I move—

The hon. the Minister of Finance put a question to me yesterday in his reply to the debate. I am supposed to have made a comparison between our expenditure during the first year of this war and our expenditure in the first year of the war of 1914-T8, and the Minister reproached me with only having given the figures of the revenue account, and in addition he asked me why I did not also give the figures of the loan account for that first year of war. The answer to that is very simple—because the Minister himself, on the 28th August last year gave us the figures of the loan account. I do not know whether the Minister has forgotten that, or whether he expected me to repeat things of that kind in this House ad nauseam. If the Minister, however, would very much like to have those figures again, then I can give them to him. I have gone into the position again, and I can now make the comparison, not only so far as the expenditure from revenue account is concerned, but also in regard to the loan account. In the years 1914-T5, that is the first year of the World War of 1914-T8, our expenditure on revenue account was £13,900,000. For the same year our expenditure on loan account was £13,700,000. That is to say, this supplementary budget contains an amount in respect of war expenditure which is larger than either the whole annual expenditure from revenue for the year 1914-T5, or than the whole expenditure from the loan account for the same year. Take the year 1915-T6, and we find the same thing. On the revenue account the expenditure was £14,000,000, and on loan account it was an amount of £15,900,000. That is to say, the figures corroborate what I have said. I am anxious that we should remember that in respect of the war year 1914-T5 we had, in the first instance a rebellion in the country. Thereafter we sent an expeditionary force to South West Africa, and we built a railway line to South-West; and in spite of all the expense that that involved, the expenditure during the year 1914-T5 was including everything, £27,000,000 on revenue account and loan account.

But then we were fighting on the commando system, and we did not have a mechanised army.

But we were surely fighting with people who had to be paid.

And they did fight.

Yes, we had to fight with people who were paid, and they fought more than the mechanised army is doing to-day. All our expenditure on revenue account as well as on loan account amounted to £27,000,000 during the war year 1914-T5. The subsequent year the expenditure was £29,000,000. We therefore find that for those two years of war our expenditure, as a whole, was £56,000,000 in respect of revenue and loan account, and those were the years of highest expenditure. That was the total of our expenditure. And now we find that in one year alone £60,000,000 is being spent on the war, and that practically without any fighting having taken place. It is paid to soldiers to race to and fro about the country, and to send a kind of circus through the country.

And to organise the noonday pause.

Yes, that was also included. Those figures are the most telling proof of the extravagant way in which this war is being conducted. During the year 1914-T5 everything had to be done in a hurry. At that time there was no opportunity for preparation, and in such circumstances expenditure is inclined to be high. In this case the Government had had time, and all we can show is that in one year £60,000,000 has been spent on the war. Now there is another point that I would like to touch upon. The Minister in his speech yesterday said a thing which is extremely dangerous. When we put the question to him he told us yesterday that he is unconcerned about the financial state of the country, and to that he added something which this House should take due notice of. What then was the proof which the Minister gave to convince us that the financial position of the country was sound? When we put the question to him his answer was “The financial position of the country is sound, because I can easily raise money in the country.” In other words, the financial position of anything is sound if you can easily borrow money. If you can easily raise money then you may as well spend it easily. That then is the principle of the Minister. It is the most dangerous principle that I have ever yet come across in my life. We have often heard the reproach being made of our farmers that they have borrowed money too lightly. The reproach is often made against them that it was too easy for them to raise money, and for that reason they had run up a heavy burden of debt. But here now we have the principle which the Minister starts from—if you can borrow then you may as well spend, because then the whole position of the country is sound. If that is the principle which the Minister of Finance is going to follow, I really do not know where we shall land. The Minister was in the fortunate position that he succeeded to a rich inheritance, and everybody who has that experience acts just as he has done. They do not appreciate their money and spend it freely. Let us sum up the financial position this year. The Minister started the year with a full treasury. He had a surplus on the revenue account of £1,470,000. On the loan account he had a surplus of £1,700,000. That is to say he started the year with a credit balance of over £3,000,000. He had it in the treasury at the beginning of the financial year. That money has now been spent. In the course of the year he imposed additional taxation If we look at the taxes which the Minister imposed on the 28th February and on the 28th August, and we take his own figures, then we find that during the year he imposed new taxation up to an amount of £14,500,000. That money has now also been spent. The money which he inherited, the surplus of £3,000,000, is exhausted. The money which he got from the new taxation, that money has also now been spent. Then the Minister told us that he had negotiated some loans. We shall only hear the amounts of those loans later on. But on the 28th August, the Minister told us he would be obliged to borrow a sum of at least £30,000,000. He hoped to get £12,000,000 from the Public Debt Commissioners and £18,000,000 from the public. But £30,000,000 had to be raised. He told us that, over and above that, he had paid off a loan of £8,500,000 in London. He also told us that his loans which he had issued were oversubscribed and that they had obtained £7,000,000 in addition. Accordingly, along with the amount that he got from the Public Debt Commissioners the Minister had to borrow an amount of from £40,000,000 to £45,000,000,—according to his own figures. He started the year with a surplus of £3,000,000; he imposed new taxation to an amount of £14,500,000, he concluded loans for an amount—it is difficult to say what the amount is—of over £40,000,000. And all that has been spent. We are looking out with eagerness to see how the Minister of Finance will close the financial year. We do not expect a large deficit on his revenue account, because the Minister will do everything in his power to camouflage the position, and amounts which ought to go to the credit of the loan account will be used for the revenue account. But we know that on the loan account the Minister will have a large deficit, and that in spite of all these sums of money. That is the position. And then the Minister comes and tells us: No, the financial position of the country is sound, because I can raise money easily! The Minister who now holds the office will continue to borrow money even until the widow’s cruse is empty. But I can see that the Government and hon. members opposite start from the premise that if money is required for the war then we must spend it, and not ask where the money comes from, nor how much it is. We must simply take the money, even if we have to borrow it, and we must spend it, and, if you will pardon me, Mr. Speaker, for using the expression— and “damn the consequences.” Those people on the other side are suffering from a dangerous disease. It is a war psychosis. They have smelt and seen blood, and the only thing they want to do now is to destroy and kill—while they themselves remain at a safe distance. Previously, on the 28th August, the Minister told us that the position in the north of Africa was dangerous. Italy was strong and we ought to spend a large sum of money in preparation. They no longer say that to-day. Now their position is that we not only have to be on the defensive there, but we must attack and exterminate the Italians and drive them into the sea. That is the spirit of my hon. friends on the opposite side. I say that we are spending this sum of £60,000,000 on war expenditure in one year in order to get nothing else but a second Treaty of Versailles. That is what the Government wants.

But surely you said that the war was lost!

That is what the Government over there wants. They want to spend this money and run South Africa into debt in order to make a second Treaty of Versailles, so that in twenty years South Africa will again be dragged into war for Geart Britain. In all, during the last war, in the first two years of war, according to the figures of the Minister, South Africa spent an amount of £19,500,000 on war purposes alone. In this first year of war during the present war, South Africa has spent £60,000,000 on war purposes. In December, the war expenditure had reached the point which it appeared the Government was aiming at—£200,000 a day, £6,000,000 a month, £72,000,000 a year. It seems to me that the Government intends, if the Minister of Finance is able to control the war expenditure, to try and stabilise the war expenditure at that level—£72,000,000 a year. That is to say that our prospect for the year is that notwithstanding the full treasury which was in existence at the beginning of the year, loans were recently raised and notwithstanding the new taxation which has been imposed, notwithstanding the fact that we have been borrowing money on a scale which has never yet been heard of in South Africa—that all that money has been exhausted, and that we shall carry a large debt forward to the next financial year. We shall spend £72,000,000 during the year on the war. And for what?

To win the war.

We shall have an opportunity later of telling the Government what they are fighting for. I can only say at this period that what the Minister of Finance told us yesterday is a dangerous thing—he will continue to spend money as long as he is able to borrow it. That is a dangerous proposition, the most dangerous proposition which I have ever yet heard in regard to the conduct of the financial affairs of a country.

When did I say that?

The Minister told us that the financial position of the country was sound. He can get plenty of money at a low rate of interest. That is the only thing the Minister is concerned about, and as long as he can get money he will spend it.

It is difficult sometimes for us on these benches to follow the mental processes of some of my hon. friends opposite. Six months ago my hon. friend, the member for George (Mr. Werth), and his friends were telling us that the war was over, that there was nothing more to be done.

We still say it.

One of his friends, the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) actually went so far as to say it is useless for us even to try and defend ourselves here in South Africa—“I would not fire a shot, we have no hope.” I admit the hon. member for George differs from the hon. member for Waterberg in this, for at least he promised to shed every drop of blood in his body in the defence of South Africa, but his friend and colleague, the hon. member for Waterberg, said that even that would be useless—even the blood of the Werths would not save South Africa, and it was no use fighting. To-day the hon. member for George says the same thing. He says the war is over, but in another sense. He says it is no use spending more money because the war is over, Italy is beaten and is about to be thrown out of Africa! He is consistent only in his consistency! He now says “We do not need to spend the money because the war is over, because Italy has lost the battle and is on the run, and all this money is unnecessary. Why waste it?” The hon. member will forgive me if, being a simple-minded person, I find it difficult to follow his mental processes.

Quite simple.

He says we are suffering from “war psychosis”—a big word.

Don’t you know what it means?

What does the hon. member mean? If he means that we are just as determined in 1941 to fight this war and bring it to a successful conclusion as we were in 1939, then I agree. If he means that we are fighting this war to bring it to a successful conclusion and to see that no longer here in South Africa we shall live under the threat of Fascist and Nazi aggression, and that the world generally shall no longer live under the threat of dictatorship agression, I agree. If he chooses to try and make us believe that we are spending £60,000,000 in order to get another Treaty of Versailles, let me say that I would rather get another Treaty of Versailles than to find myself under the domination of Hitler and Mussolini, and I believe that in his heart of hearts the hon. member agrees with me.

No, he wants Hitler to win.

No, I believe he does agree with me. I am certain that if the hon. member were given the choice between another Treaty of Versailles and seeing this war end in victory for Hitler and Mussolini, and their friends, he would range himself on our side; but he wants it both ways. He wants to have all the advantages which flow from South Africa’s present position, but he does not want to pay for it; and we on this side have sufficient logic to know we cannot keep the advantages we have and maintain the freedom which we enjoy without being prepared to pay for it— and that is what we are doing on the second reading of this Bill. My hon. friend must really be more careful in imputing motives and twisting the words of the Minister of Finance. The hon. member very properly said yesterday that one of the most satisfactory features in regard to financing the present war is that we can raise an almost unlimited sum of money in our own country at very low rates of interest. That is perfectly true, but from that my hon. friend goes on to say that the policy of the Minister of Finance is this— because you can get money cheaply, spend it ad lib. without regard to the consequences —“damn the consequences.” That is an illegitimate perversion of what the Minister said. It is a matter for sober rejoicing that we are able to finance ourselves in this country and at a low rate of interest. The hon. member should rejoice at that. If we have to spend money it is a comfort to know that that money is available in this country and at a low rate of interest. But to suggest that of all persons the Minister of Finance should take up the attitude of “spend and spend and damn the consequences” is an absurd corollary to draw from his remarks. Let me say again that as a financial man and an economist of long standing in this House, I shall cooperate with my friend and with all people who want to eliminate wasteful expenditure. But in time of war speed of delivery of equipment is the first essential. If you can get certain things in three months by paying a little more it is better to get them in three months than to wait six months; it is a far better bargain. But that does not of course justify useless or wasteful expenditure, and if my hon. friend opposite will concentrate his criticism on waste and inefficiency wherever he finds it—and I have no doubt he will find it in certain parts of South Africa—he will render a useful service. But it seems he cannot make up his mind whether to attack the principle of the expenditure or the manner of it. The principle has been settled at least three times in this House. On three separate occasions the war issue has been raised here and decided and confirmed by this free Parliament in this free country. The war issue is settled. The settled policy of this country is to bring the war to a successful conclusion —to drive, if we can, the attacking nations from the Continent of Africa. We are busy doing it. My friend admits we are doing it; and in so successful a manner that South Africa is getting good value for the money it is spending—and he knows it. If instead of criticising the principle of spending the money he would criticise the manner and bring to the notice of the Government any instances where money has been wastefully expended, he would be filling a useful role as the chief financial critic of the Opposition. Now what is the use of talking about a second Versailles? The Treaty of Versailles has been criticised in this House as the source of many of the evils of the last twenty years—but on that there is a good deal of difference of opinion. The Prime Minister has been one of the critics of that treaty. I personally will confess that, assuming we win the war, winning the peace will be more difficult than winning the war— what you are to do in the Continent of Europe; what we are even to do with the Italian empire in Africa is a problem almost beyond solution—but surely that is a matter for the future. At present our task in this country is to concentrate on South Africa’s war effort. We have every reason to be proud of what the Government is doing and has done. I may be wrong, but I seem to notice a radical change in the criticism coming from the Opposition benches in regard to war expenditure. Six months ago they said “It is no use ‘fighting, it is all over.” To-day they have ralised the changed position which has come over the war—at any rate in the Continent of Africa; they have realised that the money we have spent has been well spent. There is not one of them who does not rejoice …

You have partly succeeded in getting Haile Selassie back.

I remember the language …

Heil Selassie!

When my hon. friends over there have finished their numerous caucuses, I shall proceed. I remember when the Abyssinian campaign started five years ago, when Italy commenced its acts of aggression against Abyssinia, the most unsparing critic of the Italian attitude was that elder statesman for whom we passed a resolution only two days ago in this House, and I am perfectly certain that he and his friends, being the most unsparing critics of Italian aggression, will be glad when the day comes when Haile Selassie can be restored to the kingdom which was so brutally and in so unprincipled a manner stolen from him, and one of the greatest things that has happened is the return of Haile Selassie …

I do not think the hon. member can continue with that subject.

I am afraid my friends opposite have succeeded in drawing me away from the point.

Tell us something about Haile Selassie.

Yesterday evening we saw one of the most remarkable occurrences that has ever happened in this House in my long experience—that is to say, £14,000,000 of war expenditure was allowed to pass through this House without a single dissentient word being spoken. The Opposition apparently are now undergoing a process of conversion. At long last they see that their policy has been wrong; they see that the interests of South Africa have been truly served by the policy adopted by the majority of Parliament and prosecuted by this Government during the last eighteen months, and on the principle that there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repententh than over 99 just men who need no repentence, we now rejoice at the signs of grace which have come from the other side when they allowed the vote to pass without a word of criticism or objection. I am told there is a motion of no confidence on the Order Paper. I have no doubt that on that motion much may be said about the war issue, but I judge by actions, not by words, and the action of the Opposition last night in allowing these estimates to go through without a word of criticism is, to my mind, the most encouraging sign that at long last they have realised the folly of their ways.

I want to be brief and only to say a few words in connection with the Bill which is now before the House. In the first place, I just want to come to what the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) has just said in regard to the result of the war. He referred to the position of the war, and I want to give him the assurance, so far as I personally am concerned, and I think it is the feeling of the majority of hon. members on this side, that this war is over and has already been lost. The Allies have not the slightest hope in this war, they are already beaten. It reminds me of a story that I have heard, and which I would just like to relate. Certain visitors had come to the house of a farmer and the wife was hurriedly preparing food, and said to her husband “Go and kill a fowl quickly.” He took a little time, and his wife became impatient, and asked him whether the fowl was not yet killed. He replied, Yes, the fowl is dead, but as it is still jumping about headless, it was not yet aware of the fact. That is the position of the Allies. They have already lost the war, but they have not yet come to the realisation that they are actually done for. The war has already been lost, let us have no illusions on the subject. Hon. members opposite know just as well as we do that so far as South Africa is concerned, the war has been lost. Or do they want to come and tell us that they are still wanting to fight for the same terms as previously, namely, that they want to re-instate Poland, and Belguim and Holland? They know that that is absolute nonsense, and it is not necessary to enlarge on the subject. I do not now want to go any further into the matter, but the object for which they entered into the war is a matter connected with the past. What they are now fighting for is the defence of England. Let us honestly admit that we, in South Africa, are engaged in protecting England, and that we are no longer thinking at all of the original ideals for which we went to war. That, however, is not the reason why I got up to speak. I just want to say a few words about the measures which the Government is now adopting in this House. I do not want to enlarge on the guillotine, but I only hope that the Minister now realises that it is a wrong step, and I hope that we shall not hear of the guillotine again this session. The Opposition have debated the Government’s war policy at length on previous occasions. The Opposition have protested ad nauseam against the war policy of the Government, and we shall have further opportunities of doing so in the future, and consequently it was not necessary, on this occasion, to enlarge again on the subject here. Accordingly, the guillotine motion was not necessary and it was the cause of a great waste of the time of hon. members and of this House. It is not our intention, and we have repeatedly proved it, to occupy the time of the House unnecessarily. According to the rules that have been laid down, we had fully three hours to speak to the motion of applying the guillotine itself. We did not occupy the time, we do not want to waste time, we did not even discuss the matter for an hour. We protested against it on principle, but did not take up the time of the House for three hours in connection with it. What we do object to is that the Minister or anyone else should come and tell us how much time we are to have for a definite debate. We, as an Opposition, want to have the right of judging how much time it is necessary to spend on a definite proposal in the interests of the public. Therefore I hope that the Minister will not waste any further time by applying this guillotine measure. I now come to the “Defence vote,” which was also dealt with by the hon. member for Kensington. He knows what the reason is why we did not speak in Committee on the vote, and I think that it is necessary for the public also to know it. What is the position to-day in regard to the “Defence vote?” You can only protest on the second reading, but in the Committee stage there is no information available. Why does not the hon. member mention it? We only get the information “£14,000,000 for defence.” We do not get the details. In connection with every other vote the House gets full details, and if the details are not given an hon. member can rise and ask the Minister concerned what a particular item means. You cannot do that in connection with defence. What debate does the hon. member expect in Committee in those circumstances? Why does he not honestly say that in connection with the defence vote no information is given, and that therefore the House cannot exercise the least control over, or criticise the Defence vote, instead of criticising us for not having criticised it more. We do not know what the amount represents. I have just gone into the position that existed in 1938, and compared it with what we have before us now. In 1938 full information was provided about the vote, and we could debate all those things in Committee. I find that no less than 12 pages were filled in giving details. Now we get none. We protest against the spending of these gigantic sums for war purposes, but what can we debate in Committee? We can debate nothing, we can only protest. When I want to obtain from the Minister of Defence, who moves the amount, what part of the amount will be used for salaries to hon. members on the opposite side, in addition to their Parliamentary allowances, then he will not furnish the details. We do not get the information which we ought to have, and accordingly one cannot criticise, and there cannot be a debate. I think the hon. member for Kensington ought to he fair to the Opposition, and towards the public, and ought also to point out this aspect of the matter. Now he comes here and wants to pretend that we are satisfied with the policy of the Government, but he knows very well that we cannot possibly make proper criticism. We can only protest, but we cannot go into details. We are certainly not satisfied. Practically 99% of the estimates we have now before us are in relation to defence purposes, but you cannot debate them at all. You cannot go into the matter, because there are no data to debate. You hear, for instance, that a certain amount is being paid to the Knights of Truth. I do not want to state that it is true, but it is said that a certain amount has been given to the Knights of Truth for propaganda purposes. We do not know. We know that there are spies in the country, especially on the countryside. A person who has never been used for such a thing is taken into employment to guard a bridge. He is often a spy, the people say. You are warned against particular people on the countryside, who are said to be spies, but we do not know how much money is being spent on that, we get no information. Parliament, so far as Defence expenditure is concerned, has not got the least control or say to-day. The position unfortunately is this, that the officials, the people in high positions, are only just aware of the fact that there is no control. They need not be afraid that parliamentary control will be exercised, as is done in connection with other votes on the estimates. They know that they can practically spend just what they like, because there is no control by Parliament. The Special Committee of Parliament which is concerned with the financial affairs of the country has practically been eliminated. So far as defence expenditure is concerned, it does not exist. That, unfortunately, is the cause of money being spent on such a colossal scale without any control.

What committee?

The Committee on Public Accounts cannot go into the expenditure any more than the House itself.

They act on the advice of the Auditor-General. He reports to them.

Even he cannot go into it.

He can go into everything.

We know that a confidential report is made and it does not contain all the information. So far as the House is concerned, there is no report and no information. The Minister said that a certain amount of control was being exercised by a committee of the Cabinet with the Minister of Railways as chairman, but surely the Minister cannot mean that seriously. That committee he knows cannot exercise proper control. I have the greatest respect for the Minister of Railways, and have confidence in him, but he cannot be held responsible. He cannot even devote sufficient time to the work of his own department. How then can he also go into all this expenditure of millions? It is the same mistake. The officials know that the Minister is actually nominally there to exercise control, but that there is no effective control because he cannot give enough attention to it. Consequently, more and more is being spent as they please, and they are not afraid of control. That is the position. Let me just take a little instance as an example. Just before I left Pietersburg three officers arrived there to spend the week-end at their home, coming, I think, from the Premier Mine. They came to spend the week-end there, and they arrived in three Government motor cars, each one with a chauffeur. That is the way things are happening throughout the country. I honestly believe that the Minister himself does not approve of it, but money is being wasted in that way, and there is no control. A proper committee ought in any case to be appointed, in which the Minister and the country can have confidence, to see that money is not spent unnecessarily. Then you have the employment of all the girls who are working in connection with Defence.

I want personally to protest against that most strongly. I think that it is an entirely wrong policy to put the girls into uniform, to make a kind of soldier of them. It does not suit them at all, and the Afrikaner girls are being lowered in the eyes of the public. They have to drive the officers about, and when the officer wants to alight they have to jump out and open the door for him. This kind of nonsense is reprehensible, and it leads to the girls being lowered in the estimation of the public. I want to ask the Minister to go into the matter and to put an end to it. We even hear that girls in Natal, in Durban, are compelled to drive natives about in the big charabancs which are used to convey soldiers. Is that constructive, so far as our people are concerned? Is that a thing which we can regard with satisfaction? Thousands and thousands of pounds are being wasted, and I want to express my strong disapproval of it. While I am speaking on expenditure, I want to call to mind what happened in the last war. Then, without any explanation, £1,000,000 could not be accounted for. They did not know what had become of it, and a special committee had to be appointed to try to trace the money. Here again we have waste on a large scale, and after the war committees will probably be appointed to trace money that has been lost. No proper control is being exercised. The people in the country are protesting against the enormous war expenditure. Could we even have thought, did the Government ever think when it declared war in September, 1939, that we in our little country would within this short time have to vote a sum of £65,000,000 for the war? No one could ever have imagined it. I would like to know from the Prime Minister when he thinks the war will end. He smiles. I know he cannot tell us. Churchill will have to tell him, our Prime Minister will first of all have to find out “what Churchill says.” He said recently in a speech that he hoped they would be able to start the offensive in 1942. In the meantime, they were engaged in preparing for the war. Just imagine: They will only start the offensive in 1942. If the war continues for three years in this way, and we spend more money like water, then at the present rate we shall by then already have spent three times £65,000,000, or nearly £200,000,000. And then only will the offensive start. Is that not a terrible idea? Can we continue wasting money unnecessarily in this way on a war in which South Africa has no interest? And what has upset me most is the fact that we are now commencing to pay the war expenditure only out of loan moneys. We want to tax posterity with the nonsense that we, that is to say this Government of ours, are guilty of. This disastrous Government started the war, and is responsible for the consequences. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) says that we ought, as far as possible, to borrow the money, and that we should allow the future to pay for the mistake which this Government has made. We most strongly disapprove of this sum of £14,000,000, for example, being obtained from loan funds, and of nothing being taken from revenue. The Minister of Finance boasts about the sound financial position of the country, and he boasts of being able to raise money easily. He knows that it is due to the good constructive work of his predecessor that we are in that sound financial position, but how long shall we be in a sound position if we continue acting in the neckless way that we are doing to-day? The Minister says so lightly that he can take the money out of loan funds now, because we shall shortly get to the main estimates and it is not desirable to impose any taxes at this stage. No, that is not the real reason. The Minister knows that the Government will be unpopular if they come forward honestly and say what the position is, and impose taxation to cover the cost. If the people were to see what they have to pay in respect of this unecessary war, then the Government will become unpopular. They want to postpone that day as long as possible, and they want to hide the actual position from the public. That is why the Minister does not want to impose any taxation at the moment. That is why he does not want to allow this amount to appear in the deficit for the financial year. That is why it is being covered up. The Minister can quite easily allow the amount to stand over, and then at the end of the financial year show the amount as a deficit, and then raise taxation. But he does not want to do so. He is afraid of the consequences that the Government will become unpopular. The public must not be duly informed as to the position, the public should not know what they really have to pay in respect of the war. The people are not told what the total amount really is, no taxes are being imposed, but money is being taken from the loans because otherwise the Government would, at the end of the financial year, have to show the real deficit, and the public would see what the burden that they had to bear was. As the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) stated, the burden of the debt is becoming intolerable. I can hardly imagine a small country like South Africa having to be asked to spend £6,000,000 a month on this war which does not concern us at all. If the Minister will go about the country a little he will learn that there are already people in the country who are suffering from hunger owing to their being unemployed. The position will become worse and worse. The unfortunate people who will not wear the red tabs, are faced with the choice of going hungry or going to fight. The excuse of the Minister as to why this additional amount is required, is that more men are being employed, that the recruiting campaign had been more successful than what was expected. I do not want to enlarge on that so-called success. True, the Government was fairly successful in its compulsory measures. The Government and private employers as well, compelled people to join up by threatening them and their families with starvation. There is no question of voluntary enlistment. A very large portion of them are compelled to join up, or otherwise to go hungry. There is a small group of volunteers, but the big majority are people who have been obliged, by economic pressure, to go and take a part in it, and you see that the Afrikaners are being compelled in that way to bear the brunt of it, and the other loyalists remain at home as “key” men. We know also how the Prime Minister said during the last war that the people had joined up voluntarily. If then, those people feel so strongly on the matter, then let them go and fight. During the Boer war there was no age limit or anything of that kind, and if they feel so strongly on the subject to-day—certain people in the country —that they must carry on the war, then do not let them search for exemptions. No, but they remain behind as “key” men. There are many more keys in the country to-day than there are locks. Now suddenly they are unable to take a part, but the Afrikaner boys are compelled to see the war through for them by the employment of compulsory measures. South Africa is in a different position to most of the other belligerent countries. South Africa has never been attacked, No war has been declared against her, but suddenly we had to enter into the war because England was in it, and that is why we now have to spend these gigantic amounts. I still hope that the Government will come to its senses and will withdraw from the war. Let them say “We have done our duty up to the present, but we are not prepared to go on wasting money unnecessarily.” We need all the money to build up a happy and prosperous people. Then we shall have a unanimous people in South Africa, as we are so keen on having. Then the country will become prosperous. I want to protest against the statement of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) that we do not actually have any objection because we have not spoken excessively on the votes. He knows quite well that we had no details in Committee, and t hat we cannot debate the details.

I did not intend taking part in this debate, but after the speech of the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé), I am compelled to say a few words. He is the individual who said during the last session that he would rather stand under Hitler than under this Government.

I did not say so.

Yes, the hon. member is now running away from it, because he is commencing more and more to come to his senses. Now he says that so far as South Africa is concerned the war has been lost. My hon. friends opposite speak with two voices. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) told us a moment ago that we were going to have a second Versailles. In his opinion, therefore, Germany and Italy have actually lost the war.

I said that that was what the Government was fighting for.

If that is now the opinion of hon. members opposite, are they not ashamed that they even allowed the women and girls of South Africa to make a march on Pretoria in Voortrekker costume to go and ask for an unconditional peace?

You are not allowed to put on that Voortrekker costume.

That hon. member is one of the Afrikaners who was prepared to go to the gallows for the unity of Afrikanerdom. He is not the only one who is entitled to speak about our mothers and daughters. I ask again whether hon. members of the Opposition are not ashamed of having induced the mothers and girls of the country to put on the Voortrekker costume to make a march to see the Prime Minister, to tell him that he should enter into an unconditional peace? They had practically to go and tell him: Surrender to Hitler and Mussolini because the war has been lost. They said that the war was, so far as we were concerned, completely lost; our boys and girls would be shot, and we ought rather to surrender.

The war is lost.

That is what the hon. member says, but one of his front benchers now tells us that we are making preparations for a second Versailles.

He said that that was what the Government was fighting for.

The hon. member for George said that we were heading for a second Versailles, and how can we be heading for a second Versailles if we have already lost the war?

He did not say so.

I protest all the more to-day against the fact of our mothers and daughters being used in that way for party political purposes. Every hon. member opposite ought to be ashamed of what he has done. The hon. member for Pietersburg told us that the war was lost so far as South Africa was concerned. He also told us that we entered into the war to liberate Holland and Belgium. Well, there is trouble on the other side, and the hon. member probably did not have much sleep last night. Holland and Belgium were neutral countries when the war broke out, and on the 4th September, 1939, they quoted Holland and Belgium as examples of countries which had remained neutral, and they said to us: If those countries can remain neutral, why cannot South Africa also remain neutral? But now the hon. member says that we entered into the war to make those countries free. I voted for war, but not to make Holland and Belgium or Poland free, because the motion for which I voted clearly said that we would not send troops overseas. I voted for war because I felt that if Hitler won the war then it would be all over with South Africa and with our freedom and independence. I want to remind the hon. member for George of what he said to me when he was on the way to South-West Africa as Administrator, and when I accompanied him on the way a little. I said to him: Do you not think that the League of Nations will give South-West Africa back to Germany? He replied to me in English, and his answer was: “Only by the point of the bayonet.” We are engaged in fulfilling that promise, and we say that it will only be taken away from us “by the point of the bayonet.” And, therefore, we are spending this £60,000,000 or £70,000,000 in one year. We do not want to bow down to Hitler. But my hon. friends on the opposite side are changing ground from one position to the other. First of all we were to have surrendered unconditionally to Mussolini. Now, on the other hand, they say that the Italians count for nothing, and it is useless to go and fight in the North because the people there are not in danger. But last year they were in such danger that we ought to have made peace unconditionally. That is the way in which my hon. friends opposite exploit all the sentiment of and all that is noble in our people for their own purposes. I can only remind them of the fact that their own leader, a man who has made history in our country, said that he could no longer continue to work with that party, because they were engaged in bringing this people to a fall.

I do not want to enter into the charge which the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) has made against the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth).

He knows that he said it.

The hon. member for George will no doubt himself at the proper time, settle matters with the hon. member for Kimberley (District). I only want to say that I very strongly doubt that the hon. member for George ever said such a thing.

There he sits, let him deny it.

The hon. member for Kimberley (District) says that the hon. member for George spoke to him in English. If it happens to be so, then I suppose that the hon. member for George spoke English to the hon. member for Kimberley (District) because the hon. member for Kimberley (District), after he had fallen down in adoration of the White Cliffs of Dover, could no longer understand Afrikaans.

It was before the White Cliffs.

I say that I doubt whether the hon. member for George used those words. Let us note the words that were quoted here—“only by the point of the bayonet.” That may be the English of the hon. member for Kimberley (District) but it is certainly not the English of the hon. member for George. If the hon. member for Kimberley (District) does not yet realise that there is something wrong with it then I would advise him to go and take lessons from the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell). He will be able to tell him what the correct English would have been. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) also referred to our participation in the war. I want to ask him why we are in the war, and why these enormous sums of money are necessary for carrying on the war. So far as I can see, the war efforts of South Africa do not go any further than the replacing of the Emperor Haile Selassie on the throne of Abyssinia, and I now want to congratulate the hon. member for Kimberley (District) that he has now progressed so far in life that he will not only risk his own life but also the lives of the girls of South Africa to replace this black emperor on the throne. It is to his credit and that of his colleagues that he has become the champion and the ally of Haile Selassie. The hon. member also ventured to say that the mothers and daughters of South Africa had been dragged into politics in connection with the march which they made in Pretoria in Voortrekker dress. I thought that the hon. member would have preferred to attack their newspaper in Port Elizabeth, which had behaved in such a scandalous way towards the mothers of South Africa, and that he would have felt ashamed of the way in which the mothers and daughters of South Africa had been treated. But the hon. member has apparently no feelings of shame left now that he has turned his back on his own people.

You have no feelings of shame.

If there ever was a day when the mothers of South Africa gave proof of their still being the mothers of our people, it was on that day when they spontaneously organised the demonstration to Pretoria to bring peace back into the country again. On the other hand, if there ever was a day that hon. members on the opposite side should have been filled with shame, then it was that day when they allowed that insulting treatment to be given to the mothers of South Africa. It is those hon. members opposite and their colleagues in South Africa who did not allow the mothers of South Africa to take the procession through the main streets of Pretoria, but compelled them to go by way of one of the back streets. This is the treatment which he received from hon. members opposite. It does not at all become the hon. member for Kimberley (District) to have so much to say about the mothers of South Africa. I would like to ask him rather to preserve silence in regard to the mothers and daughters of South Africa. Moreover, I want to associate myself with what has already been said here about the extravagance of the Government in regard to the war effort, and I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance to a few things, some of which have already been mentioned by the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé). I say that extravagance is being indulged in by the Government in connection with its waging of the war. To the ordinary layman looking at things in South Africa, it does not seem to be anything else—whether it should be attributed to incompetency, or it is happening intentionally—but the greatest waste of money in connection with the prosecution of the war. In September, 1939, we were obliged to enter into this so-called war, but the war which was carried on here, apart from what is being done now, was to send troops to and fro, from one place to here, apparently without any object and without any valid reason. I live on the main road to the north, and time and again troops have passed there by thousands in motor lorries, with armoured cars, now to the north and the next day to the south. If we go to Pretoria, Johannesburg and the Premier Mine, and to that area, then we find that the national roads are overrun with military motor cars going to and fro, with large numbers of troops, and also with individual cars which race hither and thither. It seems to me that the reason can only be to prove to the people of South Africa in that way, that there is actually a war going on. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) is so much concerned about Hitler. If people want to make war then let them go and fight Hitler. But this method of waging war in South Africa is a scandalous wasting of public money. I would also like to put a question to the Minister. It is a thing which we see all over, but I want to give an illustration from my own district. There is a certain Major Pretorius who draws a large salary, and who goes to and fro about the district of Waterberg, goodness alone knows what for. He is a brave warrior and if the Prime Minister uses him on the field of battle then he will be rightly using the man’s services. Why must that man chase about in our district? He knows the war area in the north well, and if the Prime Minister needs him for the war in the north, why then does he not go there? The Prime Minister used him in the north during the previous war, and why does he not use him there again now? That is one example of many which I could quote. I come to another section of our military force which the hon. member for Pietersburg also referred to, and that is the women’s section. I have never yet seen anything more scandalous than what is going on now. There are thousands of male troops in our various camps in all parts of the country. They have nothing to do. They are so filled with excessive energy that they attack innocent persons, if they have but the slightest sign of a beard. Instead of the Minister using them to drive the motor cars of the officers, we find that there is a woman driver to every officer to drive his motor car, even if he is apparently himself able to do so. What is the reason of that? I say again that there are thousands of male troops who have nothing to do, and why cannot those people be used for this work if the officers are not able to drive their own motors. One can practically not walk on the streets in Pretoria. They swarm with the motor cars of officers, and in every one of them there is a woman driver at the side of the officer. That is a scandalous waste of money. They are doing absolutely unnecessary work, because there are more than enough ordinary soldiers to do that work. The soldier is to-day sitting at the side of the woman who has to drive the vehicle. There is also another system which has been inaugurated. These women are all in uniform, and quite a number of them have already been promoted to commissioned rank. There are lieutenants and even lieutenantcolonels. I want to call the Minister’s attention to correspondence which has appeared in his own newspaper, about these lieutenants, lieutenant-colonels, captains and heaven knows what others. Not one of those women will be present on the battle field, and I say that this system is an undermining of the whole idea of discipline in the army. I say this from the point of view of the private soldier. Even if I differ from the war policy I want to give every honour to the soldier who is courageous enough to go and fight. But now we find that a good soldier has to stand to attention and salute when a young lady passes who is a lieutenant, captain, or lieutenant-colonel or heaven knows what. It is an absolute undermining of the whole idea of discipline in our defence force, and of the defence system of which we could have been proud, in case of need, in other circumstances. There is also another wasting of money, and not only a wasting of money, but a new turn which the Government has given to affairs in South Africa, and that is the large number of coloured people and natives who are recruited and who are enlisted as soldiers in the military forces of the Union. Those coloured men and natives can also walk about with the red tab on their shoulders, and they are told that for that reason they are better Afrikaners than the Nationalists, farmers and other Afrikaners who refuse to wear that red tab.

And even than the police.

They do not only wear the red tab, but also precisely the same uniform as the European soldiers. Has the Prime Minister considered what the effect on those coloured people and natives will be if they are placed in that position of equality with the Europeans? They wear a red tab and precisely the same uniforms, and on the streets they are precisely the same “big men” as the ordinary soldiers. The Prime Minister has already been concerned in many grievous acts hostile to the people of South Africa, but this is one of the most atrocious things that he has yet done, by undermining the prestige of the white man in South Africa in that way. Let us see what the effect therof is. We have already had a riot here, in the streets of Cape Town, where one of the coloured corporals insisted on a white policeman having to satlute him. Some people may laugh at that, as is now being done on the opposite side, but that is the direct consequence of this wrong action on the part of the Prime Minister in enlisting those coloured persons and natives as fighting men in our military forces. They are not being engaged for other work, to drive waggons or in cleaning the stables. They are recruited to be sent to the north as soldiers, as people who have to go and fight there.

How many native soldiers have they up there in the north?

When one listens to the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha) one would think that there were only native soldiers in the north. The hon. member knows when he fought in the three years war how many Hottentots and natives were used by the English to fight against the Boers, but nevertheless he never called upon his Government to use hottentots and natives as soldiers against the English.

I never did so, and I am not doing so to-day either.

Now what is going to be the result when these coloured and native soldiers return to South Africa after the war? What is going to happen to the status and prestige of the white man if they are undermined in this way? Every one of those native soldiers or coloured soldiers—they are already doing so now—will imagine that they are not only the equal of the white man but that they are the superiors of all those people, the real Afrikaners, who want to have nothing to do with this war. I want emphatically to repeat that there are many crimes laid to the charge of the Prime Minister, but this act of his, of undermining the prestige of the white man in South Africa in this way, is one of the most serious offences which he has committed, and he will not be forgiven for it. We are now spending a good few millions more per annum on this war than £60,000,000. If the war continues two or three years, and we have to go on spending money at that rate according to the policy of the Government, then we can quite imagine what the amount of the public debt of South Africa will be, and we can wonder whether this country will be able to bear the burden if we spend on that basis. If we spend from £60,000,000 to £70,000,000 a year on the war, and if the war continues for two or three years, as hon. members opposite expect, then it will mean that this war will run into £200,000,000 or more in direct expenditure. I ask you: Can South Africa, can a small country like this bear such an enormous burden? Does the Prime Minister realise where this is leading our country? We cannot do otherwise in view of the future of our country, than make a protest against this action of the Government in placing these burdens on South Africa, and that not in the interests of South Africa herself, but in the interests of their masters overseas. We shall not cease to protest against it, and I want to warn the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister that they may think to-day that they have the power in their hands, but the turning point will come as certain as the sun shines in the sky. And whether it is because they lose the war or otherwise, the day of reckoning will come with people who waste the assets of South Africa in this way, in a struggle with which South Africa has no concern.

I listened very attentively to the speech which the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has just delivered, and there were moments when I sympathised with him. It seems to me that the hon. member has certain impressions which are based on an absolute misunderstanding. In the first place, the hon. member made certain allegations. He, for instance, referred here to a coloured corporal who wanted to compel a white policeman to salute him. I went quite recently to learn military discipline in a smart military unit, namely, the Special Service Battalion, and I must tell him that it is news to me to hear of a policeman having to salute a corporal, whether he is white or coloured.

Have you not read this morning’s papers?

I am coming to the point. That corporal was possibly at some time or other under the influence of the Ossewabrandwag and its discipline. I agree that this corporal should be taken aside privately, and that he should be spoken to in this way: See here, we are not now in the Ossewabrandwag. It certainly was not military discipline, because military discipline does not require a private to salute a corporal. The hon. member and his colleagues who preceded him enlarged a great deal on the position of the mothers and of the daughters of South Africa. In the first instance he objected to the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) mentioning their names. Well, I do not think that hon. members can regard that expression of his as a normal expression, because every hon. member in this House, even on this side of the House, has the right of doing so. He, however, made the statement that the women and girls of South Africa were being placed in a humiliating position, and I say that that statement is void of all truth. On the contrary, the fact that the women and girls of South Africa during this critical war time are taking such a prominent part in protecting the country, that they reach such high rank as officers, is to the honour of the women and girls of South Africa, and not to their disgrace.

Your mother does not say so.

Hon. members opposite told us at the start that we would not get any of our women and girls to join up, but that we would only get certain of them—I cannot remember all the names which they called the classes that we would get. Now, however, I am glad that the hon. member opposite, together with his colleagues, admits that all the women and girls of South Africa do not take up the attitude that they take up. Those mothers and daughters who made the peace demonstration at Pretoria are a section of our mothers and daughters. They have their own convictions, but the hon. member himself admits that there is also a large section of the women of South Africa who stand solidly behind the Prime Minister.

The women of Jerusalem.

Why does the hon. member now say that? Why then is the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé) so concerned about the women of Jerusalem? What has it to do with him if it is only women of Jerusalem who have joined up, and why then is he concerned about them? No, it is not so, and what is more is the following. Here also an attempt has been made by hon. members opposite to explain to the country that the girls who drive the motor cars also have to drive natives about. If such a thing occurred then those hon. members should have noticed that the seats for the natives were far removed from that of the driver. Moreover, the hon. member says that these women drive motor cars which could have been driven by ordinary soldiers. The hon. member knows that it is just our policy when there is a woman who can take the place of a soldier, so that the male soldier can go to the front if it is necessary, that we then use the female soldiers. He mentioned the name of a certain Major Pretorius, who was driving about in Waterberg. I think that it is in the discretion of the military authorities to decide what men and officers should go to the North; it is their job to decide upon the officers and men, and upon the places where they are required. The hon. member must know that with all the activity that is going on in the country, it is rather necessary at times to keep able-bodied, capable men, as he admits this person to be, in South Africa. The hon. member would surely be the last man, just like the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé), to take up that attitude, or to expect it of the Government that they would send every able-bodied man out of the country in spite of the subversive organisations in the country. The hon. member will remember that when we met here last year it was said that within eight days we would no longer be constituting a government. Such an alteration could not have happened in a constitutional way, but only in one of the many other ways, ways which are not constitutional. If the hon. member thinks that the Prime Minister and the Government are indifferent in regard to that sort of thing, then he is making a very great mistake. The Government is certainly very well informed in that regard, and accordingly the hon. member need not worry himself about that matter, nor about the place where officers and men are used. In addition, he referred to the waste of money, and the hon. member for Pietersburg mentioned a case of three officers with separate motor cars arriving at their residences in Pietersburg. The hon. member did not tell us if subsequently they all left for the same unit, and whether it was necessary for them to go to their home first. He was simply satisfied to notice that three officers had arrived in separate cars. He did not take the trouble to find out where they subsequently went to and whether it was necessary or not. The hon. member for Waterberg wanted to find fault with the hon. member for Kimberley (District) in connection with a few English words that he used. Whether it should have been “at the point of the bayonet,” “on the point of the bayonet,” or “by the point of the bayonet.” The hon. member is an advocate, and he has probably also heard of “at the bar,” “in the bar,” “before the bar,” and “to the bar.” I do not know which case he was engaged on to-day. I would now like to address a few words to the hon. member for Pietersburg. He said here that he did not want to make the allegation, but he nevertheless said that a part of this money, which is being voted for the war, is possibly being paid to the Knights of Truth. He knows that what he is there saying is completely void of truth. But this is once more the old game of not saying a thing directly, but nevertheless making a statement which gives that impression, a statement which subsequently will be used on the countryside in the secret places. The hon. member says that a part of this money is being paid to the Knights of Truth. This reminds one again of the cock and bull story which was put about on the countryside in Waterberg during an election. Some people, unfortunately, believe it, and now it is the hon. member for Pietersburg who is trying the same thing once more. If there is one characteristic common to both the speech of the hon. member for Pietersburg and that of the hon. member for Waterberg, then it is this, that they are in doubt, and that they cannot take up a definite attitude. That is, anyhow, the characteristic of all hon. members on the opposite side. The hon. member for George spoke about a second Versailles. Surely we thought that Hitler was so strong last year that there would be no question of a second Versailles. Why does the hon. member bring up that story now? The hon. member, of course, has every right to his opinion, just as every one of us is entitled to his modest opinion. My humble opinion is, and only history will be able to confirm or contradict what I am saying here, that South Africa will come triumphantly and gloriously out of this struggle, and that Queen Wilhelmina will once more be placed on the throne of her free country by England, the British Commonwealth, and by South Africa, which is to-day following the policy of the Prime Minister. The same applies to Belgium, Norway, Poland and all the downtrodden nations. Hon. members would like the war to be conducted in the way they would like to have it, but unfortunately the war is not being carried on on the lines they would like to see, not as the people who have a good ear for Hitler would like to see, but it is the old British system, “Lose all the battles, but win the war.” Many people thought that all the people, all the soldiers, should be thrown into the scale, and that it should then be conducted at top speed whatever the price might be. No, we will proceed step by step in an efficient manner, whether the war should last two or three years or five years. But the downtrodden nations will be reinstated, and I hope that on that day hon. members opposite will be grateful and will say that the present Prime Minister had seen further than they could ever have dreamt; I hope that they will then admit that he is a man who, notwithstanding all the attempts that are being made to besmirch his past, saw further than most people. The hon. member for Pietersburg also complained very much about the fact that the details of the war expenditure were not laid before the House. What government in the world would do that? Is it necessary? Why? Sufficient things have already been revealed to the enemy, enough things of importance have already been blazoned forth to the enemy, and the Government cannot reveal in addition all the steps that it has taken in connection with the defence. Hon. members opposite represent themselves as being concerned about legal and illegal expenditure, but they know that every account is investigated by the Auditor-General, and that the Auditor-General can make recommendations in regard to any matter to the Select Committee, and then the hon. member for Pietersburg will have every opportunity of making criticism, and of satisfying himself.

When the money has already been wasted.

That is the position in the case of all expenditure. Why are they now enquiring so carefully into every jot and tittle, and why did they never worry themselves all these years about the accounts of the state? Hon. members refer to large war expenditure. On the outbreak of the war hon. members opposite said that many of our people would suffer hunger. I hope that all hon. members on the other side, and especially the hon. member for Pitersburg, will now admit that there has never been less suffering from hunger in South Africa than is the case to-day.

Come to my constituency.

I do not say that there is no one who is suffering from hunger, but it is less the case than ever before in the history of the country. The hon. member will, however, also admit that there are people who are being prevented by propaganda not from rendering war service to-day but from working for the state, in government departments and at other places. The people are so poisonous and embittered that they think that they will do nothing for the Government, that they would rather have a bad time and suffer from hunger. They simply want to do nothing for the Government, to produce nothing which will increase the prospertiy of the country, and the power of the country. Hon. members opposite cannot all plead not guilty. They know that there are people who are going hungry, and have no food, but who have a dozen eggs for sale in order to get hold of petrol for the purpose of attending protest meetings.

The hon. member is now wandering a little far from the point.

I submit to your ruling, sir, but these are all matters that were raised in the debate. Reference was made here to people who are suffering from hunger, and my reply is that there is less hunger about than ever before.

That is not a subject that we can debate now. The hon. member must confine himself to the measure that is now under discussion.

I merely replied, in passing to arguments that have been used here, to loose statements which have been made here and which cannot be proved. So it is also being said that people are being compelled to go into the army. I hope that hon. members, for the sake of fairness and courtesy will stop making the statement that people are forced and compelled to join up. Not a single man in South Africa is compelled to go into the army.

You know that that is not true.

On a voluntary basis, we have succeed in this—and it speaks highly for the credit of South Africa, and in honour of the citizens as well as the Government, that South Africa can make claim to-day to having established a world record in regard to voluntary troops. No country in the world has such a high percentage of volunteers as South Africa has. If hon. members doubt my statement, they can just examine the statistics of other countries. In spite of the tremendous opposition to the war policy in our country, we have succeeded in establishing a world record, and it redounds to the honour of South Africa Are hon. members then entitled to make any objection to the expenditure, knowing that the great bulk of it goes in the payment of wages. I think they will agree that a soldier is entitled to wages, and the pay is practically all spent in this country for the benefit of the farmers of South Africa. The hon. member for Waterberg objects that soldiers should have to travel about in the country and that it is explained in that way what the Government has done, and to convince the public that we are at war? It is necessary for the public to see what standard of men there is in our Defence Force. It will possibly astonish you, Mr. Speaker, that at Hertzogville the other day I found an old man who was very much dumfounded. He said: “I thought that they were Englishmen, but they are all Afrikaners.” The people are told that they are all Jews, and Jingos and English, but now it has been proved to the public that it is the Afrikaners who are in our Defence Force. The hon. member for Pietersburg objected to the Government not meeting the expenditure by raising taxation. A challenge always sounds bombastic, but now I want to ask the hon. member whether his party or parties—however many of them there may be—together with their leaders, will be prepared when the estimates come up for discussion, to move an amendment to impose taxation? Then we shall be able to see. If the other side of the House differs from the policy of the Government, then let them make taxation proposals.

A war tax?

The hon. member knows that in accordance with the policy that I support, there will not be a penny’s debt after the war.

What is your policy?

The hon. member knows quite well, but I cannot go into the matter now. The hon. member for Pietersburg, however, criticises the Government because no taxations has been imposed to cover the war expenditure, and he says that the Government is afraid of doing so because they would then become unpopular. Then let the Opposition move taxation. The hon. members opposite should be a little consistent, because although they are fundamentally opposed to the war policy of the Government, they can still do constructive work by making effective criticism, but I am sorry to have to say that when we take the criticism of hon. members opposite at the end of a debate; we constantly find that the one cancels the other; they argue in a circle What one hon. member says to-day is contradicted the next by another. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) attacked the Government the other day for not having a Minister Plenipotentiary in France, but his leader (Dr. Malan) spoke about godless France. If that is so, why does he want to have a representative in a godless country? Hon. members are constantly contradicting each other, and you come to one conclusion, namely, that they are now so united that there is no long one of them who is united.

It is not my intention to reply to the argument of the last speaker, especially the ridiculous argument that we should now introduce taxation proposals to pay the war debts of this Government. But the hon. member said something which is often also said by others, and also by the Prime Minister, namely, the statement that the troops that we have are all volunteers.

Of course.

The hon. member said that we had established a record so far as volunteers are concerned. If a record has been created that it is in connection with the compulsion which was exercised on people who would not go and fight, but who were compelled to go and fight. The hon. member over there and the Prime Minister also, shield behind “legal” compulsion. When the Prime Minister addressed the troops at Durban and called them “Children of the Cross” he also said that no legal compulsion had been applied in their case. He was at any rate honest in using the word “legal,” but he knows, and the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) knows, that a large percentage of the men are in the army to-day because economic pressure was exercised over them. I can give proofs. I read during last session sworn statements which prove that. In my constituency also there were numbers of persons who were compelled to go on service. Industries and business firms exercised compulsion, and they had to join up or lose their work. There has never yet been such a record of the exercise of compulsion, not compulsion of English-speaking people and Jews, but of Afrikaans-speaking people—they are made to go and fight and the others remain behind at home as key men. That is why the mobile column had to be sent through the country to recruit those people, the people who were hiding themselves as key men. At Beaufort West I believe that they got eight recruits, and five of them were school children; the rest of the key men are still left there. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) is unfortunately not in his place. I do not know what conversation took place between him and the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), but I want to say that I am astonished at a man with the parliamentary experience of a man like the hon. member for Kimberley (District) having been guilty of the bad taste and the rudeness of coming to this House and repeating a private conversation which he had with another hon. member. To use an English expression: “It is not done.” We look down with contempt on that sort of thing. One does not quote private conversations. The hon. members are also indignant that I, on a certain occasion, said that I wanted to have nothing to do with a certain class, the “loyal Dutch.” The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) who represented himself here to-day as the financial expert and prominent economist of the House—“an economist of longstanding”—came here and preached the strange doctrine that money which you spend out of loan funds is not the same as money which comes from taxation or from other sources. If money is spent, it is spent, but as the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. N. G. Strydom) said, recourse is being had to loans to throw dust into the eyes of the public, inasmuch as otherwise they would kick against the taxation. Now the impression has to be created that they are not being taxed for a war that is being carried on. But the day of reckoning will come. We have seen what happened after the last war. At that time also the country was supposed to be enthusiastically in favour of the war, but not long afterwards there was a by-election at Wakkerstroom, and then the people showed that they realised that they had to pay for the war. The same thing will take place after this war. Accordingly, whether the money is obtained from loans or from taxation, it is money which is being spent on the war, and which the public will have to pay. It is strange that in connection also with the internment camps a part of the money is being obtained from taxation but another part of it from loan funds, but an attempt is being made to give the taxpayers the impression that the money is not got out of them. The hon. member for Kensington and other hon. members have now, for a bit, lost the inferiority complex which arose after Dunkirk, and now they are comforting themselves with the thought that they have now won the war. They know, there is not one of them who does not realise it, that the war will not be decided in North Africa, nor will it be decided in Greece, but it will be decided in England and at no other place. They now take up the attitude that the war has been won. It has not been won. The most they can hope for to-day is that it will end in a “draw.” When the other day I was listening to the speech of the Minister of Finance, it became clear to me and also to other hon. members that the Minister was speaking with a guilty conscience. He was engaged in making an explanation in finding an excuse to clear up why he now needed a further £14,000,000. He gave me the impression, to a great extent, like that of the cat which had stolen fat. He changed his ground in trying to give an explanation, and then he lighted on the strange argument “Look at what other countries are doing, see what England is doing, who is spending £12,000,000 a day on the war, see what America is doing.” England is bombarded practically every day by German airmen, and is closely involved in the war. And so far as America is concerned, I want to say this: The Minister said that it was a neutral country, and that its expenditure was tremendous. It is true that America is incurring great expenditure to-day in consequence of the tremendous and intensive propaganda of the British Fifth Column, which has been active in America since the 4th September, and even before. Even ambassadors of Great Britain have taken part in it. The late Lord Lothian, shortly before his death, even dictated something to send round to the Press in connection with the matter, and the new ambassador, Lord Halifax, is also busily engaged on fifth column work. The Americans are frightened by their being told that England is to-day standing between America and Hitler, with the result that the war spirit has also been developed in America, the spirit to which the hon. member for George referred. Big expenditure is being incurred, and now we are asked to follow the example, we who are 7,000 miles removed from the war area. During the last session we pleaded for assistance to the farmers, and I then referred to what was being done in America in connection with assistance to farmers, and how millions of pounds were being spent. I admitted that we should bear in mind the great difference in population, but I advocated that we should do proportionally what America had done. Then the Minister of Finance did not want to hear anything about America; then America was in quite a different position, but now America is cited as an example. The Minister also spoke about other neutral countries, which might serve as an example. I would like to know what countries they are. Are they Chile, Venezuela; is it Brazil or the Argentine? What is being spent there in defence; how has the expenditure there risen during the past twelve months? It was nothing but anothher wild statement. Why should we follow America’s example? From the hon. member for Kensington and other hon. members we once more hear the old story that we are fighting for justice and democracy. That is the Pharisaism and hypocricy which has played such a large role in South Africa. We are not fighting on that account. The hon. member for Kensington forgets that his own Prime Minister—because Churchill is practically also Prime Minister of South Africa, and we are nothing but lackeys—that Winston Churchill said six months ago “England is fighting to survive.” Yes, they are fighting to maintain their position in Europe, and all the talk about democracy and religion, etc., is only used to stir up feeling amongst the public. During last session I put a question on the paper to the Prime Minister, namely, what his policy was in connection with Abyssinia, whether he agreed with the statements of British statesmen at the time, that the object is to put Haile Selassie on the throne again, and then the Prime Minister could not reply to the question. But now, recently ten days ago, I think, he spoke quite clearly—that it also is one of the war aims of South Africa now, of the Government of South Africa, to chase the Italia ns out of Abyssinia. Now it is being said that the previous leader of the Opposition (General Hertzog) took up a clear attitude in connection with the position of the League of Nations. May I point out to him that England, since that time, approved of the occupation of Abyssinia by Italy, and not only did he approve of it, but a few months ago he gave his approval to the conquest by Russia of the countries on the Baltic Sea, Esthonia, Lithunia and Latvia. Why? To try and get into the good books of Russia. Does the hon. member for Kensington still want to say now that England and we are fighting against aggression when the aggression of Russia is being approved of? It is all hypocrisy. I also want to say a few words about the way in which money is being wasted in connection with the war policy of the Government. Unnecessary officers are appointed all over the country. Hon. Ministers would possibly be afraid to give me the information, because according to their view it will be repeated to Hitler, but it would be interesting to know what amount is being spent in South Africa on allowance to officers who are remaining in South Africa. I want to mention one instance in my own village. There is a certain attorney there named Stroebel. He has the rank of a lieutenant. On certain occasions he makes an appearance in full uniform and swanks about in the streets. What was the object of his being given that rank, what are his duties, and does he get military pay? I believe he is the chairman of the Recruiting Committee. But the few men that they got to join up in Beaufort West have left they have gone, and the rest are shielding behind their key positions. When the mobile column was in our village, they secured a few young lads, but for the rest they got no one. Accordingly there is no recruiting work. Or is it that he is doing spy work? I do not know whether he gets his pay in this connection. Old men, young men, men of middle age, have got officers’ rank, and they are walking about the country in large numbers, and are costing the public an enormous sum. I would like to know what was the cost of that mobile column going right through the country and how many recruits they got. We see from the newspapers—I can hardly believe my eyes—that a special artist has now also been appointed to make official paintings in North Africa.

Two of them.

They have to go to North Africa and one of the first orders will probably be the painting of a portrait of Haile Selassie. We are now being asked to vote money to paint portraits in North Africa! Now I just want to add a few more words to what was said by the hon. member for Waterberg in connection with the recruiting of coloured persons and natives. The hon. member referred to what had already happened in Cape Town. The hon. member for Krugersdorp threw doubt upon it and said that there was no rule that a subordinate white soldier had to salute a coloured officer. That proves what the hon. member for Waterberg said. If it is a fact that there is no such rule that a white soldier must salute a coloured officer, then it shows the impudence of the coloured people, who insist upon their being saluted by the soldiers. It is an intolerable state of affairs. The coloured women on the countryside are to-day getting £7 10s. a month in allowances when their husbands are in the Defence Force, and in some cases if the coloured man occupies a higher rank and they have children, they get still more, with the result that the coloured women, who never used to get more than £1 10s. and their food, will no longer work to-day, and the people on the countryside are suffering in consequence. But more than anything else we are concerned because in our country the colour bar has always hitherto been maintained, strongly maintained, while now an unhealthy position is being created which we come into contact with every day. It is not only a question for this side of the House, but also for that side. On that side you have supporters of the Prime Minister who feel just as we do about the position which the white man takes towards the coloured people and the natives in South Africa. They feel just as we do about the colour line, and about the prestige of the white man. But by that policy which the Government is following they are busy destroying the colour line, and they are allowing the prestige of the white man to drop because these coloured people and natives who are being sent to the north are fighting against white men. It is said that there are coloured soldiers in the armies of Italy and France, but there is also a proverb that two blacks do not make a white, and the fact that those countries know no colour distinction is no reason for us to follow their example. South Africa still stands on the principle that the prestige of the white man must be upheld in the country, and I say that the Prime Minister, by his policy, has given a tremendous blow to the prestige of the white man. I now want to come back to something which I raised in the House yesterday. I would like to have the attention of the Prime Minister in connection with it. I raised the question yesterday of our representative in France. I hope— because we have great respect for his brain— that the Prime Minister will not really now expect it of us to believe his excuse that no one has been appointed because there was uncertainty about the seat of government of the French Government. That is only an excuse which he made here. If that is the reason then Dr. van Broekhuyzen still less should have hurried to London as Minister Plenipotentiary with the Government of Holland, because the seat of government of Queen Wilhelmina is still more uncertain. I really do not think that the Prime Minister wants to suggest that that is the real reason why no one was accredited to the French Government. I suggested yesterday that there was another reason, and that is that while the Prime Minister apparently wants to create the impression that we are still preserving ordinary diplomatic relations with the now existing and legal French Government, he at the same time wants to cooperate with the other so-called committee which exists in London under the chairmanship of General de Gaulle. If it is a question of expense and difficulty in regard to the locale, then the ordinary practice should have been followed of appointing a Charge-d’-Affaires, for which purpose merely a sitting room, a bedroom and a small office in an hotel would have sufficed. The Prime Minister knows that in America and certain republics in America, Switzerland and other countries are represented at Vichy. We therefore have the peculiar position that the Government of South Africa is playing a kind of double role. On the one hand M. de Simonin is recognised in South Africa as the representative of France, but on the other hand the Prime Minister still has certain reasons why he will not go the length of appointing a representative of South Africa in Vichy. Now I would like to make use of this opportunity to put a question to the Prime Minister. I want to ask the question whether during recent months there has been any discussion in London between an individual representing or on behalf of this Government, either with General de Gaulle, or someone who represented him; whether such discussions have taken place, and more particularly about the question of Madagascar. I hope that we shall receive a clear statement from the Prime Minister. Reference has been made to the war effort of the country. I think it is also necessary for the Prime Minister to take the House into his confidence as to what his intentions are when, as they say, within a short time the war in the north of Africa will be at an end. We have had a statement by one of his colleagues in the Ministry. I think it was the Maginot Minister, the Minister who planted a tree on the Maginot Line. He made a statement, possibly not on behalf of the Government, but he nevertheless spoke as Minister, and in that statement he announced that it was the intention of the Government to send troops overseas shortly. On the 4th September, we had a solemn statement from the Prime Minister that it was not the intention of the Government to do so, and he also told the country on subsequent occasions that it was not the intention of the Government to send troops overseas. Now I think that in view of this statement—they are not Press reports—which the Minister of Native Affairs made, we have the fullest right of asking the Prime Minister what his present intentions actually are. I therefore hope that the Prime Minister, before the end of this debate, will make a statement in connection with the matter.

I did not intend intervening in this debate but the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) has chosen to attack a gentleman living in his constituency by the name of Stroebel. He has attacked him merely because Mr. Stroebel is doing his duty to his country in assisting South Africa to obtain recruits for its army.

I did not attack him, I only asked for information.

He asked, and wanted to know what salary this gentleman was getting, why he was allowed to walk about in uniform, and what his military experience was. He is fully entitled to wear a uniform by virtue of the fact that he is, and was, a Lieutenant in the Defence Rifle Association, he is receiving no salary for the work he is doing, he is there as an hon. defence recruiting officer, and he is rendering his services to his country in order to assist us in our efforts, and I think it is regrettable that a member should get up in this House without being sure of his facts and attack someone outside who is not in a position to defend himself.

I rise to obtain certain information from the Minister of Finance. It is in regard to our loan position, and the amounts which the Government have to borrow this year for war purposes and for special services. According to the estimates, we find that the amount that will have to be borrowed is about £56,500,000. Of that £39,500,000 is to be borrowed for var purposes. Therefore, for all the other purposes we find that about £17,000,000 will have to be borrowed. There will therefore be spent 2½ times as much loan money in regard to war purposes than on the other services. Now what I want to know from the Minister of Finance is this. From that amount of £56,500,000 which has to be borrowed, there must be deducted, according to the original Budget which was introduced in February last year, an amount of about £6,868,000. This is, of course, revenue which comes in regularly every year from loans that are paid off and from interest. Accordingly, about £50,000,000 has to be borrowed. Of that the Minister has already issued certain loans which were fully subscribed, I think, in December of last year. I do not know what the amount is that he got, and therefore we would like to know from him what the amount is which was subscribed on those loans. In other words, we would like to know Trow much of that amount he has already borrowed and how much still remains to be raised. It is very necessary for the country to know this. The Minister told us that he felt convinced that we would be able to get all the money which had to be borrowed in our own country. But what I would like now to know from the Minister is this: If that amount of between £30,000,000 and £40,000,000 has to be borrowed, is he convinced that he will be able to borrow the whole of that amount in the country, and, if not, whether he can borrow it in any other country, and how he will obtain those loan funds so that the essential services will not have to be curtailed in any way? You will agree with me, if the Minister cannot borrow the whole of that amount—and it is a gigantic amount—then the essential services will have to suffer in consequence, because the war services will naturally get the preference, and because those war services are getting the preference under the policy of the Government, the essential services must inevitably suffer. I would like to know from the Minister what he intends doing in those circumstances, and what the real amount is that he still has to borrow to obtain that sum of £50,000,000 which is required for the essential services as well as the war services. I would like to know what amount of the £50,000,000 is still to be borrowed. The Minister said here, or it has been stated, when we asked for details of the expenditure in connection with the war services, that it was not practicable to give those details. There may be something in the point that the Government of the day does not want to publish its secret as to how it is spending that amount. But then it is also no more than fair and right that the Minister of Finance should take hon. members of this House into his confidence, and to allow them, if he does not want to say it in public because he is afraid, for some reason or other—and it may be for good reasons—to have an insight into that expenditure. It is absolutely necessary. Our experience in the past has proved that.

When business was suspended I was just engaged in pointing out that when such a gigantic sum has to be spent, then it is at least fair that the people in the country should also know something about that money, and how it is to be spent. I can understand that the Minister of Finance, the Minister concerned, or the Government, may not regard it at the moment as being in the interests of the country to make those details public, out then I say again the Minister ought at least to take the representatives of the people into his confidence, not only the members on his own side, but members on both sides of the House, and to give them an opportunity, more or less, of going into the details, without bringing them up over the floor of this House. I think it will be very reasonable, on this account: It is an historical fact in South Africa that during the past war an amount of over £1,000,000 was wasted for which no receipts could be produced. Regarded from that point of view alone, it is no more than right and fair that the Minister should take us into his confidence. I may say this to the Minister. I think that there is a precedent in connection with such cases which was created in this House by the previous Minister of Defence. He considered it wise not to give the details of the amounts either which the Government was asking to be spent on defence. But he realised the fairness of the request, and gave hon. members of the House an opportunity of judging for themselves whether the way in which the Government intended to spend the money was fair or not, and also to make any comment on the subject. The Minister will be going to work in a very desirable manner, and this side of the House will be able to give more confidence to him, if he lays his cards openly on the table, and I hope that the Minister, in his reply, will anyhow give us certain information. It is absolutely necessary for us to know it, so that we, as representatives of the people, can still communicate something to our constituents in connection with this big expenditure. Then I would like to learn from the Prime Minister whether this additional expenditure in connection with internment camps, has anything to do with the costs of the Italian prisoners.

I have already said that I have nothing to do with them.

The Minister did say so, but I want in any case to ask the Minister for certain information, so that we can know who is responsible for the costs.

I gave that information also in my answer.

Yes, but I would like very much to know, because the Minister did not tell us clearly. He said that the English Government was responsible. But we are a partner or an ally of the Allies, and are we not in that respect responsible for a part of the amount? Can the Minister give us the assurance that he is satisfied with the position? We want in any case to know precisely what the ruling is. Then I want, in conclusion, to say this to the Minister. I have already stressed that there is a large amount which we shall have to borrow, and that the preference will be given to the war services. But nevertheless the Minister told us yesterday that the essential services would not be damaged. Can he give us the definite assurance that that will not be done, and, in case he may not be able to get all the money in South Africa, tell us what his intention is, where he intends to go and borrow that money in the future? England cannot lend the money to us, and from what country then does he want to go and borrow it? That is essential information, and we shall be very glad if the Minister can give it to us.

I have been listening to the hon. member for Kensington, Mr. Blackwell, who justifies the war because it is intended to assist Great Brtain to victory, and thereby relieve the oppressed small nations. I want to say that if that is the case then it is indeed a very fine object. It means that Great Britain is a true defender of small nations. That by itself is a very fine object, and we must congratulate England on having that object in view. But is that England’s bona fide object? Is it England’s real object to relieve and liberate the small nations which are being oppressed?

I cannot allow the hon. member to go into that question at length. We are dealing here with an increase of expenditure and with the reasons for that increase. What the hon. member mentions there may be a cause of the war, but the hon. member must confine himself to the reasons for the increase.

I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but these additional estimates, if I understand them correctly, are intended to enable us to continue the war, and the object is to assist Great Britain to win the war.

That question can be discussed on the Main Estimates, and it has been discussed there. It cannot be discussed again on the Additional Estimates. The hon. member must confine himself to the reasons for the increase.

If you will not allow me to make these remarks then I shall confine myself to saying that my hon. friend opposite who made that statement does not know his history and does not know the history of the world. Where is there a greater oppressor of small nations than England herself? I ask what about India, Egypt, South Africa, Palestine, Ireland?

The hon. member cannot go into these matters at this stage.

Very well, Mr. Speaker, I shall come back to that next week when we are discussing the vote of no confidence. I now wish to raise a few points in regard to the Treasury as affecting these Additional Estimates now on the table. The year 1940 will undoubtedly go down in History as the black year of the waste of money. I want to emphasise that the Minister of Finance is a man in whom that side of the House delights, they are very pleased to have a man like that, because he is not afraid to spend hugh amounts on the war. If I may be allowed to make a comparison—the previous Minister of Finance tried to economise and to manage the financial affairs of the country as carefully as possible in order not to increase the public debt; let us look at the tremendous contrast there is between the previous and the present Minister of Finance. The mentality of the present Minister of Finance is concerned with only one thing—to see the war through, let is cost what it may. The huge amounts which are being spent in a reckless and irritating manner in order to see the war through are before us. I feel that South Africa must have committed certain sins for which it is now being punished by having a Minister of Finance, and a Prime Minister, who are running South Africa into debt. It is not only a punishment, but it is a calamity for South Africa to have two men at the head of affairs who have so little respect for the people of South Africa. We are fully entitled to call this Department the money wasting department. In normal circumstances, when the Minister of Finance wastes and spends money in an irresponsible manner, the Prime Minister is there to stop him to a certain extent, and to exercise supervision over him, but unfortunately to-day we have that type of Minister of Finance in office and alongside of him we have a Minister of Defence who at the same time is Prime Minister—both people of the same kidney—what a calamity! Money is being spent on a large scale, but not to look after and attend to the interests of the country; where help is urgently wanted help cannot be given. There is money for no other save for the war. In these Estimates an additional amount of £15,000,000 is asked for the financial year 1940-’41, bringing the total to more than £100,000,000. We might consent to this, and approve of it if the money were to be spent to the benefit of the country, but all this expenditure is nothing but a dead loss. We are being saddled with this huge amount of debt plus interest and plus all the additional expense. What do we owe to Abyssinia? The great ideal is to restore Haile Selassie, and what then? If the Union troops do take Abyssinia are we going to keep it? Will England allow us to do so? Never. No nation which has ever helped England to conquer other countries has been allowed to retain possession of those countries. England has always seen to it that she remained the blessed owner of everything that has been conquered, and Abyssinia is not going to be anyone but England’s possession. Let me say that we do not want Abyssinia. So far England alone has conquered countries and kept them. Last year the House was asked to vote £46,000,000 to see the war through; we protested against that, and we stated that the Minister would come along later on again to ask for further amounts of money. He laughed at us and contested our statements. He said that he had enough, quite enough, and a few months later he came along and asked for another £15,000,000. I am of opinion that the Minister last year deliberately deceived this House. According to his own statement of last year I feel that this House has no right to give us its consent to this huge amount of £15,000,000. Current expenditure in normal years is between £18,000,000 and £20,000,000 and that includes everything, development work, roads, bridges, irrigation and all the different enterprises including salaries etc., as well. And where do we stand now? In one year the expenditure amounts to more than £100.000,000. Can the country afford it? I think it is high time for the country to say definitely “So far and no further”. Nothing is done to assist the farmers. Settlements end enterprises which have been started are curtailed. Our produce lies in the harbours. I am surprised that we no longer hear anything about this “lie and rot” story. They are completely silent on that point. Our mealies, wool and deciduous fruit lie there and rot.

The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill.

Nothing is being done for the development of the country; everything is being spent on the war. Is it not a disgrace that the Government should forget its own country and its own house and that it does not care a rap when it sees its own house collapsing, while all the time money is being spent in order to assist Great Britain. The Minister uses very fine phrases and comes to us with beautiful schemes, but when it comes to carrying out those schemes it is a horse of a different colour. Last year he spoke about the tremendous expansion that was going on in regard to our industries, and he told us that there would be a lot of work for unemployed men, and that the money would stay in the country. What has become of all this fine talk? Where are all those industries? Where is all the work that was going to be given to the unemployed, and to the starving people of our country? There are industries in the country but they are mainly for ammunition and war equipment. That is all, and those industries are not of a permanent nature. They simply represent a waste of money. The burdens which are being placed on the people are becoming heavier and heavier. Customs and Excise duties are rising all the time …

The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill, he cannot discuss all these matters.

Our cost of living has been raised by this waste of money, and the condition of affairs is so abnormal that it is impossible for one to talk about these things without becoming heated.

The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill before the House and to the items appearing on these second Additional Estimates of Expenditure.

Shall I be allowed to speak about the mining taxation?

The hon. member will have another opportunity to discuss that question.

I feel that this amount of £15,000,000 constitutes an unjust burden which is being placed on the country. We are not getting any assets as a return for this expenditure. I protest against South Africa’s money being spent in order to drag our people into a war which will only result in heavier burdens being placed on the public. I am not allowed under the Rules of the House to refer to all the taxes we have in this country, but all these taxes are imposed in order to enable the Government to continue the war. In conclusion I only want to say this; we do not know how long the war is going to last. I stated at the cutset that the war might possibly last ten years. Can we go on spending money in this way for a number of years? This country will have to be taxed to death in order to pay its debts. I think the Government is going to lose the war and is going to get nothing back, and I want to address a word of warning to hon. members opposite who are fanning the war for all they are worth. The time of settlement will come and I, so far as I am concerned, am definitely going to refuse to recognise the burdens which are being placed on this country through this war. I am not going to recognise them, and we on this side of the House are going to hold the war mongers responsible for the debts. You have certain properties and you will have to bear those debts. You may laugh and jeer and carry on with this waste of money, but there is an old saying which says “He who laughs last laughs best”.

Ever since the beginning of the war we have protested against our participation in this war, and we feel more strongly than ever that we are not fighting in this war in the interest of our country but in the interest of another country and another people. We have gone and declared war against a people with whom we had not been living in a state of enmity and who had not done us any harm. That is why we continue to protest, and also because these tremendous amounts are being wasted, and because heavy burdens, unbearable burdens, are imposed on the taxpayers of South Africa. A great deal was said here to-day, yesterday and the day before, in order to show the necessity for the spending this money, but I do not think there is anyone on the other side of the House who really knows why we are waging this war. What are we being told? The reasons given to us are very poor reasons, and I am unable for a single moment to accept them as the real reasons. In any case our debts have been increased and we are incurring more and more debt, and increasing the burdens which are pressing heavily on the people. Hon. members opposite do not care how much is being spent. If the war goes on for another few years, as predicted by hon. members opposite, we shall undoubtedly have to spend more and more millions which we urgently need for constructive work in South Africa. Not only are heavy financial burdens being imposed on the people, but the war also brings with it the moral collapse of a very large section of our people. Hon. members challenge us to show them where money is being wasted, and they say they will welcome our doing so. One of the things on which a great deal of money has been wasted is the “Steel Commando” which the Government recently sent through the country. This is being generally referred to on the platteland as Genl. Smuts’ circus, and it actually did look very much like a circus, particularly in view of the fact that this high falutin Captain from Krugersdorp was in attendance to make speeches, and to tell the people what a noble cause they stood for, and to appeal to them to answer the call. I do not know what sort of a call the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) had heard. There was an accumulation of a certain class of people such as one could naturally expect on an occasion of that kind. I did not go out of my way to attend this show, because I realised that one would be pushed aside by people of all sorts of colours and smells, and that it would be impossible to get anywhere near. It was a tremendous waste of money. As a further instance of waste of money one could refer to members on the other side occupying Officers’ rank and chasing through the country to hold meetings and to make propaganda. Some of them have told us that they are willing to pay and to fight. The fighting they do is on the home front in Parliament, but they do not get anywhere near the guns and the bullets fired by the enemy. There are a great number of other items of expenditure which one could refer to. We learnt last week that an amount of £5,000 was remitted to the Cape Town City Council so that soldiers and sailors should be able to ride free of charge in the buses belonging to the City Council. Is this one of the schemes devised with a view to winning the war? The moral effect is going to be most dangerous so far as this country is concerned. Coloured men are being recruited, and nobody will dare get up here and say that the coloured men who are being put into uniform will, when the war is over, be better men. Nobody will dare say that they will have greater respect for their fellow men and for the white people. On the contrary, even to-day they are so difficult that they are beginning to give offence. This clever gentleman from Krugersdorp knows nothing about all this. He does not know about the coloured corporal who had the impertinence to tell one of our policemen that he must stand to attention when speaking to him because he was a corporal. But that is the sort of thing that is beginning to make itself felt. What is going to be the result once they have fought shoulder to shoulder with the whites? Some time ago a prominent farmer in my constituency sent a telegram to the authorities asking them not to proceed with their recruiting efforts, as those efforts had the effect of placing difficulties in the way of the farmers in getting in their crops. Naturally those hon. members opposite who incite the Government to carry on the war, and who voted in favour of the war, do not worry their heads about that. The farmers who support them, so they say, have to stop on the farms, on the home front, in order to produce food so that there shall not be a shortage of food for the army. I feel that if a man wants to wage war and votes in favour of war he should also be willing to make sacrifices, and he should not stop on his farm on the pretext that he has to produce food. Now I want to direct a few words to the Minister of Finance. An assurance has been given that the recruiting of coloured men in the wine and fruit districts would be suspended until the 15th March, but now I want to ask the Government what the fruit farmers are to do after the 15th March. In my constituency they pack their grapes until the 15th June, a further two months after the 15th March, and they will need labour. What are they to do if the labour is drawn away for service in the army? Labour is very scarce, and during the season the farmers approach the mission stations and they go to other parts of the country in order to obtain lorry loads of labour. The position is an extremely difficult one, and they are largely dependent on the labour they obtain. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) who is now 110% Afrikaner, has the temerity to tell the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) that he thought more of the coloured man who wore the red tab and who went North to fight that he thought of the hon. member for George. We are told from time to time that the two races in this country should work together, so that later on we may become one great people, but I ask hon. members how, if such insulting remarks, remarks which have the object of belittling others, are made by people coming from abroad, by people who are not even born here—I ask how one can expect me to be prepared to co-operate with people like that, in spite of the fact that I have always taken up an attitude of moderation towards the English-speaking section of the community. If the hon. member has no respect for me he cannot expect me to show the slightest respect for him. I cannot co-operate with a person like that and respect him. I cannot respect a man who makes remarks like that about one of my fellow members of this House. As a result of the war we also have these internment camps, we have bitterness in the country, and we have all these difficulties and troubles in the streets of Cape Town caused by people who commit assaults on those who do not share their views in every respect. We have had an instance of soldiers who at Touw’s River left the train and assaulted two Railway officials in their office because they had beards. If that sort of hooliganism is allowed to continue, where is it going to end? The position has become intolerable in consequence of things of that kind. I have told people at meetings that it would appear that if a man has a beard and a soldier notices it, it is like a red rag to a bull, and the man with the beard is attacked. If they want to pull out a man’s beard they should start off with the Prime Minister because he has always had a beard If they pull out his beard they can come along and pull out mine as well, but this hooliganism must stop, especially in the army, if they want to uphold the honour of the army, and I hope that those who occupy responsible positions will see to it that that kind of thing is punished in an exemplary fashion. It is going to cause further difficulties and troubles between the two races in the country, and it is not to be wondered at that if those atrocities are allowed to continue our people so metimes get cross and in an ill-considered moment do things which they regret later on. I read the other day that the Prime Minister had addressed 4,000 keymen. We often hear that they are he-men at the same time. But what is the attitude that is adopted towards Afrikaans-speaking people who do not support the war effort? In many instances those keymen are employers of labour and then they simply put the choice before the young men of from 25 to 45 years of age, that if they do not join up there is no further work for them. They have to go and fight, and yet we hear from the other side of the House that only volunteers have gone to the front. I can give you the assurance that whatever may be said about volunteers I should not be a bit surprised if half of them were compulsory volunteers. It has even become so serious that some of the Government supporters drive away people from their farms, people who have lived there for years, because they are not prepared to go and fight. I mentioned a case of that kind here last year. There have been other cases of that kind. People are compelled, and those men who shout about war stay at home. They are either keymen or something else.

They are keymen but not he-men.

Yes, they are keymen, but they are never he-men. If they had been he-men they would have gone to the front All these are matters which have a demoralising effect on the country. Our agricultural industry is in a precarious position. People can do practically nothing. We were told that we should join in this war so that our products could be exported. That was one reason why we should go to war, but we now find that export has been suspended for all practical purposes and that the local market has to absorb practically everything, which is quite impossible. We further find that highly essential erosion works have been suspended during the war. The people who were employed on those erosion works, and on the construction of dams, are walking the streets to-day. They have no income. Many of them are too old to go and fight, and for those who are not too old to go there is only one way out—they have to take the red tab and then all is well. Failing that they cannot get any work, and then we are told that those people are not being forced. What about the young men here in the technical college at Cape Town who were given the alternative either to take the red tab or not complete their course; they would not be given any further training and others would be unemployed on the completion of their course. All this is compulsion which is being brought to bear on our young men, and I say again that the aftermath of this war is going to be one of tremendous and terrifying poverty. A great many of those people are poor already, and they are being further impoverished, while the man of average means is going in the same direction as the result of the present state of affairs, because burdens are being imposed upon us to-day such as it will be impossible for us to bear later on. We shall have a condition of affairs such as prevailed in the days when the priests placed such burdens on the Jews that they were more than the Jews could bear, and more too than the priests themselves could bear. If that was the position in those days then we can expect the same position to be created here. Another instance of waste of money is this. Our trains going up and coming down are full of soldiers travelling about. Is there no work for those people? I understand that there is an army of about 100,000 men in South Africa. What are they doing? Are they guarding the internees? There is no war in this country; there is no rebellion such as we had in 1914/T5, and there is no prospect of a rebellion. There are no troubles brewing which render it necessary for the Government to keep an army standing by. Naturally all sorts of spectres are being held up but it is a very difficult thing to catch or shoot a ghost, or to fight a ghost.

What about the Ossewabrandwag?

Someone mentions the Ossewabrandwag. There are people who are afraid of the Ossewabrandwag, but the Ossewabrandwag is not concerned with that, and they will not kill it. I hope the Prime Minister has taken a careful note of what I have said in connection with the recruiting of coloured people and in connection with the wine farmers and the fruit farmers. If the recruiting is restarted after the 15th March it means that there are still two months left during which people will be busy packing their grapes for the market, and they will not have the necessary labour then to do this work, and their position even to-day is a very precarious one.

I feel that I would be neglecting my duties if I did not say a few words about this colossal sum of money which is being spent. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) in a most defiant manner stated this morning that our attitude last night gave the impression that we on this side of the House were thoroughly satisfied with the way in which the Government was spending this money. He said that the way in which we acted was an indication that we were perfectly satisfied with this tremendous amount being spent on the war. He is quite wrong. It is quite clear that hon. members opposite are being kept under restraint. A few of them are allowed to talk, but the others are being told to remain silent and they are not allowed to say anything. Some of them can go on sleeping. I feel that the people of South Africa realise that these colossal sums of money are being wasted, and the Government will eventually be called to account to the people for the manner in which they are wasting this money. We cannot continually keep on putting taxes on the people, and imagine that the people are sasisfied with being taxed.

The day will come when a halt will be called, and then the Government which is responsible for this waste of money will have to account for its actions to the public. There are problems in the country requiring the urgent attention of the Government. Several speakers have drawn attention to a number of matters, and I do not wish to cover the same ground again, but hon. members opposite, particularly the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg), have told us that now that they have passed through a military course their eyes have been opened and they now realise for the first time how well the money is being spent by the Government under its present policy. I should like to know from the Minister of Finance whether this is the right way of wasting the country’s money. We can no longer travel in the trains in safety to-day. Windows and doors are smashed by people travelling about at the Government’s expense. I proved this fact to the stationmaster at one of our stations. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) was present; when my son came from Stellenbosch and I went to meet him, I showed the stationmaster that the windows had been smashed in the compartment in which there were a few students, and this was done by people who at Government expense took a holiday on the train and who wanted to pull out those students. If those people who are engaged by the Government for military service were to go and fight in the North, there would be a degree of justification for the money which is being spent on them. But they travel about in the trains, and when there are students on the trains with three or four straggling beards, then a terrible dislike is displayed towards those people simply because they have a beard. I have been somewhat nervous during the last few days that even the Prime Minister, if he were not such a well-known figure in South Africa, might be assaulted by those people. Those children, because they have beards, are jeered at, and some of those people have even gone so far as to damage Government property and to break doors and windows on the railway trains in order to pull these young fellows out of the compartments. I want to say here that I am convinced that my son would not have given any cause for those disgraceful acts to be committed.

Hear, hear!

It is very easy for members opposite to indulge in big talk. They are majors, captains, and all the rest of it, and large sums of money are paid out to them. Instead of going to fight in the North, they come and sit here and make the kind of remarks which we hear from the other side of the House. That is one respect in which I feel there is a lot of waste of money. There are too many people who are being paid and who travel about the country in military uniforms. The taxpayers will eventually have to bear the cost. They can call us by whatever names they like, but we are satisfied. We want to see peace prevailing in South Africa. So far we nave helped towards the preservation of peace, and notwithstanding all the efforts that have been made to get us to commit acts of violence, I can give the assurance that no acts of violence will be committed. We stand for peace, and we do not take sides. I have not taken sides in this war between the belligerent countries. I am longing for peace, and peace only. With these few words I want to contribute my share towards asking the Government to be careful in the way it spends the country’s money. The people outside are suffering great hardships. In many areas the farmers need help, and it is the Government’s duty to see to it that those who are in need of help shall be helped, and that help is extended to those who need it.

In this debate we have had to listen again to a large extent to a number of old, old songs. We again had all the old arguments about the war policy which we have had to listen to for the umpteenth time, and we again had members casting doubt on the policy which had been approved of repeatedly by this House. I am not going into the general questions of the war policy raised here. I am going to confine myself to the financial points which have been raised, and that means that it will not be necessary for me to say a great deal because very few actual financial points have been raised. The points which have been raised are partly in the nature of requests for information and partly in the nature of criticism. In regard to the request for information all I have to do is to refer to what was said by the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys). He wants me to give a full statement of the manner in which we are going to find the necessary loan funds. I thought that when I introduced the Additional Estimates I had made that point quite clear. The further details in that connection can only be given, and will be given in full when I introduce the Main Budget. But may I be allowed to revert to the general position in this connection? The hon. member for Prieska has pointed out that the total amount asked for from loan funds is a little less than £56,500,000. He then said that we would get nearly £6,500,000 out of funds which are being placed to the credit of the loan account. That is perfectly true. That leaves about £50,000,000. He then asked where we were going to borrow that £50,000,000, and whether that amount would be found without interfering with our ordinary loan services, or without our having to borrow overseas. My reply to that question is Yes. I want to point out here that it is not necessary for us to borrow £50,000,000, and that for two reasons. We started this year with a credit balance on loan account of £1,750,000. We have that amount to start with. Secondly, as I indicated in my Supplementary Eudget speech on the 28th August, we get close on £3,000,000 additional money on the loan account from the gold mines, principally in connection with the money accruing to us in consequence of the realisation of gold. That amount therefore has to be further reduced by £3,000,000. That leaves £45,250,000. As hon. members know we issued a threefold loan towards the end of last year. That loan issue proved a very great success, and the amount which we received, although the rate of interest was considerably lower than for the previous loan, was about £29,250,000. Consequently there remains an amount of £16,000,000 if we deduct that £29,250,000 from the £45,250,000. But I have already pointed out that we expect to get more from the Public Debt Commissioners than we had originally estimated for. This to a large degree is the result of the success of the issue of Union Loan Certificates, and irrespective of the contributions by the Public Debt Commissioners, we shall probably get round about £8,000,000 from the Public Debt Combmissioners from contributions to other issues. That only leaves £8,000,000, and as I have already indicated we shall easily be able to get that money by the issue of Treasury Bills. There is therefore not the slightest reason to anticipate any difficulty in the financing of this amount, nor is there any reason to be afraid that it will be either necessary to curtail public services or to go overseas to borrow money there. Now, in regard to the points of criticism I do not think it necessary to say anything about what the hon. member tor George (Mr. Werth) has stated here. Apparently he does not only want to pose as the chief financial expert of the Opposition, but also as the chief distorter. He distorted my words yesterday.

Why do you say that he wants to pose?

Am I to take it then that he is the chief distorter? If the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) will agree that the hon. member for George is his master in that respect, then I accept it.

No, the master sits on the other side.

He put words into my mouth yesterday that I had said that our policy is one of “pay as you go” in regard to war expenditure. He could not prove that I had said that.

I have it before me here, and I shall prove that you said it.

My hon. friend cannot do it, and I challenge him to do it. I did not say all these things which the papers read by my hon. friend have attributed to me. The hon. member for George again said to-day that I had stated that I would continue spending money so long as I could borrow money. I did not say that. All I said was this: My hon. friend said that our financial position was unsound, and in replying to my hon. friend’s remark I pointed out that the people who had money had so much confidence in the soundness of our financial position that they were prepared to contribute a much larger amount to our loans than ever before, and that at a lower rate of interest than that at which the previous loans had been issued. That is all. And my hon. friend therefore has no right to distort my words in the way he did. There was one further point of criticism which came from the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé), and also from the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). I am sorry that all those hon. members, with the exception of the hon. member for George, are not here just now. The point, however, is of sufficient importance for me to reply to it. That criticism was brought against me in view of the fact that this additional £14,000,000 for defence purposes is, as a whole, to be put to loan account. Again, a motive has been ascribed to me, and it was stated that the object in doing so was to mislead the public and to throw dust in the eyes of the public. I very clearly showed the reason why this particular procedure is being followed. I stated very clearly that it will not be of much use to impose fresh taxation during the last two months of the financial year, but in addition to that I said that when I introduced the Main Estimates and when I dealt with the taxation proposals, account would be taken of the fact that this amount had been placed to loan account in order to obtain a reasonable division of the burden between loan moneys and moneys from taxation sources. That is what I did say. There is no reason whatever to throw dust into the eyes of the public. The public is aware of the fact that we are spending £60,000,000 on the war. Nothing is being hidden from the public, and the public know what the position is. And even apart from that, that criticism falls to the ground when we realise, as I have already explained, that even with this £14,000,000, added to the loan account, we are still meeting almost half of our war expenditure from ordinary revenue, and I challenge my hon. friends opposite to show me any belligerent country which can produce a record similar to that. Then there is just one onther point which I want to refer to, namely the strange argument raised by the hon. member for Pietersburg. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) drew attention to the miserable spectacle of the party opposite which we beheld here last night. Only two days ago the Leader of the Opposition—I understand I can call him that now—stated here, with the greatest emphasis, that we had come before this House with a colossal amount on the Additional Estimates, and he put up a plea for ample time to be given for the discussion of this war expenditure. What happened? Last night we got to the discussion of this particular vote. The Leader of the Opposition was not in his seat. So far as I know not a solitary front bencher with the exception of the hon. member for George was present, and not a word was said by the other side of the House about this £14,000.000 for additional war expenditure. That £14,000,000 was voted without a single word being spoken. And now, what is the argument put forward by the hon. member for Pietersburg? He said “We cannot discuss it because there are no details shown on the Estimates.” Because we ask for a globular amount to be voted, for that reason there can be no discussion. Six months ago I also asked for defence expenditure to be voted in a globular amount. On that occasion there were no details before the House either, but on that occasion the House did find it possible to spend a full day of nine hours on the discussion. It shows the value of the argument put forward by the hon. member.

You are forgetting the motion of no confidence.

What is the position now? For the past four months the Opposition has been going through the country from one side to the other; for four months the Opposition has been levelling charges and insinuations against the Government, alleging wastage of money and malpractices, but when the time came for members opposite to prove their charges on the floor of this House where were they? Where were they? No, they have a lot to say outside, but they come here, and when they have to prove their allegations we hear nothing from them. For all those months the mountains were in labour. Even as recently as last Tuesday, when the Leader of the Opposition spoke here, the mountain was in labour. But when ge wot to the real discussion of the matter, all that was produced was the most ridiculous and the smallest of all mice.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes —71:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. H.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

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.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Stallard, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van d. Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Noes—52:

Badenhorst, A. L.

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conroy, E. A.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Erasmus, F. C.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, O.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, F. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. p.

Swart, C. R.

Theron, P.

Van den Berg, C. J. V. d.

Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

In terms of paragraph (1) of the resolution adopted by the House on the 28th January, on the motion of the Minister of Finance, the House resolved itself into Committee on the Bill now.

House in Committee:

Clauses, Schedule and Title of the Bill, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The Chairman reported the Bill without amendment; third reading on 31st January.

I move—

This is an unusual Bill. It is introduced in order to authorise the payment of a pension to a man who has rendered special services to the Union of South Africa. As this is a matter of such an extraordinary character I think the House as a whole will agree with me that although I, as Minister of Finance, am in charge of this Bill, it would be fitting for the Prime Minister to be responsible for giving the reasons for this Bill. For that reason I do not want to say anything further. I only want to state that so far as I am personally concerned I am very pleased that I can share in the recognition of the merits of a man who, we all feel, however much we may have differed from him in the past on minor points, is a man who has rendered great services to South Africa.

I agree with my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, that it is fitting that I should at this early stage take part in the debate on this Bill. It concerns my predecessor in the position of Prime Minister and the object of this Bill is not merely to render a favour to Genl. Hertzog, but also to do honour to him in an oustanding manner. It is for that reason that this pension has been separated from other pensions and is not brought in together with other pensions in the ordinary course of the business of this House, but that a special Bill is introduced for that purpose. The object of this Bill is to do honour, which we consider is due to a man who has served his country for such a long time, and we want to do that honour and give expression to it in a dignified and clear manner. There is no need for me to expatiate to-day on Genl. Hertzog’s services. He is still alive and it is the wish of all of us that in his old age he will still be able to render good service to his people. This is not the occasion for a burial service. We can confine ourselves to the reasons why this pension is being proposed, and I feel that it is the opinion of all of us in this House on all sides, that there should not be any objection, and that there should be the great degree of unanimity in the granting of this pension. Genl. Hertzog to a certain extent is a unique figure, not only in this House and in the legisation of this House, but also in the history of South Africa. He was Prime Minister of this country for a longer period of time than anyone else since Union. He has been a leader of his people during the stormy days through which we have passed in our history, and he is one of the men who, even in the days of our history before Union played a leading part, and after Union, through the strength of his charcter, and through his definite attitude, worked himself up more and more into the front ranks of the people. I feel that I can speak without prejudice and without partiality about this matter. For a considerable portion of that time I was an opponent of Genl. Hertzog’s. The directions in which we worked were not identical. He followed a narrower direction than I considered desirable in the interest of the development of South Africa, but in spite of all, through all those years, even when we were opponents, I was convinced of his honesty and his uprightness, and I am convinced that he always aimed at what was the best for his people and for the country. That has been my conviction throughout all those years, and that is why I have always respected him, even in the bitterness of the political struggle, and that is why we were always on a friendly footing with each other. That is why I am able to-day to impartially judge his merits and the claim which he has, not only to the honour which we are doing him, but to the favour which we to-day, as a House of Parliament, are conferring upon him. In the whole of his career, in all his achievements throughout practically half a century, he has always been a man who has never thought of himself and who has never looked after himself, and it redounds to his honour and to the honour of South Africa that that can be said. In a young country like this with the circumstances and conditions which prevail in South Africa, there is always the temptation for a man in Gen. Hertzog’s position to look after himself. He never thought of doing so. It never entered his mind even to provide for his old age, and that is one of the reasons why the duty rests upon us to look after him. I say that it redounds to his honour, and that it redounds to South Africa’s honour, and I hope it will remain a tradition in South Africa, a tradition of unselfishness, of being able to resist all that is underhand, of setting one’s face against all bribery, a tradition of keeping the country clean. South Africa is a shining example in that respect, and I hope that that tradition will stand unblemished in South Africa. May I be allowed to say this, that that does not apply only to Gen. Hertzog, but I think that we are entitled to say that our political and public life in South Africa in general is clean, clean of corruption, in spite of all the temptations which lie in the road of a man who takes part in politics. It is often said about our politicians that they look after themselves, but here we have a telling example of the very opposite, and there are many other men in South Africa who have sacrificed everything for the country, who have given all their powers and who have gone down into their grave in the end leaving very little for those they have left behind. Gen. Hertzog is among that selected body of men, and that being so it is all the more reason why we should think of him in this way and at this stage. Hon. members will notice that there are no conditions attached to this pension. In regard to this pension, Gen. Hertzog is at liberty for the future to serve his people in any way he thinks fit. I feel that it would be an insult if any restriction were imposed upon him. Let me say that after the 4th September, 1939, after the split which came about then, when he resigned as Prime Minister, the question immediately came up in my mind whether the time had not arrived to grant him a pension. We were, however, in this difficult position, that he was Leader of the Opposition. Feelings ran high in the country, and an action like that on the part of the Government might easily have been misunderstood, and might have been regarded as an attempt to try and influence Gen. Hertzog in the execution of his difficult duties. That is the reason why nothing was done at the time, but I felt even then that in view of his age and the fact that he had never looked after himself, we should consider the question whether the time had not arrived for such a step to be taken. He has resigned from this House and perhaps from the political life of South Africa—nobody knows what the future nas in store. But in any case there is no longer any objection, and there can be no objection, from any section of the people, or any section of this House, to grant him his pension. He has gone out of the political arena, and to a certain extent this was unavoidable. In view of his approaching old age, and the tremendous achievements, the great career behind him, it was unavoidable that sooner or later the time had to come when he would have to leave the political sphere. Let me say this, and I say it without wishing to rouse any feelings, or to give offence either in this House or outside, that the manner of his departure came as a shock to South Africa, a tremendous shock, and nobody can look at the events of the last few months without his mind going back to the history which is now behind us. It came as a shock, and to a certain extent it created bitterness. Well, we have nothing to do with that at the momnt. This House speaks on behalf of South Africa. We are standing outside of all parties on an occasion such as this, and I feel that it is the right thing for us to do as the highest body in South Africa, when something has happened which has come as a shock, or has caused bitterness, to put things right, and the best way to put things right is to take the step which we are taking here to-day. We are not doing this as coming from one party, or as coming from the Government, but as coming from the highest authority in South Africa. We are not merely conferring a favour on behalf of the people, but we are rendering homage to Gen. Hertzog with all our heart, and we are pleased to be able to do honour to him as one of the most outstanding leaders the people of South Africa have had. I considered it necessary for me to say these few words because, without fear of contradiction, we can say that although South Africa is comparatively rich in great men, we have had few Prime Ministers since Union up to the present, and among those few Gen. Hertzog is an outstanding figure, and he will remain an outstanding figure when the storm of to-day has passed over. He will remain one of the great figures in the history of South Africa, and I feel that the step which the House is going to take to-day is going to relieve the conscience of the future, and that it will in years to come make us as a people feel better when we cast our minds back over the history of the past fifty years in South Africa.

It is only a few days ago that I spoke a few words on this self same subject on the occasion of the unopposed motion which I then introduced, and which to my joy was passed by the whole House. I said on that occasion that a great deal more could have been said on that motion but that it was my wish that the motion paying a tribute to Genl. Hertzog should be passed unopposed by the House as a whole, and that if anything more were said in the motion there might perhaps be some members who would object to it, and that there might be members on the other side of the House who would perhaps not be able to associate themselves with the motion—not our political opponents as a whole, but a few isolated ones. It appeared as a matter of fact when notice was given of the introduction of this Bill that my fears had been justified, because even on that occasion one of the hon. members raised objections. It was for that reasons that the motion was put forward in that form in order to get it passed as an unopposed motion. The reason why the unopposed motion was proposed on that occasion was to pay a tribute to Genl. Hertzog entirely irrespective of a pension which might be granted to him, a tribute to Genl. Hertzog by the country in this House, not as a party politician but as man who also fully deserved the thanks and tribute of his political opponents. Among all the members of this House I do not think there are many who have worked with Genl. Hertzog over a longer period of time, and worked intimately with him in the political life of the country, than I have dope. For nine years I was with him in the old Nationalist Party when we sat together on the Opposition benches: for nine years I was one of his Ministers in the Nationalist Party Cainbet. And after he had ceased to be Prime Minister I again was with him for a time in our political life in the same party. I should say that altogether I was with Genl. Hertzog on a very intimate footing in the same political party for a good twenty years, and for that reason I wish to confirm most heartily what has been said about him by the Prime Minister, and for that reason I also wish to give heartfelt support to this Bill, and I want to give the Prime Minister the assurance that that sincere support of this Bill is shared by all hon. members on this side of the House. We are Dieased the Government has come forward with this Bill. In the past few years it has not been an exceptional happening for provision to be made for people who have served the country in a special manner, it has not been an exceptional thing for provision to be made for their families, or rather in the case of their death, for their widows. In view of the special services rendered to the country by such persons, pensions have been granted by this House, or gratuities have been granted, and I am pleased that not only is that being done in this case, but that in this special case it is being done in this special manner, by the introduction of a Bill. What the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has said about the sacrifices, the financial sacrifices, on the part of Genl. Hertzog during that period of his public life, I can personally testify to in this House. Genl. Hertzog by profession was an advocate: that was his profession. He was not a rich man but a poor man, and for years while he was taking part in politics and while he was sitting on the Opposition benches he even had to give up the income which he could have made out of his profession as an advocate in Bloemfontein. He could not take on any work, and while making the greatest financial sacrifices he did his duty, which really meant that he had to live in a state oif comparative poverty, and had to do his work in this House. Consequently extraordinary sacrifices had to be made by him, financial sacrifices but I feel that other sacrifices in other respects were also made by Genl. Hertzog. Nobody more than he himself was conscious of the fact that his strength was failing and he intimated from time to time that the day was coming when he would have to leave the political arena, but every time he considered the matter he came to the conclusion that there was still work left for him to do, that he still had certain duties to fulfil, and so he carried on with his work. If he had looked after himself, if he could have acted as he wished to act, he would have preferred to have gone and taken a rest. The fact that he remained in politics was also a sacrifice so far as he was concerned, and he did not make any secret of that fact. Consequently there was a double sacrifice on his part. We are dealing with this matter entirely from a non-party point of view, and I believe the House is in agreement with me on this matter. We are grateful that we were all able here to say that a tribute should be paid to Genl. Hertzog by the whole country, not only because of the sacrifices which he made, but however much we may have differed from him from time to time, or however much we may have co-operated with him from time to time, there is one thing which cannot be denied—he will be judged by the future, not by this or that which he may have done in politics, not because he had belonged to this or that political party, but he will be judged by what he has achieved, by what will be permanent so far as this country is concerned. We can say openly and freely about Genl. Hertzog that he is one of the statesmen who has brought South Africa to the fore, who has achieved things which never again can be, or will be, destroyed. That is what he will be judged by, and it is that which will give him his place in history. I mentioned a few facts the other day and I do not wish to repeat what I said before. I only want to say that there is no one in South Africa who has done so much for the extension of South Afric’s self governing rights, no one who has done so much for the raising of South Africa’s status, as a free nation, and it is along that road that South Africa will go ahead, and it will not go backwards, and that is why the work which he has done will stand. That is why I heartily support this Bill.

I rise to express thanks to the Government for its decision to grant Gen. Hertzog this pension, and I particularly want to give the Prime Minister the assurance that we on this side of the House know how to appreciate his chivalrous attitude. If we take into account the way in which the Prime Minister and Gen. Hertzog have clashed from time to time, then the speech to which we have listened displays true chivalry, and even if at the end there were a few words which indicated that even on an occasion like the present party political considerations were not entirely absent, then it was only human, and it is something which we can understand. While we appreciate what the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has done in this matter, I want to give him the assurance that we on this side of the House one day hope to do the same thing for him. May I say, and I hope I shall not be misunderstood, that the sooner this happens the more enthusiastic we shall be to pass such a Bill. The Prime Minister and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition have on this, and on a previous occasion, spoken about Gen. Hertzog’s achievements so far as South Africa is concerned, about what he has done for South Africa. A great deal more will be said about that. What I wish to add is my conviction, which is based on a very intimate co-operation with him going over many years. I do not know whether I can say that I have co-operated more intimately with the Prime Minister, in the days when he was Prime Minister, than most other members of this House, but in any case I got to know him sufficiently well, and I am able to summarise my conception of him in very simple words. So far as I am concerned, Gen. Hertzog is the greatest Afrikaner of his day. It is not impossible—we shall have to leave that to history—that even that tribute will prove to be inadequate. The Prime Minister said something about Gen. Hertzog’s financial position. I am pleased he did so, because the public, when it thinks of a Prime Minister, or an ex Prime Minister, may easily have the impression that it is dealing with a rich man. As the Prime Minister has intimated, that is not so. On the contrary, Gen. Hertzog not merely devoted himself so exclusively to the services of his people that he had no time to think of himself, but, in addition to that—and I am pleased the Prime Minister emphasised this—he laid down such a high level of decency for himself that so far as he was concerned all possibility of looking after himself was out of the question, even in connection with his old age. The Prime Minister also emphasised, and I want to repeat, that there is no condition attached to this pension. I am convinced that if there was the slightest question, or even if it could be said, or if it could be argued by way of implication, that there was a condition attached to the pension, which would have made it impossible in future for Gen. Hertzog to serve his people, he would not have accepted that pension. The Prime Minister emphasised that we are not here to bury Gen. Hertzog. In other words, we are not here to take a final farewell of him. He has left party politics, but he is still available to his people. He is fresh and healthy. He is youthful for his age, and I know—I can speak with his consent—that he is at any time available to respond if his people call on him.

Hear, hear!

And it is particularly in that connection, Mr. Speaker, that I should like to refer to one of his latest public expressions, an expression about democracy. Gen. Hertzog very unequivocally expressed himself about democracy when he unconditionally condemned it. It may not be quite in order here, but while we are saying farewell to Gen. Hertzog as a party politician, I may on behalf of myself, and on behalf of those who feel as I do, say that we also in connection with that issue fully accept Gen. Hertzog, and that we shall unequivocally express ourselves on that question just as he has unequivocally expressed himself, and in those circumstances, while I welcome the Bill and wish to thank the Government for what it is doing for Gen. Hertzog, I say that while we are taking leave of him we do not say “farewell,” but “au revoir.”

It is perhaps seldom in history, or at any rate I do not believe it has ever happened in the history of this Parliament, that quite incidentally when a Bill like this is brought forward by the Government, has a party been formed on the same day to accept the principles and everything Gen. Hertzog has stood for, and to carry on with those principles in this House. Just let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I want to give you the assurance that although we are not such a very large party we are determined to stand or fall by everything Gen. Hertzog stood for, and on behalf of those whom I represent in this House, I do not only want to address a word of appreciation to the Prime Minister for the Bill he has introduced, but I want to thank him from the bottom of my heart for his having come forward so chivalrously, and for the fact that he has given a thought to a man who has devoted his life to his people, and who in an extraordinary way has been pushed out of the political world so that he lies stretched out lonely on his farm—and I want to express my appreciation of the fact that even the man who has so often differed from him in the past has had the chivalry to realise that it becomes this House, in order to show its appreciation, to come forward and to stand by him in his old age. I say again that we thank the Prime Minister for his chivalry in having come forward in the way he has done. But we do not wish to speak on behalf of ourselves. I am convinced that if the public outside had the opportunity it would also express its appreciation and gratitude to the Prime Minister. I do not want to expatiate about what Gen. Hertzog has done for his people. For forty years without a break he has stood in the forefront of his people, and I am pleased that the Prime Minister recognises this fact—it is a fact which cannot be controverted, that whatever he may have done in the past, whatever attitude he may have adopted, his worst political enemy will have to admit that Gen. Hertzog has always been honest and upright in his intentions. I am pleased the Prime Minister also stated that he hoped Gen. Hertzog’s services would not be lost to his people in the future. How different do these words sound to the words used when the Leader of the Opposition a few days ago introduced a motion here and expressed his regret at Gen. Hertzog having to go out of politics. It sounded more like a funeral oration than anything else. May I just be allowed to say this, and I do not think the Leader of the Opposition will deny it, that there were faithful followers of Gen. Hertzog’s in the party who were of opinion that attached to that motion should have been an expression of hope that Gen. Hertzog in days to come would again place his services at the disposal of his people, and the man who opposed that was the Leader of the Opposition himself. His excuse was that if those words were added the Government would not have allowed the motion.

Order! I do not think the hon. member should go any further into the matter which was discussed on a motion which has already been disposed of.

I am referring to the words used by the Leader of the Opposition on this occasion; he said he was anxious to have gone further, but the Government would have objected. Yet the Government has come along with a Pension Bill. The Prime Minister has added action to his words, and the Prime Minister has even expressed the hope that Gen. Hertzog will again place his services at the disposal of the people. I attach much more value to the hope expressed by the Prime Minister and to the Pension Bill which he has introduced, than to that very poor hope which we know, if the Leader of the Opposition had wanted to do so, he could have expressed in connection with his motion with the support of all of us. I do not want to take up the time of the House any longer. I only want to emphasise what the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) has said. We know that although Gen. Hertzog was compelled to step out of political life—I want to emphasise that his strength was not broken. His strength is there, and as soon as his people need him he will again be willing to serve his people as in the past.

Mr. Speaker, this House is intended to provide means for the expression of every point of view on any public question, and notwithstanding the apparent unanimity that has been expressed on the subject of this Bill by previous speakers, I wish to dissent entirely from the proposal as set forth in the Bill before the House. Let me read the preamble, sir, so that this House may grasp the purpose and intention of the Bill itself—

I read he preamble in order to enable this House to fix its attention upon what the House is asked to affirm and agree to. Now, sir, when the preamble speaks of great services to the country, it intended to speak of great services to the Union of South Africa. The Union of South Africa was not founded only by one section of the people. It was founded, sir, by and for all sections, and it is on that point that I wish to express my dissent most strongly against the provisions of this Bill. If it were said in this Bill that General Hertzog had rendered great services to one section of the people it might be approximately correct, though even there he has often made mistakes which have recoiled upon that section which he has sought to serve. I am not going to delve into far-distant events, but I am merely going to allude to events which relate to, I shall not say his last appearance, because General Hertzog may return again, but on the last occasion upon which he was amongst us in this House. He was then advocating a peace proposal that was defeated by this House, and I wish to refer to his attitude then to show that he was engaged not in serving this country—he may have been serving some other, but he was certainly not serving the Union of South Africa.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is an hon. member entitled to make an insinuation that the former Prime Minister served another country?

The hon. member is expressing his own opinion and he is entitled to do so.

I should be surprised to hear anyone admit that the hon. member could be a competent judge of a good Englishman or a bad one. I was referring to the fact that General Hertzog on recent occasions has brought various proposals before this House, and I want to mention the summing up of the present Prime Minister in regard to the intention of the peace proposal of August, 1940. On August 29th, 1940, the Prime Minister, speaking in this House, said this—

Now, sir, how does that conviction compare with the all too-generous expressions in the preamble of this Bill in regard to the great services of General Hertzog to this country? Is it to render great services to the country to endeavour to link it up with Germany? I venture to say that that proposition needs no answer—it would mean the total destruction of this country, sir, and the man in the street knows it; the man in the street knows perfectly well that the excessive generosity of the proposal before this House has very little to do with any services the late hon. member for Smithfield may have rendered to this House in recent times.

[inaudible].

I wish those hon. members who mutter inaudible phrases would have the courage of their opinions and get up and express them. I hope the hon. member over there won’t try and distract me any longer with half-murmured interjections. If he wants to be a man let him speak up.

I did not refer to you.

With your permission, sir, may I continue what I have to say: the late hon. member for Smithfield is to be granted a pension on the grounds of the great services he has rendered to the country, and I was merely indicating that the Union was founded by all sections of the people.

Including you.

Yes, sir, including myself. I say the Union was founded by all sections of the people, and for the better protection of the Union it was decided that it should be founded under the Crown of Great Britain and Ireland. I am not emphasising that more than to say that that provision stands in the Act of Union to-day, and the protection which it connotes if as effective as ever, thanks to the might of the Empire; and yet what was General Hertzog’s attitude when he moved his neutrality motion in September, 1939? In September, 1939, when he concluded his speech he said—everybody is familiar with the late Prime Minister’s motion—he said he commended that motion for the consideration of the House, and he said the alternative will be the death, that is to say that if we should take part in the war it will be the death as far as South Africa is concerned, of the Commonwealth of Nations. I should put it this way, it will be the death of the membership of South Africa of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Hear, hear.

Let me ask, would the adoption of General Hertzog’s neutrality motion have been a service to the country that was founded under the Act of Union? General Hertzog contemplated here the destruction of the country as an alternative to our not agreeing with his neutrality proposal. An attitude of that kind was destructive of this country, and the hon. member for Smithfield forfeited his right to be regarded as one who had rendered great services to the country when he said that if we did not accept neutrality it would be the death of the British Commonwealth of Nations in so far as South Africa was concerned.

Hear, hear.

I am glad to hear the hon. member confirm what I say. The object of the neutrality proposal was to break away from the Commonwealth of Nations and found a republic. And I am not the only one who thinks that. There are many who think that. When this motion was before this House the present Prime Minister spoke of this motion as one which was not merely a matter of separate peace, but turned into something else. He was asked by one of those prolific interrupters over there, “What is that?” and he replied “The Republic.” It is in Hansard of August 29, 1940, sir. Well, sir, if that is so you cannot reconcile such an attitude with the great services General Hertzog is now said to have rendered to this country, because his services in that respect were not intended for the continuance of the Union but for its destruction and the establishment of a republic.

That is a good thing.

The hon. member says it is a good thing, then don’t let him maintain as the preamble to this Bill says, that you are giving him a pension for his great services to the Union. He mediated the destruction of the Union, and why then speak of his great services to the Union? I maintain that the whole of this proposal is one which does not commend itself to people who have followed the recent actions of the late hon. member for Smithfield, and who in September, 1939, feared for the future of this country, had General Hertzog been successful in carrying his neutrality motion in this house. It is quite impossible to expect me, and those who think like me, to vote …

There are none.

There are many, sir.

[inaudible].

The hon. member is a young member in this House and should recognise that he knows very little about the matters I have spoken of. As far as I am concerned, sir, it is impossible to expect me to vote for a pension for General Hertzog on the ground of his great services to the Union, when the whole of his recent utterances have declared his intention to destroy the Union and to establish some other form of government, either to link up with Germany or, again in the words of the Prime Minister, to found a republic in this country and not to continue the Union, of which, as one of the founders, he should be proud. I am not going to dwell upon the hon. member’s actions in the distant past, or upon matters that occurred in the earlier parts of his career, I am merely dealing with the speeches that are fresh in the minds of everybody in the Union.

I feel under an obligation to rise and support the measure before the House, and I do so because of a close personal association with General Hertzog, whose retirement from public life is of great personal disappointment to me. I am emboldened to express my personal pleasure at the expressions which have been made use of on behalf of the country for the services which General Hertzog has rendered during his long career in public life, because of one particular factor, and that is the position which I occupy outside this House, being grand treasurer of the Sons of England Order in the Union and Rhodesia. General Hertzog’s contributions to South African political life must be measured by the part that he has played in promoting unity and goodwill in the Union. I am conscious of the fact that there are two sections of people in this country. There is the conglomeration which is known as the English speaking people and that which is known as the Afrikaans speaking people. If South Africa is to play any important part in the future it will be because these two Races have decided to unite and to become one people—South Africans. If we cannot unite, then there will be a continual fight of one Race against the other. When Union came about—a conception of one of the biggest men that South Africa has ever seen, a conception that is much older than even the Boer War, a conception of Cecil John Rhodes came into being. His conception was to have one great United country here—he envisaged a Union of States, although he was probably not the first South African who envisaged a union of peoples. Cecil John Rhodes and the late Jan Hofmeyr, history will undoubtedly record, laid the foundations for the future, if not for the present co-operation of English and Dutch speaking people. So, when Union came about South Africa had advanced tremendously since the antagonisms of the Boer War, and it was the hope that out of these two sections we should build up a solid South African National consciousness. Genl. Hertzog unquestionably represented—despite the fact that the first Prime Minister of this country was no other than Genl. Botha— Genl. Hertzog unquestionably spoke on behalf of the Afrikaans speaking people. The present Prime Minister, with his intellectual capacity, and political foresight, was as far in advance of Afrikaans public opinion as the distance is between the years of 1910 and 1940. He saw that the only possibility for a contented Union of South Africa was fusion of the two races. He assumed that it must come, and he acted on that hypothesis. He has been proved right, but it was Genl. Hertzog who also saw that the only possible way of fusion between the two sections of the community was to make it possible for both sections to be equal. I say, and I have said repeatedly, that the English speaking people of this country from 1910 to 1924 had assumed, and I think we still assume a natural preeminence. I think it was probably because of that assumption, probably because we look upon ourselves as the superior race, that it would be impossible for real fusion to have taken place. There can be no Union except between equals. If Union is to last it must be by virtue of the fact that two equals have come together, not an inferior and a superior. It was by virtue of that fact that Genl. Hertzog’s contribution to the Union of South Africa will be judged by historians. Posterity will thank Genl. Hertzog for what he did to educate Afrikaans speaking people. I agree with the hon. member for Illovo to this extent, that Genl. Hertzog for the whole of his public life, has been actuated by the service of his people, and his interpretation when he used the words “his people” was to make it possible for the Afrikaans speaking people of South Africa to look fairly and squarely into the eyes of their fellow South Africans, and to greet them as equals. It is common history, it is present day politics, that there is no South African who has done more to enhance the selfrespect of the Afrikaans speaking people than the same Genl. Hertzog. Genl. Hertzog’s cotribution to the future unity of South Africa has been to make it possible for Afrikaans speaking people to delight and take a pride in their own langauge. There can be no question about it. So great a contribution, so great an effort has Genl. Hertzog made for the Afrikaans speaking people of this country, that I think they have almost attained to the same arrogance as the English speaking people, that they claim not merely to be equal to, but better than the English speaking people. I feel that insofar Genl. Hertzog’s work for South Africa has been to elevate his people, and to make it possible for Afrikaans speaking people to claim the right of standing on an equal footing with English speaking people, and if I am right that Genl. Hertzog has rendered services of that kind to the Afrikaans speaking people, then the measure of that service is also the measure of the service which he has rendered to South Africa itself. South Africa will be the better for the fusion which was foreseen and accepted by the Prime Minister thirty years ago. But he was thirty years in advance of Afrikaans intellectual and cultural attainments. To-day we are having a surfeit of Afrikaans culture, and it is only because Genl. Hertzog has made it possible for the South African to be proud of himself, and proud of his culture, that we have the arrogance and the domination which is being assumed by certain cultural organisations. They will go, they will be things of the past, but South Africa’s concept is to look upon ourselves not as English or Afrikaans speaking, but as a United people with a mother tongue of both languages. I am not duly pertubed by the references made by the hon. member for Illovo. I feel that South Africa is doing herself honour in honouring Genl. Hertzog. I feel that the English speaking people outside this House, while they deplore and deeply deplore, the expressions, the exaggerated language which Genl. Hertzog gave way to in the last two or three years, feel nevertheless that he has rendered South Africa tremendous services, and I am proud and pleased to be associated with a Parliament and a Party that is capable of expressing on behalf of the Nation in terms and phrases such as embodies in this Bill, our determination to do honour to a very gallant and loyal son of South Africa, Genl. Hertzog.

There are many reasons which actuate me in rising to address the House on this occasion. The first is that I think the House will concede to me that no one has a better right than I have to speak on a subject like this. Because it has been borne on me, especially of late, that I have had a very unique experience in sharing certain things with Gen. Hertzog. He and I, as you know, up to a month or two ago, when this unfortunate circumstance happened, shared between us a record which is unique in our Parliamentary institution in South Africa, namely, that we represented the same constituency for the whole period of the Union Parliament without any break whatever. And one painful experience which I am now enduring is that I have no sharer of that experience. That is one reason. Another is that in the course of that associated experience, looking back through the years, I have personally a very unique opportunity of gauging the capacity and, what is perhaps more important, the superlative honesty, of Gen. Hertzog in those very early days. There came about, very much to my satisfaction and benefit, a very close association with Gen. Hertzog in those early days. That perhaps is news to most hon. members of this House. In 1910-1911 we were thrown together very closely indeed, perhaps because we were sharers of misfortune—both naturally from different angles. He also was subjected to persecution, misunderstanding— aye, and misrepresentation. So was I—still am, I think. And I was able, as a result of our close comradeship in those days, to look into his very soul, and I then formed the opinion that here I had what was unusual in a politician, a superlatively honest man who was determined to do what he believed to be right—whether it was in actual fact right or wrong. And, after all, that is the real test. Do I honestly believe I am right in the course of conduct or of thought which I am pursuing, or propose to carry out? That is the test, and, applying that test to Gen. Hertzog, I am satisfied that he passes with flying colours. And everything that he has done since, in my eyes, has been coloured by that original conception of his character as revealed to me in that very close association with him. That is another reason why I want to speak on this occasion, and the third is the speech of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick).

Shame, disgraceful!

Order!

I cannot, as an English-speaking South African, allow such a speech to pass unnoticed, nor can I, by inference or insinuation, allow myself to be associated with it. And I am now taking the opportunity of repudiating that speech in the strongest possible terms on behalf, I honestly believe, of the British people, of the English-speaking section of South Africa. It was churlish, entirely uncalled for, decidedly unnecessary, designed to wound, and should never have been given expression to. That is my considered opinion.

It was malicious.

It was the very negation of the quality which at all events we Britishers claim for ourselves—it was a negation of that quality of generosity and of fair treatment, and of sportsmanship, and I repudiated it in the strongest possible terms that I can think of. What was the gravamen of his objection? Upon what did he build his case? The very honesty to which I have been referring. I had no doubt about the situation even when I was bitterly opposed to Gen. Hertzog in September last, I never had any doubt as to his honesty of purpose and belief. I could not commend his judgment, in fact I doubted his judgment; I go further. I repudiated his judgment and I set my judgment against his, but I only regarded it as an error of judgment, at the same time conceding to Gen. Hertzog, what I still concede to him, his belief in his honesty of purpose, his belief that to his mind that was the right course to adopt. I say it was an error of judgment, but for Heaven’s sake do not take up the attitude which the hon. member for Illovo has done, and condemn him as something lower than the lowest people here in South Africa, because of his attitude on that occasion. Certainly no repetition of the arguments used by the Prime Minister, that he has on account of his great services to South Africa deserved even this meagre recognition, is necessary. The hon. member for Illovo tried to repudiate the Prime Minister’s arguments. I say that the hon. member’s attitude was churlish and ungenerous, and I say that it is ungrateful. It is ungrateful because the very circumstances which cause us to debate this afternoon the Bill before us arose from his determinaton to protect the English-speaking section of South Africa. They repudiated, and they deny, the right of the Britisher to receive equality of treatment, and Gen. Hertzog took his stand upon that, and in consequence was cast out into the outer darkness. My hon. friend dared stand up there in the name of the British section of South Africa and repudiate our action this afternoon, on the ground that Gen. Hertzog had not played the game. I am sorry. I have listened to many speeches by the hon. gentleman in which I have taken the utmost delight; I have listened to speeches by him with which I did not agree, but never have I heard him deliver a speech which I felt so like condemning as the one which he delivered this afternoon—the very negation of all we claim for ourselves, and I hope my hon. friend now is as ashamed of his attitude and of his words this afternoon as I am on his behalf. I do not propose to hold up the House. I felt it obligatory on me for these various reasons which I have enunciated, to address myself to the House on this question. I am wholeheartedly in favour of this tardy recognition of the great services rendered by Gen. Hertzog. Are you to sweep into oblivion all our recollection of the great deeds he has done because of a remark, because of an error of judgment on a certain occasion? Has my hon. friend never made any mistakes? Everyone has made mistakes, no man is perfect. But surely it is our business as wise individuals, and I presume we are to some extent wise individuals, to forget errors in a contemplation of a long sequence of great deeds done by Gen. Hertzog in the past? I have had many unique experiences. I have been associated with Gen. Hertzog as a personal friend in the early days, as a comrade in misfortune— on different sides politically, of course. I have been associated with him, if I may be excused a paradox, in Opposition. I have been a political enemy of his, and I have been a political friend. I have served in the same Cabinet with him, and I have served in this House against him. From all angles I am able to examine the conduct and the intellect and the character of Gen. Hertzog. While I have on quite a number of occasions found fault with him—strange enough, you may even find fault with me—yet in the sum total, in the shaking up of the bag, all the good rises to the top, and I am giving expression to my feeling of the good done by him by voting £2,000 per year to him this afternoon.

The speeches of the Minister of Labour and the hon. member for Cape Town Central (Mr. Bowen) came like a welcome rain after the poison broadcast by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). They gave him a piece of their minds and I could not improve upon the way they did it. But we know the hon. member for Illovo. He has a peculiar mentality, so much so that if he notices a black spot on a perfectly clean page, and he looks long enough at that black spot, the whole of the page becomes black, and he becomes furious. We know that mentality of the hon. member’s. It would almost appear as if, judging from his speech, and other recent events, that it is the tragedy of great men in South Africa that they have to spend the end of their lives in misery. Let us look at a predecessor of our former Prime Minister, namely the Gen. Botha. He was a man with whom I always differed, but none the less throughout his lifetime he always did what he regarded as being in the best interests of South Africa, but as a result of the contumely to which he was subjected, his life was undoubtedly shortened and he suffered deeply. Let us cast our minds back to the life of another predecessor of his, the great President Kruger, a man of steel, and a man of the highest character. He had to end his life in exile. And then we have the case of Gen. Hertzog, one of the greatest men, if not the greatest man, South Africa has ever produced. What do we find? He, too, so it would seem, has to end his life in political exile. The hon. member for Illovo stated openly what he had in his heart, and to that extent I appreciate his attitude. I know, however, that there are others who are not stating openly what they feel, but who in their hearts do not feel as they should towards Gen. Hertzog. There are others who undoubtedly are the cause of the great leader of our people to-day being in exile at Waterval, and to those who feel like that and who have lately been working and agitating to bring about that position of affairs, the message given to us by the Prime Minister, and the words of the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow), may perhaps not sound too pleasing, because the Prime Minister said that this pension is granted to Gen. Hertzog without any restriction, and that it will remain even if Gen. Hertzog should return further to serve his people. That is not pleasant news to people who feel like that, and the words of the hon. member for Gezina, that he can state that Gen. Hertzog is prepared again to serve his people, coupled with the words of the Prime Minister’s will, I am afraid, not be good news for those “friends.” Let me tell them that the party to which we have given a definite shape to-day will again be the bearer of the Hertzog idea, of Hertzogism, not merely to be the bearer of these ideas, but in order to spread Hertzogism. I myself as a humble servant am the only member of this House, of the whole of Parliament, who from the very first day, has fought the great fight with Gen. Hertzog for the ideals he has stood for. Great things have been achieved, and I endorse what the Minister of Labour said just now and what was also said by the hon. member for Cape Town Central, namely, that Gen. Hertzog has not only achieved freedom for the Afrikaansspeaking people, but that for the English-speaking people, too, this is a matter of great significance. His heart and soul and his work aimed at the interests of one section, namely Afrikaners, English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking. In proof of that I want to point out that when Gen. Hertzog, having resigned as Prime Minister, returned to the Transvaal, after the beginning of the war, the first words he spoke in public were the words which he spoke from the train at Kimberley when he said “We must see to it that we keep the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people together.” That was the principle he fought for from the very first day. I can mention facts to prove this. About thirty years ago we started in the Transvaal to propogate the Hertzog ideas. In those days we were seven simple souls. To-day, may I say, there are ten of us here. But it is a striking fact that of those seven two were English-speaking, which was proof of the fact that the English-speaking people were not excluded. It is perfectly natural that in the beginning Gen. Hertzog had to fight particularly for the Afrikaans-speaking section, because in those days we were the under dogs, and the oppressed section of the people. And to-day? Is there anyone who dare say that the Afrikaans-speaking people to-day are inferior to the English-speaking Afrikaners? Nobody dare say that that is so to-day still. But I want to associate myself with the words of my Parliamentary Leader, that we are back here to-day as Hertzogites, and I feel proud of that fact, after all the years that I have had to bear other names. We as Hertzogites hope that the day will come when the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people in South Africa will realise that from the very start Gen. Hertzog was right, and I hope we shall succeed, all of us together, in getting our great exile back out of his exile at Waterval, and that we shall succeed in bringing him back among his people—again to lead his people as in the past.

I very much regret that this motion could not have been carried as an unopposed motion reflecting the feelings of all sections of the House. Unfortunately that has not been possible. I, too, sir, feel it my duty to take part in this debate because I also can establish a very long association with Gen. Hertzog in this House. I have not had an unbroken tenure of office here, because there were two years when I was out of the House, in 1930 and 1931, but for the rest of that long period of time since Union I was here, and I have seen Gen. Hertzog both in opposition and as leader of the Government, and that being so I find it impossible to understand the speech of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) having regard to the fact that he, too, has been here for a long time, not as long as myself, but for a long time also in this House. The hon. member, sir, has confused the issue. If I, sir, had to deal with matters upon which Gen. Hertzog and I have differed, I could mention a number of them. Men cannot always agree, but whatever party political differences may be, surely it is a different issue altogether when you consider a man’s career as a whole and whether he has deserved well of his country or not. How any map who knows the history of South Africa for the last 40 years can fail to pay tribute to the services of Gen. Hertzog to this country, and not merely to the Afrikaans-speaking section but to the whole of the South African people, I cannot understand. The hon. member for Illovo spoke as if the actions of Gen. Hertzog were purely one-sided and devoted solely to one section, but I may point out that during the whole period in which Gen. Hertzog was Prime Minister, there was not a single occasion when he did not have a number of English-speaking members in his Cabinet. Does that fact indicate a man who only dealt with one side? His first Ministry consisted of not only Afrikaans-speaking members but of English-speaking members as well, and so it has been throughout his whole career. During the period from 1921 to 1932, when I occupied an independent position and when I was not a member of either of the great parties, I came more closely into contact with General Hertzog than in any other period, and I found, as the Minister of Labour has said, that there was not a man in South Africa actuated by greater honesty or purpose than General Hertzog. Whether you agreed with him or not, in the words of an Afrikaans poet, he was “’n man wat sy man kan staan.” He always stood up for what he believed to be right, whether in Opposition or as a leader of the Government, and whether you differed from him or not you always knew he was a man who might be described as a sea-green incorruptible. Now when such a man retires from public life, a man who has sacrificed everything for his work on behalf of his people, how it can be possible for any member of Parliament not to agree to give him this pension, which is an adequate one, and will certainly enable him if he does not wish to come back to political life, or even if he does, will enable him to spend the remaining years of his life, which I hope will be many, in otium com dignitate, I cannot understand. It would be a great scandal if such a man, after such services to his country, had to spend the last years of his life in want; it would have been a disgrace to this country, and therefore I whole-heartedly associate myself with the Prime Minister and those who have spoken subsequently in support of this motion. Take the Union itself; there were many architects of Union, but I do not think that anyone will dispute the point that without General Hertzog’s active co-operation there could not have been any Union of South Africa in 1910. We may be engaged in political fights day after day, and in the dust and heat of the arena perhaps some of us begin to confuse political differences with personal vendetta. You may differ as you like with General Hertzog and other political leaders, but when you come to sum up their careers as a whole, you have to take their lives as a whole, and political differences are matters of no moment when you are considering a case like this. One of the most charming features of English political life in the old Mother of Parliaments is shown by just such occasions as this. When a man who has been prominent in politics has fallen by the way, we see how all his political opponents immeditely forget their differences and concentrate only upon the services which such a member has rendered to his country. There are a number of instances in the Mother of Parliaments where similar actions to that of our Prime Minister have been taken by Prime Ministers in England. General Hertzog was perhaps at his best at social gatherings of a non-political character, where his charming manners endeared him to everybody no matter to what sections they belonged. In the dust and heat of political fights he was a very doughty fighter, and no doubt it will be easy to pick out expressions with which one or other of us would violently disagree. That, however, is not the point on an occasion like this. Remember that without him there would have been no Union, and also without him the Afrikaans-speaking people would not have risen to the position they occupy now, and to make this a great and successful country you have not to consider only one section but the country as a whole. I agree with those who say that it is not General Hertzog who is being honoured by this motion, but the House and the country itself. The whole world will applaud us for having indicated that our great men are honoured in their time, and that we are willing to do something for them while they are still with us and not to wait until they have passed away.

I want to say one word in appreciation of being able to associate myself with the motion proposed by the Prime Minister. My personal regard for General Hertzog is a very great one, and my moderately long experience in this House increased that regard very considerably. I have often heard from members of this House and from others of General Hertzog’s sincerity and honesty, particularly in regard to carrying out promises or anything of that character. To me that marks a great man. I was sorry to hear the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) make the reference he did, because first of all it can be quite unfair to put up quotations from the speeches of the biggest and most correct statesmen. A long life in politics will undoubtedly give one’s opponent plenty of quotations of a detrimental nature, but the preamble of the Bill expresses deep appreciation of General Hertzog’s services, and the country will share that feeling. This discussion has brought to my mind another great man a great Englishspeaking South African, one of our greatest men, and one whose memory to me, I am proud to say, is very dear. When Cecil Rhodes spoke about eliminating the English factor we held it against him for a very long time, but I have not heard our friends in this country quote that since Mr. Rhodes’ disappearance from the scene. Quotations of this character are undoubtedly unfair, especially when particular texts are taken from their context. General Hertzog’s long political life was bound to create grave misunderstandings. Every man in the world has his failings, and no doubt the hon. gentleman, when on the march in debate, moved at a very rapid rate, and it is unfair to-day to quote from his expressions. It is unfair and ungenerous and wrong to quote them to-day. As an English-speaking South African I have been perfectly prepared to follow General Hertzog. He had great honesty of purpose and great personal charm, both inside and outside the House. It is a great privilege to me to be able to offer my support to the motion before the House.

I had not intended to speak in this debate, but expressions which have fallen from some members of this House really brought me to my feet. When one thinks of the circumstances under which this Bill is brought forward, one cannot but marvel at this institution we call Parliament. I doubt if in the long history of this Parliament there has ever been such a time for bitterness, I doubt, Mr. Speaker, whether in our political feelings we have ever been more bitter towards one another, and when one comes to think of that background, one has to say that when you realise the present Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister, except for a brief period, opposed one another for 40 years, the present act of the Prime Minister is the act of a great man. I differ from the Prime Minister politically, I have never been able to appreciate some of his political views, but I am sure that this act of his will redound to his credit for many years to come. Mr. Speaker, the attitude of the Prime Minister in this matter is essentially that of a democrat, and the attitude of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) is the very negation of democracy. The very essence of Parliament is that we should differ, but differ honestly. The former Prime Minister differed very much from many members of this House on different occasions, but he was sincere and honest in his views. The decision which he took on the 4th September, 1939, was taken honestly. That is a matter of history, whether he was wrong or right will be a matter of history in the near future. But here we have the present Prime Minister not prepared to wait till history shows what the truth was and who was correct, but is prepared to show by this gracious gesture what he thought of his former political opponent. Wars will come and wars will go, but those of us who have the honour to form this Parliament to-day will, after what we have seen here, retain, call it democracy if you like, but we will retain the traditions of our Parliament, where people are chosen by the free vote of the people to represent them. This act, I say, is a signal gesture of democracy, which people are inclined to condemn because we have never achieved real democracy; but here in this democratic system we are prepared to give former political opponents a pension of £2,000 per annum. Under the other system you give him the bullet.

I did not intend to intervene in this debate, but I feel I must take strong exception to the speech of the Minster of Labour in his attack upon the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) and for the references made by other speakers to that member. Only the other day the hon. member for Illovo, if my memory serves me correctly, said that if it was the intention of the Bill to provide for future Prime Ministers he had no objection to it. If it had been intended, through this Bill, to supply the late Prime Minister with a pension because of his office, I don’t think the hon. member for Illovo would have any objection to it, and I do not think it strictly correct that the Minister of Labour should have made the attack that he did upon the hon. member for Illovo. After all, the hon. member is entitled to express his views. He simply takes exception to the preamble of the Bill, and I think hon. members have been uncharitable to the hon. member for Illovo, and particularly was that the case in the remarks made by the Minister of Labour. I would like to pay my humble tribute to the late Prime Minister. I remember some eight or nine years ago when I came down to this House and was a member of the official Opposition of eight, I was leading a party of two. I was leading a party which might be called the British party at that time.

The Devolution party.

Yes, the Devolution party, and I would like to say how grateful I was when the late Prime Minister came across the floor and sat beside me and spoke very kindly and in a fatherly way welcomed me and offered his kindly assistance, a stranger to the House. I always differed from, his politics very very deeply, I always have and always will, I have never been a supporter of the late Prime Minister, but I have always been prepared to give credit where credit is due, and I have always felt that I owe a debt to the late Prime Minister for the kindness which he extended to me when the whole House was against me General Hertzog was the first member to make me feel that I was welcome in the House and for that kindness I will always remain greatful to him. I do not think that members of the Government responsible for this Bill, will agree that the late Prime Minister has always been perfect and has not made mistakes. But my big regret, Mr. Speaker, is that the very people who owe most to the late Prime Minister, people who owe him everything they have in this world, politically speaking have thrown him out in his old age and made it impossible for him to sit in this House. That is what they have done, and they are responsible for the late Prime Minister finding himself in this position. Had they not acted as they had done, it would not have been necessary for this Bill to be passed to-day. I have never agreed with the late Prime Minister, I maintain that by his actions in the past he has directly or indirectly unconsciously no doubt brought into being the Ossewabrandwag, he has created the monster that has destroyed him; and no one regrets that more than the English-speaking section. I was anxious to pay my humble tribute to the late Prime Minister. If it is necessary that he should be provided for, surely the Afrikaans-speaking people will be able to give him that financial assistance which he is entitled to, as he has devoted his life to them and I would be very happy myself to make my financial contribution to any fund donated to the late Prime Minister.

I do not want to make a long speech. This is not the opportunity for doing so, but I cannot refrain from also adding my word of tribute to the generosity of the Prime Minister and his Government for having come forward at this stage to award this munificent pension to the hon. Gen. Hertzog with the consent of this House. The circumstances under which Gen. Hertzog has disappeared from this House are, from the point of view of the public, a tragedy for which the future will call those responsible to account. He has disappeared under a black cloud of suspicionmongering by his own people, and nobody will regret this fact more than this House, no matter whether we agree with Gen. Hertzog or not. He is the man who has laid the foundation for a doctrine of State economy in the Union of South Africa on which any future statesman who tries to divert from it will necessarily be wrecked and encompass his own ruin. It is for that reason that I say that the Union of South Africa, political life in South Africa, this House, has become the poorer in a political sense by the absence of the former Prime Minister. I know that there are movements and individuals in the country who do not appreciate his services. There are individuals who welcome his departure from our political life, but I want to say that those people cannot see further, and cannot think further, than their noses. We are living in a time of strife and of war history. Both sides of the House are living in a state of excitement. The perspective of both sides is obscured to a certain degree by war excitement. That phase will pass. It will come to an end, and when the new dawn breaks for South Africa there will be only one true unbreakable foundation for South Africa to build upon, and that is this unbreakable rock which was laid down by the former Prime Minister, when for the first time he got up in this House and formulated his policy of equal rights for both sections. Whether we want to know it or not, the fact remains that the two sections of this population are joined together like Siamese twins. If an injury or harm is done to the one section, the other section must suffer equally. That was the reason why the previous Prime Minister invariably kept a watchful eye to see that both sections of the population were treated equally and fairly. I say that in these days of war history our outlook on both sides is obscured, and it is that obscure outlook which caused a large section of this House to forget that policy, and that doctrine of political economy. That doctrine is there. Call it Hertzogism—even though some people are prepared to call it a fiction—but that doctrine is there, and no one ever coming into power in this country will dare neglect that doctrine. It is for that reason that I say that I want to associate myself with those who hope, and who have expressed the desire, that the ex-Prime Minister, in a not too far distant future, will again be able to serve the people and the country with his wise counsel, his steadfast character, and his clear view on matters. I make bold to say that the international world, too, has become the poorer by his departure from this Parliament. In international sphere his was a figure which compelled the highest respect, and it is deplorable that we should have to do without his presence here to-day. I wish to conclude by expressing my thanks to the Prime Minister, and to the Government, for this generous action of theirs, and for the tribute which in this way is being paid to our former Prime Minister.

I really feel that I should also say a few words to pay a tribute to Gen. Hertzog, and I do so as one of the youngest members of this House, on behalf of the younger members of the people of South Africa. I would almost say that I am convinced that the few words I am going to say will meet with the approval of the younger section of the whole of our people. Where the older elements have come into conflict with each other here this afternoon about their tribute to Gen. Hertzog, I feel that we, the younger generation, would stand together and agree that we are doing something here which redounds to the honour of our people. I think of the share taken by Gen. Hertzog in the tremendous struggle of the Afrikaner people from 1899 to 1902; I have in mind the even greater task which Gen. Hertzog undertook after 1902, when he and a few others took upon themselves the task of trying to re-introduce a degree of self-respect into the Boer people who had been struck down by the war, and I think of the zeal and energy of Gen. Hertzog; I think of the work which he has done to rebuild that which had been destroyed to such a large extent. I think of Gen. Hertzog as a man who fought the fight on behalf of the equality of our language. I think of him almost as the father of language equality in our country. I think of Gen. Hertzog’s fight since 1912, when he turned away from the Prime Minister, Gen. Smuts. So far as I am concerned, I have never yet had any other leader but Gen. Hertzog, and he will continue to be my spiritual leader, even when he is no longer my actual leader. I think of Gen. Hertzog further in the days when he worked for our freedom, how he achieved our sovereign independence, how he went further and piloted the Status Laws through the House, those laws which were the foundation for further development in South Africa. I want to express my modest opinion that if ever we should achieve our coveted Republic it would be Gen. Hertzog who had laid the foundation by the passing of the Status Acts, because I cannot see that we can ever achieve a Republic in an unconstitutional manner, and if the Status Acts had not been passed in 1934 we would never without a rebellion have been able to achieve a Republic in the country. I shall leave it at that, but I should like these few words of mine to be recorded because I feel that I am speaking as one of the youngest members on behalf of the younger generation, and I should like to say this to Gen. Hertzog, that he will be honoured by grateful generations to come. That will be the greatest monument which the people of South Africa will ever be able to set up in his memory. I only want to say thank you to the Government for having proposed this pension.

I think I should be failing in my duty not only to my constituents, but to myself, if I did not take this opportunity of expressing my high appreciation of the services rendered to this country by Gen. Hertzog. I have a special reason for rising on this occasion, because in the year 1932, six months prior to Fusion, I joined the Nationalist Party and supported Gen. Hertzog. I make that statement here to-day because at an interview with Gen. Hertzog at that time he assured me that his conception of Afrikanerdom was a position in which the English-speaking Afrikaner would have equal rights with the Afrikaans-speaking section. In other words, there would be only one Afrikanerdom that could survive, and that was one in which both sections freely cooperated. To-day I have no occasion, on that account at any rate, to regret my first association with Gen. Hertzog. And therefore I feel that I must pay my tribute to the long and valuable services which he has rendered not only to those who are regarded as his own people, but also to the English-speaking South Africans, and more particularly to future generations of South Africans who will, I am sure, benefit from the policy of equal rights which he has not only enunciated, but carried out in his conception of the future Afrikanerdom. Whatever difference of opnion may exist in regard to the war policy—and here obviously I entirely disagree with Gen. Hertzog—I am soundly convinced that the policy and the attitude which our present Prime Minister took up with him in 1933 on the question of Fusion, and the bringing together of the two sections of this country, was the only policy which could endure in order to ensure a future civilisation here on which a sound and happy people could be created. I think the Bill itself does honour not only to Gen. Hertzog, but to the Prime Minister, and in it we have expressed the finest and the best spirit that could be evinced in our political life. May I say at this stage that in the last political speech made by Gen. Hertzog it was clearly shown that the rock on which the so-called Re-united Party had been split was the very foundation of this policy, and that in serving the interests of the English-speaking section of this country by standing-up for equal rights on that occasion, he rendered a service for which future English-speaking South Africa will for ever be grateful. I speak as one who has five sons who know no other country save this, whose heart and life and happiness are enshrined in South Africa, three of whom have taken their place in the army with Afrikaans-speaking sons of South Africa. Therefore I say that we shall only be doing our duty to-day if we not only vote this amount, but also express our entire concurrence with the preamble which asks the House and the country to recognise in a tangible manner the great services rendered to us by one of South Africa’s great statesmen.

Motion put, and a division called.

As fewer than ten members (viz., Mr. Marwick) voted against the motion, Mr. Speaker declared it agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to resolve itself into Committee on the Bill now.

House in Committee:

The CHAIRMAN put the Clauses, the Preamble and the Title of the Bill, which were agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

This is a motion which is proposed every session. It is necessary to pass this resolution before the 31st March, failing which the provisions of the Act of 1933 as amended lapse. The Farm Mortgage Interest Act has as its object the limitation of interest on farm mortgages entered into before the 1st April, 1933, a limitation of the interest to 3½ per cent. That Act was subsequently amended, and in 1939 particularly the Act was widened in certain respects. None the less, it is still a provision in the Act that it shall only remain in force for one year, and that this House shall pass a resolution to renew the operation of the Act from year to year. The resolution passed last year was that the Act shall cease to be of force and effect on the 31st March of this year, and in order to extend the operation of the Act it is necessary to pass this resolution.

I second.

I want to make an appeal to the Minister of Finance to consider the question of applying the Act to all mortgages in existence at the moment.

That cannot be done by way of a resolution of this kind; it can only be done by means of legislation.

Yes, that is so, but I only want to point out to the Minister that it is very unfair that farm mortgages entered into after that time should be left out entirely. From time to time amendments have been introduced, but there are still a great many cases which are really very hard cases and which the Treasury is not prepared to consider. The law of 1933, which came into force on the 1st April, 1933, is antiquated. We are living seven years ahead of that time, and in spite of the amendments introduced from time to time it is only fair that all farm mortgages should be put on an equal footing, and should be given this subsidy. I think the Minister will realise that it is fair that all farmers who have mortgages should be placed on a footing of equality. There are men in this House who are benefiting under the Act, and who are not prepared to pay off their mortgages because they are getting a subsidy. I do not blame them. There are quite a number of rich farmers who are able to pay, but who are not prepared to pay off their mortgages because they get a subsidy from the Government. Instead of paying off their mortgages they are issuing other mortgages, and they get 5 per cent. interest, while they themselves are only paying 34 per cent. because the Government gives them a subsidy of 14 per cent. The previous Minister intimated that he would take the matter into consideration again. We cannot leave the position as it is. The position of a number of those people has improved considerably, and I want to know why they should receive certain benefits while other people are suffering hardships. I mention the case of rich farmers who do not wish to pay off their bonds because they get subsidies, while on the other hand other people suffer great hardships and cannot get any assistance. I think they should all be treated on an equal basis; that is to say, the people who suffer hardships, and I make an appeal to the Minister to consider treating all bonds on the same basis, and not to give advantages to one set of people over other sets of people. There are young farmers and poor farmers who as a result of circumstances are forced to pass a bond. Is it right that they should pay the full 5 per cent. while other more favoured farmers get a subsidy? I hope the Minister will take this matter into review.

I think we are all very-grateful that the Minister is going to apply this law again for another year, but I should like to tell the Minister that there are certain farmers who are suffering very severely under their mortgage burdens. During the last session the Minister made a promise that he would have an investigation made by the Relief Board and that he would have the question gone into, whether a scheme could be devised in order to meet the farmers so as to reduce their bonds. I should like to know from the Minister whether such an enquiry has taken place, and I should also like to know whether we can look forward to anything being done in regard to this very important matter. I believe that the whole country is looking forward to what the Minister is going to do in regard to the position, and whether anything is going to happen in order to reduce the mortgage burden. I should like to know whether anything has been done.

I thought that the object of this measure was to come to the aid of the poor farmers who are indignant and who have been heavily taxed. When the Bill was originally introduced all the bonds came under it, but in the meantime a large number of these people have become independent and can no longer be regarded as falling among the poor men, and that being so they do not require any more assistance. I therefore think that the Minister would be rendering a great service to the country if he were to separate the people and would cut out those who require no further assistance, so that more assistance could be given to those who really need it. With this suggestion I hope the Minister will amend the Act in such a way that he will be in a position to render practical assistance to the poor man.

I wish to associate myself with what the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) has said. I represent a part of the country which is suffering great hardships since the collapse of the ostrich feather industry, and I want to tell the Minister that the people in my district are fighting an uphill fight. It is due to the interest subsidy that some of them have been able to keep their heads above water, but the others who have come after them have to pay the full rate of interest. I do not think that sort of thing is right, and I hope the Minister will do something to meet the position of those people. I know that quite a number of amendments have been introduced, but I do not think they have been sufficient, and I trust the Minister will give his serious attention to the question of granting a subsidy to the people who have bought land after 1933. I consider that that is a reasonable request. Then there is another point. The interest subsidy does not apply in the dorps and the towns. Why should the poor erf holder in the dorp have to pay the full rate of interest while the farmer gets a subsidy. I myself am a farmer and I am grateful for the assistance given to the farmers, but I think it is unjust that the poor erf holder in the dorp does not receive the same consideration as the farmer.

I want to put a request to the Minister, and that is that he should consider the possibility of introducing legislation to make it possible for the matter to be brought before the House every year. The day may come when the Government in power will have to withdraw these privileges, but now the law has to be renewed every year and a motion of this kind has to be introduced, and the people enjoying those privileges in the meanwhile are in a position of uncertainty. The object of the Bill of 1933 was to grant relief to over-capitalised farms, and to help those people who had bought land for which they had to pay more in those days than the land was really worth. Now it is clear to me that the law has not quite succeeded in its object, because the over-capitalisation still exists. Even the Land Bank has bonds on farms which are higher than the land is worth, and if that land should come onto the market the Land Bank would buy it in and it would sell that same farm with its full bond to somebody who has not got the money to pay for it. In that way the over-capitalisation remains, and in spite of that we come along every year with the same motion. I think it is a well founded complaint that we have to come along every year with such a motion instead of our having a law which renders it unnecessary for us to deal with this matter every year. Nobody knows from year to year whether the Government is again going to move this motion, and the result is that a state of uncertainty is created. That is why I want to ask the Minister to introduce permanent legislation.

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

Evening Sitting.

When business was suspended at 6 o’clock I was endeavouring by way of examples to explain to the Minister that this Act does not answer its purpose in many respects. I feel that many cases are excluded under this Act which should fall under the Act, cases where assistance is really required. I was quoting examples to the Minister. I know of a widow who was compelled to take over her husband’s farm. The man died prior to 1933. There was a bond of £3,000 on the farm which she took over. There were debts against the farm, and she was compelled to submit accounts to the Master, and she had to get receipts from the creditors. She had to accept that responsibility, and at a later stage was compelled to take a bond. On the first £3,000 the subsidy applies, but as far as the other £3,000, the debt in the estate is concerned, on which she should receive a subsidy, she does not get it. I take another case of a man who took a lease on a farm prior to 1933. He spent a lot of money on that farm and died prior to 1934. The relations of that man were compelled to take over this expensive farm for the sake of the money which had been put into it, and they had to take a bond. They do not receive interest subsidy on that bond. To my mind such cases should be brought under the Act. Therefore I say that this Act does not serve its purpose because these people do not receive assistance, though Parliament intended them to get that assistance. Therefore I feel justified in asking the Minister —I have submitted all these cases to his department, and assistance has been refused to these people—not only for the sake of these cases, but because there are hundreds of similar cases where people should receive assistance, and where they are not assisted, that he should reconsider this whole matter. I think if the Minister goes into the matter, when contemplating an Act which will be applied until it is repealed, he should also make provision for cases like those mentioned by me.

When this Act was passed in 1933 I raised certain doubts in connection with the Bill which was then submitted to the House, and those doubts still exist as far as I am concerned. The first doubt I had was that I feared that under this Act people would be assisted who were not entitled to such assistance. The number of such cases has been greater than I even expected. For that reason I still feel that the Act, however good the intentions may have been at the time, does not do justice, because assistance is rendered where assistance is not required. I know of rich people who have bonds on their farms, people who are considered to be rich, and they keep those bonds on their own farms and have had them for all these years. On account of the subsidy they receive, they see no necessity to redeem the bonds. They lend out their own money at 5 per cent. and 6 per cent. and borrow money at 3½ per cent. That is what it amounts to. The doubts I had at the time still exist in respect of these cases. Then I also expressed the opinion at the time that the assistance promised under this Act would amount to temporary relief of the farming community. That was also proved to be correct. The farming community in South Africa is in need of a rehabilitation scheme, and the scheme of interest subsidy, however well the intention may have been, and however useful is may have been at the time, can only be viewed as a relief measure. The real cause of the evil, the real cause of the unfortunate position in which the farming community finds itself, nobody can say is removed by this Act. At first the reply to this argument has been that the farming community was only in that position temporarily, then they would rehabilitate themselves gradually. That optimistic outlook of the then Minister of Finance, unfortunately, has proved to be false, and nobody can say to-day that a general rehabilitation has been brought about as a result of this measure. Because that is so, and in view of the fact that to-day there is still a great need for a rehabilitation scheme for the farmers of South Africa, I say that the time has come for us to contemplate such a scheme. It is all the more necessary to-day in view of the fact that this temporary assistance does not cover many deserving cases. We know of many cases where farmers have incurred heavy liabilities since 1933. That class of farmer is not assisted. There are numerous cases, deserving cases, of farmers who are over-capitalised, and who cannot be assisted under this measure, and for that reason I say that this Act does not answer the purpose. In addition we have to bear in mind that restrictive measures have been taken by the Government through its control boards in order to limit the price of agricultural produce, and to stabilise prices in South Africa, with the result that the farmer is not enabled to reduce his liabilities, because he cannot secure a higher price for his produce. Under ordinary circumstances, one would have thought that at a time of war prices would have gone up to such an extent that the farming community would flourish, and would be in a position to get rid of part of its burden. However difficult the position may have been for other sections, one would have expected the farmer, in war time, to have an opportunity to rehabilitate himself, and to remove the burden crushing him, as a result of better prices obtained. But what do we find. The Government at once took steps to control prices in South Africa, as far as the farmers’ produce is concerned, with the result that the farmer is not in a position to reduce his burdens, as he would have been able to do if the Government had not interfered. For that reason the need for a permanent measure, for a measure of permanent rehabilitation, not temporary relief, is still greater to-day. Such a scheme is more urgently required now than ever before. However desirable this temporary relief may be, we have to insist on further steps, we have to urge the introduction of a scheme which which will really rehabilitate the farming community, the more so because, whereas the farmers should be experiencing a time of enhanced prices, they have been deprived of the opportunity of sharing in increased prices, because it is the policy of the Government to restrict prices of farm produce—the farmers are prevented from doing so, and in addition the farmer has, as far as the future is concerned, to face a period of unparallelled depression after this war, and he will be in a more difficult position than at present. For those reasons it is felt that this is the time for the Government to take steps to rehabilitate the farming community in such a way that the farmers will be able in future to stand on their own feet. When we refer to rehabilitation, we do not mean that the Government should spoonfeed the farming community and should dish out alms. This measure, to some extent, is a poor relief measure, and as such it is not even sound, because the alms are not only dished out to necessitous people, but also to well-to-do people. But we should get rid of the idea of dishing out alms, and we want the farming community to be placed in such a position that they can help themselves. And because the Government deprives the farmers of the opportunity to rehabilitate themselves, as I have shown, and because the Government, by placing this war burden on the country, will not be able to assist the farming community after the war, and because we know that after the war a time of depression will surely come in this country and all over the world, the farmers can only look to the future with the greatest concern and anxiety. For that reason we want to urge the Government to introduce a rehabilitation scheme now. To-day is the time, not tomorrow, and where the Government last year promised an enquiry into such a rehabilitation scheme, and in view of the fact that up to now we have heard nothing about the findings of the Farmers Relief Board, which was supposed to undertake this investigation, were are becoming concerned and afraid that the Minister may postpone this matter. For that reason I want to urge the Minister to give an assurance to the country that it was not vague promise he gave, but that the Government is in earnest, and that it is their intention to carry out this promise. I want to know from the Minister whether the Farmers Relief Board is already enquiring into a rehabilitation scheme; have they submitted a report, and is it the intention of the Government to act without delay on that report? If the Government does not take steps, then the farmers can only come to the conclusion that when the Minister made that promise, he was attemtping to throw dust in the eyes of the farming community. For the reasons mentioned by me, it is clear that it is more necessary now than ever before to introduce a rehabilitation scheme and for the state to take steps. We need a government which will take steps in order to enable the farming community to recuperate, and not only to relieve its position. Therefore I urge the Government to take such steps. If the Government is not prepared to do that, then the farming community will have to wait until another government takes over, which, I hope, will be soon, or until such time that when possibly a new order will be brought about, and I hope that when the new order and the new government come into being, the farming community will be placed on a sound footing, not with the idea to be spoonfed and spoiled, but with the idea of enabling the farming community to stand on its own feet, and not to be kept going by palliatives. We hope that the government of the day will take steps to avoid that the farmer will remain in the position that he is in to-day, and that steps will be taken to prevent the farming community being saddled with burdens which it cannot carry. In view of the urgent necessity for such a scheme, I hope the Government will not only make vague promises in respect of a further enquiry, but that they will promise definitely that effective s teps will be taken to rehabilitate the farming community.

I do not intend to make a speech in connection with this matter, because I feel that any argument which can be adduced, and which will be a repetition of what has been said on previous occasions when this matter was under discussion in the past, should not be adduced. But I can draw the Minister’s attention to a few aspects of this matter. In the first place I want to remind the Minister of the fact that almost eight years have passed since this Act was passed. The Minister, as a business man, will realise that as a result of development during those eight years, undoubtedly in more than one respect conditions have arisen which are of such a nature that the Act cannot be carried out justly to-day in every respect. There were, eight years ago, cases which were deserving cases, and which to-day are no longer deserving cases, or are less deserving cases. Such cases could then be eliminated. Previous speakers have referred to cases where people, eight years ago, required assistance under the Act, but who have since then recovered to such an extent that to-day they are no longer in need of such assistance, while other cases have arisen, after 1933, where assistance is just as uregntly required as in those cases which were deserving cases eight years ago. In view of these facts, the Minister should, to my mind, reconsider the whole matter, after the Act has been in operation for eight years, and if he has not considered this matter sufficiently from the administrative point of view, it may be desirable to appoint a commission of enquiry to go into the matter. Where there are such cases as referred to by previous speakers, of people who were in need of assistance eight years ago, and who required a subsidy, and who have since then recovered to such an extent that they can put out money on bonds, whilst they are drawing the subsidy on their own mortgage, I say that such cases are no longer deserving cases. These cases can be eliminated, and the money thus saved can be used to assist other farmers where assistance has become essential. May I refer the Minister to cases where the owner has died and the land has been transferred to the children, in many cases at the same amount as that on which the owner, eight years ago, received the interest subsidy on that amount, the children are not entitled to that subsidy, because the bond was taken over after the stipulated time. There are other cases which come to our notice, where the interest subsidy was paid on the bond, and where the land was transferred to the children, but where only one son is now on the land. The will transfers the land to that one son, and he has to pay out the other sons and daughters who have not inherited any land; in this way he is compelled to increase the original bond, on which an interest subsidy was granted, in order to comply with the requirements of the will; yet that bond will not fall under the Act and he is not entitled to an interest subsidy on that bond. If the Minister would be good enough to take this whole matter in review, and if necessary to appoint a commission of inquiry in order to see to it that justice is done—and I think the Minister wants justice to be done—then these cases can be eliminated which are not deserving ones, and other cases which are deserving can be brought under the Act; the Act, as far as the principle is concerned, will not be changed, and no additional funds will be required, but provision can then be made for really deserving cases.

I want to make a few observations in connection with this Act. Is seems to me that the farmers are placed in a very difficult position in view of the fact that they have to speculate year after year, whether the Act will be renewed. The farmer is placed in the position that he does not know whether he will receive the interest subsidy until the time when this Parliament passes a special resolution. Therefore I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to apply this Act permanently; if at a later stage it is found that the Act is no longer necessary, then it can be repealed at a future date. Then the farmers will feel that they can bank on the subsidy from year to year. I want to confirm what the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) has said. Since the Act was passed in 1933, many farmers have become bona fide owners of land, and they were compelled to pass bonds on their land. A few years ago the Act was amended, and the Minister was authorised to deal with every case on its merits. Is it not possible where such cases are brought to the notice of the Minister, where people are in a position to buy a farm and where they possess the necessary means to put down a portion of the purchase price, but where they are compelled to pass a bond for the remainder of the purchase price, that such cases should be brought under the Act? Why should such a farmer who buys land in a bona fide way, be forced to pay a rate of interest of 5½% and even 6%? Such a farmer is placed in a very difficult position. He has to compete with the other farmers. He was a bona fide purchaser of land. He is not a man who only requires a farm in order to benefit by his subsidy, but he requires the land to carry on farming operations. In many cases these are young farmers who acquire land. Is it not possible to investigate such cases, and where it is proved that such a party had a sufficient amount to put down, and that he is a bona fide farmer, to enable such a man to get the interest subsidy? It is very unfair towards these farmers who buy land. Possibly he is a young farmer who was not yet of age in 1933. He became of age subsequently, and bought land to go in for farming. Now he is placed in the difficult position that he has to compete with other farmers, and he does not share in the privileges enjoyed by the others. Let me quote a case in which I was interested. Sometimes you have to deal with cases where a boy has farmed on his father’s land for years. The father has a bond and is in receipt of the interest subsidy. When that farm comes into the market and possibly the inheritants may not purchase the farm— it may be bought by somebody else. The son buys another farm. Had he taken over the old farm and the bond on that farm, the Minister would be in a position to grant the interest subsidy in such a case, but as soon as he buys another farm and incurs a fresh debt, then he cannot get the interest subsidy. That is not right towards those people. Something should be done to assist these people. The question should not be what it is going to cost. During the last few days we have seen that the amount does not matter if money is required for war purposes. When it is a question of rehabilitating the farming community, then I contend we should not say either that the money cannot be found, because we see that any amount can be found for other purposes. We want to put our people on the land, and we do not want to see the land pass into the hands of foreigners, and if these people have to pay such a high rate of interest, can we expect them to remain farmers? I hope the Minister will go into these cases, and will investigate whether something cannot be done for such bona fide purchasers of land. One hon. member here referred to the case of an estate. I also had a similar case. It was the case of an estate where a bond was in existence on which interest subsidy was paid. The owner died, and from that day on the interest subsidy was withdrawn in respect of that portion of the bond represented by children who were not farmers. Let us take the case where there are six children who are not farming, and one child who is farming. The one if a farmer and the others may be in the civil service or elsewhere. As soon as the father dies interest subsidy is only paid in respect of one-seventh of the bond, and to the remaining six-sevenths no interest subsidy is paid. The land has to be sold, but it may take six months or a year before a purchaser can be found. These people do not know what the ground will be sold for. The farm is kept going for the benefit of the estate. Is it not possible to pay the full interest subsidy in such cases, until the estate has been liquidated? I hope the Minister will deal with such cases, and will consider what can be done to assist these people, particularly young people who are bona fide purchasers of land and who want to go in for farming. Cases have been mentioned here of people who are not really entitled to the interest subsidy. I know of a case of a certain party who approached another party prior to 1933 for a loan of £7,000. He did not have the money, and his friend told him: Take a bond on your farm and I am prepared to pay you half a per cent. more interest. He got the money at 5¾% and he himself gets 6¼%. On that bond interest subsidy is paid to-day, and the farmer, in addition, gets that higher interest from another party. That is not right, and such cases can be gone into. In those cases people should not receive interest subsidies, but there are other cases where people who are entitled to the subsidy do not receive this assistance.

I must confess that I am disappointed with the statement of the Minister. Last year when I made certain proposals in connection with this matter, the Minister gave us the assurance that he would order an enquiry into a mortgage redemption scheme. Where is that scheme? It seems to me that where measures in the interests of farmers are concerned, the other side of the House always puts us off. I can give the Minister the assurance that the position of the farmers on the platteland is precarious. The prices of our produce are controlled and fixed in order to supply other industries with cheap produce, but on the other hand, the cost of living of the farmers is rising daily. I want to quote a few examples.

The hon. member must not wander away too far from the motion.

I only want to point out that the farmers’ expenses are rising, and for that reason I am disappointed with the statement of the Minister, who is not prepared to extend this Act. I feel that the position of the farmers is precarious to-day. When you visit the platteland, you find that the farmers are not in a position to pay that interest, not even the 3½%. Many of our young farmers in South Africa have bought land subsequent to 1933. They have to pay 5% and 6% interest to-day, and I want the Minister to go into their position as well. In view of the fact that the price of their produce has been fixed, and as everything they require goes up in price, their position should be considered. Where is the scheme promised to us by the Minister last year? Promises should be carried out. I feel that the Minister should have gone further, and that he should have made the Act applicable for at least five years, and that he should also have assisted people who passed bonds on their property after 1934, as far as the rate of interest is concerned. How is it going to help the Minister to refuse to-day, if as a result of his refusal he will have to spend millions in a few years time to rehabilitate the farmers? I hope the Minister will give his attention to this matter, and will not only view the interests of the farmers from the commercial point of view. Why should the commercial interests be supplied with cheap produce, while the cost of living to the farmers is rising and no assistance is given in their case? The Minister told us that the cost of living, as far as the farmers are concerned, has not increased by more than 4½%. I beg to query that statement. I think it is nearer 25%. For that reason I am disappointed with the Minister’s statement.

This is the seventh occasion that this Parliament is asked to extend the Act, and as a result of this position, there is a lot of uncertainty. As soon as we point out that uncertainty is created in this way, hon. members on the other side tell us that we need not be afraid, that they will see to it that this Act is extended from year to year. I have told these friends outside already. “If you are so sure that the Act is going to be extended from year to year, what is the reason that it cannot be fixed for a period of at least five years?” Or, as suggested by the hon. member for Willowmore (Mr. G. P. Steyn), make the Act permanent, and when conditions change, the Act can be repealed. The farmers are in a difficult position. I remember the Prime Minister telling us a few years ago that farming is the worst-paid industry in South Africa. A farmer is uncertain in everything. He does not know what his crop is going to be, he does not know what he is going to get for his crop, and in addition he is uncertain as to what he will have to pay as far as interest is concerned. But this is not the only flaw in the Act I want to refer to? We, as farmers’ representatives, welcome the extension of the operation of the Act, but as already pointed out by other hon. members, the previous Minister of Finance recognised the short terms of the Act. That is the reason why last year the Act was amended in order to include all the cases. Provision has now been made for certain border cases. If a farmer, for instance, has acquitted land round about the 1st April, he can be assisted, but he has to convince the Minister on two points. In the first place, he must bring proof that he has bought the land for his family because he wants to keep them on the land, and secondly, he has to advance proof that the purchase of land legally took place before the 1st April. Now I am thinking of a particular case in my constituency, of a certain Van der Vyver in the district of Steynsburg. He bought land for his relations and did not require the land himself. On that point he satisfied the Minister. Secondly, he proved through reliable persons that he had made arrangements to get the necessary money to buy land prior to the 1st April, but unfortunately the sale took place after the 1st April. I saw that the Minister would have liked to assist in this case, but even under the amended Act, this case could not be dealt with. Really deserving cases are not covered by the Act. For that reason I want the Minister to provide for the extension of the operation of the Act to this date, or a date to be laid down. The position of the farmers is such that they require assistance. Any farmers’ representative on the other side will be able to confirm that the position of the farmers is not better than what it was in 1933 or 1934. I also want to ask the Minister how far progress has been made in connection with the enquiry into a redemption scheme. What has become of that scheme? The hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) intimated in my constituency that they had succeeded in getting a mortgage redemption scheme, but we have not heard anything more about it. I hope the Minister will take the House into his confidence and tell us what the position is as far as the enquiry is concerned.

In the first place, I want to thank the Minister very heartily for the extension of the operation of this Interest Subsidy Act for another year. Of course, we would have preferred a permanent measure, or at least a measure which would be applicable for a number of years, but even though it is patchwork, the interest subsidy is of very great value to the farmers temporarily to overcome their difficulties, and for that reason we are grateful that it has been extended for another year. Yet I want to show up a few injustices, because this measure is one of the most unjust Acts passed in South Africa.

Why did you not say so before?

I said so last year, and the Minister’s reply was that he could not amend the Act in that respect. It is unjust because it stops at a certain date, because it only covers bonds passed up to the 1st April, 1933. If a farmer has bought land one day prior to that date, that is on the 31st March, he receives interest subsidy, but if he has purchased land on the 2nd April, he is eliminated, though the price has not changed in those few days. It is not only unjust in individual cases, but whole parts of the country are affected in an unjust manner. I am now speaking on behalf of the North-West. In those years, when, generally speaking, very high prices were paid for land, during the years 1926, 1927 and particularly 1928, the North-West was suffering under a terrible drought lasting for many years, five or six years. The Minister of Lands, who is in his place, can confirm my statement. As a result the price of land in the North-West was very low during those years. The farmers who bought at the time, up to the 1st April, 1933, paid particularly low prices as the result of drought conditions. After 1932, a period of reasonably good years followed as far as the North-West is concerned, and there were other factors contributing towards a rise in land values, such as the purchase of land for natives, which caused many farmers from other parts of the country to compete for land in the North-West, and the result was that prices rose appreciably since 1933. Land which could be purchased for 10s. a morgen fetches £1 5s. to-day. Those farmers who bought prior to 1933 at low prices are in receipt of the interest subsidy, but those who came subsequently cannot get the subsidy. I trust the Minister will realise that that is an anomaly, and that people who have bought after 1933 should also be assisted. There are other cases I want to bring to the notice of the Minister. In quite a number of cases farmers have bought prior to 1933, that is prior to the 1st April, 1933. He takes a bond on his farm of say £4,000. Subsequently he goes and sells the farm in say 1936, and buys another farm. Then he is entitled to transfer the bond of £4,000 to the farm he has purchased, and he continues to enjoy the interest subsidy on that amount. Does the House realise the injustice in this case? The Minister says that farmers should not buy at a higher price than the economic value of the land justifies. Now this man buys in the open market, and yet he is entitled to the interest subsidy on the £4,000, even though he has purchased the land subsequent to 1933, because he is allowed to transfer the bond together with the interest subsidy. There is, however, some unwritten rule which lays down that the period which is allowed between the purchase and the sale of the two farms is restricted. I was informed by the office that the maximum allowed is One week. Well, we have managed to extend that to three months, and in many cases farmers in my constituency have managed to extend the period to three months. Naturally no farmer is in a position nowadays to buy a farm until he has sold his other farm. Therefore it is extended to three months. Why not three years? I am only trying to point out anomalies under the Act, and I feel that the Act should not be restricted to the years up to 1933, but should be extended up to the present day. The Minister stated last year that the position of over-capitalisation is still serious, and he gave instructions for an enquiry into a redemption scheme. I want to associate myself with other hon. members who have expressed the hope that we will be informed to-day of the results of this enquiry. Or has the enquiry been delayed by the death of Mr. Wilmot, the farmers’ friend? He has done a lot for the farmers, and therefore it is a privilege to me, on this occasion, to express gratitude for what he has done. I hope that the fact that he is no longer there is not interfering with the plans, but that far-reaching measures will be taken as long as that is still possible. Whether the Minister is prepared to admit it or not, the farmers are still in a very difficult position. The Government, however, seems to think that the farmers are better off, because certain measures of relief for them are abolished, such as, for instance, the rebate the farmers get on the railways. I can only give the Minister the assurance that the position of our farmers is all but rosy, and that they are looking forward to a mortgage redemption scheme. If we think of the future we feel that the farmers are facing worse times than they have ever experienced. A few weeks ago the Minister of Agriculture warned the farmers of South Africa, on the occasion of the opening of one or other congress, that very hard times lie ahead of the farming community. As money appears to be plentiful to-day, I advocate active steps to assist the farmers, so that they will be on a sound footing before the storms of difficult times break loose over their heads. To mention one case, the Minister of Lands, who has now left the Chamber, told us last year that he had received 18½d. for his wool. This year he received 13d. or 14d., as much as 5d. less, for his wool. The farmers right through the country are struggling hard, and the Minister of Finance should, while money is plentiful and the chance is still there, come to the assistance of the farmers to place them in a strong position before the storm breaks.

Like previous speakers, I want to appeal to the Minister to make the interest subsidy of general application. If ever there was a time when that was necessary, it is to-day. The fixed prices of produce are low, the general market prices are low, but everything the farmer requires has gone up in price. If ever there was a time when farmers were labouring under difficulties, from a financial point of view, it is now, and this is the opportunity for the Government to come to their assistance, and we have a measure before us now which enables the Minister to help the farmers in general through the interest subsidy. The cost of living of the farmers has increased, just the same as in the case of other consumers, and as that is so, I feel that we have a strong case to place before the Minister. I do not want to repeat what other speakers have said, but we on this side of the House, and a number of members on the other side as well, feel that we can justly claim assistance for the farmers in this connection.

I do not want to take up the time of the House, but I only want to mention that I personally accompanied a party to Pretoria to point out to the Minister the necessity of the extension of the operation of this Act, and to point out the desirability of making this a permanent measure, and also to make it applicable to cases subsequent to 1933. The Minister knows that I came to see him personally with a man who had been a bywoner of a rich farmer for a number of years. He had worked himself up, and it was a deserving case. Then he purchased land from somebody, and took over a bond on the farm. That other person who sold the property could not meet his obligations. After a while, through circumstances, this man got into trouble, just as many other farmers. He was caught by droughts and he went to the Minister and requested the Minister for assistance under the interest subsidy scheme. The Minister shrugged his shoulders and informed him that he was very sorry, but that he could not come to his assistance. What was the difficulty, what prevented the Minister from assisting this man? It was a very deserving case, but the Act did not allow the Minister to help this man. There are other cases like that. There are people who incurred obligations subsequent to the 1st April, 1933, and who have had crops of failures ever since from year to year. It is not the man’s fault, he has not neglected his duty, but he is pursued by misfortune. I know of one case where a farmer has put in 100 bags of wheat. Last year his crop was a failure and he got in arrear. He put in 100 bags of wheat and normally could have expected to reap 3,000 bags, bringing in approximately £3,000. He only got 277 bags of wheat, and the cost of cutting the wheat amounted to £90, quite apart from other expenses. How can that man meet his obligations when he has a bond of £3,000 or £3,500 on his farm? The Minister promised last year that enquiry would be made into the problem of farm mortgage bonds. We would like to know what the findings of the commission of enquiry were. This is the time for the Government to assist the farming community. If the Government does not take steps, more farmers will leave the land. In my constituency there are many young farmers, first-class farmers, who can become an asset to the farming community, but who to-day cannot make a living out of farming and who are leaving the farms and flocking to the mines, and to the towns, looking for work. These are people we need on the platteland, young farmers who are still keen to work, and who can become first-class farmers. If the Government does not come to the rescue in order to give these people a chance, I fear the farming community is doomed.

On behalf of the farmers in my constituency I want to thank the Minister for the extension of the operation of this Act. It has been pointed out that uncertainty has been created because such a motion has to be passed from year to year, but we are satisfied that as long as it is necessary to apply the Act, it will be extended from year to year. We have the fullest confidence in the Government that as long as it is necessary the farmers will be assisted and will not be left in the lurch. Hon. members on the other side have used the word “patchwork,” but at least one member there is grateful for the extension of the Act. It is significant that when hon. members go round the platteland, then they praise this measure as a good measure, but when they come to this House it is called “patchwork.” It has also been stated that it is an injustice that this measure has not been made applicable to land purchase subsequent to the 1st April, 1933. This legislation was intended to cover cases of land purchases at abnormally high prices. Practically 90% of the farmers who bought land in those days would have gone to the wall when the depression set in, if the Government of the day had not come to their rescue. That is the reason why the Act was passed, and farmers who bought subsequently knew what their position was, and in what position they would find themselves should they buy land for which they were not in a position to pay. There are, however, justified complaints. I want to urge the Minister to carry out his promise that a redemption scheme, as far as mortgages are concerned, will be considered. As far as justifiable complaints are concerned, there is in the first place the complaint that farmers, in some cases, are in a position to redeem their bonds, but they refuse to do so, and they invest their money elsewhere at a higher rate than the rate paid by them on their bond, after deducting the subsidy. That is definitely unsound, but such cases do exist. I take it the income tax forms of the farmers show where such cases do exist, and to my mind the Minister should interfere and put a stop to those cases. Then there was another complaint to the effect that in certain cases farmers bought land instead of paying off their bonds. In such cases the Minister should also interfere. The hon. member for Willowmore (Mr. G. P. Steyn) also mentioned the case of a man who had invested his money elsewhere, and who was drawing a higher rate of interest than the interest he was paying on his bond, because he was enjoying a subsidy. These anomalies should be done away with. I understood the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux) to say that the attitude, the actions of the Government were such that the Government was preventing the farmers from rehabilitating themselves. I challenge the hon. member to prove that this Government has in any way deviated from the policy followed by previous governments which we had prior to 1933. It is admitted on all hands that this Government has gone out of its way to assist the farming community, and to rehabilitate them. I may point out that £100,000 has been made available for the wheat farmers, and that the Minister informs us that another £150,000 would have to follow. The mealie farmers have been assisted, the wool farmers have been helped, the farmers in the Western Province have received assistance. There is no section of the farming community which has not been assisted. For all those reasons I have the fullest confidence that the Government will assist us further as the need arises.

I had not expected that the introduction of this motion would be seized upon as an opportunity for a general debate on the problem of the rehabilitation of the farming community. Quite obviously this motion is much more limited in its scope. As I explained at the outset, this motion aims at the extension of the provisions of the Farm Mortgage Interest Act of 1933 for a further period. But in the light of the debate which has taken place, and of what has been said here, and in view of the remarks made, it may be necessary that I attempt once more to explain to the House why the Act was passed in 1933; and here I want to associate myself with what has been said by the last speaker, who hit the nail on the head. But let me say this: The Act of 1933 was never contemplated to become a measure based on the principle of dishing out alms. There was no question of merit. There was one principle underlying this Act, and that principle was that shortly prior to the introduction of the 1933 Act, the prices of agriculture had slumped. Prior to that slump, farmers had taken up bonds on the basis of the higher price level of agricultural produce which was then prevailing. As a result farmers paid high prices and over-capitalisation took place. The farmers were saddled with debts, and particularly with an interest burden which was out of proportion to the price of produce. For that reason the Government at the time introduced this measure. The aim and object was to reduce the interest burden incurred on these bonds which were passed on the basis to the higher prices, and to bring the interest more in relation to the lower price level then appertaining. For that reason my predecessor introduced this Bill, and for that reason also it was limited in certain respects. It was limited by him to farm mortgage bonds passed prior to a certain date; in other words, it was limited to bonds passed when the prices of farm produce were still high. That was the underlying principle. He did not consider this to be a measure for all time. It was only to be a measure to assist the farming community in view of certain circumstances to which I have referred. But he also limited the Act in other respects. He never regarded it as a permanent measure. My predecessor always hoped that there would again be a general rise in the price of agricultural products.

And you have now prevented that?

It was his contention that when that increase came about, this interest subsidy would no longer be necessary. It is for that reason that the Bill has been framed in such a manner that it is only applicable for a year, after which it will be applicable from year to year, according to its being extended by a resolution of this House. That is the reason why it has never yet been possible to comply with the requests that have been made here. For that reason, on account of the principle laid down by my predecessor it has never been possible to apply this subsidy to mortgage bonds contracted after the prescribed date, and I do not think that the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) has the right to say that my predecessor practically promised to make an extension in that respect. He always insisted very firmly to that view, that he was not going to shift the date. Because of that principle my predecessor always refused to give effect to the request of the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. J. J. M. van Zyl) to make the law apply to land within the area of a town or village. It was regarded as a measure to assist bona fide farmers and because of the principle which I have just described, my predecessor always refused to make this a permanent measure. He went out from the principle that it was a temporary relief measure and for that reason it would have to be extended from year to year. I just want to add this, that the law of 1933 only dealt with one aspect of the matter, it only dealt with the question of the interest burden created by over capitalisation. There were, however, certain other farreaching aspects of the matter which were dealt with in the Farmer’s Relief Act of 1935. That Act, however, did not replace the Farm Mortgage Interest Act of 1933. Those two Acts have always stood alongside of each other. I have tried to explain that the principle on which the law of 1933 is based is that from which my predecessor started out. I do not want to say that that principle is unassailable in every respect, nor do I want to say that the application of that principle in the law as it stands to-day is in all respects beyond criticism. There are certain points, touched upon by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth District (Mr. Hayward), the hon. member for Willowmore (Mr. G. P. Steyn) and other hon. members opposite, which show that there are undoubtedly points, if we consistently apply that principle, where the law as it stands to-day may be subject to criticism. But what I want to say is this, that this question of farm mortgage interest is part of a very much bigger question. It is part of the general question of the burden of debt resting on the farmers, particularly as the result of the mortgages contracted by them, in relation to the price level of agricultural products. I do not regard this as the best opportunity for discussing the general question. Whether this Act on farm mortgage interest should be replaced by something more permanent, something permanent and more comprehensive; whether this is the right time for the introduction of a new system, or scheme of rehabilitation, is a question which I do not want to go into at this moment. There will be another opportunity for doing so. I only want to refer to the remarks made about the promise which I gave to this House a year ago. I promised that I would ask the Farmers’ Relief Board to advise me on the general question of the burden of debt resting on the farmer. Well, that promise I have carried out. There has been a certain amount of delay in giving effect to my instructions owing to the death of Mr. Wilmot. And I want to avail myself of this opportunity to express our sense of loss at his death. Mr. Wilmot’s death was a severe blow to the farming community of South Africa, and we deplore his demise. He was a good friend of the farmer. That fact to a certain extent delayed this question being dealt with. Recently, however, I received a memorandum from the Farmers’ Relief Board which is still being studied. It would be premature for me to say anything further about that matter at this stage. There will be a further opportunity for the general question to be discussed. In the meantime we have this fact, that nothing we can do will relieve us of the necessity of passing this resolution which I have now proposed. If that is not done, then the Act on Farm Mortgage Interest lapses on the 31st March. Consequently we have to extend this Act by passing the resolution before the House. The general question can be discussed at a later stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

It has been necessary to bring in this small Bill in order to permit the Electricity Supply Commission to advance funds to its employees for building houses for themselves. For that purpose it is necessary to extend the powers that are granted to the Commission under the 1922 Act. It is true there are government and municipal schemes for housing, but in certain respects they do not fit the conditions here, and further I would point out that the more money these bodies provide for housing their own employees the more houses can be built out of the funds provided by the Government for public housing.

Public houses?

Public housing. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, the employees find it very difficult in the smaller centres to provide themselves with houses. The scheme is not anticipated to incur any amount in excess of £150,000, and these funds will be found out of the pension fund which is available for investment, and therefore the employees will really be providing their own funds, and those funds will be amply secured. The rate at which it is proposed to advance these funds to prospective house-builders is 4½% per annum, and of course there will be a limit to the amount which any individual can have for the erection of his house, and there will also be a careful check on the suitability of the site and the plans of the house.

Does he get the full amount of the house?

Probably. No, I don’t think I can say probably, I think I am rather wrong there, I think probably there will be some margin, but at any rate the house will always be available for any employee who takes up a post which another employee may vacate in any district. I can recommend this to the House as one of the social schemes which is probably the most valuable from the point of view of the general public. The more houses we have the cheaper houses will become. There will not be any shortage of houses, as there was unfortunately, one remembers, twenty years ago, and the result will be that we shall be housing not only these people in a satisfactory way, but there will also be more houses available for the general public.

I would like to have some information from the Minister. It is proposed in this Bill to give power to the Electricity Supply Commission to lend money to its employees to build houses for them. I think that it is right that every man should have his own house as far as possible. But these people are now getting privileges which other public servants do not get. They also get privileges which employees of other bodies cannot get, even under the schemes which are being proposed by the Government. In other words, no restrictions are being placed on the powers of the Electricity Supply Commission. If an employee wants to build a house then the Commission can advance the full amount to him. Now I would like to have this information from the Minister. If I am in the service of the Commission in Cape Town and I am transferred to Johannesburg, what will then become of the house which I have built under this scheme? It is provided here that the Commission can take a mortgage over the house, and it can also take other security for the money which it advances to its employees in order to build houses. No restrictions are placed on this. The employees can get the full amount. I understand that the interest will be 4½ per cent. The other security besides the house is, of course, the insurance policy, etc. Now I feel this, and I have already said, that it is the duty of the State to see to it that its clerks and personnel are provided with houses. Then, when such clerk is transferred from one place to another his successor can go into the house and the State will always get its rent for it. What is the position to-day? I am speaking here from experience. A policeman lives in a rented house. There is a shortage of houses. He cannot report his landlord for a contravention, because then he will lose his house. We ought not to tolerate such a state of affairs. I would also like to bring to the notice of the Minister that the Electricity Supply Commission has the power under the existing law to buy land and to build houses for its officials. If they have the right of doing that, and seeing that the officials do not always remain at the same place, why does not the Commission make use of that power to buy land and build houses for its employees? Then it will not be putting its officials in the difficult position of possibly having to acquire houses in Cape Town under this scheme, and when they are transferred to Johannesburg and other places, they will be having difficulties with the houses belonging to them. If the Commission itself buys the land and builds the houses, then it knows that it will always get rent for the houses. Under this scheme it will probably be the moneys from the Pension Fund which will be used to build the houses, and if there should be a slump, then the houses will have to be sold, and if the amount realised in that way is not enough to cover the amount of the advances, then Parliament will once again have to take steps to make provision for the Pension Fund. I am not in principle opposed to provision for housing being made for such officials. But the Minister is a business man and he knows what position that might lead to. He knows how many people went insolvent in Cape Town after the second war of independence, because they passed mortgages over houses in the town, and when those people could not subsequently sell them at prices sufficiently high to pay off the amounts of the mortgages, hundreds of thousands of pounds were lost. Accordingly I ask the Minister to be careful in regard to the powers which he is giving to these people. His answer probably will be that the Commission consists of business men and that they will see to it that nothing wrong is done. But if they give the advance to one official, how can they refuse to do so in the case of the other. They are being put in the difficult position of being obliged to lend money to all who are anxious to build houses under this scheme, and they will possibly later on be obliged to buy those houses in again at a lower price. That would be bad business. I hope that the Minister will thoroughly enquire into this matter and that he as a business man will realise that that is the position and that provision will be made that such a thing cannot occur in this instance.

I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) has said. I do not think that it is good business policy for the onus to be thrown by this big business concern which we have created on the workers to provide for their housing. The hon. member for Swellendam has shown that the difficulty will arise with a man who still has a big mortgage over his house may be transferred to another neighbourhood. He has no choice. In this case the choice of the land and the building is left to the official and we all know what the result was of that policy of the state in connection with people who could choose the land itself which they wanted to buy. Here we may have the position that a man chooses the land and he builds the house with the help of an advance, and he may be transferred or he may be discharged. But during a term of years he has paid off certain amounts in interest and redemption. When he is transferred, then that house has to be sold or it is taken over by the Company concerned, and very possibly he may lose what he has paid. Then a certain amount injustice may be done to the employees. I also have employees in my service and I never like my employee to be in my debt. It is a state of affairs which may have injurious results if an employee should be in that position. I should in that case be in a position of having power to prevent the man from exercising his free rights and his free will, and I do not want to place anyone in that position. It would also be prejudicial to his work. Here we are dealing with a large company which is handling millions of pounds and if they are to advance money in this way to their employees then they will obtain an influence over those employees, and the latter will in the long-run be the suffering party. When they leave the service or if they are transferred and they have not yet paid off everything, what will the position then be? It simlpy means that the company who made the advance, has a certain power over the employee and that is undesirable. I am definitely opposed to my employees being in my debt, because it means that I can then bind them and can dictate to them. I want to see my employees retaining their independence, and that they should then be able in that way to render their best services to me. I want to issue a warning that this measure is not a good one. I do not think that it is the best way of tackling the matter. We are dealing here with a strong company and it can build houses for its employees. Then let them pay rent which will pay the interest on that money, but let the company take the responsibility upon itself.

I commend this Bill from the point of view that under present conditions it is becoming more and more popular and right that housing shall be provided for the working classes at a much lower rental than has been the case in the past, and the fact that money can be provided at this low rate of interest is a guarantee that housing will be made cheaper. At the same time I feel that the method applied in this Bill is not perfect, and not only is it not perfect, but it is open to a great deal of abuse in certain regards. In the first place, it will not provide such a cheap rental as might be provided under another method. Although the man gets his money at 4½ per cent., the scheme implies that in each case the house may be built by a different contractor, and the costs will be greater to the individual than if the Electricity Commission itself undertook to build the houses and to rent those houses to its employees. The commission can build on a very much larger scale, and the building costs would be very much less, with the consequent result that they could let at a lower rental than would otherwise be the case. Secondly, under this arrangement the freedom of the worker will be restricted, because he will not be able to move about in order to improve his position either as an employee of the Commission or in some other sphere, by virtue of the fact that he has bound himself to the house. He may, in fact, have invested some of his own money, and thereby he will feel that he has such a stake in that particular locality that it would be very difficult for him to move to other employment. I am not opposed to the Bill because it is a move in the right direction, but I would be glad if the Minister would consider adding a further provision by which the Commission could undertake to build houses for its own employees.

I want to say a few words in support of this Bill, because I think it is a very useful provision indeed. I have no doubt that the point mentioned by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) can be met by an arrangement between the Commission and those who may benefit under the scheme. I rise particularly to answer a point made by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren), who says that the present law already confers these powers.

They have power to acquire land.

The hon. member knows that a statutory body which has a statute defining its powers has rigidly to conform to those powers, and there is nothing whatever which would justify the Commission, under the powers given to them in the Act of 1922, in carrying out this work. If you read the section which the Minister proposes to amend, Section 4, the Commission has power to acquire by purchase, lease or otherwise, land and rights over land, but obviously that means land necessary for the purpose of generating electricity. The whole object of that Act is to provide for the control of electricity. Surely the hon. member does not suggest that the Minister would go to the trouble of bringing in an amending Bill if the Commission had these powers under the existing law. It would be impossible to justify any Commission getting powers from Parliament to acquire land to generate electricity and then using those powers to house the employees. If the Minister did not bring in this Bill, the Electricity Commission could not provide houses for their employees as now contemplated.

Any attempt to provide workmen with houses will always bring me to my feet in support, and I certainly approve of this additional power being given to the Electricity Supply Commission to make it possible for workmen in their employ permanently to occupy their own houses. The Minister informed us of the possibility of limiting the amount which was to be given to employees. He suggested that the amount would be to the full amount required, and then he hesitated and said that it would not be up to the full amount. Anyhow, the Minister has not told us what is to be the amount of the limit—what is the limit to which it is proposed to grant a loan to any individual employee?

100 per cent.

What does 100 per cent. represent? Does it mean £500 or £750 or a £1,500 house?

There is no limit.

The only limit is a suggestion by the Minister that the designs of the houses would have to be approved of. It seems a very nebulous proposition which the Minister is putting before the House in granting these powers to the Electricity Supply Commission. While I support the principle, I think the Minister should take us a little more into his confidence as to what he has actually in mind. If it is possible to grant loans of this kind to employees in receipt of, say, £1 per day, to purchase a house of, say, £750, then one would like to know how long the employees will have to pay interest and redemption before the property will become their own. The Minister says that he proposes that the interest shall not be higher than 4½ per cent. Does that 4½ per cent. make any provision for the redemption of the capital which has been advanced?

No, that is the interest only.

It may mean that if 2½ per cent. redemption is to be charged over and above the 4½ per cent. interest, a very heavy burden will be placed on the man. One would like to know what opportunities and safeguards there would be for the pension fund investments, because, after all, if these amounts are to be advanced out of pension funds, then some measure of redemption should be provided for. It is not often I disagree with social welfare projects, but I disagree with the remarks of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), who suggested that it would be in the interest of employees to lease houses rather than to own them, I fail to see myself where it is to the advantage of any employee to go on paying for a property which will never become his own—to go on paying rental for a property which is usually based on a ten years’ capitalisation. I simply cannot see how it is to be to the advantage of the employee to go on paying for somebody else’s house. The law of economics applies equally in all cases, and whether a man is a rack renter or an employee, it is always to the advantage of an employee, or of anyone else, to own his own house rather than to live in a house which will never become his own property. I should, however, like to have some further information from the Minister in regard to these various points. When the hon. member for Troyeville suggests that a person who owns his own house is at a disadvantage in the labour market, as compared with any other person who is not the owner of his own house by virtue of the fact that he is tied to the particular area where his house is situated, then I must say that that to me is something quite foreign to what the hon. member has been saying right throughout his previous political existence. I approve of this Bill in principle. But the principle is just about as wide as the proverbial gates. But we do want a little more information to show what measure of protection there is to be for the pensioners whose funds are being invested, whose future is being invested in this house. What limitation does the Minister propose to lay down as to the amounts which will be afforded to prospective people who will take up these loans and whether or not these loans will bear any relation to the rates of wages paid to these employees, so that the eventual return of the capital loan will have some opportunity of coming back in order to ensure the security of the funds which have been invested. I would not like to see, for instance, funds of a pension fund to which I was contributing being put into a number of houses, and eventually, when the time came for the pensioners to enjoy their pension, to be told that the assets of their funds did not stand in £, s. and d., but in so many houses which some years ago had been built at the instance of the Minister of Commerce and Industries. I should like the Minister to give us a little more information about the application of this general provision which he is asking the House to approve of.

I also would like to have a little more information about this matter. In the past I also have criticised municipalities and I have said that in my opinion they could do more in certain ways to come to the assistance of people in connection with housing. I expressed a view that the Government could assist people through the municipalities to build houses. In this Bill there is being carried out precisely what I advocated, and I do not want for one moment to say that I am against the principle of the Bill, but everything is so vague. What is the amount which in the opinion of the Minister wall be annually required, what is the total amount which he is intending to grant to the Electricity Supply Commission?

£150,000.

I did not understand that from the Minister, he speaks in a slightly low voice. What is the number of people who work on the undertaking? How many of them will avail themselves of the privileges, how many European persons are working there, and how many non-Europeans? If there are non-Europeans, I should like to know whether they will be given assistance on the same conditions as the Europeans. I see that there is another concession made here, and that is that persons can obtain mortgages over their land and in respect of any other securities. We have been pleading for years, for instance, in municipalities, that where people are having a bad time in connection with the acquisition of a bare erf, such people should be given the facilities of raising mortgages. They cannot do so. Now I am glad to see that the Minister is making a provision of that sort. That is a thing in the right direction, but I would like to have a little more information.

I, too, welcome this Bill for the purpose for which it is intended, because I think the House will agree that it is a good thing that the workers, the employees, should be encouraged to own their own houses; but I, too, would like a little more information as to the various details, and in addition I for one would very gladly welcome some sort of scheme whereby the Electricity Supply Commission which is going to lend this money would take a hand in the construction of the houses. If this money is to be loaned to employees, and employees are encouraged and allowed to employ private contractors or speculative builders, then those of us who have seen some of those houses in the slums will realise the kind of houses which may be put up with the money that the Commission is going to advance. We know the kind of houses which the speculative builders put up and we know how long they last. I think this Bill could be amended and improved by putting in some clause where by the Commission should have some hand in the construction of the houses, or some control over the nature and quality of the buildings, so that when an employee is in a position really to own the house, for which he has borrowed money and on which he has paid interest, then at least that house will be of some value to him by the time he gets it—not falling to pieces. Not only am I anxious for the Commission to have a hand in it, because I think it would discourage jerry building, but I want the Commission to have a hand in it because it would be so much cheaper for the employee, and therefore to the greater benefit of the employee. I am also concerned with the fact that this Bill as it stands places no limit on the amount which the Commission may lend to each individual employee. I recall that under the Act whereby the building societies, in conjunction with the Government, lend money to prospective builders of houses, there is a limit. As far as my memory serves me, the building societies may not lend more than £1,000 for a house—or rather they may not lend more than, I think, 90 per cent.

75 per cent.

Originally it was 90 per cent. Anyhow, the total sum to be expended on a house was not to exceed £1,000. The object of the Commission is to house its poorer employees, and it is highly desirable that a limit should be laid down in this Bill as to the amount which may be expended on individual houses. With the addition of these points I would welcome the Bill and I hope the Minister will give us that information and those details for which the House is asking at the Committee stage so that the House may be able to see that the purposes of the Bill will be carried out, namely, that the employees ‘of the Electricity Supply Commission shall be housed both adequately and cheaply.

We have had a very interesting debate on this small Bill which, in many respects, was very enlightening, but in other respects I think I can explain where I differ from the speakers. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) pointed out that although the employees of the Electricity Supply Commission will have an opportunity of getting their own homes, we do not make the same provision for the public servant. These employees are not public servants.

What are they then?

The hon. member is not quite right because I think my colleague, the Minister of Railways, has a housing scheme for railway servants, so he is partly wrong. I must say that I am thoroughly in accord with building houses for anyone, and the public servant to whom he refers in the big cities has the whole of the arrangements at his disposal, which are made under the housing Acts. He can borrow money exactly in the same way as an employee in any other walk of life.

So can the employee of the Electricity Supply Commission.

The public servant is not particularly hardly treated. I think most members of the House know that the more houses are built for the people the happier I am. Then the hon. member says that one difficulty is that this man may be moved from district to district. Possibly, but in practice there is very little of that. I have been running a scheme for twenty years on the borders of Cape Town, and the employees there are men in the Railway service, men in stores, men in insurance offices, men in banks, etc.

Is it a private concern?

And we have never had any trouble when men get moved, and later on I shall explain to the hon. member why. I shall next deal with the hon. member who differs from the law advisers of the Crown. I am sorry but I must take the advice of the law advisers, and they say the Commission cannot advance money to build houses under the powers it has now. There is a difference apparently between the two lawyers. I can only take the advice of my lawyer and the hon. member can fight the case in any court he likes.

Why should I fight your case?

The law advisers say that under the powers of the Act the Commission cannot advance money to their employees for building houses. Then the hon. member says that the Commission should be given the power to build houses, and to let them to these people. Several hon. members have mentioned that. I am wholeheartedly against that, and I have had practical experience, and I say that nothing does a man more good than to own his own home. First of all you have not always to look after it and see whether he is looking after the doors and the windows, and further, if you give a man a home of his own—when you go to it you see that he looks after his garden, and that the house is nicely kept, and the man is a happier man. To me there is nothing more miserable than the town dweller who only pays rent. The man who is really a good citizen is the man who has his own home, however modest it may be. So you cannot expect me to push for the other view. I do not agree with it, and you only have to go out to Pinelands Garden City where we have these houses for the salaried men of small means, to see what can be done. You will see there how they keep their houses and gardens, and it is a pleasure to go round there. So I am perfectly satisfied that what we are doing here is the right thing. The predecessor of the present Minister of Railways started a home ownership scheme for the Railway people, and a very good thing too. Now the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. R. A. T. van der Merwe) says that he objects on principle to employers making advances to their staffs for the purpose of building their homes. Well, well! Did you ever hear anything so reactionary? What I have always wanted to do is to get employers to put up money for their own staffs so that they could own their own homes, and when a man has money on mortgage the employer has not got him cold, as the hon. member said. So long as a man pays his interest on the money the employer cannot touch him.

And if he owes too much the employer cannot let him go.

It is only the good employer who does lend money to his employees. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) is rather inclined to favour building in quantities and letting.

As an additional power.

I have already explained that the Commission did not want tot do that, and I think they are wise in that, and there is no intention as far as I know of building rows of—what shall I call them?—uninteresting hovels, and putting these people there. It is very much better to let the individual borrow the money for his house and build where he wants to. He need not necessarily live next to another employee. He probably sees enough of his follow employees all day long.

Just like the Ministers.

It is probably better for him to see some other set of people. Now, the hon. member for Cape Central (Mr. Bowen) is rather worried about redemption. He thought 4½ per cent. should cover redemption as well as interest. The hon. member for Swellendam has had experience of these things. 4½ per cent. does not anything like cover the redemption. The Housing Board lends out money at 4½ per cent. interest and that does not cover redemption. There is an additional amount for redemption, and after twenty years the mortgage is cleared off—which is a very fine way of helping these men to save money. Every month a man pays X pounds for interest and Y pounds for redemption, and that is a very much better way even than putting money into the savings bank. I do not think we need worry about the pension fund. We have to remember that this Electricity Supply Commission is not a small thing; it is a concern with millions invested, and I do ask hon. members to appreciate that if we trust this Commission as we do—I have no powers over them—if we trust with millions of money surely we can trust them with a small amount which they say at the utmost will amount to £15,000. As I have no powers over them they will make the regulations detailing what conditions a man has to carry out if he borrows the money. It is quite clear that the hon. member for Jeppe (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) has a deeply seated fear of the jerry builder. You only need fear him if he has a free hand and is going to sell a house at a profit. The jerry builder will not come into this. The plans have to be passed by the Commission, the site has to be approved of by the Commission, and the house is built on a contract which is on the usual lines, and there is an architect appointed to see that the house is built according to specifications. All these things are done every day. You can go to Pinelands and you will not find a jerry-built house there.

Yes, but you have capitalists there.

I should like the hon. member to find out from the Income Tax authorities —if it were possible for him to do so—how much income tax they get from Pinelands. I think he would find that it is a very small amount.

Then they are not doing their duty properly.

I have given the House as far as I can all the information they require. I have not agreed with all that has been said but I feel perfectly certain that the Electricity Supply Commission is quite big enough to see to it that this work is carried out in a reasonable way, and I am perfectly certain that they are doing this in order to help their employes and that, to my mind, is a very fine gesture as far as they are concerned, that they take an interest in their employees after they have done their day’s work.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

objected.

House to go into Committee on the Bill on 31st January.

I move—

I would like to preface my remarks this evening by calling the attention of the House to the memorandum which has been circulated for the edification and information of members. The Bill of which I am now moving the second reading is a Bill which reads as if it were rather a complicated and difficult measure, but I think from an examination of the memorandum it will be found that the Bill is not nearly so alarming as it looks. The memorandum has been framed to show the original Act with all the alterations, and an explanatory chapter has been added indicating why the different amendments are made. The memorandum, I think, will bring the amendments to this Bill home to the simplest mind, and I do not think my hon. friends opposite will have any difficulty in understanding it. The only drawback to such a memorandum, Mr. Speaker, is that it completely steals the thunder of the Minister, because everything that I had intended to say has been carefully explained to the House already by the chairman of the Transportation Board in this memorandum. But that is not a drawback, particularly at this hour of the night, and particularly if, as a result, the House has a better understanding of the Bill. I should like to make three points quite clear to the House. The first is that I am not moving this Bill as Minister of Railways, but as Minister administering the Road Transportation Board under the Act of 1930. The Railways have not been consulted about this Bill, their advice has not been sought, it is a Bill which has been promoted entirely by the Transportation Board itself, and therefore any suggestion that the Railways may be wangling something for their benefit is scarcely just. This is a Bill promoted purely by the board, with which the Railways has nothing whatever to do except that the same Minister administers both. Another point I want to make quite clear is that there is nothing in this Bill which extends in any way the powers granted by Parliament to the Transportation Board by the Act of 1930 as amended in 1932. All that takes place in this amending Bill is that certain verbal alterations, certain changes in the law of exemptions will enable the Road Transportation Board properly to carry out the intention of the 1930 Act. That Act has been evaded in a number of directions, and it is to stop these loopholes, these evasions, that this amending Act is now brought in. But, sir, beyond preventing evasion of the old Act, there is no new power sought in this Act at all. I would like to call attention at this stage to Clause 20 of the Act, because it has an important bearing on the same thing. Clause 20 reads—

There is nothing in this Bill which interferes in any way with any rights now existing and now possessed by public authorities, by provincial councils, by licencing authorities generally or private individuals. No rights that they possess will be interfered with by this Bill, because it is additional to and not in substitution of any other provision. The third point I want to make is that the main purpose of this Bill is to control more carefully the many exemptions which are granted under the old Act. It is not proposed to interfere with those exemptions, we are not going to take those exemptions away, but we are going to control exemptions in a somewhat different way so that evasions may be avoided. You will find that quite a number of the amendments now proposed are relatively small drafting amendments. For instance, you will recollect that in the original Act it was provided that transportation routes must be proclaimed. It was found in practice that that was no use. All that necessary then was for somebody to run a bus off that route in some other way from point to point, and say it was not run on a proclaimed route; and so the Act was evaded. If therefore becomes necessary to proclaim all roads. It does not matter where a bus goes, it is liable to prosecution if it is evading the Act. That change has made some verbal alterations desirable in the old Act, and several of the amendments meet this particular point. The principal provision of this Bill deals with the question of the exemption of taxi-cabs, which have been the most fruitful source of evasion of the Transportation Act. The worst of these evasions have occurred in Natal, where Asiatics and native taxi-cabs are in fact doing the work of motor buses, and because they are taxis and thearetically exempted they are extremely difficult to trap. Now it is proposed not to take away the exemption of taxi-cabs but to exempt taxi-cabs by means of exemption certificates. They will be required to have exemption certificates, and there will be no difficulty as far as the legitimate taxi is concerned, about getting such a certificate, but the illegitimate taxi, the taxi that masquerades as a taxi but is in fact a bus, will not be able to continue to ply for hire against the legitimate bus owners. I may say this does not protect the railways only, but it also protects many private and public bus owners who find these native taxis killing their trade. You will notice some very interesting figures in this connection on page 13 of the memorandum, where you will see that in the course of one day in various centres in Natal 2,885 passengers were checked travelling by these taxi-cabs, and on that estimate assuming the practice to continue every day, it represents a loss to the legitimate transport suppliers, whether railways, municipalities or private owners, of £132,000 per annum. You will see, therefore, that as far as Natal is concerned, these evasions reach rather striking and alarming-figures, and I think that the House will agree that there is no reason on earth why these people should be allowed to evade the responsibilities that the legitimate transport driver has to meet, and there will be no difficulty in agreeing that some steps must be taken to control such taxi drivers. The only way to effectively control them is to grant the legitimate taxi driver an exemption certificate. Then those who are driving without such a certificate can be prosecuted. We have had representations from the Assocation of Road Passenger Transport Undertakings, from different conferences of transport undertakings since 1934, urging us to take steps to control this illegitimate taxi traffic. There are just one or two other relatively small points which I should like briefly to call your attention to. As is usual in legislation in this House, our farming friends get a few concessions.

Only a few!

Well, it is not a very large Bill, you know. Under the present Act farmers may take their produce to the nearst town or the nearest market place, and they are exempted in respect of any certificate if they do that. It however often happens that the nearest town or market place is not the most suitable market. There is a case illustrated in the memorandum where the most suitable market was twenty miles from the farm but to comply with the provisions of the Act the produce mut be conveyed for 94 miles. Under this amending Act we are including the words “to the most suitable market,” so that farmer will not be obliged to go to the nearest railway station or market regardless of whether it is a market or station at which he can do most profitable business.

Who decides which is the most suitable market? Is that left to the discretion of the farmer?

No, that will be in the discretion of the Road Transportation Board. I think even my farming friends would think it rather a large power to give the farmer the right to say which was his most suitable market. The most suitable market must have some bearing on the nearest market. I think it would be necessary to leave that in the hands of the board. I think my friends opposite will agree that in the history of this board, which was created in 1930, they have had no real cause for complaint. The board has administered its functions fairly and well, it certainly has shown no great preference for the South African Railways. I am sure my farming friends have no grievance, even if I, as Minister of Railways, have. There is one other concession the farmer gets. At the present he can convey his requisites to the place where he is required to use them, but in the old Act no provision was made for the conveyance of the necessary labour to work those requisites or machines. Now we give him the right to convey the labour necessary for operating to distant parts of his farm, or wherever he requires to so operate. There is an alteration in respect of farmers not as farmers but as general dealers. We found that under the old Act the general dealer who happens to be a farmer could carry all his produce to and from his store and to and from his customers as a general dealer, and claim exemption under the old Act. Of course, that was never the intention of the Act. Where the farmer is also a general dealer and is dealing in farm produce and delivering that in competition with other general dealers, then he must, as a general dealer, take out a certificate. I hope I have made that point clear. Provision is also made in this Bill for dealing with advertised motor trips. We have been criticised for making such a provision because it is regadred as a very small thing, and it is a very convenient way for some people to get about. A man who is going a long journey in a motor car advertises in the papers that he will take three passengers. I want to make it quite clear that the board, if it is a legitimate case, will grant a certificate for that journey. Once again, all we are doing is not cutting out that right, but merely controlling it. Control is necessary, because if you don’t control these things people start to abuse them at once. More important still is it when you realise that some control is necessary in these days for the motor cars that are on our public roads. There are many cars running over public roads, legitimate or illegitimate, that are old and obsolete and more fit for the scrap heap than for carrying passengers, and there ought to be some control over any car that proposes to take the public on long journeys, there ought to be some assurance that the car is fit for the job, otherwise our accident and death rate must inevitably increase. Provision is also made for the more elaborate exemptions of hotels. Under the old Act hotels are exempted in respect of their bus service to railway stations and harbours. It is necessary to control this class of traffic and to include air ports. In 1930 the idea of anybody going to an air port was not visualised, but now we have to make provision for that. Then picnic parties which are exempted if they are arranged by a religious association or for charity, are going to be exempted in the Bill, no matter who arranges them. There is really very little logic in the old position. Under this Bill it would be possible for the Transportation Board to exempt any picnic party from the necessity of having a certificate. Lastly, there is this important provision, we give the right to the Road Transportation Board to give the first opportunity of extending a service to the people who are at present running that service. Under the old Act provision was made whereby no new certificate could be granted until the people who were running the service were given an opportunity of increasing that service to meet any new demand, but no provision was made for a possible extension of that service, and we found very often, particularly in the case of municipalities, that they ran to a certain point and as a result of that service there was big development which spread half a mile, and then possibly to a mile and a half. In a few months some private individual with a spare car or a bus came along and got a certificate to carry the people another half mile. That may extend later on to a mile or a mile and a half. He may have no intention of really developing a service, but knowing that ultimately the municipality will have to extend its service and he can make a very good bargain with the municipality when he comes to be bought out, he carries on even at a loss. In many cases it has been nothing more than a ramp to hold up a municipality or public authority to ransom to compel them to buy out the certificate at a very large and handsome profit. Under these circumstances, it will pay the small fellow to run a bus service at a loss for a couple of years, because he knows he will get it back when the other party comes to the conclusion that they must buy him out. Now we are going to empower the Board to see that when anybody applies for such a certificate the municipality, or whoever is running the main service, is asked “Will you extend your service to this point? If you do we will give you the certificate, if you don’t then we will consider the other man.” But the first right is given to the existing authority, and I think that is right. At present the Road Board if they are asked for a certificate, say nothing about it to the people already in the field, and the first thing they learn about it is that the certificate has been granted, which I think is unfair. That really deals with all the details of the Act. Any other small points will be made perfectly clear from an examination of the memorandum. I would, however, like to make one point clear because it has been alleged in the press that the real meaning of this Bill is another effort on the part of the Railways to squeeze out competition. Now I challenge anybody in this House to go back over the records of the South African Railways Administration since 1930 and find out if there has been a single case of the railways squeezing out any satisfactory service anywhere. Where the railways have seen a satisfactory service working they have refused to have anything to do with that particular route, and have left those people in possession of the field. They have very often been asked, even petitioned, to come along and start a service, but have said: “No, the service that is running there is satisfactory and we will leave it, we will not interfere with it.” That is very wise. The South African Railways, like all great undertakings, lives on the goodwill of the people, and we cannot afford to be dictatorial in our methods. Furthermore, where we have had to put out a service, where we have had to go into a route we have treated the people who were running that service not only justly and fairly, but generally with generosity, so that I think the railways can challenge any statement that they have ever shown the sligthest inclination to squeeze out a legitimate and satisfactory service. What the railways stand for is to ensure that there shall be throughout the length and breadth of this country satisfactory transport services available for everybody. So long as the services are there the railways do not worry whether they belong to them or anybode else. The motor bus routes bring revenue to the Railways but they do not bring any profit. We lose a large sum of money on our motor bus routes and the more routes we have the more we lose. Why should we squeeze other people out who are willing to lose their money? At the same time the Railways must be protected. I remember in 1930 when the late Mr. Malan introduced his Transport Bill I, amongst others, opposed certain provisions of that Bill. We opposed it so strongly that we got a new Bill and the first Bill was scrapped. From the start we ag reed that the Railways must be protected against the pirates who come along and take the high rated traffic, leaving the low rated traffic to the Railways. These conditions still prevail, and I say the Railways must be protected and this amending Bill is, as far as it goes, a protection to the Railways against illegitimate pirating. No one would be hit more than the farmers if the economic basis of the South African Railways were interfered with, no one would be hit more than the farming community if illegitimate piratical competition were allowed. The moment the Railways are left with the low rated traffic, which for the most part is agricultural produce, without the high rated traffic to help it to pay its way, then the farmers’ rates must inevitably rise. For these reasons I have not the slightest doubt that I shall have the enthusiastic support of my farming friends in regard to this amending Bill. Let me say that in so far as this Bill protects the Railways it also protects every other legitimate transport owner or driver in the country, it is by no means a Bill designed only for the Railways; it is a Bill designed to keep the transport of this country on a sound and economic basis.

In spite of what the Minister said here this is a very complicated Bill. The original Act contains 23 clauses and in ten years’ time only two of those clauses have remained unchanged and some of them have been changed twice. Now the Minister comes along with further amendments which even amend those amendments, and I feel that as we only got this Bill this morning and only got the memorandum this afternoon, we are not in a position now to go on with the discussion. I want to make an appeal to the Minister to adjourn the debate.

Move the adjournment of the debate.

I thought that only a Minister could do that.

No, the guillotine does not apply to this Bill.

I move—

Mr. VAN COLLER seconded.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 31st January.