or with some other object, he will be able to explain to us at the end of the second reading debate. The Prime Minister says that these powers are much restricted, and that strict guarantees are being made to apply to him. Let us now look at those guarantees. They are just as valueless as the other part of the Prime Minister’s statement which I déalt with first. The first guarantee is that the Prime Minister cannot commandeer except in opposition to an enemy who is already in South Africa, within or outside of the Union. On the introduction of the Bill it was already said that nothing was being stated about the defence of the Union. In other words, that during the present aggressive war and further aggressive wars which may be waged by the Union, it will be sufficient reason for the Prime Minister to say “I commandeer.” We are referred to the fact that the reference here is to within and without of the Union but inside South Africa. We must read that in connection with the official communication of the Prime Minister to the commandoes where he told them that the boundaries of South Africa were the equator. Now we are in this position that we are dealing with a war of aggression, and already there are armed troops of Italy to the south of the equator. All the requisites of this clause in order to be able to commandeer exist to-day. Even if we had to contest such a command of commandeering in the court — and during the war we will not have the opportunity — the court will have to decide that inasmuch as there are already forces to the south of the equator, people can be commandeered to go and fight in Kenya. The equator runs through Kenya and not through Tanganyika. This guarantee is a guarantee which means nothing and which has already become valueless owing to the fact and the explanation of the Prime Minister. The second guarantee is this, that provisions cannot be carried out by which—

I do not want to refer here to the qualifications and the nomination of Senators and members of the House of Assembly because, of course, the Prime Minister cannot touch our salaries and qualifications without also affecting those of the people on his own side, and there he is more set on giving them a double salary than to take anything away from them. But let us now pass on to the guarantee that Parliament will have to sit. The only provision in our constitution is that the Parliament shall meet once a year. It can sit one day and do no work, and then we have complied with the constitution. And I can imagine that after this session is over, and after the Government side have seen what a miracle has been performed in this session, that neither they nor the Prime Minister will probably summon Parliament again. No, this Bill and the powers which are asked for, are unlimited, and the guarantees are pure pretence. The supporters of the Prime Minister did not go any further into his explanation. The Prime Minister floundered about to try and ascertain what reasons he could give why these powers were asked for, and stress was particularly laid on the fact that on the Witwatersrand and elsewhere dynamite explosions had taken place. This side of the House deplores those occurrences just as much and possibly more than hon. members opposite. We do not know who the guilty party is and whether the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) is not possibly right in saying that it is provocation on the part of the khaki knights or someone else. In any case we disapprove of it in all honesty. But what is so comic is that this Bill is necessary now for the purpose of finding out who has committed those crimes. The difficulty is not that such crimes must be prohibited, but to find out who the guilty parties are. It shows some flaw, if there is a flaw, with our detective service that they have not yet discovered the guilty persons. To say that this Bill is necessary to arrest those people is simply nonsense, unless we can possibly bring it into relation with the action of the Government in convicting innocent people and then subsequently justifying their actions. Otherwise there is nothing in this argument. The ordinary law of the land gives them all the necessary power to take action. The C.I.D. has the legal right to search houses and more than enough power to find the guilty persons. That is not the difficulty. The difficulty up to the present has probably been that no blame can reasonably be placed on the C.I.D.— because we have a good service—that the detective did not succeed in tracing the offenders. But to say that these powers are necessary to find those who are responsible for the dynamite outrage is simply to ridicule the intelligence of this House. In one part of the Prime Minister’s speech he pretended to give an explanation of this Bill of the restricted powers and the unrestricted guarantee! In the second part of his speech he made an objection that my hon. friend next to me here and I had charged his action in connection with the question of the rifles as fraud. He became warm on the subject, and therefore I just want to put the matter again. The position is that the Government had the right of commandeering for military purposes and that is the only right they have. It is a right which both in normal and abnormal circumstances is more than adequate. Let us now see what rifles he commandeered inter alia. He commandeered the rifle for instance of an oudstryder like the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler), who knows how to handle that rifle, and he gave it to one of his new crusaders like the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). Does the Government not realise that by doing so the whole of the public life within a circumference of 1,000 yards from that hon. member is immediately put into danger, but let us inquire a little whether the Minister believes that these guns were acquired for military purposes. They then commandeered non-military rifles for military purposes, rifles for which there was no ammunition and they commandeered ammunition which you can only use if you want to contravene international law and martial law. They commandeered dum-dum cartridges for military purposes. Of course, the Prime Minister at once realised on what a weak basis that commandeering stood and his explanation was that they commandeered it all, but that the non-military rifles would be given back again. In the meantime, however, those Afrikaners are in gaol on account of that commandeering of non-military rifles which now can be returned. Will the imprisonment of those people be able to be made good also? No, there was never any intention of commandeering the rifles for military purposes. I will admit that we even decided in the time of the previous Government that certain military rifles which were not in the possession of members of rifle associations ought to be made available under the Defence Act, when it appeared necessary, but the object of that would not be to arm the class of knights who are now being armed; it was not the object to disarm people who could handle those rifles, and to arm the other class. The position is that the Government was afraid of its own people and in addition it is now still afraid to play an open game and to tell the people what they did. I can quite imagine that the Afrikaner people will now realise that the only difference between the disarmament of the burgers by the Government and the burgers before Dingaan’s Kraal is that the Government is doing it by a proclamation and even that the Government side will yet see that this step is the first step of the great difficulties into which they are going to plunge the people. I say that this power of commandeering has been illegally used to disarm the people and I want to ask the House to remember that as long ago as December of last year certain automatic pistols with which you can fife more than one shot if you set the trigger, have also already been commandeered for military purposes. It is strange, but they were commandeered by the police. Whether it was legal or not I leave aside now, but already at that time a panic had arisen and the disarmament of the people commenced. Subsequently it was extended and then the commandeering regulations were used to demand the rifles and to continue the disarmament of the people. I do not want to give any additional reasons now why it was illegal. Reasons have already been given by the magistrates who have thrown out the charges against individuals. The position to-day is, and I do not hesitate to repeat it, that the law has been violated and that people have been thrown into gaol illegally and now when we are on the point of showing up the fraud before the appeal court, it is prevented, it is smothered up. The appeals must be killed, the burgers must be prevented from going to the court, and the right which every low criminal has, a man who has committed theft or who is charged with rape, has the right of every criminal to go to the courts and to get a decision from the judge there who is above politics, that right is here being smothered up. In that way innocent people who have committed an act which is to-day an innocent one will be turned by the Governor-General into criminal offenders by the signing of this Bill which is before us. The Prime Minister says that he cannot wait for the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, he must have finality now. And the reasons that he gives as to why he must have finality, just think of it, are that otherwise the Treasury will not be able to pay out. Because the people cannot be paid our for their rifles, according to the Prime Minister, those people who have been innocently condemned must be prevented from appealing to the Supreme Court. The Prime Minister says he cannot wait any longer for this Bill because the people will be impatient because they want to get their money. Are you children to whom such nonsense can be told? If this Bill passes what will prevent the Prime Minister then from making provision under cl ause 1 of the Bill that the payment must take place? With that the matter will be disposed of. He can under clause 1 legalise the payments and he can in addition provide that the rifles handed in will on payment become the property of the Government.

The Bill must first be passed.

Yes, but my objection at the moment is not to the Bill going through, but that a clause should be contained in the Bill which will prevent the appeals. I am glad to learn that the Prime Minister is so much concerned about unauthorised payments but that surely is no justification for the appeals being stopped. The Minister says that he cannot otherwise pay for the rifles but he can issue a proclamation under clause 1 to make it legal. He can allow the Bill to pass without smothering up the appeals. We therefore have the position in South Africa in the year 1940 that our innocent acts are turned into crimes by legislation with retrospective force. I should be glad if the Prime Minister in his reply would give us a single example in history of any civilised country where anything of the sort has ever happened. I shall even be glad if he, for instance, will show that Stalin, with all the murders that have already been committed by him, ever did such a thing. No civilised or uncivilised country, no dictator has ever dreamt of doing such a thing. Therefore, let us understand that the people in gaol are innocent, as innocent as you and I are, but if this Bill goes through then they become legal criminals. One asks oneself what the real reason is that is lurking behind this Bill. This Bill is as wide as the conscience of the Government, with guarantees as valueless as the promises of the Government. What lurks behind it? What are the real reasons for this legislation? I think we have to go outside of South Africa to look for the real reason. Things at the moment are extremely critical overseas. I am not going into details, I do not want to hurt feelings. I also respect the feelings of people who differ from me, but let me emphasise one thing and that is that if on September 4th or even at the end of last session, anyone had got up here and said that Great Britain would go and give America a guarantee that she would not sink her own fleet then that person would probably have been sent under the emergency regulations to a mental establishment. And yet that is the case to-day. To-day it is a fact and now we must look a little further for the reasons behind this Bill. The Prime Minister of Great Britain (Mr. Churchill) said that if England were occupied then he would fight on from elsewhere. Our Prime Minister who always echoes everything that Churchill says —if he does not anticipate him—said the same thing here, and in connection with this Bill I referred for that reason to Dingaan and the disarmament of the Voortrekkers at the time, and because this Bill is intended to disarm the Afrikaners by anticipation so that they cannot make any opposition against any mental deficiency which the Government may yet be guilty of in connection with the war policy. It is intended to bind the people hand and foot, and bound in that way to sacrifice them on the Imperial altar. Even the humble followers of the Prime Minister who draw double salaries and others who still hope to draw double salaries will shrink back as they see what there really is behind this Bill.

The hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) said that the war position was critical. It may be critical or not. So far as I am concerned I do not consider the position nearly as critical as what it was a few months ago. I regard the position as actually much better. But let us assume that the position is as critical as the hon. member for Gezina wants to make out, then I just want to give him the assurance that we who on the 4th September thought that the Prime Minister had taken the right step, that we did not lightly give him our support, but after having once given him the support we were going to stand by it. I know I am speaking on behalf of every member on this side of the House that we are just as definitely behind him as we were on the 4th September. The determination with which we stand behind the Prime Minister in his policy will not become greater or less according as the matter for which we are fighting becomes more or less serious. I intentionally take advantage of this opportunity to say this because there are rumours going about that some of us in the Cabinet no longer stand by the Prime Minister, that we are not absolutely in agreement with him. I say that we appreciate his attitude and we also know that he has the support of the great majority of the population, both Afrikaans and English-speaking. Hon. members on the other side were always so fond of speaking on behalf of the people, now they want to speak on behalf of the Afrikaans-speaking persons. They can speak on behalf of the section of the Afrikaans-speaking people whom they represent, but I can give them the assurance that the Prime Minister speaks on behalf of a very large and intelligent section of the Afrikaans-speaking population. In any case he speaks on behalf of the large majority of the population who stand behind him.

I allowed the Minister to make his introduction, but I must now point out to him that this falls outside of the limits of this debate.

The hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) made certain objections to this Bill. I, however, want to point out that we are living in a time of war, and whether hon. members opposite agree to our carrying on the war, has nothing to do with the case. This country in a democratic way by a democratic resolution of Parliament entered the war, and said that we would stand by the Allies. Accordingly, extraordinary legislation is necessary. Such legislation is unavoidable in time of war. It goes without saying that in time of war the first duty of the Government is to maintain law and order, to take all the necessary steps to make the country safe, and also to take all reasonable steps to bring the war to a successful conclusion. The hon. member for Gezina did not take up the attitude that the ordinary law of our country was sufficient. That is why other legislation had to be introduced, unless we wanted to proclaim martial law. In this respect I agree with the Prime Minister, that recourse to martial law should only be had when it is absolutely necessary. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) asked what the difference was between martial law and the powers which we were now taking. If you take martial law and all the drastic measures connected with it, you take immediate steps, but this legislation only makes provision that where necessary the Government can act more drastically than what the ordinary law permits. The hon. member for Gezina did not take up the attitude that the ordinary laws were not adequate. He cannot take up that attitude, nor does he.

Why not?

Because he considered that the ordinary law was not sufficient to maintain neutrality. He drafted measures in the past which he would have put into force if we had remained neutral. They were very drastic steps, more drastic than what this Government has up to the present applied. Under the measures which he drafted he even made provision for solitary confinement, and that if anyone said anything against a Minister, certain sanctions could be applied to him. Perhaps that was right, so far as that point is concerned, but the Press also had to be kept in restraint. I will return to that later on, but hon. members will admit that in time of war the Government can commandeer rifles. To talk, therefore of fraud, and of the punishments that were imposed, does not become the hon. member for Gezina. Let us just examine the punishments that he intended to apply in order to maintain neutrality. Then we will see what force there is in his argument. The hon. member for Gezina admits that special legislation is necessary, but what does he say now? That amendments must be made. If he proposes amendments, then they will without the least doubt have the tendency of rendering the whole object of the Bill futile because what is he objecting to? He objects to powers being granted to make provision for dealing with circumstances which, in the opinion of the Government, have arisen in consequence of the war, and make the provision necessary. If you can make no provision for special circumstances in connection with the war, and if you want to eliminate it, what then is the value of the law? If you introduce legislation it should be of value, and of assistance in the special circumstances. I am thinking, for instance, of the offence of laying dynamite under the railway line and other things. Those offences demand effective steps to deal with them, without making the rest of the population who are not guilty of them, subject to the detriments of martial law. There is nothing in that argument of the hon. member. If you eliminate it you can just as well scrap the whole Bill. He says that the guarantees in the Bill amount to nothing. Will he move an amendment to delete the guarantees?

And this is actually a Minister who is speaking.

I will say a little more yet. The hon. member for Gezina particularly objected in regard to the commandering of rifles and other arms, but I say that the Prime Minister followed a tolerant policy, and we know that he will also be tolerant in the application of this measure, but that where it is necessary, he will take severe steps and he will have our support. We need powers to use them in regard to things that are going on—I am thinking in particular of the dynamite explosions. The hon. member for Gezina spoke of people who had been arrested. People have been arrested and more are going to be arrested, but the object of this Bill is to take steps to make it impossible for people to be misled into making themselves guilty of that sort of crime ….

The blowing up of an Afrikaner school.

Yes. It is just as un-Afrikaans as the other things, and it must also be stopped. But even if such things did happen, it surely does not justify the blowing up of a railway line. I went to make an inspection at the place where the explosion was, and I can give hon. members the assurance that it is very fortunate that people were not killed there. I certainly think that even hon. members of the Opposition will most strongly support the Government in its attempt to take all possible measures to put an end to such malpractices, because they can only have terrible consequences to the country.

You can deal with them without the special measures.

The hon. member for Gezina spoke about rifles, as I have already said. He knows himself that in time of war a government has the right of commandeering. The hon. member again mentioned fraud in this connection. Just as he could introduce compulsory measures for the maintenance of neutrality, so the Government is entitled to pass many strong emergency regulations in connection with the commandeering of rifles, and to provide very severe penalties.

Do you know what the maximum is? Twenty years.

It may be made still more severe. The hon. member for Gezina in his emergency regulations for the maintenance of neutrality, imposed very severe penalties, and they were in respect of pure technicalities. As this Government has commandeered rifles, it is asked what right the Government had to do so. The Government has full rights in time of war to commandeer not only all rifles, but also anything else that it needs to bring the war to a successful conclusion.

Why then did you not do so under the ordinary law? Then you have no need to come to Parliament for an indemnity.

Now he is in a fix.

No, that is not so. For the same reason that the hon. member for Gezina did not want to apply the ordinary laws this Government took this step. The Government commandeered the rifles and it was a great success. It was only a small section of the population which did not hand in the rifles.

Is that the best that you are able to do?

I am sorry that people who encouraged citizens not to hand over the rifles, were the first to ask for exemption. The poor people who listen to their advice are just left to get into trouble. That is also why such measures are necessary, to provide that in the future it not be permitted for certain people to encourage others to commit crimes, and not to do their duty.

That was not a crime.

I think that I have given enough proofs that there is nothing in the arguments of the hon. member for Gezina, but I just want to say that this Government is going to take all measures in order to bring the war, which we regard as a war for the maintenance of our freedom, to a successful end. I say this emphatically, because during the debate alarming statements were made. The hon. member for Gezina is fairly well informed, and he said that owing to the provocation of the big powers South Africa might possibly yet become a German colony. That makes one think back to the time when he said that Germany would again become a colonial power in Africa. Is he now apologising—as he thinks that Germany will conquer, which will not be the case—for holding out the prospect of our being a German colony? The hon. member for Piquetberg also spoke about annexation. Hon. members opposite say: “If you provoke great powers you will yet become a German colony.” What is the provocation? That we are doing our duty, which hon. members on the other side also accepted in the Simonstown agreement. It is not pleasant for them to hear about it. If the Graf Spec had come through here and had fired on Simonstown, would that not have been provocation? The hon. members opposite went further, and they expect it of the British Government to assist our defence, and they asked for ammunition and war material. That is what happened under the last government. No, I say that the Prime Minister not only took the right step, but that he took an honourable step when he decided that South Africa should take part in the war. We know that if the Allies win South Africa will not become a German colony, but will retain its freedom. We shall continue as a free people, but even the hon. member for Piquetberg is not certain that if the German Empire wins, that we shall then continue to exist as a free people. They talk about the possibility of our becoming a German colony.

I think the Minister is now wandering a little too far from the Bill under discussion.

I want again to say that we will use this measure to bring the war to a successful conclusion.

The Minister must confine himself to the Bill.

What about the boys who are in gaol innocently?

There are no innocent boys in gaol. This measure will confirm what the Government has the right to do.

It was illegal.

Those boys rather than to come and ask me should apply to those who encouraged them and who themselves got an exemption. The same thing was said in connection with the internments. It was said that the internments also were illegal. The hon. member for Gezina even took a case to court, and he knows just as well as I do that the internments were quite legal. I only want to say that I am astonished at the patience of the Prime Minister, but we appreciate it. We know that in the difficult circumstances he is not going to put any burdens on the people, and on the freedom of the people if it is not necessary. We are going on with the work, and we know that if the Allies win we will not be a colony, but that we shall then retain the freedom which we value so much.

It is quite amusing to notice how often the Minister of Justice takes the word “freedom” on his lips, in what is presumably the last free debate that this House will have. If the Bill goes through, then we shall have an absolute dictatorship in our country.

To maintain your freedom.

Then “freedom” will be just as wrong a name as “Minister of Justice” will be a wrong idea in this Government. There will be just as little room for a “Minister of Justice” as there is in Switzerland for a “Minister of Marine.” But I want to be serious. I say and I say emphatically, that as soon as this Bill is passed we shall have an absolute dictatorship in South Africa. I already see the next step. It will be just the taking away of the time stipulation for this Bill. This Bill is being made a part of the War Measures Act which was passed earlier, and it continues for six months after the end of the war. The whole tendency now is so much in the direction of a dictatorship that people who continued to offer opposition last session, are now just capitulating. I myself am just protesting once more, but I feel that I also may just as well capitulate in view of the tendency to a dictatorship. The time stipulation will disappear, and then we shall have a dictatorship for good. Talking of a dictatorship, I want to point out that we on this side are accused of wanting to ape the Nazi system and Nazi methods. Here we now have a Government which itself is following the world tendency, and which is curtailing democratic liberties. I pointed out during the last session how step by step our Government was doing all the things that they alleged were the worst things in the Nazi system, and now the Government is taking the last step and abolishing Parliament. If this Bill is passed, Parliament will be superfluous. The Government would still meet once a year because the constitution requires it, but it will just meet and do nothing else. We also heard how the Prime Minister said that he had at the next session practically taken the steps that he was now asking for. He said that the whole difficulty in connection with the commandeering of the rifles etc. was that last session he did not take the powers which he is taking now. In other words, I break the law, and then I say that the whole trouble is the law. It makes me think of the minister of religion who went to visit a burglar in the gaol and asked him, “But how did you land here?” The reply of the burglar was, “It was my creaking boots.” Here we have the case of people who are left in gaol. We say that they are there illegally, and we ask the Prime Minister to allow it to be tested. They thought that they had done things which they had a right to do. Does the Prime Minister now admit that he made a mistake? No, he says that the mistake is the existence of the law. He says, “If I break the law, then abolish the law; if I find that I am conflicting with the law, then abolish the law; if I find that I am clashing with the courts of justice, then abolish the courts of justice; if I find that I am clashing with Parliament, then abolish Parliament.” In this Bill the Prime Minister is taking all those powers for himself. It is in conformity with the mentality which is going right through the world. That I must acknowledge. But then say openly on the other side, that the Government is following those Nazi methods, and tell us openly that the Government is going to take away democracy, and do not come here and talk as the Minister of Justice did about freedom, when they are busy in taking away freedom. I would like to say something more about another matter in connection with rifles. It was pointed out that we are engaged in creating an ex post facto crime. We are now wanting to punish people for something which they did when what they did was not an offence. What we say on this side is only that the court should have the opportunity of testing the position. We now have the judgments of two magistrates to say that the people who did not hand in their rifles, committed no crime. The Prime Minister, however, will not allow the court to test the matter, because he says that it will create chaos. I now want to say here that I am going to test the good faith of hon. members opposite by moving two alternative amendments. The first will be an amendment which only refers to the penalty. All the other things can remain valid — the commandeering of rifles will remain, the Government will remain in possession of rifles, the payments will take place as if everything was based on the law —but only the people who have to go to gaol because they did something which we suspect is not a crime, will have the right to appeal. Everything would remain as it is, except the punishment. That will be the test whether hon. members opposite are revengeful or whether they are only out to maintain order in the country. I am prepared to introduce another amendment. It will be an amendment simply to provide for the question of the nature of the penalty. I start from the assumption that the first amendment is not passed. Then let us look at the question of the penalty. The people are sentenced to imprisonment with or without suspension of the sentence. They are sentenced under a clause which does not allow any option of a fine. If that notice or regulation was not valid under the Defence Act, but was simply valid under the War Measures Act, or the Bill which is now being passed, then the option of a fine could have been allowed. What I am dealing with here is not a technical question, because there is a very great difference between the contravention which can be punished by a fine and the contravention for which imprisonment is obligatory. The position amounts to this. The Defence Act was intended for troops who were in the field, to enable the officer to get the necessary supplies for the troops, so that in those circumstances he could provide for his men. Suppose the troops arrived at a definite place and they needed food. Then the officer goes with, or he sends, a commandeering order to a shopkeeper to deliver the necessary food, and that man cannot oppose doing so. The same applies to a commandeering note for rifles. The officer hands over the commandeering note, and on that compensation can subsequently be paid for the rifles. If the citizen opposes the commandeering note then the law says that a more severe punishment must be inflicted for that, because the man who makes himself guilty of that opposition is hampering the troops in the field, and he should be punished without the option of a fine. In this case of the rifles we find that the Secretary for Defence published a notice in the Government Gazette. No specific commandeering notes were issued, and there were no troops in the field where the rifles were taken. The obligation was placed on the citizen to go and hand over his rifle, a thing for which the Defence Act makes no provision. The circumstances therefore are entirely different to the circumstances which the Defence Act provided for, but nevertheless the severe penalty of the Defence Act was applied, although it was intended for entirely different circumstances. If the Government will meet us now in this respect, then they can give us the proof that they are not vindicative against those people who acted in conflict with the regulations. I am going to move an amendment that this notice shall be regarded to have been validly issued under this Act which we are now debating. If that is done, then there is the option of a fine. As the matter stands to-day there is not an option of a fine. The magistrate is compelled to impose imprisonment with or without suspension, with the result that the people who are sentenced to go to gaol lose the franchise for three years. Hon. members opposite would like us to assume that they only want to maintain law and order, and that they are not vindicative. Then let them support this amendment. It allows everything which has been mentioned, but it brings the notice under this Bill and not under the Defence Act, with the result that those people are not turned into criminals on whom imprisonment without the option of a fine can be imposed. They are not morally criminals. If the intention was not to send them to gaol, and to take away their franchise, then hon. members must support this amendment, and I will give them the opportunity of voting on it.

Who will impose the new punishment?

I am prepared to move an amendment to that effect. My amendment will read that this notice will become valid according to this Act, and not according to the Defence Act, and the persons who contravened the notice will then be punishable under the regulations which have been issued under the War Measures Act. I think that it was Proclamation No. 201 which made provision for a fine not exceeding £200 and imprisonment, but the option of a fine was there.

Who is going to inflict it; are we to go to court again?

The people who come before the magistrate must have the right of appealing. I would very much like to see that those who have already been punished should also get the benefit of that provision. I was, however, in this case only thinking of those who note appeals, who have to come before the court.

I understand that.

I hope that the Prime Minister understands what my intention is. My attitude is that the handing in of rifles was quite unnecessary, and I opposed it, although I advised my constituents to obey the notice. My point at this moment is merely this, that the Defence Act regards the hampering of troops in the field by opposition to a commandeering note as a serious crime, with the result that a penalty without the option of a fine is applied. In this case we have to deal with a completely different set of circumstances. The people were commandeered by a general notice in the Government Gazette. This is not a technical point. That makes a great difference, because it makes a terribly severe penalty apply to the person who has not obeyed the notice, because he is treated as someone who has actually hampered troops in the field. If the Government is really in earnest now, as I hope it is, that they do not want to persecute the people, but that they only want to uphold law and order, and want to have the rifles, and do not want to see these people turned into criminals, people who have to remain in gaol and in addition lose the franchise for three years, then I am going to give the Government the opportunity of accepting my amendment, and to confirm these regulations under this Act and not under the Defence Act. I am glad to see that the Prime Minister is interested in what I am saying here, and if he is sympathetic then I can try to draft an amendment to restore the right of appeal to those people, to the people who have already been convicted. May I at once say to this House that at every meeting that I addressed after the publication of the notice for the compulsory handing in of rifles, I personally advised the people to hand in the rifles, or to try and get exemption. But that does not detract from the fect that I regard this measure as a provocative measure, which should not have been used. At meetings questions were put to me from which it was clear that it was a difficult thing for the people to hand in their rifles. Those people are in no sense of the word criminals. We all know that very little notice is taken of general notices in the Government Gazette. That is the great difference beween a commandeering note and a general notice. Even if we do not get income tax forms we nevertheless know that we have to make a return. But how many of us send in our income tax return before we get the form? But because the people did not take notice of the order in the Government Gazette, they are now being put into gaols as criminals. There are people who in consequence of the misunderstanding did not hand in their rifles. I know of a person who has had a rifle which he has not fired out of for twenty years. He did not have it registered, and for that very reason he was possibly afraid of handing it in. He was given three months’ imprisonment, two months of which was suspended. That means that that man has to remain in gaol for one month, that the rest of the punishment is hanging over his head, and that he loses the franchise for three years, and that man surely is not a criminal, even if he did make a mistake. I think that this calling up of rifles was very wrong. But it is still far more wrong now to validate a regulation after the event, which as we think, was issued in conflict with the law. If the Government wants to go on with it, then see to it that these people are not punished as criminals. The Minister of Justice told us that the Prime Minister did not want to resort to martial law. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) has already indicated what the difference is between martial law and the Bill which we are now passing here. If we compare the two with each other, then the benefit is on the side of martial law. Martial law means that the military authority takes charge of things, but the ordinary courts still continue functioning as far as conditions permit. The ordinary courts are still there to see that the military authorities do not go further than circumstances demand. Martial law still always allows the protection of the ordinary courts as well as the protection of Parliament to remain, because when the military authorities go too far then Parliament can call them to account, and the custom is that after a period of martial law an Indemnity Act is always passed. That is not done simply because it is necessary to legalise certain things, but in order to give Parliament an opportunity of going into all those things. Martial law offers far greater protection to the public than this Bill which is now before the House, and which simply gives carte blanche to the Government. The Government can do anything it likes while under martial law we have the protection of the ordinary courts and of Parliament. I therefore say again what I have already said during the debate on the original War Measures Mill, that such Acts are not necessary to enable the Government to maintain law and order in the country. The common law of the country gives the Government the right to do anything that is necessary to maintain law and order. The Government interned people at the commencement of the war, and when a case came before the court it was only necessary for the Government simply to plead war conditions and the court would take up the attitude that it could not interfere where the Government represented that it was acting on behalf of the maintenance of the country’s safety. I say that this Bill is not an improvement on martial law, but it is worse than martial law. It takes away the freedom which does exist under martial law. Then as an excuse for this it is stated that there are all kinds of movements that are going on in the country. It is particularly the Minister of the Interior who each time plays the role of mentioning half of the facts, by which he insinuates much more than would have been the case if he had mentioned all the facts. We had the case of Mr. X last session. He mentioned just a little bit to allow the people to think that much more could be said, but we know that what he stated was the worst that he could do, and that if we were to mention the full facts then they would amount to nothing. Who started force, in the first instance? Was the internment of people in the beginning without authority, not a case of force? Was the internment of people like Louis Wiesner, the Arndts, J. D. Louw, Strobos, De Vries, Hiemstra, Pasch and others not acts of violence? But did any violence follow them on the part of the public? None. When the one side uses force, then it must expect the other side also to employ force. I do not want to have any force on either side. There has been a reference to organisations. When did the knights of truth start, people who have taken the name “truth,” probably because we would not otherwise be able to see any connection with the truth, in their case. They commenced by organising with, the object of making propaganda, and to prosecute people who were said to be engaged on subversive” activities. I have already made mention of a circular by Sir Theodore Truter in which he asked his control officers to keep an eye in secret on the officials of the Government and on teachers. That was a kind of secret Gestapo. They were the spies of the Government. Well, then the Government must expect that the other people will take steps to protect themselves against that sort of thing. I do not want to approve of that on either side, but then hon. members opposite must not pretend that that thing can only come from one side. The meetings which we held on the countryside were as orderly as they could be. There is undoubtedly amongst our people very strong feeling, but this side of the House took care that the feelings in the country were calmed down, and that there was no outburst. In days of war we must expect feelings to run high, but that is no reason why the Government by means of legislation like this should over-ride the law of the land to give dictatorial powers to the Government. We must now abide by this state of affairs. We see that we are unable to prevent it. Let me at least make an appeal to the Prime Minister and hon. members opposite in connection with this great injustice which has been done to our people in regard to the handing in of rifles. I will hand in the amendment which I have indicated here and we trust that the Government will assist us as far as possible to undo the injustice which has been done to those people. I assume that this is about the last session of Parliament we shall have, because when the Government gets this Bill passed it will not be necessary for them to come to Parliament. We must use this opportunity of noting a protest. Possibly we shall only be called together to discuss financial matters and we must now protest here because it will probably be the last chance that we shall have to make a strong protest against legislation of this kind.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Fagan) and the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) were very busy trying to make it clear to the House that what the Government was doing to validate these regulations now was a very great sin. The hon. member for Gezina said that no civilised Government would ever think of doing such a thing and we would only see anything of the kind in uncivilised countries. But it is sometimes necessary to refresh even the memory of the hon. member for Gezina in connection with such matters a little. Let us go back to the year 1925. We find that at that time regulations were issued which after the lapse of a few months appeared to be illegal. In consequence of that regulation which was illegal people had been prosecuted and they had to pay heavy fines. Moreover great damage was done to the interests of owners.

Were they sent to gaol?

If they were not able to pay the fine then they had to go to gaol.

What regulations are you speaking of?

I am referring to regulations which were issued under the Stock Diseases Act. Those regulations were illegal in one case and people had been punished under it and the regulation was accordingly validated subsequently. According to the hon. member for Gezina the then Government was uncivilised, because, he told us here, it was only an uncivilised Government that did that sort of thing. I will quote that Act to make it clear to the hon. member what was done at that time. We find that section 1 of Act No. 18 of 1925 provides as follows—

1. 1. Section 16 of Act No. 14 of 1911 is hereby amended by the deletion from paragraph (e) of the words “in a manner prescribed by regulation” and from paragraph (f) of the words “in manner prescribed by regulation” and by substituting therefor in each paragraph the words—

What has this to do with the price of potatoes?

We have the same position here that people were prosecuted under a regulation that was not legal and here the regulation was being validated. The hon. member will understand it better when I read the next section. Section 2 provides—

1. 2. Any order issued prior to the commencement of this Act under paragraph (e) of paragraph (f) of section 16 of Act No. 14 of 1911 shall be deemed to have been issued under the said paragraph (e) or the said paragraph (f) (as the case may be), as amended by this Act; any action taken or purporting to have been taken under any such order by any officer of the Department of Agriculture is hereby validated; and any such officer shall be deemed to have been described in such order.

And now notice the following words—

These people were prosecuted in an illegal manner and the then Government came to this House to validate that regulation, and what is more the sentences which had been passed were also validated. Now the hon. member for Gezina comes and says that no civilised Government would do such a thing. According to the hon. member’s argument there must have been an uncivilised Government in those days. I want, however, to leave the matter there.

Was the right of appeal also taken away from them?

I quoted that Act to show that it sometimes happens that the Government, in its administration, does something of this kind which is technically in conflict with the law and then the Government is entitled to come to this House and ask for an indemnity. In that case it was done and it was specially provided that the sentences would remain in force. In connection with the regulations I want to point out that on the other side of the House no one told us why it was not necessary to publish the regulations which had been validated by this Bill. The hon. member for Gezina simply said that the regulations are not necessary, but he by that made it clear to us that they were not necessary because in his opinion the war had already been won by Germany, and therefore the regulations were not necessary. But he apparently forgets that the person with whom we are waging war abroad, namely, Hitler himself, said yesterday that it would take five years to bury the man who was already dead.

He is no longer talking about the 15th August.

No, now it will still take five years. I say that for that reason it is all the more necessary for us to pass regulations of this kind. According to the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) it is just the people who sit on this side of the House who are the cause of crimes and illegalities being committed in the country. If that is so then hon. members opposite ought not to have the slightest objection to giving these powers to the Government in order to enable the Government to deal with those who are responsible for those things. If what the hon. member said here is true then I cannot see what objection hon. members opposite can have against giving these powers to the Government, because they will not have any reference to them or their followers. The reason is given that they do not object because it is not necessary, but they say they do not want to give the power to the Prime Minister.

We say that it is not necessary.

They say his past is the reason why we ought no longer to give him the powers. Ten thousand times rather the past of the Prime Minister than the past or the future of many of the hon. members there. The difference is this. We ask for the powers, the Prime Minister and his Government ask for the powers in order to fight the enemy, but hon. members opposite do not want to give him those powers because they do not want him to fight Nazism. When the hon. member for Gezina asked for the powers it was with the object of opposing the enemies of Nazism and of assisting Nazism. It was said that the Government wanted to muzzle the Press, but who intended to muzzle the Press? The hon. member for Gezina himself said that it was his intention to muzzle the Press. It is, therefore, not necessary to continue with that argument and to say that they would not place the powers in the hands of the Prime Minister because he wanted to muzzle the Press. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) said it would have been an unheard of thing in this country to put such powers in the hands of a Minister. He despises the mantle which is to be thrown over the Prime Minister but he is prepared and quite anxious to have the mantle thrown over the shoulders of the hon. member for Gezina. Hon. members opposite say they do not want to give the powers to the Government and they want to do nothing to bring about the Government’s success in bringing the war to a victorious end. When we ask them what will be the result if we lose the war, then they say a republic. Do they realise what it will mean to have a republic? If Hitler conquers, if he should be fortunate enough to win, then he will, according to the member for Gezina himself, do away with gold. Now I ask what would a republic be worth here if they destroyed the gold in South Africa. If Hitler wins then he will either attach the gold or do away with it. If Hitler should be fortunate enough to win the war then he will have the chicken and they the empty shell.

Is that the chicken which they shot in London?

Threats have on some occasions been made by that side of the House. I just want to revert to that. They said the day of settlement was coming. What do they mean by that? What do they mean by the words: “We will settle’ accounts with him”?

It will be a constitutional settlement.

When will it take place? When Hitler has won? If that is so then we must assume that they are very anxious for Hitler to win the war so that the day of reckoning will come. We want again to ask: Do you want him to win or to lose? We have a very great difference of opinion here but we maintain that we must contribute a little, however insignificant it may happen to be, to winning the war. But that little will assist in our effectuating that he will not win his object and we ask hon. members there once more: Do you want to support us in getting that; will you help us so that we can obtain a victory?

We do not want to become khaki knights.

No, I know they do not want to answer, but we ask again what they want to do, and this side of the House is entitled to know what they mean by the words “the day of reckoning will come.” I know they will not answer, but we ask again: Do you wish Hitler to be enabled to carry out his intentions towards this country and against the rest of civilisation? We want an answer from that side of the House to these questions. But they remain silent; they do not want to reply.

In view of the fact that Mr. Speaker has given us leave to discuss the wool question I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to say a few words about it.

Another wool farmer talking now!

To begin with, however, I wish to touch upon a few other points. In regard to the speech made by the Minister of Justice I just want to say these few words to him. He got up here and, dealing with the question of the war and all these other points with which we are dealing now, he said that the Prime Minister spoke on behalf of the majority — I even believe he said on behalf of the great majority — of the Afrikaans-speaking people, I think it would be best if I were first of all to discuss matters affecting my own constituency, with which I am best acquainted. What happened there? The Minister of Justice— I do not know whether he only came there on behalf of the Government — did us the honour of holding two political meetings in my constituency, one in the Town Hall at Zeerust and the other one at Marico. As I have already stated on a previous occasion, at Zeerust 42 people attended the meeting. They were counted.

By whom?

Strange to relate they were counted by one of his own officials. The meeting at Marico was attended by 46 people, of whom a number were Nationalists. The figures are correct. Eight days afterwards I held a meeting in my constituency and so far as those two places are concerned I want to point out that while 46 people attended the meeting addressed by the Minister of Justice at Marico, my meeting was attended by 350 people, all coming from my constituency. As against the 42 whom the Minister addressed at Zeerust I had about 700 attending my meeting there. But now we come to the point. The chairman of the meeting at Zeerust, on behalf of Zeerust, Marico and Ottoshoop — at those three places some 1,300 people attended our meetings — sent a courteous telegram to the Minister and asked him to reply within three weeks. In that telegram the Minister was asked whether he would be prepared in view of the serious conditions prevailing in South Africa to address a public meeting at Zeerust — and he could fix the date himself — so that the electors of the Marico constituency would have the opportunity of being informed by him and by me, and could put questions and pass resolutions. The honourable the Minister never replied to that telegram. Now I want to ask the Minister again to have his contentions confirmed by the electors of Marico, that the majority of the public are behind the Prime Minister. Let him come. Only the electors of my constituency will be allowed to vote, nobody will be brought along from anywhere else to vote. Now, in all seriousness I want to say a few words in connection with the speech by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood). He said: “Leave us in peace to enable us to see the war through.” Does the hon. member think that we can sit still and allow the Government to carry on bringing pressure to bear and forcing Afrikaners to join up, can we allow the Government to trample on everything that is Afrikaans? I say deliberately that tremendous pressure, unbelievable pressure, pressure which cannot be allowed, is being brought to bear on Afrikaners in the public service, in the police, in the railway service, and that people are transferred or dismissed, and compelled to take their discharge, to an extent that South Africa has probably never yet known.

Mention names.

Wait a bit, we can certainly mention names. Some names have already been mentioned, and we can mention others. Now I should like in that connection to quote a few sentences from the official organ of Spoorbond, namely “Die Skakel” which writes on behalf of Spoorbond, which has a membership of about 25,000. The hon. member for North East Rand (Mr. Heyns) is suddenly listening— he is putting up his head.

I have no need to hide my head. I have a good past.

I should like to quote what the editor in that official organ of Spoorbond has to say in regard to what is going on. This is what he says —

That is the result of the war policy. This is what the article goes on to say—

The Afrikaners are only engaged on doing their work on the railways. But I quote further—

I say that that is the truth and we can give numerous instances of that kind. And if that is the truth then undoubtedly a very serious condition of affairs had been created in this country. That being so can we be expected by means of this Bill to give the Minister of Defence yet further powers to continue applying those methods? The article in question goes on to say—

Those are not my words. I might perhaps hot have liked to have used those words, but those are the words of the official organ of twenty-five thousand railway workers which writes openly about those things and publishes them, and which expects us in this House to bring these things to light.

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

I was reading a few sentences from an important statement in Die Skakel and I wish to read a little bit more to show what that official organ of Spoorbond says in connection with the war policy and how it affects our people. The article goes on to say this—

A little later I shall give at least one instance out of hundreds that can be given in order to prove what is actually taking place. But before doing so I want to read this—

I think that at this stage I should give an example to bear out what the paper writes. I want to mention an instance in connection with which I have put a question to the Minister of Railways. A fairly highly-placed Railway official—for the present I wish to refrain from mentioning his name—who was in control at De Aar over the whole of the Electricity Station (the whole of De Aar gets its electricity from that station) is notified on a certain day that he has to leave the Power Station and that he is to be employed as a boilermaker, a class of work of a much lower type. Had there been any complaint against him in connection with his work? No. What happened afterwards? That man has nearly 24 years of service behind him, and he is the second most highly-qualified man in that division. What happened? A khaki knight from De Aar—I shall refrain from mentioning his name too—had gone to Kimberley and had made complaints against that particular man. As it happened he stayed with a brother of his in Kimberley. He made the charge against the man, and what happened then? I have here in my possession a letter from Mr. Dawson, Divisional Superintendent at Kimberley, and he had a letter written to the Loco Foreman at De Aar to the effect that the person in question was to be removed as soon as possible from the Power Station and that he was to go and work on boiler-making, work which was very much below his grade. What did they do? In his place they put a man whose name I also have. He was totally unqualified to look after the Power Station, so much so that Dawson in anticipation wrote in his letter that in case he was unable to do his work he must first of all work for a few shifts under two other men until he had learned to do the work. And what happened after that? The Power Station stopped functioning on at least two occasions so that there was no light at De Aar. Now the Minister Minister gets up when questions are put to him and denies everything. Let me say here in connection with the oppressive measures of the Prime Minister’s that this is really going too far. When we put questions, the questions are evaded and then hon. members shout out, “Mention names.” We are not going to mention any names because if we do so these people will be persecuted still further, but hundreds of thousands of people in the police service, and in the Government service, and in the Railway service, know of the persecutions which are going on against them and there are hundreds of them who are walking the streets unemployed. Will the Minister of Defence, who is also our Prime Minister, deny to-day that people are being discharged from a branch of the Defence Force because they have refused to sign the red oath? If necessary we can mention names, but at this moment I do not want to mention any, because if I do so these people will be persecuted even further. If the Prime Minister is prepared to have an investigation made, an impartial investigation, I shall be prepared to come along with names. There was an officer; he was so competent that in his contract of service it was not even mentioned that he was liable to dismissal at a month’s notice. He did not get a month’s notice but he was discharged without notice because he refused to sign the Africa oath. Will the Minister of Defence deny it? It is no use hon. members opposite wanting to give the impression that we are just talking hot air when we are talking about persecutions under the Government’s war policy. We know of these things and we can prove them by quoting chapter and verse. If the Government wants to deny that people are being dismissed because their views differ from those of the Government, then we ask for an independent commission to be appointed and we shall be prepared to come forward with proof. I want to say a few more words about what the hon. member for Vereeniging has said. I must say that so far he has put up the best defence of all. He tried to prove to us and to convince us that the commandeering of rifles was in order. He admitted that some of the rifles that had been commandeered could not be used for military service, but he said that the military rifles could then be handed to the troops and the other rifles could be used for local guards. I want to ask first of all what one can do with sporting rifles in the event of any serious danger threatening? What is the use of an argument like that coming from the hon. member? The Government has commandeered any rifle of 8 mm. and less. Has anyone ever heard of an army in the field being equipped with five or six different kinds of rifles of a different calibre? Where is the Government going to get the ammunition, and has the Government got ammunition to-day for 6.5 Portuguese Mausers?

Of course they have.

The hon. member may perhaps know something about medicine, but he knows very little about ammunition. The Government has no ammunition for 6.5 and 7 mm. rifles, and for rifles of other calibre. I further want to ask in all seriousness what has become of the soft-nosed bullets which they have commandeered? The right hon. the Prime Minister knows under International Law he is not entitled to use explosive bullets such as soft-nosed bullets. If he does use them he becomes uncivilised—an uncivilised being, waging war in an uncivilised way. Why has all that ammunition been commandeered? The hon. the member for Vereeniging wants us to understand that the .22 bullets are being used for training purposes. I am beginning to feel sorry for South Africa if our soldiers have to shoot with .22 bullets at an enemy who has .303 rifles. No, these are simply arguments which are dragged in to make a bad case look better. I further want to ask the Minister how it is that cur farmers cannot even get shot-gun bullets without special permits. When at De Aar, where my father-in-law is farming, the springhare destroys the veld, and the cranes ruin the lands, and the jackals catch the lambs, he is unable to cope with them because he has no shot-gun on the farm and he is unable even to get cartridges for his shot-gun to fire at those vermin. He first of all has to get a special permit at De Aar. The other day he tried over the telephone to obtain permission for the purchase of shot-gun bullets, but he first of all had to go to the town to get the necessary permission. Why is a special permit required to enable people to buy shot-gun cartridges of a No. 3 pellet, to say nothing of a larger calibre? If the Government comes along with arguments of that kind, such as we have heard here, it really must be under the impression that it is dealing with a lot of fools in South Africa. But there is a very serious aspect of this question. In my constituency there are people who have been disarmed, people who live close to the natives in Bechuanaland who are under the protection of the British Government, and those natives are armed. There was an instance where a woman was attacked and the natives told her that they knew she did not have a rifle. It is a very serious thing which is going on in South Africa. Then we have this attack which was made on the students at Potchefstroom. Those students themselves wrote to me and told me that what had made them feel so bitter was that they had to guard the school unarmed and that the troops had come to attack them. If there are three or four soldiers in a tent and they arrange to attack an individual or a building, then I take it that the officers do not know anything about it. But does the Prime Minister want to tell me and the country that 1,000 men can plan an attack on an institution without the officers knowing anything about it? It appears to me from the evidence of one of the witnesses, who was a soldier, that there has been so much talk about an attack by the soldiers on that institution, that he was surprised that it did not happen sooner. I say this, that we hold the Prime Minister and his Government responsible for the attack on the Potchefstroom University College. He could have known through the instrumentality of his officers that it was going to happen, and we want to know why he did not stop it.

Is the hon. member entitled to discuss matters which are the subject of a judicial inquiry at the moment?

I am afraid the hon. gentleman is under a misapprehension, there is no judicial inquiry.

If I may be allowed to refer to what appeared in the paper, it would appear that the commanding officer said that he had no evidence that the students had ever attacked the soldiers. The very opposite appeared to have been the case. It is a serious matter that the Government should disarm our people, that the students have been disarmed, and that the troops in their thousands are being let loose in the country to make attacks on buildings and on people. What a difference there is between the treatment of the farmers of South Africa and that of the traders? I do not blame the magistrate, but I blame the Government. It is simply a stupid business on the part of the Government. The magistrate had no choice. If a farmer comes before him and he has failed to hand in his rifle, no matter for what reason — and there are many good reasons in the bushveld and those parts why a farmer should have failed to hand in his rifle — then the magistrate had no choice. He had to impose imprisonment, but in cases where the traders or the dealers had contravened the same regulation, they were given the option of a fine. A great many of those traders are foreigners. They are given the option of a fine, but the farmer has to go to gaol and loses his franchise. Does the Prime Minister imagine that the spirit that is being created in the country by that action on the part of the Government will ever right itself again — that he will ever be able to remedy matters? It is no use saying that we have to five together again after the war. The Government should have remembered those things. If this suggestion which aims at doing something to repair that injustice — the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Fagan) this morning, is not seriously considered by the Government, and is not agreed to, conditions will be created in this country — such as those twenty-five thousand railway people have told him will arise — and as his commonsense should tell him will arise. There is one other thing I want to say. Do hon. members know what is making the farmer even still more resentful? That behind his back the detectives go to his servants, to put it bluntly, as the farmers in the Karroo do — the detectives go to the farmers’ coloured servants (Hottentots) and they ask those Hottentots whether their master has not got a rifle, or whether there are any more rifles. I am not talking hot air here, and I am prepared to mention the name of the Provincial Council member for Colesberg because he told me I could mention his name. Mr. Herold smashed his rifle and reported the fact. They are now trying to make difficulties for him and the detective — I am not going to mention his name — went behind his back and asked the Hottentot on the farm whether his master had any more rifles.

Did he smash his rifle?

That is the kind of thing that is going on in our country — almost worse things than what we had during the Second War of Independence.

Finally I want to say this. Mr. Speaker has told us that we can discuss the wool question here and some of the members on this side of the House will therefore raise that question. The Government has now closed the open wool market to the farmers who are already being harassed as a consequence of the war. The Government has officially closed the open wool market. We know that the position in regard to the market in other countries of the world is a difficult one, but the Government has now completely closed that market. We are unable to let any wool go out unless we have a permit for that purpose, because the whole of our wool clip has been sold to England. Has this been done for the benefit of the farmer? No. The price which the farmer gets is an average of 10.7d. Some of them get a little more and some of them less. The farmers had hoped to get more, but now there is only one buyer on the market and that is England, and England is acting as agent for America. The farmers had hoped for a higher price basis than 10¾d. The Minister of Lands has told us that the farmer should be grateful because the Government of South Africa had succeeded in doing such good business with England. But is that so, that it has done good business for our wool farmers? I was listening to the wireless the other day from London. It was announced from London that the English Government had bought the whole of the wool clip from South Africa for the duration of the war and for one year after the war; and then they expatiated on the benefits which England would derive, but they did not say anything about the benefits which South Africa would derive. It was said among other things that England was now handling half of the World’s wool clip and it was therefore able to control the wool trade. It was added that the Dominions none the less were also benefiting on account of there being a stable price. There would be a fixed price but that fixed price would amount to about half of the value of the wool. Let me say this. I asked the Government what they had done to create credit facilities for those other countries which were anxious to buy wool in South Africa. Japan could have come here to buy and. America could have come here to buy, and perhaps France as well, apart from England. Japan’s trade with us shows more or less the following figures. In 1938 we imported from Japan to a value of £2,700,000; last year to a value of £2,800,000, and for the first half of the current year our imports from Japan amounted to £2,200,000. If our imports from Japan this year are going to be about £4.000,000, how can we say then that Japan will have no credit in South Africa to buy our wool? We buy large quantities from America. For those same two years the imports from America amounted to £16,000,000 and £17,000,000 respectively, and for the first half of this year the amount was almost £11.000,000. How can it be said then that America has no credits here? And I ask again: what has the Government done in the interests of the wool farmers to see to it that the necessary credits will be available? They have done nothing, and now that all the other countries which have credits in South Africa have been cut out, they allow England to buy our wool clip and to benefit from it. England buys to make a profit. It is because she is expecting a profit that she will pay out 50 per cent. of the profit to the wool farmers after deducting her expenses; 50 per cent. will go to the English Exchequer to carry on the war. If there had been no market and such an agreement had to be entered into then the very least our Government could have done would have been for it to have bought the wool itself. The English Government has a war expenditure of almost three milliards and if the British Government could have bought the South African wool clip our own Government could have done just the same. Wool is not a perishable product and if the Government had afterwards sold it at a profit it could have handed that profit to the farmers. Nothing of that kind was done, and I say that the wool farmers of South Africa will remember what the Government of South Africa in these days have done to the wool industry.

Mr. Speaker, I am one of those members who had great difficulty when the original clause 2 was proposed to be introduced into this House, because as a democrat I pride myself as an adherent of the principles of freedom of discussion and the rights of Parliament. Consequently, when the original War Measures Bill was nant provision, namely section 2, I had it contained, what to me was a most repugnant provisions, nemaley, section 2, I had very great difficulty in accepting it. Now, Mr. Speaker, that was in fairly normal times, comparatively speaking. As a responsible man, I have since come to the conclusion that in view of the national state of emergency in which we are at the moment, this power which the Prime Minister now seeks is one that should be given to him. To my mind there is not the slightest doubt that our country to-day is in a most serious and dangerous position. I feel convinced of this and I affirm, therefore, that I have not the slightest hesitation in accepting the clause as it now stands, and to agree to give the Prime Minister the very wide power which he seeks. And because, in my humble opinion, I also feel convinced that in the hands of the Prime Minister this power will be used with discretion and there will be no abuse of it. Mr. Speaker, I rose really to deal briefly with one or two points which were made by the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) and the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga). As I understood their arguments when they opposed the introduction of this War Measures Bill, one of their chief objections was that it was reprehensible — I am using the word that I think the two hon. members used — they said it was reprehensible on the part of the Government to interfere with the ordinary course of justice. Certain cases have been brought under the proclamation which it is alleged was illegal, certain sentences have been imposed by the courts and some of the accused are actually undergoing those sentences. There are other cases where appeals are pending and by this Bill the Prime Minister intends to take out of the hands of the courts the right to express their judgment on the regulations under discussion. I would like to tell the House that what the Government is doing now is not something which is extraordinary, it has been done on several occasions in the past. My hon. friend from Ladysmith (Mr. Friend) I understand drew attention to other cases where this course had been pursued and I would like to refer the House to a certain case which, to my mind, illustrates perfectly the point which I want to make. I know this case well because I was actively concerned in it. This, I might say, happened when the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) was the Minister of Justice in 1930. Under the Native Urban Areas Act of 1923 certain regulations were promulgated which applied to all the native locations in the Union, and those regulations formed more or less a constitution for each location and also created certain penal offences. Under a section of that law these regulations could only be promulgated with the advice and after-consultation of certain Native Advisory Boards. It transpired subsequently that these regulations had been promulgated at a time when no Native Advisory Boards were actually in existence and as a result a certain test case in which I was concerned caused the courts to declare the regulations to be ultra vires. Well, Mr. Speaker, one can understand what a state of consternation there was right throughout the country in Municipal circles particularly, and as a result of that test case we came post haste to Parliament and under the amending Act of 1930 a provision was put in validating those regulations notwithstanding the fact that they had not been promulgated after consultation with the Native Advisory Council. Under the original regulations there were thousands of natives right throughout the country who had been imprisoned for various offences committed thereunder. As a matter of fact, in my town alone, Brakpan, there were several hundreds undergoing various terms of imprisonment. Now, Mr. Speaker, the amending section rendering those regulations valid went through this Parliament without a word being said on behalf of those unfortunate natives who were undergoing terms of imprisonment and, remember, the member for Gezina was then Minister of Justice.

Was the Amending Section made retrospective?

Yes. Now I am coming to the final point which really contains the sting. Under section 6 of the Act of 1930, sub-section 2 it is provided—

The regulations were made retrospective; remember this was in 1930 and they were made retrospective by six years. Again I remind the House that the hon. member for Gezina was Minister of Justice at that time, and I submit that all this fuss which is being made and all the strong language which has been used, all the epithets which have been hurled at the Prime Minister for doing something which was said to be unheard of in this country, namely, taking away the powers of the courts, well, I submit that the case which I have just quoted is equally as bad, indeed it is probably worse.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

I quite agree with the hon. member, but for the hon. member for Gezina to come here and in his righteous indignation to pour scorn on the Prime Minister is very strange when, as I have shown, here is something which he did himself equally as bad. I submit that the hon. member for Gezina realised the nakedness of the case which he had to make. It is clear to me that when the notice was promulgated calling on our people to hand in their rifles ….

Which one?

Never mind which one; it does not matter which one, but when the regulation was promulgated calling on our people to hand in their rifles, I make bold to say that with the exception of one or two legal members on that side, the question whether the regulation was legal or not never entered their heads. That was a subsequent development. I don’t think I need take the matter any further, it speaks for itself. I would say in conclusion that to my mind the argument which has been put up by the member for Gezina in opposing the introduction of this Bill shows the hollowness and nakedness of the case which he had to make for his side.

Mr. Speaker, last evening an hon. member of this House made certain remarks concerning me, and I have here a copy of the Hansard report. He said —referring to the bomb outrages on the Rand—

Now, Mr. Speaker, I don’t know whether last night he had looked too deeply into the bottle.

Order!

Withdraw.

I will withdraw that, Mr. Speaker. Or what was the matter with him? But it is not usual to hear these unworthy and despicable remarks in this House. This was a remark which was not of any political significance, it was a remark made to damage me personally, a personal insult, a despicable attempt to injure me personally. I wish to take this opportunity of challenging the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) to repeat those remarks outside the House, when I will have an opportunity of dealing with him. I think it is unfair that a member should come in this House and use the privileges accorded to members of Parliament, to make damaging and despicable remarks of that nature. I did not intend to take part in this debate, but I feel that I must make these few remarks to make my position clear. I sincerely hope the hon. member for Springs, who is not present this afternoon, will take the first opportunity of repeating those remarks outside.

As a Free Stater I listened with dismay to the speech made by the only Free Stater in the Cabinet, namely, the hon. the Minister of Justice, ana it was the greatest tragedy I had ever experienced that the Minister of Justice should get up in this House and use those words. He referred to the commandeering of rifles and in his capacity as Minister of Justice he stated here that the Government had met with great success with this illegal action. I have his words here: „It is the greatest success the Government has yet achieved." If I am to interpret the Minister’s own words I must say that it is the greatest illegal success the Government has ever scored. Well, if those are the words which have to come from the mouth of the Minister of Justice then I must agree with the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Fagan) that “justice” in South Africa has now got a different meaning. I want to put this question to the right hon. the Prime Minister, and I hope he will answer it. The Prime Minister told us here that the non-military rifles could be returned. Is that correct? If it is not correct then I should like the Prime Minister to deny it. He does not deny it, and I therefore take it that it is correct. Then in all sincerity I want to put this question, a question which will test his sincerity, and I hope he will now answer it. My question is: What arrangement is the Prime Minister going to make to return those rifles to the legal owners? Does he propose to carry out that promise, and if he does propose to do so, what steps is he going to take to see to it that the people get their non-military rifles back at once? I want to object to one argument which the right hon. the Prime Minister used in addressing the House. He referred to this Bill, and after that he specially referred to a section of the Defence Act and he said that this Bill contains exactly what appears in the Defence Act. He says that the words which are used in this Bill are nothing else but the provisions of the Defence Act. Now I want to put this pertinent question to the Prime Minister. What does he mean by coming here to confirm one of the country’s laws by means of another? What is the necessity for his coming here to confirm something which is law already by another law? It is absolutely unnecessary, unless he has another and sinister object in view. I say that if the Prime Minister in this Bill comes along to confirm part of another law without changing it as he has pretended, then I say straight out that he had a sinister object in view. In connection with the commandeering of rifles and with reference to what has already been established in this House, that is to say that the notice was illegal, I say that the Prime Minister is guilty of allowing honourable citizens of South Africa to be prosecuted by a proclamation which renders them liable to punishment under clause 106 of the Defence Act in spite of the fact that that proclamation was illegal. That proclamation has had the effect of people having been prosecuted under clause 106 in the Defence Act with the result that they are in gaol to-day and have to undergo that humiliation, and now the Prime Minister comes to this House and asks us in this Bill to grant him an indemnity for that crime which he has committed and for that humiliation which he has inflicted on our people. He did not have the right under the Defence Act to prosecute those people, and now that sin has to be covered by means of this Indemnity Bill. I say most emphatically that my impression of an Indemnity Bill is this, that we should pass an Indemnity Bill here in respect of those people who have been unjustly prosecuted and punished. That is the underlying principle of what “Indemnity” should mean. But the Prime Minister comes here and wants to do the very opposite with his indemnity; he wants to get indemnity for the sins and illegal actions committed by the Government but he wants to keep the people in gaol who are unjustly there by means of this indemnity. Let me remind the House of the words “Justice exalted a nation”, but injustice is a blot on a nation. A greater blot has never yet been cast on our nation. Under the Act of Union a Parliament has been constituted for the purpose of passing laws and the courts are there to give decisions whenever there is any doubt in connection with the carrying out of the laws. Now the Minister comes here and, although the courts have been established to give decisions in respect of laws which have been made by Parliament, he will not allow the courts to function as intended by the Constitution. What has actually happened? The Prime Minister, and nobody can deny it, has been guilty of a breach of the Defence Act, and he has not even the courage to await the court’s finding as to his culpability. People are in gaol although they are innocent, but the Prime Minister and his satellites who have committed those illegal acts want to get away from their culpability and they want to keep the people in gaol by the measures they are now trying to pass. With reference specifically to clause 3, particularly sub-section (a), the Prime Minister now comes along in his usual underhand way and asks us if we are going to move the deletion of that part, whether we are going to vote for it if he moves its deletion. This particular point refers to the commandeering of burghers and we are not prepared to agree to the burghers of South Africa being commandeered to render service to the Empire. We are not prepared to hand them over to the Prime Minister to be sacrificed on behalf of British Imperialism. I should be prepared, however, to move an amendment, and I want to ask him whether he will be prepared to accept it. I shall move an amendment to this effect, that the regulations which may be issued shall be in accordance with the spirit of the Defence Act, especially bearing in mind that the equator cannot be regarded as the border of South Africa in accordance with the finding of the Court of Appeal. Years ago the Appeal Court in the case of Moyle against a certain insurance company laid it down that the equator could not be regarded as the border line of South Africa. Will the Prime Minister acquiesce by the finding of the Appeal Court? I put this question to him as a lawyer. No, he does not answer. He contemplates this Bill granting him powers which are more far-reaching than the provisions of the Defence Act. He wants to destroy the Defence Act and he wants to apply his elastic ideas in regard to South Africa’s border lines. I strongly object to the provisions in this Bill which were drafted deliberately to achieve that object, that discrimination could be exercised as between burghers and burghers. It is laid down here that different regulations may be issued for different areas. Favourable regulations may be issued for parts of the country where he has most of his supporters, where his supporters are in the majority, and penal steps may be applied to sections of the public who do not agree with his war policy. If that is not so, why then does he want to have the right to be able to apply different provisions to different areas? But not only can different measures be applied to different areas, but different measures can also be applied to different people and to different categories of people. What does he want to do with a provision of that kind? By that provision he wants to secure condonation for the malpractices which he has already committed. Since the outbreak of war innocent people have been prosecuted on perjurious statements by khaki knights, and now the Prime Minister comes along in order to protect those khaki knights and to keep in gaol those innocent people who have been prosecuted and put into gaol as the result of the persecution mania of the khaki knights. In regard to that band who has to be subsidised by means of foreign capital in order to fight Afrikanerdom, I can only say that I am surprised that they are not at the front. Let the whole lot of those people go to the front instead of staying here and spying on hono urable Afrikaners. It is cowardice, and the Prime Minister should put an end to their efforts of trying to get our Afrikaners into gaol by means of their low-down and dirty tactics. If they are so convinced of the justice of their cause, let them go to the front. I object to legislation to protect them and to protect their attitude against honourable Afrikaners. An extensive process of persecution and intimidation is going on in order to obtain people to take part in England’s war. Terrible instances of intimidation have already been cited. I have in my possession a statement which shows that in one of our post offices eleven people have been transferred. Why? They were asked to sign the oath and because they refused to do so they were transferred. I have before me the statement and the names of those eleven people. I am mentioning this as an instance of direct compulsion under the cover of democracy. But I can also mention an instance of indirect compulsion which is most conspicuous. Officers of the Minister of Defence are going through the country doing their best to get recruits. If the cause which they are pleading for is a cause they believe in, and a cause which stand the test of public opinion, then hon. members opposite cannot object to our telling the people what the position is. But hon. members opposite have no case and they themselves do not go about trying to inform the public, but the work has to be done by recruiting agents. And what are the things which those recruiting agents say? In the town of Reitz a meeting was addressed by Col. Van Deventer, and what language did he use? He said that we could reckon ourselves fortunate that we had a free country as we were surrounded by British Protectorates and natives, and he said that if we concluded a separate peace, or if we had remained neutral we would be attacked by the natives of the British Protectorates. That is the kind of language which an officer of the Prime Minister uses in order to try and mislead the people, and in that way in an indirect manner pressure is brought to bear. And yet people talk about an army of volunteers. And for doing so that person gets something like £75 per month! I believe that that colonel was right in one respect, namely that the only attack which South Africa had to fear was an attack by Great Britain, because England is our historic enemy. Opposite we have hon. members who want to serve the Empire.

They are the people who have been telling us that we are so free in the British Commonwealth of Nations, so free that we can advocate any form of government, but when we get up here and plead for the traditional form of government of the Afrikaner people, namely the republican form of government, then the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) and other members get up and tell the Prime Minister that he should put an end to our advocating the form of government which is embedded in the soul of Afrikanerdom. But I further want to point out to the Prime Minister that by these measures which he wants to take he is not only out to commandeer people illegally but he has already done so, in conflict with the provisions of the Defence Act. I have a case here — how many others there are I do not know — of a certain young man, born in the Free State, who is employed in Johannesburg. When his parents heard of him again he was away in the North of Africa, but they did not know where he was. I personally wrote a letter to the Prime Minister and I asked him where that young fellow was. His parents did not know where he was and I enclosed the parents’ letter with my letter to the Prime Minister. I wrote in Afrikaans, but in accordance with his conception of our language rights and his attitude towards everything that is Afrikaans he replied in English. He naturally has no intention of protecting the language rights of the Afrikaner. That is the sort of example he sets. In any case, I received the reply that the young fellow was on active service. That youngster had not voluntarily expressed his willingness to fight anywhere in Africa. In the letter it was also stated that he had not signed the new oath. It was stated in the letter that he had been sent away in error and that he had been sent north with the Fourth Field Brigade. That youngster had not even signed an oath. He is a minor and now the Prime Minister comes along and says that he was sent north in error. We can, therefore, level the charge against the Prime Minister here that in spite of the parents’ wishes he has commandeered a youngster who is a minor and has sent him to Kenya. And they go on to say in the letter—

This is an instance which has been discovered by us, and the youngster is now to be returned to the Union, but how many other youngsters are there who have been sent away in that manner? What right did the Prime Minister have to defy the law and send north a young fellow who had not signed voluntarily and who is a minor? But now they say that they are sorry and that he will be sent back. But what is more, as this young fellow was a minor, the parents should in any case have received his emoluments, and this is what they say in the letter—

Without the money having been paid to parents, without the consent of parents, the Prime Minister is dragging Afrikaner children away, and he wants to sacrifice them on the altar of imperialism in Kenya. When the parents of our people, when the mothers made an effort to draw the attention of the Minister of Defence, of our Prime Minister, to what was going on in the country, he had not the time to listen to the voice of prayer of the mothers of the people. He is deaf to the requests and the prayers of the mothers of the people, but he expects them to sacrifice the blood of their sons on the altar of his British loyalty. The Prime Minister has referred to Napoleon. I am reminded of Napoleon’s words when he said to the French mothers: “Give me the mothers, and I shall conquer the world.”

The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill.

The Prime Minister is deaf to our pleas, which we are putting forward on behalf of our constituents, and under the guise of democracy he is dragging our boys away, boys who have not yet reached the age of majority. I have a pathetic letter here from a young fellow who was also dragged away, and this is what he writes to his father—

He writes from Kenya. He did hot sign the oath, he had not joined up voluntarily and he is a minor. He is in Kenya and he writes that they have now got permission to say where they are. And this is what he says—

As I have said, that young fellow is a minor and he has been dragged away illegally from his parental home; he has been commandeered and he is up north. His case came to our notice, and yet hon. members say that they are only using volunteers in this war. Is that the kind of volunteer? This kind of indirect compulsion and also of direct compulsion is being brought to bear on Afrikaners. I only wish the Prime Minister could see himself as he really is; if he were to see himself he would not even realise how bad he is. I have a report here which was sent by one of those Press Associations, and it is one of those associations which I believe stands high in the estimation of the Prime Minister, and this is what it says—

They now favour the dictatorial view. But what powers has Pétain got? Although there is a dictator there the laws are published in the French Government Gazette. True, Pétain has the power to appoint Ministers or to dismiss them, he has the power to declare a state of siege if he considers it necessary to do so, he has great powers, but the one power which he has not got is that of declaring war without the consent of the legislative body. Pétain can still learn something from our Prime Minister. Our Prime Minister declares war without consulting Parliament and he intends doing so again in the future, because he is now asking for powers not merely in respect of the war in which we are at the moment, but also in respect of wars in which we may still become involved. The Prime Minister and his supporters have given evidence that they are prepared to sell South Africa’s birthright for a plate of Empire pottage. That is why we have the spectacle of undermining and underground tyranny under the control of the khaki knights. The Prime Minister is engaged in surrendering the birthright of the Afrikaner people to the service of the Empire. We protest against the curtailment of the rights of the people and the powers of Parliament as laid down in the Constitution. I associate myself with what the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Fagan) has said. They have no arguments to convince the people in order to defend their cause, and for that reason people have to be silenced. In this House we are still able to protest against the destruction and the violation of the rights of Afrikanerdom, but I agree with the hon. member for Stellenbosch that this will probably be the last opportunity we shall have of making a protest of this kind in this House. The Prime Minister is not asking for these powers for nothing, and once he possesses the powers which he is now asking for he will be able further to oppress the Afrikaner people. He will remember how they saw through him in 1924.

The hon. member cannot deal with all those questions; he must confine himself to the Bill.

I am mentioning this because the Prime Minister wants to avail himself of certain powers in order to do things which are wrong. The Prime Minister and his followers are doing these things and then they want to pose as great democrats who want to express the will of the people. It reminds one of the story of Reynard the fox; when the jackal was fighting and was tearing bits out of the wolf he remarked: “You have to suffer this punishment; think of the innocent lambs which you have destroyed.”

As usual I do not wish to take up much of the time of the House, but in expressing my agreement with the provisions of this Bill I should like to refer briefly to the position obtaining in East London and the districts round about there. For some time, in fact ever since the beginning of the war, we had been faced there with a strong fifth-column movement. That movement was in existence when the war started. There were cases of descendants of Germans taking a very active part. In particular there were two men who did everything they possibly could to further the cause of Nazism. I am glad to say these two men are now behind barbed wire, but there are still a good many of them left, and I welcome this Bill so that we shall be able to deal with those others more expeditiously and see that they shall get their deserts in the way they should. In the East London district and in the hinterland of East London we have thousands of Germans. We have old German settlers there and we have the descendants of those old settlers, and let me say this, I want to be perfectly fair, that most of these old German settlers are sound and solid Union nationals, men who are loyal to South Africa and to the cause that we in this House are putting forward. But I am afraid that the influence of so-called German parsons who are sent out here ostensibly to preach the gospel of Christ, is making itself felt. These people are doing a great deal more than teaching Christianity. After this Bill becomes law we shall be able to deal with them as they should be dealt with. I should like to give one or two instances of what is happening in East London. An employee in the railway workshops reported some time ago that a man employed on one of our tugs had painted a swastika on the funnel.

You are making our flesh creep.

And he was doing his best to preach Nazism among his fellows. He was reported and he was hauled over the coals, but he is still working at the harbour. One can easily imagine the harm that man might do.

Yes, he may paint some more swastikas.

He might put them on other funnels.

We have steamers coming in and going out, and anything might happen.

It is really terrible.

He might do a considerable amount of damage and endanger the lives of people.

Would the swastikas upset them?

When this Bill becomes law we shall be able to get that man sent to a place where he will be unable to do any harm.

Quite so.

Again meetings are being held in our district. Unfortunately we are not able to get at the real organisers, but I can assure you that our police have done everything possible to get at the bottom of this business. In a certain village, not far from East London, every week meetings are being held at different times—they go from farm to farm and from place to place. Nazis —I call them that deliberately—have been coming from various parts of the Transkei and from others places, to attend these meetings. The police have done their best to find out what is going on, but they have not got sufficient power to deal with matters. Under this Bill we shall be able to round these people up and bring them to heel.

Just because they hold meetings.

Just one word more. We have sent away from East London almost 3,000 men to fight in the war.

Is that all?

Is that all?—We would have had no one at all if they were all like you. They are men who have gone to look after the interests and freedom of the world.

Do not talk about freedom.

These men have gone of their own free will and East London is almost deprived of young men.

Too bad!

Now these men want to know what the Government is going to do to look after the fathers and mothers and wives and children they are to leave behind them when they go away. I feel that under the provisions of this Bill these young fellows who have gone away to do their duty in this world war, and see it through to a successful conclusion—because we are going to win—will be more satisfied when they know that the Bill has been passed, so that their own people will be helped and get comfort from the knowledge that their folk will be protected.

I would be failing in my duty and I would be untrue to myself and my constituents if I did not lodge the strongest possible protest against this Bill. We have heard both from the Prime Minister, as well as from the Minister of Justice, that they have no intention of unnecessarily using the powers which are entrusted to them in this Bill. But I want to ask in what respect the Bill now before the House deprives the people of less powers than martial law does? I think I have the right to say to the House, and I think the Minister of Justice, as well as the Prime Minister, will agree with me that under this Bill they are protected to a greater extent than they would ever have been under martial law. Under this Bill, as the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) has rightly said, there is nothing they cannot do and nothing they cannot achieve. They know as well as I do that if they declared martial law they would not have had the powers which they are asking for under this Bill, and they would have been in the position that they would have had to come to this House later on to ask for an indemnity. The Government knows only too well what this Bill is going to mean, and that is why it is now sheltering itself behind the extensive powers which it has taken unto itself. The object of this Bill is not merely to grant powers to the Government, but it also is to a large extent to scare the people outside so that in that way they will be able to continue the administration of the country. The hon. member for Gezina rightly stated that the powers asked for here are practically unlimited, and that they are powers which are unprecedented not only in the history of South Africa, but also in the history of every other civilised country in the world. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) has tried to clear up the Government’s attitude. He contended that something similar had taken place in the past and that this Parliament had already deprived the people of certain rights in a manner which could be compared with the way in which rights are being taken away and asked for under this Bill. In support of his contentions he instanced the case of Act No. 25 of 1930. I must say that the effort made by him was a poor one, and if that is the best the other side can do to draw a comparison of that kind, then I am sorry for the Prime Minister and for those who support him. In the law quoted by him it is a question of a technical contravention of regulations concerning native towns. He made a comparison between the rights of natives and the rights of honourable citizens and farmers in this country. I strongly deprecate such comparison. It is unworthy of any hon. member to make such comparisons here. But the comparison he made is a comparison of two measures which cannot possibly compare with each other. The one is a technical contravention of the regulations referring to native towns and the other refers to a crime which is created by an illegal regulation and the rights which people are now being deprived of. And what is more, in the case of the regulation concerning native towns there was the option of a fine. But what do we find in the present case? This is not a technical contravention of regulations, and in this case there is no option of a fine. And what is more, the people who have been sentenced under this illegal regulation also lose their franchise. When a citizen of this country loses his franchise he loses something that is sacred to him, and he loses it because he has been punished in repect of a crime for which he was not given the option of a fine. If hon. members opposite cannot come forward with any better analogies then the outlook for South Africa is very sad; it is very sad that we should have members of such a poor mentality on the other side of the House and that a responsible Government should be dependent on people of that kind. I have already stated that in this Bill unlimited powers are being conferred upon the Government. The Government will be able to confiscate the ground of the farmers; it will be able to impose the death penalty; the courts are being deprived of their powers and the citizens of the country will be deprived of the opportunity of going to court. Those are most drastic things, and what is more deplorable still is that the carrying out of this Bill is to be entrusted to a man like the Minister of the Interior who unquestionably is the most irresponsible Minister in this House, and not merely is he an irresponsible Minister, but he has conducted himself in the past in such a manner towards this House that we cannot in any way respect him as a Minister. His conduct has been such that I can only describe him as the clown of the House. He is not the type of Minister to whom we can entrust such powers and whom we can expect to carry out his duties with a sense of responsibility. In the past he has not merely proved himself to be irresponsible, but the fact that he has gone out of his way to make statements of the greatest importance at a meeting of natives, coolies and Malays shows us what he thinks of those people as against his own people. He does not make a statement of that kind to his own people, but he makes it to non-Europeans. That being the case I have every right to ask the Prime Minister whether he is going to allow such things to happen in the future and whether he is satisfied with everything that Minister is doing. That is the sort of thing we have to find him doing, and then he has the temerity to come to this House and make so-called great disclosures here. He is known as the Minister of disclosures. During the last session he was known as Minister X. Minister X is still there and he is again trying to make great disclosures. And what were the disclosures which he made on this occasion? He managed to get hold of a Voortrekker uniform with a swastika on the arm, and then he came here in an impertinent manner and made charges against this side of the House. He stated that he could show a portrait of that man. If it is true that it is the uniform of a specific organisation in our country then I want to ask the Minister if he is not aware of certain regulations which are already in existence? He is so ignorant that I cannot expect him to know of the regulation which the Prime Minister has already issued, and for that reason I shall read that regulation to him—

This is a very clear regulation which has a force of law and which prescribes for a fairly severe fine. If he considers that uniform to be of such importance that he thinks it necessary to come and show it to this House, then I am entitled to ask whether in view of the fact that he has these regulations which have the force of law, he has given effect to these regulations? The fact remains, and I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister and ask him to induce that Minister to prove those instances to us and give us facts in connection with them. This again is one of the so-called disclosures which he has made. When a Minister gets up in this House while important matters are being discussed and speaks about such trivialities then he has no right to be a Minister, and I would say to the Prime Minister that the sooner he gets rid of him the better. The Minister again had a photograph with him. Well, I also have a photograph here and I again want to show the photograph of the Malay Minister whom we have here. It is not in the interest of the country that we should have this type of Minister in the House, and the sooner hon. members opposite realise it the better it will be for all of them.

Have you also got a photograph of the town guards?

Yes, I have got that lying photograph as well as the photo of your Hadje Minister. The hon. member blindly follows that Minister and I am surprised because he is afraid to make a speech in his own constituency. Here where he enjoys the protection of the House he comes and makes a noise. That is the type of member and that is the type of Minister whom we get in this House. That being so are we not entitled to protest against Ministers of that kind being entrusted with powers, and are we not entitled to refuse such drastic powers being placed in the hands of such a frivolous type of Minister? The Prime Minister will agree with me. He blushes to-day, and I am glad to see that he blushes, because it is a disgrace that we should have that type of Minister at the head of affairs. That much for the Minister of the Interior. He is of so little importance that I would be sorry if I had to waste any more time over him, and now I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. He wants to issue certain regulations and as far as I can remember he was also the father of the Defence Act of 1912. Under that Act a clear policy was laid down by the House of Parliament to the effect that we were not to arm the coloured people and the natives. We find, for instance, that clause 7 lays this down—

1. (a) To render personal service in a combatant capacity in time of war; or
2. (b) to peace training; or
3. (c) to serve in the rifle association; or
4. (d) to cadet training;

In the original Act it is therefore laid down that non-Europeans, coloured people and natives shall not be armed. This provision is a good one, because it would be a danger to the white population if we were to arm those people. Now we find that the Minister of Defence, who is also Prime Minister, is asking for special powers from this House also to arm the coloured people, and if it is considered advisable to also arm the natives. I want to know from him—and the people also want to know—what he intends doing. This is a matter of the greatest importance and we should like to know from him what he is going to do in present circumstances. Then I also want to put this question to the Prime Minister. Under these regulations he can also, if he considers fit, abolish the courts in the country. For that reason I want to ask him whether he will agree to the establishment of an arbitration court. Assuming people’s immovable property should be confiscated— on what basis will payment for such property take place? Let me tell the Prime Minister that during the last war people suffered damage as a result of the payments that were made to them. There was no arbitration court in the true sense of the word, and the public now want to know what is going to be done by this Government. I want to know whether the Government intends appointing such an impartial court so that those people who lose their ground or will have to surrender other property may expect reasonable compensation, so that they will get a fair price for the goods that are taken from them or that are confiscated. Then there is another matter I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice and that is the case of the internment of Behrens. This man was for twenty-five years in the service of the state as a sheep inspector, and he rendered such good service that the magistrate paid him a compliment in public. He has been dismissed and the reason given is that he has reached the age limit. I put a question in the House, and it appeared that the man was not yet fifty years of age, and that there are 111 other people in the service who are older than he is.

The hon. member cannot at this stage go into the question of that man’s dismissal.

It concerns this question, because I want to deal with this man’s internment. I am just giving his history very briefly. He has been put off. His wife is a Nationalist and she assisted in the organisation of the party with the result that she was brought before the court. She was found not guilty by the court and because the sergeant who wears a red tab did not get his way, they went along and had this man interned in an unjust way. He did not concern himself with politics. It was his wife who had taken part in political affairs. Nor has this man been dismissed for political reasons. What right did they have to intern such a man? It is a scandal, and I now ask whether we can expect any justice in cases of that kind, now that the Minister of the Interior is responsible for these things. If it were a coloured man or a Malay, justice would have been done, but justice is not done to the Afrikaner, and he will get even less justice under this type of Minister.

The hon. member must not make any reflections.

I am not making any reflections, I am merely bringing the facts to light, and I can prove these facts. In regard to the commandeering of rifles I want to put a further question to the Prime Minister. There are a large number of individuals or farmers who have obtained exemption in my district from the magistrate, but in spite of that those people are unable now to get their rifles returned to them because the magistrate says that he does not know where the rifles are. The regulation has been applied in such a way that the people first of all had to hand in their rifles and after that they had to ask for exemption. It was not in the regulation but those were special instructions that were given. When the Prime Minister issued that proclamation he gave secret instructions to the magistrates which were apparently in conflict with the proclamation itself. I mention this because in a specific instance I pointed out to the magistrate that he had the power of exemption under the proclamation and he said that he was unable to grant an exemption because in addition to the proclamation he had his secret instructions. What I strongly object to is that the Government issues a regulation which has the force of law. Those people have to obey the regulation and then the Government, acting in an underhand manner, goes along and gives other instructions in connection with the same regulations. That is very dangerous. If it is allowed and if this principle is accepted we shall find later that the Minister of Justice will be giving instructions to the magistrates as to how and in what way they are to punish an individual for a particular crime. You will agree with me that this is extremely dangerous and undesirable. I warn hon. members opposite that one day they will find themselves in difficulties; it is a boomerang which will react against themselves. Hon. members opposite may say that they are willing to give the Government these powers; they may try to oppress us, but I do not think they will succeed in doing so very much longer. The time will come when they will be in a different position to what they are in now, and then they will perhaps feel that what they are doing now has reacted on their own heads. I therefore want to ask the Prime Minister what he is going to do in regard to those cases where people have been granted exemptions, but where on account of the rifles having been sent away to the main town in the area—in my constituency there are several small towns and police stations, in view of the fact that instructions have been issued that the rifles must be sent at once to the principal town—the magistrates are now finding themselves in the difficult position that they are unable to return the rifles, in spite of the fact that they considered it necessary to grant exemptions. I shall be pleased if the Minister will answer this question and will also deal with the question of secret instructions in connection with the handing in of rifles.

I am one of those who was very glad during the last session when the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister decided to withdraw clause 2 of the original War Emergency Bill. In those circumstances, in those days, and as the clause read at the time, there was something to be said against it, and in favour of its deletion, and when the Prime Minister decided — without having been asked to do so by his political supporters on this side of the House — and when he informed the Caucus that he was going to withdraw that clause, I was very pleased. But in regard to the amending’ Bill now before the House which to a certain extent puts clause 2 back, I am a wholehearted supporter of it. I fully agree with the Prime Minister in taking this step now. I support it first of all on account of the fact that conditions have greatly changed as compared with what they were at the time, and also because the clause in the way we have it before us now is not the same as the old clause 2. Criticism has been levelled against the clause as it stands here now even by a moderate speaker like the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Fagan). I welcomed this hon. member’s speech after all the abuse which we have had from members opposite. But, to my mind he also went too far when he told us that this clause meant a complete dictatorship in this country, and that even Parliament was being abolished. He said that this session of Parliament would be the last session of Parliament, as we have known it so far. There is not the slightest ground for that contention, and my hon. friend made that statement frivolously without giving the slightest reason or the slightest grounds for making it. I only have to refer to sub-clause 3 (b) of clause 1 bis to show that there is no substance in what my hon. friend said. That clause says—

To talk of a general dictatorship and to say that this Bill means the end of Parliament as we have known it, to say that this is going to be the last session of Parliament, is a bogey (wolhaar-storie) to say the least of it, for which there are no grounds.

He said it could happen.

Yes, perhaps the word „wool” sounded familiar in the ears of my hon. friend. I want to draw an analogy between the well known law passed in England, namely the Defence of the Pralm Act, with what the Prime Minister is now proposing in this Bill. We find this in the Defence of the Realm Act—

1. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by the preceding sub-section, Defence Regulations may, so far as appears to His Majesty in Council to be necessary or expedient for any of the purposes mentioned in that sub-section—
   1. (a) make provision for the apprehension, trial and punishment of persons offending against the Regulations, and for the detention of persons whose detention appears to the Secretary of State to be expedient in the interests of the public safety or the defence of the realm;
   2. (b) authorise — (i) the taking of possession or control, on behalf of His Majesty, of any property or undertaking; (ii) the acquisition, on behalf of His Majesty, of any property other than land;
   3. (c) authorise the entering and search of any premises; and
   4. (d) provide for amending any enactment, for suspending the operation of any enactment, and for applying any enactment with or without modification.

There is no provision in this Bill going as far as the provision of the Defence of the Realm Act, and I do not think hon. members opposite in all their hatred of, and prejudice against Great Britain, will make bold to say that there is to-day in Great Britain not a free Parliament, a free Press and free institutions. In spite of the far-reaching provisions made in the Defence of the Realm Act there is an absolutely free Parliament in England, and consequently there is no need for me to go any further into the allegation of the hon. member for Stellenbosch. Now I want to touch on another matter which was raised by the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan). Hon. members know that it is the policy of the Opposition wherever they can, wherever they have the slightest opportunity of doing so, to drag in the colour question, so as to make propaganda and in order to prey on the prejudices of the public with the object of catching votes for themselves. With that object in view the hon. member for Piquetberg came along and said: “Here in this Bill the Minister of Defence will be given power to commandeer coloured people and natives in our country.”

And when you said that your side exclaimed “Why not?”

I want to deal with that question. The first “His Master’s Voice” which followed the hon. member for Piquetberg was the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys), and he referred to clause 7 of the Defence Act. Whether deliberately or otherwise I do not know, but unfortunately he did not read the whole clause, and the little bit which he did read gave a totally wrong impression of the intention of clause 7. This is what it said—

That is where he stopped, but the clause goes on to say—

The position is that under the Defence Act of 1912 the Governor-General definitely has the power to commandeer natives and coloured people, provided it is done in accordance with the conditions and provisions of clause 7.

Do you think it is desirable?

I shall deal with that. My friend must not be in so much of a hurry. We hear from the other side, we hear it day and night, especially from the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow), that what is wrong with the country is that we have a system of government based on the spirit of Lord Milner, and he tells us that we must go back to the days of the South African Republic, to President Kruger’s republic. They tell us that that will solve all our difficulties. Now, I want to follow my hon. friend, the member for Gezina, and see what the position was in the days of the South African Republic and what is held up to us as an example of what is good Afrikaans, and what is the right Kultuur which we have to fit ourselves to. I want to go even further than the days of President Kruger. I want to have a look at the Constitution of the South African Republic in the days of President Pretorius. I go back to the year 1858.

Yes, we know all about that.

I know that the medicine is perhaps a little unpleasant, but none the less I want to revert back to the days of 1858. The Constitution of 1858 says this, in connection with the military forces—

The position therefore is that in the days of President Pretorius there was not even an age-limit so far as the coloured people were concerned. So far as the whites were concerned there was an age-limit, but so far as the coloured people were concerned all who could render service could be called up to do so. Now, first of all let me deal with the coloured people; hon. members opposite are not talking so much about the Voortrekkers now; they say we must go back to the days of President Kruger. I find that in the instructions to commandants under Volksraad Besluit of 1858, there is the following under the heading “Composition of Military Forces”—

1. (1) The military forces consist of all the able-bodied men of this Republic, and if necessary of all the coloured men within the country whose chiefs are the subjects of the Republic.
2. (2) The able-bodied men of the white race are, all male persons between the ages of sixteen and sixty, and of the coloured race, all who are able to be of service in a war.

That means, therefore, that the coloured people can be called up to render service with the military forces. Now, let us come to President Kruger’s time. In his days there was Act No. 2 of 1883, which was applicable, a law for the military service of the South African Republic, and there we find the following—

My friend may say that this refers to coloured people, but what is the position in regard to natives? The position is that in the law of the South African Republic “coloured” is a comprehensive term, and a definition is given in the law as to what is understood by “coloured”, and that definition is as follows — but it is so wide that it is almost dangerous to apply such a definition—

This is a very far-reaching provision as to what is meant by the term “coloured”. My hon. friend asked me just now whether I was in favour of the commandeering of coloured people and natives. That is not the point I am dealing with. The point is that we have been told all day long that we should go back to the days of President Kruger. Now, what sort of a Kultuur is that? It was good enough in those days, and it is good enough for to-day. If they want to be consistent, they should not try to make efforts to drag in the colour question on every possible occasion in order to get a few votes.

We shall use everything possible for the new order.

My friend talks a lot about the new order; after the next election he will not be here to talk about the new order; he will have to look for a new job. There is another point I want to deal with, and that is these insinuations, unpleasant insinuations, unworthy insinuations, in connection with the knights of the truth. If anyone who has not yet heard of the knights of the truth had listened to this debate he would have got the impression that the knights of the truth are a criminal class of people.

They are.

A class of people who make false statements.

They do so.

Who do everything except speak the truth. “Paid cowards” is what the hon. member for Fordsburg said. I do not like hitting hard and hurting the other side, but I want to deal with the matter on its merits. What are the merits?

There are no merits.

We have asked repeatedly “give us chapter and verse of the untruths and acts of perjury committed by the knights of the truth.” So far we are still waiting, and they have not yet produced any evidence in regard to the complaints which they have made, and they continue to tell people that they (hon. members opposite), are blameless and only tell the truth. What are the facts? On the other side of the House there is a member who was found guilty of perjury by a court. So it does not become them to accuse us of being people who do not know the truth. And not only was he found guilty of perjury, but an appeal was made through the Press to get money to pay his fine, because he did it on behalf of the Nationalist Party. I want to give another instance of the type of distortion proclaimed by them, in spite of which they come and attack and accuse us. A few weeks ago in the magistrate’s court in Johannesburg members of the editorial staff of Die Transvaler were arraigned before the court. Die Transvaler is a paper which supports the other side, and they were brought before the court in connection with contraventions of the Emergency Regulation, and the lie spread by them was that a lorry full of uniforms covered with blood had come back from soldiers who had fallen in the North.

Was that a lie?

The magistrate ruled that it would have been an offence if the accused could prove that it was the truth. They did not even try to prove that it was not a lie, so my friend cannot say that it was not a lie. They themselves knew that it was untrue, they did not try to prove that it was true. I think that when we get attacks made on members of the Truth Legion, we should know all the facts, and when we get that type of argument and that type of attack on the Bill, then I say that these things do not affect me in the least, and with all my heart I am able to give my support to this Bill.

I wish to discuss the wool agreement here. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) raised the question of the wool agreement in the House this morning. As a man representing the biggest wool-producing constituency in the Union I feel that I should give an explanation to this House and to the country. I am speaking here in the first place on behalf of my constituency and in the second place as one of the organisers of the farmers and as a man who knows what the position of the wool farmers is. I want to point to the way in which the agreement was made. I would have liked to have seen the Minister here. Last year the Minister dragged the name of the Wool Council through the mud here, and he also wanted to blame me. He was the first to let out the secrets of the Wool Council, and he let out what took place in the Wool Council. But what do we get this year? We get something much worse. The Minister tried to protect himself by making a speeh over the radio, but do hon. members know that resolution was taken this year? The Wool Council, which is the mouthpiece of the wool farmers and also the adviser and the mouthpiece of the Minister, was not consulted as an independent body in regard to the wool agreement. They were only consulted in the sense that they were called together jointly with the South African Agricultural Union. The Agricultural Union consists of different types of farmers belonging to different organisations. The wool farmers have an organisation which stands on its own feet, which controls its own affairs; that is to say it is an independent body. They are affiliated with the South African Agricultural Union, but when wool matters are discussed it is only the wool farmers and the organised wool farmers who have a say. We were called together at Bloemfontein with a few days notice, and what happened there? Thirty people came together there.

No, thirty-one.

Part of them were the Executive Committee of the Agricultural Union and some of them were members of the Wool Council, but the committee of the South African Agricultural Union was there as well. That body had to take a, resolution in regard to wool; people who did not produce one bale of wool were called to meet and decide about wool questions. That is what our Minister of Agriculture is allowing to take place. The Minister of Agriculture has now made a plan so as to drag the Agricultural Union and the wool farmers into politics on every possible occasion. I want to assure the Minister that if he carries on in that way and drags agricultural unions into politics on every possible occasion, then I can see the end of the agricultural unions looming ahead. I want to warn him as one of the organisers that he is playing with fire. I want to point out the extent to which politics have always been dragged in. If one attends an agricultural union meeting to-day one usually finds the Minister there, or somebody else on behalf of the Minister, to set the tune for the Government and to make political speeches. And that is the way in which things are carried on. But what is taking place further? Recently a joint meeting of the wool brokers and the Wool Council passed a resolution to drag politics in even further. They decided that by a two-thirds majority they would be able to kick out people who did not agree with their views. Why was that done? With only one object in view, and it was to kick me out, and I can tell the House that the Minister should stop now’, because if he does not stop I prophesy that the agricultural organisation will meet with a great calamity. I have been chairman of agricultural unions for many years, and I can take credit for having helped the wool farmers to achieve the position in which they are to-day. That is the first reason which I want to put forward as to why I should tell the country what is going on. It has been stated that the wool farmers are satisfied with the basis of 10.75d. I should like to know where the Minister has obtained his information that the farmers are satisfied. The Minister should know that on that basis the farmers are not even paid their cost of production of wool.

Nonsense!

An hon. member over there says nonsense, but he speaks from his ignorance.

I am just as big a sheep farmer as you are.

I shall prove what I have said. An amount of £160,000,000 has been invested in the wool industry, and if the wool farmers sell their wool at an average of 10.75d. then their wool will produce about £10,000,000 gross per year. Now I ask if the farmers get a revenue of £10,000,000 on an investment of £160,000,000 how on earth can that be payable? People who know nothing about economics prove by their interjections that they do not know anything about the wool business.

Where do you get the £160,000,000?

From a reliable source. The Minister has had a lot of advice. Last year in this House we gave the Minister many good tips. We warned him that other countries might also enter into the war. We said to him: “Try to get that basis of 10.75d. up to 13.5d., and if you are unable to get that from the British Government then this Government, which is responsible for the war and for all the money that is being spent, should raise the price to 13.5d.” What I told the Minister was that it would not only be unpayable in this country, but we know definitely that a man like Sir Dalziel Kelly stated in Australia last year that at 10.75d., which in their money works out at 13.4d., they will only be able to cover costs of production. New Zealand made the same statement. The Scotch farmers in Scotland said the same thing. The Minister of Agriculture, if he knows anything about agriculture and about wool, should take those points into account, and all this should prove to him that the position is what we would like it to be.

But he knows nothing.

When last year after the session I visited Port Elizabeth I found that the party organisation was doing its best there to oust me out of the position of chairman. Of course they did not succeed, but I actually had to appear before a court, and I had to make a statement of what I had done in Parliament. After having made my statement I asked whether there was anyone at the meeting, a meeting representing 10,000 farmers, who had anything to say against the remarks I made in Parliament. As one man they said “No,” and they put me back into the chair to look after the interests of the wool farmers. I therefore think that when I speak here, I am entitled to say that I am speaking with a certain amount of authority. But it was not only Dalziel Kelly but other experts in Australia as well who stated that the price which Australia was getting for its wool was definitely too low. Last year we had an open market and we got better prices, but none the less the Minister of Agriculture was the cause of our wool farmers suffering a loss of from £2,000,000 to £3,000,000, and I shall tell hon. members how that came about. He acted entirely on his own and not on the advice of wool farmers. We went to him and we told him that he should provide credits for Japan and Italy and other countries which wanted to buy from us. Hon. members over there may laugh but the wool farmers suffered in consequence of what the Minister did. We said at the time that credit for Japan should be arranged for. I do not blame the British Government. They are business men, but I just want to point out what actually happened. The Minister refused to give Japan credits and England thereupon sold to Japan. But it would have been very easy to have given advances to Japan because Japan exports fairly largely to South Africa. But what happened then? The British Government by that time had already formed a corner and Japan withdrew, and England sold 300,000 bales of the Australian wool to Japan at the expense of South Africa. From September to December that same Minister killed our market. It was only after December that our market revived. In spite of that the whole of our clip produced about £12,000,000. Now I want to say that that self same Minister has been responsible for an agreement which will give us less money for our wool, and we shall only get £10,000,000 instead of the £12,000,000 which we got last year. The farmers need a high price; for everything they require they have to pay more. The Minister of Finance may say that the cost of living has gone up slightly, but that is not so as far as the farmers are concerned. I shall prove it. The farmers to-day have to pay 100 per cent. more for the fencing wire they need. And they do need it. They cannot get on without wire because they cannot afford simply to let their fences go to wrack and ruin. They have to pay 200 and 300 per cent. more for a roll of wire to bale their lucerne, and soon the poor lucerne farmers are going under as a result of the miserable conditions they are suffering from, and now they have to pay this higher price. In every respect the farmers have to pay more. But what do we get from the Government? The Government is busy making England a present of from £2,000,000 to £3,000,000 at the expense of the farmers, and the Government does not put anything in the place of the increased cost of living. I am sorry having to say that the Government, whether deliberately or otherwise, is not looking after the interests of our people. They are much more concerned with the Empire than they are with anything else. The loss on the farmers’ wool clip will be almost £2,000,000 this year if one estimates a production of 950,000 bales. The Government is definitely responsible for the loss which the farmers are suffering. The Government has taken it upon themselves to take charge of the farmers’ products and to sell them as they please. The farmers are therefore requesting the Government to make up the loss, but that is not the only loss we are suffering. We have invested thousands and tens of thousands of pounds in propaganda. Where is that money? America has been driven out of the market. Last year we sold a lot of wool to America. Japan wanted to buy a lot, but as a result of the Minister’s neglect we have also pushed Japan out of the market. For years and years we have been trying to get America to take an interest in our clips. We have made propaganda and have spent money. That propaganda was particularly expensive in America, but we continued, and eventually we succeeded in getting America to enter our market. What are we getting now? America has been driven clean out of our market and is in the hands of Great Britain. We spent money to get competition in this country, and now all that has been done away with and all the money has been thrown in the water, and in addition to that we are now faced with a serious danger owing to the fact that all the wool is accumulated in one country. England sits there with all the wool and can do exactly as she pleases. What is going to be the future of the wool farmer now? A monopoly of wool will be placed in England’s hands, and our Government has assisted to bring about this state of affairs. If they had followed the advice of the Cape Province, of the 10,000 members, that would not have been the position. Those people put suggestions before the Minister. The Minister again told us that there were no other suggestions. I, on behalf of the Cape Province, suggested first of all that the basis of 10.75d. was too low and that it should be raised. I did not say that it should be 13.5d., but that it should be higher. Secondly, they suggested that credits should be created for those countries which buy our wool; and thirdly, they asked for an open market. I was one of the four who voted against the Minister’s proposals and I am very proud of the fact that I was one of them, because I regard it as an honour to help in looking after the interests of the wool farmers before looking after the interests of the Empire. I suggested a higher basis, an open market and credit for Japan, if it should be necessary. The position, however, is that Great Britain has come along and told the Minister what we must do with our wool. Great Britain has said that she would not allow any competition against herself and if we were not prepared to accept 10.75d. she would go out of the market. Now, is that the wonderful friend we hear such a lot about, wanting to make money out of us at a time like the present? We cannot lose sight of the fact that we are England’s best customer, and that we buy from her to the extent of £30,000,000 per year. That shows us what is going on behind the scenes. I feel this, in view of all the circumstances the Government must account to the wool farmers and the wool farmers are entitled to be compensated for the losses they have to suffer. For that reason we ask the Government to make good those losses. We demand that, because they have taken our wool under a compulsory measure and now they are selling it in other countries.

Go on, ride your hobbyhorse!

There we have the Quisling on the other side of the House who has betrayed the soul of the Afrikaner for £25,000 of foreign money. I have briefly given a summary of the wool position and I believe that I have at least shown that even this wonderful British Government has patted itself on the back on account of its having done such good business. I can congratulate England, but then I must congratulate her because of the good business she has done for herself. I am not able to congratulate the Minister. The Minister pretends having done a wonderful thing for us because England will pay us an average of 10.75d. for our wool, and one day when they have sold that wool they will pay us half of the profit after deducting all costs. If the war goes on for years, what are their costs going to be, and how much profit will go into the farmers’ pockets? In the last war they made £14,000,000 out of the wool farmers, and I say that that money should be in the pockets of the wool farmers and not in the pockets of the Empire builders. Now, there are a few other points I want to go into. The hon. member for Germiston (South) (Mr. J. G. N. Strauss) referred contemptuously to President Kruger.

That is not true.

The hon. member did say it and now that we are answering back they are beginning to whine. I want to tell him that the old Transvaal Republic was the home of the poor man. They did not have a Corner House then. They did not make the people’s price of bread go up for the sake of a few capitalists. Any man could go there and make money and that money was circulated in the country. We find to-day that the Government of Rhodesia has followed the example set by President Kruger and that it is giving its people the right to develop the wealth of the gold in the country, and to circulate the money in the country. Those people who can speak of President Kruger and a republic know what a republic means to South Africa, and they know that a republic will be the best thing for this country. The overwhelming majority of our people in South Africa want to have a republic and they are going to get one. A new republic will be established in South Africa under the new world order.

The hon. member must get back to the Bill.

Now I want to get back to the khaki knights, and I call them what the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) has called them, the Prime Minister’s paid cowards. They are paid with money which comes into this country from outside. They are the Quislings; they are the fifth column in our country, in exactly the same way as the fifth column existed in the old Transvaal. We have them in our country again and they will again betray our country. There are some of them in this House and opposite, on the Government benches, is the greatest Quisling, fattened on the misery of the Afrikaner. That same hon. member came here and in his madness he had the temerity to insult another hon. member on this side of the House. If he has not got the manliness to accept that hon. member’s challenge then we know what to think of that hon. member. I want to say to the hon. member that I prefer to sit in sack cloth and ashes with my own people than be a traitor among the people on the opposite side of the House, a man accepting foreign money in order to betray his own people.

Calm yourself.

I am sorry that at this stage I cannot say anything about milk, because I would have been able to tell the House some nice stories about that hon. member. With these few words I wish to register my protest against this Bill.

It is the duty of every member in this House, when a debate is being conducted on any subject in respect of which two different views are held by members, to try and see the other man’s point of view. I have done my utmost while hon. members opposite were making speeches here to see whether I could not agree with them in some of the things which they have been saying in regard to these measures, but I failed in my efforts. They tell us all sorts of things about every subject brought before this House and we really do not know how they come to say those things, and where they get them. But when we ask them where they get their information they keep quiet as a rule. I want to make an appeal to this House to realise that if we are to go on in the way we have been doing during this last week this House will very soon no longer command the high esteem and respect of the public to which it is entitled. I think that the way in which this debate has been conducted will certainly not inspire any individual visiting this House for the first time with any very great respect. I am trying to understand the attitude of hon. members opposite, and I want them to try and understand my attitude. We are dealing here with a measure which the Prime Minister has felt himself compelled to introduce owing to the fact that certain elements in the country are busy disturbing the peace. If hon. members opposite who contend that they are anxious to see order and quiet maintained in this country have really warned the public from time to time to remain calm, then they should support this measure, because that would assist them to maintain such peace and order in the country. They are not doing so but they see all sorts of things in this Bill. Hon. members opposite remind me of a man who showed me something through an ivory handle like the one I have here. I beheld a beautiful spectacle, but I could only see it if I looked through the small hole in the ivory handle. The picture had been manufactured inside and by looking through the little hole and keeping one’s eye close to it, one could only see the little picture, and nothing beyond it. Everything the Opposition has depicted to us here simply amounts to this, that they have an ivory handle in front of their eyes in which the picture has been painted and which they want us to see. But if we normally look at the matter from all sides then we are unable to see the things which they ask us to see ill this measure. We have been told about people who have been subjected to intimidation, and who have been forced to join up and who, in spite of that, have been called volunteers. The fact of the matter is that there is not a solitary department in the country in which there are not a large number of officials, both in the public services and in the railway services who are not worrying their chiefs all day long for permission to join up. Nobody knows it better than I do. Every day I am overwhelmed with letters and the Ministers already know that when I come to see them I bring with me a long list of people who have repeatedly applied to be released from their offices so as to be given the opportunity of joining up voluntarily; at the same time many of them cannot be released as the essential services of the country have to be carried on. I say that there are in the Government service at least 6,000 men who are prepared to join up to-morrow if only they can get the necessary permission from the different departments. In the mines there are many thousands who are in the same position, and that is a matter on which I can speak with authority. Those men have repeatedly applied for permission to go and fight, but they are not allowed to go. Now is the time, they say, to sing the words of “Die Stem van Suid-Afrika”—

But the Opposition only sings these words in times of peace, and now that there is a war on they sing a song of sorrow; hon. members opposite are not prepared to contribute their share in order to safeguard the freedom of South Africa.

Of course, you sing, “There will always be an England.”

Yes, and that is exactly the hon. member’s difficulty; but let me tell him this: there will never be a Germany ruling South Africa. But let me get back to this Emergency Bill. Hon. members opposite, as their main reason for their opposition, have stated that it is hopeless to continue the war, and that being so they regard this Bill as being quite unnecessary. One could mention at least three instances during the past ten years when the Leader of the Opposition had expressed himself as being absolutely definite on a particular subject, and one can remember him telling the people that if what he said was not correct he would resign. On each of those three occasions he was wrong, and we now feel in connection with this war that he may be wrong again. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has never yet been so certain and so definite, and never before have his followers been as certain as when they told us that the war was lost. They are again going to be disappointed in their leader. Everything those people have predicted has always been wrong — the very opposite has always been the case. In spite of the conscientiousness and the abnormally high ideals of hon. members opposite, and in spite of the fact that we have asked them time and again to co-operate with us to defend South Africa, and in spite of the fact that they have refused to do so, we want to impress upon them again that it is their duty to fight for South Africa.

The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill now before the House.

Surely you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to say that this Bill is so comprehensive that it may even lead us to discuss the whole of the great question. This Bill before the House is absolutely essential. If we on both sides are honest and are really anxious to see this war pass by without a revolution, or a rebellion, or a rising of brother against brother in our country, then it is the duty of members opposite to give their wholehearted support to this measure. We all realise that feelings may run high in times of war, and that it may sometimes be necessary to take strong steps in order to maintain law and order in the country. I again wish to make an appeal to hon. members opposite, and to ask them to do their duty towards this country. A man who has been incited and stirred up is unable to think normally. His brain does not function properly, and if we are going to stir up the people by means of agitation and inciting language, we shall afterwards get such a position that the feelings of the people will be stirred up to such an extent that they will not be able to think normally, and then blood may flow where there is no need for it. I sympathise with a man who suffers an injustice. The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Fagan) mentioned the case here of a man who had not given up his rifle and who, as a result, got himself into difficulties. I believe that everyone of us will feel sympathetically disposed towards a case of that kind, and when such a unique case occurs and an appeal is lodged that person will undoubtedly get justice done to him, and no judge will allow such a man to be punished. But I am making an appeal to the Opposition, and I feel convinced that they will agree with me, although they will not show it — there are people who hon. members say are in gaol without their being guilty. But why? They have attended meetings and they have been told that they must not hand in their rifles.

That is nonsense.

They have been told not to hand in their rifles. We know how things go at a meeting like that. People are stirred up and afterwards they take an oath that they will not hand in their rifles with the result that in the long run they land in gaol, and the people who are responsible for that inciting language sit here at their ease and enjoy life. Surely this war must finish some day. When hon. members opposite get up here to speak they utter threats against us, and they tell us what is going to happen to us if they get a chance one day. If we want to use threats we can also do so, and we can carry out our threats, but that is not what we shall do, and I am quite convinced that when hon. members opposite are able to think normally again they will no longer talk in the way they are doing now. If we on this side of the House want to be abnormal, we can do away with every member opposite; we can destroy everyone of them; but we are not going to do it. We want hon. members over there to realise that one of these days we shall all have to live together in this country again, and we want to tell them that their actions at present are calculated to destroy this country. What is the result? Every appeal which we make here is ridiculed. I want to advise the hon. member for Fordsburg to read Psalm 1, verse 1, and to think it over to-night and to-morrow again. If the hon. member does that he will get on better than if he joins up with those who ridicule everything.

The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill.

When we have to deal with a Bill such as this we are apt to suffer from the complaint of straying away from it, and I must thank you for your patience, Mr. Speaker, and for leading me back to the Bill. The subject is of such a serious nature and it is so closely attached to the great cause, that I am continually coming back to it. I say that if this Bill had come into operation a year ago there would not be so many innocent people in gaol to-day. Now the Government has all those measures at its disposal. I am glad that the Prime Minister admits that if he had proceeded with clause 2 at the last session he would have done better. But the public will undoubtedly appreciate the fact that he said on that occasion: “We do not want to take any unnecessary compulsory powers into our hands; we want to see how far the Opposition will allow us to get on and to deal with the position by means of the measures at our disposal.” The Opposition must not take it amiss from me if I say that the attitude they have adopted in the country has not been up to expectation. I am glad that there are some members opposite to whom we can look, and whom we can expect eventually to place the interests of the people before party political interests. I hope their influence will weigh with the others who have not done so.

I must again ask the hon. member to get back to the Bill.

I notice that you have been very patient with me. Mr. Speaker. I shall not stray again, and I want to conclude by saying that I support this measure of the Prime Minister’s, because it is required for the maintenance of order in our country.

I propose later on to deal more particularly with the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) and the Labour Party. It is a striking fact that while the hon. member had such a lot to say about the war and the duty which rests upon us to see the war through, the Labour Party sits in this House and draws additional salaries….

The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill.

I wish to speak more particularly about the wool position, but before doing so I should like to say a few words in connection with the explanation which the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) has given in answer to the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus). I can only say this, that if the hon. member for Springs cannot give a better explanation in connection with the Insurance Companies, in reply to the charge made by the hon. member for Moorreesburg, then I am convinced that the Insurance Companies in South Africa are going to suffer great harm in consequence of his actions. He stated that what the hon. member for Moorreesburg had said was absolutely true. If what the hon. member for Moorreesburg has stated is true, then I am convinced that every Afrikaner who has a policy with these overseas companies will immediately take steps to cancel that policy. In regard to the reference that was made to our foreign representative in France, I think it is the duty of this House to appoint a commission in order to make an investigation into the question of the extent to which this foreign representative of the Union has concerned himself with this political intrigue. I think it is the duty of this House to introduce a motion that a special commission or committee be appointed to enquire into the question of what has already been done, and to what extent the Government is involved in the matter. Now, I want to come to this question of the rifles. If we look at the speech made by the Prime Minister we must find that in the main it amounts to this, that he needed those rifles for military purposes. Not long after the Prime Minister had spoken the Minister of the Interior also made a speech. True, he said that he did not want to detract from anything the Prime Minister had said, but in spite of that his whole speech amounted to this, that he was afraid of these local organisations, and that was why the rifles had been commandeered. The one contradicts the other so far as the main points are concerned, and to such an extent that it is very noticeable. Apart from that our position unfortunately is that we are to-day faced with this fact, that there are a large number of people who are on the point of going to court in order to get a decision from the court as to whether this step of the Government’s was legal or not. The Prime Minister has stated that he is not going to allow it. That was clear from his speech. I can conceive that the Government in abnormal times, and also at other times, can take certain steps when a question of great public interest is involved, and that confirmation of its action can later on be asked for, but I cannot see how this highest authority in the country, how our Parliament, can allow people being taken to gaol in this way, illegally, and how we can then pass legislation such as that now before the House, in order to prevent those people going to court in order to obtain their rights. The position to-day is that we are really putting innocent people in that quandary. That does not apply to only one person, but a great many of them have taken legal advice. Many of them have gone, not to us who are politicians, but to lawyers where they have obtained advice, and those lawyers have told them that there is no need for them to hand in their rifles. They told them that under the Act of 1912 there was no necessity for them to do so, and that the Government did not have the right to commandeer rifles in that way. I never said that. On the contrary I clearly told the people from the platforms that if they were going to take any steps in that direction the responsibility for what they did must rest on their own shoulders. I said that in all probability action would be taken against them; but what happened? Those people were summoned, and a number of them are in gaol to-day. They are not ordinary criminals, but they are people who actually almost worship the Prime Minister; they are people who have accepted him as their leader. And from the very earliest days since he has entered the political arena they have been his followers. There are a great many people of that kind in my constituency who have given up their rifles under a sense of deep indignation. There are people in gaol whose families are in dire poverty and misery, and now the highest authority comes along, an authority which the people of this country are expected to honour and respect — Parliament comes along, and what do we find now? Can we expect now that this Parliament without protest is going to accept legislation of this kind, legislation which deprives people of their rights — people who have recently been condemned, and who have appealed to the courts? Are we as a just and fair body going to pass a measure of this kind without protesting against it? This House is supposed to have the respect of the whole country. Can we take a step like that without allowing people who find themselves in that position to have the rights to which they are entitled? This is not a matter of only a fine of a few pounds, this is a matter which goes very much further. It is not a question of the handing in of the rifles as such at this moment. That has been disposed of. There may perhaps be a few rifles left here and there by this time, but the question is whether Parliament in South Africa is going to allow some of its best and most noble people to be put in gaol and to be kept there in this way, while they are being deprived of their rights to go to the courts? It has been stated that things of that kind have happened in the past. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) has said so. I do not know whether it is so; even if it is so, it does not justify this body committing a misdeed of that kind at a time like the present. I can only say that feelings in this country are running very high, especially since it has become clear that this Bill has been introduced by the Prime Minister in order to cover himself in connection with this matter — feelings are running so high that the Prime Minister can hardly imagine what is going on. In the circumstances we can only ask the Prime Minister to take steps in order to keep those people out of gaol and to stop any further prosecutions. I should like to make a few remarks now in connection with what was said by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg). To plunge a country into war must undoubtedly be one of the most serious actions that any body of persons, or any Parliament, can take, at any time. We take it that everybody who at the time voted in favour of war had seriously considered the responsibility resting on him as an individual and as a member of Parliament, and that he was convinced that he was doing the right thing. But in, consequence of the attitude adopted by hon. members opposite we are to-day in the condition in which we find ourselves, and if they were really so absolutely convinced that they were acting in the interests of the country by plunging the people into war, and if they are so absolutely convinced today that this type of legislation is necessary for the country, then one would expect such members in the very first place to set an example to the country and to show that they are serious-minded. There was one thing I appreciated. In the leading article in one of the English papers in which the justice was being discussed of an ordinary individual going to the war and losing his ordinary salary, while a member of Parliament at such a time was entitled to an extra salary ….

That has nothing to do with the Bill.

I only want to point out what the position is and I want to draw the attention of the hon. member for Krugersdorp to it. In spite of the fact that he has voted in favour of the war and in spite of the fact that the responsibility rests on him, he is one of those who are in receipt of extra salary in addition to his parliamentary salary. Now I should like to come to the position of our wool industry. Last year when the Minister of Agriculture defended the wool agreement between Great Britain and the Union we raised objections to that agreement. We had several objections. I attacked the Minister and I said that if protests had not been raised at an early stage throughout the country, the whole of the Union wool clip last year would have been sold to England. The Minister of Agriculture then asked, “Where do you get that from?” It is recorded in Hansard. The Minister further said, “If the hon. member thinks that I am going to put my head into a hornet’s nest after what happened in 1918 he makes a mistake.” I just want to say in that connection that what has taken place this year in connection with the new agreement has fully confirmed my suspicions of last year.

Then you are still wrong.

I imagine that the Minister was in such a state of mind last year that it was only the early protests made by farmers which prevented the Minister from selling the whole of our wool clip to England last year.

Are you doubting my words, and do you say that I am a liar?

It is not my intention at all to make the Minister out to be a liar. On the contrary, I am only referring to what the Minister said, and I say that what has now happened is by no means a reflection on my part against the Minister; I am not trying to make him out to be a liar, I only say that what has now happened proves that I was right in protesting last year, and that last year the Minister did not have the courage to do what he has done now for the reason which I have mentioned. Evidence of that is to be found in the Minister’s own words, “If the hon. member thinks that I am going to put my head into a hornet’s nest as happened in 1918 he makes a mistake.” That confirms my argument. But what is the position now? Our wool clip has been sold to England. That confirms my point. In Australia they had an agreement last year under which the Australian wool clip was sold to England at a price which was 30 per cent. higher than the closing prices of the 1938 season. The Minister then said that we had reason to be grateful for the fact that we had maintained an open market in South Africa because prices for certain lines had gone up 70 per cent. above the prices for the previous year’s clip. The chairman of the International Wool Secretariat told us that the normal price of wool was 50 per cent. higher than the year before. Now the Minister comes along this year and sells our wool on a basis of only 30 per cent. above that of the 1938 season; in other words, we are going to suffer a loss this year of 20 per cent. in comparison with the world price of wool.

What is the world price?

Last year it was 50 per cent. above the closing prices of the previous year. Last year there was dissatisfaction, not only in South Africa, but there was even greater dissatisfaction in Australia and New Zealand because those countries had sold their wool to Great Britain at a price 30 per cent. higher than the basis of the previous years. That dissatisfaction emanates from two causes, namely, that the price, according to the world market, is too low, and, secondly, that there is a concentration of your wool, an accumulation in one country, namely, England. Before this war England only bought 17 per cent. of our wool. Last year, under the agreement, she bought about 38,500,000 lbs. England did not buy that wool exclusively for her own use. We know that in the past, but more especially in times of war, England tries to get all the wool into her hands in order to hand it out to those countries she thinks it desirable to hand it to.

In order to speculate with it.

Not only that. In a time of war wool is regarded as one of the materials which it is essential for a country to get control of. The reason why they bought the Australian wool last year was to keep Japan out of the market. Japan wanted to buy in our market and the Minister of Agriculture even admitted that Japan had asked for certain credit facilities, but that those facilities had not been provided to Japan and that they had not given Japan any encouragement to come and buy here. One of the reasons why such encouragement was not given was because we had to see the war through. But now I want to refer to another aspect. Last year we sold a larger proportion of our clip than in any previous year to England, but other countries bought nearly just as much from us and they would be able to buy just as much from us to-day if we had an open market. Those countries, I am particularly thinking of America, are now in the war zone, in the blockade area, and they have to pass through the blockade area if they want to buy wool from England. The hon. Minister knows that the United States of America last year bought 35.4 million lbs. from us, a little less than Great Britain did, and if America wants wool this year she has to go and fetch it in England, right through the blockade. Would it not be much easier for America to come and get her wool here in South Africa? If America were to do that it would not run the risk of the blockade. The chance of our selling wool to America now has been lost. Does the Minister imagine for one moment that England would buy our wool if she were not anxious to have it? If England threatened him that she would not buy, then the Minister, who should have known that England needs the wool and is not going to allow that wool to get out of her possession, must have in any case been a poor business man to have allowed himself to be threatened. But now we have the greatest difficulty of all. There is an International Wool Secretariat on which we have spent thousands of pounds, all of which money comes from our wool farmers. Those contributions which we have made have come out of the pockets of our wool farmers with a view to our trying to get a greater market for our wool. What is now happening? We are busy putting all our wool into the hands of one country and what will be the consequence? We are going to find that the big consumers of wool will have to change their factories and that they will start using synthetic wool because they are unable to secure ordinary wool. As long ago as 1938 the position was that synthetic materials on the world market were being sold to an amount similar to the value of the ordinary wool that was being sold. Now we go further and we are going to strengthen the synthetic position even more. In order to obtain clothes for their people those other countries will convert their factories, and artificial silk and artificial wool is going to be used for the purpose of manufacturing clothes, so after the war we shall have to fight and do all we can to recover the ground which we have lost, and in spite of that we may perhaps never be able to get back to the position in which we were before the war. With all respect for the Minister of Agriculture I say that he has been the greatest criminal so far as the wool farmers are concerned.

It is with a certain amount of diffidence that I rise to say a few words about the position of wool and the sales agreement with the British Government, having in mind the way in which the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) has held himself up to this House as the authority on wool and the only person who has the right to speak on the question of wool.

I know something about it. What do you know about it?

I should like to put a few facts before the House and let it judge on the question as to whether a profitable deal has been made or not. One has to go back to last year in order to get a proper grasp of the position. Last season we had both the British Government guarantee of 10¾d. and also an open market, and it is rather interesting, in view of charges freely flung across the House last year that Britain was not buying any wool or very little wool, to note that Great Britain was the biggest buyer in our market last year.

But not the year before.

I am talking about last year.

You are always half asleep; you only wake up now and again.

Quite so. And it is very interesting also to know that, after all the attacks which were launched on the Government last session in respect of this wool agreement, after all the statements that were made as to how dissatisfied the farmers were about the deal that was done, the National Wool Growers Conference met at Bloemfontein after the conclusion of the session and recommended that the principles of the wool agreement with Great Britain be adopted for the duration of the war and one year thereafter, and further it issued this statement—

That was the opinion of that body which represents the wool farmers of the Union. Now let us go on a little bit and see what happened last year after this House adjourned. Up to a certain point the market was good; there was good bidding in the open market until the low countries were overrun, and later on Germany overran France as well. Now I want to make certain quotations from trade reports so that members can realise the position which the Government has had to face in making this new agreement. One of the trade reports made this statement—

Then the Division of Economics and Markets reports—

Early in. June the East London wool sales report states—

Finally, on the same day Cape Town reports—

That was the position which the Minister had to face.

What are the production costs?

I shall deal with that later. We have this position which the Minister had to face; the wool season coming on and not a single buyer in our markets, except the British Government, and the Government’ had to turn round and do the best they could to ensure a sale of their product for the wool growers of this country. Now what happened? Following certain negotiations with the British Government, a conference was called, as said by the hon. member for Cradock. It was called at Bloemfontein, and at that conference there were 31 members present, not 26, as the hon. member for Cradock stated; there were 21 members of wool organisations — that is the Wool Council, and the Wool Growers’ Association—and there were ten delegates from the South African Agricultural Union. You will notice that in spite of the impression which the hon. member for Cradock tried to give this House, there were 21 definite representatives of organised wool interests and ten from the South African Agricultural Union. A tremendous majority of wool growers were present. Now, it has been said, and certain members have complained that this conference should not have settled this matter; it was too big; but that it should have been submitted to the various farmers’ organisations. I put this view. Is it possible with delicate negotiations going on between our Government and the British Government for meetings to have been held of farmers throughout the country discussing the negotiations.

You are dreaming, as usual.

Well, the hon. member is not the only man who is consulted about wool. If that were so we would be in a pretty position. There were other interests to be consulted besides the hon. member. At that conference a motion was passed by 26 votes to 4 definitely asking the Government to conclude an agreement with the British Government on the same lines as Australia and New Zealand had done, namely to take the whole clip at an average price of 10¾d. per lb., and half of any profit which would be realised on a re-sale—if there were any profits — would be returned to the growers. Hon. members will note that the British Government does not ask us to stand half the losses. No, it is content to risk any losses.

There cannot be any losses.

The next point is very interesting. There were four members only out of the thirty who dissented from the above motion. Those four were led by the hon. member for Cradock, and they put up a counter-proposal, and that counter-proposal is very interesting.

We were representing 10,000 farmers.

10,000 sheep you mean.

10,000 blow flies you mean.

Will hon. members please refrain from these kinds of remarks.

[to Mr. Gilson]: You are an Imperial blowfly.

Now this minority put up a suggestion. They said to the Government: “You try and get the British Government to agree to the open market, but we must also have a guarantee from the British Government that it will operate on that market, and further that the British Government will also take over everything that is unsold at the above price of 10¾d. Can you imagine a sensible body of men ever putting up a suggestion of that sort in a business deal? They went a bit further, however. They then said to the conference that if that request could not be acceded to — this preposterous request — then they agreed that 10¾d. be accepted by this conference.

Everyone said it should have been more than 10¾d.

Yes, they may have said it. And the spokesman who came on behalf of the recalcitrants four and said, “If you cannot get that, we accept 10¾.”, was the hon. member for Cradock.

It is not true.

And eventually a unanimous recommendation came from that conference representing the wool and agricultural interests of South Africa, asking the Minister to accept on behalf of the wool growers the agreement with the British Government which has now been entered into. Just imagine a sensible man putting up a suggestion that outside buyers should be allowed to come and take the pick of the wool in the open market and then expect the British Government to take all the left overs at a price which was very remunerative to the farmers? Do not forget again, what I tried to explain last year, that that 10¾d. for grease wool, is from 1d. to 2d. better than what is paid in New Zealand and Australia, in view of the fact that there is a bigger weight of grease and dirt in South African wool. Another interesting point is this — because it is contradictory to what the hon. member for Cradock said, namely that last month, in August, the Cape Agricultural Union, of which the hon. member for Cradock used to be the chairman until they got a better man, met at Beaufort West, and there that body passed a unanimous motion confirming the agreement which the Government had entered into, and thanking the Minister and the Agricultural Department for the work it had done in negotiating that agreement. That was only last month, and here, as I say, the conference of the Cape Agricultural Union at Beaufort West — and as we all know, the Cape represents by far the greatest number of wool growers in the country, unanimously passed that resolution. In spite of these expressed opinions and requests from all organised wool interests the hon. member for Cradock comes here and, posing as an authority, which he is not, tries to persuade this House for a purely political point of view that a disadvantageous agreement has been entered into, and that the above interests are opposed to it. Now we come to another point. The hon. member lays tremendous stress on the question: Why did not the Government instead sell to America? The hon. member said: “I want America in our market, and then the farmers would have had a better price.” Well, sir, there are only two possible buyers outside Great Britain. Those are America and Japan. France is out, Holland is out and Belgium is out, as are all the smaller countries who formerly bought: only Japan and America could operate in our market.

Good buyers.

Good buyers? Again the hon. member has fallen into the trap. Last year the total amount of wool produced in and sold by the Union was approximately 240.000.000 lbs. That is the export figure which hon. members can get for themselves from official publications. Of that amount America took 35,000,000 lbs. and Japan 14.000.000 lbs., a total of 49,000.000, and that is a bigger weight than they took the year before. Do we want our wool farmers to depend on the requirements of those two countries on the basis of what they took last year instead of this agreement with the British Government? And you cannot have both. We should have been left with 190,000,000 lbs. on our hands and no buyers if the hon. member’s advice had been taken. Now let me come to the cost of production. Taking the average price at 10¾d. per lb. only three times in the last eleven years has the average price realised exceeded that figure. If we accept as correct that wool cannot be produced at 103 d. then the wool farmers in the last eleven years would have been bankrupt long ago.

We are all bankrupt.

Bankrupt in ideas but not in money. I know as much about the wool farmers as the hon. member. I am probably a bigger wool grower than he is, and 10¾.d. is a price at which the sheep farmer can come out, can pay his debts and can live well. There is no question whatever about that. The hon. member tries to lead the House to believe that Japan could not get credit in this country.. Does he realise that Japan never asked for credit? If she had wanted wool she would have bought for cash. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) will tell you that Japan bought 260,000,000 lbs. of wattle-bark last year and paid for it in cash; there was no question of credit. Japan is in a position to buy if she wants wool, but her requirements are small. As for the old story that Great Britain sold Japan a quantity of wool — which the hon. member for Cradock repeats; 300,000 bales he stated—the hon. Minister told you last year that he had inquired from the Imperial Government and that is not correct, and I am surprised at the hon. member repeating it. There is only one other point I want to make. Here we have debated a motion for some days, and the burden of the whole debate on the Opposition side has been, “The war is lost, England is beaten, Germany is victorious,” and yet hon. members are now attacking the Government because out of that defeated England more money is not being obtained. Where is the self-respect of these hon. members? The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) and others have vilified Great Britain and decried the Empire at every possible turn — nothing has been too bad to say of England, of the English and of the British Empire — and yet when the question of money comes up they do not hesitate to approach Great Britain, through the Minister, and say: “Give us more. You are giving us a good price, but we want more.” And that, sir, from a country that they vilify at every opportunity. I cannot understand honest men taking the attitude that they do in regard to the Empire, because when it comes to business matters and they want more money they know that England and the Empire are the only people who can pay them.

The hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Gilson) has just said that this side of the House should now leave the Government in peace. That was what we had intended doing after the declaration of war. But let me ask the hon. member this: Did you leave us and our people in peace? The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) also spoke about stirring up the public; he said that the public was being incited. Is it not the section of the population represented by this side of the House which is being criticised, victimised and intimidated? The hon. member also said that the people were being intimidated. It has been proved by several members on this side of the House, and it has even been admitted by the hon. member for Carolina (Mr. Fourie), that intimidation has undoubtedly taken place. I only want to put a few questions which he may perhaps be able to answer. My first question is this: Why are the members of the Special Service Battalion who were unwilling to sign the new oath being dismissed? Is not that intimidation? Is it not principally the poorer class of young fellow who has joined up? We know what was the object of the Special Service Battalion.

They are dismissed to make room for others.

Why are those members of the police who refused to sign the oath being immediately transferred? If a policeman in Lichtenburg refuses to sign the oath he is immediately transferred to another place. Is not that intimidation? The hon. Minister of Native Affairs is not here at the moment. I should like to ask him a few questions. I should like to ask him why last month a clerk in the office of the Native Commissioner at Lichtenburg — an official who has been doing good, sound work — who refused to sign the oath was given notice that his services would no longer be required in that office? Is not that intimidation? Let me give him the assurance that we are quite willing to allow them to carry on the war, as the right hon. the Prime Minister stated after the 4th September, by means of volunteers. We are quite prepared to allow them to do so, but we deny that this war is being waged with volunteers. We contend that a large part of the army, as it is composed to-day, consists of people who got there by way of intimidation. In my district—and I take it that that is the position throughout the Union—we find that the people who are urging us to go to war, who are in favour of war, do not take any part themselves; they do not take any active part, but the people in their employ, the people who work for them, have to go. In my district I know many of our young farmers’ sons who are fit to go, who are at the best time of their lives to do military service, but who do not go. But their by-woners have to go, and if they are not prepared to go they are made to leave, and there is no room for them on the farm. A man who is treated like that will not be able to find work with anyone else, and he is victimised. It is not only in Government offices that that sort of thing is going on but in all respects we find that there is a sort of hunt going on in the country against the people who are not in favour of the war.

It is not advisable to go and fight others with unwilling people.

I think it is wrong to put people like that into the army, and I do not think it right to force a man to take up arms. But still that is what is being done. I want to say this to the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood). Stop this victimisation and this humiliation of the Afrikaner people, which is the section of the people who we represent; if you do that we shall leave you in peace to carry on the war in the way the Prime Minister intends doing, with the aid of volunteers. That is what he told us after he had declared war. And now we have this question of rifles. That is a matter on which I think enough has been said, but the Prime Minister is a man who knows the mentality of the Afrikaner people and he must have been aware of the fact when he issued the proclamation to commandeer the rifles that he was looking for trouble. We have found that the younger fellows were willing to hand in their rifles, but the older people, the man whose rifle has a sentimental value for him, is proud of his rifle. The rifles are their own property; they bought them and they are not prepared to hand them over. If the Minister had set a it the matter with a little more tact he would not have had all this trouble to-day and the Afrikaner people would not have been humiliated in the way they have been. If, for instance, the rt hon. the Prime Minister had made a voluntary appeal, if he had asked the people voluntarily to hand in their rifles because he needed them, and then only rifles which were suitable for military purposes, he would have got just as many, if not more rifles, handed in. Another point is this, most of those people did not understand that this notice, or proclamation, in the Government Gazette, actually amounted to the commandeering of rifles. Many people came and asked me what they should do. I must say that whenever I was consulted by anybody I advised them to hand it, their rifles, and I told them that the Government had the power to take their rifles from them. The reply was, “If you want my rifle, you can come and fetch it; I am not going to hand it in over there.” It is those people who did not hand in their rifles voluntarily, and if they had been ordered subsequently in the proper way, and according to the old commandeer system, to hand in their rifles to the police they would have done so. But that was not done. If an attempt had been made to send out the police to do so, I am convinced that those people would have handed over their rifles. Now, I again want to ask the hon. member for Vereeniging, can we leave you people in peace if you treat our people in that way simply because they did not respond to that demand? Now they are being summoned and they are being sent to prison. They are being humiliated by being put in gaol. Honourable people, people who are not ordinary criminals, but men who have led honourable lives. Is it right to put those people in gaols because they retained their own private property, which had not been properly commandeered? I deny that those rifles were properly commandeered in accordance with the system which is generally known. It is true that there was a call made upon them, but so far as I know they were not properly instructed to hand in their rifles. There was only a notice in the Government Gazette and large numbers of people heard from others that their rifles had to be handed in. And they said, “If my rifle is commandeered I shall hand it in, but I am not going to hand it over myself.” I want to make an appeal to the Minister of Justice to release those people. Withdraw those cases which you have against them because we take it, after this Bill which is now before the House and which is to be passed here this evening, has come into operation those people will be liable to the penalties imposed upon them by the courts, and also to the penalties which the courts would impose upon them in future. We are unable to leave that side of the House alone so long as these things are allowed to continue. I said that the victimisation, intimidation and humiliation, came from that side of the House. Those so-called knights of the truth—a name which one would hesitate to confer on the very best parson in the country—are the people who are being paid to lie. There we have the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha), the leader of the movement, and however honestly he may have intended it, when that organisaton was established, I want to tell him that in my district he has a number of comparatively weak individuals who are doing the work of the League of Truth. But in spite of this they are the people who are to blame for that sort of thing, they are the people who are making these hunts throughout the country in order to intimidate people and humiliate them, as they are doing to-day. One of the speakers here asked, “Where are those false statements which they are supposed to have made?” Did not the Prime Minister himself state during the last session of Parliament that the declaration against the Arendt brothers were not correct?

Did the knights of the truth make that declaration?

I ask, who else did it? So far as I know these knights of the truth are spies, people who are daily on the look out to see whether they cannot find somebody who is saying or doing something which, so they contend, promotes Nazism; and then they are paid for it. Among the members of that league one has people who will come and tell any lie and make any false statement in order to get money. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Frankfort this: “What has become of those people who made those false declarations?” There are numerous people who have been interned and who have been released because, after investigation, it turned out that the statements made against those people had been false. Under the ordinary laws of the country if anyone makes a false statement like that, he is taken to court and charged with perjury, but because they are knights of the truth nothing has happened to them, and they are paid to promote the truth, no matter how much they lie.

I am not a wool farmer and I do not really know too much about wool, but I should also like to make a few remarks in regard to what the hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Gilson) has said, and I also wish to level a little criticism against the Wool Council and against the Minister, and I want to do so in connection with the agreement entered into with Great Britain. It appears to me that the Minister has not taken into account our geographical situation in relation to Australia. England pays them the same price as she pays us for the same wool. Our situation must undoubtedly be worth one or two pennies more to England, and I believe that that is a point which our Government has lost sight of. Then there is another point referred to by the hon. member for Griqualand East, namely where he asked us where our self-respect was if we on this side of the House tried to secure the best possible price for the farmers’ wool, and he said: “You want to get the biggest possible price from England.” We have never yet been ashamed to say that we are not pro-German or pro-English but only pro-Afrikaans. We are going to try and plead on behalf of the farmers in the country, so that we may be able to get the best possible prices on their behalf. On the other side of the House the hon. member for Germiston (South) (Mr. J. G. N. Strauss) and the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) stated that clause 2 had been left out last year’s session and they said that they were very pleased that it had been left out. It would have been very difficult for them to have voted for those emergency regulations if clause 2 had not been deleted. To-day they say the position is different, and they are going to support the Bill wholeheartedly. The Prime Minister tells us that a condition of calm is prevailing throughout the country and that there is no trouble, no unrest in the country. If that is so what then is the need for the Prime Minister to introduce this clause? In regard to the commandeering of rifles it is perfectly clear to me that the Afrikaans-speaking people had no evil intentions whatsoever when they refused to hand in their rifles. The very fact that they handed in 88,000 rifles is ample evidence to me that those people were prepared to hand in those rifles. Now it is held against us and we are accused of having tried to induce those people not to hand in their rifles. I can give hon. members the assurance that if it were not for the attitude adopted by members on this side of the House a great many fewer rifles would have been handed in. Those 88,000 would not have been there, but a great many fewer, and that should be ample evidence of the fact that those people had no evil intentions, no intentions of committing acts of violence or anything of the kind. I should like to quote an instance to show how innocent some of those people were who were brought before the courts and sentenced. In my constituency there is the case of a young man who, when he was called up and told that he must hand in his rifle, went to the police station and made a statement that he had sent his rifle to Pretoria for the purpose of having a new barrel fixed. They told him that he must hand it in later on when he got it back. The rifle was returned on the 2nd August, a Friday. This young fellow usually went to town every Thursday and saw no harm in waiting until the next Thursday. He is a foreman on a farm and, as a matter of fact, he did not have leave from his employer to go in before that time. When he handed in his rifle on the Thursday he then and there was informed that he had acted illegally. He was brought before the court and found guilty. That man had no evil intentions, in spite of which he was sentenced.

What was the sentence?

The sentence was that his rifle was confiscated and he had to return after a month to hear his sentence. His mouth was closed for a month, so that he was unable to feel during that time that he was an independent man, apart from the fact that his rifle had been confiscated. But now we come to the other cases of which we have heard such a lot in the past few days. We come to the illegality of this proclamation. We have been told about men who are already serving their sentences, and of others who are still waiting to be sentenced. A very reasonable appeal has been made to the Prime Minister asking him to review those cases and to release those innocent people who have been sentenced and to give them a further chance. So far it appears to me that that appeal has fallen on deaf ears. I am still hoping that the Prime Minister will seriously consider the matter and see whether he cannot do something to change the position. There are many people to-day who are in trouble on account of the fact that their husbands or the people on whom they depend have been locked up, and if one sees what is actually going on in those homes one realises the position. Yet one finds members on the other side of the House who laugh as though nothing had happened. Most of the hon. members over there do not represent the views and the feelings of our Afrikaner nation. We are often told by hon. members opposite that 70 per cent. of the population of the country is at the back of the Government. But I ask this: If that is so, if they believe that they have 70 per cent. of the public behind them, would it not be easy to say then, “I am going to make an appeal to my supporters and ask them to hand in their rifles”? The Prime Minister stated that the object of the commandeering of the rifles was to obtain rifles because there was a shortage of rifles, and that that step was not taken because there was any doubt in his mind as to the loyalty of those people.

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

When business was suspended at 6 o’clock I was drawing the attention of hon. members to the fact that the Prime Minister told us yesterday that he had commandeered the rifles because he required them in order to arm his troops as he did not have sufficient rifles. In other words, it was not done because he was afraid of a rebellion breaking out in this country. Then the other side of the House tells us that 70 per cent. of the people stand behind the Government. If that is so I want to ask the Prime Minister whether it would not have been advisable, seeing that he did not require all the rifles at once to have first of all made an appeal to his supporters asking them voluntarily to hand in their rifles?

What would you have done?

I would have kept my rifle for myself. That is why I say the loyal Dutch and the other supporters of members opposite should have been given the opportunity first of all of handing in their rifles, and then we would not have had all these prosecutions which the country is now suffering from. I am not surprised that the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe) has interrupted me. There was an outbreak at Potchefstroom recently which spread through the country like wild fire. In spite of that the hon. member has not mentioned it. We thought that he would have spoken about it in this House at the first possible opportunity. Is the hon. member aware of what happened? Does he know anything about the onslaught which was made on the University College? I should like to know where the hon. member stands in connection with that matter. I believe, however, that the hon. member spoke out of his turn. The hon. the Minister of the Interior told us yesterday that a spirit of Nazism was prevailing in the country, that there was a secret organisation and he held up a Voortrekker jacket with a swastika on the arm. He wanted us to believe that that was the uniform of a member of some organisation or other. Whether it is true that he obtained that uniform from a member of the organisation I do not know. I am not going to say that the swastika has been put on the arm of the uniform, but I just want to put this question to the Minister of the Interior. Some time ago he disguised himself as a Malay in order to crawl into a secret meeting. Supposing the detectives were to go to his house and supposing they were to find the headdress of a Malay there, and the clothes of a Malay, should they come to the conclusion that the Minister was a Malay? But let us leave that point. I want to state briefly what is taking place in the magistrate’s court in my constituency. The court is there to see that right and justice are done. My experience however is that the magistrate’s court is being used to proclaim the so-called truth doctrine of which we have heard such a lot. At 11 o’clock the magistrate adjourns the court and then he says that he is going to address the vagrants of the town before he does anything else. I attended one of these addresses myself and I can say that it is the vagrant section of the coloured people and the natives who come together to listen to the magistrate. Coloured people and natives who are ordinarily employed do not hang about the courts at 11 o’clock in the morning. I was present and the type of native one finds there is the criminal and the vagrant. The magistrate stands up in front of those loafers and speaking from the Bench he addresses them. He tells them, inter alia, that they should have the greatest respect for anyone in military uniform with the red tab and also for the police with the red tab. He leaves it to them, of course, to decide what they should think of the policeman who does not wear a red tab. That is what is actually happening, and when I draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to the position I get the reply that the magistrate of Klerksdorp is trying to counteract the communistic propaganda which is going on. He is not doing so. What he is doing is to oppose the Afrikaners and he is even stirring up the natives against the Afrikaners. That is the sort of thing we get from the Bench. Now I want to come to another matter which I regard as being very serious. A railway official, an inspector, named Du Toit, was brought before the magistrate who fined the man £10 and gave him a terrible ticking off. He told him that if he had done in another country what he did here—I take it he had Germany in mind—he would have been put up against the wall and shot. What happened the next day? The magistrate had his attention drawn to the fact that he had not correctly interpreted the regulations. He sent for the man and told him that he would remit the fine and that he could go. He did not apologise at all. This magistrate is so overcome by his feelings that he is in a condition of fury—I do not know what else to call it —and he is the man who sits on the Bench and has to judge who is guilty and who is not in connection with the handing in of rifles. I have here the case of a few of the Prime Minister’s supporters who in some way or another were found not guilty. I am going to mention their names. They are Laurens and Albert van Zyl. It may be a pure coincidence that these two supporters of the Prime Minister’s war policy were found not guilty. But other people who were brought before the magistrate had the maximum fine and imprisonment imposed on them. I do not want to repeat what I have already said in a previous debate, but one man was punished with six months imprisonment, three months of which were suspended. In another case he punished an old man of sixty-four and his two sons, giving each a month’s imprisonment with hard labour, nothing of which was suspended. In connection with this last case I want to say this to the Prime Minister, that this burgher of sixty-four years of age is a man who with him went through the Second War of Independence, a man who sacrificed everything for his country without asking for any pay. As the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Swart) has stated, that is the type of burgher who to-day has to undergo all the sorrow and the suffering, and that as the result of the action of the Prime Minister. I again want to make an earnest appeal to the Prime Minister and ask him seriously to reconsider this matter. There is still time to grant relief. If that is not done I do not think the public will ever forgive the Prime Minister. In my constituency we have tried to maintain order, but if things like that are done then I feel that my hands are tied. Show us that we have a certain degree of freedom, and if a man has committed an error, as I have already said, one should be magnanimous and admit one’s error. It is your duty to say that an error has been committed but that the wrong that has been done will be put right as far as possible.

In supporting this Bill I desire to pay special attention to one particular phase for which provision is not made in the Bill, that is war risk insurance. If one may look far ahead I can see the Government having to consider paving out large sums of money for compensation, and I am going to advocate that a war risk insurance scheme should be adopted. This sort of thing has been advocated by many people. I understand from the Minister of Finance that the matter is having the consideration of a committee which is looking into it at the moment. I want him to understand that I want to be helpful in making my suggestions. To many of us war risk insurance is a most important matter, because it means the establishment of confidence and security—the very fact of there being a scheme of war risk insurance will ease the minds of many people. Now it is essential that a scheme like this should be undertaken without delay. If we look at the position which exists to-day we must realise that there is cause for alarm, because hundreds of millions of property, of stock and of homes, are at stake. The careful man takes care of his home and his business, and he is insured but by one little Act. Millions worth of property may be destroyed, and when we have to make provision for damage by air, land or sea, it is quite possible that one bomb may do away with the savings of a lifetime. The position which has existed so far is this — there has been no war risk insurance anywhere in the world. All our policies that we have had in the past with Lloyds and such concerns do not apply. In 1939 England began a scheme of war risk insurance and I want to give this to the Minister as an illustration. When we look at figures from August to October that have been collected in premiums in respect of this kind of insurance, we find that they amounted to something like 131 millions which went up to about £60,000,000 per annum. Shortly thereafter came the property insurance, which was handled in practically the same way. We heard something about this over the wireless to-night. When one looks at the cost of premiums in England one is somewhat alarmed, and that is partly the object of my remarks this evening, because the premiums in this country need not be anything like as high as they are elsewhere. When the scheme was started in England everyone was in the dark. No one knew what a premium should be, and that is the position here to-day. Of course, there is not much comparison between this country and some of your more closely settled countries; it has been stated to me that of all the belligerent countries in the world there is not one which is as well off as South Africa. We have our great broad areas. We are thinly populated and our cities are far apart, and even our villages are distant from each other, and these facts in insurance constitute a most important factor. There is no comparison at all between the costs of premiums in one part of the world as compared with another part of the world. There are three forms of insurance. The first is that one adopted in England, which is compulsory and nation wide. One can understand that form of insurance being expensive. There is the second form more like the ordinary insurance, but with provision for earliest assessment of damages, and full payments for damages. That is the second form, and then there is the third form which is the same, except that the payments are graded. In other words, instead of having a complete loss there is a percentage of refund. When the Minister explores this matter, I think he will find this interesting. It saves complete loss and instead of insolvency and ruin there is a certain amount saved. I am not going to tell the Minister the costs of premiums placed before me just vet, but if the cost is reasonable and low it will appeal to the people of this country, and then there will be no reason for compulsion. If there is no reason for compulsion, and the premiums are reasonable, then I think a scheme like this will meet with success here. Now, a war risk insurance scheme should not be used as a source of revenue for the country. I think the Minister will agree with that. And when the Minister explores this matter in his usual businesslike way I think he will find a way out which will be satisfactory to the Government and the country. It willnot be a Government investment, the Government will pay the agents. The insurance companies may undertake the management, but it should be a management without charge as in England. Of course, if the usual premiums had to be charged it would nullify the whole scheme. It would be better to have no war risk insurance at all, than to have a war risk insurance scheme with a premium that was difficult to carry, or a premium which the insurer could not bear. This would be an extra tax, and if you have too high a rate of premium, people will prefer to take the risk rather than to pay. That is an important factor. I want the Minister to feel that the value in the premium is what the people want. Above all there should be no delay in this matter. In taking out ordinary insurance policies people like to put it off, but as soon as this matter is handled the better. There is no reason why your premiums should not be mounting up in order to enable you to fulfil your obligations at a later date. The more time you have for your premiums to mount up to get your capital together the better, and in the end probably you will not want any aid from the Government at all. There is no alarm and no fear at the moment, but still this is a necessary precaution. If a scheme like this were started now you would be able to put your premiums away and allow them to mount up, and that sort of thing would give confidence and peace to the people. May I give the House a figure, it is one that rather confused me at first, but it was given to me by one for whom I have a good deal of respect as far as his judgment is concerned. He says that it will work out at a premium of 2s. per annum per £100 sterling.

The voluntary scheme, including commodities?

In this case it is both. I thought is was rather ridiculous at first, but if you examine the position of this country and make allowance for all the possibilities, I think you will come to the conclusion that in all probability that is somewhere near the mark.

I find myself in much the same position as the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip). When the War Measures Bill was before the House previously I thought it was going much too far, but things have altered considerably since then, and in my opinion it is quite necessary now for the Government to have the powers which they are asking for. I think hon. members opposite are taking up the wrong attitude in trying to prevent the Government getting these necessary powers. I am prepared also to follow the hon. member for Brakpan in what he said regarding the exMinister’s defence. I want to remind that hon. gentleman of an illegality which he took part in and must have condoned, because he supported the then Minister of Defence in sending Union Police to South-West Africa. That was looked upon as an illegality, and was an illegality, but it was condoned in this House, and now the hon. member comes along and holds up his hands in holy horror when it is now suggested to condone an alleged illegality. The ex-Prime Minister who I am sorry is not here also, must have condoned that and approved of it because he supported it and voted for it in this House. Now both these ex-Ministers and several other members on that side are coming along and accusing the present Prime Minister of doing what they did themselves on many occasions. If it was necessary to send Union Police to South-West Africa at that time to check Nazi propaganda, I say that it is more necessary to grant what the Government is asking for in order to prevent Nazi propaganda and certain actions and conduct in our country. I want to say to hon. members, and I do so more in sorrow than in anger, that I deprecate this continued abuse of England and Englishmen which I, as an English-born man, find it very painful to listen to. I would ask hon. members what has England done in the last twelve months that they should alter their opinion so. England has not altered, but the alteration has taken place in the minds of hon. members, and in the conduct and actions of a large number of those opposite. In the words of the ex-Prime Minister, England has been South Africa’s best friend for many years and England will still be South Africa’s best friend not only now, but for many years to come.

The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill.

I would like to draw hon. members’ attention to a cutting which I got from a newspaper in which Dr. Van Broekhuizen, who has just returned to the Union and who was a friend and colleague of hon. members opposite and of the ex-Prime Minister, who appointed him to a very important post. The statement he made when he returned recently was that he was surprised to come back and find us so divided and that if we thought that when the Germans came here they would treat us nicely, we should make the greatest mistake of our lives, because the Germans would give South Africa proper hell.

Order. The hon. member’s remarks are not relevant.

Here it is in the paper. I will say in conclusion that I greatly regret a lot of the statements which have been made by many of the hon. members opposite, which are surprising in view of the fact that members on this side have been associating with most of those hon. gentlemen for many years past. The animosity which they have displayed during the last two or three days has been very painful to listen to.

It was very amusing listening to the hon. member who has just sat down, when he tried to make out a case to justify the Government’s actions. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) came along again with a case which happened some time in 1930, when the Government of the day wanted to justify certain illegalities which had taken place six years before in regard to regulations issued in respect of natives in towns. Those were regulations which had been accepted by the natives as well as by the Municipalities, and a technical error was discovered six years later by the office of the hon. member for Brakpan. It was proved by the court that those regulations were ultra vires. Consequently it was perfectly in order for the Government of the day to come along in order to put legislation through the House and put the matter in order. But for a lawyer like the hon. member for Brakpan to try to make out a case to justify this instance of deception which the Government is now trying to pass through the House, is beyond me. I do not understand a member like the hon. member for Brakpan trying to draw an analogy between the other happening and the Bill now before the House. But what was very amusing was how fanatical the Prime Minister and the other members of the Government became when they heard that there was another instance in the world which they could fasten upon as an excuse for the introduction of this fraud legislation. This legislation which is now before the House, and which has been introduced with the deliberate intention of putting burghers into gaol for no reason whatsoever on a declaration issued by the Prime Minister’s office, knowing it to be illegal, will go down in history as the 1940 scandal. It is something which I certainly cannot understand from the Prime Minister, now that he does realise that these regulations of his are illegal. Why does he not avail himself of the magnificent gesture which was made from this side of the House through the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Fagan)? Will he feel easy in his mind if he remembers that his fellowcitizens have to sit in gaol to-night as the result of an illegal act committed by him? I cannot imagine that either he or his legal advisers have done this deliberately. Let us cast our minds back; we find that the first regulations which were issued were issued over the radio to the owners of rifles, and we found that the police, wherever they could do so, rang up the farmers and told them: “Bring in your rifles on such and such a day.” A great many of the farmers brought in their rifles and when they got to the police station they were told: “You can hand in your rifle, but it is not really essential.” There are many instances where the farmers took their rifles home again and a week later a further command came over the radio and the police again rang up the farmers and told them: “You must now hand in your rifles.” Not all of us are in the fortunate position of having a wireless set or a telephone. There are cases where there is no doubt that they did not get that notice. But even in those instances the Prime Minister took action. He knows that that order of his was illegal, he knows that he is coming here to-day in order to justify his illegal instructions by means of this fraud legislation, and with all due deference I want to urge him to listen to our suggestion. Remember those people who are in gaol tonight in convict clothes, their hair cut short, and humiliated. Is that the sort of thing we can expect from a Government who, after the war, wants to bring the people together again? That is the thought which recently entered the Prime Minister’s mind when he met certain of his women supporters. What is going to happen after this? Do hon. members imagine that those men who are in gaol to-day as the result of an illegal act committed by the Prime Minister, are likely to forget what has happened, and that their families are lightly going to forget it? No. I make an appeal to the Prime Minister; in view of the fact that there has been no deliberate organisation against the handing in of the rifles, and in view of the fact that it cannot be said that large numbers of burghers have refused to hand in their rifles. I appeal to the Prime Minister to realise that he is dealing here with a few exceptional cases, and I ask him why such drastic action is being taken against those people. As hon. members know, many of those people have been found not guilty. Some of them who are able to afford it have noted appeals. Others who could not afford it are in gaol. I make a serious appeal to the Prime Minister. Remember the Afrikaners whom, as a result of your fraud legislation, you are humiliating to the very depths. I cannot leave the matter there; there is another point I want to touch upon. I want to refer to a matter in order to show the House how Afrikanerdom is being provoked by the Government’s war policy. It has been stated here, especially by die Minister of the Interior, that there is no intimidation and that the troops are recruited without any intimidation. I have before me a resolution and a petition and I shall mention the name. I have a case of a young Afrikaner here who is in the service, and he writes as follows—

The petition was drafted by the senior clerk and I am going to mention his name here. The senior clerk is Mr. L. O. Carlsson—

I shall read the petition of the senior cleric—

What is wrong with that?

If there are proNazis or enemy aliens their place is in the internment camps, and knowing the Government as I do I can say that they did not delay in interning these people. But what does the senior clerk refer to when he says that those who are not pro-British are proNazi and should be kicked out? In other words if one is pro-Afrikaans there is no place for one in the road motor service. The Minister may regard this as a provincial matter. No, it is the work of the National Roads Board. It may fall under the supervision of the Provincial Council but this man is in the service just like any other service.

The National Roads Board comes principally under the Divisional Council.

It falls under the supervision of the Minister of the Interior who is responsible for the appointment of members. That petition was not sufficient, and I shall conclude with this—

We shall join up voluntarily but you must first of all kick out the pro-Afrikaners. But this Mr. Carlsson goes further and he sends a telegram—

That is what we are concerned with. This amounts to organised intimidation of the Afrikaners. There is no room in this National Roads Union for any of our Afrikaners if they are not pro-British. I want to ask the Minister whether he does not think that that is intimidation. Does he not think that that provocation of the Afrikaner has got to a point where it cannot be tolerated any longer? We hear a great deal about this magnificent spirit of quiet and moderation, but it is high time the Minister should realise what the position is. We shall continue to respect those who want to see the war through if they themselves will go and fight.

We have to watch you.

I know that, but you would not even be able to watch a coloured man in a location. But I want to assure hon. members that if you leave us alone we shall keep the country quiet, but do not go on provoking the Afrikaner day after day in the way it is being done now.

I want to say a few words. I know it will not help but I want to ask hon. members opposite this: Keep the farmers’ business out of the atmosphere which prevails here to-night? We are dealing with hard politics. The wool question is a business question and do not let us, if possible, bring the farmers’ business into an atmosphere such as we have here on the Bill which we are discussing. You have ruled, Mr. Speaker, and you have ruled correctly, that a member is entitled to discuss it, and for that reason I am not going to do anything except reply to a few of the remarks which have been made. I want to remind hon. members that we have not yet completed the negotiations. We have not yet signed the contract; we are still engaged in delicate negotiations and I ask hon. members not to make the position more diffcult than it already is. I would have expected a sense of greater responsibility from the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) who was consulted before the negotiations with the British Government were started, but I am not going to quarrel with him here to-night. I want to say this to him that notwithstanding all his talk, and notwith-sanding all the remarks he made. I am convinced that the agreement which we have entered into with the British Government is the best for the country and for the wool farmers of the country. I am convinced that the greater majority of the wool farmers are of the same opinion. The hon. member spoke here about the opinion of the Cape Province, which is the greatest producer of wool. I have a letter here from the Cape Province Agricultural Union.

I spoke about the Woolgrowers Union.

I assumed that he was speaking on behalf of the great majority of the farmers of the Cape Province. He writes to the secretary of the Department—

I shall leave that point, and it is for the House and the country to judge whether they accept the opinion of the Chairman of the Agricultural Union or the opinion of the hon. member for Cradock. The hon. member for Cradock has given us his version of the meeting which was held in Bloemfontein. I only want to make it clear that as long ago as April it became clear to me that the chances of an open market were becoming smaller and smaller. I was actually advised, and the hon. member for Cradock saw the benefit of that advice. The Secretary for Agriculture gave it to the meeting— I was advised that the chances of an open market were practically nil. I was further advised by various people in the country and in other countries. There was an opportunity then for me to consult the meeting which was taking place at Bloemfontein. Whatever the opinion of the hon. member for Cradock may be, I think the majority in this House will agree with me that the Woolgrowers Union, the Wool Council and the South African Agricultural Union are about the most important and the most responsible bodies which can be consulted in regard to a matter of that kind.

They are sectional bodies.

That may be so, but I as the Minister, tried to get the opinion of the more important bodies in the country. Those bodies were approached. I just want to read now what the secretary writes here. He says this—

The following resolution was passed in regard to the sale of the South African wool clip—

Then the secretary further stated—

In order to make sure the minority was consulted again and we even completely safeguarded the attitude of the minority. In making the agreement we took into account the suggestions put forward by the minority. I say again that notwithstanding the remarks of the hon. member for Cradock we did the best business we could have done in the interests of South Africa. I notice that the hon. member jumped from the wool agreement to factories. I hope he knows more about wool than he knows about a factory. Now just a word to the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel). I now want to give him my word, and he can take it or leave it, that I never had the idea last season of trying to sell our clip to the British Government. I give him my word and he can take it or leave it. The argument of the hon. member’s is now that the agreement which I have entered into with the British Government proves that I already had the intention of making the agreement last year. No, at that time there was a chance for us in the open market, and I knew it. But this year to my mind there was no doubt. We could only do one of two things; we must either sell to the British Government, or we must buy up the wool ourselves, which is what some of my hon. friends over there have advised us to do. Otherwise the wool market would have fallen to pieces. That was quite clear to me. So in that case there was no hornet’s nest for me to put my head into—there was no hornet’s nest at all. There was only one thing that could be done and that was to get an agreement. Hon. members may say that I have held my own very badly in the negotiations, that England has created the impression on my mind that she did not want our wool, although she required our wool. I make them a present of that argument, but I can give hon. members the assurance that it was by no means an easy matter to induce the British Government to enter into the agreement. I notice that hon. members opposite shake their heads, but I say again in all seriousness that the British Government was not anxious to buy and we had to talk very nicely to them. I say this in all seriousness, whether hon. members over there believe it or not. To my mind there was no alternative. The only alternative was for the Government itself to buy the wool. Now I should like to quote a letter which was not sent for propaganda purposes; it was a letter sent by a broker to his client, the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker), and this is what it says—

The contention that America will not buy so much is in accordance with the advice which I received in April and May.

By whom was that letter written, who was the broker?

Edward Searle and Company. I may add this, that the Wool Control Board in England in February or March offered America 100,000 bales which they could buy, and they stated that they did not require more than 60,000 bales. Everything points to the fact that there is not the slightest chance of America buying to the same extent as they did last year. Last year they had to buy to cover themselves against a possible shortage. They had never yet bought so much. And if America were the only one competing in the wool market, what hope have we got of getting a good price? Now I just want to say a few words about the credits to Japan. What do hon. members expect? Do hon. members expect me to advise the Government to do bad business with Japan and to give Japan credits which the banks are not prepared to give?

The banks are unable to do it.

Last year the banks had enough money to be able to help Japan, but Japan was not prepared to provide the necessary security for those credits. Do hon. members expect the Government to give those credits without security?

But they could buy in London.

We still have 138,000 bales on our hands of last year’s clip which was sold to France, Italy and others. That wool would have come into competition in an open market with this year’s clip, but under the agreement that is not necessary— whatever may happen to the wool which is still over from last season. Now, a few words about prices. Hon. members opposite talk as though 10.75d. average is a very poor price. But do hon. members know what it is? Do hon. members realise that speaking generally it is more than 1s. for the ordinary types?

It is also 6d. for certain types.

I have a schedule here of last year’s prices and I find here 16d., 13½d., 14½d., etc. It goes up to 30d. and thereabouts. Consequently, the price for sorted wool this year will probably be about 13d., 14d. or 15d. And whatever the hon. member for Cradock may say, if he gets that price, then the farmers must not come to the Government for a subsidy. I am sure the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) will agree. If the farmers get that price they are much better off than the mealie farmers, and many other farmers, and they must not come to the Government to ask for a subsidy. In any case if the hon. member for Cradock expects me as a responsible Minister to try and induce the Cabinet to pay a subsidy above 10.75d. he is very much mistaken. I refuse to do it.

The defence which the Minister of Agriculture put up here this evening with regard to the wool scheme proves to us that his conscience is worrying; him, and the nervous manner in which hon. members opposite tried to encourage him and to give him fresh information while he was speaking, further goes to prove that fact. The Minister started off by telling us that this scheme, as entered into by him, is now being accepted by the farmers, and in proof of that he read out a letter which he received from the Agricultural Union, and he also read letters from other people. When the Minister wants to prove to us that he has done the best for the farmers, and if in order to prove that contention he refers to the attitude of the Agricultural Union, then I must tell him that we are sorry we are unable to accept the Minister’s statement, because we have seen in the past, and we continue to see every day, how the Minister is trying to turn the agricultural organisations into political instruments in his hands. In view of the fact that he has already tried to do so repeatedly he must not blame us if we come to the conclusion that the resolutions of those bodies cannot be regarded as unprejudiced resolutions, and that we are unable to accept their expressions of opinion as being founded on conviction because of the fact that they have been placed in an impossible position by the Minister. It may be that they passed those resolutions because they were faced with an accomplished fact, because the Minister shewed himself unwilling to do anything for the farmers of South Africa. He is not prepared to do anything further in the interest of the wool farmers. The Minister’s contention that the English Government will not buy at all if we do not enter into this agreement, and that in consequence the wool market would collapse, has made the people decide to support him in his efforts. The Minister now wants to come here and contend that he has acted in the best interest of the wool farmers. If that is what he contends, then he must allow us to differ. We have seen how the Government is by means of proclamations trying to carry out its war policy, and how it refrains from doing anything to the benefit of the farmers. The proclamation in connection with the wool scheme enables the Minister to give England a monopoly over our wool as she (England) already has Australia’s and New Zealand’s wool in her possession. By doing that the Minister places England in a very favourable position in regard to wool, and he is doing so with a definite idea, not to assist the wool farmers of South Africa, but to assist England. Because there is one thing which we can take for granted — and I do not think anyone will doubt it, and that is that this offer of England’s to buy our wool is not the outcome of England’s love for South Africa. England has never yet done any business for sheer love of the other party. If England buys anything she does so because she badly needs it, and she does not only need our wool, but she also wants to speculate with it. In this particular instance England was particularly interested in getting hold of South Africa’s, wool as well after she already had got control of Australia’s and New Zealand’s wool. I can, for instance, refer the Minister to what Daventry said last Sunday night about the wool agreement. The information broadcast over the wireless was as follows — I shall give it more or less word for word, as I wrote it down immediately after listening to Daventry—

That is the principal motive for the interest which England suddenly displayed in South Africa’s wool. She can only achieve a favourable position in regard to her “exchange” position if she not only has the Australian and New Zealand wool, but South Africa’s wool as well. The surplus which she will have now that she has also obtained control of South Africa’s wool, is to be spent for the purpose of buying ammunition in America. That was why they could not be satisfied solely with the Australian and New Zealand wool. That was why they went out of their way, as far back as last year, in order to secure South Africa’s wool as well. We know how keen they were last year on getting our wool. It was due to the protests made by this side of the House that we succeeded in maintaining an open market, and those protests were supported by certain brokers and farmers’ organisations. But England did not sit still and she repeated her offer, and our Government, which is more loyal than England herself, agreed. Our Government will not leave a stone unturned to help England to see the war through, even though it may be at the expense of South Africa. That is why our wool has been sold so that England may obtain “exchange” to buy ammunition in America. But there is another reason as well, and that is that England knows that if South Africa again has an open market this year, and if the wool farmers in South Africa get a better price than Australia gets under the agreement, Australia and New Zealand will not be satisfied, but they will protest so strongly that England will be forced to raise the price. That is why they were so anxious to get South Africa in. As a result of the protests which were raised last year, and in order to stifle an agitation in Australia and New Zealand, England had to secure our wool, and our Government assisted England in her efforts to stifle that agitation, but another, and the most important reason why England was anxious to buy our wool, was because she wanted to speculate with it. England, even in the last war, saw the great benefit to be derived from such speculation. We know that England during the last war also bought Australia’s and New Zealand’s wool and one-third of South Africa’s wool, and on that wool she made a profit of no less than £70,000,000. Because of that experience England again wants to get hold of the wool. It is a well-known fact that in England a wool scheme had been fully prepared before the outbreak of the war, because they knew that if a war should break out they could make a profit out of a speculation in wool. Our Government is now assisting England to get hold of the wool. It is not in the interest of the wool farmers of South Africa that England should speculate with the wool, but it is in conflict with the interests of our farmers, and I shall try to prove it. I contend that it is against our interests, because if the wool were not entirely in England’s hands, the wool farmers of South Africa would have had an opportunity of getting a better price in the open market than they are getting under the agreement. I shall try to prove that. The Minister’s argument is that the wool farmers of South Africa should be very grateful, because, so he says, if the agreement had not been entered into, we would not have had a market, because the world market is now so tremendously restricted. The Minister tells us that there are no countries left able to buy in the open market, with the exception of one or two. Now, let us see which countries have been cut out since the last wool season. Those countries are France, Italy, Holland and Belgium. Those are the countries which have gone out of the wool market, and because of that the Minister now contends that we shall be unable to sell our wool. What was the experience which we had in the previous war? I have the figures here in regard to the purchases made by the different countries in 1918. What do I find? In 1918 France and Italy — the fact of whose disappearance from the wool market is how such an important factor, according to the Minister — did not buy more than 1.38 per cent. of our wool. Holland, Belgium and Germany bought nothing, and in spite of that we had this higher price for our wool.

What did Germany buy?

Of course they bought nothing during the war. But which were the countries which bought in the open market, and which were responsible for the good prices which South Africa got? They are countries which are still able to buy and which are able again to operate on our market. The countries which in those days, that is to say in 1918, operated on our market and which bought 98 per cent. of our wool, were Canada, the United States of America, Japan and England. Those four countries are still able to operate on our market. They bought our wool in 1918, and they can do so again to-day. The contention that they are unable to buy our wool now does not hold water. We contend that there is an excellent opportunity of our selling our wool and of our obtaining good prices. America would act as a buyer in our market more than ever before, we know that. America’s factories are working at full speed, because the European countries have been cut out and the demand from the side of America will always increase. The market, so far as America is concerned, is, therefore, no more restricted than it was in 1918 when we got those good prices.

Yes, but we are now in 1940.

I now come to the price which is being paid for wool to our farmers. The Minister wants us to believe that we have reason to be very pleased. Our wool farmers will get 10.75d., and the Minister says that that is a very good price. Now let us compare that with the prices which we got in the past. Let me, for instance, take the average price of wool for the past twenty years, and then I include the years of the great depression when wool went down to 4d. per lb., and I exclude the high prices immediately after the war. I am, therefore, taking a long period of time. The average price for the last twenty years has been 11.75d. per lb. That was the price in normal years and in years of depression. But let us make another comparison. I take the four years after the war. I do not include the exceptionally high prices just shortly after the war, but I take the years when wool had already dropped and when it was more or less on a normal price level, namely, 1922 to 1925. I take those years because we were off the gold standard at that time, just as we are now. I find that the price then was 16.5d. per lb., but now our farmers get 10.75d. I also want to mention some other figures which may possibly interest the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler), namely, the prices which our farmers got during the last war and the first year after the war. That is a good comparison, and if we take those prices, we find how badly off the farmers are to-day in comparison with the previous war. In those days there was an imperial wool scheme as well, and the price would have been still higher if under that scheme a large proportion of the wool had not been bought up. I find that in the years of the war and the year after, the average price was 18½d., while the farmers are now getting 10.75d. We must bear in mind that the present agreement will also apply for a year after this war. The Minister of Agriculture knows that it is generally expected that there will be a terrific increase in the price of wool after the war, because the whole of Europe will get no wool, or very little wool during the war, with the result that they will want to buy after the war. The Minister, however, has assisted England again to get the monopoly for the duration of the war and for one year thereafter. I have stated that the price which was obtained for our wool during the years of the last war arid the year thereafter was 18½d. per lb. The farmers will now get 10½d.—I put it at 10½d. instead of 10¾d. for the sake of easy comparison, a difference of about 8d. per lb. What does 8d mean on the whole of our wool clip? It means a difference of £8,000,000 per year in view of the fact that we produce about 240,000.000 lbs. of wool per year. As the wool farmers are now getting £8,000,000 less for their wool clip than during the previous year and the year after the war, that constitutes the amount which the wool farmers of South Africa have to pay towards England’s war, as a result of the cooperation of this Government. I do not think it is necessary for me to say any more to prove that this wool transaction has not been entered into, as the Minister has told us, in the interest of the wool farmers, but in the interest of England. As the Minister has placed us before an accomplished fact and as he is not prepared to do anything better for us, I contend that we could have had the same market as we had in the last war, and that America particularly would have bought more from us than ever before. If we had maintained an open market Russia would also probably have bought wool from us. But not one of those countries, neither Russia, nor America, nor Japan, will come and operate on our market if they find that our Government is working hand in hand with the English Government. If there were a certainty of our having an open market, the countries which bought here in the last war would have come here again to buy, and perhaps other small countries which are not involved in the war, and perhaps a big country like Russia as well, would also come here. I want to mention another objection in connection with this wool transaction. I have heard that the Government has, for instance, made no provision in connection with prices if our means of payment should drop in value. The Government has made no provision for the price being reviewed in the event of our money depreciating. We know that, it is possible that our money may depreciate, and that the 10¾d. in a year’s time may perhaps not be worth more than the value of 6d. to-day. Has the Minister made any provision to have the agreement reviewed in such an eventuality? He says that he has not done so. Everyone therefore must realise the dangerous position in which the wool farmers find themselves. There is another danger. If our money does not depreciate English money may still depreciate, and in whose money are we to be paid then? I want to put that question because if the wool farmers should suffer injury owing to our not having been on our guard, they may possibly call the Minister and his Government to account. The danger is definitely there. We find therefore that this scheme of the Government’s and of the Minister’s is not in the interest of the wool farmer in South Africa, but is definitely detrimental to him, and I must say that to me it was a most unpleasant disillusionment to find that the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler), who in the last war helped us to keep our wool market open, and who last year not directly but indirectly by means of an organisation such are Boere Saamwerk, tried to do his very best for the wool farmers, has now changed to such an extent that he can no longer stand up on behalf of the wool farmers, but that he is acting as the advocate of England’s inteterests. The wool farmers will call the hon. member for Kimberley to account. The injury which they are going to suffer will amount to millions of pounds per year, and that hon. member is jointly responsible, together with his Government. The farmers will call them to account.

Well, you may put me on the list of khaki knights.

We were afraid the hon. member was a khaki knight and he now admits it. I do not want to say anything further about this Bill, because I want to give hon. members a chance of discussing the wool agreement. I do wish, however, to say a few words about what the hon. the Minister of Justice said here this afternoon. When he was speaking here I asked myself why this declaration of piety? Why this declaration of loyalty towards the Prime Minister which we heard him put forward here this morning? Was there any need for it? In view of what has happened here in the last few months I did not expect the Minister of Justice to make such a statement in regard to the Prime Minister, but I would have expected the Prime Minister to have declared his loyalty towards the Minister of Justice. We know that the Minister of Justice has to a certain extent been dethroned, and that he no longer enjoys so large a share of the confidence of the Prime Minister, not exactly of the Prime Minister but of the Cabinet, with the result that he cannot be entrusted with responsible work in connection with the “see the war through” policy. If I listen to the speeches which are made outside the House, to a speech for instance like that of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) or the speech which the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) made here yesterday, and also to the speeches made here by members of the Dominion Party, then I begin to think that the Prime Minister has given way to those people and to the threats indulged in by members like the hon. member for Kensington. We know that the hon. member for Kensington and the hon. member for Vereeniging are not a bit pleased at the Minister of Justice having been taken into the Cabinet. We know that. They consider that he should not be there, and when they come along with threats and the Prime Minister gives way to those threats then we see the writing on the wall. But I want to give the Minister of Justice the assurance that those people will not be satisfied until they have their way to the full. And now I want to tell him this. We know that the Prime Minister has one weak point and that is that he is unable to resist any pressure from the Imperialistic Jingo element in South Africa. That is his weak point, and however good a friend he may be of the Minister of Justice, and however much he may wish to take him under his protection, I am afraid that if he has to make a choice the Minister of Justice will have to go and he will no longer be under his protection. A great responsibility rests on the Minister of Justice. He is a member of that Cabinet, and when we see certain signs showing that he is anxious to adopt a reasonable attitude in certain directions towards his fellow-Afrikaners, we want to express the hope that he will not hesitate and that he will be of service to his people wherever he can. And if a choice has to be made I hope he will be so strong, even if the Prime Minister were to give way, that he will stand up for him self and differ from the Prime Minister rather than allow his fellow-Afrikaners in South Africa to be ruined, prosecuted and humiliated. I hope that when he has to make a choice he will remember that he is an Afrikaner.

One might be led to imagine by the nature of the attack made upon this Bill by leading speakers on the Opposition side, that the request for increased powers to be given to the Government arises from some particular manisfestation of imperialism or from the hated influence of the British Empire. I want to quote for hon. members’ benefit a statement that has been brought to my notice with regard to the position in any republic or shall I say in the greatest republic of all times, the United States of America. Mr. Bryce, in his informative work, ‘The American Commonwealth”, says—

Thus sir, it is clear that in time of war the president is likely to assume all the powers which the emergency requires. In the present Bill the Prime Minister proposes a similar provision, and yet we have this strident outcry as though it were the work of the devil, or in other words, the work of the imperialist. It is nothing but a wise safeguard necessary in any country in the world even in the most democratic. May I be permitted to say that I am bitterly disappointed with the attitude of the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) in connection with the present crisis. The hon. member for Smithfield, as we all know, has been Prime Minister of the Union for many years, and before that he was a prominent leader of his people, and he occupied a very honoured position in their esteem. We all have a right, whether we have followed his leadership or not, to expect from him an attitude of restraint in view of his long experience, and we have a right to expect avoidance of inflammatory language and threats, especially in this House. What have we found in the course of the last few days? In less than a week we have found the hon. member for Smithfield repeatedly indulging in threats which can only inflame and incite the hatred of the people throughout the land. He has not hesitated, sir, to direct their hatred towards certain persons on the side of the Government. The hon. member said in this debate that if the Government persisted with any commandeering under this Bill, “every earnest and self-respecting Afrikaans-speaking South African will rise in protest against any further order to participate in the war.” This was greeted with loud Opposition cheers. Previous to that he said, in dealing with the attitude of the Prime Minister, that “however patient a people might be there was a limit, and when that limit was reached, the Prime Minister would have to bear the consequences of what happened.” He added that “no authority of any sort would be able to prevent the people of South Africa from setting their maladministrators an example which would echo for all time in the history of Afrikanerdom”. Are these light words, sir? Do they mean nothing, or do they mean violence of the most desperate kind? I want to direct the attention of the people of this country to this language, sir, before it has its sequel. If it has its sequel, by outrage or the death of anyone, who should be hanged as high as Haman for such irresponsible incitement? Is it possible to use more violent language in directing the people to wreak vengeance on their mal-administrators, and by mal-administrators the hon. member obviously meant the Ministers. They are the mal-administrators according to the view of the hon. member for Smithfield, and he has directed the concentrated hatred of the people against Ministers. I warn the hon. member if this sort of conduct goes on he will forfeit the respect of the soberminded people of this country. No sober-minded person, let me say with all solemnity, no God-fearing person, will have the slightest respect for one who indulges in such orgies of malevolence as I have drawn attention to. The hon. member originally was amongst those who counselled and exercised restraint. I lived in the Transvaal as far back as 1902, and in that year preservation ordinances were passed in the Transvaal and the Free State, to avoid the flaring up of the embers of war. They promulgated a calendar of crimes of their own, and it had to be stated to the credit of the Afrikaner people in this country, that those ordinances practically became a dead letter, because on no occasion in my memory, were any offenders brought into court. The hon. member for Smithfield was among the leaders, with the late Gen. Botha and the right hon. the Prime Minister, who counselled restraint to the people, and it was through the attitude adopted by those leaders that a very grave crisis in the history of South Africa was passed. Later, in 1915, the hon. member for Smithfield appeared or was asked to appear before a Select Committee of Parliament in connection with the causes of the rebellion of 1914, and I want to remind him that he was there asked very pointedly by the chairman of the Committee, who happens at this moment to be the Governor-General of the Union, whether he should not have repudiated Maritz who had used his name when he went into rebellion. The chairman said to the hon. member for Smithfield—

He refrained from repudiating Maritz because he would have lost his influence over the people—

At a later stage the chairman said—

Gen. Hertzog: There were people in the state, who, if you simply said you condemn this because it is rebellion, would have said „Oh, you tell us that, but has the man not a grievance?”

I am not clear to this day what the grievance of Maritz was. Now, if we are to judge by the hon. member’s present statement, and his impassioned declarations in this House, we must come to the conclusion that he is counselling the people to rise, and to make examples of their mal-administrators, and I warn him that if he persists in that course, he will in due time meet the consequences of such reckless incitement.

I am sorry the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) is not here. He, as well as quite a number of members on the other side of the House, has put a question to this side of the House which to my mind has not been sufficient to reply to yet, and as that question is being put so repeatedly — namely that they cannot understand why we are so much against England, and why we are not prepared to see England’s war through, I will try to give them the answer. If I were to give that reply on my own behalf I would at once be told by hon. members opposite that I belong to the fifth column, or that I have not the sympathy which I should have towards my fellow-Afrikaners who are English-speaking. May I therefore be allowed to give the answer which an English-speaking Afrikaner has given. I want to give the answer that Olive Schreiner gave and I do not believe that there is one hon. member opposite who can doubt her sincerity as a prominent English lady in our country. I want to quote from a speech which she made.

When was that?

This is a speech which she made in 1901 and I hope the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) will listen to what this English-speaking lady said. Olive Schreiner in a speech in 1901 used these words—

This is an English-speaking lady and nobody opposite dare criticise her and say that she was not a prominent woman in this country. And that is the feeling in the heart of an English-speaking person who felt that we in the past have suffered at England’s hands, and that being so I ask how hon. members opposite dare ask us in this House why we are not prepared to see this war of England’s through. I hope those hon. members will go and read that speech. I should like to make further quotations from it.

The hon. member must not go any further into that point.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite have repeatedly put the question and elaborated it and that is why I would just like to answer them. I hope, however, that I have said enough to make them feel what we on this side of the House feel. Before I come to the wool agreement I should like to put two questions to the right hon. the Prime Minister. The first question is how many men we in this country have in our forces. Perhaps the Prime Minister will not be prepared to answer that question, but I want to contend that we have not got more than 100,000 men. Secondly, I should like to know from the Prime Minister how many rifles there are in the Government’s possession. So far as I know there are no more than 60.000 in the Government’s possession which leaves a deficit of 40,000. The Prime Minister has now stated that the Government has commandeered rifles because it needed those rifles. Then I want to put another question to him. At the first appeal for the rifles to be handed in by the 30th June, 80,000 rifles came in, so that we had 47,000 more than we required. Why then was it necessary to take this extreme step to obtain the other 5,000 or 6,000 rifles which were wanted? I put that question to one of the most responsible people who advises the Government and do you know what he answered? “Yes, but England also needed rifles”. Are we now to inflict this humiliation on the farmers in South Africa, and are we to force them practically into a state of rebellion, so that we may also supply rifles to England. But I want to make this contention, and I have good reasons for what I am going to say, namely that although we have also called up the bullets, and bullets such as the .22 we find that in English schools there are thousands of such bullets left. But in the case of Afrikaans schools, where there is a suspicion that they are really Afrikaans, there the bullets were immediately called up and somebody was sent out to make an investigation. These are hard facts which the Prime Minister dare not deny. Does he imagine that that will foster a good spirit in the country, seeing that such a strong feeling has been roused in our minds against this discrimination? I also say this in consequence of what the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Jan Wilkens) has told us here. No, we can do a great deal in the world, but first of all we must see to it that justice is done as between the different sections, and if justice is not done we feel that bitterness is being created. I want to come back to the wool question and I am very pleased that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is here too.

He read a letter to us from the Chairman of the Agricultural Union and I want to put this question to him: how many bales of wool does the Chairman of the Agricultural Union produce? If he gives me that answer he will tell me that he does not produce one bale of wool. Yet those are the people who had no fewer than ten representatives at the conference out of a total of thirty who were in attendance at Bloemfontein. Why does not the Minister read to us what the official organ of the Wool Growers’ Association has to say—that is a publication which has the right to speak on behalf of this country’s wool producers. We feel that we as wool farmers are losing millions of pounds every year as a result of the agreement which has already been shewn up here. During a previous speech which the Minister made here he said: “What is the world price of wool?” Does he not know that there can be no world price under the present conditions, owing to the fact that England controls the market, owing to the fact that England controls 50 per cent. of the world’s wool clip? That being so there can be no world price, because there is only one buyer and one seller. I represent one of the biggest wool producing districts and if our wool is expropriated at a price which we feel is not justified, the Minister cannot blame us if we feel that the Government which is in power is more imperialistically disposed than the Government which was in power from 1914 to 1918. Did not that Government in those days also tie us on to a wool scheme? But at the same time those wool growers who did not want to come in could stay out. But the Minister in his broadcast speech stated that every bale of wool had to be put in. It has been pretended that we are all going to get an average price of 10¾d. and there are a few members opposite who have said that that is a very good price and that we can come out on that. They said it is above the cost of production. We want to be clear on this point. Not all the farmers will get 10¾d. The Minister spoke about 15d. to 16d. for twelve months’ wool. The actual fact is that wool for twelve months with a 50 per cent. clean production will only give 14½d. Very little of our wool gives 50 per cent. It is usually 47 to 48 per cent. clean production. So all this talk of 15d. and 16d. has been in respect of outstanding clips such as Zuurberg and Kaffraria. But the fact remains that many of our farmers are going to get an average price of 7d., 8d. and 9d.; they will not get near 10¾d. He cannot deny that. We have been told that America is a very strong competitor. The Minister read a letter from the Wool Growers Association. We do not know why that letter was written. I want to ask the Minister whether he will deny that this paper which I have in my hand is the official organ of the Wool Growers Association. It is the mouthpiece which speaks on behalf of the Wool Growers Association of South Africa, and this is what it says—

The figure as to the quantity America has bought so far has already been given—

The Minister should realise the seriousness of the position. He quoted a letter from the Wool Growers Association. We now see that America appears first on the list, and will for the duration of the war be a large purchaser, and that also after the war. This is a point to which I want the Minister to give his serious attention. Now we again hear from Japan. He also quoted a letter from a broker. May I just refer to what that broker says—

One of my friends on the other side of the House stated that America had bought so much wool that it would not buy again. America is preparing itself on a large scale for this war, and in that respect she requires large quantities, and she cannot help herself, she has to be a strong buyer. I also want to point out what this wool buyer says that we can expect very strong competition from Russia. But let us take into account this great fact, and I want the Minister to answer me on this point. I put the question to him whether wool which is required for the local use of the British Wool Commission has to be purchased; if so, whether that wool will be sold at the price of purchase or at a profit? Here is the Minister’s answer: “No, not necessarily, but satisfactory arrangements have been made with the British Government, so that local manufacturers will be able to obtain their requirements from the Wool Commission at assessed prices”. There is no profit to be made. The valuation for my second line wool last season was 13d. Parker bought it for 15¼d. Are you going to pay me that 2¼d.?

You can sell your wool to whomsoever you want to sell it to. Any factory can buy from you. If you want to do so you can sell through the Wool Control Board without paying any commission.

How can the Minister tell me that? How can one do a thing like that and expect reasonable prices without a market? One has to have competition in order to do that. Has not the Minister got sufficient business knowledge to realise that if there is no competition one has to accept what one can get. It is a fact we cannot deny, that during the last few years people have come on to our markets, local manufacturers, and they have paid us 3d. more for our wool. The Minister now comes along and he says that the Wool Commission will not buy our wool at a profit, and I and my fellow-farmers have to pay for it. In the fifth place I want to say that there is yet another strong competitor, and that competitor is the British Commission itself. My first line was valued at 14d. and it was bought by the British Wool Commission itself for 17d. Will the Minister pay me the extra 3d. which I have lost? Let us see what is stated in the leading article of one of his papers—

To-day we have to get 3d. or 4d. per lb. less. Is that right? Who has to pay us that compensation? I also put this question in this House—will the Minister render assistance to the farmers? His answer was “the question is not clear, I do not know what the questioner means by subsidy?” We came here last year and the Minister gave instructions that an enquiry was to be conducted in connection with the Redemption Scheme as the farmers were in a precarious position. I want to declare here emphatically, and the Minister cannot deny it, that in view of the depreciation of our money, and the increased cost of production, we are not getting a penny more than we got in 1938. The Minister then told us that if matters did not improve he would step in. In those days I was still on the side of the Fusionists on the other side of the House. Hon. members who are sitting there and drawing double salaries, and who are rich farmers, can come out at the prices laid down, but we are unable to. I am speaking here on behalf of my constituency; there are thousands of farmers who will be ruined if they have to accept these prices. There is yet another point. Many of my friends opposite have said that we have come along and that we want to include hides and skins. One often has to laugh at the remarks that hon. members make. Do they not know that we have not got a market for skins, and that Italy and France were our only markets? In connection with the wool which we needed for our own use the Government stepped in and if the British Government is going to make a profit why should our Government not be able to do so? There is another reference I want to make, and I want my English friends to listen. They come along all day long with the story that England is buying our wool and that England loves us. I must say that they have a very poor opinion of England’s business ability. This is what our High Commissioner in England says— he is making an earnest appeal for the strengthening of the trade between South Africa and England—

And now we have the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) who says “We do not need your wool”. „Send your wool to Lourenco Marques”. We shall see to it. That same evening, the Minister issued an instruction to the effect that we were not to export one bale of wool without his consent. I want to make an appeal to the Minister of Agriculture and ask him to realise the great injury we are going to suffer under this scheme and I want to ask him to step in to prevent us from suffering those losses which we have to put up with in order to carry on the war.

While listening to the speech of the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) I felt it was a great pity that the Minister had not considered some scheme such as written application from farmers who wanted to sell their wool to England; England would then in turn buy only from such farmers who had made Written application. I think if such a scheme had been agreed upon it would have removed many objections. Those who objected could have put their wool into cold storage, and disposed of it as best they could.

They should put you into cold storage with the wool.

I do not think, however, that the lack of some such scheme is an objection to the passage of this Bill. Members opposite have advanced many reasons why this Bill should not be passed. Now let us examine a few of these reasons. The hon. member for Smithfield (gen. Hertzog) is not in his seat unfortunately. He advanced a reason that the provisions of this Bill were quite superfluous because we should not be at war with Germany. Well, we are at war with Germany and we took that decision in this House, and I want to impress that fact upon hon. members opposite. We are at war with Germany. It is not a question of whether we should be at war or not; we have already taken that decision and we are going to stand by it. We are not going to be scared by dire threats of a “day of reckoning” coming. We do not retreat. We shall advance. We shall stand by our English friends and see this war through to a successful conclusion.

The old story.

Interjections from members opposite shall not deflect us from our purpose. The hon. member for Smithfield in his objection to the passage of this Bill visualised the possibility of Italian penetration South of the Equator. He also visualised the possibility of Italian troops reaching the borders of the Union, and he queried the right of this Government in such an eventuality to commandeer every available man to defend South Africa. I have no quarrel with the personal convictions of the hon. member for Smithfield. If he feels that the combined might of Germany and Italy is too much for South Africa, well, that is his personal conviction. But he forgets that we who are of different opinion have every right to commandeer, when there is national danger.

But you will not go yourself.

The hon. member also questioned our right to declare war against Italy, but surely the answer is simple. We have already taken a decision in this House to declare war against Germany. Italy has allied herself against all comers with Germany therefore it is only logical to conclude that she has earned our enmity, and we have naturally considered her an enemy and declared war against her. If it ever did happen that Italian troops unexpectedly penetrated to the borders of the Union, or even South of the Equator, I do not think that the hon. member for Smithfield need worry about legislative measures because I am perfectly certain that every right thinking South African would, prompted by patriotic dictates, actively resist such an invasion; but this Bill visualises a likely danger to the Union. The safety of the Union may be involved. Surely then it naturally follows that because we have declared war we have every right to pass legislation in this House to take such measures as we deem necessary to protect the safety of South Africa. I do not think the hon. member for Smithfield has advanced any good reason why this Bill should not be passed. No, the hon. member’s objections to the provisions of this Bill are nothing else but an ill-concealed attempt to hide his hatred of everything British. I want to make special reference to a speech made by the hon. member for Johannesburg West (Mr. Lindhorst) here this afternoon. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) yesterday evening, in order to prove that his assertions about hon. members opposite—at least about some of them—were correct, that they were pro-Nazi in their convictions, cited the fact and flung it across the floor of this House that the hon. member for Johannesburg, West….

I hope the hon. member is not going to repeat what the hon. member for Springs said last night.

No, this bears on the question of pro-Nazi feelings. He accused him of being pro-Nazi and he said that his brother was in the German army.

That is absolutely untrue.

He made that challenge in the House. I waited for a denial from the hon. member for Johannesburg, West. He said that the hon. member for Springs had not the courtesy to stay here in the House to listen to a denial of the challenge. When the hon. member for Johannesburg, West rose to clear himself of the charge he left the whole question of “Pro-Nazism” as clear as mud. He did not deny that he was pro-Nazi and that his brother was in the German army. So we are at liberty to take it that that is a fact.

That is irrelevant to this discussion and the hon. member must not continue it any further.

I bow to your ruling. With regard to an accusation which I have made before in this House that Opposition to the passage of Bills is largely due to pro-Nazi sympathies of hon. members on that side of the House, I want to repeat that accusation. Members stand up here in the House and say that they are not pro-Nazi. They parry with the reply that they are pro-Afrikaans. Let me tell them a story of a noted American patriot who was asked at a public meeting to which country he owed allegiance. He replied “To America first and to France second.” This story has a bearing on the politics of members opposite. The difference between members over there and members on this side of the House is this, that if members on that side of the House were asked to whom they owe allegiance they would say South Africa first. We say so too, but their second choice is Germany.

Will the hon. member please deal with the Bill.

That is more than he can do.

I come back to the Bill now. Hon. members have raised many objections about the method in which rifles have been commandeered. They have posed here as angels.

We are no angels…. you are.

They have gone to their constituents and told them not to obey the Government and not to hand in their rifles — quite a few of them have done that. It is true that some members opposite gave that advice. Let me pick out one of them, the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus). On the 19th of last month did he advise his constituents not to hand in their rifles?

What you say is incorrect.

Some say that they advised the people of South Africa to obey the law and hand in their rifles but what did others do? Does the hon. member deny that on the 19th of last month he addressed a meeting at Moorreesburg and advised the people not to hand in their rifles? That is reported in his own paper.

That is a lie. Read the paper.

Did he advise people not to hand in their rifles, because he was not going to hand in his rifle?

That is another matter. But I deny that I advised the people not to hand in their rifles.

Did the hon. member get an exemption?

No, I did not.

Has the hon. member an exemption at the moment? The fact still remains that Opposition members have given wrong advice on this question, and it is due to such advice that many people are in gaol to-day and in difficulties. Before I sit down I want to reply to the hon. member for Fordsburg. During the course of this debate members opposite have accused members on this side of the House of a lack of personal courage. The hon. member for Fordsburg in his speech was particularly guilty of that, and accused members on this side of the House of being cowards. I know this House is privileged.

Are you a member of the Truth Legion?

I give the hon. member this challenge, to challenge my personal courage outside of this House.

Order! The hon. member must not make statements or challenges of that kind.

If I am not allowed to challenge an hon. member in this House will the hon. member take the opportunity of repeating outside what he said inside this House? In spite of all the Opposition’s attempts to cow the supporters of the Government I want to tell members opposite that they are having no luck with their intimidations. We shall stand by this Government and carry on to the glorious end, and we shall see the war through to a successful conclusion.

I should like to express my appreciation to the Minister for the fact that this afternoon when the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Fagan) suggested certain amendments he intimated that he would be prepared to consider those amendments. In view of the fact that he is absent, however, I just want to say before proceeding that in my constituency there definitely was a misapprehension in regard to the handing in of rifles. In 1914 we had the position that rifles were also called up and were collected, and many people damaged their rifles without being prosecuted. The result was that on this occasion, too, there were numerous farmers who so damaged their rifles that they became useless. Some of those people were found not guilty by the courts because they had rendered their rifles useless before the proclamation had come into operation. In other cases again when the courts considered that the rifles could be repaired, people were punished. I appreciate the fact that they were all given suspended sentences, but none the less they were found guilty of a criminal offence and the stigma attaches to them. I repeat that many of those people thought, that just as in 1914 they were entitled to render their rifles useless, but now they are prosecuted. As the rt. hon. the Prime Minister is here at the moment I want to repeat that I appreciate the fact that he is prepared to listen to what the hon. member for Stellenbosch has said, and that he is prepared to consider certain amendments by which the sentences imposed on certain people who have already been sent to gaol and others who have been given suspended sentences will be taken into review. I shall be grateful if the Prime Minister will go out of his way to put matters in order. There is a great deal of misunderstanding. Many people are in gaol and cases are pending, and the sooner the difficulties are removed the better. I want to put the request to the Prime Minister to do everything in his power in this regard in order to save the people from the humiliation which they are now undergoing or may possibly still have to undergo unless the Minister takes the necessary steps. Then there is the question of exemptions. I have told many farmers that they should go to the magistrate and that there was a chance of their being granted exemptions if they required a rifle for the protection of their family, or if the rifle had a great sentimental value. I have a letter here from a man who farms on the Basutoland border, and his farm runs along the border over a distance of eight miles— that is along the Caledon River. This man is Mr. H. J. Bergh of Springfield, Jammerdrift. He has made application for exemption. He is the owner of two farms and also the tenant of another farm, he has a shop and a mill there and he badly needs his rifle. I know the position there. Young natives with their dogs come across the border on to the farms of the farmers living along the border and a good deal of damage is done, and stock, plough shares and other valuable goods are stolen. A rifle, however, has the effect of keeping those young natives away to a large extent. A native only has to hear a shot to realise that there is danger for him. But there is no need to fire at them directly—a few shots from a rifle keeps the natives away. This man writes that the magistrate has definitely refused to grant him exemption. In certain instances the magistrates grant exemptions, but in other instances they refuse to do so. Here, however, we are definitely concerned with a case ‘in which exemption should be given. It is essential for the farmers along the border to be granted exemptions irrespective of the sentimental value which is often attached to the rifles. If this man whose case I have just mentioned has not got a good case, then there are very few who have any case at all. Even Col. Van Deventer, speaking at Wepener, stated that to his mind the farmers on the border, that is to say the owners of farms along the border of Basutoland, should be granted exemptions. They are always in a dangerous position. The man often has to be away from his home, and the family run a risk of becoming the prey of the natives. Our people there are perfectly peaceful and the fact that they live alongside native areas should be taken into account and they should have their rifles returned to them. Then I have been instructed also to raise another matter. As hon. members know the Winburg constituency is vacant to-day as a result of the death of its representative, the late Dr. N. J. van der Merwe. They, that is to say the United Nationalist Party or the Volksparty, has unanimously passed a resolution in connection with the threatened commandeering. It is in the air. People feel that the commandeering of burghers is on its way. On the 18th August they unanimously decided at a meeting to ask me to inform Gen. Smuts that they had decided that they were going to refuse definitely to go if they were commandeered. That is the feeling which prevails there among our people. The people feel that they have been dragged into a war of aggression, against their will, a war with which they do not want to have any concern. The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Klopper) tried to make out a strong case just now for people joining the army. Are they consistent? If hon. members opposite are so willing to go across the borders and to conduct a war of aggression should not they themselves be willing to go? We notice, however, that the people with the red “disappearance plasters” on their shoulders are here and that they are pleading for others to go, but they themselves have not the courage to go. Is that consistent?

During this debate and on previous occasions we have heard how hon. members opposite and especially the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) and the Minister of Justice tried to make us believe that the Prime Minister enjoys so much support on the platteland. They also referred to and spoke about 70 and 80 per cent. supporting the Government. I think it is essential that we should tell hon. members opposite that the Prime Minister has not got the support of the majority of the platteland in connection with these war measures.

What about Losberg?

I know what the position is there, and what the feeling is among the farmers. I want to tell the Prime Minister that I have no objection to his holding an election when he will find how little support he has.

The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill.

I only want to point out that this Bill is not meeting with any approval on the platteland. Even some of his own supporters are unable to give him their support to-day. They respect the Prime Minister but they do not approve of his war policy. Charges have been made against us on this side of the House, charges in connection with movements such as the Ossewa-Brandwag and the Handhawers movement. These are movements which are alleged to be pro-Nazi movements, and it is stated that we support them. These movements may be against the Government and against the Government’s war policy, but they certainly are not pro-Nazi movements. It is even contended that these are underground movements which are pro-Nazi and that certain things are being done in the dark in order to promote the republican ideal and Nazism. Let me tell the Prime Minister that nothing sinister is taking place. But it is the attitude of the Government and the steps which have been taken in connection with the war which have aroused on the platteland the wish for a republic— that desire has been roused in the minds of the Afrikaner people. Nothing underhand has taken place but Republicanism is being openly proclaimed on the platteland. All this has been caused by the Prime Minister’s decision that we have to take part in a war with which we are not concerned. We are accused of being pro-Nazi, but hon. members opposite do not take account of our feelings. We can appreciate the feelings of the English-speaking section of the community. The position in which the English-speaking people find themselves to-day is similar to the position in which we were forty years ago. Forty years ago we had to fight against the powerful England, and to-day she has to fight against powerful Germany.

Do you want the Germans here?

No, we are not in favour of the Nazis, but they cannot expect us to fight in this war like the English-speaking people, as we have been dragged into this war by the Prime Minister. They must not base their judgment on the attitude of the few Afrikaans-speaking members opposite who have forgotten their past. I had the privilege forty years ago of fighting under the leadership of the Prime Minister, and I well remember that the impression which our leaders created in our minds in those days was that England would find her level one day, and that we had to persist. Today England is meeting her fate. Now hon. members must not misunderstand us; it must not be thought that we are so hostile towards the British Empire. We often hear it said that England is our best friend at the moment. I also say so. I believe that if the majority of our people had to choose, if we had no alternative except to stand under one country or another, the majority would choose to stand under England. Not that England is such a wonderful nation, but having conquered other nations England has learned how to treat her subjects. I am prepared to admit that, but that is not the question. They cannot expect us to fight on behalf of England. We want to be free. We are scared of Nazism and we are told that if the Nazis come here we shall suffer very much greater hardships than we are suffering to-day. That may be so, but the result of the oppression which is taking place in this country to-day is that a sense of resentment is being created against England. As an old farmer said when he was asked what he would do if the Germans should come here: “I have been a Dutch bastard for forty years and I may just as well be a Schweinehund for the rest of my life.” That is the result of the Prime Minister’s attitude. I also want to ask the Prime Minister to come to our aid in connection with the rifles. A proclamation was published in the Government Gazette but it was very vague, and many people did not take it seriously. It is true that it was taken over by local papers but many of our people never took it seriously. If the Prime Minister and the Department of Defence had notified the people who had rifles that they must hand in those rifles there would not have been so much trouble to-day. The people, however, did not take it seriously. They asked me what they were to do and I told them that I did not know whether they could take the proclamation seriously, and I added that I could not imagine the Government resorting to calling in all the fifl.es. The result was that many of our people did not take it seriously. I have in mind the case of my own son. He with a few of his friends went to the police station to hand in their rifles. When they got there the police sergeant said to them: “Look here, I can take those rifles if you want me to, but it depends on you yourselves.” He put the thing in such a way that they took their rifles back with them. If any person in possession of a licence had received notice, those people would have properly understood the position but in the circumstances they thought it was not really necessary for them to hand in their rifles. An amendment has now been suggested by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Fagan) and I hope the Prime Minister will listen to that, so that there will no longer be any need unnecessarily to put those people into gaol. It has been stated here that no pressure is being brought to bear on people to join up voluntarily. I just want to tell the hon. member for Vereeniging that dozens of people from his constituency have come to me and have told me that their employers have forced them to take the oath. They were given the choice either to take the oath or to lose their employment. They asked me what they were to do in the circumstances — my reply was that they must judge for themselves, as they themselves knew best what their financial position was and what their obligations were towards their families. A great many of those people took the oath so that their wives and children should not suffer.

Can you mention a single one who has been dismissed?

The sword was suspended above their heads and they were afraid of losing their job. Dozens of the hon. member’s constituents have come to me to complain.

Mention the employers, if you are able to do so.

The hon. member can get the names from me. I do not say that those people were actually dismissed, but they were threatened with dismissal.

In the few minutes still left to me I just want to mention one matter. Hon. members opposite make it appear as if this Bill is required in order to put an end to the incitement of people. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) asked what the soldiers on the battlefields would say if they were to read the speeches which were made here. I should like to know what the burghers on the battlefield would say if they see the letter which a woman whose husband had been compelled to go to the front, wrote to me. From the 12th July until this day she has not yet received a penny allowance in respect of her husband who is on active service. This is Mrs. Z. F. Joubert and she has told me that I am at liberty to make use of her letter. What is that man going to say if he finds that since the 12th July his wife has not yet received a penny pay? Nor has she heard from her husband since then. Does the Minister imagine that those involuntary volunteers will then continue to fight for the Empire?

I only want to ask the hon. member to give me that letter, then we can go into it. It is impossible in the few minutes which are left to reply to the long debate which has taken place. I hope in the course of the later stages of this Bill to come back to the main points which have been raised. In regard to the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Fagan) I want to say that the amendment is being discussed between myself and my department. I hope we shall be able to find a way out of the difficulty. It is a serious difficulty. The hon. member for Stellenbosch whose services I greatly appreciate, and whose kindly assistance I also appreciate, drew attention to instances which may happen in the future. But the main difficulty with which we are faced is in regard to cases which have occurred in the past, people who have been sentenced and may perhans not have appealed, and who believe that they are being unjustly treated under existing conditions. I am anxious if a way out can be found, to find such a way as we are discussing the matter, and I hope and trust that it will be possible to devise an amendment which will provide not only for future cases but also for existing cases.

At 10.55 p.m., in accordance with paragraph (2) of the resolution adopted by the House on the 3rd September, Mr. Speaker put the motion for the Second Reading of the Bill.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—82:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bains, A. C. V.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Cadman, C. F. M.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, ADeane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fgeland, L.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno. D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Pocock. P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler. L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Sutter, G.J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

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

Noes—58:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout. J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fagan, H. A.

Fullard, G. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Havenga, N. C.

Haywood, J. J.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, O.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, A. P.

Theron, P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 7th September.