Hon. members will find certain amendments on the Order Paper which I want to move and which I would now like to explain. My amendment concerns part 1 of this clause, namely 1 (bis.). I want to move the deletion of the latter part. This sub-clause 1 (bis.) consists, practically, of two sections. The first part relates to the issue of regulations to make provision for the defence of the Union. Let me say this, it was an old and proud tradition of the Republic that every burgher from his 16th to his 60th year was compelled to defend his country, and in accordance with conditions of those days, he had to have available his horse, saddle and bridle and supplies for eight days. I trust that good republican tradition has now become the tradition of the whole of South Africa. If that is the position, I am sure we shall all agree on this point, and I think it is a very good thing if we can all agree. So far as the latter portion of the clause is concerned, on that we do not agree. It refers to a war of aggression, and this side of the House has from the very start been opposed to this war of aggression. I, therefore, suggest that the second part should be deleted, namely, “the safety of the public, the maintenance of public order and the effective prosecution of the war in which the Union is engaged, or in any other war in which the Union may become engaged, and for making adequate provision for dealing with circumstances which in his opinion have arisen as a result of any such war”. There is another reason as well. This tradition of the Republics was based not only on the duties of a citizen, but also on the rights of a citizen. A young fellow was regarded as a burgher of the country from the time he became liable to render military service. That was when be got the franchise. The second portion of this clause bears a totally different character, namely, the character of aggression. Furthermore, there are five points in this sub-clause which, to my mind, we on this side will never be able to approve of, because they are in conflict with our traditions, with our principles and with our policy. I do not want to go into details now, because these matters have been discussed on the second reading. I only want to remind the Prime Minister that in his opening remarks he said that he was highly satisfied with the attitude of the public in general. Now, this Clause has been put in, he did not give us any further explanation, but it was simply put in because the Prime Minister was again asking for indemnity in this session in respect of four regulations, one of which is the unfortunate regulation on the question of rifles. In order to avoid similar difficulties in future he is now making this proposal. Is it necessary to do anything like this now, and thereby interfere with the unanimity in regard to the first part? My second amendment relates to sub-section 2 of this clause. The object of this part of the sub-section is to create special bodies, while the first part concerns administrative matters. If the Government requires administrative assistance, there is no reason why it should not get it. I only hope it will be sensible administrative assistance, and not the kind of stupid administrative assistance which the Government had in connection with the rifle regulation. But now we come to the second portion which provides for penalties to be imposed and which lays it down that an individual may even be deprived of his liberty and of his possessions by these special committees, and by people appointed by the Government. We cannot possibly approve of that. We have our courts in this country, and our courts are scrupulously honest; but instead of availing ourselves of our courts, we are now asked for other bodies to be created which will have the right to decide over the liberty and the possessions of the burghers. These bodies will be constituted on political lines. The Prime Minister will not appoint any supporters on this side of the House to such bodies, and I want to express my strongest disapproval of his proposal to put our courts aside and to the rights, freedom and the possessions of the citizens of the country being handed over to bodies appointed on political lines over the heads of our courts. Then we come to sub-clause 1 (2) (a), in which I want to propose the deletion of the following words—

1. (ii) the imposition and recovery of such fees as may be specified therein; and
2. (iii) the imposition of penalties specified therein for any contravention of, or failure to comply with any provisions of the regulations, or any directions issued or conditions prescribed by or under the regulations, or any directions issued or conditions prescribed by or under the regulations, which penalties may include the confiscation of property.
   1. (b) Different regulations may be made for different areas and for different classes of persons.

I did not know what really was intended with “classes of persons”, and the Prime Minister did not inform us on that point. Is this meant to refer to “organisations”? Is it the intention by the word “class” to include an organisation and, therefore, also a political organisation? Or what is it? I can understand such a provision being advisable in a country with a white population which is in a small minority — I can understand that in exceptional circumstances it may be necessary to take steps in regard to a class. I do not say it is essential, but the danger we run here is that such a class may be defined so as to include organisations as a class, and that political organisations may be included. If that is not so, I hope the right hon. the Prime Minister will make it clear to us what his actual intentions are. I, therefore, move as an amendment—

This first clause of the Bill, among other things, gives the Government power for the maintenance of the security and public order in the country. I do not at this stage wish to talk about certain things which have already occurred in South Africa, but I want to mention something which happened yesterday, and in which I was involved. I hope the right hon. the Minister of Defence will give this matter his attention. I was travelling from Beaufort West to Cape Town last night, and before the train left Beaufort West there were a number of the soldiers of the Minister of Defence in front of the window of my compartment who started calling me names. I therefore considered it best to fasten the lock of the door of my compartment. Half an hour later those soldiers tried to break open the door of my compartment. They thereupon left, as I heard afterwards, to go and find a key. I fastened the safety catch on the top, and they again tried to come in. After that they went away once more, and two friends of mine from Beaufort West told me that they had made a plot in the dining saloon to throw me off the train. At Prince Albert Road they opened the window and broke the wooden frame in order to get in. The position was most serious, and I hope that what happened will be carefully looked into by the Minister of Defence. The seriousness of the position is in fact that a person who does not agree with the Government’s policy cannot feel safe on the train; he cannot travel without being in danger of being assaulted by the Minister of Defence’s lawless soldiers. We have also had incidents in other parts of the country, but here we have a particularly bad case. I want to point out that for a considerable time serious complaints have been made by the public about the behaviour of the soldiers on trains. It is unpleasant to travel by train, and the Prime Minister has been asked to take steps so that the soldiers who are on leave will travel under the supervision of an officer. He replied that it was impossible to do so. In spite of that, things cannot go on as they are doing to-day. In view of the fact that as a rule twenty or thirty soldiers, or even more, travel on a train I think the necessary arrangements can be made for a passengers’ coach to be attached to the fast goods train so that the public in future will be able to travel in comfort over our railways and will not be subjected to unpleasantness of this kind on account of South Africa’s soldiers not being able to behave themselves on a train and endangering the lives of the passengers. If it were not for the fact that these soldiers had already given some signs of their attitude at Beaufort West and if I had sat in my compartment with my door open, as I usually do, those twelve or thirteen soldiers would have attacked me, which clearly was their intention, as was shown by the fact that they subsequently smashed the woodwork of the window. I also hope the Minister of Railways will take note of what happened. Other hon. members can also testify to the fact that it is not merely unpleasant to travel to-day, but that in the evenings the dining rooms are full of the Prime Minister’s soldiers, many of whom are intoxicated. As a result of what happened to me I must lodge a protest and make an appeal to the Prime Minister — if he is sincere in his intentions when he says that he is able to maintain order in this country — to see to it that order is maintained, and I must ask him, with the co-operation of the Minister of Railways, to see to it that these things do not happen on our trains. There is only one possible way of avoiding these things, and that is to attach a coach to the fast goods train so that the soldiers can use that and thus cause no discomfort to the ordinary passengers. I just want to add this. Apparently a telegram was sent from Prince Albert Road and one of the police officers was present at the station in Cape Town to secure the necessary information from me. Whether anything will be done is another question. It was impossible for me to see who those people were because my door was closed and it was dark at Prince Albert Road. The people demand that a stop shall be put to these evil conditions.

I want to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Oost). His amendment does not to my mind, however, go far enough. I should have liked the hon. member to have moved the deletion of the whole of clause 1. Under his amendment all that would be left of this clause would be the following—

If we bear in mind that the Defence Act already provides for the defence of the Union I fail to understand why that part of the clause should remain. Why does not the Prime Minister avail himself of the Union Defence Act, seeing that all the powers asked for in that part of the clause are already provided for in the Defence Act? Why should we now pass this particular provision of the Defence Act in this special manner? If we take into account the conditions of the country and if we look at what is going on, it appears to me that this whole Bill is devised for the purpose of defending the party opposite, which is plunging us into this difficult position. We have no war in the Union calling for a measure such as this, but the party on the other side requires defence and protection as a result of the fact that this side of the House as a political party is gaining great strength in the country. I notice that the Minister of Lands smiles. I know he is greatly pleased with this Bill. It has been drafted for him to enable him to get his own back on the people who, when he wanted to address a political meeting at Brits, would not allow him to do so. I quite understand what his feelings are about this Bill.

If that is the type of support you are getting in the country you are welcome to it.

The support we are getting in the country is such that hon. members opposite are getting afraid, and that is why they are asking for powers here so as to enable them to force us. I should not be surprised if the Prime Minister were to prohibit further meetings being held because if he were to do so hon. members opposite would have an excuse for not meeting their constituents.

The kind of meetings you people are holding are leading to your destruction.

We are showing the people the dangers which are facing them. We are showing the people the truth, and we know that the people did not want to hear the kind of truth which the Minister of Lands wanted to proclaim to them. They already know what is the truth. I can imagine that the hon. member for Kensington is also very pleased with this Bill because he says that martial law should already have been introduced in the country, and what is this Bill but martial law? It is martial law in the highest degree, and it is worse than martial law, because, as has already been stated, even for martial law indemnity is required. I do not know whether hon. members have found out and whether it it clear to the country, that the Prime Minister has already got an indemnity for everything he is going to do, and for everything he has done in connection with the war. In the last War Measures Indemnity Bill he provided for an indemnity for everything he did. There is no such provision in this Bill because all the acts committed by the Government, all the misdeeds the Government has committed, and all the illegal acts it has committed—as is actually admitted by the Prime Minister—have been indemnified under the previous Act of February last. No further indemnity is required. I should like to know from the Prime Minister who the people are, and which bodies will have to give effect to these penalty clauses, and who will have to apply them. Will it be irresponsible people and local bodies again? In many parts of the country we have mayors who belong to that side of the House which is responsible for this war, and are they going to be the people, will it be the town clerks and people like that, who belong to those who are anxious to continue the war, who will be given powers to apply these penalty clauses? We find in these proclamations that provision is being made for the commandeering of the rifles. I have not the slightest doubt that the Minister has obtained great benefits from this illegal regulation enabling him to commandeer rifles, and I think he should really be satisfied now with what he has achieved. By means of one single proclamation which was published in the Government Gazette, by means of a proclamation which he himself did not know whether it was in order, and which certainly did not cost him anything, he obtained about 80,000 rifles from the people. It was a stroke of tip top business. As the result of a notice, which cost practically nothing, he obtained those rifles and as it now turns out, it was as the result of an illegal action. After that he allowed the people another ten days, from the 17th to the 27th, apparently to get more rifles into his hands, and in that way he secured another 8,000 rifles. After that, prosecutions were instituted against people with no object other than to scare the public and to get them to hand in further rifles. I want to tell the Prime Minister that he did good business by these illegal actions of his. I want to make an appeal to him not to continue these illegal actions any further. Let him accept the amendment which has been proposed under which the people already in gaol will be released, and as a result of which a stop will be put to these prosecutions. The Prime Minister now has the rifles which, as he has told us, he needs, but he will never be able to right the injustice done to the people who have been innocently put in gaol. Those people were put in gaol for a crime which he himself has admitted was not a crime at all. I therefore hope that the Prime Minister will accept the amendment so that the proclamation will be made less severe.

I wish to associate myself with what the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) said just now. I also came from the North by train and I must honestly admit that I was indignant at the conditions which prevail there. I am one of those who has the greatest respect for the Defence Force of our country. I am one or those who like to look up to them as the people who are prepared to sacrifice their lives for the security of the country, but unfortunately it seems to me that a spirit of degeneration has entered into the Defence Force. It seems to me that three qualifications are required now for the defence of our country: firstly, the soldiers must disturb the rest of the ordinary citizens; secondly, they must abandon themselves to drunkenness, and in the third place they must swear and boast. That is the impression one gets—people have to have those qualifications if they want to be good soldiers. I think the time has come for us to give our serious attention to these matters. This should not be allowed to go any further. I have respect for men and officers of the Defence Force who can behave themselves, but at the moment it is unsafe for anyone in South Africa who does not say “Yes” and “Amen” to whatever the Prime Minister does, to travel in our country. I have just come back from the Eastern Transvaal and at Piet Retief last week soldiers, after they had worked up their courage with drink, forced their way into the bioscope. One of them immediately got on to the platform and started singing “God Save the King” and people in the hall who were not prepared to sing “God Save the King” were interfered with, stopped from leaving the hall, and insulted in a scandalous way. This sort of thing causes bitterness. How can one expect to have peace and order in the country if the people who should maintain order behave in that fashion? I want to point out to the Prime Minister that the public of South Africa during the past year under the most provoking conditions have behaved in an exemplary manner. One could not expect more of them. I want to mention another case. The town clerk of Piet Retief was sitting quietly in his home one evening, when he was called outside by a soldier who told him that there was someone outside who wanted to see him. He walked out and he was thereupon marched off to the town hall by a number of soldiers, and when he got there a number of questions were put to him, as though they had been appointed judges over the lives of private individuals. This sort of thing is scandalous. Now the Prime Minister comes here and says that the law must be made even more drastic in order to maintain peace and order. If the Minister were to make a law compelling his soldiers to behave themselves orderly and quietly it would be much better. If the Prime Minister allows matters to go on as they are doing at present we l soon have people killing and murdering each other in this country. The public cannot tolerate it any longer. Women are being scandalously ill-treated. Law-abiding people, who do no harm, are being treated in a way unprecedented in the history of South Africa simply because they do not agree with the Government’s policy. The students in Pretoria are not even allowed to hold their own dances unless they also admit soldiers in uniform. Where is the freedom of the individual? Where is the freedom of the population? Where is that democracy you are fighting for? Look at what is going on in the streets of Cape Town! We beg the Prime Minister to put an end to the hypocrisy, the acts reminding one of Pharisees, this praying at the corner of the streets — no, not the praying, but the congregating of people and the spying to see whether anybody happens to be walking about during the pause. This sort of thing should not be allowed to Continue. A few days ago a woman had a parcel thrown at her in a shop in Cape Town merely because she spoke Afrikaans, and in Pretoria we have the same state of affairs. If one does not speak English in the shops one is ill-treated and insulted. I appeal to the Prime Minister. I do not want to hamper him in the conduct of the war which he and his side of the House want to continue, but he must see to it that his soldiers are taught to behave decently. Failing that, they should no longer be allowed to travel on the trains because it is now becoming unsafe for ordinary people to travel by train. The position has now become such that one no longer can have any respect for the soldiers. Let the Prime Minister see to it that the people who cannot behave are punished, so that these things shall not be allowed to continue. If things are allowed to go on as they are to-day I fear for the worst. Fortunately we have a quiet set of people in this country who for the past twelve months have put up with being treated with contumely and contempt and who have exercised a degree of patience which must astonish one. But their patience is becoming exhausted, and if that should happen nobody but the Prime Minister will be responsible. I hope the Minister will see to it that a stop is nut to the present position. So far as this clause of the Bill is concerned, to me it looks worse than martial law; it is a hidden sort of martial law. Under martial law an indemnity will have to be asked for, but under this Bill the Prime Minister can do as he pleases and he cannot be called to account. I protest against our nation being treated in this way.

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) and the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) have appealed to the Prime Minister and have given instances of cases where it is necessary to protect the public. Let us be fair to each other. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad said that things were going wrong, but what is the root of the evil? We have declared war here, a war which has been declared by a majority of the people. South Africa is now at war.

An illegal war. You were not elected to make war.

The then Prime Minister (Gen. Hertzog) had the opportunity of going to the people had he wanted to do so, but he decided to consult this House and this House with a decisive majority resolved to go to war. Now we are in the war. Our sons — my children and other people’s children— are joining up, and they feel that it is their duty to fight for our country.

Instead of going to fight they are fighting me.

We know when we have to go and fight and where. We are now involved in this war. We honestly considered that we must do our duty, that we had to do what we regarded as our duty, and those people who held that view must surely feel deeply insulted and deeply hurt if they are referred to every day in such a provoking manner as is being done by hon. members of the Opposition. Hon. members of the Opposition appear to welcome every setback of the Allies. If I were in the position of people who are in uniform and who have to go and fight, people who are prepared to sacrifice their lives for their country and their people, and if I had to hear all these remarks, all this abuse of the soldiers, and if I found a section of the community adopting an attitude in favour of supporting the enemy — because that is what it practically amounts to — and if I saw people deliberately developing a spirit of defeatism — cannot hon. members realise that I would feel hurt? Let those hon. members remain quietly at their homes. We are not going to interfere with them and ask them to go and fight; and let them allow us to carry on and do not let them go out of their way on every possible occasion to put obstacles in our way and to prevent us from carrying on this war to a successful issue.

Are you not ashamed of yourself? Go and fight.

I have joined up and I have taken the oath. I am in the hands of the Prime Minister who is my commanding officer, and I shall take my orders from him and not from anyone else. Wherever he sends me for the defence of my country and my people, even if he sends me to Hell, I shall go there. We on this side of the House have placed our services at the disposal of the Prime Minister as our commanding officer and we shall go wherever he sends us.

Now you are approving of those malpractices.

I am not approving of them, but hon. members opposite have produced the strongest arguments to prove the need of these drastic regulations, and I hope a stop will be put to the kind of language and the type of attitude which causes support being given to the enemy. If that cannot be done then I ask hon. members and their supporters to leave us alone, so that we may carry on with our work.

You do not leave us alone.

If the Opposition, on the 4th September, had merely confined themselves to remaining neutral we would not have minded. If they had confined themselves to the merits of neutrality we would not have minded, but now they are showing by their attitude and by their words that they are hoping for the success of the enemy. That sort of thing is bound to hurt people who want to go and fight. I just want to draw the attention of the hon. members for Beaufort West and Wolmaransstad to this: They should admit that the language which they are making use of from time to time is insulting towards those people who feel it their duty to go and fight and who are willing to sacrifice their lives, rightly or wrongly.

I shall help those people to go if they want to go and fight.

Surely the hon. member for Wolmaransstad is a responsible individual, but the way in which he and others speak deeply affects the people and hurts those who are prepared to sacrifice everything for their country. I have the greatest respect for the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, but his attitude leads us to the conclusion that he would welcome the enemy being victorious.

When did I say that?

Your whole behaviour gives that impression, the sneering way in which people talk and in which they say: “Great Britain has run away, and is still running away.”

Is it not true?

Do hon. members want Great Britain to lose the war?

Do you want us to cry about it?

Their language shows that they are anxious that Great Britain should lose. They do not say so outright, but it is clear from their attitude, and that sort of thing must necessarily cause bad blood, and it is that sort of thing which leads to an incident such as that to which the hon. member for Beaufort-West referred. Not that I approve of it.

You encourage it.

No, I disapprove of it. But I want to ask hon. members over there to show a little more respect for those who are prepared to sacrifice their lives for their country; if they did so, it would help to improve the position. If hon. members were in future to refrain from using insulting language, or language which gives the impression that they want to encourage the enemy, that they want to discourage us, it would help a lot to maintain peace and order. But if they do not do so, then feelings are bound to be stirred up and incidents of that kind will arise. For that reason I want to make an appeal to hon. members opposite to realise that we have decided here to carry on with the war, and that we are going on with it. Let hon. members leave us alone and keep quiet, and let them ask their supporters to do so too, then there will be no trouble.

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) has just stated that he intends following the Prime Minister to hell. I do not want to be a prophet — I have never yet tried to pose as a prophet, but I only want to tell the hon. member for Vereeniging, that after what he has said, I am quite convinced what his future is going to be. The hon. member for Vereeniging asked what lay at the root of all this evil and all this bitterness. I shall tell him what is one of the roots of the evil — one of the roots of the evil are these double salaried armchair heroes whom we have been listening to this afternoon. What was the speech of the hon. member for Vereeniging but a justification of what is taking place? He did not say one word of disapproval of the cowardly attack made on the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw).

On a point of explanation, I stated clearly that I disapproved of those things, but I asked hon. members opposite to moderate their language.

He disapproved of it, but in different words in the same breath he condoned it. He says that if a member of Parliament gets up and says things which he regards it his duty to say, then he must expect that kind of attack. The speech which the hon. member made here a few days ago, and other speeches by members on that side of the House — such as, for instance, by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell), are the cause of all this bitterness. That hon. member some time ago, as reported in the Press, urged the Prime Minister that such institutions as the Potchefstroom University College should be closed down. Why? Because it is an Afrikaans institution, and because they are trying to make the Afrikaans spirit prevail there. For no other reason. The Prime Minister’s refusal to put a stop to these things which are taking place in the streets here during the so-called prayer pause — which can have no object but to stir up the feelings of a section of the population — is the cause of the bitterness which prevails to-day. The Prime Minister allows things to take place which cause friction between the two sections. There is only one way of removing this bitterness, and that is to stop things which must cause friction between Afrikaans and English-speaking people. At the present time an idea is taking hold of the Afrikaans-speaking people throughout South Africa — that it is useless for the Afrikaans-speaking section to expect protection from this Government. What has the Government done to protect the Afrikaners against the troops of the Minister of Defence? Nothing at all. Let us study the things that have been done by the military forces. The disturbance here in Adderley Street during the prayer pause was started by the troops. I myself saw what occurred. A certain individual happened to be walking along the street during the pause — which he was fully entitled to do. He walked along from the Standard Bank to the front of Fletcher & Cartwrights. Some 60 to 65 men belonging to the forces arrived there at five minutes to twelve, armed with rifles, and took up their positions in the middle of the street. They were kept in order until the end of the pause. I noticed that there were three officers with them, but immediately the pause was over those 65 soldiers with the greatest show of bravery rushed at this one man because he had walked along during the pause, and they assaulted and hurt him. Of course, the Prime Minister knows nothing about it, as appeared from the answer which he vouchsafed to the question put to him. His reply was incorrect from beginning to end. I want to tell the Prime Minister that when he answers questions, he should at least find out which official it is who is telling such lies about what is taking place. That kind of incident and the lack of protection so far as Afrikaners are concerned, makes those people feel that there is no protection for them, and those people are stirred up by people like the hon. member for Kensington and the hon. member for Vereeniging. The hon. member for Vereeniging says that he disapproves of these things, but in the meantime they suggest that the Government should take further steps against the Afrikaans-speaking section of the community. Let us, for example, take the Potchefstroom incident. Would that have happened if it had been the Rhodes University College, or some other English University College? The attack was made by a riotous, undisciplined lot of soldiers, simply because it was an Afrikaans institution. Take the case of the Werda Club in Johannesburg. It is a dance club which has nothing to do with politics, but simply because it is an Afrikaner club it was attacked. A cowardly attack was made on the Werda Club by soldiers for no other reason than that Afrikaners met together there.

No.

Then why was it done?

You do not represent all the Afrikaners.

The Minister denies that it was done because it was an Afrikaner club. Will he tell us then why that place was attacked? He does not know what to say now. The other day I was travelling by train with another member of this House. A crowd of soldiers came in who knew him —they did not know me. When he entered the dining room he had to pass a barrage of curses and other remarks before he could get to his table in the dining room, and those are the heroes who fight for democracy, or as the Prime Minister puts it, for the liberty of the individual.

Children of the Cross.

They make attacks on people and they behave in a riotous manner. They are unable to maintain order in their own lives and they are the cause of there being so much bitterness in this country to-day. The cause is to be found in the inciting attitude of hon. members opposite, of hon. members like the hon. member for Kensington and the hon. member for Vereeniging, and the main cause is the Prime Minister because he refuses to take steps against those people, and because he refuses to express his disapproval of the attitude adopted by the troops. In this Bill the Minister now wants to make regulations for the maintenance of the security of the public and for the maintenance of public order. If we look at the four or five nasty incidents which have occurred in South Africa we find that in each of those instances it was the soldiers who started the trouble and not the public. Let us cast our minds back to the two days when the Australian troops were in Cape Town, when they did things in Cape Town such as you, Mr. Speaker, would not allow me to discuss, if I tried to do so. They made a mess of Cape Town. They turned our streets into brothels, and no steps were taken to protect the public of Cape Town against the things which they had to listen to, to behold and to endure. If one takes the way in which people have been knocked about in Adderley Street during the prayer pause, we find that it is the soldiers of the Minister of Defence who have started all the trouble. If one goes to Potchefstroom where one of the greatest riots we have ever had in this country of late years has occurred, we find that it was the soldiers who were the cause. If one looks at the attacks that were made on the Werda Club, one finds again that it was the soldiers who were the cause. If one looks at the attacks that were made on a newspaper office in Cape Town, one finds that it was the soldiers who stirred up the people to make this attack, after a speech or speeches by Government supporters in the City Hall when certain remarks were made about the particular paper. Those bands were led by soldiers. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has made repeated reference to me in the course of his speech. Perhaps it is just as well that I should reply briefly to what he has said. Now whatever political side one sits on, and in this country whatever view one takes, we all surely agree on this, that some of the occurrences which have taken place in South Africa in the last three months are nothing but deplorable.

Much worse than deplorable.

And that we owe a duty to the people of South Africa to give a lead in the direction of moderation, peace, order and quietness, rather than a lead in the other direction.

You had better go and tell that to your soldiers.

I hope that anything I may say will have that effect. I have been attacked by the hon. member for Humansdorp for a certain suggestion I made two or three months ago, in reference to the University of Potchefstroom. Surely the hon. member must know that the recent occurrences at Potchefstroom are the subject of a Commission of Enquiry.

They should have been the subject of a court martial.

Yes, we know what the result of that enquiry is going to be.

Another whitewashing enquiry.

May I be allowed to reply without all these interruptions?

Order, order!

Although the rules of this House in regard to pending cases apply only to judicial proceedings we would have thought that hon. members opposite would have shewn at least this amount of restraint, that they would have waited for the result of that commission before getting up and making ex-parte charges against the soldiers at Potchefstroom. I could repeat some of the evidence given at that enquiry as a tu quoque argument. Now when I made that reference to the Potchefstroom University two months ago, what was the position? The position was that a certain student at the Pretoria University had been interned. We must assume that he was interned for a good reason. Immediately that took place the students at the Pretoria University commenced to run riot. They held an informal meeting of protest and were going to hold a great formal meeting of protest, but the Rector warned them that they were running counter to the Government and to the Government’s policy and advised them to keep quiet, and they took that advice and did not hold the meeting. A few days later, however, the students of the Potchefstroom University College, as a body, held a meeting in which they directly defied the Government’s war policy. They shewed that the institution as a body was totally antiGovernment and against the Government’s war policy.

Hear, hear!

And they made it clear that they were prepared to defy the Government. Well, now, in those circumstances, speaking purely as a private member—and I am only a private member—I expressed the opinion that that college should be closed, and had that advice been followed the regrettable incidents of a month ago would not have occurred.

But you wanted them to occur.

What I ask hon. members is, when they do get up and speak about incidents to remember that these incidents do not happen on the one side only. The other day the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) spoke in terms of passionate indignation about some incidents which he said had happened in regard to the midday pause in Cape Town. No one can regret these incidents more than I do.

What do you regret?

I could understand the indignation which he felt, but those incidents do not happen on the one side only. Did he read his paper on Saturday, and did he read that there was an organised demonstration deliberately intended to wound the feelings of the people of Port Elizabeth — did he read that people there demonstrated up and down looking for trouble?

It was the others who looked for trouble.

Well, if people look for trouble, trouble will come.

Why not stop the pause?

Why not show some sense of proportion? I do not deny that incidents have happened, incidents which have caused pain. There have been some incidents which have caused us pain. The hon. member referred to the Werda Club. With a display of simulated ignorance the hon. member said that that club was closed because it was an Afrikaner club. The manner in which that club insulted and repeatedly insulted soldiers ….

They were not insulted — they broke into the club.

Why should the soldiers of South Africa be insulted?

They broke into the club.

It was the soldiers who insulted the other people.

The soldiers caused the trouble.

Order, order! I want to warn hon. members that if they do not observe my ruling I shall have to use more stringent measures.

The other day it was announced that a dance was being held at the Normal College, Pretoria, a Government institution run with Government money, and it was announced simultaneously that no soldier in uniform would be allowed to attend that dance.

Hear, hear!

A gross insult to the South African Army, and the Education Department of the Transvaal had to intervene and say: “No soldiers, no dance.”

Did you want a free fight?

What are we coming to? Hon. members get up here and pretend that gross insults have come only from the side of the soldiers of South Africa. I say that the soldiers of South Africa have been patient and forbearing.

It is the Afrikaners who have been patient.

The soldiers have caused all the trouble.

There are towns in this country where it is notorious that a soldier by himself, or even in pairs, cannot walk about without being insulted, or even assaulted.

Nonsense!

Fairy tales.

And if these assaults lead to retaliation we regret it, but we are not surprised.

Of course you are not.

Will the hon. member please allow me to proceed? All I can say is this, that hon. members opposite will not give a lead in the direction of calming the people.

Why do you not do it?

I have never said a word on this subject before, and I now stand on my feet in order to express the hope that these incidents will not recur.

Why do you not go and address the soldiers?

Had I had my way, knowing the state of feeling in this country, knowing how bitterly people are divided on the war issue, I would not have instituted such institutions as the midday pause.

Tell the Mayor of Cape Town.

Because they are only appropriate in a country where feeling is united, but in a country where feeling is divided as it is in South Africa, things like that are apt to lead to trouble. I say that at once, and if I had any influence I would try and stop the extension of such an institution to my own town. But do let me ask hon. members to be fair and try not to get up and talk as if these were one-sided unprovoked attacks by one section of the people. We know that there are faults on both sides, and let us as representatives of the people, give a lead in the right direction.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell), who has just sat down, told us that he had not yet spoken on this Bill. We know that, but we also know that he was prevented from speaking on it, because the Whips of his party asked him rather to leave the House.

That is not true.

I accept his word but I want to say this to him: he will not deny that he sat there all the time and that he made notes. We know the hon. member for Kensington. He is one of the biggest fire eaters the House has ever seen, and if he can do anything to hurt the Afrikaner he will not refrain from doing so. His whole past has shewn us that. It is perfectly clear that hon. members opposite can only see justice on the one side. They can only see justice in their point of view, and the soldiers can do what they like to hurt our side. The rt. hon. the Prime Minister will remember that on the 4th September last year I begged of him and prayed of him with all my heart and soul to keep this country out of the war. I predicted to him what the future was going to bring us if this war motion was put through, and I think he will have to admit that I was right. I said to him: “General, I can see what is going to happen in the future. Must our country go through all this?” And what I foresaw in those days has come to pass. Can we be in a state of greater misery, greater hatred, malice and dissension than we are in to-day?

Who is responsible for that?

The people who have plunged our country into war against the wish of the public. The rt. hon. the Prime Minister will remember that about three months ago when I saw the way things were going in this country I took my car and came straight to him as Prime Minister in Pretoria. I was gratified that he received me, and when I met him I said to him that I wanted to talk straight out to him. I spoke to him as an old colleague and as a friend, and I spoke to him as man to man. He will admit that I said to him that the attitude adopted by the Government to intern Union burghers holus-bolus was creating more bitterness and more ill-feeling in the country than he could possibly imagine. He replied that he was only interning people if he had affidavits against them. I then told him that nine out of every ten of those affidavits were false, and I mentioned two specific instances of highly placed officials in the Government service who had been interned. After that those two officials were released because it was found that those affidavits were false. I pleaded with the rt. hon. the Prime Minister and I said this to him: General, you have plunged this country into war, and how can you possibly carry on this war with a people who are divided? And what is going on in the country now? We had a statement made here this afternoon by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) who in all innocence got on to a train and was molested on that train. If it had not been for the fact that he had been able to take precautions he might have been killed. And I now ask the Prime Minister this—I say, these are your soldiers, you are in command of those soldiers, do you realise the great responsibility resting on your shoulders? Has the Commander-in-Chief ever issued a word of warning to the officers to tell them that they must see to it that law and order are maintained in the country?

Yes, such a warning has been issued.

I do not intend taking any notice of that hon. member. He is a nonentity and I am adressing my remarks to the Prime Minister.

On a point of order: Is an hon. member entitled to call another member a nonentity?

If my hon. friend does not know what the word means I would advise him to find out what it means.. Has any warning ever been given by the Prime Minister? Has he ever instructed his officers that they must maintain law and order? Has that side of the House the right to expect that we on this side who from the very start have opposed the Government’s war policy, should now keep quiet and be prevented from speaking? No, we have the right to express our views before this House and before the public. The rt. hon. the Prime Minister knows that since he declared war no Opposition has ever behaved itself so quietly and peacefully throughout the country as the present Opposition has done. For the first six months after the declaration of war everyone of us asked our constituents to remain quiet and peaceful. The Government thereupon proceeded to call up the rifles, and I went out of my way to tell the people that they must hand in their rifles. Hardly had we been disarmed when we found that the Government and the Government Party reckoned that we were afraid, and for that reason they wanted to keep us quiet, with the result that we were continually being provoked. We thereupon protested, and what did we get? Did the Government take any steps when we were being provoked, when the Afrikaner people were being provoked by the happenings in Adderley Street and in Potchefstroom? What did the Government do? When the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) after the incidents here in Cape Town, sent a telegram to the Prime Minister, as it was his duty to do, to ask for the necessary protection, did the Prime Minister afford that protection? No, he indirectly justified the incidents. That is why we are finding that throughout this country people are trying to trample on the Afrikaner. And we have had another instance here of what is going on in what happened to my hon. friend (Mr. Louw). I say this to the Prime Minister: he has disarmed us and now he is saying “Sa” to his jingoes. I for my part want to say to him that I have a revolver in my pocket and as true as I am here I shall shoot the man who arrests me. I shall not interfere with anyone, but they must leave me alone. The Government Party and the Government troops are busy provoking us. If the Prime Minister is really in earnest in his desire to protect the public against this sort of thing, if he means to do the right thing by the public, then I want to ask him to take steps, and I want to tell him that it is high time he took such steps. [Time limit.]

I had no intention of joining in this debate, but I do think that much as I and anyone deprecates the incidents which have taken place in various parts of the country, hon. members opposite seem to take it for granted that we think that these incidents are correct and are justified. I have heard no one on this side of the House say anything of the kind, but I do want to draw attention to the fact that the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) was guilty of a few little inaccuracies in his remarks. In the first place he said he was present on a certain Saturday when sixty or more soldiers attacked a certain man. I would like him to assure me that at that time he was not in the Standard Bar. If he says so I shall accept his assurance.

If I was in the Standard Bar it would be a different matter than if the hon. member who is now speaking was there.

I just want to know if you were present. I accept the hon. member’s statement that he was present.

You will have to. You would be out of order if you did not accept it.

Now the hon. member is sweet and not so sour, and on this occasion he may actually be correct—well, I have to accept his statement. But I want to point out that he did the Government an injustice when he said that all these incidents went unpunished.

Of course they went unpunished.

There was the one occasion when a soldier attacked someone else, and he was severely punished by the magistrate.

That was not the occasion I referred to.

A soldier attacked someone with a bayonet and he was not punished.

The police have as far as possible defended all the people in every case where they have been attacked, and action has been taken in certain instances where it could be done. We all deprecate that kind of thing and we do not agree with it. But the hon. member also made some very disparaging remarks about the Australian troops. We know that a few of them behaved in a way which was wrong; they certainly did some things they should not have done, but I was in town during that time and I certainly did not see anything that could be called disgusting, nor any such disgusting incidents as described by hon. members.

That is why you did not want to see them.

The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) blamed the Prime Minister and said that people were being interned here holus-bolus. He apparently does not understand the meaning of the word.

Better than you do.

We have the figures of the total numbers here. The total number of South African citizens interned is 47, and only a very small proportion of those are South African-born; the others are naturalised Germans.

Are they not entitled to justice?

Why make sweeping statements which hon. members must know have no foundation in fact? I am sorry that hon. members should go to these extremes, because people who read the reports may take it for granted that there is a modicum of truth in the statements. I want to appeal to hon. members opposite. I know that feelings are running high, but let us get a proper perspective and do not let us take it for granted that every member on this side of the House encourages hooligan attacks on private citizens.

It ill becomes the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) to get up here and to reproach us for what has happened. I want to repeat here that I am of opinion that what happened at Potchefstroom is due to the attitude of the hon. member for Kensington. He suggested that that institution should be closed down and that we should have martial law, and now he comes here and reproaches us.

On a point of order, these are most amazing statements. When and where did I say that we must have conscription in this country?

That is not a point of order.

Anyhow, it is quite untrue.

Then the hon. member should blame the Rand Daily Mail. And he should not feel so hurt when he is made to realise that he has again committed one of his bloomers. Let me tell him that when the people in my constituency heard of the way the Australian troops had behaved here in Adderley Street some of my friends asked me whether it was not correct that the hon. member for Kensington also hailed from Australia, and I had to tell them that that was so, that he did come from Australia. We have not had a single member on the Government benches expressing regret at what has taken place in the country, If they were to express regret it would be very much better and we would find that fewer of these incidents would occur. We have now had the incident concerning the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). That insult is inflicted on an Afrikaner — and then they want the Afrikaner to bear these things patiently. Let me put this question to the right hon. the Prime Minister: What is the object which the Government and its supporters have in mind; where do they want to drive the Afrikaner? Are we to go about armed? That is the way things are going. We come into public places and if we do not like everything they do, and if we do not like their singing “Rule Brittania” or “There’ll always be an England”0 or if we fail to stand up, we are insulted in the most shocking manner. I ask the Prime Minister to make an effort to maintain law and order in the country and to protect our freedom. We are expected to take part in things which we do not feel anything for. I want to assure the Prime Minister that we on our part try to do everything in our power to maintain law and order, because we realise that things cannot be allowed to continue as they are doing in this country, but what protection do we get from the Government? It really looks as if everything is aimed against the Afrikaner, that everything is done against the Afrikaner, both by the Government and its supporters. I also wish to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood). He speaks here and then runs away. He used very fine language. He said that he would be prepared to go to Hell if the Prime Minister sent him there. It is not the wish of anyone on our side that he should go there. All we want is that he should go to the front, and he will find that it is quite hot enough for him there. He should not just encourage other people to go there. I want to avail myself of this opportunity, where the Prime Minister is asking for further powers, to express my thanks to those magistrates who have treated our burghers fairly in connection with their rifles. There are some of them who have done so, and if the Prime Minister is now asking these further powers and as he is placing those powers in the hands of other people, perhaps even in the hands of a first-grade or second-grade clerk, I want to express the hope that the Prime Minister will use his discretion and place those powers in the hands of people who realise their responsibility, and of people who are not animated by a spirit of persecution against the Afrikaner.

I am also one of those like all hon. members on this side who say that we regret all the incidents that have taken place in this country, as any proper and right-minded citizen should. But I think I should make known to the House, and to the country, what has happened to the Women’s Auxiliary Air Force in camp in Pretoria, and to the girls who are now active members of the Defence Force in that capacity, because I want to show the House that so far from it being a one-sided matter, this attack here was a completely unprovoked one. The girls had done absolutely nothing; of that I can give the House my own personal assurance. They did not do anything whatever. I want to tell hon. members what happened. Let me take the incident of the girls who were attacked in a military lorry. They were proceeding towards evening to the Premier Mine. There were four or five other lorries in the convoy, and a most peculiar thing happened. They were not driving themselves, they were being driven by a man on this occasion.

A boy friend.

He hung behind the other convoy in the most peculiar manner. It was not quite dark at the time, but he kept flashing his light off and on and he kept stopping, until he had reached the stage when he was well behind the other lorries, and then, and not until then, a rain of stones fell on the lorry and smashed the windscreen to pieces. It was a well-planned attack.

Was the driver behind the windscreen?

The other occurrence was in the camp itself. Some of the new buildings were near the fence. I was taken over it myself. There again there was a rain of stones on the building and every pane of glass was broken, and there were actually holes in the walls. This is a new kind of building, and they are not made of brick, but of some heat-resisting composition, and there were holes of a considerable size in the composition.

What happened to the driver of the lorry?

I cannot say that at the moment; the whole thing is being investigated, but I am quite sure that hon. members on this side of the House deplore such happenings. I do not believe there is any hon. member, over there who does not feel very sorry that such a thing should have taken place. Is not that the attitude of everyone of us?

When did that happen?

It happened in the Women’s Auxiliary Air Force camp about four days before I came to this session, about the 19th or 20th August. There is no exaggeration. I was asked to come over and see for myself. I do deplore the occurrences at Potchefstroom very much, but I am convinced in my own mind that what happened there was not unprovoked.

Was it justified?

I think that for nine months the soldiers had to put up with a great many insults.

Nonsense!

I know that as a fact, because I have many relatives there, but that is not the point. I want to say that I do deplore these things, and it is our duty as leaders of this nation not to incite these people, but if we can, see that they are calm and prevent these things. Please do not think that it is only the one side which does these things — I think hon. members will agree that to attack women in an unprovoked manner is extremely cowardly.

Who did it?

The question is being investigated, but I cannot say anything more about it. I say again, however, that it is our duty as leaders of the nation to keep the people as calm as we can.

In reply to what the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. L. A. B. Reitz) has said, I just want to remark that she has not produced the slightest bit of evidence to show that the incident to which she referred was an incident in which supporters of this side of the House were involved. But we on this side of the House have mentioned a large number of incidents of provocation and assaults and we have indicated the people who have been responsible, namely, the soldiers of the Minister of Defence. The hon. member has not produced any evidence, and that being so, what right has she to make any insinuations against this side of the House? She wanted to create the impression that the driver of that bus was an accomplice in this assault which took place, and that he was part of the plot. It is an extraordinary thing that the first stone should have hit the windscreen behind which the driver was sitting. But we get a confession now from the other side. They do not want these things either, they regret them. And now I want to ask this — have they ever done anything to put an end to those things? The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) got up here and openly admitted that the prayer pause was one of the main causes of the unrest and riots in the streets. Now I want to quote what the hon. member for Cape Eastern stated in connection with these matters in a speech at the meeting of the National Council of Women—

I ask the Prime Minister to use his influence and I ask the hon. members for Kensington and Parktown to use their influence to remove the cause of these riots. The hon. member for Kensington spoke very sweetly and quietly in this House this morning because he is on the run. He, as a lawyer, finds it impossible any longer to contravert the evidence which has been produced by us, but when he stands on a political platform outside he talks about a welter of blood.

In what connection did I say that?

You said that in connection with our republican aims. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) and other hon. members now say that we in South Africa should no longer be allowed to advocate the establishment of a republic. We are no longer to be allowed to use our free constitutional rights to plead for a free kind of Government which to our mind is the right type for South Africa, because if if we do so we are threatened with a welter of blood. I only want to point out what the Prime Minister is doing. The hon. member for Kensington stated that the riots at Potchefstroom started as a result of the internment of a student. That student was released again afterwards. We can mention numerous instances of people who have been prosecuted as the result of false and per-jurious charges, and who have been put into camps. Can the Prime Minister expect this sort of thing to create a state of mind which will tend to promote peace and order in this country? The Prime Minister himself in his speech in the City Hall in Cape Town admitted that mistakes were being made. The Prime Minister has made many serious mistakes which have led to riots and to the stirring up of the feelings of the people, and one of the things which have led to these troubles has been the commandeering of rifles of the burghers. People have been illegally put into gaol. Does he expect peace and order to be maintained under those conditions? Since the 4th September we have gone from platform to platform and in hundreds of speeches we have advised the people outside to remain quiet and to maintain peace and order. Will the Prime Minister tell us when the other side of the House have ever made such attempts to keep people quiet? People are stealthily allowed to carry on their provocative actions against the Afrikaans-speaking section, and the Prime Minister does nothing to stop it. I support the amendment for the deletion of this part of the clause; the whole Bill is unnecessary. Is the Prime Minister so weak? He has his laws and we have our courts to preserve law and order. But that is not the course which they pursue; the Prime Minister is now asking this House to pass a law to give him a complete indemnity. Is he so weak in spite of all the powers which he already possesses? Does the Prime Minister still want to say that this is not just as severe as martial law? Martial law is being introduced here under the guise of a Bill. This is the worst form of martial law one could ever get. The Prime Minister comes and by means of legislation wants to cut out the courts of the country and wants to introduce martial law. He can do anything under this Bill, and there will be no need for him to come and ask for an indemnity from Parliament. We shall continue trying to maintain law and order in the country, but the Prime Minister must see to it that a stop is put to the provocation of our people. Failing that, he will be responsible for the consequences. At the end of last session I told the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice that they must exercise control over themselves and over their supporters, and that if they did not do so worse things would happen. If the Prime Minister sends his red-tab soldiers to the front and does not allow them to loaf about here those things will not happen, and honourable citizens will not be provoked. During the past twelve months a picnic process has been going on in South Africa for which the taxpayers have had to pay. We should put an end to that. If a farmer makes a dam and he shuts off the run off, the water has to go over the dam wall when the rains come and everything is washed away. I say to the Prime Minister in connection with these matters that his safety valve lies in sending away these red-tabbed people to go and fight. That is the safety valve, and then there will be no more incidents of this kind.

I should like to say a few words in reply to the remarks made by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy). He said that the declaration of war was the cause of bitterness which is prevailing to-day between the two sections of the population. Now I want to remind the hon. member for Vredefort and other members who used to belong to the United Party, that a few years ago when the great ox-wagon trek took place there was just as much bitterness, so much so that their leader — the then Prime Minister — was unable to go to attend the laying of the corner stone of the monument. I am afraid that Keerom Street has laid down a policy that there was to be no co-operation between the two sections.

Do you say that the oxwagon trek was responsible for the bitterness?

There we have one of these party political advocates, unable to earn his living at his profession, who has gone into politics to make his living out of politics.

Is an hon. member entitled to make a remark like that about another member of this House?

I said clearly ….

On a point of order, may I on a point of personal explanation say that the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) is saying things which are lies, and he knows that what he said is a lie.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) must withdraw that.

On a point of order, should not the member who has told the untruth withdraw it?

I have asked the hon. member for Moorreesburg to withdraw what he said. At the present moment there is only the one question before the House.

Because you tell me to do so, Mr. Chairman, and to keep within the Rules of the House, I shall alter what I said by putting it this way, that the hon. member spoke an untruth.

On a point of order, should not the hon. member who has expressed an untruth withdraw that untruth?

What is the point of order?

My point is that the hon. member for Kimberley (District) has said something about the hon. member for Moorreesburg which is an untruth. The hon. member for Moorreesburg now says that it is untrue, and I now ask you whether the hon. member for Kimberley (District) can be allowed to proclaim an untruth about another member without being called upon to withdraw if it is pointed out that it is an untruth? If an hon. member is allowed to proclaim such an untruth then I can be allowed to give expression to any untruth.

The hon. member must not repeat it.

Is the position then that one is allowed to proclaim an untruth once but one is not allowed to repeat it? Is that what your ruling amounts to?

I was speaking and while I am speaking the hon. member must resume his seat.

I was still busy addressing the Committee.

I must ask the hon. member to resume his seat. The practice is that when a member denies the accuracy of a statement affecting him personally, the member making the statement should not repeat it in the course of the debate.

But I object to a ruling of that kind, with all due deference to you, Mr. Chairman. The ruling is that certain things can be said once, but they may not be repeated. If it is something which may not be repeated then it should not be allowed to be said the first time either. With all due deference to you I should like you to consider this matter further.

I have given my ruling. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) may proceed.

Then I move—

My point is whether an hon. member is allowed to say something which the rules of the House do not allow him to say, but that he is only not allowed to repeat it. On that point I want to ask Mr. Speaker’s ruling. Your ruling, Mr. Chairman, was that the hon. member for Kimberley (District) had said something which the Standing Rules and Orders did not allow him to say.

I did not say that.

Your ruling was that you had asked the hon. member not to repeat it, but he was allowed to say it the first time, and he need not withdraw it. On that point I should like to have Mr. Speaker’s ruling.

I understand the position to be that the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) said something which the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) said was untrue. But in place of saying it was untrue the hon. member for Moorreesburg said: “It is a lie, and the hon. member knew that it was a lie.” That is offensive. He is entitled to deny what has been said but for the sake of courtesy he is not allowed under our Standing Rules to say, “It is a lie and the hon. member knew it was a lie.” All he can say is that it was untrue.

That is not the point. I changed that and I said that it was untrue.

The hon. member withdrew his words.

No.

Motion put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—55:

Badenhorst, A. L.

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman. F. H.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fullard. G. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg. J. L. V.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Theron. P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Noes—74:

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.

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.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

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.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Motion accordingly negatived.

I said that I was going to answer the remarks made by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy), who stated that the declaration of war had been the cause of the bitterness between the two sections. I contend that that is not so, and I reminded hon. members that at the time of the ox-wagon trek and on the occasion of the corner stone laying of the monument near Pretoria, the Leader of the Opposition was unable to go to Pretoria. He did not feel that he could do so, because the then Opposition had said that he was a traitor. Hon. members over there are the cause of the bitterness. When I commenced my speech just now the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) interrupted me and asked whether I wanted it to be understood that the ox-wagon trek was the cause of the bitterness. If in reply to that I said something which hurt him, I shall withdraw that. I am not here to hurt the feelings of other members, but what I felt was this. He is a barrister, and I am a farmer. I say that the bitterness is caused by the hon. member and by others who by their actions in the party political arena create bad feeling. It is those lawyers who put a question like the hon. member did, and if I had answered that the ox-wagon trek had been the cause of the bitterness, then I know how a statement like that would have been exploited against me throughout the country as an Afrikaans-speaking member. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) and the Leader of the Opposition have had experience of that sort of thing for six years.

What has that to do with it?

It has a lot to do with it. The cause of the bitterness is that Keerom Street has laid down the policy that there is to be no co-operation, and the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition is the chief of Keerom Street. They do not want any co-operation between Dutch-speaking and English-speaking. Now they come here and they say that the declaration of war was the cause of the bitterness. They say that they warned the Prime Minister that that would be the result if he plunged the country into war. I say that if we had remained neutral the bitterness would have been ten times worse than it is to-day. What wrong has the Prime Minister done? Has one single man been commandeered? Has one single penny been sent to England for war purposes? What we are doing is this: we are carrying out the proposal which the Leader of the Opposition put before this House, namely, to put the country in a state of defence. They said that that was their object too. But I want to tell hon. members opposite that they are now doing a great harm to the country, and if harm is done to the country, I shall suffer and all of them will suffer. Let us always remember that. We have heard talk of what has been happening recently. Any right-minded Afrikaner will deprecate the attacks that have taken place, nobody wants that sort of thing. I am sorry the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) has been assaulted.

[Interruptions.]

I must ask the hon. member not to interject so often.

I am very sorry, because the hon. member for Beaufort West has my sympathy, but I want to ask him whether he remembers that he is the man who at his meetings stated that Afrikaners should turn their backs on other Afrikaners who supported our side. If he stirs up people in that way, cannot he see what is going to be the effect of it? I am the last man in the world to want to make threats, and I want to ask the hon. member to go back to Merweville and to go and say to the Afrikaners there: “Look here, there is an honest difference of opinion between us, and we must meet each other and try to understand each other. We should not turn our backs on our fellow-Afrikaners.” I deprecate the attacks made by the one section on the other, but at the same time we must realise this. If I attend a meeting where there are a large number of Afrikaans-speaking people and they sing “Die Stem van Suid-Afrika”, the people there respect that song. At many places where they sing the English National Anthem, they are insulted and held up to contumely and contempt. I want to make an appeal to my friends opposite. Do not let us set the veld ablaze for the sake of party politics. We have to live together in this country. Nobody can mention any instance to me of English-speaking people having insulted anyone when “Die Stem van Suid-Afrika” has been sung.

What!

I have not yet come across an instance of that kind. The English-speaking people have a deep feeling for their National Anthem, and I ask my hon. friends opposite to respect the sentiments of those people when their National Anthem is sung. I got up here to say these few words, and I want to make an appeal to my hon. friends opposite. We have to live together in this country, and we must co-operate and we must not for the sake of party politics create bitterness and hatred.

One of the most astounding arguments used in the course of this debate is this one: All the troubles which have arisen in this country and which unfortunately have also been turned into a feeling of enmity of the one race against the other have to be attributed to this side of the House because the war was declared with the approval of the House and because we did not keep quiet, but tried to insist on South Africa getting out of the war. That is one of the most astounding arguments imaginable. It is being demanded of us that we as an Opposition should obliterate ourselves in order to maintain the peace between the one section and the other. We are asked to pay the price of peace and co-operation, and the price we have to pay is that we are to stop giving expression to our convictions and we are to stop doing what, to our minds, is in the interest of the country. No, if that is what is demanded of us, then I tell the Prime Minister that that is not going to be done; we are not going to pay that price. We are not only entitled as part of the Afrikaner people, but under the democratic system under which we live it is our right to take up the attitude which we have done. But it is the Government’s duty, especially under the conditions which we have in this country to-day, in view of the fact that war was declared under the conditions prevailing here, with the people bitterly divided as a result of the Government’s action, whatever its views may have been — it is the Government’s duty to see that the rights of every section of the community are properly protected, and that is what we demand from this Government, but that is where the Government is falling so woefully short in its duty. An hon. member opposite, I think it was the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell), made an appeal to this House and said that the leaders should give the lead to the public. I tried to give that lead at the time when these things started, especially here in Cape Town, apparently as a result of the wrong, of the injustice which was done here as a result of the curtailment of the rights and liberties of that section of the population which does not agree with the Government, when attacks were made on members of the public in the streets—I gave a lead then and I asked the Prime Minister in all fairness to remove the cause of all these difficulties. The Prime Minister need only have said one word and it would have stopped. I asked him to put an end to this midday pause. In Cape Town it was being abused because it had been turned into a political demonstration and nothing more, resulting in public roads and streets being monopolised and attacks being made on people who were acting within their rights. And worst of all, this prayer pause was turned into nothing but hypocrisy and hypocritical displays. I do not want to detract from the earnestness of some people who take part in this pause. But the great majority of the people taking part in it have turned it into nothing short of hypocritical display. I tried to give a lead—and how did the Prime Minister react? He not only refused to do anything but he stirred up people to further acts and his reply was nothing but a gross insult not only to me but to Afrikanerdom. I want to say this further, that the way in which the people are carrying on now without a word of disapproval coming from the Prime Minister—some hon. members opposite may express their disapproval but that disapproval is a kind of weak watered down disapproval always ending up with a, “But …. ” I say that what is happening here now is happening without any authoritative disapproval being expressed by the Prime Minister. So far he has not yet said a word of disapproval; he has not moved a finger to put an end to this condition of affairs. We find that nothing short of a reign of terrorism is prevailing. We, as Afrikaners, are living under a reign of terrorism. I need not refer again to the way in which things are being done. I only want to say a few words about the way in which “God Save the King” is forced down the throats of Afrikaans-speaking people on public occasions, and also down the throats of people who do not see eye to eye with the Government’s Imperialistic attitude. Are we entitled in this country to be in favour of a republic? Is it a crime on our part to give expression to our feelings in favour of a republic? It is our right and the Prime Minister dare not deny it. If we have the right to be republicans, and if in addition to that we have the fact that the Government of the day with the approval of the present Prime Minister has clearly stated that in this House “God Save the King” is not a national song of South Africa — is it not provocative then if Afrikaners go to a bioscope or other public places and if they do not wish to render homage to England’s national anthem, and if they act consistently in accordance with their convictions, and they remain seated when “God Save the King” is played, or if they try to go out before that time in order not to cause offence—is it not provocative then if they are stopped in their seats and at the door and followed into the street where they are assaulted? Is it not irritating in the extreme and provocative that the Afrikaner has to put up with that sort of thing? And that while he is acting within his fights? And while the Government has stated that that national anthem is England’s national anthem and not ours? And now it is going even further than that. When “Rule Britannia” or “There will always be an England” are sung, they want to compel Afrikaners to stand up and if they refuse to do so they are assaulted in a disgraceful manner, and insults are hurled at them. But we have not heard a single word of disapproval. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) need not make any great sacrifices in order to try and keep people quiet. The fact is however that he and his party have indulged in a great deal of propaganda throughout the country. Of course we all deplore the trouble which has occurred in the country. We in this House and the people outside all deplore it. There is no doubt about it, propaganda of this kind which has been going on, must lead to trouble. The hon. member for Piquetberg goes rather too far in what he says. Let me refer to what the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) did. The hon. member for Boshof went to Malmesbury just before a recruiting effort was to be made there. He advised the people of Malmesbury not to attend the recruiting parade, and he also advised the young fellows there not to join the army. That naturally created bitter feeling in the minds of those who felt that their country was doing the right thing in taking part in this war. They also felt that a decision had been arrived at by a majority in Parliament and that that decision should be respected, and that people should not interfere with us in our war efforts. Now let me come to the Adderley Street pause. This pause at midday was started as the result of a large number of people in Cape Town requesting that the pause should be revived because it was customary right throughout the last war, and during the last war when the pause was held, I do not know of any incidents such as those which have recently occurred. If they did occur they certainly never came to my knowledge.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m.

I was explaining to the House that the pause in Cape Town came about as the result of a spontaneous request from the people that the pause which was observed in the last war should be observed again. Everything went on all right for the first few weeks until certain people started to disturb the pause. From that moment the trouble began. The trouble was further accentuated by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) speaking at Beaufort West, advising his supporters to organise to upset the pause in Cape Town. If that was not a deliberate attempt to create trouble where no trouble was necessary, I do not know. Nor do I know of any attempt that could be worse. As a result of that feelings here ran high and the military authorities in Cape Town through the officer commanding the Cape Command issued two orders, the first was to the effect that no troops should be allowed to leave their duties until 1 o’clock on Saturdays. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) made a statement that no orders had ever been given by the military authorities, or by the Leader of the House, to counteract the disturbances. I want to say again that the officer commanding the Cape Command definitely gave an order that no troops were to be in Adderley Street until 1 o’clock on Saturdays, because it was always on Saturdays that the trouble occurred. Then on another occasion when a recruiting meeting was to be held in Cape Town an order was given that no officers were to attend that recruiting meeting because it was anticipated that there would be trouble. That I think is a sufficient denial of the statement that nothing was done to avoid trouble.

No effective steps were taken.

The hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) referred to another incident in Cape Town where a woman went into a shop to buy cakes and demanded to be served in Afrikaans, and he said that subsequently just because she insisted on speaking Afrikaans she had a cake flung at her. There are two versions of that story.

Do you justify it?

No, not in any shape or form. But there is another version of the story which was reported to me immediately after the incident. It was this: that an Afrikaans woman walked into a cake shop and asked to be served. The person serving was very busy at the time. The woman again asked in Afrikaans to be attended to, and still she was not served, and she then said in Afrikaans: “When Hit ler copies here you will have to do your work a little faster.” The other woman then bought the cake and threw it in the woman’s face.

Now you are justifying it.

I am not justifying it. One cannot justify an action of that nature, but at the same time one cannot justify a remark of that nature if it was made. I do not say it was made, but that is the version given to us.

If you do not believe it why do you repeat it?

There are usually different versions of stories, and the hon. member for Piquetberg should verify his facts.

Have you verified your facts?

I have just as much ground for my version as the hon. member has for his. Now another thing I want to point out is this. I remember a few years ago I was a student at an American university.

Why did you not stay there?

How long ago was it?

And it was the custom that when a male student met a woman student in the university grounds he greeted her and removed his hat, and while talking to her he kept his hat in his hand until the conversation was finished. As a new student I was not aware of the custom, and as a South African I removed my hat and then replaced it and went on talking. One day, however, my hat was knocked off my head by an American student.

What has that to do with the price of pork?

The hon. member knows his own value better than anyone else. On demanding from the student who had knocked my hat off why he had done so, the reply was that I must conform to the customs of the university while I was a student there. And the moral to be drawn from that story is that people who come to Cape Town during the pause should respect the pause — the custom of the town — and if they did so there would be no trouble.

So you do justify it.

Some people go to the pause for a definite purpose, and I say that those people who do not pray can at least show respect to those who do pray.

Do you say that they pray?

I personally think that the pause should be discontinued. I am giving my own personal opinion, not that I think there is anything wrong with the pause. The people of Cape Town were justified, in view of what they felt about the position, to ask that the pause should be observed — because they wanted to pray …

Do you think it was necessary?

But if in the observance of the pause they are going to hurt the susceptibilities of hon. members opposite, and if this should lead to still further trouble then I would rather see the pause discontinued. At the same time I would appeal to hon. members, and particularly the hon. member for Beaufort West not to advise people deliberately to disturb the religious observance of the pause.

Did he do that?

Of course he did. [Time limit.]

I think the most sensible thing we have yet heard from the other side of the House has just come from the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit). He openly admitted that whatever might have been the intention of the prayer pause here in Cape Town, after the developments that have taken place and will take place in future, the time has come for the abolition of the pause to be seriously considered. I am only sorry that this sensible suggestion had to come from a back-bencher and that it did not come from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister should have been the first to have made such a statement. The hon. member again mentioned the incident which I brought to the notice of the House of a woman being assaulted because she spoke Afrikaans in a shop. I am pleased to notice that the hon. member, quite independent of myself, heard about this affair and that the fact of such a thing having happened is not being denied. He confirmed the fact that a woman, because she spoke Afrikaans in a shop, was attacked and that another woman had a cream cake thrown into her face. I am not prepared to accept the story in the way the hon. member heard it. I am not prepared to accept that as being correct without obtaining further confirmation. But let me tell the hon. member that events of that kind, even if they are in a different form, are not isolated events. Over and over one gets insults of that kind, and I want to ask the hon. member to visit shops in Cape Town accompanied by an Afrikaans-speaking person and to try to get attention in Afrikaans. He will find that he will not get far before he gets disgusting insults thrown at him from behind the counter for no other reason than that he speaks Afrikaans.

That is untrue.

I know of a case which happened only this morning, and it happened in my presence. I say that that kind of thing in normal times is not unusual in Cape Town, but it has been tremendously aggravated by the prayer pause in Cape Town and the feeling surrounding it. The hon. member speaks about organised trouble in connection with the pause. He pretends that the organised action that was taken was the first instance of its kind during the pause. That organised action which, as far as I know, was taken once, was taken after the Afrikaners had time and again been attacked in the streets of Cape Town. Now I say that no Afrikaans-speaking individual with any selfrespect will stand for his fellow-Afrikaners being treated in that manner.

Provided they behave themselves.

I want to say that if this pause is persisted with and the Afrikaners are insulted in the streets of Cape Town by the hooligans in that manner, I shall not have the slightest objection to the Afrikaners taking organised action. If the Afrikaner is assaulted in the streets in that way then surely they are entitled to take organised action. If the English-speaking people were to be assaulted in our streets in the same way, would they not organise to protect their interests? When one demands a right to take action of that kind on one’s own behalf, why should one begrudge it to the Afrikaans-speaking people? I just want to confirm what is continually happening on our trains. An Afrikaans-speaking person who is fairly well known as an opponent of the Government, and who is more or less prominent, is no longer safe on our trains to-day. The instance mentioned by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) as having happened to him, is not an isolated one. A little while ago I had to travel North; the train was full, not with soldiers but with sailors. Those sailors were not even inhabitants of this country, but they were strangers who had come to this country and who travelled on our trains. But the incident was typical of what happens in connection with our soldiers; they carried on in such a way on the train that it was a scandal. Many of them were deeply intoxicated and they did not even stick to their own compartments, but stood about the corridors, and a woman would hardly have dared to leave her compartment. When they heard or found out that I was on the train they started cursing and swearing in a terrible manner near my compartment. I am not talking now of Afrikaans-speaking people generally, but I want to ask the Prime Minister what protection he is affording to members of this House who are doing their duty towards their constituents and who interpret the feelings of their constituents here? The Prime Minister looks after his own protection. He even packs the grounds of Parliament full of detectives who are there to protect him, and who are in constant attendance on him day and night. But what protection does he afford the members of Parliament, especially when they travel on the trains? So, far as the soldiers are concerned I must say that unfortunately the soldiers were the leaders in connection with the disturbances in the streets of Cape Town and elsewhere. I want to ask where the officers are, and where discipline is. If there is an officer in attendance who does his duty he can give them orders and put a stop to these disturbances. Surely one does expect discipline from a soldier, but in some cases they have simply been let loose on the population like barbarians. If you want the people to have respect for the Defence Force, these things should be stopped. Further, I want to say this, that if scenes such as we have beheld here in Cape Town are typical of the soldiers who are being sent to the front to fight for Christianity, then I am sure a tremendously large force will be required. I do not wish to accuse all of them because I know there are exceptions, but if we have to look upon the troops whom we have seen here as typical of the forces which are being sent away to fight the enemy, I say that you will want ten times or twenty times as many to cope with the disciplined German troops. If hon. members want the troops to be really effective, they should at least have discipline and observe law and order. To-day that is not so, and the public are losing respect for our Defence Force.

I should like to ask the hon. gentleman who has just spoken a question. He has told us of a journey which he recently performed by train when he was annoyed by the presence of drunken sailors; he said that they did not even keep in their own compartments, but swarmed along the passages and their conduct was such as to be offensive, not only to him, but to other passengers on the train. The question I would ask him is this, did he make any report of the incident, and did he make any complaint to the authorities. [Interruption.] I am adressing the hon. gentleman and putting a question to him if I may be allowed to do so, or did he keep this locked up in his own bosom until the present moment. I have seen thousands of soldiers and sailors in this country and I don’t deny that I have, on occasion, seen a few of both classes under the influence of liquor. I saw it in this war and I saw it in the last war.

Did you report it?

Do be quiet and let me address the hon. gentleman, I am trying to reply to a serious complaint made by the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan). Has a report been made? It is no use saying these things up until this House meets and then trotting them out. If this incident was sufficiently serious to merit the wrath of the hon. gentleman then surely it was sufficiently serious for him to make a complaint, giving the details so as to give the military authorities an opportunity of investigating. Now, let me return to the more general portion of the two speeches which the hon. member has made, I refer in particular to the speech he made this morning, parts of which recalled to my mind the evidence given by one of the Potchefstroom students at the inquiry which has just been proceeding there. That student was giving his views on the subject of the playing of “God Save the King” in cinemas and he said that he deliberately kept his hat on and remained seated because “God Save the King” to him represented the anthem of a foreign power and he resented very much any demonstration against him when he did that. After he had finished giving his evidence he was asked by Professor Botha: “What would you do if an English-speaking South African jammed on his hat and remained seated while ‘Die Stem’ was being played?” And the answer he gave, was: “I should go up and hit him in the jaw.” That attitude seems to me typical of the one-track mind that my hon. friends opposite possess. I am here to plead for tolerance and a fifty-fifty policy. We thrashed out this anthem question a year or eighteen months ago, and the Government of the day passed a resolution that this country has no official national anthem but that until other provision is made both “God Save the King” and “Die Stem” shall be played, and therefore, sir, we took it that in future both of these anthems were entitled to equal honour from all sections of the South African people. Now I have another question to ask the hon. member. Has he ever heard of a case where an English-speaking South African has refused to honour the playing of “Die Stem”? If so, I should be glad to hear of it, and I would condemn it unequivocally. Any English-speaking South African who did that would forfeit the respect of his fellow-citizens if he wilfully and deliberately insulted the playing of “Die Stem.” All I claim is an equal indulgence and tolerance towards the playing of “God Save the King.” I am afraid I detected in the language used by the hon. member for Piquetberg some sort of justification for the action of these young hooligans who take a delight in provoking public disorder by publicly insulting the playing of “God Save the King.” Now I say quite deliberately that anybody who in the present state of tension of public feeling deliberately wounds the susceptibilities of his fellow-citizens is looking for trouble and I shall not be surprised if he finds it. The answer to all this is as always, “fifty-fifty.” Let us respect each other’s language and traditions. I would share the indignation felt by the hon. member for Piquetberg if the Afrikaans language is insulted in any shop in Cape Town, and I would reprehend that sort of conduct in language as strong as his own, but I would also ask him to co-operate with me in recognising that this is a fifty-fifty country with two cultures, languages and traditions.

Only theoretically.

I ask him to cooperate in deprecating in the future all manifestations of this sort. Let me remind him that he was instrumental many years ago in putting on the Statute Book of this country a Flag Act, and let me remind him also that part of the cause of the disorder at Potchefstroom was an admitted and deliberate insult by the students of that college to the Union Jack, a flag, sir, which is one of the two official flags of the country. And just as you have two flags here you have two anthems. We love and respect the national flag of South Africa, and we also love and respect the Union Jack, and never, until you get a spirit of tolerance in this country, a spirit of respecting each other’s traditions, will you have peace. The speeches that have been made by my hon. friend opposite show a one-track philosophy, a feeling that only one set of traditions is to be respected, and that sort of thing will only drive the people of this country further apart and lead to great trouble. Take my own case. They are never tired of insulting me, who came as a boy to this country in the days of President Kruger; they are never tired of insulting me because of my Australian birth and suggesting that I am not a true South African—I, sir, who have children born in this country and am married to an Afrikaans woman; who have my roots deeply dug into this country. It is symptomatic of the spirit of intolerance that exists on the opposite benches and until we get a fifty-fifty policy which sees the other fellow’s point of view and tries to live with him, then God help South Africa.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) put a few questions to me which I wish to reply to. The first question he put to me is in connection with an incident on the train on which I was travelling, and he asked me why I did not report it. My reply is that I had shortly before that sent a telegram to the Prime Minister in regard to the incidents here in Adderley Street in which I brought the position to his notice, and in which I asked him to put an end to that sort of thing. I sent that telegram to him also because soldiers in uniform had taken part in the incident, in fact had taken the most prominent part. I therefore sent a telegram and the reply was not merely a refusal to do anything, but it consisted of counter charges and it was offensive. Does the hon. member imagine that it encourages one, if similar things happen over and over again before one’s eyes, to approach the Prime Minister again? I cannot turn to the Prime Minister, but I must come to Parliament. That is the reply to his question. Another question was put to me in connection with “God Save the King,” that is to say the attitude of the Afrikaans-speaking people towards “God Save the King.” The hon. member made a statement here which I am not prepared to concur with, namely, that in regard to this matter a fifty-fifty basis has been laid down in the law. I shall leave the point of our language alone. We have equal language rights. We have two official languages but both sections of the population, irrespective of the fifty-fifty basis, are entitled to their language rights. But the hon. member comes here now and also applies that to the question of the flag. He says that I am responsible for a fifty-fifty policy having been laid down by law in South Africa. I am not prepared to accept that. The Flag Act clearly lays it down that there will be only one national flag, only one flag to give expression to the South African nation’s right of existence and liberty. Only one, and that is the Union Flag. The Union Jack does not function in this regard, not at all; and now my accusation against hon. members opposite and my grievance against them, as represented by the hon. member for Kensington, is that they violate and nullify the whole object of the Flag Act. They do so by wanting to hoist the Union Jack on every occasion the Union Flag is hoisted, and by doing so they want to create the impression that there are two National Flags, two Flags in this country which have to be treated on a fifty-fifty basis. That is not so. I reject that completely. If that is going to be the attitude of hon. members opposite, it is in conflict with the spirit and letter of the Flag Act, and I shall then no longer consider myself bound in any way by the Flag Act Agreement. If the other side of the House wants to violate the spirit and the letter of the Act then I am entitled to insist on a revision of the agreement. So far as “God Save the King” is concerned, there we have the same thing. How can hon. members say that we have accepted the policy of fifty-fifty in that respect. It would mean that we would treat “God Save the King,” which is the National Anthem of another country as though it were our National Anthem’ and as though that Anthem were also able to give expression to the aspirations of patriotism so far as South Africa is concerned. That cannot be done. If hon. members want to put the two on an equal footing then I want so say this to them: they cannot compare the two.

Parliament did so eighteen months ago.

If “God Save the King” and “Die Stem” are to be treated on a footing of equality it simply means that we are granting British Imperialism full recognition in this country. I am not prepared to do that.

The hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) did so eighteen months ago.

There is only one thing which has a right of existence in South Africa and that is South African patriotism, pure and simple.

Having listened to the speech of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) and to the speech of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) it appears as if we shall have to give our serious attention to this point. The hon. member for Piquetberg told us he had given a lead in the matter. He gave a lead by telling the Prime Minister that an end should be put to the midday pause because there would otherwise be trouble. That is the kind of lead he gave. Not a lead, but a threat. The hon. member cut up rough about the Union Jack which is so contemptible to him to-day. But now we have a Union Flag with a conglomeration of colours in the centre as a result of the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Piquetberg. That same Union Jack which he has such a lot to say about now, protected him in the Boer War. “God Save the King” protected him in the Boer War and right until 1933. “God save the Whole British Empire” is the motto under which he found protection. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) told us here that he had come to the conclusion that soldiers were only loafing about with red tabs and were drinking themselves into a stupor. The soldiers he is talking about in that way are the noblest and the best of our people; they are the men who are prepared to give their lives for the defence of the country. They are not the people who crawl up the stairs of Union Buildings on their knees to look for jobs. I do not want to approve of the incidents which have occurred, but I want to ask hon. members whether they have ever studied the events which caused all the difficulties? Have they ever inquired into the trouble which occurred at Stellenbosch? Did they disapprove of the happenings there? Did they express their disapproval of the attacks that were made on the coloured people of Stellenbosch? Have they expressed their disapproval of the attitude adopted by their supporters at the so-called peace meetings where innocent people have been assaulted and almost killed?

Where did that happen?

Only the other day the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) at Bronkhorstspruit, when a man was almost killed, because he may perhaps not have been thoroughly convinced by the hon. member, remarked that he was only a khaki knight, and that he had had enough. Did hon. members express their disapproval when a band of hooligans attacked women? Have they expressed their disapproval of the bomb outrages which have taken place throughout the country? Have they expressed their disapproval of the action of their supporters at the Potchefstroom University, when they broke the leg of a citizen of this country?

You should rather keep quiet about those things.

I am just as much entitled to speak as hon. members opposite and I am not going to keep quiet. They take the right unto themselves to speak on behalf of the people because Zeesen tells them so, and they want us who represent the majority of the people to keep quiet. I refuse to do so. Did they express their disapproval of the action of a parson when he got up in church and said, “You who are not prepared to sign the false peace petition must leave the church.” Let the hon. member answer that. He is now the hero of the country.

You should really add that you are an Afrikaner. We might not know it otherwise.

That is what the Rev. Mr. Coetzee of Bloemfontein said. The trouble is that hon. members opposite have yet failed to realise the great defeat inflicted on them on the 4th September; they have not yet been able to realise that the Government is to-day constituted in a different way from what it was when they were at the head of affairs, and that they are no longer able to give a lead. Hon. members opposite have not yet been able to get over the defeat they suffered on that occasion. They even introduced a motion in this House in an effort to obtain control of the administration of the country again. So far as I am concerned I know where I stand and my conduct is not dictated by Zeesen but by South Africa. Hon. members opposite however, are unable to realise that there are other people in this country who have just as much right as they have, and while they are continually talking about Afrikanerdom, we realise that there are also “dom” (stupid) Afrikaners in South Africa. Hon. members talk about acts of violence. I want to ask them whether they happen to remember that two years ago an hon. member opposite, the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District), committed an assault on a railway official. Will the hon. member deny that? And what was the cause? The cause was that that man was doing his duty on the train. This kind of self-justification and self-glorification has been prevailing in this country for years, and let me say this: it is prevailing to such an extent that hon. members over there have even found it to have penetrated into their Caucus. The great point in connection with the incidents is that they do not arise so much from bitterness against England or the British Empire, but from the fact that hon. members on that side of the House are inspired by hatred and jealousy of the Prime Minister. They cannot get over it. That is what is wrong with hon. members opposite; their great ambition is to get into power, to trick us out of our positions on this side of the House, even by promising seats to individuals. I only want to say that we also deplore the incidents which have taken place but I want to ask who are the cause of those incidents? When one finds that resolutions are even passed at meetings, in the presence of leaders of the other side of the House, saying that people must refuse to carry out the law….

Which law?

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Genl. Kemp) is the cause of a great many people being in gaol in consequence of their having contravened the law. They did not hand in their rifles. I am sorry to have to say this because I have always respected the hon. member and I can only express the hope that he will in future develop a greater sense of responsibility.

In regard to the difficulties which we are having in this country at the moment it would have been bad enough if these troubles had been confined to the two white races in the country. But what makes it worse is that we are not only concerned with the white races, but that the coloured races are also involved. I am not concerned only with the people who plead the cause of the coloured people at Stellenbosch; I am not only concerned with the people who plead the cause of the soldiers and of the English-speaking people who have committed assaults on Afrikaans-speaking people here in Cape Town, but I want to point out that coloured people are now also getting the chance of giving expression to their feelings of hatred and malice against the farmers in this country. If we read this Bill we find that powers are being given to the Government to make regulations, inter alia, regulations for the maintenance of law and order. It really makes us smile if we look at what the Government has done so far for the maintenance of law and order. If the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) were present he would undoubtedly take offence at what I am going to say. We have had to behold scandalous scenes here in Cape Town caused by the Australian soldiers who were here and I just want to put this question to the Minister of Defence. During the last war similar scandals were enacted here by the Australian troops. Was he not taught a lesson by what happened then? If he wants to maintain law and order will he see to it that if a further shipment of these troops should come here they will be prevented from entering the streets of Cape Town? Now, in regard to the incident mentioned here by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Defence to the fact that it is not only members of Parliament who have to put up with these insults. I want to assure him that even Afrikaans-speaking ladies on the trains are treated by soldiers in a most improper manner. I hope the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. L. A. B. Reitz) will also take note of it.

Where did that happen?

On the train between Johannesburg and Cape Town. I hope the Prime Minister will take note of this, and also of the other things brought to his notice. In ordinary circumstances the Afrikaans soldier, English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking, would not behave any worse than the soldiers of any other country. Consequently I do not wish in this connection to attach any special blame to the soldiers as such. But we have extraordinary circumstances at the moment. We have two races here and all these assaults and insults such as for instance in the streets of Cape Town are due to the fact that there are two races in this country, and that the English-speaking people, through the medium of their soldiers, are now simply abusing the opportunity of giving expression to their feelings of vindictiveness and racialism. In this connection I want to say that the Prime Minister should have known it when he declared war, seeing that he had two races in this country, and seeing that he knew that at least half or more of the white population were strongly opposed to the declaration of war; he should have known what a difficulty would be created in South Africa. He has two white races here, the one of which to the extent of practically 100 per cent. is opposed to the war. The Prime Minister should have known what the result would be, and he should have known all the more what the result would be of the acts which he and his Government have committed so far. Here in the streets of Cape Town hundreds of Afrikaans-speaking people are in the streets at 12 o’clock in the afternoon and this midday pause which has been instituted has simply become an occasion for getting their own back on the Afrikaners. I travelled by train from Johannesburg to Cape Town lately, and there were a good many English-speaking people from the Cape on the train. They did not pray at 12 o’clock while they were on the train, but they drank whisky, and they talked, and they read books. But when those self same English-speaking people arrive in Cape Town they have to pray in the streets at 12 o’clock. In this House of Parliament, too, we have found that none of the members opposite pray at 12 o’clock. But outside in the streets they put up a holy face and they pray. Why? They know that there are Afrikaners in the street and they want to compel the Afrikaners with the aid of their soldiers, with the aid of natives and coloured people to do as they want them to do, and they even insult women, as has already happened. I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister realise what, if this sort of thing is allowed to continue, are going to be the eventual consequences to South Africa? Look at all the assaults which have been committed by soldiers; these are not just the type of cases which we may perhaps get in England, where a few soldiers may have drunk too much and some minor disturbances may take place. No, everyone of these assaults in South Africa are committed against Afrikaners. In Potchefstroom it was an assault on an Afrikaans institution; even the University of Pretoria had to close up long before the holidays started, because the soldiers had threatened an Afrikaans institution. Take Port Elizabeth. The Prime Minister should take notice of the fact that all these assaults are aimed against Afrikaners in South Africa by English-speaking people.

No, that is not so.

A friend of mine who was present at Potchefstroom told me that he did not hear any Afrikaans among the soldiers who made the attack, but that he only heard English.

You know that is not true.

Possibly a few Afrikaners may have strayed in among them. I have got my information from a reliable source and that information is to the effect that those soldiers did not speak Afrikaans. The people who made the attack were English-speaking. It is the English-speaking people and coloured people who are guilty of things of this kind. Now I want to put this question to the Prime Minister: Does he realise how these things eat into the soul of the Afrikaner? Does he realise the hell that is going to be created in South Africa if we allow this sort of thing to happen? Why should this midday pause take place in Adderley Street? Why not at Sea Point or some other place like that? No, it must be in the centre of Cape Town because there are a great many Afrikaners there and they must be compelled to bend their knee. I do not know whether the Prime Minister realised how insulting all this is to the Afrikaner? The Afrikaner has as much right as any other citizen has in the streets of Cape Town, but in spite of that he has to be insulted there in consequence of this hypocritical display which we have to behold at 12 o’clock every day.

Mr. Chairman, one thing emerges perfectly clear this afternoon and that is there is no idea of a fifty-fifty policy in the minds of hon. members opposite. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has already in his speeches outside done his best to antagonise the English-speaking people of this country. Those speeches have been offensive to every person born of our race. He spoke of the English being in full flight in France. He said: “They fled out of France like a lot of wet rats; they are even prepared to flee from England, to leave England for the dominions.” Does he think that language like that is going to be accepted by English-speaking people in this country without the deepest possible resentment. He knows perfectly well that such language is definitely untrue and is bound to create the greatest provocation.

Do you deny that they fled from France?

It is bound to provoke the English-speaking people in this country into taking reprisals.

Do you say it is untrue, do you deny that they fled from France?

It is untrue in the sense that the hon. member meant it, that we were leaving our Allies in the lurch and trying to clear out of France and leave both the French and the Belgians in the lurch. I have had it thrown up in my face that we were “Dunkirking.” On the contrary we have every right to be proud to be associated with any of those men who were in Dunkirk. Now the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) this afternoon tried to show that after all we have only got one flag in this country. I say again that that is a travesty of the arrangement that was made and the Act that was passed. He knows perfectly well the Act that was passed and I will read the terms of it to show that so far as a definite arrangement was made it was understood that there were going to be two flags in this country, the national flag and the Union Jack. The Act says—

Then the Act describes where the flags shall be flown.

The use of the word in one case is restricted, in the other it is unrestricted and that makes a difference.

It clearly shows that the arrangement that was made and which was accepted by both sections of the population was that there should be these two flags, the Union Jack and the national flag. There would never have been a settlement in this country if the Union Jack had been prohibited from being flown, one knows that. Now I want to take up this question of the national anthem. The hon. member for Piquetberg stated that we have only one national anthem which is “Die Stem.” I want to remind him that he proposed a motion a short time ago in this House in the following terms. On February 2nd, 1939, he moved the following motion—

What happened to that resolution, and what attitude did the Leader of the Opposition take up? The hon. member for Smithfield repudiated the motion, and as a matter of fact, severely reprimanded the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) for daring to bring forward such a motion. He said on that occasion—

You should not read a section only.

If I had time I would read the whole of it. The hon. member for Smithfield condemned the attitude that was taken up by the hon. member for Piquetberg in trying to get “Die Stem” as the only national anthem, and he agreed that until such time as we could get almost unanimity through this country it would be impossible to have a single national anthem.

But in the meantime people are assaulted for not standing while “God Save the King” is played.

One agrees that at times feelings are carried to excess. To return to this resolution, the voting was Ayes 22, and Noes 88, and the bulk of hon. members who are now sitting opposite voted with the hon. member for Smithfield against the resolution moved by the hon. member for Piquetberg. That, sir, is the whole position. To-day every single word by hon. members on the opposite side is intended to gibe at and provoke the English-speaking people in this country, and I saddle them with the blame for steps that have been taken. I agree with the hon. member for Kensington that if hon. members opposite would also realise that the English-speaking have deep feelings, we should have a better feeling in the country, but when we hear thrown across the floor of the House that the race from which we sprung are cowards, then one must not be surprised if we decline to put up with such insults offered to our race.

I want to move the following amendment—

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) pleaded here for tolerance on our side of the House. To show the kind of tolerance which we are accustomed to expect from the Government I want to refer the hon. member to the Bill with which we are now dealing. Under clause 1 of the Bill and under the Principal Act a person contravening the Act may be punished with twenty years imprisonment which is equivalent to imprisonment for life. We know well enough that this Bill is aimed against the political enemies of the Government. It is aimed against us, we know it, and now the rt. hon. the Prime Minister wants to go still further. This vindictive power enabling a court to impose a sentence of twenty years imprisonment is not enough for him, and he wants to go back to the old barbarous days of the past to give the court the right of expropriation so that a person who has been condemned may be deprived of his property. How can the hon. member speak about tolerance in those circumstances. It is very easy to talk here about fifty-fifty — let them do something to show that they are tolerant. I hope the Prime Minister will get up and give an indication whether he is prepared to accept this amendment. Let him support us by making an attempt to make this Bill tolerant. The system of expropriation was abolished in South Africa more than 150 years ago. The rights of expropriation were taken away from the courts, and to-day’s tendency is for the courts to be more merciful. What then is the Prime Minister’s motive in going back to these barbarous customs of the far-away past. I want to make an appeal to him to accept this amendment. If he is not satisfied with the form of the amendment, let him make another proposal which will have the effect of depriving the courts of the power of expropriation.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) referred to the speech of the honourable the Leader of the Opposition in which he made an appeal to this House to respect the sentiments of the English-speaking section of the community. I would have imagined that the hon. member would have been the very last to quote from that speech because while the Leader of the Opposition in the case of “God Save the King” was prepared to respect the sentiments of the English-speaking section, he stated at the same time that there was no National Anthem, that “Die Stem van Suid-Afrika” was not our National Anthem, but that “God Save the King” was not our National Anthem either. He made an appeal to the House to be tolerant towards the English-speaking section. But how are the English-speaking people behaving to-day to the Afrikaans-speaking people, when they are doing their best in bioscopes and other places to force “God Save the King” down the throats of the Afrikaners, and when they are knocking them about and insulting them in a most disgraceful manner? For that reason hon. members opposite should be the last to appeal to the sympathetic attitude of the Leader of the Opposition. Surely they cannot claim any sympathy so far as the future is concerned. I again want to draw the notice of the Prime Minister to the incident referred to by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). At the beginning of to-day’s sitting a very serious statement was made by the hon. member, and I would have imagined that the Prime Minister would have availed himself of the first possible opportunity to make a statement. But he has said nothing. Here we have the case of an hon. member getting up in this House to express the views of his constituents against the Government’s policy, and as a result of his doing so he is threatened outside by the Prime Minister’s soldiers. In spite of that we find that the Prime Minister keeps perfectly quiet. We would have expected the Prime Minister to have got up immediately to issue a warning. If he allows this opportunity to pass without uttering a warning against such assaults on members of the House I say that the people outside will give only one explanation, and that is that he is quite prepared to allow this sort of thing to go on. I have read the telegram which the Prime Minister sent to the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) and it gave me the impression that the Prime Minister is again adopting the same attitude as he did in 1914 when the Leader of the Opposition telegraphed to draw his attention to this great feeling of disquiet in the country, and when he offered his services in order to prevent clashes taking place. The Prime Minister’s reply was more or less similar to that which he sent to the hon. member for Piquetberg, namely that it was the Afrikaans-speaking section which was the cause of acts of violence being committed. On that occasion he telegraphed to the Leader of the Opposition: “What do you say?” He turned down the services of the Leader of the Opposition, and the result was a welter of blood in South Africa. Now the Prime Minister has again adopted a similar attitude towards the hon. member for Piquetberg who pointed out to him that the Afrikaans-speaking people were being provoked in the streets of Cape Town and who made an appeal to him to intervene. The Prime Minister, however, has kept perfectly quiet. If he has done anything at all it has been practically to say to the people of Cape Town: “Go on and insult the Afrikaners, do what you like, and so far as I am concerned I shall do nothing.” If that is the Prime Minister’s attitude towards the Afrikaans-speaking people, I ask him whether that sort of thing is right and fair towards the people belonging to his own section of the community. The Afrikaans-speaking people are fully entitled to interpret his attitude as meaning that the Prime Minister is not going to move a hand when their safety is at stake. He allows everything, he allows insults and provocation of the Afrikaner to be indulged in freely. Why does he not make a statement on this matter? Appeals are made to him, but he does not say a word. Even his own supporters get up here and condemn the midday pause as being the cause of trouble, but the Prime Minister does not say a word. Why not? Because he is afraid to lose his influence with the Jingo section of this country. The Prime Minister has been allowing the Afrikaner section to be insulted during the past year so that he might keep the confidence of the Jingo section. If he were to get up in this House and if he were to make a statement that this midday pause and things like that were to stop, they would stop, but he keeps perfectly quiet and he allows these things to go on. If the Prime Minister carries on in this way he must not be surprised if the Afrikaner also takes organised action. If he imagines that his own nation has so little national feeling and so little self-respect that it will simply allow these things to go on and that it will simply put up with these things, he is mistaken. The Afrikaans-speaking members of the House on his side may perhaps be willing to allow this to go on, but the Afrikaners certainly will not be willing to put up with it. It is the Prime Minister’s duty to send out a warning and to put a stop to these insults which are being inflicted on the Afrikaner.

Ī have listened carefully to the speech made by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) in which he said that apparently the qualifications of a man to be a soldier were to-day that soldiers must be able to drink plenty, and secondly, that they must be able to curse and swear. I did not hear the other qualifications he mentioned. As an old soldier I am sorry to hear these words from the hon. member; I am sorry he should say that a man must be a drunkard to be a good soldier and that he must be able to swear well.

That is the kind of distortion which is responsible for all our trouble.

That was the tendency of what the hon. member for Wolmaransstad said, as I understood him. If I misunderstood him I am always prepared to admit my mistake, but until such time as he denies having said it, I stand on my point. We have close on 100,000 men in the Army and practically half of those men are Afrikaners. It would be well if we were to bear that in mind. If the Opposition would co-operate with us we would be able to increase our Defence Force by another 50,000 men—that would be about the maximum number of able-bodied men we could get for our Army. Hon. members will notice therefore that we have the support of two-thirds of the able-bodied men. If hon. members opposite contend that we have not got the support of the country, I want to bring these facts to their notice. These facts show that we definitely have the support of the people. It is regrettable that we should have to abuse our own people and call them names merely for the purpose of making a little party capital. A great deal has been said about the affair at Potchefstroom, and so far I have not said anything about it. I want to say, however, that not a single member on this side of the House, or anyone in the town of Potchefstroom approves of what has happened, but— and there is always a “but” in connection with a matter of that kind, and I want to be clear. All of us felt that the students were looking for something. They got a great deal more than they expected, and we regret it, but they did look for something, and I must add that if the soldiers had put them in their places in a different way we would all have been pleased.

“All!”

The great majority in any case, the majority whom I represent. We who know the circumstances feel that the students looked for trouble, and not only the students, but there were perhaps other young fellows as well who looked for trouble. They were continually provoking and insulting men in uniform. If one thinks that one is doing one’s best for one’s people, and one is provoked in the streets and called names, it is quite understandable that that sort of thing creates bad feelings. One can quite understand that when the time came the soldiers hit back, although I still disapprove of it. If you are called a dog and a mongrel in the streets and other names which I do not want to mention, it must cause ill-feelings. That is why none of us were surprised at an attack of the kind being made. We have been expecting it for months and months. We can only hope that it will not happen again in the future.

Did your officers also expect it?

Of course, it came out in the evidence that the officers had repeatedly gone to the university and had issued warnings there, and also that the Commanding Officer had stopped the people some time ago when they wanted to deliver an attack. Everybody knew that something was going to happen unless great care was taken. I myself spoke to those people and all of us tried to stop something happening.

Have you got so little influence that you were unable to stop it?

The hon. member has no influence at all. We advised the people not to do anything. But we know the kind of language that is used — here in Parliament as well. We are even told here that we shall be beaten with a double rod, that we shall be called to account. One member even said that he had a revolver in his pocket and that he would shoot. We are told that the time will come when the jingos and the loyal Dutch and the renegades will be taken to task. Those are the epithets applied to us in this House, and the same kind of thing is going on outside. That is how they show their Christianity. I do not think this side of the House would resort to language of that kind, at least I hope not. I hope that when the time comes for an opportunity to settle accounts this side of the House will show what true Christianity means, and when that time comes we are not going to hang hon. members opposite on trees, but we shall rather receive them as friends, and treat them in that fashion.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe) who has just sat down spoke this afternoon exactly as one would expect knights of the truth to speak because the knights of the truth do not know the truth. Everything has to be distorted from beginning to end. Thus the hon. member distorted this afternoon what I said. I stated clearly this morning that I had respect for soldiers, and that I also had respect for the majority of our soldiers to-day, but I said that a proportion of our soldiers considered to-day that if they were not drunk or if they could not insult people or swear at people they were not good soldiers. Now the hon. member distorts what I said but I shall leave it at that. In passing I just want to say that I too have had experience on the train of soldiers making a terrible noise throughout the night and I have also seen cases of drunkenness such as I have never seen before on our trains. I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister to put an end to that. Now hon. members opposite tell us that we must remain quiet and support the Government. Dees that mean that we have to agree to that sort of thing? We are not prepared to become satellites like hon. members opposite. There are just a few other remarks I want to make. I am sorry the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) is not here. He got up here this morning and said that the Voortrekker wagon was the actual cause of racial hatred and racial division.

No, he never said that.

Let me say at once that if the Voortrekker wagon is the cause of racialism, then by all means let racialism go ahead. That wagon passed through the country and I believe that at that time we had greater unity in this country than ever before. The Voortrekker wagon was the emblem of the respect rendered to a brave generation which had opened up the country for civilisation, and that is why I resent it if people come here and accuse the ox-wagon trek of being the cause of racialism. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) got up here this afternoon and told us that they are not forgetting the events which occurred in days of difficulty and that they are not forgetting what we are telling the public. Does he want us to forget what they have done to us? The hon. member spoke about fifty-fifty in this country. Have we the slightest evidence of there being any fifty-fifty policy in this country? It is a case of everything for the one side, and no recognition being given at all to the other side. The hon. member himself who has been in this House for many years, who is making his living in this country cannot speak one word of Afrikaans. That is his fifty-fifty. The hon. member goes further and talks about the flag. There are two flags in this country and the hon. member wants us to believe that we gave our consent to there being two flags in the country. Let me tell him that we agreed to there being one National Flag, but the fact of the British Flag being here at all is merely an indication of our membership of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The hon. member now wishes it to appear as if the Union Jack is also one of the country’s flags. Let me tell him that the Union Jack only reminds us, as Afrikaners, of robbery, murder and destruction of Afrikanerdom. If hon. members go on with these things Afrikanerdom will agitate for only one flag in this country. But the hon. member went further and spoke about the English National Anthem and we are told that we are insulting the English National Anthem. But it is not our National Anthem. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) said that if anyone showed contempt for „Die Stem” he would disapprove of it. Who of all members of this House was most annoyed because the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) when he was Minister of Defence, had the temerity to have “Die Stem van Suid-Afrika” played at Voortrekkerhoogte? He even raised the matter in this House.

That was because “Die Stem” alone was played.

No, the hon. member must not come and talk here. We must have more order and more discipline in this country. But what does this Bill aim at in that connection? The hon. members have got up here and they have defended the midday pause in Adderley Street. If ever we have had an instance of hypocrisy it is this one. It seems that hon. members over there do not even know their Bible, because the Bible tells one that if one wants to pray one should go into one’s inner chamber and pray in the dark and not like the Pharisees at the corners of the streets. Natives, Malays and Indians all have to pray now, and what is the result? If you force us to pray people will pray for the very opposite that hon. members expect. If I am forced to pray I know what I shall do, but I want to tell hon. members that if they want to pray and if they expect their prayer to be heard they must first of all humble themselves. What has happened in England where days of prayer have been brought in? I fear that there has been no humbling. On the 26th May there was a day of prayer and on the 27th May the surrender of Belgium followed. On the 22nd June there was another day of prayer, and that same evening the surrender of France followed. If hon. members want to pray in all sincerity let them first confess to their sins. Then they can expect to be heard. We have asked the Prime Minister to take action. Hon. members opposite declare that they are fighting for the freedom of the individual, but here in Cape Town that freedom is restricted. I think the Prime Minister should realise that they are trampling on Afrikanerdom as it has never before been trampled on in this country. Yet they contend that they are fighting for freedom and democracy. If they carry on in the way they are doing they must expect trouble; people are getting tired of always being trampled on. [Time limit.]

This afternoon no less than two ex-Ministers of the Crown have Spoken in this House in terms which make it clear that they recognise only one flag in South Africa, and yet these two Ministers of the Crown were responsible for the introduction of the Flag Act which has been quoted here by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) and I want to show that the then Minister of Lands, or Agriculture, now, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) was a member of the Cabinet which issued a Government Notice giving instructions in regard to the flying of the official “Flags”—not the plural—within the Union. They were described as the official “Flags.” We have that ex-Minister of the Crown, who was committed to the whole of these instructions, now coming forward and asking us to believe that only one flag is recognised officially in the Union. Yet here we have a Government Notice for the flying of the official flags issued with the full authority of the Government of which he was a member, and of which his colleague, the then Minister of the Interior (Dr. Malan) was a member and who drafted these regulations. These regulations refer to the flying of the official flags of the Union, and at a later stage I shall quote the carefully prepared statement which the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) read to this House on the occasion when he announced the plans to be made for the flying of the two official flags in the Union—which are both repudiated by these Ministers to-day. Is it an edifying spectacle to find a man, particularly seeing that he himself was responsible for the issuing of instructions in regard to the two official flags of the Union—now telling the country that there is only one official flag, and that we are to believe him to-day when he tells us that there is only one official flag.

What does the Act say?

The Act refers to two official flags. The hon. member for Piquetberg now says that there is only one flag.

Do you say there is more than one national flag?

I recognise the two official flags which the Flag Act and the Government Notice enjoin me to recognise.

Do you recognise that there is only one national flag?

I do not do more than the law says; the law says that there are two official flags and if the hon. member is not satisfied with my reply I refer him to his own Leader who enjoins him to do honour and give recognition to the two official flags. The then Minister of the Interior was most careful at the end of his Government Notice to insist that due respect and ceremonial towards the two official flags should be observed—

I comply with that; I always do—

I am completely acquiescent to that, and I have always observed it.

Do you recognise the one national flag?

I am not going to take notice of unwise interruptions.

You are shirking it.

I am not shirking anything. If Ministers are allowed to get up here and repudiate their own instructions and say that these instructions are false, and say that there is no second flag, that there is only one flag to be recognised….

What does “national flag” mean?

I am dealing with the official flags of the Union; I am taking the words of the Ministers themselves. Do not let other words be put into our mouths. The Minister of the Interior—who is now member for Piquetberg—has conveniently nipped out of the House. But this was his considered statement in Parliament on 18th May, 1928, and his recognition of the Union Jack was not an oversight. He said—

Are we now to believe that the sentiment and the traditional attachment which the hon. member then referred to no longer exist—in fact that there are no English people left in this country, that he who has hated the English people for the best part of a long lifetime, and still hates them, with a fierceness which knows no limit, is to be the judge of when we shall cease to honour the Union Jack? Let me say this: If this country is to be saved it will be saved by the British Empire.

Rule Brittania.

And by that time a great deal of the hatred preached by the hon. members daily will have died down, and we shall have proper respect and honour shown to that flag as was enjoined by the Minister under Government Notice on the 29th May, 1931, with his colleague, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, who now can scarcely speak of the Union Jack without a sneer on his face. He has said that it is the symbol of murder and that is apparently the reason why he refuses to recognise the Act establishing it as one of the official flags of the Union. That is the state of the law, whatever may be the shifting state of mind of these hon. members, who come forward in this most humiliating position. An hon. member stands up and repudiates his own solemn assurances given to Parliament and the country on a great public occasion. He has to stand up, and both these hon. members have stood up in their places and have practically foresworn themselves before the public of South Africa. There is the law, there are their own considerd statements. We hear from the hon. member for Wolmaransstad that one of these official flags which they enjoined us to respect and honour is a flag of murder. What have we to think of such statements? The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) has been complaining in a whimpering tone that he did not receive the same courtesy from soldiers in the South African army to which he was entitled, and he wanted to have them segregated to travel in special coaches by themselves. The hon. member for Beaufort West is, I think, an honourable gentleman who has provoked people a great deal. He has provoked people because of the terms of disrespect in which he has spoken of our soldiers, and of a prominent Minister in Great Britain. At a time of national crisis, Lord Halifax, the Foreign Minister, made a speech to the people of Great Britain a little while ago and to the people throughout the British Commonwealth of Nations. When he made that speech he spoke in very serious tones. The hon. member for Beaufort West, speaking in the countryside, in his usual spirit of hate towards Great Britain, said that Lord Halifax was a Bible thumper and should be known as Lord Holyfax. [Time limit.]

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name, namely—

Hon. members will see that the Bill asks for authority not only for any kind of regulations to give the Minister power over the property and the lives of the whole country, but it goes even further and it is laid down in clause 1 bis that different regulations can be made for different areas, and that different regulations can be issued for different classes of people. I can still understand that it may perhaps be necessary to have different regulations for different areas. It may happen that in a particular part of the country something may occur rendering stricter regulations necessary, but I cannot understand why this dangerous principle should be introduced in the Bill under which regulations can be made differentiating between the different classes of persons. It seems to me that it is quite unnecessary to do this. Does the Prime Minister want to select certain persons or certain classes of persons and does he want to apply regulations to them only? Does he want to draft regulations which will affect only the Afrikaans-speaking people? If this Bill is passed, that may happen and it does not seem to be fair. If a law is passed by this House it should apply to all people in the country and for that reason I feel that I am entitled to ask that the words to which I have referred shall be deleted. Even if certain regulations are required we should not go too far. This principle is undemocratic and if a law is passed it should apply to everybody. For that reason I hope that my amendment will be agreed to. I feel that in the circumstances if that is not the Prime Minister’s intention he can have no objection to my amendment.

I have always had my doubts whether the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) knows exactly what the Prime Minister wants to achieve. After the speech he made this morning there is no doubt left in my mind because he himself told us that he was prepared to follow the Prime Minister to hell. That to us shows that the hon. member is quite convinced where the Prime Minister wants to go. But what is worse is that it should be the hon. member for Vereeniging and the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) among members opposite who should come here and declare war against the Afrikaans-speaking section of South Africa. Because what else was his justification of the misdeeds which are being committed in this country but a declaration of war against the Afrikaans-speaking section of South Africa? It seems to me that we are trying to analyse things here and that we are trying to find out who is at fault. The other side of the House is casting reflections on this side of the House, and we on this side are casting reflections on the other side, but nobody touches on the real origin, the real cause of these troubles. Let us go back to the warning which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition gave on the 4th September last year; there we find that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition used these words—

Those are the words of warning which the Leader of the Opposition uttered on the 4th September, and what was the reply he received from the present Prime Minister? I shall read it. When the Prime Minister referred to that warning he said this—

Cannot hon. members see this declaration of war and all the evils created in South Africa have their origin in the fact that the Prime Minister does not know the Afrikaner people, or does not want to know them. He shuts his eyes to the soul of his own people and he allows his own people to be humiliated and to be subjected to insults from day to day, to be abused by the other section of the community. And having shut his eyes to the warning which the Leader of the Opposition gave him the Prime Minister now comes to us and asks for these powers under this Bill in order to try and maintain law and order in the country. What is this maintenance of law and order going to be? Are we to allow the oppression of the Afrikaner to continue? I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister, and I want to ask him to consider the requests which we from this side of the House are making to him and to put an end to this provocation of the Afrikaner which we have to endure from the other section of the population to-day. Every individual must feel disgusted at the hypocrisy of people who say that they are willing to go and fight in the North of Africa for the protection of our national property, and then they are willing to make raids for the destruction of national property here in South Africa, and to destroy the greatest national treasures by the attitude they adopt here in Adderley Street and elsewhere. From many sides of the House the Government has been blamed for the incidents which are taking place. I do not want to go into all those incidents, except to say this, that a parent came to me with tears in his eyes and complained that as a result of an attack which had been made on an educational institution his daughter had received such a shock that she had to be taken to hospital and afterwards taken home. Those are the results of the actions of the soldiers. Afterwards she had to return to the educational institution, but soldiers in the train again behaved in such a manner towards her that a member of the train staff had to take this lady off the train along the road because she had again received such a shock that it was not considered advisable for her to continue her journey. That is the sort of thing the Afrikaner parent has to endure; it is a disgrace crying to heaven that we should in this House still have Afrikaans-speaking members who try to justify that sort of thing. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) got up here and said that we should give a lead so that law and order could be maintained in the country. Very well, I propose giving the Prime Minister a few hints as to the way in which he might try to maintain law and order in the country. He should, while feelings are running so high, prevent the concentration of people in bioscopes which at the moment are used for nothing but propaganda purposes and for the singing of “God Save the King.” I do not go to bioscopes any more, but I am told that people no longer get up only when “God Save the King” is played, but also when “Rule Britannia” is played. I do not know whether they are still singing, “We’ll hang our washing on the Siegfried Line,” but when they sing, “There will always be an England,” the public also have to get up. It is that kind of thing which is provocative; it is that kind of thing which prevents people being true to themselves, and none of us in our private lives wish to be driven by others, or to be forced by others into doing what we do not want to do. I say that these English songs have been forced down the throats of the Afrikaners, and the result is that we are disgusted with them, and if the playing of those songs in the bioscopes were prevented it would contribute considerably towards calming down the feelings of the people. There is another type of incident which should also be prevented, and if it were prevented it would contribute greatly towards the maintenance of law and order. I am referring to the Union Jack being flaunted in the faces of Afrikaans-speaking people in order to provoke them. The Prime Minister has stopped the wearing of badges. Why does he not stop people from flying a flag on their cars; people fly these flags simply to incite others to be loyal, and simply to provoke the Afrikaner. Let the Afrikaner try to-day to put Die Vierkleur on his motor car and see what will happen to him. It is perfectly clear why Union Jacks are put on motor cars and I want to tell the Prime Minister that all these incidents which we have had so far hurt the Afrikaner. No, the Prime Minister has the power to step in; he can stop this scandal of praying in Adderley Street, and if he fails to do so I say that it is perfectly impossible for us to place these powers in the Prime Minister’s hands because he will not use those powers for the purpose of maintaining law and order in the country.

The hon. member who has just sat down spoke about the singing of “God Save the King” in bioscopes and elsewhere. Has the hon. member only just awakened? It has been played in the bioscopes ever since I was a baby, and I hope Providence will so dispose of things that “God Save the King” will be played here for ever. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) has accused us on this side of distorting facts. So far as I am concerned I want to ask whether it was not a scandalous distortion of facts to accuse the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) of having said that the bad feeling existing in the country to-day was due to the ox-wagon trek? If that is not a distortion then I should like to know what a distortion is. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) very clearly stated that the accusation made against us was that the declaration of war had been responsible for this bad feeling in the country. He went on to say that as a result of the attitude of the then Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan) towards the then Prime Minister (Gen. Hertzog), who is now the Leader of the Opposition, in connection with the oxwagon trek, it was made impossible for him (Gen. Hertzog) to take part in the function of laying the corner stone on the 16th December, and that that had caused ill-feeling throughout the country. Now I want to say a few words about the midday pause. I do not want to go into the merits of the case, but seeing that the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Bezuidenhout) has made an appeal to the Prime Minister, I want to say it is largely due to the attitude of the Opposition that these difficulties have occurred in connection with the midday pause. Those difficulties arose after the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) had incited people at all his meetings.

Do you not also want the midday pause to be stopped?

We had no trouble at Port Elizabeth until last Saturday in connection with the midday pause, but last Saturday serious disorders broke out. Having received some special reports in connection with those troubles I want to prove that the Opposition is directly responsible for these troubles. I should like to read a Sapa message regarding the difficulties which occurred—

Then I also want to read the report from the special correspondent of Die Burger—

We should note these words — there is reference here to a prayer front—

Here we have a description of the fighting line—

Is not this clear evidence for anybody to see, if he is not blind, that this whole business had been organised, and yet this side of the House is accused of being the cause of the trouble. I say that if we live in a country it is our duty to obey the laws and regulations of that country, and when we go to a town it behoves us to obey the ordinances and by-laws of that town. This is a decent country and if one section of the community feels that they want to pray, why then should we go and interfere with those people?

But we do not object to their praying.

But people are stirred up and incited to go and interfere with the people who are praying. If I go to a place where other people are praying I try to behave decently. That generally is the case. One hon. member opposite spoke about the orderliness which always prevailed at meetings of the Opposition. Yes, those meetings are orderly because our people attending those meetings behave in an orderly manner when they go there; our meetings, however, are broken up in the most disgraceful manner. Hon. members over there are responsible and they have to bear the consequences. An accusation has been made against us that we do not hold meetings. During the last recess I held meetings throughout the whole of my constituency, and it was only at one meeting that I did not receive a vote of full confidence in the Government’s war policy. I only want to say that although we have already confirmed our resolution of the 4th September for the third time, if necessary we shall do so again. I am sorry the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy), a man for whom I have the greatest respect, always comes here with threats. He told us that he had a revolver in his pocket; if I look at my hon. friend I am reminded that his bald fists which he always holds up to us should be sufficient. This is not the first time he has made threats here. Those threats do not impress us and I hope he will now stop, and not repeat that kind of tale.

In all the speeches which we had from the Government side this afternoon not one member succeeded in using an argument to prove that members on this side of the House had incited the people and had stirred up the people to acts of disorder. Nor did they prove that we were responsible for the riots which have taken place in the country; several members have referred to those riots and especially those unpleasant incidents which have occurred here in Cape Town. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) got up here this morning and tried to lecture us, and among other things he told us that we must now behave quietly, that we must keep quiet and not say any more, and if we did so there would be no further incident of this nature. That is what he wants. All the sacrifices and all the humiliation to which the Afrikaner people are being subjected have to be put up with by us without our speaking a word of protest, and if we agree to that everything will be quiet. Then they can be boss and play about, and then they can be satisfied that they will be able to humiliate and trample on that section of the people which will not be represented, so that there will be no protest lodged against what they are doing. Then they can go on as they please and drag the Afrikaner nation to that perdition and to that state of hell to which the hon. member for Vereeniging is prepared to follow the Prime Minister. Well, the hon. member for Vereeniging is welcome to follow that course, but he must bear in mind that on the 4th September it was not only he and the Prime Minister who chose that road to perdition, but by dragging the whole of the people of South Africa into the war, they are now dragging the majority of the people of South Africa against their will and against their wishes into perdition with them. I want to assure them that every time they try to drag the people of South Africa into things of that kind we on this side of the House will stand up for the welfare of South Africa, and that is why we protest, and that is why we are holding meetings when we tell the world what our policy is, and when we tell the people of South Africa that the policy which 4s being pursued by the Prime Minister and by the hon. member for Vereeniging is taking our people in a direct line to that place which the hon. member for Vereeniging mentioned here, the place to which he is going to follow the Prime Minister. We are expected to stand in Adderley Street and to take off our hats and pray for a victory by Great Britain. What right has anyone who knows the history of the Afrikaans-speaking people to demand that I and others take off our hats and pray for the victory of the country which has vanquished us? They are asking too much if they ask the Afrikaner to stand in the street and do so. If they force me to pray, I shall do so, but I shall say, “Lord Almighty, relieve us from this type of Afrikaner Government with its jingoes behind them who are oppressing us here.” That is what I shall pray, and as a matter of fact that is what I am always praying for. We are being provoked and ground down here in South Africa. The hon. member for Vereeniging asks us to honour and respect the Union Jack and “God Save the King.” It is easy for him to do so, but for us on this side of the House it is impossible to endure all these insults for the sake of “God Save the King” and the Union Jack which we have to endure everywhere in the streets to-day. If we refuse to keep quiet and if we protest we are accused of being Nazis and of belonging to the fifth column. If my hon. friend wants to sing “God Save the King” and wants to flaunt the Union Jack I will not interfere with him, but when we pay our money to go to bioscope—and Afrikaners too are keen to go there to-day—we are forced to stand up for all kinds of loyal songs which are sung, and if we fail to do so we are kicked and knocked about; and what is more, if we protest we are told that we should keep quiet and behave quietly and that there will then be peace and order in this country. No, that kind of speech will not have any effect on the people. The Afrikaner will not allow that kind of insult to be inflicted on him. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) made an attack on the Leader of the Opposition. Here in our own independent country a large proportion of the Afrikaner people asked the Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister that we should be allowed to have our own National Anthem in view of the fact that we were an independent country, but the Leader of the Opposition in those days showed a spirit of raprochement towards the English-speaking and jingoistic sections. He showed the same spirit of willingness to make concessions to the English-speaking section which he had shown ever since 1912, for which he is now being taken to task by hon. members opposite. He said: “No, let us give the English-speaking people a chance; do not force ‘Die Stem van Suid-Afrika’ down their throats.” And what is his reward for having shown that spirit of concession? Today it is held up against him as a reproach. Those concessions are not appreciated by members opposite; they do not appreciate them at all, and as a matter of fact they have always abused them. On the 4th September of last year they showed us in what way all those concessions made by the Afrikaner people to the English-speaking people have been appreciated. We always have to give in, and as long as we are prepared to give in, so long are we good Afrikaners, but when we insist on our rights, and on the maintenance of our rights, it is held against us that we are disloyal. No, I say that we want those friends of ours to live in peace in this country, but we shall only be able to regard them as good citizens of South Africa when they prove that they have an undivided loyalty towards South Africa, and not while they have a divided loyalty towards South Africa and Great Britain. So long as we have this divided loyalty there will be no unity among the people of South Africa. So long as they stand with one foot in Great Britain — as long as they look down upon the Afrikaner people with contempt, so long will they trample on us here in South Africa as they have done since the 4th September. As long as such conditions continue we shall not get unity in South Africa, and we, who represent the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population, are fully entitled to stand up for our rights and to plead for our rights as we are doing here to-day. We shall continue to plead for our rights so long as we have any strength in our bodies. The Afrikaner is treated with contumely and contempt to-day, and he is being persecuted in every possible manner. We are not going to stand it, and we shall continue protesting as long as we are able to do so, because the party on this side of the House is the only party which can, and will stand up for the Afrikaner people. We are prepared to do so, and we shall persist in doing so until we are free and have broken all ties with England. In regard to the National Flag, I still want to say this — the Union Jack is not a National Flag of the Union, because the law of the country lays it down on what occasions that flag can fly here. The Union Jack is only allowed to be flown from certain buildings on certain occasions. But in addition we have a flag which, according to our law, is our National Flag — it is a flag for which the people should have respect. But our friends opposite only look at the rotten spot in the middle of the flag; they only look at the Union Jack which has been put into our flag. To them the whole flag is a Union Jack which is there in all its glory, a flag which has come here from elsewhere, and if we do not regard that flag as our flag, then hon. members opposite abuse us as being disloyal. The hon. member for North-East Rand (Mr. Heyns) prided himself here to-day on being a good Afrikaner. He showed what he was in the Cape Town City Hall when he went there to address the Sons of England. I can tell him that we take no notice of his type of Afrikaner. He does not r epresent the Afrikaans section of the population: he only represents the Jingoes and the £700 per year which he draws as salary and which he voted for on the 4th September. [Time limit.]

I am sorry the debate has taken this turn, and I am sorry that we are getting so heated about matters on which there is no need for us to get heated. Hon. members opposite stated that we have not produced any evidence to show that anything has been done from their side of the House to cause bad blood in the country. I want to quote from speeches delivered at Vryheid by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) and the hon. member for Johannesburg (West (Mr. Lindhorst). The hon. member for Fordsburg said—

That is what the hon. member said, and the best part of it is that it is true — but the tragedy is that it is the hon. member for Fordsburg who has got the intelligence of a rat. The rt. hon. the Prime Minister has not got the intelligence of a rat, but the intelligence of a world-famed statesman who is an ornament to South Africa. The people who have the intelligence of a rat and who have the tendencies of a rat are the people with the mentality of the hon. member for Fordsburg. In our Prime Minister we find something better than the attitude and the intelligence of a rat. That is where the hon. member was right, and then he goes on to say—

Well, the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. L. A. B. Reitz) gave us an instance here today of a driver who stopped his lorry at a prearranged spot after which the lorry was bombarded by people throwing stones at it. The hon. member for Fordsburg gave us the reason, and he further said this—

Is not that provocation? That was in the middle of August.

In which paper did that report appear?

That does not make any difference. It is a translation of his speech at Vryheid which I have just quoted from. As a matter of fact it has not been denied for one moment by the hon. member for Fordsburg, and next morning at Vryheid when I had not yet seen the report in the Press the whole of his speech was given to me by people who were present. He further said this—

If the hon. member who has a certain degree of responsibility makes a speech like that, what is the man in the street to think? The hon. member for Johannesburg (West) Was present at the meeting. Did he say it was wrong? Did he raise any objections?

It was entirely justified in the circumstances.

There we have it—they approve of it; and then they say that we have never yet brought any evidence to prove that they do those things. Let me go on reading—

Is got that inciting language? A resolution was suggested by the meeting and then one of the leaders from the other side of the House came along and said that that resolution was no good, that Gen. Smuts must be kicked out; they did not care how he was kicked out, so long as they could make peace. I just want to read the final paragraph of the report—

They say that it is the English-speaking people who are responsible for the incitement, but we can see from this what is going on, and how people are being challenged and provoked by hon. members over there. What chance is there of preserving a conciliatory spirit if things like that are said? It is no use our throwing reproaches at each other. Hon. members opposite will show a better sense of responsibility if they tell their friends outside that things of this kind should not be done, just as we do on our side. I want to admit at once that I regret what happened to the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw).

Will anything be done?

The hon. member for Beaufort West himself acknowledged that an officer was present at Cape Town station to take details. That proves that efforts are being made.

Let us wait for the result.

We know that the Government will do everything in its power to afford protection not only to the hon. member for Beaufort West but to other members as well. But as against that we ask this: Protect the great man whom we honour and whom we regard as an ornament of the Afrikaner people. If the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) or the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) had been abused and called the names by somebody on this side which appear in this report, I can assure hon. members that we would at once have asked him to withdraw those words, because language like that against a leader of our people is most unbecoming.

We are certainly not going to contribute to any good feeling in this House by dragging up such old matters as the hon. member has done. I feel that the Prime Minister more than anyone else objects to this being done. But I feel a little hopeful when I see that there are hon. members opposite who also disapprove of this praying in the streets. I am afraid, however, that it is mostly just talk when they express their disapproval, because I have not yet come across a single one among hon. members opposite who has made any useful suggestion, or put forward anything effective as to what can be done to put a stop to this sort of thing. I do not want to talk about what I have heard, I only want to talk about my experiences. A couple of weeks ago my wife and myself passed through Parliament Street in the direction of Adderley Street. The midday pause was over, it was just after 12 o’clock, but to show hon. members the way in which people carry on I only want to tell them that a man suddenly came running up the street. He looked like a young farmer and I heard people shouting out behind him, “Catch him, catch him.” There were a couple of officers coming along the street at the same time as we were coming down it, going in the same direction, and I regret having to admit that one of those officers tried to catch the man. The man got away, however, and ran into one of the buildings. There was a mixed crowd after him: natives, coloured women and white men—a terrible conglomeration. One cannot understand what is wrong with those people. I almost thought that the devil had been let loose in Cape Town. I have never been bitter in my life, but this praying in the street and the persecution of our people, and the events at Potchefstroom and elsewhere have made me bitter. I hope that bitterness will leave me again, but those events have definitely made me bitter. I do not want to say too much about this praying in the street. I am pleased to see that the English-speaking people of Cape Town are also beginning to recognise their Saviour, but what appeared strange to me was that the people should stand at the corners of the streets and pray. If they want to pray in all sincerity let them go into their inner chambers. Surely that sort of thing cannot be done at the corners of streets. We find that in England special days have been set aside for people to pray. That is quite right. The people there are in trouble and they pray; all of us pray. I pray too, but I do not pray in the streets. I have said that our people are being treated with contumely and contempt. I do not want to accuse anyone; we are living in days of war and stress, and feelings are running high on both sides, but things are being done to our people which cannot be tolerated any more. I was at my home in Ladysmith a few days ago, and I found that one man had already been punished in connection with his failure to hand in his rifle; but there was another man who had not handed in his rifle, and I learnt that he was convinced that there was no need for him to hand it in. He is a simple man, and he said to me: “Oom, but surely it is my rifle; I bought it and I paid for it; why should I give it up? Surely it is not in accordance with the law that I should be compelled to do so?” That is what that man said, and that was his conviction, rightly or wrongly. He was summoned, and he had to appear before the court that same day. I heard the telephone ring, and I happened to hear what was going on, although I did not deliberately listen. The sergeant of police said over the ’phone to this man: “You need not come on Monday to be tried; I want to save you the trouble.” The man replied: “I have arranged everything to come in.” The policeman then said: “I want to save you the trouble. If you come in I shall only be compelled to ask for the case to be adjourned. You can tear up the summons.” I then interrupted and I asked the sergeant how he could do that. I asked him whether he was afraid of the new War Emergency Bill which the Government was busy getting passed by Parliament, and whether he wanted to wait until it had the force of law. He replied that that was so, and that he wanted to wait until the new Act was passed, because the man might otherwise come down on him if the case went on. I have never yet heard of anything as unfair as that. Here a man was summoned, but he has to wait for a Bill to come before Parliament, and when that Bill is passed, the sergeant will be able to get a conviction against the man. I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister. Let us prevent bitterness and hatred being caused over things of that kind. If the Prime Minister carries on in this way people will become embittered. I also want to ask the Prime Minister to put a stop to this praying in the street. Our people no longer feel at ease if they want to come into town in the middle of the day. If anyone wants to pray in all sincerity, I shall be only too pleased at any time to stand still with him, but what is going on now is nothing but hypocrisy. They only want to see whether there are any people who do not pray, and then they persecute those people. I should like the Minister to consider these few points which I have raised.

I had expected since the Opposition had been telling us recently that they are the new-found champions of democracy that in a discussion on a clause dealing with very important matters we should have had at least a level of debate a little bit higher than the petty wrangling so ably led by the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan), and it does seem to me that the Opposition having bankrupted themselves in their passionate appeal for democracy, have now descended to the tactics which have always been the chief tactics of the Opposition, namely to bring in all these racial matters which crop up from day to day. One could hardly imagine listening to speeches from members opposite that we were actually in the process of discussing the question of giving the Prime Minister very far-reaching powers of a very far-reaching character. A reasonable discussion of these powers is of much more importance to the House than what happened to the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) in his journey from Beaufort West to Cape Town. It does not matter really what has happened to the hon. member for Beaufort West, but it does matter to the country whether the Prime Minister is to get these powers or not, and incidentally we have had again brought in that well-thought-out sentimentality which is nowadays such a great feature of the Opposition — we have had brought in the story of various physical actions taken against Afrikaners when these Afrikaners have offended against the ordinary canons of good taste. I notice that hon. members opposite have been severally silent about the outbreaks of a much more determined character— I refer to the outbreaks of the dynamitard on the Witwatersrand, something of which serious cognisance had to be taken by the Government, something which I am quite prepared to say any reasonable man must lay at the door of certain members of the Opposition. I do not suggest that they were personally responsible for these acts, or that they have in any way taken part in arranging for them, but it is the type of speech which these hon. members make which is responsible for these things happening. And included in those speeches are the speeches of the glorious member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), who actually challenged the Government in regard to the rifle commandeering; those speeches were a contributory factor, and it seems that if any case has been made out by the Opposition, a case has been made out for the granting of these other powers which the clause seeks to give the Prime Minister. They themselves have shown a colossal ignorance of the position which exists. We are facing a position here where certain measures will have to be taken to maintain public order. They themselves have admitted that that is so, and they have given us a very fine demonstration of the kind of talk which is conducive to the breaking of public order. We have heard the hon. member for Piquetberg waxing very eloquent, almost foaming at the mouth, about insults gratuitously flung at the Afrikaners, and I still have to hear that he has either censored his colleagues or withdrawn the words of his colleague when he referred to the British Army as running like a lot of wet rats.

What was wrong with it?

Is that the kind of talk which is conducive to good feeling? Is that the kind of talk from a responsible leader — the Leader of the Party in the Transvaal? Is that the talk of a leader of the so-called Reunited Party, which is likely to call forth amicable relations between the two sections? I do not think so. I think it was very ably pointed out in a previous debate on this Bill by the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. Reitz), what the irresponsible members on the other side do not seem to realise — that South Africa is going through a period of crisis. Whether they like it or not, we are actually at war.

Are we?

We are not at war with that hon. member. He keeps his own private cemetery, but in this war he will not have any more victims. We are at war in a constitutional and democratic fashion. The decision to enter into the war was taken by a majority of the members of this House —a majority of the members of this House who represent a far greater majority of the people of the country than one would imagine by the relative figures in the House; and having taken that decision the Government is determined to prosecute the war to the fullest extent. And the kind of interference with which we have been treated by the Opposition during the period since we made the decision is an interference of a kind which by any standard whatever must be considered as a treacherous interference. The type of speeches they make are a direct incitement to the people who are misguided enough to follow them to do whatever they can to interfere with the smmoth running of the Government, and the defence machinery. It is a type of speech which suggests that to don a uniform at this time is an action which is highly discreditable. How can they expect that individuals who have given up probably their homes, individuals who are prepared to make great sacrifices in order to defend their country—how can they expect that these individuals, knowing the kind of views which hon. members hold to the South African uniform—how can they expect people to treat them even with a modicum of courtesy?

We do not object to their wearing the uniform; we object to their disgracing it.

My friend is a disgrace even without a uniform. He does not object to people wearing the uniform he says. I have heard references made by members of that party objecting to the uniform as a uniform—the very colour of the uniform appears to be something objectionable.

Khaki always is.

There have been sneering references to the uniforms from platforms throughout the country, so the hon. member for Beaufort West cannot say that it is the actions of the men which they object to. Now, what is all this fuss about? We have had three or four incidents which are likely to arise in almost any country where a large body of men are congregated. Some of these incidents have been rather mild, compared even with the Varsity Rag which no one takes a great deal of objection to. Yet listening to hon. members opposite one would think—as the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) particularly implied, when he told us he was running about with a revolver in his pocket—that these incidents were very serious. Why he should have a revolver I do not know. I am sure he is big and strong enough, and certainly good looking enough to defend himself in any company without the necessity of a revolver. These incidents are magnified out of all proportion in order to suit the propaganda of hon. members. It is a deliberate exaggeration of the importance of things— but we are becoming used to it. It is on a par with last week’s story. They have a story for each week. Last week’s story was about the grey-haired Afrikaners languishing in lousy gaols because on the behest of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad they refused to hand in their rifles, while he himself had an exemption in his pocket. This week’s story is about the suffering of people in Adderley Street, which probably was only a free fight for all. Their objections show that they are completely bankrupt in their arguments. But we must take cognisance of these incidents while at the same time we have to take cognisance of the propaganda which has produced these incidents. At the same time we are out to prosecute the war to the best of our ability and it is in order to stop this sort of thing, to curb the irresponsible utterances of men who should have a greater sense of their responsibility, that the Government and the Prime Minister of the country have to be given these powers.

I also want to congratulate the Afrikaans members on the other side on the progress they have made on the “Red Road.” If an English-speaking member on the other side gets up they, the Afrikaans-speaking members, feel it incumbent upon themselves to get up immediately afterwards and to make a speech which is even more red than that of the English-speaking member. The hon. member for North-East Rand (Mr. Heyns) has even got to the stage now when he goes and addresses the Sons of England, and the hon. member for Krugersdorp by the name of Van den Berg is even wishing that he could be an Englishman. His trouble is that he bears the name of Van den Berg, because if he did not, he would be able to become an out and out red Englishman. I want to refer him to the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). That hon. member may be able to teach him something about changing his name. If one has got as far as that hon. member one may just as well change one’s name. The Afrikaans-speaking members on that side accuse us on this side of being the cause of most of the disturbances. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) even became pathetic and begged of us: “Leave us alone, let us get on with the business.” Now I should like to quote to hon. members something which appeared in last Thursday’s Rand Daily Mail. This is what it said—

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to quote from the Rand Daily Mail in connection with something which took place in this House?

What is the hon. member quoting from? Does it refer to a previous debate which took place in this House?

Yes, the previous debate. I will not quote it again, however. But that is what we get from the other side. Imagine his brother has been in Germany for 29 years. I do not know whether he is a Gauliter or not, but hon. members go so far that they even indulge in this mean sort of abuse. The Rand Daily Mail marked this report in big black lines. One would have imagined that it was a notice of an important death — it was so black and thick with lines. The result was that Mr. Lindhorst’s wife, who had remained at home, received threats over the telephone. Imagine, the wife and children stay at home while the member comes here to represent his constituents and do his duty, and they are threatened by that type of person. And that, I suppose, is what they call fairplay on the Government side, and then we are still told that we are responsible for the troubles which have arisen. It is that kind of thing which causes all the trouble. I can cite another instance from my own constituency. There is a highly-placed military man there who was given an appointment the other day, and he was informed that the preacher of the Dutch Church had prayed for peace, not peace for England in particular, but peace generally. What did we get then? This highly-placed official said that that parson should be fried in hell. That is not what an irresponsible person says. Do hon. members opposite approve of that sort of thing?

That is just street talk.

I personally know about this. The Potchefstroom incident has been mentioned here; I do not want to elaborate on that, but I have visited the scene of the occurrence and I could come to no conclusion except that the place had been attacked by a crowd of barbarians. If those soldiers had been a crowd of young men of the Active Citizen Force, it would have been a different thing, but we know that they were members of the Artillery and consequently responsible people. Among them we find advocates and attorneys, and there is even a K.C. among them — they are men between the age of 25 and 40 years. If people of that type do things of that kind, how can hon. members opposite possibly try to justify it? There had been minor incidents in the streets, but there was no reason for such a large organised attack on the institution. And now the Prime Minister says that that was a minor affair. That shows his mentality. I read in the paper this morning that members of this House have had to ask for police protection because they did not get up while “God Save the King” and “Rule Brittania” were being played. That sort of thing is being done in our country, and then there are always crowds of soldiers and sailors who are ready to commit acts of violence, and after all that we are expected to fight for freedom. I am certainly not going to fight for a freedom which I have not got.

Mr. Chairman, before the luncheon adjournment the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) rather got under the skins of the members on the opposite side when he said it was not true to say that our attitude, i.e. the United Party’s attitude, in regard to this war was the cause of all the bitterness displayed in this House and outside on the various platforms, but that what caused the bitterness was the attitude of the then Opposition with regard to the laying of the foundation stone of the Voortrekker Monument. Hon. members on the other side took exception to that, but it is true nevertheless; that was the action which caused all the bitterness we are having to-day, and it is not true that it is because of our attitude in regard to the war. I want to remind the House of what I said in my maiden speech when this House was discussing the question of the National Anthem. This is what I said—

The Leader of the Opposition in those days was the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan)—

I do not remember the then Leader of the Opposition saying that what I then said was not true, none of the members of the Opposition said that statement of mine was not true. It was definitely true on that occasion, and the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) was stating nothing more than the bare truth when he said that the laying of the Voortrekker Monument foundation stone was the origin of the bitterness that we find in this House to-day. But that is not all, Mr. Chairman, when I sat down, many of those members who are now sitting on the opposite side, came to me and said that that was a perfectly true statement of the position, and that the bitterness originated because of the Voortrekker Monument business. I can remember well the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) and the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen), when they were sitting here in front of me, were two of those members who said I was perfectly correct in making that statement. Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), who now seems to be taking exception to what the member for Kimberley (District) said, and incidentally tries to twist what he said as well, came from his place where he was sitting as a Minister and also congratulated me and said it was a true statement of the case, and that the then opposition had introduced the motion purely for political purposes. I want to support the hon. member for Kimberley (District) when he said that the Voortrekker Monument caused the bitterness; not the fact that this side of the House decided to enter the war. Now I want to say a word or two about the noonday pause in Cape Town. I am one of those who think that the institution of the pause was a mistake, but I feel that although I disapprove of it that does not mean that I am not to behave myself in the way that any self-respecting person would. I observe the pause, and I say that the large majority, in fact I would say that the whole of the people of this country, if they were left alone and not interfered with and provoked by politicians such as we have on the other side of the House, would have faithfully observed the pause and would not have behaved in the way that a few unfortunate people have acted, egged on by members on the opposite side. I think that is the normal attitude of any self-respecting South African and all true South Africans would have adopted such attitude had it not been for the machinations of members on the opposite side. Then I want to say a word or two about the British national anthem. Why that should be brought into this, discussion I do not know, but as it has been introduced I would like to say that I think it is a pity the British national anthem is played at the end of bioscope shows. That is only my own personal view, but I do think that as it is played it is our duty to show the respect due to that anthem. I am not one of those who feel that if a member or a section of the community does not stand up and show respect for “God Save the King” drastic steps should be taken against the offenders, but when one knows of an incident such as I will now relate, when one knows that incidents of that kind often take place, Í say it does not reflect very great credit on those involved in the incident. I am thinking of an incident that happened in Pretoria not long ago when a number of students and young civil servants took two rows of seats in the principal bioscope there with the deliberate intention, so it is stated and so it appeared,, of provoking disorder, and when the national anthem was played at the end of the programme the two rows of people remained in their seats. No steps were taken in the bioscope itself but when the show was over a number of people who thought that it was very improper and wrong of the offenders to behave in that way, met them outside and there was a general “free-for-all” in which the young men who had shown disrespect ….

Who misbehaved?

…. got what they deserved. I say I do not approve of the playing of the national anthem at the end of any show—I think the practice should be discontinued—but I do say very emphatically that when people go out of their way to provoke disorder and to show disrespect then they deserve all they get.

The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Clark) spoke very nicely and at the same time he did not speak very nicely. He disapproved and at the same time he did not disapprove. I only want to add this, that so far as “God Save the King” is concerned we regard that as a prayer, and as a matter of fact that was also how it was regarded by the United Party Caucus, and that was how the Prime Minister of the day put the position before us. It is a prayer, while “Die Stem van Suid-Afrika” is a national anthem. If hon. members over there now want to lower the status of a prayer to a street song, one cannot have very much respect for them. To play a prayer on every possible occasion and then to ask us to respect it as a prayer, is something that cannot be expected of us. It seems as though hon. members opposite have not the slightest idea of what goes on in the heart of the Afrikaner. Now I want to say a few words about this midday pause for prayer which has been prescribed here in Cape Town. Does the rt. hon. the Prime Minister know what a prayer is? A prayer is one of the most sacred things in the life of man. Here they are turning prayer into a farce. What should be our mental state if we want to pray? Scripture teaches us that when we want to place our offering on the altar, and if we feel in our hearts that we have a grievance against those who are close to us we must first of all go and make peace, failing which our offering has no meaning. Here we have a condition of affairs in the streets where people are inspired by hatred and malice in their hearts against others, and yet they stand there praying and hoping that the Almighty will bless them. What a farce. I hope the rt. hon. the Prime Minister will look at the matter from that point of view. A request came from the Dutch Churches that this interval for prayer should be abolished. It turns religion into a farce and surely it is entirely unnecessary. We sincerely hope that the Prime Minister will put a stop to this sort of thing because it is the kind of thing which hurts the Afrikaner people. The Prime Minister in this Bill asks for powers to enable him to maintain law and order. We see what is going on in the streets of Cape Town and Port Elizabeth and these things are getting worse and worse. If the Prime Minister insists on having these powers for the maintenance of law and order, then we in turn ask him to put an end to these things, such as the pause for prayer. In connection with the handing in of rifles, I sent a letter to the rt. hon. the Prime Minister in which I stated that I considered the commandeering of rifles to be a blunder. The matter could have been handled in a totally different way. If an appeal had been made to the public asking them to sell their rifles to the Government it would have had a better effect, but let us look at the sentences that are being imposed. There is a most terrible Babylonian confusion. The one man is given a short sentence of fourteen days and the next one has six months imprisonment imposed on him; we do not know where we are, we do not know what is going to happen. Old men and even preachers, parsons, have been sentenced to imprisonment, and what is the treatment meted out to them in gaol? Their heads are shaved, they have to wear convict clothes and their finger prints are taken. The insults and the humiliation inflicted on the Afrikaner by these sentences are so far-reaching and so unforgettable that I do not know what is going to be the end of it all. I do not know how the Prime Minister is going to weather this storm. These sentences are being put into effect, and I am afraid that we are not merely sowing the wind, but we are sowing a hurricane, which perhaps one day will burst loose, and it may come at a very unhappy and inconvenient time. I still want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister if it is possible to do so. Cannot the Prime Minister grant an amnesty to those people? Let them come out of gaol, even if it be at the eleventh hour, but even though late it may still have good effects. I am afraid that I was perfectly correct when I described the Prime Minister as a second Tamarlane who wanted to put up a monument to himself because of the miseries he had committed. The hon. member for Vereeniging told us here that he stood with nine-tenths of his two feet in England. If there should be no England left some day I take it the hon. member will stand with both feet in Jerusalem. Well, the hon. member for Vereeniging and the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) are both welcome to go there if they want to. What has come over the hon. member for Kimberley (District) nobody knows. He is inspired by imperialism in the same way as as evil spirit entered into the Gadarene swine and caused them to fall over the precipice, so it would appear that imperialism has taken hold of the hon. member in order to send him over the precipice. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) suggested that our universities should be closed, and in doing so he made an attack on the intelligentsia of our country. Our professors and our students constitute the soul of the Afrikaner nation, but no, our universities must be shut down. We had better give the hon. member for Kensington a free ticket for Australia where he will be more at home. We have seen his friends and his countrymen here in the Cape Town streets, and we have seen them behave in a way worthy of their ancestors. I again want to ask the Prime Minister to please, if possible, put an end to this prayer pause.

Efforts have repeatedly been made here to discredit the character and the behaviour of the soldiers of South Africa. It has been repeatedly said that the discipline and behaviour of the South African soldiers is not good. Anyone making a statement of that kind talks through the back of his neck. I think the discipline of the South African Defence Force, in any unit of that force, is as good as it possibly can be. But, it would appear that some people do not know the meaning of discipline. It seems that some people hold the view that discipline means that if a man is in soldier’s clothes just anyone, any Nazi spy or any person of no standing, anyone who should be in gaol but who is not in gaol, can spit at such a soldier, and if he objects and resists then he has no discipline. Take any soldier, or any officer in uniform. I protest against the efforts that are being made by hon. members of the Opposition to cast such a stigma on those people. If there is one thing to which they are entitled to object, it is to those people in our country who try to insult them in an organised manner, who try to provoke them and who then expect them, because they happen to be in uniform, to peacefully swallow everything and to put up with everything that is done to them. The sooner hon. members opposite know it the better — the soldier is not going to give up his rights of citizenship, even though he is in uniform. He still has those rights of citizenship, which are the prerogative of every free citizen in the country, and as long as I am a member of this House I shall on every possible occasion stand up for a soldier if he is being done an injustice, and if he is insulted by certain members of the House. I say that if ever there is a thing which should come to the notice of the Government, it is the fact that this policy of patience and tolerance which is being pursued in our country sometimes goes a bit too far. The incident at Potchefstroom has been referred to. Hon. members probably noticed in the paper that soldiers entering cafés and places like that have been insulted by youngsters and others. Hon. members have also probably noticed how they have been insulted in bioscopes by people who have shouted out “Heil Hitler”. It is not the decent citizen of the country who insults the soldiers, but it is done by that particular type of man. And then hon. members talk here about provocation. I am speaking here on behalf of the soldiers of South Africa ….

Are you speaking on behalf of the soldiers of South Africa?

Definitely, and I am not ashamed to say that I am speaking on their behalf. That hon. member over there speaks on behalf of the enemies of South Africa, and I speak on behalf of the friends of South Africa who have to go and protect our freedom and his freedom. The soldier has had enough of that sort of nonsense, and he is not going to stand for it any longer. The soldiers will obey the discipline of the military authorities as strictly as they should, but they are not going to put up any longer with those insults which are inflicted on them from time to time. At public meetings they are called Jan Smuts’ dogs. I also wear a uniform, and any man who wears a uniform is prepared to fight for South Africa. They may call me a dog a hundred times if they want to, because I know that the soldier is the watchdog of South Africa, the watchdog who has to guard the freedom of hon. members over there. The hon. member who spoke before me stated that I had said that I wish I were an Englishman. It seems impossible for hon. members over there to speak the truth. I said that I wished I could be an Englishman for a week so that I could make the English-speaking people of South Africa realise that they should no longer allow British sentiment to be insulted by people with Nazi tendencies. The hon. member for Potgietersrust (the Rev. S. W. Naudé) stated that the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) was inspired by imperialism. May I be allowed to refresh the hon. member’s memory? It is not so long ago that he stigmatised his friends among whom he is now seated, as anti-British, pro-German and pro-Satan. And now the hon. member comes here and holds forth against the hon. member for Kimberley (District), although that hon. member is a man known throughout the world as one of the heroes of this country who fought for the freedom of South Africa. He was not one of those who went and married a woman, or studied books instead of going to fight. In regard to this pause for prayer here in Cape Town, I cannot understand why people coming from elsewhere should interfere with it. It is a domestic matter so far as Cape Town is concerned, and the sooner hon. members realise that Cape Town’s domestic arrangements are no concern of theirs the better it will be. The authorities in Cape Town thought fit to institute the midday pause, and I fail to see why anyone else should come and poke his nose into Cape Town’s business. What right have hon. members over there to speak about hypocritical prayer? I wish a photo could be taken of this House while prayer is being read here, we would then be able to see who should be stigmatised as hypocrites and who not. I say that not one of us has the right to interfere with a matter of this kind in Cape Town. Even if there is only one among those thousands of people who is sincere, it still is no business of ours, and it does not become us to interfere. There is one other matter I wish to refer to. Whenever we discuss matters in this House there are hon. members opposite who get up and who refer to same as being the sacred property of the Afrikaner. The hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) described the Afrikaner’s rifle as something sacred to the Afrikaner. If things of that kind are regarded as being sacred, then it would appear to me that hon. members opposite are going in for idolatry. It is beyond my conception. I can see the time coming when that party will develop more and more, and where it will specialise in idolatry. Hon. members opposite are now talking about rifles as being sacred. When has an instrument of murder become something sacred? Those are the types of battle-cries which are used by hon. members for the purpose of catching the people of this country. On the platteland the people will again be told of these sacred things of which they are being robbed, but it is high time that the people of South Africa were warned against this organised political idolatry. This doctrine which is now being preached is something entirely novel. Hon. members opposite do not appreciate anything when they are appealed to. I hope hon. members on this side will not make any more appeals to them, I think we have now had enough of that kind of thing. We have done enough and the other side should now make a gesture, otherwise we will reach a position of stalemate, and then we shall see what will happen. Hon. members opposite should remember that when they make all their threats, they make threats which they cannot carry out, but we on the other hand are able to give effect to our threats. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down has recently been promoted and he tried this afternoon to speak as a man who is an authority on military questions. They are looking for the cause of the incitement between soldiers and private people, members of the public. The cause has to be looked for among nobody else but that type of officer whom we get on the other side of the house, the type of person who makes speeches such as the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) has just made. I as an old soldier who has served for many years as a soldier know what military duties are, and I know what discipline is, and if my hon. friend opposite, who has become an officer merely for the purpose of drawing a double salary, wants to talk big here in order to stir up the people, I want to tell him and other people like him that the day of reckoning is near, very much nearer than they imagine. I want to say in passing what I mean by reckoning. I mean that the Afrikaner is not going to tolerate much longer being provoked and being treated with contumely and contempt as is the case to-day. We are not, when we get into power again, as we did in 1924, going to allow this sort of thing to happen again, and we are not going to tolerate the Afrikaner not getting what is his just due. If that does not happen I shall step out and make an appeal to the people and point to the injustice which is being done. The Afrikaner has been trampled on long enough and he is not going to tolerate it any longer.

Do you want to quarrel?

No, but that is what I mean when I say the day of reckoning is coming. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) referred to the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) and said that the public outside did not care very much what became of the hon. member for Beaufort West, but that what they were anxious about was that the Prime Minister should get these compulsory measures, or these war measures, through the House. What object have hon. members opposite in view? They say that we are stirring up the people, but I say that it is the so-called protectors of this country, the people in uniform, who stir the public up. They have not even got respect for the Government’s property, and they smash up the property of the Railways and try to throw an innocent person out of the train. If that is the way the hon. member for Beaufort West is treated, and if soldiers smash the windows and threaten to throw people out of the train—what is going to happen to South Africa? I ask the Prime Minister what would have been the position if that had happened to me, and if I had taken out my revolver and shot those people?

Is that a joke?

It is no joke to threaten people and to smash windows, and it is done by people who are supposed to maintain peace and order.

The railway lines which were blown up.

I am in favour of the people who are guilty of these things being severely punished if they are caught; but it must be proved that they have not been stirred up to do these things by the actions of Government supporters. We reject the charges which are made against us. The Prime Minister comes along here with a Bill—what is the object of that Bill? People are unnecessarily in gaol to-day; honourable people are in gaol because they refused to give up their possessions under an illegal regulation, and now the Prime Minister asks us to approve and confirm everything that is being done. Why should those people be punished and why should they suffer? It is that sort of thing which is the cause of racialism and of people being stirred up. What happened in one of the bioscopes in this town on Saturday last when the photos of a number of members of Parliament were shewn on the screen? When the photo of the Prime Minister was shewn there was applause and cheering, and the same thing happened when the photo of the Minister of Finance was shewn. When the photo of the Leader of the Opposition appeared on the screen there was booing, and when the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition was shewn there was also booing, and that is what they call fairplay. That is the result of the racial feelings which are being created. The Afrikaners have to be trampled on and our fellow-Afrikaners are being used to trample on us. They are busy provoking the Afrikaners and we have to put up with it. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) said that the English-speaking people were tired. If we Afrikaners here in South Africa are prepared to allow South Africa to become a second England, then we are very nice and sweet people, and then we are applauded by the English-speaking section, but if we stand up for the rights of the Afrikaners then we are racialists. The Leader of the Opposition has done everything he possibly could; he abused his own people. He did his very utmost to bring about co-operation. What was his reward? On the first possible occasion when we insisted on the principle of South Africa first he was stabbed in the back and left in the lurch, and yet they want co-operation! We have a Prime Minister here who in days gone by was also a Boer-General, but he now prefers the Jews, the English and the jingoes to his Boers. I think the time has come for the Prime Minister to stand still a bit and cogitate. He is busy humiliating his own blood and he is persecuting the people who do not agree with him. The time has come for the people of South Africa to raise their voices; all too long have we been slaves in our own country. I do not want to appeal to the Prime Minister, I only want to ask him to think. The injustice which is being done to the Afrikaner must stop. I disapprove of acts of violence and misdeeds, but I think that the Prime Minister should also express his disapproval of the misdeeds which are being committed against his own Afrikaners. A section of the citizens of Cape Town has asked for a midday pause, but the other section has not been considered at all. If we Afrikaans-speaking people were to molest the people who want to pray I would express my strong disapproval of it. In that event I would say that there was a cause for these troubles in Cape Town, but because we do not want to pray we are being attacked and assaulted, and that should be stopped. [Time limit.]

While I was listening to the hon. member who has just sat down, I felt that there was a certain amount of reasonableness shining through his remarks. His was the first serious disapproval I heard from that side of the House of events which have taken place. The hon. member, however, spoke of the day of reckoning. Every member of the Opposition who has so far spoken about the day of reckoning has given a different explanation of its meaning; they may have their own opinion of the way in which that reckoning is to take place, but the difficulty is that by making those threats of a reckoning they are misleading the people. The type of speeches to which we have been listening from the Opposition, and the speeches that are made from the platforms outside, are calculated to incite the people to a condition of fury and mutiny. I do not believe that hon. members realise what their words may lead to. We blame them for that, because they themselves know only too well that their words do not come from their hearts. Hon. members talk so lightly about hypocrisy, and the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) particularly uses that word. He is the very last to talk about hypocrisy. If there is one man who knows the political jackal’s tricks of the hon. member for Piquetberg, it is the Leader of the Opposition; as a matter of fact, the Leader of the Opposition went to the extent of shewing up the double political game played by the hon. member for Piquetberg in a pamphlet. In November 1935 the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) made a speech about it which he had printed in pamphlet form, and if we read that pamphlet we find where all this racialism originates. We had coalition and fusion, but the hon. member for Piquetberg, as the leader of the Cape Nationalists, after a short period of co-operation put an end to co-operation. We are being accused of being the cause of racialism in this country owing to our declaration of war. That is not correct. The division goes further and goes deeper, and the man who is responsible and whose mind is tainted with racialism and brother hatred is the hon. member for Piquetberg. This is what the Leader of the Opposition said in his pamphlet—

When he left the pulpit he started to cause dissension. And the Leader of the Opposition goes on to say—

He is the man who caused the dissension, and what does the Leader of the Opposition go on to say?—

He goes on and he says this—

It is unnecessary for me to read all the extracts. They amount to this, that the hon. member for Piquetberg took up a course which aimed at the domination of a section of the Afrikaner people, not only of the English-speaking people but also over those Afrikaans-speaking people who did not hold the same views as he did. The question for this House is whether the Government is entitled to ask this House to grant it these extra powers. We are in a state of emergency to-day and the attitude of the Opposition certainly does not contribute to lighten South Africa’s burdens.

What is the emergency?

We are at war. If one thing has become perfectly clear during this session it is that hon. members opposite would like to see a German victory, and if we are dealing here with an Opposition which is animated by a desire for a German victory, and for the defeat of ourselves and our Allies, then we realise that the Government must have powers to deal with any eventuality. If we want to live together in this country we must show mutual respect for each other. Hon. members talk contemptuously about us on this side of the House, but there are two sides to every question. I remember on the night of the declaration of war we were listening at the Hotel Assembly to the king’s broadcast, and “God Save the King” was played — certainly it was one of the most solemn occasions in history. The whole gathering there stood up, but I am sorry to say that two members of Parliament belonging to the other side of the House refused to stand up. I also want to say that I have a letter here which I received from a highly-placed official, and he writes that in his town the Ossewabrandwag is busy recruiting members. One night at 9 o’clock they knocked at the door of a Government servant. The fact of their coming so late in the evening lent a certain degree of mystery to the whole business. He was asked to join the Ossewabrandwag. He refused and they thereupon said to him: “You refuse to join — you will be noted as a marked man, and we shall see to it that you lose your job within a fortnight. We are going to chase all Jews and English-speaking people out of the country.” This official now asks that an end should be put to this reign of terrorism. Is this sort of thing to be tolerated?

But surely he knew the people who came to see him; why does he not report them to the Minister of Justice?

Who are the supporters of the Ossewabrandwag? It is hon. members opposite. They are pro-German and against the Government. It is essential for the Government in present circumstances to have extraordinary powers, and that being so, I do not hesitate to give my support to the Government in this matter.

The outstanding characteristic of this debate, the tone of which has been set by hon. members of the Opposition, has been completely irrelevant to the terms of the clause before the Committee. I must say that I have some sympathy with the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Oost) who has worked out an amendment which has some relation to the terms of the Bill. The hon. member has had to plead his cause alone, the other Opposition members having confined themselves to more congenial topics, such as the personal vicissitudes of some of them and the fact that the Leader of the Opposition was not applauded by a Cape Town cinema audience which cheered the Prime Minister the other night. The amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (District) aims at limiting the powers which the Government is seeking, powers which, in the circumstances in which the country finds itself, are very necessary. The present clause under discussion is in the place of one, a corresponding one, which originally appeared in the Act which was passed last session, but this clause does not go as far as the original proposal did, even though the internal situation of this country has vastly deteriorated since that time. The clause which is before the Committee goes no further than does the corresponding clause in the British War Measures Act which concedes powers to the Government of a country which is unanimously in support of the Government’s war policy, whereas in this country the population is divided and we have a section here which does all it can to interfere with the Government’s efforts to prosecute the war. The provisions of this clause are just and reasonable in view of the condition in which this country finds itself, not only by reason of the fact that we are at war, but by reason of the attitude adopted by a large number of the citizens of this country. As a matter of fact the Opposition have time and again to-day directed their criticism against the Government along these lines; they have said that the Government is unable to keep law and order properly. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) and others of his colleagues have accused the Government of not being able to keep the people of the country in hand. Yet they are opposing the granting of powers which will enable the Government to exercise stricter control over the activities of those who are seeking to disturb the peace.

They have sufficient powers already.

I think everyone in this House on both sides deplores violence, but we have to face the unpleasant fact that in this country at present outbreaks of violence are occurring on an ever-widening scale, outbreaks which are foreign to the tradition of public life in this country, but in discussing them in this House it is essential that we should not lose sight of the question on whom the ultimate responsibility should rest. A great responsibility falls on those who during the recess between the last session and this session have carried on a verbally violent campaign against their own country at a time when that country is at war. The fact is that they seem to some extent to recognise that, because I see in this morning’s newspaper that the caucus of the Opposition passed a resolution, part of which was in these terms, “that no policy of action will be accepted which will lead to violence or which is calculated to lead any section of the people to violence.” It is extraordinary that members of this House should have felt it necessary to pass a specific resolution against their own followers resorting to conduct likely to lead to violence. One would have thought that the official Opposition which holds itself out as the alternative government of the country could take it for granted that their followers would not resort to conduct which would lead to violence. One can only deduce that the terms of that resolution have in the past not been altogether observed. The trouble with political violence is that once it starts it tends to spread. We had an example of that in Stellenbosch recently, where there was a clash between a section of the European community and the coloured community there only a short time before the trouble at Potchefstroom, of which we have heard so much here. The Government in the case of Potchefstroom promptly directed an enquiry to be made into the happenings there. There was a demand for an enquiry.

The enquiry should have been held by the police and followed by a prosecution.

That enquiry is still proceeding. I have noticed before that enquiries are generally demanded by parties to a dispute who believe that they are in the right, and I take it therefore that those who demanded the enquiry were associated with the victims of the assaults that took place there. I am not here to pass judgment on the issue at Stellenbosch, but I do submit that if it was right to institute a public enquiry into the Potchefstroom trouble a similar procedure should have been resorted to in the case of Stellenbosch.

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

We heard to-day how hon. members opposite are accusing us of being responsible for the incitement of the public. I think, however, that we can claim the very opposite to be the case. We have directed one challenge after the other to members opposite to produce proof of our being responsible, and eventually the hon. member for Kliprivier (Mr. Friend) came along and said that he could produce evidence, and he told us what the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) was supposed to have said about the Prime Minister at Vryheid, Natal. We can now imagine what the intelligence of the hon. member for Kliprivier must be if he regards that as evidence of the fact that members of the Opposition are guilty of stirring up the feelings of the people. The very most he could accuse the hon. member for Fordsburg of is that he used real British Parliamentary language. Those are the very expressions one hears in the British Parliament, although I do not feel called upon to approve of expressions of that kind.

No decent member would use expressions of that kind towards your leader.

I appreciate what the hon. member is saying and that is why I have already said that I do not feel myself called upon to give my approval to expressions of that kind. I would not approve of anyone using language like that about a person who is his senior, language which is not decent, to whichever side of the House he may belong.

You are becoming an Afrikaner.

I would almost thank the hon. member for what he said. No, hon. members opposite hopelessly fail to give proof of any instance where hon. members on this side of the House have been guilty of stirring up public feeling to disturb the good feelings in the country. Now I want to say a few words to the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg). I feel that the right hon. the Prime Minister must have been listening with painful attention to the fallacies preached by that hon. member. I do think it is a pity that an Afrikaner mother has to admit that that is her son, a man who has got to such a stage that he gets up here and says that he wishes that he could be an Englishman if only for a week so that he might put Afrikaner Boers in their place. That is what his words amounted to, but that is just en passant. I have now told him what I wanted to say and I now wish to reply to the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Clark). He told the House that the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen) and myself were sitting in front of him when he made his maiden speech and that we congratulated him. Possibly I did make that mistake, and if I did make that mistake let me say that it was my inborn courtesy which was responsible for my having sinned, and in front of this full House I now wish to withdraw what I said. It appears to me that the hon. member in his speech said that he wanted to be a good Afrikaner and that that was the reason why we congratulated him. But do not hon. members know what the trouble in our country is? The trouble is that we are dealing here with two big races and a very unfortunate past. And what is the greatest misfortune of all? It is that the one race imagines that it can force everything down the throats of the other race. What do we hear here in Cape Town? Because the English-speaking people want it, we have to stand still in the streets at 12 o’clock every day in order to have a pause for the purposes of prayer. Such hypocritical prayer is disapproved of by every Afrikaner, nor will the Prime Minister approve of it. Where the Prime Minister makes a mistake is that he fails to protect his fellow-Afrikaner when the laatter is compelled to take part in such hypocrisy. I say again to my hon. friends that the misfortune of this country is that the one section—the section which I am unable to call the settled section of the community, that section which has come here to make a profit and make money, and which unfortunately is being assisted by a section of our fellow-Afrikaners—the misfortune is that that section tries to push things such as the midday pause down our throats, and they are attacking people on the trains and doing things like that, all aimed against the other section of the population. Let me say in all sincerity to the Prime Minister that he must not allow himself to be told by hon. members opposite that his soldiers never do anything on the trains to cause disturbances and trouble. It is not so. I have travelled between’ Potchefstroom and Johannesburg and the language I had had to listen to is not the kind of language which should be allowed in any civilised country, and that language was used in the presence of ladies. The position to-day is that a lady cannot go to the dining saloon. These are facts, and they are hard facts, and I say that for the sake of the good name of our country, and for the sake of the Afrikaans uniform, the Prime Minister should take serious steps to put a stop to that sort of thing. We have the position in Cape Town to-day that when we go to a café and pay for a cup of tea, and when the orchestra plays “Rule Britannia” and “There will always be an England” we are expected to stand up.

Who says that you must get up for it?

If the hon. the Minister had only been there on Saturday night he would have seen that two members of Parliament were surrounded by sailors and soldiers so that they had to get police protection, simply because they did not stand up when these songs were played. I know that he does not know it, and that is why I am telling him. Is the Afrikaner to stand for that sort of thing, and does my hon. friend approve of it?

No, I do not stand for that sort of thing.

That is what I expected from the hon. the Minister, and I want to go further and ask English-speaking members opposite whether they think it fair that if I go to a tea-room and I pay for my tea, and songs of that kind are sung, I should have to stand up or otherwise be assaulted? Do they think it right that assaults should be committed on trains, such as were committed on the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw).

He said that we were renegades and he deserves all he gets.

Does the hon. member approve of the law of violence which used to be in force in the days of barbarism being applied here?

If a man uses language such as he used, then what happens to him is the consequence of his own action.

Now I understand my hon. friend better. I would be very sorry if he approved of what happened there.

He first of all said that the hon. member for Beaufort West deserved all he got.

I said that it was the consequences of his actions, but I would never approve of things like that.

We now hear that there is not a single member on the opposite side who approves of these things. Then why do they not stop it? Is it a sign of weakness on their part, that they are powerless to do anything, although they are convinced that disgraceful things are going on? No, those things should be put a stop to in our country. The people of South Africa are being driven to a position which is going to become extremely difficult for us in future to live together again, and we who constitute that section of the population which has to endure all this oppression feel very sore under it all. Hon. members opposite should remember that these sorts of things may react like a boomerang against themselves, in spite of the fact that they are now availing themselves of this position for their own purposes. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I think the burden of this debate has proceeded very much on the lines followed by the controversy in Cape Town among the different sections of the people in regard to the midday pause, and that has largely risen from the enthusiasm or keenness of interest in the cause which the different sections have espoused. I am putting it that way because in the course of this debate one has found here in this House an example of what takes place outside, the longer this discussion has continued, the more heated and the more personal has it become, and it is a clear justification for the introduction of the guillotine measure in connection with Bills of this kind. I would like to refer to the remark made by the hon. member for Senekal (Maj. Pieterse). When he said that the ex-Prime Minister had been let down by the English-speaking Afrikaners, I wish to say deliberately that, in my humble opinion, the ex-Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, let himself and the English-speaking Afrikaners down on the 4th September, 1939.

You know better.

In what respect?

Because, sir, his action on the 4th September was contrary to principles that he had enunciated during the years he worked and consulted with the present Prime Minister. It seems to me that in this_ House, as outside, people forget that this country is in a state of war—not only outside the boundaries of South Africa, but within the borders of the Union itself.

Yes, you made the war.

One has had experience of peace meetings such as we have had on the Witwatersrand, and the speeches made there indicate that their whole tenor is calculated to cause strife in this country of ours. It is useless to talk of making peace with an external enemy, when inside the country the great necessity of the moment is that there should be a lack of strife between those who have different opinions concerning the war. Loyalty to South Africa demands from the members of the Opposition, at any rate, the cessation of attacks upon our great ally, the British nation, which is to-day fighting a battle of life and death. Remarks that have fallen from different speakers in this House are calculated to injure the cause of racial unity in South Africa, because of the insults that have been cast upon the British people at the present time. England is regarded to-day by some members of the present Opposition, I think for party political purposes only, as an enemy of South Africa, and that is quite foreign to the statements previously made times without number that she is the best friend that South Africa and the Afrikanér people have had. If one listens to the tone of the debate, one comes to the conclusion that there must be some insincerity somewhere in connection with our politics. I vote solidly to give the Prime Minister the power he wants in order that he may protect not only the home front, but the interests of the Afrikaners, English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking, who have gone to the front. And I want to make this prophecy, that only when the Afrikaans-speaking people and the English-speaking people of this land join together to face a common calamity, is there any hope of future unity in South Africa. If we fail to protect the home front, then we betray the men who have gone out and are prepared to give their all to the country that we love so well. As a result of these peace meetings on the Witwatersrand, certainly not intentional, we have had things occurring in the shape of dynamite outrages which are altogether foreign to what I know of the spirit of Afrikanerdom, things that are abhorrent to the people who are the so-called permanent population of South Africa. Men like myself who have sons enlisted and have grandchildren, have a permanent stake in the future of this country. We welcome such statements as have been made by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga), who preaches the fact that there is no permanency for South Africa as a nation until both the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking sections work together. If we were incorrect in our view on the 4th September, that is no reason why, in the opinion of the opposite side, we should be insincere. We were just as sincere as they were, and we give them credit for having the courage of their convictions, but we say to-day that it is altogether foreign to the interests of South Africa to actively hinder the war efforts which the Prime Minister and those who agree with him are making in this country. Sir, at the peace meetings to which I have referred we have had demonstrations and cries of “Ons eis vryheid”. I cannot understand a thing of that kind, claiming freedom when the very character of the debate in this House is an illustration that we have freedom of the most liberal sort. Statements can be made in this House that are foreign to the true interests of the nation, and that is an illustration that we have the greatest freedom to-day.

Look at the Bill in front of you.

The Bill is calculated to give the Prime Minister power to preserve not only the freedom of this country, but freedom to carry out the will of Parliament, and to see that the future interests of South Africa shall be protected. Unless we see to this, we shall become a C.3 nation. [Time limit.]

It is peculiar to hear one hon. member opposite speak about freedom at a time when we are dealing with a Bill which creates a dictatorship in South Africa. We had speeches here to-day from certain English-speaking members opposite, more particularly from the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) and from the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) and the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside), concerning the position in this country. Naturally we need not take too much notice of the speeches of a member such as the member for Durban (Umbilo). I only want to say that we are getting rather tired of the contemptuous and sneering manner in which he speaks about Afrikanerdom. Let me tell him that if it were not for the fact that the ancestors of the Afrikaners had cleaned up this country, it would not have been possible for him and others, who come from the slums of Glasgow, to have come and made a living here. In regard to the speeches made by the hon. member for Kensington and the hon. member for Pretoria (Central), we again got the same thing from them which we have so often heard in this House: “I am a true South African.” They are such good South Africans! But we have this extraordinary spectacle that when those members have to choose between the interests of South Africa and the interests of England and the empire, they forget that they are such good South Africans, and they choose the interests of England and the empire. And we also get from them, when they talk of all they have given us, a sort of patronising attitude, an attitude of making concessions, and they tell one how kind they have been to have given us all those things. But they are always very careful first of all to look after the interests of England, especially the business interests next to the political interests. When they speak as they have done here to-day and they tell us that it is the Nationalist section which causes all the trouble in South Africa, then I want to ask them to read their own papers, papers such as the local Cape Times, the Eastern Province Herald, the East London Daily Despatch, the Sunday Times and such papers, and they will then see who is responsible for the incitement of the public. Even when the Afrikaner tries to develop economically we get that type of insinuation and accusation which we have been having here during the past two weeks. Is it to be wondered at that we try to make ourselves felt economically when we get the sort of disclosures which were read out in this House showing that English insurance companies take money also from the Nationalist section of the country and then use that money for the purpose of fighting the Nationalist section in South Africa? In regard to the so-called difficulties which have arisen in South Africa in the past lew months we had an important admission today from members opposite. Speaking about the events at Potchefstroom and elsewhere they gave us clearly to understand that they looked upon those events as being quite understandable and quite natural; they thought it quite natural that people should act in the way they did act. I am not talking now about what happened to me personally, but we do take exception to the behaviour of many of our soldiers. Hon. members opposite took exception to what we said about the behaviour of the Australian troops here in Cape Town. But they will not get a single member on this side who did not speak of the exceptionally good conduct of the 16,000 to 20,000 British soldiers who were recently here in Cape Town. We all remarked among ourselves that the conduct of those 16,000 soldiers was as good as it could be. But when there is reason to complain of the Australian troops and of our own Union troops hon. members resent it, and we are told that we are making these remarks simply because we are under the influence of racialism. Now I particularly want to come to two points which have been raised here, two charges which have been raised against me. In regard to the difficulties which have arisen in regard to the midday pause it is stated that I am the individual who, because of a speech I made at Wellington, caused the riots in Adderley Street. I made a speech there and what I said I shall repeat, and I shall say it here. But I want to point out that when I made that speech the trouble in Cape Town had already occurred, and innocent citizens had been provoked and had already been attacked by the hooligans of Cape Town; even a young fellow from the Jan van Riebeeck School was attacked. It was in consequence of what had already occurred that I said there what I am going to say again, namely that every citizen is entitled to move about freely in the streets of Cape Town, and if he is unable to avail himself of that right to move about freely then he is entitled, and his friends who are with him are entitled, to defend him. What is the cause of the difficulty? We are told that we must pray now. May I point out what happened yesterday? Yesterday we had a general day of prayer. It is the same sort of praying which takes place at 12 o’clock. There was an advertisement in one of the Cape papers that there would be a day of prayer in a specific church. It was stated that the prayer would be for peace through victory, and victory through prayer. It was perfectly clear that the object of the praying would be the same as is prayed for in the streets, to pray for a British victory. I listened last night to what was being broadcast from Daventry, and I wrote down as carefully as I possibly could what was being said. It was stated; “Everywhere in the Empire people met together in earnest prayer for a British victory.” That is the cause for the prayer. I want to say in passing that I was surprised that some of the preachers of our own Dutch Reformed Church allowed themselves to be dragged in in connection with the day of prayer, a day of prayer which is only for a British victory. I am surprised that our Church in which there is such a divided opinion, and in which the overwhelming majority is not in favour of the war, took part in it. There was another charge made against me, and reference has been made to this on several occasions. It is in connection with a speech which I made at Merweville more than a year ago. I spoke there about the relationship between Afrikaners, between those people who supported the Nationalists and the other section of Afrikaners who did not agree with us. The impression is now being created that I said that everybody who differed from us politically should be treated with contempt by us. What I said was this—

And I said that that class of Afrikaner was looked upon in exactly the same way as an Englishman would look upon another Englishman who stabs his fellow-Englishman in the back. That is my conception of that class of Afrikaner, and I repeat what I said there. Now there is another matter I want to refer to. One does not like to drag our courts into debates of this kind, and I do not actually wish to make any charge against the courts as a whole, but I must say this evening that in the past few weeks we have had instances of magistrates who have taken up such an attitude that it will not tend to increase our confidence in the courts of South Africa. We had an instance, for example, of a young fellow here in Cape Town who was assaulted during a midday pause. He had no intention of disturbing the pause, but quite accidentally he did so. A sailor who assaulted him was fined £5. In another case, however, an Afrikaner who was found guilty, although there was no definite evidence of his having taken part in the assault, was fined £25. This was also in connection with one of these disturbances. [Time limit.]

I was surprised and it even hurt me to hear the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) criticising the Dutch-speaking parsons who responded to the call by the King to associate themselves with the day of humiliation, and I was surprised at the hon. member having the temerity to try and lecture those parsons here. It is things of that kind which are responsible for the Afrikaner people losing their respect and becoming demoralised. If one gets responsible people using language of that kind the result must naturally be that our people will become divided. It was a year ago that this House decided to take part in the war, rightly or wrongly. Since those days the Government under the most difficult and extraordinary conditions maintained the security of the public and peace and order in the country. It did so in spite of speeches of the type which we have just listened to. But the time has now arrived, and it is high time that this Government should be given extraordinary powers enabling it to act. If there is any doubt left of the desirability of a step like that being taken, the necessity for such action has been made perfectly clear during the last few days by the speeches of hon. members of the Opposition. I want to say here with the greatest sincerity and emphasis that nobody more than the Leader of the Opposition is responsible for the present state of affairs by the speeches which he made in this House in which he declared that we were to-day involved in a war of aggression, and that the Government therefore did not have the right to commandeer the burghers. I say that it is the Leader of the Opposition himself who is the cause of these very drastic powers having become necessary. Are not these speeches going too far altogether? If their followers get into trouble hon. members opposite will not be able to say that it is the Government who got them into trouble; their own leader is responsible for the trouble. The Leader of the Opposition stated here: “Even if the enemy comes over the borders of the Union the Government will not yet have the right to commandeer our men.” I say in all earnestness as an Afrikaner who represents the Afrikaners in Rustenburg, that that sort of language is nothing but the greatest incitement to open resistance to legal authority, and if the people are landed in difficulties and misery the Leader of the Opposition will be responsible and hon. members will have to thank him; they will not be able to blame the Government. I therefore say it is high time that this House should give the Government extraordinary powers to act in these circumstances in view of the fact that responsible men make such irresponsible statements. I also want to express the hope that the Prime Minister when he does get those powers will use them and will see to it that the Afrikaans-speaking people who support us are given what they are entitled to, and that they will enjoy the proper protection they need in this country. Nearly every member opposite has told us that the day of reckoning is near. I must say we are tired of those stories.

Your constituency is tired of you, you cannot even hold a meeting there.

I held twenty-four meetings in my constituency. I admit that at one meeting I was given a vote of no confidence, but at all the other meetings I was given votes of confidence in the Government. I made a careful note, and I addressed more than 3,000 people, people belonging to my own constituency, not people brought along by lorries from other constituencies. I challenge any hon. member of the Opposition who wants to come and test Rustenburg. I am not talking about the English-speaking people now, but I say that we as Afrikaans-speaking people are tired of their threats. We stand by our Leader and we have the fullest confidence in him, and we are determined to support him, and we are not going to allow ourselves to be deflected from our course.

The speech of the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) did not surprise me in the least. The Leader of the Opposition said that if an enemy should come to this country the Prime Minister would not have the moral right to commandeer our people. Now the hon. member makes it appear as if it is a terrible sin for him to say so.

I do not expect any better from you.

I associate myself with every word the Leader of the Opposition has said.

Even if the Italians come here.

I do believe that the Prime Minister will commandeer our people later on. What makes me say that? Last year when we were busy here with the Bill dealing with the allowances to members of Parliament I got up and I protested against members of Parliament being given double salaries, and the hon. member wanted to assault me because I said that he would not have the courage to go and fight.

On a point of personal explanation, the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) accused me of cowardice, of being afraid to defend my country. I left the House and I said, “My friend, I wish you would repeat outside what you said, and say that I am a coward.” He was too cowardly to say it outside.

I said that the hon. member would not have the courage to go and fight. I did not say that he was too cowardly, but to-day I say that he is too cowardly to go and fight.

Say it outside.

In regard to the contention about the assaults. I told the hon. member that if he said that I was too much of a coward to meet him outside, all he had to do was to come to the physical training room upstairs where I would be quite prepared to show him whether I was afraid or not. I repeat it. He has not got the courage to go and fight and the Prime Minister will have to commandeer before he will take up rifle and face powder. I listened carefully to the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen), and I can well understand how it is that he is sitting over there to-day, and not the Leader of the Dominion Party. He is more of a Dominionite and he would be more at home in Piccadilly Circus. He would be quite good enough to represent those people, but he does not know the sentiments of the Afrikaans-speaking people. A speech which surprised me, however, was that of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg). I must admit honestly that the hon. member is still able to surprise me. We have the whole of the Labour Party sitting opposite. The Leader of the Labour Party saw to it that he secured a post as Minister, and all the three followers of the Labour Party have jobs to-day. They are the people who pretend that they want to fight for the underdog. They have just as little right to speak on behalf of the Labour Party and on behalf of the workers, as the hon. member for Krugersdorp has to speak of a soldier. Have hon. members ever seen a man in this world who has the temerity to say that he is a soldier, but resents our telling him that he takes refuge here behind the blood of the Afrikaner while he gets 17s. 6d. per day, an allowance of 10s. 6d. per day, plus his parliamentary salary.

I must ask hon. members not to be so personal.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp got up here and wanted to talk as a soldier. If he wants to be a soldier, let him go to Kenya, and let him come under the fire of the Ialians. No, but the Afrikaners have to go there, while the hon. member for Krugersdorp sits here, and although he has done nothing yet, he is being paid 17s. 6d. per day and an additional 10s. 6d., and on top of that he gets £700 per year.

The hon. member is again becoming personal.

Now I want to come to my own case. Several insinuations have been made against me and accusations have also been made against me personally, and it has been stated that I had said that I wished Hitler would bring us a republic. I want to say exactly what I said outside at meetings, so that the Prime Minister can also hear it. He, the Prime Minister, stated that there were still people left who had the temerity to want Hitler to give us a republic. At that meeting at Burghers-dorp somebody got up and asked, “How do you think the result of the war is going to affect us?” “Shall we be any nearer to a Republic?” And my reply was: “We have had two Republics here in South Africa, the Free State and the Transvaal, and we have two neighbours, Germany and England,” and I further went on to say that England had behaved like a scandalous neighbour, and had drawn us into two wars, one in 1880 and one in 1900, and on a third occasion men like Jameson and Rhodes tried to speak into the Transvaal and rob the people of their freedom in a disgraceful manner. As against that we had Germany as our neighbour, and Germany had never yet done us in South Africa any harm. I expressed the hope that if the day came when Germany should again be our neighbour, she would recognise South Africa as an independent state in the southern corner of the continent, and that she would continue to be as exemplary a neighbour as she had been in the past.

That shows that you are a Nazi.

Another charge which was made against me was that I had told my people that they must have nothing to do with my friends on the other side. What I did say was that I had respect for a man who followed the policy of the Prime Minister and who had the courage to carry out that policy, and that I had respect for the man who had the courage to take up his rifle and to go and fight for his convictions, but that I had no respect for those who took refuge here behind a big allowance while others went to the front and sacrifice their lives. I said that I had the deepest contempt for the khaki knights at Burghers-dorp who, by persecuting peaceful citizens, made their lives hell, and I also said that I had the deepest contempt for members of Parliament who had voted for war and who were now getting extra allowances but were still sitting in this country. I look upon them as lepers, and I would not have anything to do with them. I am not afraid to repeat here what I said outside. There is no doubt that feelings are running high in the country. When I was young I hated the English, I admit it. I hated them, because of what they had done to my father. When I went overseas I thought I should come to my senses and try to understand them, and that is what I did; but I must say here to-night, and I do not hesitate to say it, that I am embittered against them, and I am also embittered against the Prime Minister because I regard him as being the cause of all the evil. He misled the English-speaking people in the way he did, otherwise they would never have done the things they are doing to-day. The Prime Minister is responsible for all the bitterness; the first thing that happened after the 4th September was that the torch at Pretoria was extinguished. I thought that the Prime Minister would immediately express his disapproval of what had been done. [Time limit.]

There we have an example of a man who speaks the truth. He had no argument, but he told us that the reason why he holds the views which he does hold is that he is embittered against the Prime Minister and against England. He has been entirely poisoned, and a man who has been embittered, even if he has the best brain in the world, cannot argue properly, and his brain will not function properly. Poison clouds the brain. Surely the hon. member is not going to tell me that he is such a stranger in South Africa that he thinks that any man who wants to go and fight can get on to his horse and go wherever he pleases. Surely he is not as ignorant as all that. Every man who has signed up to go and fight anywhere cannot just go and pick out his own little fire along the mountain-side; there are such things as military authorities who lay down where a man is to go and when he is to go. If one day the hon. member should become less bitter, he would understand that his accusations are totally misplaced and unmerited. One day, when he is no longer embittered, he will regret the words which he has spoken here to-day. Then he will realise that it is not left to any individual to choose what train he wants to leave by and on what day he wants to go. We are under discipline, and we are awaiting our instructions from the authorities. But we have a new development now, a new phenomenon, something which is in accordance with the nature of the Opposition. We remember that at the beginning of the war they stated that they were just as good people as we were, and that if we were attacked they would fight for South Africa. They told us that they were very brave and that they would fight like lions, but now they are beginning to look for excuses and they are manufacturing reasons to show why they must not go and fight. They now see that the Prime Minister was right; they see that the enemy is coming, and now they say: “It is you who brought the enemy.” They always imagined that the enemy would not come anywhere near us; they would, not listen to advice. In the past they used to say that if the enemy came they would fight just as hard as we would. But now that they see that there is a possibility of the enemy coming, they begin to look for excuses. The Department of Defence is not going to lose very much if it gets no help from hon. members opposite, but I am thinking of other people who are being misled and who may perhaps get into a difficult position. After this session hon. members opposite will travel through the country again, and they will go on telling people that it will be the Government’s fault if the enemy comes here.

Hear, hear; who declared war?

That is the way in which hon. members are trying to get out of their difficulties. They are now manufacturing arguments and they are coming along with all sorts of reasons, and they fire looking for excuses and stirring up the people, so that the people shall not obey and not carry out the Government’s policy. Those hon. members who have always prided themselves on their willingness to defend the country — they are no longer prepared to do so — they come along with all sorts of excuses so that they will not have to fight when the day comes. If hon. members opposite would only follow a definite policy, and if they would only be consistent in their policy we would be able to understand them, but to-day they proclaim one policy and to-morrow they proclaim a totally different one. How can the Government possibly take any notice of them? How can the Government take notice of the criticism of hon. members opposite who adopt one attitude to-day and a different one to-morrow. I would have thought that the Opposition would have been able to do useful work if it had followed a consistent policy and stood by that policy, and if it had told us exactly what its attitude is, but if they say one thing one day, if they say one day that they are also going to fight if the enemy comes here, and if they say the next day when they see the enemy coming nearer that because we have brought the enemy they are not going to fight, then they must not take it amiss if we say that we do not know where we are, and that we refuse to take any notice of their criticism. It is perfectly clear that this Bill has to be passed, and I hope that if the day should come when commandeering has to take place — I hope it will not become necessary — that hon. members opposite will then prove themselves to be as good Afrikaners as they claim to be, and that South Africa will come first with them, and not Germany. I understand that it is the Government’s policy to fight the war with all possible voluntary help, and to avoid commandeering, but if the time should come when there has to be commandeering, I hope hon. members will then prove where they stand.

I was really surprised at the speech of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg). The hon. member speaks about being consistent. If there is one hon. member who is not being consistent it is he. I do not know whether that has to be attributed to the epaulettes he now wears on his shoulders, and to the allowance which he draws, but not long ago, before they fused with the other party, that self-same hon. member said that he would have nothing to do with any war. Since when has he changed? Is it to be attributed to the epaulettes and to the allowance he gets? It is marvellous what an allowance can do.

The hon. member should refrain from indulging in personalities.

The hon. member spoke about being consistent and that is why I want to remind him that he should be the very last to talk about consistency. He should rather keep quiet than make remarks like that. But I shall leave that point. I just want to point this out to hon. members opposite; they say that this Bill is so reasonable that it should be passed as quickly as possible. I tell them that this Bill goes back to the seventeenth century. The penalty provisions under the regulations which the Prime Minister may issue provide for the confiscating of property in the event of a contravention. This is something unheard of; it takes us back to the 17th century. The Prime Minister asks us here to create a dictatorship, and yet hon. members opposite argue that this is a reasonable and fair Bill. I say that this Bill takes us back to the 17th century, and I want to refer to a proclamation which was issued in 1779. It was issued on the 22nd April of that year and when I read that edict here hon. members will realise that even in those days people had come to the conclusion that the right of confiscation should not be part of the penal provisions. The edict reads as follows—

It is perfectly clear from this that they admitted in those days that it was unjust and unfair and that it not only pressed very hard on the person who had contravened the law, but also on his wife and children or members of his family. It goes further—

The hon. member cannot read all of that.

I am quoting it to show that as far back as 1779 that penalty was abolished and now the Prime Minister is reverting to the 17th century. It is a disgrace to find that in this country anyone can get up in this House and defend such powers being granted to the Government. I want to warn the farming population that if these powers are granted their property will be in danger, and it will mean that something which is very unjust and unfair has been adopted by this House, with which this side of the House cannot associate itself in any way whatever. Nor should we be satisfied with protesting against it. We must fight it with all the power we have, and yet we find hon. members opposite coming here and holding forth in a hypocritical manner that these powers are needed. I hope the Prime Minister will come to realise that it is impossible for us to go back to that century, and that legislation of this kind is absolutely unheard of and cannot be tolerated. I can attribute it to only one thing and that is that the Prime Minister with his colleagues and his followers are carrying on blindly in the country.

The hon. member must not proceed in that way.

I say that hon. members opposite have not made a proper study of this Bill, and that is why they are not able to express a proper judgment on it. I say that this legislation is of such a far-reaching nature that no people or no legislative body in any country dare allow the Prime Minister the right to issue regulations which may contain a penalty of confiscation of property. It is far-reaching and we cannot allow it, and that being so we are entitled to protest against it with all the strength that is in us. It is not only this clause which we protest against but we protest against the whole spirit of this Bill. It is a Bill which provides for regulations and its object is to scare the people outside. I say that this legislation of the Prime Minister’s has only one object in view, and that is to scare the people. That is the reason why such a drastic clause is being introduced, a clause which goes back to the 17th century. [Time limit.]

I am sure it came as a great surprise to a large number of members when the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) repudiated his own Bill which he passed in 1927, I refer to the Flag Bill. He evidently is prepared to repudiate that Bill because he stated that he was in favour of one flag, one anthem and one language in South Africa, and that was what he was aiming at. He is prepared to repudiate the Bill that he fathered in this House, a Bill which was to bring peace, contentment and happiness between the two races. The English-speaking section of the community will be asked to forego all that they were given in that Bill and now we have to look forward to another Bill which will bring into being, if the hon. member has his way, one flag, one anthem and one language. I would like to say to that hon. member, if he thinks for one moment there will ever be peace and contentment, peace and happiness in South Africa through one language, one flag and one anthem, then I say never, never, never. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) told us the very pitiful tale about his experiences on the train. I am not in a position to say what compartment he was in, but after weeping and wailing about the treatment he received on the station and in the train, he finished up by stating that our soldiers, when travelling, should be put into a goods train.

I didn’t say that.

I believe that he stated when soldiers have to travel in South Africa they should be put in a compartment to be hitched on to a goods train.

[Inaudible].

That is what the hon. member is reported to have said. This is what frequently takes place here, hon. members make these statements and then when they are challenged, they repeatedly deny them. If the hon. member thinks that soldiers are going to be pleased with his remarks about their being segregated and treated as though they were cattle, put into a compartment and hitched up to a fast goods train, he must not be surprised if he gets similar treatment on other occasions. I, like a very large number of people in South Africa, have been amused at the tolerance with which our troops have stood this kind of thing. We have them by the thousands joining up, they are leaving their homes, their wives and children to go up north to fight and uphold the honour of South Africa, and they are being insulted by hon. members on my right, not only here but in the country, and I say that hon. members are definitely doing South Africa a tremendous injustice by their present attitude. They don’t speak for the Afrikaans-speaking section of South Africa, but only a very small section of it, and the majority of Afrikanders will be greatly disappointed to find that the effort they are making, is being deliberately sabotaged by members of the Opposition. If the troops are not defended when they are not able to retaliate owing to military discipline, I am afraid they will take matters into their own hands, they will not stand these insults being hurled at them by the spokesmen of Hitler. They are the true representatives of the people of South Africa, they are doing all that they can to assist the present Government in prosecuting this war, and I say again that if they have much more of this, they will surprise the hon. members on my right. The question of calling Parliament together, has been discussed, and I venture to say the exhibition in this House, the racialism, the attacks not only on English-speaking people in South Africa but Afrikaans-speaking people will cause people to insist upon Parliament being closed for the duration of the war. If this is all that the Nationalist Party can do when the House is sitting, I say it would be far better for the Prime Minister to dissolve the House until the war is over. There will be no co-operation or assistance from the Nationalist benches, they are determined to do everything they possibly can to prevent the Government from getting on with the war. The present Leader of the Opposition stated on Saturday as a warning to the Prime Minister that if he dared to go any further along the road he had already taken, things would happen in South Africa which would horrify everybody. Now, Mr. Speaker, what does this mean, what is going to happen which will horrify everybody, what is the threat there? Have they been able to import one of Hitler’s secret weapons that the Government is not aware of? What is the meaning of these continuous threats? The hon. member for Beaufort West also stated in his speech today that as a rule there were 20 or 30 soldiers on every train and arrangements should be made to attach passenger-coaches to fast goods trains for the transport of soldiers. Does my hon. friend admit that that is correct? Am I wrong when I say the hon. member for Beaufort West is classifying our troops as cattle and does he think our soldiers are going to stand that sort of thing?

[Inaudible].

I think the answer would be that if the hon. member were put on a goods train it would be better for his health and probably better for the people who may have to travel with him. The hon. member for Piquetberg this morning discussing this question of the pause in Cape Town …. [Time Limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I had no intention of rising to take part in this dog fight, but as one of the young members I do deplore the tone of this debate throughout the whole day, and I think it is time for one of us to get up and try and add a little bit of tone to it. I am sure the Prime Minister is still waiting for something new to be put forward so that he may be able to answer some criticism of his Bill. I am rising to deplore the tone of the debate, not that I am afraid of fighting; I think the Opposition know there is nothing I love more ‘than to get up and have a real good fight. But there is one thing I do take exception to, and that is a racialistic fight such as is taking place here this evening. Not only do the members on this side of the House deplore it, not only the people in the gallery, but the whole country deplores that members get up here and just speak on one thing only — racialism. We have heard interjections from the hon. member for Potgietersrust (the Rev. S. W. Naudé) when members on this side are speaking, the two words he uses are “shut up.” Imagine a member of Parliament, Mr. Chairman, using language like that in a debate like this. I wish the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) was in his seat, but I am pleased to see that he is in the House. I heard him get up and say that in future he was going to pack a revolver and if he was insulted he was going to shoot and was going to shoot to kill. Mr. Chairman, are we in the House of Assembly or are we at a street corner thumping a drum? An hon. member on my left says „Hollywood,” but I don’t think even Hollywood would do that. I could understand that language coming from Mexico, but for an hon. member of Parliament to get up and say he would shoot to kill, is something I resent. The hon. member is going to carry a revolver in his pocket and shoot to kill anybody who comes and assaults him. I only hope the man who assaults him is not 4 foot 6 high, because the hon. member is about 6 foot three and a big man. The hon. member said that he would shoot to kill. He worked himself into a very violent temper and it is deplorable because wild statements like that will be put in the press. The members of the press are sitting up in the gallery, and tomorrow we will have it published that a member of Parliament advocates shooting. I want the hon. members for Senekal and Vredefort to remember this, they have advocated shooting in this House. They have said they are going to do it, they are leaders, we are all reckoned to, be leaders in this country, and as sure as God made little apples [interruptions], as sure as I am standing here, Mr. Chairman, there is going To be some shooting, and when that shooting takes place, it might be me that is shot, it might be somebody in this House who is shot, remember that it was first mentioned in this House, and the lead has been given here. Take this question of the noon pause in Cape Town, incidents have occurred in connection with that, and what has happened since? We have heard hon. gentlemen on the opposite side protesting violently about this pause, the affair had died down so far as Cape Town is concerned, but now it is spreading to Port Elizabeth. Feelings are being stirred up, and I want hon. members on the other side to remember that their idle irresponsible talk is the cause of it. You hon. members are reckoned to be leaders of the country, and when you hon. members on the opposite side recommend that you are going to do this and that, the people will claim the right also to do it. Remember that if a man shoots and kills, it is murder, and I don’t need to remind you that anybody who murders will be hanged. And nothing can stop the man who shoots and kills from also losing his life, and it will be a terrible thing to have on the conscience of anybody that they were responsible for that man’s death. I want to say in conclusion, that I think the hon. the Prime Minister will be very pleased to hear something new in this debate, because up to the present he has nothing to reply to: there is not one single new point raised beyond this racialistic stuff which has been thrown across the floor.

I cannot allow this debate to close without saying a word or two about what the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) said with reference to people who come from Glasgow. I think it is very ant that the hon. member should have used that phrase this evening, because this morning he indulged in a considerable amount of squealing because a few soldiers bad apparently frightened the life out of him on the train last night. I want to suggest that these soldiers took the steps they did because of the hon. gentleman’s unjustified sneering at our soldiers in general. I suggest to him that if be indulges in these sneers about people who come from Glasgow, he might strike a few Glasgow men who won’t be so kind to him. Now, Mr. Chairman, it is all right for these hon. gentlemen who come here, and under the protection that this House elves them, are prepared to slang every nationality, creed and religion excent their own, but some of us on this side are just getting a little bit tired of that Let me tell the hon. member for Beaufort West that there are as good men who come out of the city of Glasgow as he is ever likely to be. There have been men produced in the city of Glasgow whose boots the hon. gentleman for Beaufort West could not lick. And the hon. member for Beaufort West himself is not such a great example of the Afrikaner that he can stand up here and say these things, and there are men who come from Glasgow who are purer Afrikaners and purer South Africans than the hon. member can claim to be. Now I want to point out to these hon. members that we have been listening for hours and hours to them, not about the Bill; so far hardly anything has been said about the Bill, but we have had to listen to the sins and iniquities of the English people in South Africa in particular and to the sins and iniquities of the English people in the world in general. We have had to listen to sneers about England and about South Africa’s war effort; we have had suggestions that Britain is losing and is bound to lose the war, and that when Britain loses the war, for some reason which I cannot understand South Africa will be a very happy country. And let me try to explain this, that South Africa only finds itself in the happy position in which it is possible to have a body such as this, a country which instead of its organisation being disturbed is developing; South Africa is only in that position because Great Britain has taken upon herself the responsibility for fighting Nazi Germany alone, and Great Britain is fighting Nazi Germany, and she is defending the people of South Africa, and if those hon. members have not got sufficient guts to take a hand ….

Order, order!

Very well I shall withdraw the word guts and I shall say the word stomach. If they have not the stomach to fight the battle of their own country then they should sit down and keep quiet about it, and not continually sneer about the rest who are fighting. We are continually hearing talk about the old republics and the new republics which is coming about, from individuals on those benches, but when they did have the opportunity to do so they did not lift a finger to fight for those republics. The hon. member who has just gone out— who has just slinked out—was a member of the Town Guards.

I think hon. members should avoid these personalities.

It is rather late in the debate to try that, because the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) has referred to me as a gentleman who has come from the scum of the slums of Glasgow—I suppose he referred to me.

If the hon. member wanted to take exception he should have appealed to the Chair.

No, I do not want to appeal to the Chair, but we can expect to be able to reply in the same coin. That is part of the trouble with these hon. gentlemen over there. They feel impelled from time to time to say precisely what they think about us, and we are supposed to suffer in silence, but there comes a time when we have had just a little too much, and sometimes we feel that we want to reply. Well, apparently hon. gentlemen over there have chosen their own issue. They have made the issue that this Bill should be discussed along the lines of the terrible things which have been done by the English-speaking people particularly, and by the members of this House in general. The whole debate has centred round the weaknesses of the English-speaking people particularly in South Africa. Personalities have been flung about the House from the beginning of the debate, and after all I think it is a test of the sincerity of hon. members over there that we can show that although they are always preaching that they are going to have a republic—they are always telling us that they are not going to rest until they have a republic—it is peculiar that most of these stories come from individuals who many years ago had the opportunity of fighting for a republic, but when that opportunity was presented to them they did not do any defending. Of course, it is also quite true that many of them were born under the protection of the British flag in the old Cape Colony; and many others were not here at all. But charges of cowardice have been flung at us so often from the other side of the House that we are entitled to point out to the people whom they are deliberately misleading what kind or manner of men they are who are misleading them. I for one consider myself just as good a South African as the hon. member for Beaufort West, but I do not consider that I am being a good South African if I am prepared to hand over everything which to me is valuable, if I am prepared to forget the country of my birth and the town of my birth—even if it happens to be Glasgow —if I am prepared to forget my culture and my language.

Exactly.

I feel that the English-speaking people as I have said here before have as much to bring towards the common heritage of South Africanism as the Afrikaans-speaking people, and we are not likely to be given the opportunity of bringing that along if we are continually to be sneered at by hon. members opposite. They talk glibly about the imposition of British Imperialism, how British Imperialism is being imposed upon them from day to day. However true that may have been thirty-five years ago or forty years ago, it is not true to-day. If anything is true to-day it is that the English-speaking people in this country are being imposed on by individuals of that description when we are placed in a position of having to listen day in and day out to these continuous tirades. Day in we have to listen to lying statements, for instance, about children who are being evacuated from Great Britain. So if we are in a position of being dictators and of imposing British Imperialism on these people, then Imperialism works out in a very funny way, in a way which I have never understood. But again as has happened in many countries, they are attempting to build up a dictatorship of a minority, and they are attempting to build up a dictatorship by a continuous mouthing of racial arguments, by attacks, by distortions of the truth, by a continuous attempt to place before the people a completely wrong construction of our reasons—of the reasons why this country went to war, and as to the actual conduct of the war itself. I feel that it is time that this kind of thing is stopped, and I agree with my hon. friend from Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) that the time has arrived when this side, that those of us who are younger members and who do perhaps sit on the back benches, are no longer prepared hour after hour to listen to repetitions of this kind of thing, and if in future we are going to be continually attacked and made to listen to this kind of thing, then we are going to reply and re-attack and pay them back in some of their own coin.

I have been waiting a long time to see whether hon. members would get back to the Bill. It is not my intention to continue the debate any further, but I want to deal at once with the amendment which has been proposed here. The first amendment is that proposed by the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Oost). He wants to delete certain words in this clause. I am unable to accept that amendment because I believe that the words which the hon. member wants to be deleted are assential for the object which we have in view. The hon. member only wants the defence of the Union to be left as something in connection with which the Governor-General may by proclamation issue regulations, and the hon. member wants to delete the provision that the Governor-General may also issue regulations in that manner in connection with the security of the public, the effective prosecution of the war, the maintenance of public order, etc. It is essential that the Government shall have powers to issue regulations in that connection. I want to draw the attention of hon. members to the clause on the same subject in the British Act, and I want to point out that that clause goes even further. I have been asked why we do not follow the British example, but we have done so here to a very large extent. The corresponding clause in the British Act says this—

That goes further than what we are proposing here. Our wording is different, although it has the same effect more or less.

It means a dictatorship.

It is the same as it is in England.

But there you have a dictatorship.

A war dictatorship. Hon. members will admit that in times of war when grave dangers are threatening it is essential to grant extraordinary powers to the Government. That is done throughout the civilised world, and it has been the custom for thousands of years.

But the difference is that in England they are waging war in their own country, but in this country we have no war in the country.

The provisions, therefore, have to remain as they are, and I cannot accept the deletion of the words proposed by the hon. member. The hon. member further proposes that the Government should not have the power of conferring powers, granted to it under the regulations, to subordinate bodies and persons. That, however, is also necessary and there again we have followed the British example. It sometimes becomes necessary to confer less comprehensive powers, powers of lesser importance concerning local affairs, to local bodies. It may be necessary to grant such powers during a certain course of time so far as military and other purposes are concerned. I am unable to accept the hon. member’s proposal. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Rooth) has moved an amendment in an amended form, and I am prepared to accept that amendment in its amended form, because I have always taken that to be the object. This refers to the confiscation of property.

It is not quite clear yet.

The hon. member for Zoutpansberg moves that the confiscation of property shall be restricted to property which has been used for, or is connected with crimes and offences which are being committed; that is the object. It is not the intention that the State shall be able to apply a general confiscation of property for military purposes. The way the hon. member has proposed it does not express our object. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) has moved an amendment for the deletion of the words and different classes of persons. The clause concerned lays it down that regulations can be issued in regard to different areas and also that different regulations may be issued in regard to different classes of persons. It is clear from the discussion which we have had here that it is necessary to differentiate.

The discussion we have had has been concerned with the difficulties in connection with military people, and it may become necessary to make special regulations in connection with soldiers, or some other class of persons. Some hon. members have expresed the view that special regulations may perhaps be issued for Afrikaners. Surely it is too ridiculous to expect anything of the kind.

You are interning innocent Afrikaners.

There is no such category as Afrikaners. “Afrikaners” are not a category. Why should we humiliate and insult our own people in that way? Here again we are following the British example, and it is necessary to make it possible for special regulations to be made in special cases for a portion of the population. Then I want to move an amendment to meet the objections raised by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga). He is afraid that under clause 3 (a) there may be a possibility of commandeering burghers for compulsory military service outside the provisions of the Defence Act. It has never been the intention to do so, and in order to remove any misunderstanding I shall move an amendment so that clauses 76 and 77 of the Defence Act will be expressly repeated here. I therefore move the amendment—

1. (a) is imposed any liability to render compulsory military service other than that provided for in the South Africa Defence Act, 1912 (Act No. 13 of 1912), as amended; or

This will mean that where the Government is given great powers to issue proclamations and regulations, so far as compulsory military service is concerned, it cannot go beyond the provisions of the Defence Act. Consequently there can be no misunderstanding.

Will you tell us what, according to you, is the interpretation of the term “South Africa”?

It is unnecesasry to do so. The hon. member can look at the Defence Act.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Oost and Mr. Warren put and negatived, and the amendments proposed by Mr. Rooth and the Minister of Defence put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—78:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bains, A. C. V.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Bumside, 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.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

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.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Noes—48:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conroy, E. A.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet. J. C.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus. F. C.

Fullard, G. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Havenga, N. C.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux. S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst. B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier P. J.

Oost, H.

Pie erse, P. W. A.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wentzel, J. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I move the amendments appearing on the Order Paper standing in the name of the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Fagan), and I am doing so at his request. These amendments contain three points; the first point is to provide for a fine instead of imprisonment only, and the imprisonment is reduced from twenty years to a maximum of one month. The second amendment is for provision to be made for a review of sentences. It will be remembered that cases have already been before the courts where people were found guilty, and those people are to-day in gaol. In the third place provision is made for dealing with offences which were committed before the coming into operation of the law — cases which have not yet been before the court. In such events the cases will be dealt with as if the law had not been passed. It is unnecessary for me to say what gave rise to these amendments in connection with the regulations on the subject of the handing in of the rifles. Everybody knows that there are large numbers of people in the Union to-day who are in gaol because there is no option of a fine, and I hope the right hon. the Prime Minister will agree with me that it was never the intention of the original Defence Act to treat political offenders as though they were criminals. It is generally admitted that in many cases the omission to hand in the rifles has been a question of conscientious objection. Those people honestly felt that to hand in their rifles meant doing something dishonourable. Rightly or wrongly those people are in gaol to-day. For that reason it is now proposed that there should be provision for a fine instead of imprisonment being imposed without the option of a fine. Hon. members of this Committee will see that the imprisonment under the amendment is reduced to a maximum of one month, and the maximum fine to £5. That scale of punishment is provided for in the Defence Act for contravention of the regulations, and I want to refer the Prime Minister to clause 115, where authority is given to the Governor-General to make regulations and also to issue penalty provisions, but he is limited to one month and a fine of £5. I hold that that should be the basis for the provision which we are dealing with here, and I want to suggest that it is unfair to select those people for this vindictive punishment of twenty years. I also want to point out that under Regulation No. 201, which was issued a few months ago and in which provision is made for a large number of offences, the maximum penalty which can be imposed is twelve months’ imprisonment or a fine of £200. There is an option of a fine there. We are dealing here with one of these subjects which has caused some strong feeling on the platteland. It is perfectly clear to us on the platteland that racial feelings have been aggravated as a result of our participation in the war, and as the result of the handing in of rifles. Many people think that it is the result of the incitement by English-speaking members of the United Party — that that is the cause of the Prime Minister having acted in the way he did. I do not say that that is so, but that is the general idea, and I am convinced that if the Prime Minister is conciliatory in this particular instance it will contribute towards relieving these very strong feelings. I, therefore, hope that the Prime Minister will accept the amendment, and it he is not prepared to accept this amendment, that he will accept something similar. I move—

1. (2) The clerk of any magistrate’s court which before the commencement of this Act has convicted any person of having contravened or failed to comply with the provisions of any notice mentioned in the Schedule to the principal Act shall, as soon as practicable after the said commencement, and irrespective of the sentence imposed upon the person convicted, transmit to the registrar of the provincial or local division of the Supreme Court to which an appeal lies from a judgment of that magistrate’s court the record of the proceedings of the case, and the provisions of Sections 93 to 96 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1917 (Act No. 32 of 1917), as amended, shall, mutatis mutandis, apply in respect of the said proceedings.
2. (3) A criminal charge for an alleged contravention of any of the said notices committed before the date of the commencement of this Act shall be dealt with as if this Act had not been passed.

I wish to explain my attitude at once in connection with this amendment. This amendment has been drafted, partly at any rate, in consultation with myself and my department. It diverts in a few respects from what I am aiming at, and I shall inform the Committee of what the difference is. First of all let me make clear to hon. members what is really intended. The object in the first place is, so far as the future is concerned, to make the penal provisions very much milder. The proposal of the hon. member who has movedthe amendment is that these penalty provisions shall be reduced from the heavy penalty which is imposed under clause 106 to the penalty provisions laid down under the Emergency Regulations, namely, one month imprisonment or a fine of £5. That is as far as the future is concerned. In future it will not be possible to impose heavy penalties, and there is no need for imprisonment to be imposed without an option; there will be an option of a small fine or one month imprisonment. I agree with that, with one amendment, and that is that the confiscation of the article in respect of which the offence has taken place, must be added. It means that in the event of a rifle falling under the notice being involved, that rifle may be confiscated. The rifle is the article in respect of which the offence has taken place, and it may be confiscated. This is with a view to putting in order what has happened. Rifles have been confiscated and it seems to be legal that that has been done, but it is advisable to make that provision here, failing which other misunderstandings may arise. So far as the future is concerned, therefore, my amendment will be to this effect, that the penalty will be £5 or one month imprisonment, and the confiscation of the article in connection with the offence. That still leaves the other question of cases which have already been dealt with, and the penalties already imposed, and here the proposal which comes from my department is a useful one, namely that all these sentences which have been imposed will immediately be taken into review by the courts and will be reduced in accordance with the new provision so that the people will be released from gaol at once, and the fine may be reduced to £5, £1 or 10s. There is a small tail attached to the amendment which I am unable to accept and which I do not think as a matter of fact was intended, and that is that the sentences already imposed are to be brought in under the amendment and that the cases which have not yet been brought before the court are to be treated as if this law had not been passed. That, again, would give rise to confusion of the same kind as that which we have had. I cannot accept that. I therefore accept the amendment of the hon. member so far as sentences in the future are concerned, plus the confiscation of the rifle. So far as the past is concerned I accept the amendment that sentences will be reviewed and will be dealt with on the new basis. The third part will drop away and I therefore move—

1. (2) The clerk of any magistrate’s court which before the commencement of this Act has convicted any person of having contravened or failed to comply with the provisions of any notice mentioned in the Schedule to the principal Act shall, as soon as practicable after the said commencement, and irrespective of the sentence imposed upon the person convicted, transmit to the registrar of the provincial or local division of the Supreme Court to which an appeal lies from a judgment of that magistrate’s court the record of the proceedings of the case, and the provisions of sections 93 to 96 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1917 (Act No. 32 of 1917), as amended, shall, mutatis mutandis, apply in respect of the said proceedings.

In the circumstances with the leave of the House I wish to withdraw my amendment.

May I be allowed to put a question to the rt. hon. the Prime Minister? Would it not be possible, for instance, to bring the people whom I advised to hand in their rifles after the time has lapsed, under this amendment? There are people who perhaps on account of ignorance or misunderstanding only handed in their rifles after the time stipulated, and I should like to know whether it is not possible to bring those people under this amendment, so that they will be paid for their rifles which will not be confiscated.

It is difficult to reply to the hon. member at this moment. It seems to me that it is part of the penalty provision left to the discretion of the court. It seems to me that the court will decide on the question of the confiscation according to circumstances. I should like to have the opportunity of going more carefully into this question.

In regard to the people who are already in gaol will they now lose their franchise?

Their sentences are remitted and they come under the new penalty provision.

With leave of the Committee the amendment proposed by Mr. Rooth was withdrawn.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Defence put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—77:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

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.

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. E.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

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.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Noes—47:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Bosmah, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conroy, E. A.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fullard, G. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Havenga, N. C.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wentzel, J. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I have an amendment to the clause standing in my name on the Order Paper. I move—

The object of this amendment is quite clear to hon. members who have taken the trouble to study the documents which have been handed to us in connection with this Bill. My object is that the regulation issued in connection with the rifles shall not have the force of law. I feel that after what we have heard here in connection with this Bill, it is unnecessary for me to put forward any arguments in support of my amendment. I hope that even the rt. hon. the Prime Minister will realise that this regulation was conceived in folly and that it was carried out in stupidity, and that in accordance with the finding of the court it was totally illegal. I am afraid of one thing; the Prime Minister argued in connection with clause 1 that it had to be passed as it stood there, not because there was a feeling of unrest among the population, but because legislation of a similar kind had been passed in England. If that is so, then I am afraid this amendment will also be rejected. I hope, however, that in suite of everything, the great majority of the House will realise that the force of law should not be given to this fatal regulation, and that is why I move its deletion.

Proclamation 105 of 1940 falls under section 3. That proclamation deals with the question of what is called the undermining and destructive influences of organisations. Furthermore, the wearing of certain badges is forbidden in that annexure. I have been asked by the Chief Executive of the Ossewa-Brandwag to make a statement on their behalf in connection with this matter in this House, and to give the rt. hon. the Prime Minister and the House the assurance that if the prohibition of the wearing of the badge of the Ossewa-Brandwag is regarded as an indication that that organisation is looked upon as an undermining organisation, to give the Prime Minister the assurance that that is not the character of that organisation. I have also been asked to point out that the Executive Committee of the Ossewa-Brandwag in the Cape Province has already written a letter to the Prime Minister in connection with this matter, and in that letter the Cape Executive has, inter alia, stated the following—

Time does not allow me to read the whole of that letter. It is further stated that if the Prime Minister in his capacity as Minister of Defence, wishes to have an investigation made at any office of the Ossewa-Brandwag, everything will be placed at his disposal. He will be welcome to do so. The movement is one which has grown tremendously in South Africa. I do not know whether it is point 4 in the aims and objects of the Ossewa-Brandwag which has caused a certain amount of suspicion. In those aims and objects there is a reference to the encouragement and fostering of a vigorous realisation of patriotism, national pride and sense of freedom. Is it because the Ossewa-Brandwag is also looking forward to a free and indedendent Republic that the movement is now looked upon as being of an undermining character? I have also been asked to give the Prime Minister and the House the assurance, in view of the fact that a certain uniform has been displayed in this House, that the Ossewa-Brandwag knows nothing about a uniform of that kind, and that none of its members are entitled to wear such a uniform. It may possibly be an old Greyshirt uniform. I have also been asked to point-out that in the event of members of the Ossewa-Brandwag acting in an irresponsible manner — which may happen in any organisation or party — only last week a person acting in such irresponsible manner was immediately discharged as a member of the organisation. The Ossewa-Brandwag as such does not tolerate anything of the kind within its ranks. In a letter which was received from the Minister of Defence in reply to the letter I have just read, the following occurs—

In this letter therefore, it is stated that the Prime Minister has taken note of the assurance given, but in suite of that assurance, the wearing of badges is still prohibited. I can give the Prime Minister the assurance that there is no obligation on members to wear badges. They are free to do as they please. The Ossewa-Brandwag also regrets that in view of the fact that in its letter it asks to be allowed to establish closer direct contact, and in view of the fact that in a further paragraph it is stated that they are anxious to give their co-operation for the maintenance of public order etc., the Prime Minister — I do not like to use the words “chokes them off” — but the Prime Minister gave a reply which I do not think they deserved, when he said—

That may be, but the Ossewa-Brandwag has offered its co-operation and that offer could have been dealt with in a different spirit. I hope that after the statement that I have made, and the assurance that has been given in regard to the aims and objects of the Ossewa-Brandwag as set out in its programme of principles, the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and the House will accept my assurance of the aims and objects of that organisation.

I should like to say a few words in connection with Proclamation 105. I realise that I will not be followed now to go into the question of the declaration of war on Italy, but generally speaking I shall be able to raise my objections The Government is asking for authority for its declaration of war against Italy, and is asking for certain powers to be granted to it not only in connection with the war which is now being Waged, but also in connection with any other war in which the Union may become involved. The Government itself is holding out the prospect of the possibility of the Union becoming involved in war with other countries. We have had evidence in the past shewing that the Government was prepared to declare war on its own initiative against another country, which so far has not been hostile towards South Africa, but solely because our Allies have become involved in the war with their country. The Prime Minister will recollect that I asked him during the last session of Parliament whether, if a further war had to be declared, Parliament would be consulted. The Prime Minister thereupon said that he could not give me the assurance that Parliament would be consulted regarding any further declaration of war. In view of the unpleasantness which has been caused by the Government’s action in regard to the declaration of war against Italy, I now wish to make a few general remarks. I want to express my disapproval of the Government’s action in declaring war solely on its own authority and without consulting Parliament, and I want to ask the Prime Minister to give us an assurance that that will not happen again. It is not possible for us now to discuss the pros and cons of the declaration of war against Italy, but in spite of that I want to refer to one argument which is often quoted in justification of the Government’s action. I mention that argument because if that argument holds good, then the Government probably did have the right to declare war without consulting Parliament. To my mind, however, that argument does not hold water, and it is only being used as an excuse by the Government to try and justify its case. The argument is that the Government had the right to declare war because Italy had declared war against England, who is our Ally. The argument is that because Italy had declared war against England it was inevitable that South Africa should also declare war against Italy. That argument does not hold water at all. We know that Great Britain was an Ally of Poland’s and that Great Britain gave Poland a guarantee. When Poland and Germany were at war Great Britain declared war against Germany, but after that Russia also took up an aggressive attitude towards Poland, and surely the guarantee was just as binding in respect of Russia as it was in respect of Germany? But in spite of the fact that Poland was Great Britain’s Ally and was attacked by Russia, England did not consider it necessary to declare war against Russia. So I consider that the war between Italy and Great Britain did not necessarily imply a declaration of war by the Union. The Government had no right to take such a step—there was ample time to call Parliament together and properly to discuss the question. I therefore hope the Government will keep this in mind in future and that it will remember that there is a legally elected House of representatives of the people which should be consulted in regard to such matters.

It is peculiar that if there are natural forces in a nation, even in the darkest days, something good can be born. When war broke out and even before that time when there were rumours of war in Europe, the Afrikaner nation found itself and Afrikaner strength was bound into one solid strong block. Now the Prime Minister comes here and asks for powers and asks for approval for his wrong-doings in the past. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he does not agree that the people who carry out the country’s laws are good citizens of the country, and that the people who break the laws are undesirable persons. One gets people here who want to pray—it is not really praying, but an effort to foster the war spirit.

What has that to do with this clause?

We are asked to give our approval to certain proclamations, but I shall leave that point if you wish me to do so.

That point has been disposed of.

I only want to say that I am unable to accept the amendment. The amendment which has already been passed to clause 2 assumes the coming into force of the four notices. The whole position for the reviewing of the sentences by the courts falls under those notices. Consequently, if the notices are deleted, there will be another mess up. For that reason it is not possible to accept the amendment.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Cost put and negatived.

Clause 3, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—76:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

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.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

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.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Noes—48:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conroy, E. A.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Havenga, N. C.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wentzel, J. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Clause 3, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and the Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments; amendments to be considered on 10th September.