I move—

The motion standing in my name is one which I regard as of the very greatest importance to this House, and for the reason that it is a motion which in the circumstances of to-day I would say is not only so reasonable, but so natural also, that it should in fact be complied with, and I must say that I am surprised that the Government did not immediately themselves feel the need of such a measure, and that the Government still appears to be unwilling to give its consent to it—why I cannot say. I can only, like everyone else, have my suspicion about it, and to what extent it is correct or not, it is regarded by me as my duty, and that is why I want to urge this morning with the greatest emphasis, that it shall be given effect to. All that is asked is that you, Mr. Speaker, should be given authority after consultation with the Prime Minister and with the Leader of the Opposition, if you consider it necessary, to summon Parliament after it has already been adjourned six weeks, owing to circumstances, or whatever the cause may be, because you consider that the public interest requires it to be done. I cannot conceive how a Government can refuse, in the circumstances that we are in to-day, that it should be done. I wish, for a moment or so, to enquire what takes place in England. There it is regarded as such a fundamental right that the Parliament there would never tolerate, and the people would never tolerate the Parliament so surrendering their rights and capacities, that Parliament should be out of session for longer than two, and I believe at the utmost three weeks, in such circumstances. The principle with the British public and the Parliament has always yet been that in time of danger the Parliament shall always be available, not only to be consulted by the Government, but also where necessary, to take action, and even to be able to deal with the Government, and what is a more natural thing, if your Government is one which really relies on the confidence of the public, then there can never be any hesitation, however short the time may be, to comply with such a request. There can, in the circumstances, be only one reason why the practice is not followed here, and that is that the Government which sits over there and says, “We are governing in the name of the people,” feels in its heart that it does not represent the people, and that it does not have the confidence of the people. If that is so, then I wish to refer to what follows. In England the Government has powers which by a long way do not approach the powers which have already been granted here, and may yet possibly be granted in addition to the Government. There are, in fact, extraordinary powers granted to Parliament, but even with the extraordinary powers, how many of them are put into practice as is proposed here? Hardly anything in comparison with what is done in this small country. We are concerned here with a state of war, in which the people are deeply concerned owing to the fact, as has already often been said in the House, that we are dealing here not with a homogeneous people, but with a people with a divergent history, but practically with two peoples with a different aim, a different policy, and with deep differences in sentiment. If the Government wishes that we should maintain law and order in our country during this period of strain, then what I have just named is so much the more necessary so as not to act as if everything had to be left to the Prime Minister’s arbitrary decisions, and as if the Parliament were to be cut out altogether, and as if the people had to be brought under the impression that there was no place where they could go to find protection against acts of despotism and tyranny. I want again to call the Prime Minister’s attention to the fact that in South Africa to-day, which is not the case in England, there is a state of tension prevailing between a large section of the Afrikaans-speaking population and his Government. That section—whether it constitutes the majority or not makes no difference —that section which is undergoing this strain, is large enough to demand that its feelings, its point of view, should also be respected. Because that section of the population not only is going through that great strain, but—we know it well—it feels that it is on its defence against a hostile Government.

A hostile Government?

It is a fact.

Do you call it a hostile Government towards South Africa?

Yes, the action of the Government since the outbreak of the war has been one of constant sacrifice of the interests of that section of the Dutchspeaking Afrikaners in favour of another country. I need only point to what has already taken place. We do not need to search any more. That deprivation of a section of the population of their rifles—the Prime Minister knows that although others are formally included under it, the object and intent of the act of commandeering the rifles was directed only against that section of the population, and the Prime Minister knows that it is a hostile act against them. It will not assist the Prime Minister to try and persuade us that the rifles were commandeered to be used for military purposes. The facts of the case contradict that once and for all, and I want to tell the Prime Minister that if he wants to continue retaining the little confidence which still exists, if he wants to keep South Africa in a state of peace, then he must be more careful about the statements he makes, so that the statements may be of such a nature that the public can accept them. But we are now in a state of war, and the people have the right to demand that this House should, as much as possible, remain in constant session, so that if it is necessary the people may be protected, they will know that this House is sitting. I tell the Prime Minister that if he continues, as he is doing now, taking more and more dictatorial powers, issuing more and more proclamations, robbing the public of their liberties and dragging the people in the country districts under proclamations to the gaols, unjustly and contrary to law, then he is taking a dangerous course. Is it not scandalous? A proclamation is issued contrary to law, and then the Government comes, after having done that, and tells this House that it cannot rectify the wrong acts, the acts of violence illegally committed by it—they are already behind our backs. I tell you that it is enough to inflame any people who have any self-respect, to an extent making it uncontrollable. I want again to tell the Prime Minister that the people feel that they are in a defensive position towards their Government. The people will do nothing, and want to do nothing contrary to the law, but they are also determined that beyond a certain extent they will not tolerate these things. It is to prevent troubles arising that this House should be at hand as a refuge for that section of the population, so that the people are reassured that they will obtain a hearing if it is necessary. Therefore we ask that the Government should agree to taking this instruction. I want to point out that we are not only living in a state of war now, but the Government has armed itself with every possible power. There can be no objection to this motion of mine. The Government says that it will again summon Parliament, but what guarantee have we that Parliament will meet again? The people have not the least guarantee, and I tell hon. members of this House: We have no right to make any further surrender of the duties imposed on us by the people who sent us here in order when Parliament is sitting as the highest authority in the land, to see that the necessary order and protection will be provided for the people. If it is not passed, then what you are doing is this, that this House is surrendering its first duty to the people, it is empowering the Government not only to exercise all powers which are asked for by way of regulation, but even the one great power of Parliament which still remains, is being taken from us. I have no confidence in this Government. I have no confidence that this Government, when the moment may come, that this Parliament ought to sit here to help to preserve order in South Africa, that Parliament will do its duty. I have not the confidence and the refusal of this is to my mind, and it will be, complete proof of the fact that I can have no confidence. Otherwise I ask you what reasons there are for the Prime Minister and his Government to refuse to grant this power to you, Mr. Speaker. Why? I cannot induce you to do so, he can do so at any moment, because he has the right. Is he afraid to give you the confidence? In God’s name, if the Government is so panicky that it does not trust the highest authority in this House, and even the whole of the House with such a thing, then I ask you what the state of mind of those men must be? Are they still qualified to sit here any longer? No, I maintain that this House ought to be able to meet together at any moment when the members of it consider that things in the country are of such a nature that the House should meet immediately before steps are taken. Take, for instance, the following possibility. We hear of the possibility of further declarations of war. Is that not a reason then, and a matter upon which the House, to whom constitutionally, in the first place, the right and power of declaring war is entrusted, should be summoned? Is it not right that in such a case the House ought to meet to decide on the matter? Why should the Prime Minister and his followers have the exclusive right of declaring war, as was done in the case of Italy, without consulting Parliament? Why? Can anybody, can the people in the country after the way in which the Government has acted during the last year, still have any confidence that the Government will really go to work like men who are using their commonsense? I say that the people in the country, the section which does not agree with the Prime Minister and the Government in regard to its war policy, feels itself in a position of extreme tension, and of defence towards the men who ought to be the protection over their roof. I do not want to say anything more. I say that the House must be consulted by the Government about the big fundamental matters as they come along. The House ought then to be here, so that it can immediately hold its protecting hand over the population of South Africa, when the Government wants to apply the despotic powers which they have granted to themselves. If not, then I say that the feeling of unrest will increase, and a feeling of defence against the Government, so that the Prime Minister will not dare to go further, or else things would happen in South Africa which would make us all afraid.

I second.

The House will naturally understand that after what the Leader of the Opposition has said here, and the reason that he has given for this motion of his, it is impossible for the Government to accept it, even if we intended to do so. Now what is the reason which the Leader of the Opposition gives here? It is this. This is a Government hostile towards the Afrikaans-speaking section of our population and this motion is necessary so that this House can serve as a protection to the Afrikaansspeaking population. If we, in this House, were to pass this motion on the grounds that have been mentioned, then we are not worthy of sitting on these benches. I say that even if we intended to accept this motion ….

Did you intend?

No, I did not intend to do so. If this motion is being moved with the deliberate object of insulting the Government, why then not directly move a motion of no-confidence, rather than bring up a motion in this way, with an insult to the Government? I do not intend to accept this motion, and I will state why. I consider that this is an entirely improper way to deal with the matter. The meeting of this House is fixed in the ordinary way, and not by way of legislation. We have the proper procedure for dealing with the matter. I agree that circumstances may arise during the long vacation which will now follow, which may make it necessary that the House should meet. It may be that it will have to be within six weeks, if circumstances arise which make it necessary.

But you are not being deprived of that power.

That provision can be made, and it is my idea and intention before the House adjourns, to introduce such a motion in the ordinary way, at the end of this short session, which will regulate this matter. I think that provision ought to be made whereby the Speaker, after consultation with the Prime Minister, after a consideration of the circumstances laid by him before the Speaker, can have the House summoned before the ordinary time when we would have met in the ordinary course of things. I will introduce a motion of that kind at the end of this session, and it can be debated. The power will be asked for for the Speaker in certain circumstances, that I have indicated here, to call the House together. But I will not accept a motion of the kind which the Leader of the Opposition has moved to deal with the matter by way of legislation. The Leader of the Opposition refers to the example of England. There is no legislation in England which makes any such provision. The House regulates it under its own rules by a motion as to when the House will meet, and that is not done by legislation. So far as the contents of this motion are concerned, I want to say this. Nothing more will be more calculated than this to put the Speaker of this House in an absolutely impossible position. Just let us think of what the course of things may be. The Speaker consults the Prime Minister, and he gets advice from the Prime Minister about the state of affairs. Then he consults, according to this motion, the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition then gives him the opposite advice, and what is the Speaker to do in those circumstances?

Use his discretion.

The Speaker is put in an impossible position. Suppose now he were to follow the advice of the Leader of the Opposition, contrary to the advice of the Government. What would happen then? Even then the right is not taken away from the Governor-General by means of prorogation, to put an end to the session, and to render the whole session and coming together futile. That power is not taken away.

Do you mean to say that the Governor-General would venture and dare to take such action, if this House has passed an Act giving the Speaker that power?

He will. That power of the Governor-General is not taken away under this motion of the Leader of the Opposition. If his motion is included in the Act, then it does not take away the right of the Government to ask for the prorogation of Parliament at any time. It is, therefore, within the power of the Government to propose and to give the advice that the whole parliamentary session be ended by way of prorogation. The question of the meeting of Parliament then lapses altogether. That is the position, and these are my objections to this motion of the Leader of the Opposition: In the first place, it puts the Speaker, in my opinion, in a totally impossible position, and in the second place, even if it is included in the Act, it does not take away the power of prorogation which can put an end to the session. The correct and ordinary procedure, which should be followed, will still be followed by the Government before the adjournment of this short session, by introducing a motion and having it passed, whereby the House can be summoned when circumstances are such that the Speaker, on representations of the Prime Minister, can call the House together.

Who is to judge about the circumstances?

The Speaker will do so, on the representations of the Prime Minister in such a case. That will be the correct procedure. That will make the necessary provision for the meeting of the House at these intervals when the circumstances justify it. Such a motion will be introduced, and I think that that will completely settle the position. This motion to deal with the matter by way of legislation will, in my opinion, put the Speaker in an impossible position, and it can nevertheless be rendered futile by prorogation. I cannot agree to it, and certainly not now, after the speech which we heard from the Leader of the Opposition, which indicates that a covert motion of no confidence is latent in this motion.

I wonder whether the Prime Minister himself realises what a sad figure this Government cuts owing to the attitude which he is taking up here. It is a motion of no confidence in the Government when the minority in this House, under the tatters of the democratic system which are still left, has recourse to this Parliament! If the minority which is protected in this House by you, Mr. Speaker, proposes that it wants to have recourse to this House, then it is a motion of no confidence. That is the state of mind of the Government now. If you have recourse to this House under that small portion which is left of the democratic system, if you want to uphold that small portion that is left of the democratic system, then it is a motion of no confidence! And even if I were, in the first place, intending to accept it, now I will not accept it! I do not want to introduce you personally, Mr. Speaker, into this debate. That would be entirely wrong. The Speaker is here for the very purpose of protecting minorities in this House, and can there be a better person to judge whether circumstances are extraordinary, and whether the minority is in danger, than the same authority which has been placed there by the constitution to protect the minority? The funniest thing of all yet is the conflict which the Prime Minister imagines between Mr. Speaker on the one hand and the Governor-General, acting on advice of the Cabinet, on the other. This amendment can only pass if the Prime Minister agrees to it. That also means that this House decides to amend the Bill in that way. It puts unlimited discretion in your hands to decide whether Parliament ought to meet. This House says that where a conflict may possibly arise, it places the discretion in the hands of the Chair to say whether it is necessary or not to have Parliament summoned. But now the Prime Minister says that if the Chair decides that Parliament should meet, then the Governor-General, in other words the Prime Minister, will intervene and see to it that that resolution is rendered futile. The Government counts, therefore, more than Parliament, and more than the Bill which it has itself passed. Of course, this is quite consistent with the attitude of the Prime Minister. That also is the spirit which exists behind this Bill which we have before us now. It will, in the first place, entrust powers to you, Mr. Speaker, but then those powers will have to be so carried out as he may wish, and according to his advice, or otherwise the Governor-General will again be called in by him. The Prime Minister further says that he is going to move a motion at the end of the session. He is going to introduce a motion, but that motion is to leave the position as it is. The Prime Minister can to-day at any time summon Parliament through the Governor-General, and he is now going to introduce a motion to enable him to do so. The Prime Minister is going to do nothing, because this Government is once and for all imbued with the idea that they want to impose a dictatorship on the country. Although the Prime Minister did not reply the other day to the charges that were made, and did not say that the statement was wrong that this Bill gave the Government the power to establish a dictatorship, I want again to repeat here that the property, the safety and the lives of the public are by this Bill being placed in the hands of the Government, and those are circumstances which are extraordinary. In normal circumstances, when ordinary or extraordinary powers are entrusted to the Government, the courts of the country are there to guard against abuses, against an abuse of power, and specially against malicious abuse of power. Any proclamation under this Bill will eliminate the right of appeal and of review specially. I challenge the Prime Minister to deny that that will be left out of any proclamation which is issued under this Bill. He dare not deny it. The intention exists, as was clear from the old Clause 2, to eliminate the courts. Even under martial law the Government can only act in view of the fact that it has subsequently to obtain an indemnity from Parliament. But every proclamation under this Bill will contain its own indemnity by anticipation. The very few rags that are still left of our democratic system is the parliamentary criticism which we can make here. How long we shall still have the right of doing so we do not know. But the desire is, and that is why this motion is being refused, that the Prime Minister shall be the man who will summon Parliament, and he is also the man who will then have to fill the part, in Parliament, of the accused. Can we then expect that the Prime Minister will summon Parliament to give us the opportunity of exercising criticism? No, he will not do so, especially after what has happened during this session, he will try to do away with the summoning of Parliament, or to postpone it as long as possible. Possibly we may have it later but up to the present there has been no promise that the Government will not abuse its powers. Of course, I do not know what value one could attach to such a promise. But even the formality of making a promise does not take place. Unfortunately our experience in the past has been that the Government under martial law — and under powers such as are granted by this Bill — has acted in such a way that the public in this country have got the impression as if the Government had declared itself against our own people. The Leader of the Opposition had every right to say that the majority of the Afrikaans-speaking population is to-day on the defensive, and that the war against them is being carried on more intensively than against Germany and Italy. Even without the dictatorship, which this Bill aims at, we have already had outrageous intimidations, victimisation and internment without a hearing. Since the 4th September of last year we have had experience of what the Government can do without dictatorial powers. What can we expect now from the Government which is going to get these powers, which in advance is going to get an indemnity in its proclamation for trampling upon the rights of the people. The greatest danger is not the powers which are being entrusted but the way in which the Government is allowing itself to be driven by one section, a very small section of the population, that embittered Jingo section which is daily becoming worse in its actions. Provided the Jingo press only shouts loud enough and the Government will yield to that Jingo press. We had that in connection with internment; we had it in connection with commandeering of rifles; we had it in connection with the changing of Ministers which took place. In all this it was the Jingo press which fixed the temper which the Government adopted so that the House may obtain an impression, because all do not read all those papers, about what there was going on among that section, I want here to indicate what one section of that Jingo press is now demanding of the Government. Perhaps it will even startle some Government supporters when they see what the Jingo press is now demanding of the Government. I want to quote from the East London Daily Dispatch of the 31st August. It is a newspaper in the Eastern Province which supports the Government, and which has the greatest influence in English circles there. That paper writes as follows—

They are now getting quite a lot more than that. They are now getting martial law without a subsequent indemnity Act. The paper went further—

Now let us examine this a little. They want to have the internment of the Nationalist leaders. We can understand that from their point of view. They want to have the internment of a large number, not of the fifth column of Nazis, but of the large number of Nationalists in the public service, and in other Nationalist activities. Perhaps this should take place in view of the fact that the places which would then be vacant could be filled up by “key men,” supporters of the Government. But now I come to the serious part. They want, not a hearing, by the ordinary court, and not even by a specially appointed court of the Government, which Jopie Fourie at least had, but they want to have the shooting under martial law of “a score or two of proved traitors.” And who, then, is in their opinion a “proved traitor”? He is any person who will not be a dishcloth of the Empire. What is recommended here is nothing less than coldblooded murder. We all know about the Hanekoms who were shot, and all those things, which took place in the heat of the fight, or immediately thereafter. But this article goes much further. It is coldbloodedly proposed that these people should be shot in cold blood. And then we are told that that must only be the beginning. It will be “an excellent beginning!” I leave the matter there. I do not want to attach too much value to that kind of newspaper, but it comes strangely from the Government, which tells us that our supporters are using extraordinary language, that it should permit these things. Shall we hear one word from hon. members opposite against actions of this kind? Will the Government use those dictatorial powers, which the Minister is taking to-day, against this supporter of theirs? Most certainly not. They do not stop those things. I do not say that they deliberately encourage it, but by their boundless weakness they are encouraging it. Because, let us remember this, all these things which have already occurred at Potchefstroom, at the Werda Club, and here in Adderley Street are only the background of this kind of leading article in this Jingo newspaper. The Prime Minister said he was going to do nothing. To him they are pettinesses and trivialities and he was not going to busy himself about trivialities, and against the background of these trivialities coldblooded murder is being suggested by one of his prominent newspapers. Let us remember, Mr. Speaker, that according to hon. members on the other side we are winning the war now. The Prime Minister told us last night that the war has already been won by them. If the Jingoes and the embittered element with the good news are in this state of mind that they want to begin to shoot a few scores of people as the beginning of the process of purification, what is going to be their state of mind if the news becomes bad? That news may become bad, and then we shall have a spectacle in South Africa. This embitterment amongst the Jingoes will develop into a mental disease and on the other hand we shall have a Government which possesses dictatorial powers over the property, safety and lives of the citizens of the country, a Government which allows itself to be driven by that Jingo element. In those circumstances I want to state that we are asking for very little when we ask for the protection of that shred of democratic rights which we still have. What is left let us continue to maintain, or let hon. members opposite stop with the hypocrisy that we are fighting for democracy.

This is a motion for an instruction of this House that Parliament may be called together by you, Mr. Speaker, in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister. Nine-tenths of the speech of the hon. gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Pirow) had no relevance whatever to that proposition or that motion. It was simply a full-blooded attack on the Government’s internal policy in this country and had nothing whatever to do with the Parliamentary position. The first extraordinary thing about this proposition from the Leader of the Opposition is that he entirely ignores the Senate. One would think that this was a uni-Cameral country and had only one body of Parliament. If hon. members will look at the wording of the resolution they will see that it is to be left to you and you only, not in consultation with your colleague in the Upper House, but to you, and you only, whenever you consider it necessary, to call a Parliament together — not both Houses of Parliament, but this House and this House only. Why the Leader of the Opposition should have thought it wise entirely to ignore the existence of the other half of the legislature of this country I do not understand. Perhaps one of his colleagues will explain for him.

Did the Senate insist on the declaration of war on the 4th September?

Of course not. One knows that that was due entirely to the change of Government. But this seems to show a deliberate intention to ignore the Senate and to call the House together without the Senate being consulted, and therefore, before this discussion continues any further, I would ask for your ruling, Mr. Speaker, whether this proposal is in order. Let us assume that we grant this instruction and pass this motion. It will be an amendment to the Constitution of this country. Let me remind the House what the Constitution provides. Section 20 of the South Africa Act says this—

The word used is “Parliament” and Parliament is defined as consisting of both Houses—

And then—

And then section 22 says—

In other words, the South Africa Act provides that the appointment of a time for the holding of sessions of Parliament is the function of the Governor-General and his function alone. If this instruction were agreed to and the amendment which it covers were passed then the South Africa Act would be amended so that it would be placed in the power of yourself alone, not to summon a meeting of Parliament — oh no, but to summon a meeting of this House. Now can this House meet alone? Can this House be summoned without the other House?

Why not?

Can you call the House of Assembly together and can it function in the absence of the other House? Can any law be passed, any resolution be adopted, be valid, if it is adopted by the one House only? Some of my hon. friends opposite seem to forget that this is a bicameral country.

Does the hon. member press his request for a ruling; if so, I had better deal with it straight away. I think the hon. member has misapprehended the nature of the motion. I think the hon. member is under a misapprehension in regard to the terms of the motion. The motion does not contemplate the calling together of Parliament, but is to expedite the meeting of the House after an adjournment during an existing session. Adjournment is in the power of each House separately and the terms of the instruction before the House are similar to the terms of motions which have been passed in the Senate and in this House on long adjournments. The constitutional question raised by the hon. member therefore does not arise.

Very well, I will leave that point there. I come back to the terms in which the hon. member for Smithfield introduced this motion. Nothing could have been more challenging, more provocative, more minatory than the language used by the hon. gentleman—as a matter of fact we have become accustomed to such language. It would not be possible to imagine more provocative language. And, sir, if the Government were to accept this amendment it would simply be to admit a vote of no confidence in itself. The hon. member said in the plainest possible language, “I have no confidence whatever in this Government, therefore I want to take out of the hands of this Government the power to call Parliament together and I want to place it in the hands of some outside person.” As my hon. leader has said, no self-respecting government could continue in office for a day after accepting such an amendment. Surely, sir, the hon. gentleman knew when he moved this motion, and especially when he used the language that he did in moving it that it was quite impossible for the Government to accept it. This House has met after an adjournment of three months; it will meet again in from three to four months, unless circumstances make it necessary to call it together before that. Why then bother with an amendment of this sort?

What are your views on the sentiments expressed by the East London newspaper?

The motion says—

Well now, sir, we know that in the ordinary way this House will be prorogued till next January and it will not be called together in the meantime unless a crisis arises which makes it necessary for the Government to call Parliament together. But, sir, has this Parliament, taken as a whole, shown itself to be helpful in carrying out the war policy of the country? On three occasions we have solemnly met together and adopted a war policy for South Africa and on each of the three occasions we have adopted the line of policy that we should remain at war, that we should enter the war and remain at war with Germany and Italy, and the whole effort of the Opposition—the only Opposition in all the belligerent countries throughout the world to do so—has been to stultify in every possible manner and to the greatest possible degree the war effort of this country. In other words, with the Opposition constituted as it is, led by an hon. gentleman as fanatical in his oppostion as the hon. member for Smithfield is to the war policy, it would be folly for us to stultify our effort by having too many sessions and prolonging them idefinitely. If the attitude of the Opposition were helpful, if it were even critically helpful I could understand it, but they are thwarting this country’s war effort in every possible manner and now it is suggested that we should call Parliament together to meet their convenience and provide them with a sounding board for more propaganda.

Won’t you move the abolition of Parliament; I think you might just as well.

I am a better Parliamentarian, I think, than the hon. member. I know that his friends throughout the countryside are proclaiming that the time has come for a new era in South Africa, an era of Fascism, an era of dictatorship. We are not proclaiming a new era, we are proclaiming the rule of Parliament and the rule of Parliament will continue. When I listened to the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) I could not help thinking of that drawerful of draft regulations which he had in his desk when he vacated office, a drawerful of regulations intended to inflict on a neutral country not at war a species of despotism beside which the mild and beneficent rule of the present Prime Minister would have been trifling. My criticism, as you know, Mr. Speaker, of the Prime Minister is that he is too gentle with these gentlemen opposite. In no other country of the world would they have been allowed to go to the limit to which they have gone.

No other country would have been at war.

My hon. friend speaks about the jingo Press. In what other country of the world would Die Transvaler be able to carry on as it does to-day. Let me give two instances, firstly, the malicious, lying and distorted story that that newspaper published about the incident at Baviaanspoort. It was not even prosecuted for it, much less summarily shut up as it deserved to be. Then a month ago it published that lying story about the bloodstained uniforms that were being brought by the lorry load into Johannesburg, and stated that these were uniforms of Union troops in the field. The paper solemnly published a story that already two-thirds of our troops in Kenya had become casualties whereas at the time the only casualties in Kenya had occurred as a result of a motor accident. In what other belligerent country would a newspaper be allowed to get away with that. My hon. friend talks about the jingo Press; what are we to do with the reptile Press that is spreading Nazi enemy propaganda throughout this country, which has deliberately distorted the news day by day to the disadvantage of the Allied belligerent powers. My hon. friend mentioned a little paper in East London which has systematically criticised the hon. the Prime Minister for the last ten years, which has very seldom said a kind word of him, and the hon. member suggests that that is typical of what he calls the Jingo Press in South Africa. Let me remind him of something which happened eighteen months ago when an interview was given by a member of his family to a London newspaper in which that member said, “We think German, we speak German, we are German.” The English Press of South Africa refused to take over and publish that interview with two exceptions, one was this particular paper and the other was a Natal paper. No, sir, they refused because the hon. member was then a Minister of the Crown and they thought it might injure the Government, so they refused to take over and publish the interview.

They refused because they knew it was untrue.

All right, I’ll take that answer, they refused because they believed it to be untrue, and yet he calls this a jingo Press, which is systematically out to insult him and those who think like him. There you have an instance of chivalry on the part of the English Press which would not have been shown by Die Burger or Die Transvaler. No, sir, we are a little bit tired of this one-sided campaign that some hon. members opposite have been carrying on in the country; we are a little bit tired of opening Die Burger or Transvaler or other papers of that type and seeing there everything that can be said to the detriment of the Allied cause that we hold dear and to see that cause insulted and flouted. My hon. friend the member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) is the hero who stood on a platform four weeks ago with the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) and said of the English soldiers, „They have been chased out of Flanders like drowned rats.” Mr. Speaker, I only wish the rules of this House would allow me to express my own thoughts about the conduct and actions of an hon. gentleman who, living in a country nearly half the population of which is English-speaking and English by descent and tradition, could so grossly flout and insult one of the finest military acts in our history.

I have allowed the hon. member to go fairly far, but I think he is going too far now.

I have been answering the hon. member for Gezina, nine-tenths of whose speech had no reference whatever to the motion.

The hon. member is reflecting on the Chair.

No, sir, if I did I withdraw it of course, but I want to point out what has been said to justify the motion.

I have allowed the hon. member to reply, but he is now going rather further than the reply.

May I assure, you, sir, at once, I had no such intention, and if you read any such intention into my words I must apologise. May I say one final word to the hon. member for Gezina. He and his friends for the last three months have systematically abused the indulgence shown to them by the Government of this country. The more the Government has indulged them the more truculent and offensive they have become. Let me remind him of what happened the other day in Canada. The Mayor of Montreal, a French Canadian, was conducting anti-recruiting propaganda against the recruiting campaign which was the policy of the Government of the country. Within 24 hours they arrested that gentleman and took him to an internment camp. Now, sir, this country is at war, on three occasions the Parliament of this country has affirmed its war policy. If we are in a war we have to prosecute that war, and if there are people in the country, be they whom they may, be they members of this House or not, who deliberately set themselves out to flout, to thwart and hinder this country’s war policy, they surely must be prepared to take the consequences. If the Mayor of Montreal, a French Canadian citizen, who not only disapproved of the Government’s war policy, but set out to thwart it, could be acted against in that way, surely no immunity can be claimed by any citizen of this country whatever his position or whatever his rank may be. If he sets out deliberately to thwart and hinder this Government’s war policy he must be dealt with. You cannot fight a war with one hand tied behind your back, you cannot fight the enemy if the enemy in your midst is to attack you from behind. The hon. member for Gezina says that the Government has intimidated them and victimised them. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that the Government has shown to its opponents to its war policy in South Africa an unexampled indulgence such as would be shown in no other belligerent country.

I feel I cannot pass a silent vote on a motion which would be Gilbertian if it were not so sinister in its implications, nor, Mr. Speaker, can I refrain from expressing my astonishment that this motion should be associated with the names of two hon. members like the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow). Both these two not long ago were the prime movers, the two principal actors, one as sponsor and the other as author of that measure known as the Status Act putting on record the constitution of this country in a declaratory document setting out quite clearly the democratic character of our Constitution. Both these members, sir, were the prime movers in establishing clearly and reaffirming clearly the basic fact of our democratic constitution, namely, that in all matters the head of the state acts on the advice of his responsible Ministers. Now both these hon. members are associated in what must be regarded as nothing less than an attempt to sabotage that Constitution, an attempt to do what has not been attempted in any single democratic country anywhere in the world. This attempt is to remove the discretion of summoning the Legislature which is a discretion hitherto exercised by the head of the state.

Order, I would point out to the hon. member that this resolution has nothing to do with the summoning of Parliament.

My point is that this resolution has to do with the bringing back of Parliament after a recess and this motion seeks to invest you, sir, with powers, to cast upon you a responsibility entirely alien to the high function which you exercise. It seeks to make you do what the head of a state in any democracy can never do, and that is to have to decide in the case of conflicting advice being tendered to you by the head of the Government and head of the Opposition of having to decide on your personal responsibility which of those two conflicting pieces of advice to adopt. The effect of this motion would be to foist upon what I might respectfully term a non-political personage with very august functions, entirely different functions, which by the Constitution of the country are primarily to be discharged by the responsible Government, responsible to Parliament and responsible to the electorate. That, sir, I regard as an unwarrantable attempt to subvert the democratic functions of our Constitution. Sir, if there were no previous evidence this motion would be abundant evidence that the present Opposition in this House is recklessly irresponsible, because the motion is clear evidence of their absolute non-co-operation. The hon. mover himself referred to the Government as a hostile Government, and, sir, if it were not for the fact that the Opposition is so clearly and utterly non-co-operative there would be no need for a motion of this sort. The example of other democratic countries in the present emergency is eloquent testimony to that. What is the position in England? What was the position in England even before the present Coalition Government took over? There a responsible Opposition cooperated right from the start with the Government by entering into the closest consultations on matters of national interests, on matters concerning the preservation of the country’s security. And even in America where, with the impending keenly contested Presidential election, one might actually expect to find as between the two rival heads of parties non-co-operation, there is an absence of non-co-operation. Even there at this stage, in the middle of a Presidential election, we have an instance of close cooperation on matters of vital national interest and national self-preservation. Not so, sir, in this House. Not so, sir, with this Opposition. Their object is to obstruct. Their object is to undermine, and this motion is nothing else to my mind but another attempt to get what cannot be got by a direct vote from the representatives of the people in this House, to get a stultification of the Government’s policy and the Government’s war effort. No, sir, the motion is a clumsy attempt to get in in a left-hand way what not once nor twice but three times the House has refused clearly to give them in a direct way by a vote in this House. Even if in pursuance of that motion you were to be persuaded in the exercise of the powers granted by this motion to convene a resumption of the session, against the wishes of the Government, what, sir, should we get except a repetition of what we have been having now for days, of what we have been having now for sessions, since September of last year? What should we get but a dreary succession of neutrality motions turned into white flag peace motions, attempts to set the clock back, attempts to obstruct the Government in the conduct of its duties? What else should we get but what we had over the most part of yesterday — a debate carried on by certain members on the Opposition benches in the presence of a completely blank file of seats in the front benches, in which way the many prospective leaders of the un-reunitable Opposition are wont to emphasise their own unity and their respect for the maintenance of Parliamentary traditions? What should we get but further time wasted, further obstruction and further attempts to prevent members of the Government and other supporters of the Government from helping in the national effort? The Leader of the Opposition asked in his attempt to bolster up a hopeless case — a case remarkably hopeless even for this Opposition of dud cases and dodo causes — what safeguard is there against the Government abusing its powers. There is more than one safeguard. There is the everpresent safeguard that the Government here, as under any democratic Constitution, takes full responsibility for all the actions taken in the name of the Crown, all the actions taken by the Government in the exercise of its functions, and, sir, this Government, as confidently as any in the history of any country, can well abide the endorsement of the people to be given in due course and in a constitutional manner. And a further answer to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when he asked what safeguard is there against abuse of Government powers is the record of the Government itself, a record of which enthusiastic endorsement was given only last night at the great gathering here in Cape Town which provided yet another instance of the overwhelming confidence of the people of the Union in this Government. Why? Because they have appreciated from the actions of this Government that the Government does correctly interpret the people’s wish, and that is a safeguard unpalatable to my friends opposite, but nevertheless a very real safeguard and a very real reassurance that the Government will continue to exercise its powers in accord with the desires of the people, of which only a small fragment is represented by hon. members opposite, whose chief function in this and other sessions is unwearying but persistent interjections omitting all constructive suggestions. Further in reply to the hon. member who proposed the motion, there is the safeguard already indicated by the right hon. the Prime Minister that it is not intended to prorogue Parliament at the end of these few weeks for which Parliament has met, but the intention is to adjourn, that is to resume the same session at a later stage. The Prime Minister’s assurance that the session will be resumed as soon as national interests so warrant is a further and a vital reassurance and a further safeguard for the hon. member. In that regard I should like to quote from a constitutional authority — Stephen’s Commentaries on the Laws of England — calling attention to the basic difference between a mere adjournment of the House, a continuation of the session, and a prorogation of the House, involving the start of a new session. The quotation is as follows—

That, sir, is the position in regard to the present session. The session will be adjourned and it will be resumed at a time when the national interests so make it possible, and that, sir, is an assurance that the hon. Leader of the Opposition and members opposite may have a safeguard against undue delay in bringing the House together. I wish to conclude by again expressing my astonishment that we should have been asked to agree to a motion of this sort by what, with respect, I may term the “lost leader”, the defeatist Leader of the Opposition. It is, I repeat, a motion which strikes at the roots of our Constitution, and which is in itself fresh evidence that they want to prolong the activities of Parliament and so keep inactive here those who could otherwise be more actively employed in prosecuting the national effort, and help to carry out the effort which the overwhelming majority of the people desire. Their desire that that should be frustrated is just one more evidence of how puerile or senile, I am not sure which ….

Or futile.

Yes, how futile, the policy of the present Opposition is.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) and the hon. member who has just sat down and other hon. members have pointed out here and others have often done so in the country, how we now have the phenomenon in the Union that while the Government is engaged in waging war there is an unpatriotic opposisition which is constantly continuing to handicap the Government in its war efforts. No, it is not that attempts are being made to handicap the Government in its conduct of the war but we are making use of our rights as an Opposition to point out to the people from time to time and to protest against it that we have to do here with a war not of defence but an aggressive war which the Government has declared, knowing that we have a divided people here. What is the use of pointing out to us what takes place in England, Canada and Australia? We have a totally different state of affairs in our country. You must have known on the 4th September that that would be the state of affairs that would develop here. I have risen especially to draw the attention of the House, the attention of the country, and I think also the attention of you. Mr. Speaker, to what fell from the lips of the Prime Minister. In the amendment here it is asked that this House will say by way of legislation that the Speaker after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister will convene Parliament. The Prime Minister now says it is futile; what is the use, because I have the power to prevent the Parliament meeting; I will take steps that the Governor-General by means of the prorogation of Parliament, will prevent Parliament sitting. Does my hon. friend not realise the seriousness of that statement?

You are taking away the right of prorogation.

Then what becomes of our constitutional right in the country? Objection is made to our saying that there already is a dictatorship in the country, but that statement by the Prime Minister has created a state of affairs which shows that we are driving towards the point that Parliament will also be eliminated. I warn the Prime Minister that he is engaged here in closing the last safety valve in the country. It is all that the people have when they feel aggrieved, that their representatives can come in the last resort to Parliament as we have now done here, to say what is going on in the country. We have had that opportunity up to the present during this session and that also must now be taken away from the people. That the Prime Minister has got so far as to say here that if you, Mr. Speaker, in the exercise of the function which the law gives you, call Parliament together, he will take steps to prevent Parliament sitting ….

I said that it could be done.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister of the country entitled to say that he will use his powers, that he will see that the Governor-General is advised to cancel the resolution of this House to prevent this Parliament over which you preside and whose rights it is your special duty in the first place to protect from meeting?

The hon. member apparently understood the Prime Minister wrongly. The Prime Minister has just stated he can do this. I may add to that that I am not prepared to give a ruling in connection with something which might possibly take place.

I think, however, that in any case it is our duty to point out to the people in the country that we have now got to the length that the Prime Minister of the country says that he has the right and that he will exercise that right to prevent Parliament meeting. What otherwise is the object of that argument? He told us that it was of no use to pass this resolution because he would make it futile.

Is it your object also to abolish the right of prorogation?

No, but the Parliament will meet and Parliament will say whether it will adjourn. There will then be a session of Parliament and Parliament ought to have that right. Everyone knows that the right of prorogation exists. That is not what the Prime Minister said. He did not say that he would use that ordinary right of prorogation.

Most certainly.

The Prime Minister replied to this amendment and he told us that it would be useless passing such an Act because he would render such a session futile. The people will take notice of that. The Prime Minister must not be under the impression, as he apparently is, that there is not a strong feeling in the country and that the people are not restless. The agitation by a section of the English Press, such as the revelation which we have had here through my hon. friend, is going to make a great impression in the country. The Prime Minister must not think that the people are at ease about what is going on. Legislation is being passed here which gives dictatorial powers to the Government. The Government assumes those powers and then we are told: No, Parliament will not meet, and even if an Act is passed for Parliament to meet I will as Prime Minister make it futile You may expect that statement to have very serious consequences. Here, where an attempt is being made that the person who has to guard over the rights of minorities shall have the power of protecting those minorities in the first instance, that attempt is being frustrated by the Prime Minister. We simply have to put ourselves in the hands of the Prime Minister and he can and will say when Parliament is to meet. It is unfair and unreasonable of the Prime Minister to refuse this request, and I want to protest against what was said here by the Prime Minister.

Against what you think he said.

No, that is not so. Why then did he say that it would be futile to pass such an Act, because he would frustrate it?

I want to raise some questions of procedure which are not raised directly by your ruling, but which would have or rather lead to very undesirable results if the motion of the Leader of the Opposition is carried.

Undesirable for you.

The Leader of the Opposition was in power for some sixteen years. The hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) referred to minorities. Was there ever a single occasion during those sixteen years when the minority was given equal powers with the Government to rule the country as is proposed here?

Not to rule the country.

The hon. member referred to differences. Well, he was a member of the Cabinet at the time when there were serious differences with the minority.

But there was no war on then.

It has never before been suggested that anyone could get the Government of the day to abdicate its functions and share them with the Opposition.

Have you read the motion?

It is a matter of procedure. Never in the history of South Africa has anyone ever brought forward such a position that the Government of the day should abdicate its authority and share it with the Opposition.

There is no reason why it should not be done.

You want a new order.

No, the Minister of Finance wants a new order.

You want a new order which apparently is that the minority should rule the majority.

That is what is happening to-day, the minority is in power and is ruling the majority.

Let me refer to these issues which are raised. Mr. Speaker has ruled that the motion does not involve a summoning of Parliament. Although it does not do that, if you read the Notice of Motion which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has put on the Order Paper you will see that it is contemplated that certain existing laws and rules are in the way of the motion, because he is very careful to put in: “Notwithstanding the provisions of any law, standing order, rule of procedure or resolution of the House.” And he is wise to have done so because looking at this motion, we had a situation of this kind when the Leader of the Opposition was Prime Minister. True, we were not at war at that time but we had a condition of crisis of the greatest magnitude due to the gold position and we had this position—Parliament had been prorogued until the 18th December by proclamation of the Governor-Generial who is the only one who issues such proclamations. They are issued by command of the Governor-General in Council, that is to say, it is a Cabinet decision. By proclamation the date of the meeting of Parliament was changed. Parliament had been prorogued until Friday, the 18th December, but it became necessary to summon Parliament earlier for the despatch of business, so that special proclamation was issued and it was read by the clerk when Parliament met on the 18th November, and this is what it said—

I think it may be useful to read the form of motion which is usually adopted when either House of Parliament has a recess, and has to meet again in the same session after a period of time. I am reading the motion which is part of the Senate Standing Orders and a similar motion is usually moved in this House—

1. (a) meet at an earlier time during such adjournment, or
2. (b) meet at any later time than the day to which it has been adjourned,

That is the usual motion which is adopted and I take it that that is substantially the motion which the Prime Minister indicated he would move later. The difference between that motion and the one now moved by the Leader of the Opposition is that the practice has been in the past that the President or the Speaker has only been empowered to call members together again on the advice or at the request of the Prime Minister. That has been the practice in the past and the motion now before the House seems to be to add “the Leader of the Opposition.”

Yes, I am aware of the procedure of the Senate, but may I point out that the Senate spends nine-tenths of its time in adjourning and one-tenth in meeting?

May I interrupt the hon. member? My attention has just been drawn to the fact that the form of motion submitted in this House contains the words—

It is not only the practice, but the rule for the Speaker to act on the advice or at the request of the Prime Minister.

I said in the case of the Senate that is the practice every year. They come here and after meeting they find that they have no work, so they adjourn until a certain date. And then it is suddenly found that there is work available and they are called together. The circumstances are quite different from the present, and hon. members will notice from the resolution of the Senate that Mr. President has not got to consult the Leader of the Opposition. But in this resolution it is stated definitely, “after consultation with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.” The gravamen of the motion now before the House is introducing the Leader of the Opposition on an equality with the Prime Minister on matters vital to the conduct of business. I do not think there is any precedent for that. Let me point out how this motion if carried would lead to the most unfortunate results. In the first place the onus is put on Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker decides. It is true that the motion says that he has to consult the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I have had experience in my Parliamentary career of what in fact consultations amount to as a matter of law. I remember when Mr. Merriman introduced a Bill in 1909 which became law with regard to mission stations and communal reserves, the Governor by proclamation had the right to bring existing institutions under the provisions of this law, provided he obtained the consent of the trustees, and then the words went on, “and the people affected thereby have been consulted in the manner prescribed.” I pointed out to Mr. Merriman that the people concerned had passed resolutions at public meetings objecting very strongly to these provisions. Mr. Merriman said: “Yes, well, they will be consulted.” I said: “Supposing you consult them and they say they don’t want it?” And he said: “Well, then we have consulted them.” That is all that consultation means in law. You don’t necessarily have to follow the wishes of the people consulted. Now what would happen in this case? The Prime Minister would be consulted and he might say one thing and the Leader of the Opposition another, and the Speaker would have to decide — a most invidious position for him to be placed in. He might disagree with both of them and would then be in conflict with both the leaders of the House. The Prime Minister might say, “You must wait till January,” the Leader of the Opposition might say, “No, I want it in October,” and the Speaker might say, “No, it is too early; I want it in November.” The point is this, that you will drag the Speaker, who is a non-party, impartial person, into what would amount to a serious party political conflict. You would bring him down into the arena, because the whole of this thing would be discussed. Parliament would come together and it would be said on this side it is most-inconvenient and on that side something else, and the Speaker would be asked to join in the dispute—a most undesirable thing.

There are no conditions binding the Speaker in this. There has never been any disputing Mr. Speaker’s decision.

I am afraid my friend is too optimistic. In the event of a great dispute between the political parties in which the Speaker has to give a decision to suggest that we would not bring the Speaker into the arena is much too optimistic. He would be brought in, his name would be flung across the floor of the House, and it is better that he should be kept out of it altogether. This sort of thing has never been done before, in all the experiences we have had since 1910 there have been crises, and there have been wars, and this is the first time it has been suggested that the Prime Minister should share his responsibility in a grave matter of policy with the Leader of the Opposition. I think it is a very dangerous thing indeed. If you look at the Votes and Proceedings of 1931, page 44, motion number 38 was moved by the Prime Minister, the present Leader of the Opposition. On the motion of the Prime Minister, seconded by Mr. Roux, the House adjourned at twenty minutes to seven until Wednesday, 27th January, 1932, at a quarter past two o’clock p.m. That was an exactly similar occasion to this, because that was a session that was called earlier than was expected.

Was there a national crisis at the time?

Yes, there was a very serious crisis about the gold standard. I say this was an exact parallel, the national crisis then was just as serious for the future of this country, it was a question of the gold standard. What is the necessity for this motion?

You did not hear what the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) said.

Yes, I did, I am a very patient listener, much more patient than my hon. friend. I say there is no reason why the regular procedure should not be followed, why should we abandon our constitutional procedure for something new which is dangerous and unnecessary and which is the product of suspicion, as admitted by the Leader of the Opposition, his deep suspicion of the Prime Minister and the present Government. If this motion is carried, the Leader of the Opposition may live, or his followers may live, to see the day when they will very much regret that in a moment of suspicion and party feeling they proposed something which is going to mar the dignity of the Speaker, the dignity of Parliament and introduce some new snag into the wheels of parliamentary machinery which may cause very serious consequences quite different from those they anticipate.

Mr. Speaker, when I first heard this motion read in English, in my innocence I thought it was a gesture of co-operation from the Leader of the Opposition. After inquiry and a little reflection it resolved itself in my mind into a piece of colossal impertinence. A private member of this House with a status no greater and no less than my own asks this House to elevate him to a position of equality with the Prime Minister in certain conditions and that, sir, to my mind is something unprecedented. If this motion were accepted a position might easily arise when you, sir, would be placed in a most impossible situation, you would have to take sides and in that eventuality I can quite foresee that we would be faced with a choice of two great evils, either we should have to choose a new Speaker or a new Prime Minister. It is an impossible motion!

I want to support this motion and for this reason. We know the Prime Minister and we know that he is a man who thinks quickly and decides quickly. He has played a great role, I may say, during the last half century, in our country and abroad. His brain works quickly and he decides quickly, but he had with him President Kruger and subsequently General Botha. At the moment the position is that amongst the friends on the opposite side there is no one who can put on the brake and say to them: wait a little first. I therefore feel that this highest authority in the country, the House of Assembly, should remain in touch with the Prime Minister. It is necessary in these serious and anxious days. I also want to say to the hon. member on the other side that there is a difference between an ordinary private member and the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition represents the biggest section of the population in South Africa which is opposed to the war, and he can speak with authority on behalf of that section of the population, which has given him a mandate. We will adjourn here and then things may arise in the country which are of vital importance to us and the Prime Minister will have to decide about them. As I said, he decides quickly and fast and there are no friends on the other side who will warn him first of all to think twice. And from my knowledge of the Prime Minister I know that once he has decided, rightly or wrongly, he is going to carry through that decision. It is just that characteristic of the Prime Minister which makes me very much concerned.

You are wrong. You should be concerned about yourself.

I want to tell that hon. member that we look at both sides. When we consider who are in favour of this war and who are against it then we find that amongst those who are in favour of the war there are many who have never yet adopted this country as their home, where their life and future will be spent. They have never had that intention; they are birds of passage. This section of the House has only one ideal, and that is to work for the interests of that section of the population who only have a home in South Africa and in no other country; they know no other country. This country has been everything to them and to their children. This war will possibly still last long and the Prime Minister ought to remain in touch with the representatives of the people from day to day. Inasmuch as he has refused to allow a general election to take place he can only remain in touch with the people through the representatives of the people in this Parliament. I feel that this suggestion in the motion of the Leader of the Opposition is not a superfiicial thing. It is a matter which we feel deeply, that this Parliament should come together regularly. If then new developments take place in the country then we are in the position to give advice to the Prime Minister, and he may possibly yet be very thankful to us for the suggestions which are given to him here. We do not want to thwart him in his war efforts because we know that we shall never succeed in getting him to change his point of view. But we can, nevertheless, make suggestions to him as to what is going on in the country, because we are in touch with the people. We want to uphold the interests of the people as a whole, and the Government must also do so in order to prevent things getting out of hand. I am afraid that things will get out of hand, and we do not know what may happen if that were to take place. One small mistake is made, and there it goes. The Prime Minister has already made many mistakes in his life and most of the mistakes which he has made were unfortunately at the expense of South Africa.

I want very courteously just to put my viewpoint to the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog). As I understand, the reason for his motion before the House is because he thinks that too great powers, powers which he cannot trust, have been placed in the hands of the Prime Minister. Now, sir, I want to point out to him that the difference between him and the Prime Minister and those of us on this side of the House is just this, that we believe — which he says he does not — that this country is faced with the greatest crisis it ever has been faced with. I want to recall to his mind that it is an instinctive preservation of our every state that history has ever known, that in times of crises special powers are granted, usually willingly, by the people to some leader in that country. I would like to point out to him that the mother of all republics — we all know in what regard the republican form of government is looked upon in this country — had a special provision in her Constitution in times of difficulty to actually set up two dictators. And so I say that that was the instinct, the great instinct of a very great people, a very great ruling people, who knew that in times of crises this had to take place, and so I believe most firmly in my mind that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is of the calibre of man, is of a patriotic turn of mind towards his own country, and that he himself would have been fully persuaded, sir, to have taken powers if he thought it was necessary for the welfare of this country. I may say, sir, that I would have been prepared to follow the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in such a course, because I know him to be patriotic, but he must be fair, sir, and realise that there is this greatest difference between us, that we are satisfied in our own minds that never has this country been faced with such a crisis. He knows, too, that the one fault of democracy is its slowness of action. Now, sir, I am not of those who would willingly give up the freedom that I have, the privileges of a citizen that I have, but I willingly give it up in this instance, because I am believing that we are defending the rights of the individual citizen. I believe I am even giving up the greatest right I possess, and that is the natural guardianship of my own children, because I know what has happened in Germany to-day. I know that only too well, and I know, in my own mind, that the Prime Minister is right when he asks for powers that far exceed the ordinary powers of democracy. I feel quite sure that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would have done exactly the same, and I feel quite sure, sir, that if he had been sitting here he would not have accepted a motion of the hon. the member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan), such as he himself has put forward to-day, if the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition had been sitting over there. That I cannot see, sir. That was the main point that I wanted to make. I say that it is not exceptional at all in times of grave danger to give to the leader of a country such powers as these. I say that it is an instinct in all people, even in all animals, to place themselves under leadership in times of danger, and that if the hon. member for Smithfield were fair he would see that that was so. I have no feelings of distrust in this matter, the more so because this side of the House has always been united in one purpose. I do it, sir, because I know that we are the defenders of democracy, and that we are a people of such moral calibre that when peace comes we will not allow undemocratic procedure to go on.

I hope with all my heart that the House will deal with the motion of the Leader of the Opposition purely on its merits. The hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. L. A. B. Reitz) has just said that in time of war a government needs extraordinary powers. Good, but I would like the hon. member to understand that the question here is something else, and not the granting of certain powers to the Government. We know that in the Bill which is before the House the powers which it wants will be granted to the Government, but the great danger is that if the powers are given to the Government it means that the Government may elevate itself above Parliament. That means, if certain guarantees are not provided, that it may be the end of our Parliamentary system as we know it in South Africa, and all we ask is that before that is done we may create something in the name of democracy and of Parliamentary principles to prevent the whole of our Parliamentary system going to the dogs. Under the ordinary Parliamentary system a Government cannot get on without Parliament.

Why depart from the ordinary form which was read out by Mr. Speaker?

I would like to explain that the Prime Minister should realise and the House should realise that under ordinary circumstances the Government cannot govern without constantly consulting Parliament. If they want to put an Act through they have to come to Parliament; if they want money they have to come to Parliament. If the Government has the powers which are now being given to it in the Bill then it is only obliged to summon Parliament for one day year; for the rest it can get on without Parliament. What is the position? That the Government now no longer has the obligation of summoning Parliament. In the future that will lie in the discretion of the Government. It is an arbitrary decision to be made by the Prime Minister. In other words the whole Parliamentary system is being handed over by us to the discretion, or let us say to the arbitrary decision of one man. Can we do so?

That has always yet been the position.

May we do so? May we transfer all the powers of this Parliament to the Government? If the Government could even come here and show us a mandate from the people which it has to carry out, then we could still in certain circumstances abide by it rather….

At 12.38 p.m., on the conclusion of the period of two hours allotted for instructions to the Committee of the Whole House on the War Measures (Amendment) Bill, the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the resolution adopted by the House on the 3rd September, and the motion was put.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—57:

Badenhorst, A. L.

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.

Fagan, H. A.

Fullard, G. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grcbler, J. H.

Havenga, N. C.

Haywood, J. J.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, O.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. 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.

Noes—82:.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Cadman, C. F. M.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander. A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

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.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss. J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

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

Motion accordingly negatived.

House to go into Committee on the Bill on 9th September.

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

The object of a Committee of Supply is, of course, to discuss in detail the manner in which money is being spent. Now we get no details so far as this particular vote is concerned. There is merely a lump sum of £8,500,000 being asked for. Between us, may I just say that during the last session we were told that if we remained neutral, we would have had to vote the same amount that we are voting now. How does our position, however, compare with that of Ireland. Ireland is neutral, it is in the centre of the German blockade, and Ireland’s expenses on defence do not amount to one-eleventh of what our expenditure this year is running into. I only mention this because the Minister of Finance said last year that if my scheme were carried out in circumstances when our country was neutral, that the difference would only have been very small then, between what I had to spend and what the Government is spending today. To get back, however, to the £8,500,000, the trouble is that we have no particulars. Accordingly the Committee stage, as it was originally intended to be, namely, to debate the details of the amounts to be spent, fall away. On the other hand I want to be fair and admit that I would find it difficult to give what details we would be able to get. I must admit that even in time of peace I asked for a lump sum of £6,000,000, and that, so far as the estimate was concerned, it was impossible for me to give details. Therefore if the Minister of Defence can give us further details without his thinking that he will thereby be giving away military secrets, this side of the House will appreciate it very much. If he says that he cannot do so, we will have to let the matter rest. But if we are unable to debate the expenditure in detail, then we can mention certain general things which are just as important. We see so many new officers who walk about in new uniforms, and now I want in the first place to ask the Minister of Defence who is investigating the qualifications of the people who are appointed in that way. Is there a selection board, is it left to officials, or in what way does the department satisfy itself of the fact that the men with regard to their qualifications, as well as themselves, will not break down the existing high standard of our officers corps, because, let me emphasise one thing, our officers of the Permanent Force, of the Active Citizen Force, and of the commando system, were men of a particularly high grade. More than one visitor from overseas, more than one expert came here who emphasised that, and our officers who have gone overseas have almost without exception, received the highest praise in the circles where they passed their examinations. In the circumstances I think it is urgently necessary for a wakeful eye to be kept on the staff which is now being appointed. My information is that officers of the Permanent Force are very much disturbed about certain appointments, about the standard of and the amount of seniority which the new people are getting over officers who are already in the service. I want to suggest that the Minister of Defence, even if it is war time, will not forget that we can easily detract from the high standard which we have had in the past. If he finds deep-seated dissatisfaction, particularly amongst the Permanent Force, then he cannot expect the machinery to run properly. In the second place I want to ask what procedure is being followed in connection with the purchase of medicines. What board decides about that? I am not speaking about other boards, I have myself appointed boards, but I think one should always bear in mind that military people in time of peace have no appreciation, even then, of the value of money, and what the position must be in time of war hon. members can quite imagine. In, connection with that I would like to tell of an illustration which has reached me from reliable sources. It refers to the purchase of quinine, asperin and other medicines on a very large scale, I have been told, and I have no reason to doubt the correctness of it, that originally the tender was accepted from a certain firm which had a German name, a very well-known South African firm with a German name. Thereafter the order went to another firm, which I do not want to describe more closely except that I want to emphasise that it was a non-Aryan firm. We, that is to say the Department of Defence, had to pay 20 per cent. more than what the original firm was prepared to sell at, and the misfortune now is that the medicine which was delivered by the second firm all came from the first firm whose tender was refused. The Minister ought to experience no difficulty in going into the details, because it was a very big order which was placed, and his department ought immediately to make him au fait with the details. It would be deplorable if for the sake of a somewhat narrow view, not to put it any stronger, on the part of the medical service or anyone connected with it, we had to pay 20 per cent. more just because the first firm had a German name, when ultimately the medicine did actually come from that firm.

Was it actually a German firm?

As far as I know it was a South African firm, and if it were a South African firm which is said to be a German firm, then the Treasury ought to intervene and to close the firm down.

Do you want the money to go to Germany via Lourenço Marques?

The hon. member has worked sufficiently long with me to know that that is a stupid remark. If we anyhow have to get the medicine from that firm, in heaven’s name let us not do so in a roundabout way, and pay so much more. Then I learn that the Government is considering the manufacture of hand grenades. Splendid. We actually started the matter a year or more ago, but I would like to ask the Minister of Defence to give his personal attention to the price which will be paid for hand grenades. As I understand, a net profit of 4s. will be made on every grenade which is manufactured here, and if 500,000 were ordered then it would mean that some person or other, or group of persons could make a net profit of £100,000. But I say in connection with the granting of contracts and the way in which these big orders are handled, there exists unrest not only on this side, but also amongst members of the public who otherwise support the Government. In Pretoria there is a place known as Impala House, in which a part of the administrative staff of the Defence Department is housed. The Sunday Express found it necessary to crack a joke about that Impala House. They published a letter from someone who applied for work and who said that he was deaf, that he did not see well, and that he was a little feeble-minded; and what did the newspaper suggest? The answer of the Sunday Express was: “Apply to Impala House, those are the kind of people who are appointed there.” If even the Sunday Express, which certainly does its best to assist the Government, holds that view, then it is certainly not inappropriate for the Government to keep an eye on that staff. I want to congratulate the Prime Minister for appointing men like Mr. Gawith and the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Mushet), men of experience, who have made a success of their own business. I cannot congratulate him on all his appointments, because there are many of them where the people concerned cannot comply with the qualifications that they have experience, and have made a success of their own business.

The position I want to bring before the Minister with regard to the expenditure, is in regard to the payment of our men at the front, and I want to point out that certain anomalies have occurred.

There are nothing but anomalies.

It would just be necessary to give the Minister a little history in this connection. It will be remembered that when our recruiting began we were faced with many difficulties; many of the employers were unable to make any provision for the men who who wanted to go—other men have difficulties in getting away, and so on, but most of those difficulties were overcome, and our efforts in that respect have been very successful. In fact, I do not think they could have been more so.

Very successful in forcing them.

Well, that has brought about this position. A number of men have gone at the first call, but many of those who went away have not been able to have proper provision made for them. Many of them have gone without getting any allowances from their employers. The position in which they find themselves to-day is this. That they are in a most anomalous position, a very unjust position. Many of these men have on employers. These are the men who went at the first call. They had their own small business concerns, or they were employed by people like builders and were working on weekly contracts, so that their employers could not make them any allowances. It is the men who went first, at the first call, who are mostly in that position. They do not get any allowances of any kind, and the position is really a disgraceful one, an improper one. I know of one particular case where you have two men in the same regiment, the same company, holding the same rank. The one man is getting £25 per month, while the other one is getting only 3s. 6d. per day. What is the reason?—the one had an employer and the other had none.

It sounds like a nursery rhyme.

The fact was that the one had an employer who was able to make the man an allowance and the other’s employer was not in a position to pay the man any allowance while he was away.

Do you expect the state to make it up?

The hon. member must confine himself to the reasons for the increase in expenditure.

That is what I am trying to do.

No, the hon. member is discussing the question of allowances from firms.

On a point of order, might I suggest—if the Opposition will allow me—that the additional defence expenditure is precisely for the purpose of paying allowances to the wives of men who join up, and therefore I suggest that the hon. member is in order.

I am afraid I cannot allow any discussion on allowances paid by firms.

The allowances given by firms are part of the Government scheme.

At this stage we can only discuss the reason for the increase of the particular items.

I suggest that the hon. member is discussing the lack of allowances.

On a point of order, we are now voting eight million pounds for war expenditure, and hon. members have great difficulty in understanding exactly what they may discuss and what they may not. May we not discuss the whole question of the Defence Department under this vote? If we may not, in order to avoid confusion, will you give us a ruling to show us exactly how far we may go?

Mr. Speaker has already given a ruling. Hon. members can only discuss the reasons for the increases.

On a point of order, the position is surely in regard to almost all these items that we are in the dark. It is a novel position. As a rule, whenever any point is raised, the Chairman refers the matter to the Minister and asks him if the matter falls under these increases provided for. But in this case no one knows what the increases are spent on. We have no details before us.

It is perfectly clear. It is not necessary to refer to the Minister. I know that allowances paid by firms have nothing to do with it.

That is not the point; I quite realise that allowances paid by firms have nothing to do with it, but how do we know when we raise any point in regard to the administration of the Defence Department whether that refers to the original or the extra vote, because we have no votes before us? The Estimates of the Department of Defence differ from the Estimates of all other departments. In other departments the items of expenditure are specified, but here we are asked to vote a globular sum.

That I can rule on when the question arises. The question now is that allowances by firms cannot be discussed. I wish to read a decision which was given in 1925. The Chairman then stated that “it might be convenient, as there were many new members present, if he were to draw attention to a rule which governed discussion on additional or supplementary estimates, namely, that if the Estimate was not for a new service, but for an increase in the service which had already been approved in the same financial year by the House, the discussion must be limited to the reason for the increase, and discussion on the original policy would not be in order.”

Do I gather from that that the hon. member for Hospital is a new member?

That really refers to a new service, that is the whole point.

No, it refers to additional or supplementary estimates.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I hope that all these points of order and interruptions are not going to be taken off the time that is at my disposal. I was only using the question of allowances as an illustration as to how this came about, just to show the Minister, because I think we have to convince the Minister. I have recently had information from one of the largest lending concerns in the country. It will be remembered that we provided that bonds in certain circumstances could not be called up during the war and some time after. I find from one of the largest lending concerns that notwithstanding that provision more than 90 per cent. of these young fellows who have volunteered have made provision for their payments during the war. That tells you two things — the class of men who have gone to the front and, secondly, that these men are desirous of keeping their homes and keeping the cost down, and that they deserve well by the country. It may be asked what is going to be the cost of all this. And that is rather difficult to answer. But what I do find is this. I find that only about 10 per cent. of these good people have gone away without any allowance.

They do not even get single pay.

So, if you will take the position which exists it means that you have 90 per cent. satisfactory and 10 per cent. unsatisfactory, and I submit now that the only way to put that right is to put the Government in the place of these employers.

Oh!

Yes, that is the suggestion which I make. We dare not leave these people to themselves — they will be the first to go, and we dare not leave them in the lurch, and I am sure the country would never forgive us if we did. It is suggested that the dependents of these people should go to the Governor-General’s Fund.

No.

That may be all right.

It is not all right.

But it does not seem to me as if anything of the kind should happen.

Who will pay for it?

It seems perfectly clear that if these men have gone at the call of the Government to do their duty, they should be well treated and they should get better terms, and not discreditable terms. It is wrong that they should be told to go to the Governor-General’s Fund. Their wives should not be placed in that position and I am, therefore, making an appeal that the Government should put up this allowance, whatever it may be, and give these people who deserve well by us, at least what is a fair allowance.

According to the ruling which you read out, Mr. Chairman, you would possibly rule me out of order if I spoke about the street riots when soldiers recently made attacks on members of the public. Therefore, I will speak about the uniforms of the soldiers, and I want to ask that a more uniform kind of dress be found for them. When I was in Adderley Street and noticed what low attacks were made by soldiers on innocent members of the public, I noticed what inappropriate uniforms those men had on. They had the short pants and I should imagine that those soldiers would find their legs being cut to ribbons in East Africa. I have not been there myself, but people, who have, assure me that those soldiers who made a similarly low attack on the Werda Club, were clad in exactly the same way. Others again have told me that after the still lower attack by soldiers on the P.U.C. the inside of that college looked just the same as some of the uniforms worn by those soldiers.

The hon. member must return to the vote.

Other soldiers again wore that long tunic, and it is under that tunic that they hid the cudgels with which they attacked the people at Potchefstroom and in Adderley Street. I want to say that it is a shame for people with uniforms like that making such cowardly attacks on members of the public. Moreover, I want to tell the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) that I think that he is optimistic if he thinks that the Minister of Defence, in connection with certain wholesale purchases, can give information to him immediately. So little does the Minister of Defence know of his own department, that when I put the question as to how many generals had been appointed there, I had to wait five days before they were able to give it to me. They hardly know how many generallisimos they have. But in connection with this wholesale expenditure for which all this money is necessary, owing to which the people have to be taxed, I want to deal with a few retail amounts of expenditure to show in what way the money is being spent, and to give proof, if it is necessary, of how the money is being wasted by the Defence Department. There is a camp at Roberts Heights and a camp at Premier Mine, and the workshops were, at any rate they were a short while ago, at Roberts Heights. There was a wheelbarrow broken on the Premier Mine. A lorry arrived from Roberts Heights to fetch the wheelbarrow, a distance of 25 miles. When that wheelbarrow had been repaired, a second broke. The lorry then brought the repaired wheelbarrow from Roberts Heights to the Premier Mine, while a different lorry came to fetch the second wheelbarrow which had broken, and they passed each other on the road. I now come to the second case. Apparently, in anticipation of what I would say here about the uniforms, they decided to tidy up the uniforms for the Premier Mine a little. They ordered 300 buttons, because it was apparently that part of the uniform which suffered most at the Premier Mine. They sent a lorry across with the 300 buttons, and the clerk who had to sign the receipt for them was afraid that they would accuse him of belonging to the Fifth Column, and he counted the buttons carefully. He discovered that there were 299 buttons, and because he apparently had aspirations of becoming auditor-general he would not sign for the 300 buttons, seeing that there were only 299. The result was that they left the 299 buttons there, and went back with the lorry to Roberts Heights to go and fetch the other button, with which they turned up 2½ hours later. Then again we find that the Premier Mine and Roberts Heights jointly ordered 500 pairs of boots. When, however, the boots had to be distributed, Roberts Heights sent the Premier Mine 500 left boots, and they kept the 500 right boots. Then there is a place in Pretoria, I think they called it Mompara House, and as the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) indicated, it is the place where the people are appointed who are semi-simpletons. He forgot to add that they also appointed cripple people. Amongst other clerks they appointed one, and they give him a lead pencil and everything necessary, because he had to write, and when they went a week later to see what he had written they found that he had not yet written anything, because he had no right hand and could not write with his left hand. They only discovered that after a week. They might just as well have left him there, because he will contribute just as much to the result of the war as some of the generals whom they have appointed. He will in any case do less harm than many other people. My point is this. What sort of control is there over the expenditure of that department? We know what military men are, and we know that there is no department in the world in which people are more inclined to waste money than the Defence Department. I have quite a number of acquaintances who are people who have never been able to make a living, and I was not astonished when we were coming here for the last session, that those people were in uniform, including the red tabs. What is more, we noticed that they went every day to the offices of the Defence Department, and they did not walk there, because their strength apparently had to be conserved, they travelled there in the drab motor cars of the Defence Department. These people who are not quite compos mentis, now apparently have to be used in the Defence Department to put the department into a greater mess than it was in before. I know that the Minister of Finance would like to exercise control, but the question is if he will manage to do so. I fear that things are now going on in a way which will result in our not having one “missing million” after the war, but half a dozen “missing millions”.

I am rather glad to hear the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has raised this question of the uniforms, and I suppose what he principally refers to is the safari jacket which the troops with their usual intelligence have christened the “maternity” jacket. May I suggest to the House, having looked at the hon. member for Humansdorp, whilst he was waving his arms, that there is no uniform ever designed in the world that would suit him more than this self-same “maternity” jacket.

You are not suggesting I have been out with you.

I am not suggesting that even your new-found friends, the Hitlerites, have ultimately solved the question of sex, but it is just a case, I suppose again, that through some lazing in using his mental faculties, the hon. member for Humansdorp has allowed other physical faculties to develop to an extent where I think the maternity jacket would be a coat of grace. However, as I understand the position, they are worried because there is not sufficient time left to them to discuss important matters of state. Listening to the hon. member for Humansdorp, I am quite satisfied that he is not interested in matters of state, and his whole speech reeked purely of that obstructionist point of view which has become so prominent in the Opposition since they are now being led by the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow). Mr. Chairman, I rise as a member supporting Government to make what I consider one or two intelligent observations with reference to this defence vote. So far as I understand the hon. the Minister of Finance, and in this particular instance I believe the hon. Minister of Defence have not risen to make any reply to the strictures which I felt impelled to utter with reference to the allowances paid to wives of serving soldiers. And here, sir, with your permission, and I hope I am in order, I think I am entitled to say a word or two about the English-speaking Press, because I find this morning that despite the fact that I occupied 20 minutes of the valuable time of the House last night, dealing with what appears to me to be a very important matter of the allowances paid to the wives of serving soldiers, the whole of the Cape Times this morning is occupied with an entirely irrelevant, and might I say puerile story as to the difference of opinion between the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) and the Minister of Finance, a story which to me does not matter two hoots. The hon. member for Fauresmith agrees, and in his calmer movements so will the Minister of Finance. Whether the Minister trapped the hon. member for Fauresmith, or whether the hon. member for Fauresmith trapped the hon. Minister, is purely a pettifogging political argument, but how the wives of serving soldiers are going to live during the period of a war which may last five years is a matter of fundamental importance to the people of South Africa, and they got not one word in the Cape Times this morning. If that is the attitude of the English-speaking Press ….

The hon. member must come back to the vote now.

This appertains to the vote, because it seems to me that the majority of votes in this House are highly conditioned by what the Press outside says; and, sir, let us leave the Press out of it. If we in South Africa are going to place the question of a little bit of political chess playing between the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Fauresmith above the actual bread and butter of the wives of serving soldiers, then I say the war is being fought in vain. The war, to me, is a very serious thing. The war, to me, is a struggle between the forces of reaction and the forces of progress, a struggle between the people who all wish to enslave the whole of humanity in the world and the people who wish to develop humanity in the world in the greatest possible measure of freedom, and if we cannot get that freedom, particularly economic freedom during the war, then there is very little hope of us getting it after the war. If the Press, the free Press, the free democratic Press which is allowed to exist in South Africa despite the excesses of my hon. friends opposite is allowed and prepared to completely ignore what I consider a legitimate plea ….

We are not discussing the Press now.

I am discussing the vote. The point, Mr. Chairman, goes even beyond the Prime Minister, because the attitude of the Press in South Africa in connection with an important matter ….

The hon. member will understand that has nothing to do with this vote in Committee.

I will leave it, except just to say that the point has not been noted by the Press at all. But my point is, Mr. Chairman, in substantiating what has been said by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) that we have in South Africa a peculiar position whereby we have an army which is actually fighting on a differential rate of pay. We have, to my own knowledge, a situation where three men in a line, one man may be earning £1,000 a year, the second £700 a year, and the third going to war for a paltry 3s. 6d. a day plus 3s. 6d. for his wife, and 2s. for each child, and the fellow who is earning the smallest pay is helping through his own cigarettes, his own beer, his own yeast, which the hon. Minister has now taxed, and his own various other things, to pay the salary for the other chap. As I pointed out, you may have a man on the £25, £30, £35 a month scale who feels it is his duty and does his duty by joining the army, and if he has a wife and two children she is confined, or rather condemned to support herself and the children on £12 7s. 6d. a month. That is the allowance for the wife of a serving soldier with two children, but says the Government, “You can now go to the Governor-General’s Fund,” and I have actually seen a queue 300 yards long where my own personal friends have been forced to queue up for an hour to two hours, and when they got into the office they were cross-examined and put under an inquisition by a crown of elderly females as to what is their private economic position, have they any property, do they get any dividend, and so on. This is all investigated and in their benevolence they may give them a couple of pounds from the Governor-General’s Fund. Now this is not a war of benevolence or philanthropy. This is a war to save all the things we know. It is a war to save liberty, it is a war to save freedom, and unfortunately it is a war to attempt to save big business. Big business has the money, and it can be forced to pay, and it should be squeezed out. It should be torn out because if Hitler wins the war they won’t have a penny left. If a husband is prepared to give the last thing he has in the interests of the state, and the interests of freedom, as fortunately the majority of South Africans have been prepared to do and are prepared to do, despite the differential considerations, then the least that our Government can do, the least that our Minister of Finance can do, is to make it a certainty that no woman shall be left in a less favourable economic position, because her husband has gone to war, than she would have been if her husband had remained at home, and attached to that we do not want anything of charity. [Time limit.]

If there is one subject which one would like to forget as quickly as possible, then it is that connected with the commandeering of rifles by which the people were so deeply insulted. But in any case, when the Government took the rifles, often from needy people, it was promised that they would receive payment for them. Up to the present nothing has been done. Therefore I would like to ask the Minister of Defence what his attitude is, and when it can be expected that payment will be made for the rifles, and on what scale. Then there is another matter that I want to bring up, and that is in connection with the purchase of horses for the war. I would like to know from the Minister how many horses have already been bought, and what is more or less the average price that is being paid for horses, and whether he will be needing more horses in the future, and finally, whether horses will again be bought at the places where horses have up to the present been bought. I would like to know under which administration the purchase of horses comes, under the Defence Department or under the Police Department, or whoever it may be. I would like to know who exercises control over it, and what is precisely going on in connection with the purchase of horses.

Have you any horses to sell?

On two occasions I had the opportunity of witnessing the purchasing of horses, and it became clear to me that the work was not being done as it should have been done. In the first place I would like to learn from the Minister whether the purchase only takes place in public. There are advertisements put in the newspapers in which farmers who have horses for sale are asked to come to the police station on a certain day, when the buyers will be there. Now I have already learned that the persons who come to buy them do not only buy in public at the police station, but also subsequently go and buy horses from private individuals. If that is true then it seems to me that it lends itself to speculation in connection with the purchase of horses, and by virtue of what I saw I must also assume that speculation is actually taking place in connection with the purchase of horses. It was strange to my mind to notice on both the occasions, that there was a plethora of horse speculators.

Jews?

I need not even say who they were. What were they doing there? They did not themselves have any horses to sell on that day, but as soon as a horse was rejected which was more or less a good horse, they immediately went to the owner of the horse and tried to get hold of it. I was told that the persons who bought horses in that way went and sold them the next day at a different place to the Government. I should be glad if the Minister will institute an enquiry as to whether such a thing happens.

The same thing happens with mules.

Yes, horses and mules are rejected at a certain place, and then they are bought the next day at a different place from speculators. That is what I am told, and from what I have seen I must come to the conclusion that speculation is actually taking place. I know of one person who went to a police station and his horse was rejected. Immediately after a speculator offered a good price, and the person was willing to accept the price. But then it was brought to his notice that the person who wanted to buy the horse wanted to sell it again the next day to the purchasers. He then said that he did not want any speculation done in his property, and that he preferred to keep his horse. The war is costing the country a great deal of money, and I want to ask the Minister to stop such abuses. No chance should be given for speculation in regard to the purchase of horses. There is not the least doubt that it is going on, but I would like to know from the Minister whether he will take steps to prevent it.

I would like to give the Minister the benefit of my knowledge in connection with this matter. The criticism so far made on the part of the Opposition was of course intended to try to ridicule things that are being done by the Government. But there are a few points which it would be well to bring to the notice of the Government. I do not want to refer to the small business man again, he has already been mentioned, but I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that there are a great many business men who are not employed by others, and they decided to give their services, and if they entered the army as ordinary private soldiers, then it meant that they would have to sacrifice very much to go and fight. If there ever were people who deserved the consideration of the Government, then it is they. Those persons as well as their families, allow nothing to stand in the way of their going to fight. The matter is so serious to them that the loss which they suffer cannot stop them. Then in the second place, there are many small farmers who also want to go and fight, and do not allow themselves to be stopped by anything, but as soon as they leave their farms, they have to employ extra farm labour, or possibly a foreman on the farm, in order to allow the business to go on. When I spoke to farmers I always impressed upon them that under no circumstances should they abandon producing, that they should not join up blindly under any circumstances. I called their attention to the fact that production was just as necessary as fighting. Now I think that the farmers who possibly have to hire extra labour because they are going to the front, ought to be met. There are other people who are on service, miners and other officials of the state or workers who were employed by other big employers, and who agreed to pay those people, but I should be neglecting my duty if I were not to bring to the notice of the Government the families of men who were on service when their homes were blown up. Serious loss has been suffered by a few families, and I wonder what the man at the front must think when he learns that his house was blown up, and that his children were nearly murdered under the dynamting system of the Nazis. The man who jumps into the breach to go and fight for his country can at least expect the Government, in his absence, to look after the interests and safety of his wife and children. Seeing that three houses were blown to pieces in one night, when a shop was blown up, it is the duty of the Government to take this question, also, into consideration. What would a man who is fighting think if the Government says, “We are sorry that the misfortune has occurred, and the devastation done, but we cannot do anything in the matter?” There are thousands of men to-day who are prepared to go and fight, and under this vote which is concerned with allowances, an amendment should be made in regard to the allowances, so that the husbands and the wives of the men who make the sacrifice of going to fight will not lose economically.

I would very much like to know from the Minister how long he thinks that this sum of £8,500,000 for ordinary current expenditure, and the amount on the loan estimates of about £23,000,000 will last. We may surely assume that it is not his intention to spend and to need such a large amount annually. We voted a considerable amount during the first part of the year. I would like to know how long he thinks that the money which has been voted so far, together with what is now asked for will suffice. He surely has his estimate. He is making provision for certain services and supplies. How long does he think those sums will last for? Only to the end of the current year, or for a series of years? If for a series of years, how long does he think that it will suffice for? We would like to know for how long provision is being made under these estimates for carrying on the war. Then I would also like to know when payment will be made for the rifles that were commandeered, the rifles which were considered necessary for military purposes I am glad to learn from the Minister that the rifles that were not needed for military purposes will be given back to the owners. I assume that the police officials who are in charge of police stations, and to whom the rifles were handed in, are in a position to judge what rifles are not required for war purposes. If the rifles are given back, it will give some satisfaction. I would like to read a letter to show what the feeling is in connection with the rifles. I think that the person who wrote the letter is personally known to the Prime Minister. He is an exofficial at Groot Spelonken, Mr. Willie van den Berg, an ex-native commissioner. He writes—

That individual had already done 33 years’ service as a Government official, and that is how he felt in regard to the handing in of his rifle. He regarded it as a terrible humiliation, and inasmuch as the Minister has now stated that it was intended to return to the people concerned the rifles that are not required, I would like to ask him to do so as quickly as possible. Then I would like to bring something to the notice of the Minister of Finance. We all know that in time of war people are generally inclined to think that they can freely waste money because others are doing the paying. At least a dozen motor-cars arrive at Pietersburg every week from Roberts Heights and the Premier Mine. They are good and popular people in our district, and everyone comes along in a Government motor-car to his farm or to Pietersburg. This, of course, means enormous expense, and I would like to know whether it is just open to anyone now to have a car at his disposal, and whether no control is exercised to eliminate unnecessary travelling about. In the case of Pietersburg the distance is about 200 miles, but there are other places where they have to travel 400 and 500 miles. Are they simply all allowed to drive about? What control is being exercised there? In the last war there was no proper control kept either, and now we find the same state of affairs existing. Are there certain persons who will see to it that unnecessary waste does not occur? Another point in connection with the payment of allowances. Various persons have come to me who were called up to go to Roberts Heights or the Premier Mine to do their duty, and who have not yet up to to-day received the amount to which they are entitled. It was possibly difficult at the start to make proper arrangements for the payment of the people, but by this time, after the war has been going on for more than a year, it should not be necessary for people and their families, who are left behind, not to receive the amounts to which they are entitled. I know of one case of a family which remained behind who have sold some of their absolute necessities which they needed daily in the home to pay debts because they had not yet received the amount to which they are entitled.

Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with what has fallen from the member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux). I have also heard complaints in connection with the provisioning of the military and other military requirements. I have also heard that a good deal of speculation is indulged in, and I am sure the Minister will have no hesitation in dealing with that. Everything possible should be done to eliminate all forms of speculation in connection with military requirements. In fact I would go so far as to say that the Government should commandeer all such requirements and simply pay the cost price plus a small percentage for profit. Even where a committee has been set up — a committee which is doing very valuable work — in relation to the provisioning and equipment of the military, even there the system of tenders should be done away with and the Government should commandeer what is required and simply pay the cost of the article or the cost of manufacture, plus a small percentage to cover profit. I believe the public generally will welcome an arrangement of this kind, because then those who are playing the game will not feel themselves to be tarred with the same brush as those who are not playing the game. One other point: one continually hears that large numbers of people who are prepared to place themselves at the disposal of the Defence Department at a time when we have to mobilise our man power, have no means of having their services utilised; there should be some organisation set up so as to ensure that everyone who is prepared to give some service shall have an opportunity of doing so. Then a word with regard to the question of allowances to dependents of those men who have gone to the front. I think it is creditable that the Minister of Defence has been able to get the response to his recruiting appeal that he has got, in spite of the fact that women are left behind who have not had adequate provision made for them. I entirely agree with the view put forward that the provision made for dependents of those who go to the front should be equivalent at least to what they enjoyed prior to their men-folk going away. Even now it is not too late to consider an alteration in the whole arrangement. Whilst I have every sympathy with and respect for the Governor-General’s Fund, I think it is a mistake to deal with a matter of this kind by way of voluntary effort, because apart altogether from the feeling that this smacks of charity, it means that it is left entirely to the discretion of each individual to decide whether he will contribute or not, and it is more than likely that very many people who are in a position to contribute are doing almost nothing. I hope the Minister will take that into consideration, and I would like to see some special provision made, even if it be by means of a special tax, by which a special fund shall be established by the state itself from which adequate provision can be made for the dependents of those who have gone to the front. If such a tax were imposed on a graduated scale so that those who were best able to pay should not escape, it would be a good thing, because just as the man power of the nation should be mobilised, so the wealth of the country should be mobilised also.

There is one matter which I would like to bring to the Minister’s notice. The Minister will probably admit that the farmers who live on the borders of our country handed in their rifles in most cases in a very obedient way. I have already brought the matter to the notice of the Minister. The people need their rifles urgently. They are living in a part of our country which is densely populated by natives, they are living in the midst of natives and unfortunately we received the reply on our representations to the Minister that the department could not allow the people in my constituency to get exemption. I think, however, that the Minister will understand that the people there most necessarily be armed. He has probably already heard what took place in the courts where a few cases have been brought against natives. We heard of one case in the Free State where a native had the impudence to go to a farmer’s house on the farm, to knock at the door, and to say that he wanted admission to the house, where only the wife was present. When he received the answer that he could not come in, he said that he knew that the farmer was without arms. The circumstances in those areas are such that the people must necessarily have rifles. The Minister has now said that the rifles which the Government did not need for purposes of the war would be given back to the owners. I hope he will be able to make arrangements by which he can provide rifles for the areas on the border which I represent, possibly even rifles which are obtained from other people, which the Government will not need. The farmers on the border there ought to be armed. There is not only the danger from the natives who are not armed, but there are even natives there who are armed. There are natives from areas which I represent who have a kind of weapon which does not fall under this proclamation. They know that the farmers are not armed, and I hope that the Minister will make provisions in those cases. I also want to state my appreciation that up to the present no proceedings have been instituted in those border districts. I hope that it is the policy of the Government not to prosecute in those areas by reason of their not having handed in their arms. I hope that the Minister can reassure me by answering these questions.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on the subject of distribution of comforts to the troops in the field. Some members may think that this is not a very important subject, but I consider it is important to see that our troops receive the comforts which are dispatched to them from their homes. We are discussing a vote of £8,500,000, and I do hope the hon. Minister will see that part of that money is devoted to the establishment of a proper organisation to ensure that these comforts are not only dispatched from this country but that they are received by the troops for whom they are intended. If the military authorities have not such an organisation in view, I hope they will listen attentively to the remarks I have to make. During the last war the people of South Africa, women especially, went to great pains to supply comforts to the troops, and what happened? Owing to lack of organisation on the part of the military authorities the comforts very rarely reached the men in the front line, while those on the lines of communication and in base camps had more comforts than they wanted. Worse was to follow. On rare occasions the comforts reached men in the front line, but when the parcels were opened it was found that they had been tampered with en route, and the things which the troops most desired had been taken out. One can realise the intense disappointment of those men out in the blue five hundred miles from anywhere, when they found their parcels had been tampered with and the things they most desired, a little bit of sugar, chocolate and a packet of fags as they called them, had been taken out. I wish to pay a tribute to the women of South Africa for what they are doing to-day; women are knitting morning, noon and night and sitting up till late hours, knitting for the troops and sacrificing their time for those in the firing line. I consider it would be a crime, and I emphasise the word crime, if the hon. Minister or the military authorities do not see to it that such an organisation is established in South Africa. I hope I am not asking too much. Another point is that there are lots of men who are rejected as unfit for service but who desire to serve in some way, and here is something that they can do in seeing that these comforts reach the men in the field. If the Minister of Defence organised such a body of men or women, I think every man who is serving and fighting for us in the field will be grateful for it. One other matter I would mention is the question of providing transport for women who are serving in various organisations such as the Red Cross and the Women’s Auxiliary Air Force, and are on duty virtually as soldiers, some of whom live out of town. I have written to the Defence Department on this subject as I consider these people should be provided with free transport to and from their homes when on military duty. I was under the impression that the Defence Department had taken up this matter, and had made arrangements for these transport concessions. I spoke to a high railway official this afternoon on the subject, and I understood from him that the Railways don’t do that sort of thing. It is a matter for the Defence Department. The municipalities throughout the Union give free transport to men in uniform and these ladies, who are serving just as much as the men, should, to my mind, be given free transport also. I hope the Minister will take this matter up and see that this point is given effect to.

Apart from the objection which we have against voting this amount of £8,500,000 for war purposes, we also object to the waste of money which is doubtless taking place. In this connection I want to put a few questions to the Minister. The first refers to the radio service for natives. I put this question because I am opposed to our wasting money on such a service, and in addition I have the strongest objection to this pernicious institution for the purpose, forsooth, of enlightening the natives.

There is a different vote under which this can be debated.

Then I will return to it later on. Then I want to come to the magistrates and native commissioners who make speeches to the natives in the locations to give them information about the war.

That does not come under this vote.

It is apparently being paid for by the Department of Defence, because it is stated to be in connection with the war.

No, it is to be paid for by the Department of Native Affairs.

Then I want to call the Minister’s attention to another matter which in my opinion involves a great waste of money. I see that officers, colonels and the rest of them — I am not now speaking of the officers of the Permanent Force, but of the people who have recently been specially appointed — travel about the country and are earning a bigger income to-day than they have ever dreamt of before. In my part of the world there is a colonel, I will not mention his name, who travels about on recruiting work, and he draws no less than £5 a day. That is his pay, plus his travelling allowance. It must be a royal income to him, and is more than anything he has ever dreamt of. Is it worth the trouble? Then there is Major Pretorius of Olifantsjag. He travels about Waterberg. He has been there for the umpteenth time, and what he does no one knows.

He is a first class man.

He is a first class hunter of elephants. I am not, however, enlarging on his merits. I know him better than the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) knows him. He is a major — I do not know whether he now has a higher rank — and he travels about in a big car. He travels at public expense, and I would like to know what his work is. The war anyhow is not being carried on in Waterberg. What I, moreover, noticed between Pretoria and Johannesburg is the large number of lorries which travel to and fro with troops. What does it all mean? Is it really necessary in connection with the military training that those men are undergoing?

They are learning to drive a motor-car.

Some are learning to drive a motor-bike, because there is a constant stream of them to and fro. I would like to know from the Minister whether that constitutes a part of the military training of those men. As an outsider it seems to me to be unnecessary waste of money, and if better control were exercised it would possibly not be necessary to vote such a large amount as this.

The question of the hospitalisation of our troops has been mentioned previously but there is an aspect of it which I would like to refer to in particular. So far as I know the military hospital at Wynberg is the only one we have in the Western Province. We must expect that the demand for hospital accommodation for the troops will be no less than it was 25 years ago. One hopes that it will be less but one cannot speculate and gamble on that. I want to point out that as far as I know, except for the erection of two operating theatres the same equipment and accommodation exist to-day as existed twenty-five years ago. And at that time we had the Alexandra Hospital which is now being used for other purposes. I want to ask, therefore, whether it is not essential that additional accommodation and modern equipment should be provided at Wynberg for the services of our men. In addition to that I want to draw attention to the question of convalescent homes. The hon. member for Yeoville yesterday in his interesting review of the position, referred to an article which appears in the current issue of the South African Medical Journal. I think one may admit that the general feeling among medical men is to get patients out of the atmosphere of a hospital as soon as possible. In that particular article this appears—

I understand, as a matter of fact, that a building situated in a desirable part and within a stone’s throw from a building used twenty-five years ago as a convalescent home, has been offered to the Government. I know the value of convalescent homes as far as our civilian population is concerned who use our hospitals. I know also the benefit which men gained in this convalescent home at St. James and how grateful they were for what was done for them. I feel, therefore, that that is a matter which should receive the fullest consideration by the rt. hon. the Minister and I hope that every advantage will be taken of such offers as this. I consider it a very generous offer. May I just refer to one further thing? The public mind is definitely greatly concerned not only with the hospitalisation of our men while they are at the base, but a question of considerable interest as well is that of the mobile transport, of the ambulances themselves. The feeling of the public is evidenced by the fact that they come forward freely with their contributions in order to augment the services which are placed at the disposal of the Forces by the Government. But the question of the aerial ambulance is one which I know from general comments in the Press, and the activities to raise funds, is a matter which is exercising the public mind. I hope that when this amount of money has been voted, as it will be, that the Minister will give an assurance that from the votes now before the House, means will be found so that full and adequate provision can be made under the various heads I have mentioned, so that our soldiers will get the attention to which they are entitled.

I would like to bring a few things to the notice of the Minister of Defence. A few days ago I said here that according to a report in a local newspaper there were soldiers constituting half a regiment who came over from Barberton to Lydenburg to pass the week-end there, and to come and assist in recruiting-work. I have now received information that this week there will be 100 more soldiers at Lydenburg. Is it part of their military service, or are these joy rides, on which a part of this £8,500,000 is being wasted? In Lydenburg there are many mountains and rivers and we notice that there is a guard at every bridge. All those places are not of strategic value and it really appears to me unnecessary to have guards at all these small rivers. I think that it is an unneccessary waste of money to have all those bridges guarded. Then there is another matter about the rifles. After the regulation was issued, I addressed a meeting at Steelpoort River, which adjoins the native area. At that meeting I received instructions to ask the Minister not to compel the border farmers, who live there, to hand in their rifles. I immediately wrote a letter to the Minister and I also told him that the people felt uneasy. His reply to me was to ask the people to be calm, that he needed their rifles but that arrangements would be made for exemption in certain cases. Nevertheless, most of the men were compelled to hand in their rifles. They are up there, close to the Sekukuni area and they are now disarmed.

Were there not many exemptions granted?

No, very few. They were in respect of rifles for which there was no ammunition. I got an exemption for a 7.9 Mauser which was a very expensive rifle, but just in this connection I want to bring something to the notice of the Minister. I have another rifle which I prize very highly, because it was the gun of one of our bravest fighting generals in the Boer War, namely General Ben Viljoen. I served under him and I am in possession of his rifle. I went to the magistrate and asked for exemption, but because it was a Lee Metford I could not get exemption, notwithstanding the fact that there was very great sentimental value attached to the rifle. It was intended for the Lydenburg Museum which we are now putting up. It is an old rifle. The name of General Ben Viljoen is carved on the butt, but if it were to be valued today as a rifle it would probably go at £2 or £3, while I would not sell it for £30. Then there is the case of a field cornet in my district whom the Prime Minister possibly knows. It is old Mr. Jacob Kruger. He is 84 years old now and he came to me four or five times because he felt he could not hand in his rifle. I told him personally that he had better hand in the rifle or otherwise he might possibly in his old age get into trouble. He said that he had never yet been in the court, and that if I said he had to hand in his rifle he would do so. I made an application for exemption, but he was not given exemption. Such irregularities are taking place, and I want to ask the Minister to take cases of that kind into consideration.

Many complaints have reached me about the great delay in the payment of allowances and salaries to soldiers. In many instances the delay has been for months and the dependents of men who have enlisted have actually had to apply to the Governor-General’s Fund to enable them to tide over the intervening period. I believe some arrangement has been made now under which an attempt is to be made to overcome this delay, and I think it would be appreciated if a definite statement could be made by the Minister, and an assurance given that at any rate as far as these allowances and payments are concerned, dependents of soldiers can be assured that in future they will be made promptly. Even a short while before this session I was shewn a cheque which had been sent out without being signed, and some months ago a large number of cheques were sent out which actually had the wrong dates. These are mistakes which cause the greatest hardship to the recipients. The least one can expect is that dependents should receive what is due to them as speedily as possible.

With reference to the payments for rifles that were commandeered there is one matter which has not been mentioned by other hon. members and it is that most of the people no longer possess the receipts for their rifles. Take my own case. I handed in my rifle. I bought it some years ago through my rifle association, but I cannot hand in any receipt. It seems to me that the amount will have to be fixed for most of the rifles, and I would like the Minister to give instructions that that point will be borne in mind. Then I want to mention another matter, and I would like to know from the Minister what the position is in connection with teachers and officials who have joined up for military service. Do they get their ordinary salary plus the pay which the Defence Department gives them? If it is not so then I would like to know why members of this House get their salary as members of Parliament plus the military allowance. The Prime Minister gave us the information the other day, for example, that the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) received 28s. a day plus his parliamentary allowance. Now it seems to me that that is not fair towards the officials who go to fight and they lose a part of their salary which is equivalent to the military pay that they get. The third question is whether the Government intends to pay compensation to universities and private individuals, who have suffered loss owing to the attack of soldiers, for the loss that has been occasioned.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that a certain amount of the money that is being voted under this heading of defence to-day, will be spent on Africans in service under the department. I believe, however, that the amount will be small because the number of people affected is very small. I should be glad to think that a great deal more of the money that is being voted for defence, was going to be spent on the use of Africans for the defence of this country. And I wish that, sir, in the first place, because I believe that it will be necessary for us to use a very considerable number of Africans in the prosecution of this war. I believe that a wide use of Africans will indeed be essential for efficiency in our war effort. But I also wish it because I know the strength of the desire by the African population to serve their country at this time, this critical time in its history. I hope, sir, that the hon. Minister of Defence does intend to use our African people to a greater extent than he is doing at present; and I trust that he will be at least as generous in his payment to this group as he is to other groups that have already been recruited in more considerable numbers for the service of the country. These remarks are in the nature of an introduction to what I wish to say in regard to another matter. The question of the calling up of rifles has been raised in this House on various occasions this session, and on each occasion on which it has been raised, it has been coupled with a suggestion that involves a very considerable degree of offence to me and those of us who sit on these benches. The matter was again raised this afternoon by the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Du Plessis) who urged upon the Minister that one of the main reasons why the people resented the calling in of rifles was that they would be left unarmed in face of our native population. I personally take the gravest exception at such an argument being put forward in this House. We have not so far had an opportunity to express our feelings in this matter, and I have waited, waited hopefully, for some declaration in response to these statements from Government benches. I believe the hon. Minister himself is in the position that he has not had much opportunity to reply to the arguments raised, but I hope he will take the opportunity in the time provided for this debate, to defend the good name of this country, which is being traduced by such an argument. The good reputation of this country is being traduced in this sense. In the first place, it is a grave reflection on the administration of this country to suggest for one moment that law and order can only be kept between our European population and our native population with guns in the hands of our farmers. Sir, to hear hon. members on this side talk, you would think we were a primitive colony which has no conception of our capacity for administration, and that it is quite impossible to maintain law and order on the authority of the courts—a grave reflection on this country as a whole. I personally feel we have had far too many guns loose in this country. I felt it long before the war. If it were not so usual for people to handle guns we would not have so many crimes of violence in this country—crimes which rarely involved natives, but in which so many Europeans lose their lives. I sincerely hope that by the end of the war we shall have broken the bad tradition of easy resort to lethal weapons which comes from the habit of handling guns which prevails in this country. I hope the Minister will declare his belief that it is absolutely unnecessary to suggest that law cannot be maintained in this country, on the borders of our native reserves, on the frontiers of the state, or indeed anywhere in the country, without guns, that the people of this country cannot be governed by the ordinary laws of this country as efficiently as they should be. I resent the reflection on this country. But I resent particularly the reflection on what is, I believe, the most law-abiding native population in the world. There is no justification whatsoever for the suggestion that the European people are in any danger because they do not carry guns in their hands. Our native population has always shown itself extremely amenable to law, as well as extremely conscious of the superior force of the European people. I trust the hon. Minister will say a word in this matter, because it is inevitable that these remarks, made again and again, go out to our native population, and I should not like our native population to feel that not only are their services not being used to the extent to which they desire to give it, but that contempt is being thrown upon them and insult hurled at them with the consent of the Government. I look forward to such a statement.

Inasmuch as in the £8,500,000 an amount is included for the payment for the rifles, I would like to have a statement by the Minister why he collected the rifles in the most humiliating way. I would like to know whether it was not possible for him to give notice to the people, inasmuch as the rifles were all registered, that they should hand in their rifles. We find that there were people who did not get the daily papers, who did not read newspapers and who had no wireless sets, and there were some of them who really did not know that there was such a demand, and did not know whether it applied to them. Why could not the people be notified in writing? By the way in which the Minister did it, he showed us that he did not trust the Afrikaner people. He even called up the .22 ammunition and even rifles that were not suitable for military purposes. In not trusting the Afrikaner with a rifle, what moral right will he have if the country gets into trouble and is attacked to-morrow, what moral right will he then have to put a rifle into the hands of the citizen to defend his country? He has no moral right to do so, and if the Prime Minister, nevertheless, wants to force the people, then he had better start at once building gaols and digging graves if he wants to adopt such a serious step. We have also to vote money to pay the allowances to members of Parliament for extra services that they are rendering in connection with the war. Now I want to ask whether those members are also paid for the days when they are sitting in this House. Do they get paid if they do not actually render service on the day?

They only get their parliamentary pay as long as they are here.

If one of them addresses a recruiting meeting to-night, does he get extra payment for the day? What supervision is there over the people to show that they are doing their work properly? Haye they to be in their offices for a certain time and render certain services, or is it just left to them to decide how much work they will do for the £2 10s. 0d. a day? I would like to come to another point. When I was listening to the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger), I asked myself the question as to how much knowledge she had of the character of the native and the grade of civilisation which the native had reached. I just want to tell her that we regard it as of the utmost importance that the white people in those areas, which adjoin the natives, must be armed. I say to the Prime Minister that if women and children are murdered innocently their blood will rest on his head. We have the fullest right to hold him responsible for the lives that are lost. It is the greatest humiliation which has ever yet been done to the Afrikaner people. The Prime Minister will yet have to answer for it to the people.

I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 9th September.