I move—

1. (1) Tuesdays.—On Tuesdays, on and after Tuesday, 11th March—
   1. (i) Questions shall have precedence for the remainder of the session;
   2. (ii) Government business shall have precedence after questions, provided that private members shall be given the facilities for measures referred to in Standing Order No. 42 (3); and
   3. (iii) the House shall suspend business at six o’clock p.m. and resume at 8 o’clock p.m.
2. (2) Fridays.—On Fridays, on and after Friday, 14th March—
   1. (i) Questions shall have precedence for the remainder of the session;
   2. (ii) motions standing in the name of private members shall, subject to Standing Order No. 40, have precedence after questions; and
   3. (iii) the House shall not suspend business at six o’clock p.m. unless otherwise ordered.

The object of this motion is from the 11th March to take Tuesdays for Government business; certain facilities will, however, be granted for private members’ Bills which have passed through the preliminary stages. Private members’ Bills which have passed the second reading will be given the opportunity of being proceeded with so that they may be diposed of. For all other purposes, however, the Government is taking over Tuesdays. Friday then becomes motion day and the motions which on the Order Paper appear for Tuesdays will be put down for Friday afternoons with the suspension of the 6 o’clock rule. I think it is reasonable in view of the advanced stage of the session that such a change should be made as from the 11th March, and that the Government should get more time for Government business. I move this resolution which I think is in the best interest of the country and which should have the approval of the other side of the House.

I second.

I am rather surprised at the remarks made by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in support of his motion. All he said was that he moved his resolution; he told the House what was in his motion, but he adduced practically no reasons whatsoever for commending the motion to the House. He said nothing beyond the fact that the session had reached an advanced stage; that is all. I think we should look at the matter from an entirely different point of view, and see whether there is a curtailment of the rights of members of this House so far as private members’ days are concerned, and if so whether there is any justification for doing so. To say that the session has advanced so far and nothing more does not prove that the rights of members are not being restricted, nor does it prove that there is good reason for doing so. I should like to move an amendment to this motion which I think the House, if it knows all the facts in connection with this matter, will regard as a perfectly fair and just amendment. I move as an amendment—

In order to understand the position, we must know exactly what is laid down in the Standing Rules. The Standing Rules which provide what the rights of private members are in regard to private members’ days lay it down that Tuesdays will be private members’ days throughout the whole session. Unless the House should decide for some other good reason to depart from that practice, private members, however long the session may last, are entitled throughout the session to have Tuesdays, and then it is laid down in regard to the second private members’ day, namely, Friday, that private members shall be entitled to have Fridays until and including the 51st sitting day. The arrangement made by the House was that when it reached the 51st sitting day and Fridays would be taken away, Tuesdays were handed over entirely to the Government, and private members’ day which would have been on Tuesdays was moved to Friday. That was the practice of the House. Now this session was divided into two parts. The first part was last year, and the House sat for 19 days. The second part started on the 27th January of this year, and Friday, the 14th March, which is being proposed here as the day to be taken by the Government for Government business, will, if we take both parts of the session into account, be the 49th day. That is quite in order, because the following Friday would take us beyond the 51st day. To that extent we can raise no objections, but we must not forget that for the first 19 days, that is for the first part of the session, all private members’ days, Tuesdays and Fridays, were taken away from members, and, that being so, so far as members’ rights to private members’ days are concerned, we can take it that the session only started on the 27th January. In that connection the Prime Minister earlier on made a statement to the effect that he would again bring those private members’ days into force to which members were entitled. Well, the 11th March will not be the 51st sitting day, but, explained on the basis which I have put before the House, it will be the 30th day, so it amounts to this, that members, instead of getting the twenty private members’ days to which they were entitled this session, if we take Tuesdays and Fridays together, will only get twelve private members’ days if this motion is agreed to. In other words, private members will be deprived of eight private members’ days this session. Instead of getting twenty days, they will only get twelve—in other words, they will be deprived of eight. The amendment which I am moving aims at rectifying matters, and if it is agreed to the position will be exactly as laid down by the Standing Rules and Orders. That being so, I further want to point out that there are some important motions still to be disposed of, but if this motion of the Prime Minister’s is agreed to then those important motions will have very little or no chance of being discussed by the House. The first motion I wish to mention is that which was discussed by the House yesterday, viz., that of the hon. member for Aliwal North (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom). That motion deals with a subject which has for many years been occupying the minds of the farming population. Expectations have been roused in that connection, and people have been looking forward to a decision from the Government on the matter. Shortly after the Government’s decision had been announced by the Minister of Finance yesterday afternoon, the adjournment of the debate was moved and agreed to, and there is very little or no chance of the question coming up again. I feel that an injustice has been done to the farming population, and I therefore consider that it is an injustice to take away eight private members’ days. By doing that the House will be deprived of the opportunity of further discussing this important motion. I want to point to another important motion which also affects the farming population, and that is the motion of the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) on the subject of farm labour. If there is one matter which is urgent to-day so far as the farming population is concerned, it is the question of obtaining farm labour.

That remains, and it will come up for discussion.

Only adjourned debates are affected.

Under this motion of the Prime Minister’s, private members will be deprived of the right of properly discussing matters. There is another question which has been raised here from time to time. I do not know whether a proper discussion has so far taken place on it, but it is a subject with which several Governments have had to deal from time to time, and that is the position of the “Oud Stryders.”

That also applies to that motion.

The day for new motions remains in existence.

It is only adjourned debates which will drop, or rather which will not come up again for discussion. New motions can be discussed on Fridays.

We therefore get the peculiar position that fresh motions which have not yet been before the House can be discussed, but motions which have already been partly disposed of cannot be discussed.

First discussions are moved from Tuesdays to Fridays, but the opportunity is still there for first discussions—that day remains.

Until the 11th March?

No, private members only get Fridays instead of Tuesdays to discuss motions. First discussions can then take place.

But Friday disappears as a private members’ day as from the 14th March.

No, it continues.

Then we have the motion in regard to wheat, which is in the name of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus). That is also important.

That will also come up for discussion; it is not being cut out.

In any case, the important motion which was under discussion yesterday when a statement was made by the Minister of Agriculture will not come up for discussion again.

That question can be discussed on the Estimates.

In any case, I feel there is no cause for curtailing our rights, and I therefore move that more facilities be given to private members.

I second the amendment.

In consequence of what the Minister of Finance said, the position is not yet clear. The fact remains that eight private members’ days are being taken away. There are a large number of motions by private members on the Order Paper, and some of them will necessarily not come up for discussion again.

Not as a result of this motion.

The motions come up for discussion according to the position they occupy on the Order Paper.

May I just explain. It is apparently the intention only to move the business from Tuesdays to Fridays.

It still curtails private members’ days by eight days. Not all the, motions will come up for discussion. I think the Government should clear up the position for the information of the House. I support the amendment of the leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan). I do not think there is any reason for curtailing the rights of private members. At the beginning of the session I believe we willingly consented to private members’ days being taken away. Why should the rights of private members now again be interfered with? Why does not the Prime Minister carry out the promise he made, that when the session was continued in January the rights of private members would be properly observed. Let him stand by the promise which he made at the beginning of the session, in August last year. Why all this hurry? If there is a reason for it the Prime Minister should take the House into his confidence and tell us why the session should conclude so quickly.

I had a motion before this House yesterday and certain insinuations were made to the effect that I was not in earnest with my motion. The guillotine was thereupon applied and I never had the opportunity of answering those insinuations. I feel that relations in this House would in future be very much better if we were given the opportunity of speaking our minds and finishing what we have to say. My experience in life is this: if you let a man say what he feels and finish what he has to say it is very much better. My objection is that although I brought this motion before the House without any motive of making political capital out of it I am not given the opportunity now of discussing it any further. I can say definitely that I had no ulterior motives whatever. I am honestly convinced that the problem has to be solved. Possibly I put the matter before the House in a very simple manner but I spoke from my heart.

I feel that we would have a happy South Africa if we acted in the way I suggest in my motion. The Minister of Agriculture suggested that I was not in earnest with my motion; in other words that I did not believe what I said.

The hon. member cannot go into that.

I should like to explain that I did not get the opportunity of replying. It has been stated that I did not sufficiently explain my motion. The guillotine of the adjournment of the debate prevented me. If I may be allowed to do so, and with all due deference to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, I should like to advise him to give people an opportunity of ventilating their grievances here. Perhaps they may not be really well-founded grievances, but let them come to this, the highest authority in the country, to ventilate their grievances. Let them have the opportunity of explaining their grievances so long as they remain within the rules of the House. If a motion of this kind is thrown out one is satisfied, one can then say: “I have done my best but the majority was against me and that is why I was defeated,” but so far as yesterday’s motion was concerned I feel in my heart that I did not have the opportunity of replying to insinuations which were made, and that being so I feel it is my duty to protest against the curtailment of the rights of private members. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister knows better than anyone else in this House that if one can come along and say what is in one’s mind, it is best. But to-day I feel grieved. If I had only been given five minutes to reply to the insinuations made against me to the effect that I was not honest and straightforward in my intentions with my motion, I would have been more satisfied. But now we have a motion before the House which means that I have to sit down. The guillotine has been applied and I have been unable to answer. I have been sent here by my constituents to interpret their feelings. Is it not a democratic right that I should be able to say what they feel? Is it democratic to say to me: “Sit down, you are not allowed to talk any more”? I do not often speak in this House, but whenever I speak I say what I mean, and I am honest in what I say, and I interpret the feelings of my constituents here. Where is this democracy which we are fighting for if my voice has to be smothered, and if I am to be told: “Sit down, you must not talk any more.” If we are to have democracy in this country then we must have the right to tell each other what we feel. So far as the war policy is concerned I do not agree with it, but I do not want to stab anyone in the back if the other man feels that he has to go to war.

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion which is now before the House.

Yes, in regard to this motion I feel that I have been elected to represent a section of the people. I know the Minister of Finance; he is an even tempered man who keeps calm. When some time ago he was put out of the Cabinet I went to him the day after and I said: “Mr. Hofmeyr, you are going to come back, an injustice has been done to you.” He sat alone. His friends who are now all around him left him in the lurch. The Minister may laugh now but I told him that he would come back, and I now say to him: “Be fair and give to us that which you could get from the people who are sitting on the other side of the House, viz.: equity, fairness. I respected him for feeling that he could no longer stay in the Cabinet, and I raised my hat to him, but I want to ask him also to raise his hat to me. Give me the right, to which I am entitled to as a democrat. The member for Kimberley City (Mr. Humphreys) moved the adjournment of the debate at half-past five.

The hon. member is now getting entirely outside the scope of the motion before the House.

Am I not allowed to say that the hon. member for Kimberley City yesterday moved the adjournment of the debate?

It has nothing to do with the motion before the House.

But this motion interferes with people and stops them from speaking. I say that a member must be given the opportunity to speak, even if he does talk nonsense. He has been sent here to speak on behalf of his people and to promote the interests of his constituents. Under our system of government I should have the right to speak here. That right is being curtailed. I can no longer say what I want to say. This is the second time that I speak in this session, and when I speak I give expression to what is in my heart. I want to answer the Minister of Agriculture when he said that I am not in earnest.

The hon. member must not refer to what has taken place in a previous debate.

What can I say then? May I say that the time I have is being wasted?

The hon. member has every right to speak as much as he likes, but within the Rules of the House.

What are the rules?

There is a rule that an hon. member must not refer to a previous debate.

What may I refer to then? I want to refer to the fact that we have an urgent motion before this House. I naturally do not want to go against your ruling, Mr. Speaker. If ever there was a Speaker in the Chair who was just it is you. We have the highest respect for you, but I should like to lodge a protest against the discussion on the motion introduced by me having been curtailed.

That is over and done with. The hon. member can protest now against the fact that the motion will not come up again, but he cannot go into what has occurred in a previous debate.

Three Ministers took part in the debate yesterday, and a statement was made which deeply disappointed us. I felt that if I could have five minutes to explain my case I would be satisfied, but I did not get the opportunity. I hope this amendment will be accepted; I may perhaps get five minutes then to reply to the statements which have been made. The Government has declared war, and I do not want to stab them in the back. They are honest in their opinion that they have to fight. I may differ from them, but I am not going to stab them in the back; all I want is an opportunity to defend myself. Am I in Russia now? Am I in Germany now? I hope I am not in Italy because they are running away there, but I must say that I would have been satisfied if I had been given five minutes. Why could they not give me just five minutes.

The hon. member is repeating himself now, he has made his protest.

I do not want to repeat any more, but I ask in all fairness that this House must in future not do what it did yesterday. Let us respect each other’s feelings. I have an opinion and hon. members opposite differ from me. We cannot all think alike, but I only want to say that it would make for better relations in this House if in future we show more respect for each other’s feelings. We shall be able to co-operate more happily then than we have done in the past.

I want to support the hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan). I want to say that no valid reason has been given to us why the Government should depart from the ordinary rules. It is quite clear that everything has to be made subject to the “see the war through” policy, and if that is the reason let them say so honestly. But they do not mention the reason, they do not say anything about it. I do not know really what a private member comes here for. We are continually being further curtailed in our rights. If one does get the opportunity of getting a motion on the Agenda Paper during the early part of the session the Government steps in afterwards and takes away private members’ days, and as a rule part of the motions cannot even be discussed. Where other motions are concerned the adjournment is moved early in the day, as we have had this session, and the motion cannot be properly discussed. Now I want to point out to hon. members that next Tuesday, for instance, two most important motions appear on the Order Paper, motions of the most vital importance to this side of the House, and I feel, to the people as a whole. The first one is the motion of the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) on the subject of “Heroes Day.” What is going to happen now? There is every likelihood that that motion will be talked out again on Tuesday, and then we shall have no opportunity of discussing the matter any further. And that is what will happen in the case of a member who has succeeded in getting his motion on the Order Paper. He gets one short day to discuss it, and that is the end of it. The Government, whether hon. members like it or not, move the adjournment of the debate, and with the majority behind them they succeed in getting the debate adjourned, and then there is no more to be said. The second motion appearing on the Order Paper for Tuesday is the motion in connection with wheat, a most important matter. There are even members in the Cabinet who are interested in this matter and who would like to see it discussed. After Tuesday there will not be much chance of it coming up for discussion again. I know that the wheat farmers are looking forward to a thorough discussion of this matter. Now I want to make an appeal to the Hon. the Minister of the Interior and ask him to help us so that this vitally important motion which has nothing to do with politics can be brought up for discussion and brought to a vote. I have got up to support this protest because the Government’s proposal makes the position of private members impossible. Let the Minister of Finance, or one of the other Ministers, tell us why it is necessary this year to act differently from what we do in ordinary years? Why must the rights of private members be curtailed in this manner?

It is evident that the amendment has been moved under a misapprehension. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan) was under the impression that the motions appearing on the Order Paper for Tuesdays are now to be cut out. All that will happen under my proposal is that the motions appearing on the Paper for Tuesdays will be put down for Fridays. All the important motions, to which the hon. member has referred, will get a chance.

Nevertheless, this motion reduces their chances.

Not at all; there is no reason why they should not get a chance, and I see no reason why they should not be moved from Tuesday to Friday. The hon. member for Aliwal North (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) feels aggrieved because, he says, he did not get an opportunity to reply to certain charges made by this side of the House. So far as the merits of his motion are concerned—I admit that it is an important motion in regard to the position of our farmers—those can be just as well discussed and just as fully discussed during the Budget Debate as anywhere else. It is a matter which is involved in the economic condition of the country, it is a fitting and proper subject for discussion on the Budget Debate, and I have no doubt that if the hon. member were to withdraw his motion the subject could ere long be fully discussed on the Budget Debate. That is the way we can fully discuss the question of the farmers’ position and the interest. In those circumstances I see no reason why the change I am proposing should not be made.

But What is the reason for making it?

We want to save time. This is war time and hon. members should realise that wherever it is possible to save time in these abnormal conditions in which the country finds itself when the Government is running the war from Pretoria while Parliament sits in Cape Town, there is a great deal to be said for our saving as much time as possible and expediting business as much as possible. That is what we want to do and that is the object of this motion.

Question put: That the words, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—59.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowie, J. A.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg. M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van d. Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

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

Noes—45.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

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.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. 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.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Question accordingly affirmed, and the amendments proposed by Dr. Malan dropped.

Original motion put and agreed to.

Easter Adjournment.

I move—

The object of this motion is to decide that at Easter time we shall only have the ordinary week-end over Easter and not the extended customary holiday. We intend adjourning on the Thursday before Good Friday unitl Tuesday, after Easter Monday. This motion gives hon. members the necessary notice.

I second.

I only want to put a few questions to the Prime Minister in connection with this motion. My first question is: As the Prime Minister is apparently in a great hurry, and as the ordinary Easter holidays are being greatly curtailed, can he tell the House if it is contemplated for this session to conclude more or less at a fixed time? I think it is important that hon. members should know in view of all kinds of arrangements they have to make right throughout the country. At the moment there is uncertainty on this point, and if the Prime Minister has a definite date in mind the House would be grateful to know about it. The other question is more particularly to the Minister of Finance. I understand that he intends delivering his Budget speech on the 12th March. No definite statement has been made so that there is still a certain degree of uncertainty. Is he prepared to give us some definite information now?

Yes, it will be on the 12th March.

In reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan) I just want to say that the Government would like our business to finish towards the end of April or beginning of May. That is the date which we have in view and we hope that with the co-operation of both sides of the House we shall be able to dispose of all the business of the House more or less towards the end of April or the beginning of May.

Is there any other important legislation which is to be introduced?

We are going to make our programme as brief as possible. It is difficult to say what will still be introduced but we want to make the programme as brief as possible so that the session will be as short as possible.

Motion put and greeed to.

When the House adjourned the day before yesterday I was dealing with the wool position. Before I revert to it I just want to say that if the farmers of South Africa could have been here to-day and if they could have passed a resolution, that resolution would undoubtedly have been that this House adjourn on a matter of urgent public importance. And that matter is the bitter and intolerable disappointment which the Government has caused to the farmers by the statement which we got yesterday from the Minister of Finance. It was sheer cruelty on his part to hold this delicious apple of a mortgage redemption scheme before the eyes of the farmers and then to come and tell them that they shall not be allowed to taste that apple because it is no longer necessary. It seems to me that the Government is entirely unsympathetic towards this matter, otherwise I am forced to the conclusion that it is totally ignorant of the position in which the farmer finds himself; or I have to come to the conclusion that they have now got so far that their Imperialistic war zeal is greater than their feelings for the welfare of the farmer. There can be no doubt that the Minister of Agriculture knows that portions of the farmers’ products are lying and rotting, and that there are other portions of his products which, although they are not lying there and rotting, have to be sold at prices lower than what the farmer could have got if the Minister had done his duty to those farmers. I am again going to put a question to the Minister which I put to him previously, and I hope I am going to get an answer to it now: Is our wool being sold by England to America at 24d. per lb? The Minister knows that Australia gets an average guaranteed price of 10¾d. which we cannot even get, and I want to bring to his notice the fact that Australia under the Emergency Regulations has gone so far that it has passed the following resolution that the price of wool bought by Australian manufacturers and used for goods which are exported shall under the Emergency Regulations be 25% higher. The price of Australian wool which is used by factories for export purposes has been raised by 25% Why? For the simple reason that they are unable to come out at the average price of 10¾d. It is further stated in regard to that resolution that the Committee which has laid down that increase has taken into account the export price of the United Kingdom for Australian woollen goods. If that is so how can the Minister of Agriculture then say that he has done such a great favour to the farmers of South Africa by giving them this un-guaranteed price of 10¾d? I again want to put a request to him—I did so last night but he was not here then, and that is why I do so again; it is this, that in the circumstances he should abandon this levy of 1/- per bale which has to be paid now. I have pointed out that £8,000 is already in the hands of the brokers in respect of which neither we, nor the Wool Council, are getting any interest. If the wool cannot be exported an amount of from £38,000 to £40,000 will be added to that amount every year in respect of which the brokers will not pay any interest, and in respect of which the wool farmers will therefore lose interest, and for that reason I say that in those circumstances the Minister should consider abandoning the levy of 1/- per bale, and if necessary the Wool Council can also be abolished as it is now practically useless. My time is short, and although I do not want to pose as a prophet I want to say a few things to the Government opposite which to my mind may yet come true, and what I am going to say must serve as a warning. When I sat on the benches opposite, behind the Government, the Nationalist Party said that a bond redemption scheme should be brought into being which would cost between £100,000,000 and £120,000,000. The then Minister of Finance replied that the country’s credit would not be able to bear it. The country’s credit would be completely ruined if that were done. Why and what for? Because that £120,000,000, a small part of which would be non-productive, would make our National debt so large. But what is the Government doing to-day? It takes from £60,000,000 to £70,000,000 per year and it simply fires that money away through its big guns. Our unproductive debt is being increased on a large scale. I may be wrong but this Government is driving the country to financial ruin, and the sooner the Government realises it the better it will be. My second warning is this, if the Government continues to allow the rights of Afrikaners and of the Afrikaner people to be trampled on, as has been done lately, we shall get a second Mexico here. I just want to mention a few points. I am sorry the Minister of Labour is not here, but if we go to the officers of his department we find that the photographs of great men like Gen. Hertzog and Dr. Malan are being defaced. I know that the Government is not aware of it but these are things which we resent. Look at the attitude adopted by the soldiers towards the Ossewa-Brandwag, and the other way round—we find that the one side gets a safety code but the other does not. The one can do as it likes. I do not want to go into all those questions because they have been dealt with repeatedly. I only wish to express the hope that the Government will realise that these are things which should be stopped. Look at this praying which goes on here in Cape Town where coloured men even go so far as to assault Afrikaans ladies. These are things which must be stopped; because if they are not we will get a second Mexico here. The third point I want to touch upon is this— whether the Government realises it or not, it seems to me that it is unavoidable that England and South Africa are going to lose this war. The Prime Minister of Australia said a few days ago that unless the United Kingdom was 100% in the war it was going to lose. South Africa is divided. Look at things in England. They have had strikes there, and according to the papers those strikes have caused more damage than even Germany with its war weapons has caused. It all goes to show that there is dis-union and that there is a section which is opposed to the war, and the Australian Prime Minister has told us that unless we are all 100% in the war we are going to lose. Is that not an indication of the fact that we have to look ahead, and see what may possibly happen? The sooner the Government realises it the better. As my time is up I just want to make an appeal to the Government; my first appeal is to the Minister of Labour, and my request is that he must assure the labourer who has to work hard and who gets a starvation wage of a better existence for the future. That is what we expect of him, and he must not disappoint us. He must give the labourer a higher wage, he must make better provision for the people who suffer great hardships and who earn very little. My second appeal is in regard to the farmers who are suffering under these heavy mortgage bonds, and I want to ask the Government to try and find markets for them, even if the Government itself has to do so in order to prevent their products lying and rotting. And my final appeal is this—we ask the Government to see that the Afrikaner people are treated fairly and justly, because they are the people who have cleaned up this country; they are the Afrikaner people who know no other home; they know only one people, one language and one love, and that is their love of South Africa. I ask the Government not to regard those people as fifth columnists. We know no other country. If England loses the war a great many of her supporters will run away. [Time limit.]

I don’t propose to go into the various points raised by the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen), but I do want to deal with a matter which concerns my constituents very deeply, and that is this question of the wool purchase scheme, whereby we sold our whole clip to Great Britain. That has been discussed in this House and criticised from various points of view on several occasions, and again in this debate by the hon. member for Victoria West. The Minister of Agriculture, who is in possession of all the facts, has already replied in a former debate to most of those criticisms, and his statements are more authoritative than any I could make, but notwithstanding his reply the criticism still continues. I do not want the country to get a wrong impression that all our wool farmers of this country are opposed to the scheme, because that is certainly not the case. In fact, in my part of the country we favour this scheme very strongly, and we are very thankful to the Government for having instituted that scheme. In a matter of business that concerns this country very vitally, we should be particularly careful that we do not drag an agricultural product like wool into the political party arena, because that is the worst disservice we could possibly do the industry, if we do not keep it out of our party politics. I noticed in this morning’s Press a very significant warning, and I am going to read that, because there is a good deal of substance in it. It comes from Port Elizabeth, and is headed: “Warning to wool critics”—

I fully concur that this is purely an economic question, and that it should not be dragged into party politics and exploited for the purpose of making the wool farmers dissatisfied in order to catch votes. Sir, that is a very significant statement, and it is one which our wool farmers should definitely take notice of. My constituency is vitally interested in the production of wool; it is indeed our chief source of income, and any interference with this scheme might have very serious consequences to us. We know what low prices our farmers obtained in the days of the gold standard, many of them indeed are still battling against the terrible losses they sustained on that occasion. According to the 1938 census figures I find that in my constituency— and this is just to show how much we are interested—there were 996 sheep farmers, and between them they owned 1,250,000 sheep, and they produced 9,500,000 lbs. of wool. I may say that they produced what is known as the Kaffrarian type, which is mostly fine wool and some of the best produced in the Union, as I will show presently by some of the prices which we obtained for our wool. We carry in that part of the country fairly heavy mortgages on account of the high price of land, and it is very necessary that whatever happens we have got to try and sustain a fixed price of our wool, so that the farmer may know exactly how he stands from year to year. I have attended quite a number of farmers’ and woolgrowers’ association meetings since the last session, and I can candidly state that not at one single meeting did I meet a single wool farmer who complained about this scheme. We are very satisfied with it, and the farmers extend not only their thanks but their praise to the Government for arranging this scheme. Here I have a letter from Mr. C. J. de Wet of Naudesfontein, Sterkstroom, in which he says:

Here is a farmer who is in a semi-Karroo area, and who got 22d. for his wool. The average price he got right through, locks and pieces, was over 15d. per lb.

You cannot take that, you must take the average price.

Is that this year’s clip?

Yes, this year’s. I have before me the prices which were obtained at East London for the whole of that area. I do not want to quote the whole list but I have just selected a few from different parts of the Eastern Province and the southern parts of the Free State. That will give some indication of the prices which the farmers receive for their wool in that area. Let me take the following cases:

A. P. Marshall, Dohne: AF. 17d.

Mrs. S. Pretorius, Bethulie: Fleeces 15d.

E. R. F. Schuman, Cathcart: AM. 17½d.

E. R. Maclachlan and Son, Dohne: AF. 19¼d.

J. A. Batteson, Birds River: AM. 17½d.

P. H. McDonald, Bethulie: AF. 17d.

P. Lombard, Waverley: AM. 16½d.

W. J. Smit, Burghersdorp: AF. 16½d.

P. J. Schoeman, Sterkstroom: AF. 15½d.

J. H. Goosen, Sterkstroom: AM. 16d.

C. F. and L. F. Pieterse, Alice: AM. 17d., BM. 14½d., CB. 10¼d.

Mrs. M. E. D. Pelser, Burghersdorp: AM. 15¾d., BM. 13¼d., H. 12¼d., CBP. 10d., BP. 8⅜d., Lox 4¾d.

A. D. v. d. Heever, Trompsburg: AM. 16¼d., BM. 14¾d., AS. 16¼d., BM. 14½d., CBP. 11d., Lox 5⅝d.

P. J. Kotze, Aliwal North: BM. 14¾d.

W. J. van Heerden, Sterkstroom: AM. 17½d., AS. 16¾d., BM. 16¾d., Rug 12½d., CBP. 11d., Lox 5¼d.

J. N. Strauss, Wepener: AS. 14¼d., AF. 13¾d., BM. 12¼d., CBP. 9½d., BP. 8⅝d., Lox 5¾d.

J. A. Grobbelaar, Bethulie: 33 AM. 16¾d., 3 AS. 15¾d., 5 AM. 16d., CBP. 11½d., Lox 5⅛d.

I. J. de Wet, Sterkstroom: AF. 21d., AF. 20¼d., AF. 19¾d. CBP. 14½d.

P. J. v. Staden, Dewetsodrp: AM 16d., BKS 12½d., CBP 10¼d.

J. M. Richter, Bloemfontein: AM. 14¾d., BM. 12¾d., H. 12½d., Lox 5¾d.

C. S. Hugo, Reddersburg: AM. 15d., BM. 14d., CM. 13½d.

S. van der Merwe, Trompsburg: BM. 12¼ d., CM. 10½d.

B. J. Visser, Jagersfontein: AF. 15¼d., AM. 15d., BM. 14d.

C. H. Olivier, Jamestown: BM 13½d.

W. P. Strauss, Trompsburg: CM. 11¾d.

A. E. Nash, Komgha: AF. 17d., BF. 16½d.

W. N. Nel, Smithfield: CM. 11¾d.

And so I can go all through the list. I have quoted from different districts of the Eastern Province, as well as the Southern Free State.

What was it last year, that is the point?

I notice from a cutting in the Press that as far as Beaufort West is concerned, H. S. Jackson, of Nelspoort says: “Mine is only an average clip, and it has been sold at the highest price for 15 years, the average being 14d. excluding locks.”

He must have put a red cross on.

The hon. member has a red cross on the brain. The reason why we are interested in the stability of these prices is this—it has meant that we have kept the price of land stable and we have kept the price of sheep stable. What happened in the last war when wool was sold in my part of the country from 4s. to 7s. 2d. —that was a record? Ground jumped from £4 to £12 per morgen, and sheep jumped to 50s. and 60s. So the farmers, as a result of these inflated prices, immediately got a land hunger. They bought whatever land they could lay their hands on at very high prices, they mortgaged the land on which they had been farming, and when the slump came, they not only lost their original farm, but also the farm they had purchased. So it is in the interest of the wool farmer that he should rather aim at obtaining a stable price for his wool, because that will also stabilise the price of his land, and he will avoid inflation.

How long can you guarantee these prices?

We have been guaranteed those prices during the war and one season after. Much of the over-capitalisation of our land is still due to the very high price which was paid for farming and grazing land during the last great war. We do not want that experience again to-day. We have paid very dearly for those inflated prices in the past. At the present prices which we are getting for our wool, it is definitely paying the producers in our part of the country to produce wool in spite of the high prices of ground which were paid there. It is only a natural thing that farmers want to get as high a price as possible for their product, but we are satisfied that the Government did their very best for the sheep farmer, especially after Australia had sold their whole clip at an average price of 10.75d. to the British Government. That is one reason why we are thankful for the Government having obtained stable prices for our wool. And I want to put a pertinent question to hon. members opposite: Are they willing or anxious that the Government should scrap this scheme?

We want an open market like we had last year.

The hon. member says he wants an open market. He wants an open market whereby Japan and America can come and pick out our best wool, can pick the eyes out of our wool, and leave the rest to be bought by Great Britain at a guaranteed price.

The secret is out now. You want the best for England.

That is the hon. member’s idea of a wool scheme—that we should have an open market where America and Japan can buy the best, can buy what suits them, and the rest is to be left for England at a fixed price.

You want the best prices for Great Britain.

No.

Well, why cannot she come and buy the best wool then?

With me there is no sentiment in connection with this matter. It is a business matter, pure and simple, and I can understand that as business people the buyers from Great Britain have said: “We are going to buy the lot or leave it.” They said: “We do not need your wool, we have sufficient, we can buy from Australia; and if you want to come into this scheme, good and well, and if not—if you do not want to put in the lot, leave it alone.” I shall deal with that presently. We have heard so much about politics being introduced into this scheme—we are told that the Government is handing over our wool to Great Britain to enable her to make sufficient profit to win the war. That argument may go down with the platteland, but let me point out that the whole of our wool clip will not cover the cost of the war to Great Britain for one day. Their war expenditure is £12,000,000 per day, so what is the use of ridiculous arguments like that? I now want to quote from the last report of the Secretary for Agriculture for the year ending 31st August, 1940, where he deals with this question of an open market. He says here—

Now that is not a party statement.

Give them a chance, anyway.

This is the official report of the Secretary for Agriculture.

That does not dispose of the point.

And then he goes on—

They could have bought the best wool on the open market.

He goes on to say—

The Secretary for Agriculture goes on to say—

As I said, in our parts of the country where we are producing some of the best wools grown in this country, we are 100 per cent. satisfied with the scheme, and we thank the Government for having started it. I therefore fail to understand all this criticism, especially when we remember that before concluding the scheme the Minister of Agriculture submitted it to the Conference of the Wool Council, the National Wool Growers’ Association, and the South African Agricultural Union, and they by an overwhelming majority approved of the scheme. What more could the Minister have done? They are the most authoritative body to speak on behalf of the wool growers in the country, and I prefer to take their opinion of what is best for our sheep farmers than that of party politicians who are trying to create dissatisfaction and then exploit their grievances merely to catch a few votes.

The tempo at which the Government is busy spending money, attention, labour and energy on the war has increased so much and to such an extent that South Africa is at this stage feeling very uneasy about it. The extent has become almost unmeasurable. The Government rushes ahead in the direction in has chosen with a determination and a speed which has become alarming. The one section wishes it to go still faster, and the other section shudders and is scared on account of the economic reaction which the course followed by the Government must eventually have on the welfare of South Africa. The economic reaction will come as surely as the sun shines, and when it comes it will particularly hit one section of the population, and that is the farming community. If one listens to the Ministers and to hon. members on the Government side they lightly pass over the lament of and the anxiety felt by members of the Opposition in regard to the position which is going to arise. One finds that only yesterday afternoon Ministers got up in this House and delivered a few platitudes in reply to the charges made by the Opposition and the anxiety and care expressed by them are quickly set aside. The Minister of Agriculture was an instance of this and the Minister of Lands similarly adopted that attitude, and unfortunately I must say the Minister of Finance also sinned in that respect. The Minister of Finance for instance last year, with a great display and amid applause, held out the prospect to the farming community that a thorough investigation would be made as to possible concessions concerning the interest burden and the oppressive mortgage bond burden. That promise exploded in his speech yesterday afternoon— it burst like a soap bubble in the air. I feel that an injustice has unquestionably been done to the farming community owing to expectations having been aroused by a promise which is now being waved aside with a vague gesture. One asks oneself whether a second explosion is going to follow. I hope not. The sorrow with which every thinking individual to-day beholds what is taking place is not imaginary. No, one realises that the agricultural industry is still the most important industry in the country. 35% of the population make their living out of it, not to talk of the thousands of non-Europeans who have to make a living out of the agricultural industry. The Union numbers about 2,000,000 white inhabitants to-day and of that number there are about 700,000 on the platteland. Those 700,000 hold about 100,000,000 morgen of land. If one puts the value of the land at £3 per morgen one gets the colossal amount of £300,000,000. The value of the cattle, of sheep, stock, horses, etc., may easily be valued at £137,000,000 and if one puts the other movable assets at £20,000,000 one finds that the agricultural industry represents the colossal amount of £457,000,000. The agricultural industry is the key industry. The agricultural production, if one takes the years from 1933-1934 to 1936-1937, has on an average amounted to a sum of £56,000,000 including the products consumed on the farms. These figures are further clear evidence of the important place which the agricultural industry is still occupying in South Africa, but the agricultural industry does not merely provide a living to 35% of the white population. No, it also represents the largest number of producers in one single industry. But I go further. It not only represents the largest number of producers, but it is also the industry, the occupation, which provides most work, most employment, and it also represents a larger number of consumers than any other occupation. The farming industry is the key industry; it provides the staple food and the raw materials for the manufacturing industries. Can the Minister blame us if in the midst of this war madness in which the country finds itself, we say that there is great anxiety and care in regard to the future of this industry. I say great anxiety and care because so many of the other secondary industries are also dependent for their existence on the farming industry, because the agriculturists are also the big buyers of all kinds of requirements for the farming industry and for their own needs. Farmers buy their agricultural implements, they buy means of transport, fertilisers, groceries, and a to deal with the factors which are to-day hundred and one other commodities, and the amounts run into millions. I understand that an organisation is already being formed by the Department of Defence which will be able to act when the army returns one of these days and is demobilised. I should like to know from the Minister of Agriculture whether his Department is also ready with demobilisation machinery which will be able responsible for a temporary state of prosperity in the country. These are matters which this side of the House feels very much concerned about, and we should very much like to have a definite declaration of policy from the Government as to what kind of organisation the Government intends creating to cope with the evil day when the reaction sets in. What steps does the Government intend taking to assure this 25% of the population of its existence when the reaction sets in? That is the section of the population which will constitute the sufferers under conditions for which the Government has assumed the responsibility. Why is every old farming service being curtailed and retrenched in days like the present? We had a discussion in this House yesterday in regard to farming interests and we heard of the curtailments of drilling machines. If we realise that the agricultural industry provides a livelihood to more than 700,000 of the 2,000,000 whites in the country then I say it is an unforgivable sin to curtail and retrench on drilling activities, which are a vital factor on which the industry depends.

I think this is a good opportunity of informing hon. members that with a view to the fact that the subject matter of a motion by the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) on the farming industry which was before the House yesterday is not likely to be reached again. I am prepared, under Standing Order No. 74, to allow discussion on the subject and not to apply the rule of anticipation when the matter is relevantly discussed on any other question. I also wish to draw attention to references which have been made to speeches in the debate which have taken place yesterday on the farming industry. As the question of hon. members referring to previous debates has arisen several times this session, it is perhaps advisable that, for the guidance of the House, I should state generally my interpretation of that part of Standing Order No. 74 which reads as follows:

The rule is obviously intended to prevent multiplicity of debates on the same subject and the continuance of a debate on a matter that has already been disposed of. It would moreover be unfair to hon. members if statements made by them on a question decided by the House were to be open to controversy in a subsequent debate; but I do not think that reference to a previous debate, especially where discussions on financial matters are concerned, should necessarily be debarred if it is relevant to the question before the House and does not tend to revive discussion on a matter that was definitely in issue in the previous debate. If hon. members will bear this in mind and avoid continuing a previous debate, I feel sure that sufficient latitude may be given without infringing the rule.

I was asking the Minister why at a time like the present farming services are being curtailed, in view of the fact, as I have already shown, that farming constitutes an important industry. I further want to ask why the Government, while we are going through abnormal times, does not make better provision for the securing and supplying of farming requisites.

Why does not the Government do what it does in regard to war requirements, and make better provision in that respect. It has been stated that we are manufacturing war materials in this country on a large scale, armoured vehicles, bombs, ammunition, rifles and even guns. I think the Government should also give its attention to the manufacture of farming requisites, to the manufacture of what I would call “farming guns” such as ploughs, harrows, agricultural implements of all kinds, and the indispensible artificial fertiliser which we so badly need in this country. The Government looks to the farmer of this country to produce. If the agricultural indsutry comes to a standstill, the Government will not be able to carry on the war. But very, very little is being done to provide for the needs of the farming population. The farmers’ market has shrunk. Holland is closed to South Africa, France is closed to South Africa, Belgium is closed to South Africa and Italy is closed to South Africa. What is the Government doing to find a subsitute for those markets which have now been closed to us? What is the Government doing to find something that will in some way or another take the place of those markets and to find markets for our products in other parts of the world? We should like to have further information as to what the Government is doing and as to what is taking place. South Africa produces more than it requires. Take the mealie industry. The mealie industry is seriously menaced by the fact that shipping is being threatened in a most disquieting fashion day by day, and is being curtailed? We have a mealie crop ahead of us and it is the Government’s duty to re-assure the mealie farmers on this point and to tell them what it intends doing to come to the aid of that great industry, and to dispose of the coming crop. This is not a small matter, because there are hundreds and thousands of people dependent on that industry, and those people are to-day filled with anxiety and care and are looking to the Government, the Government which is mainly responsible for the creation of those conditions. While I am discussing this matter I just want to say that there is still a surplus of mealies in the country. Part of that surplus is in the hands of the co-operative societies. An effort has definitely been started in the Press to put a stop in anticipation to the small increase on the market which is noticeable by appealing to the Government to throw those 400,000 bags on the market in order to bring down the price. I sincerely hope that the Government will bear in mind the fact that the mealie farmer is already finding it very difficult to make a living; he already has to pay almost double for his agricultural implements and fertilisers, and if this small increase is to be killed in that way it will be an injustice and something that will never be forgotten by the mealie industry. I have mentioned these few points because I felt it is essential that the Government should give its serious attention to this important industry in South Africa, and even at this stage should create machinery and prepare for the day when the economic reaction will set in, so that the farmers will be protected against economic conditions for which it, the Government itself, is responsible.

With regard to the reference to soldiers made in this debate by the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) I wish to make one protest, and then further, a plea. He made use of the word “boewe” when speaking of soldiers generally.

Speaking generally?

Yes, speaking far too generally he used the word “boewe.” The meaning of the word “boef” is rogue, or scamp or knave.

You don’t understand Afrikaans.

The gentleman on my right can understand it very well. In this instance I listened with his ears, and am speaking with his tongue. I take definite exception to that expression for this reason, that the soldiers in our army are drawn fairly and squarely from all sections of the community, and from all types of homes. Our soldiers are not ruffians from some far-off outlandish place. They come from all kinds and conditions of families in this Union. No doubt there are in the army a certain percentage (it is a small one, this being South Africa) of knaves or rascals, but the percentage in our army is definitely no higher than it is in any other profession.

That is exactly what the hon. member said.

I said more than 90% are good; you should read my speech.

The statement I object to was made in the earlier portion of the speech, and then there was an admission later that this must not be taken as a general reflection, because possibly 90% were quite decent men. Well, I submit to this House that vastly more than 90% of our soldiers are decent, and I strongly object to soldiers in general being characterised in this way. I object to any sort of general accusation being made against them. It is very easy to make, and very safe to make, these accusations, or use terms of that kind, but I doubt very much whether hon. members would actually make these accusations or use terms of that description in the presence of one of them, never mind more. Fair play is bonny play, Mr. Speaker, and I put in a plea on behalf of the whole army that that should be given to them by this Parliament. While I am on this subject I would like to ask for a little more, indeed a great deal more, consideration for these soldiers as a whole. There is roughly 10% of our manhood in our army at this time. That means, of course, that 90% are not in the army. They are doing very useful work elsewhere, and I have no opprobrious terms to apply to them at all; the work that is being done at the bench and the lathe, and in every form of civil employment to-day, is part of the war effort, and is honoured by soldiers as such. Soldiers do not use contemptuous and objectionable expressions about civilians, and blame them for the work they are doing or the character they bear. I admit that the work which is being done by civilians is equally important with that of the soldiers, but this is my point—the non-soldiers are being very much better rewarded for the services they perform. The principle which I lay before this House is just this, that everyone should be treated, as far as possible, on the basis of equality. I go so far as to say that the average soldier is handicapped a great deal too much by taking up arms in the common cause. Many a man who got £40 or more a month is now reduced to £15, whereas a man possibly who worked in the same job with him until the war started has now gone up from £35 or £40 to £50 or more. I don’t object to that man getting more, but I do definitely object to the fact that a soldier leaving his safe peace-time occupation and taking up the very unsafe profession of arms, shall be mulcted in a loss, a financial loss, by so doing. I maintain that the average rate of pay of the soldier can be very greatly raised, and should be so raised at whatever cost to the country, and once again I suggest it should be not less than £1 per day, whether the soldier be gunner or sapper, cavalryman or infantryman. There is another most curious point which seems to have been overlooked. Obviously one of the most dangerous jobs in active warfare is fixing a bayonet to your rifle and charging with the cold steel. Those who undertake this get the lowest wages of all. The payment received by the infantryman in our army is 3/6 per day, whereas the pay given to the motor transport man who conveys the soldier to the battle front is 6/6, and that of the sapper is 10/-. That is a very definite injustice, which I submit should be rectified. The infantryman of our army should receive as much pay as the other branches. That is a point which is widely discussed by the soldiers affected. But the troops as a whole deserve much better recompense than they receive, and I plead for better pay for the army at large, without further delay. There is an even more important plea than that, and this is in regard to the time when the war shall be ended. I submit that not only this time, but practically every time, we have not prepared during peace time for the war that is to come, and now that we are in a state of war it may perhaps seem unreasonable to ask the country to be preparing for peace, and yet that is the most reasonable thing in the world. The war will be over, we hope, before a tremendously long period has passed. The men will come back, 100,000 of them, and there will be considerable difficulty in re-absorbing them in their ordinary peace time occupation. We put forward from these benches a plea that now, and not at some later time, but now at once, this matter shall be really tackled, and machinery set up for the purpose of re-absorbing soldiers into peace time employment. I do not mean merely those who have been rejected as partially or wholly unfit for military service at the present time, but the re-absorption of all of them when the war shall be ended. We have learnt a lesson, a hard one, from the last war. Nothing can be left to chance after this. Now I wish to say a word, under your permission, sir, with regard to the plea for farmers which was advanced yesterday. I should have been greatly reassured by the very long extracts read by the hon. Minister of Finance from the report of those who were appointed to consider assistance to farmers. I might have been completely reassured by their statement that no assistance was at the moment necessary or advisable, but for three things which are very obvious to me. It is a most strange thing that farmingdoes not pay anywhere in the world. It does not matter whether it is in South Africa, Australia, or a favoured country like England, with rich soil and huge near-by markets waiting for the produce, the farmer is beset with trouble. I say, with all deference to the report, that wherever you farm you find it difficult to carrty on. Yet these farmers are producing the stuff that everybody wants, the food which everyone must have, if bare existence is to be maintained. There can be no arguing about there being a market if the thing is on the level. But it is a fact that nowhere does farming appear to pay, and that forces us to question whether the industry gets fair play, or whether some power or group of powers is not marshalled against it. It is such an extraordinary thing that under our present financial arrangements farming does not pay, either here or anywhere else, that serious doubt of the wisdom of these arrangements arises in my mind. Then it was suggested in that report that the trouble largely arose from the last war. Well, most probably it did. I fear that similar difficulties may also arise and further complications result from this one. Why I cannot agree to any evasion or delay on the question of rehabilitation of the farmers and a setting up of the industry on a firm foundation is this, that it has to do with the food of the people, and we are in a state of war. We may find it much more difficult than we do at present to feed the people before the war is ended. For this reason I feel bound to support an effort to place the farming industry in this country on a better basis.

Why did not you vote for us yesterday?

I did not vote against you. I feel that it is desirable that there shall be a fuller understanding between the towns and the countryside in South Africa. The biggest part of our population, after all, lives in the towns. It is very difficult for the townsman easily to grasp the special problems and difficulties of the farmers. What really is wanted is a sort of bridge-over between these two great groups of people. When the townsman reads in his newspaper about state aid for farmers, relief of distress in rural areas, free mealies for starving stock, and similar items, he is very apt to shrug his shoulders and say that is the way money in this country goes. I do not suggest that that is fair, but is natural and fairly general. On the other hand some of us can see that the farmer is by no means in a happy position. He does not want to be the recipient of charity, and he knows that the grants and assistance he receives are only a prolongation of the struggle, they only prolong the agony a little, and the end of the struggle will be for a considerable number of them, banishment of the whole family, whole groups of families, from the land, and sending them into the great cities where they are ill-equipped to make a livelihood of any kind. It seems to me it is no good quoting reports, and saying that there is nothing in this, because many of us are satisfied that there is a great deal in it. This is a radical and fundamental trouble, not a surface ailment but a deep-seated disease of the body politic. In my view this is not a matter for palliatives or temporary treatment, because the issue is vital, as is shown by my statement that you cannot farm anywhere at a profit. We have to find what the causes are, and to remove those causes, or we will never get out of this particular trouble. I take it that some of the causes are the usual drought, disease, the subdivision of the family land, variable markets, and so on, but I further maintain that a very special feature of these causes is the inflated value of land which did arise out of the last war, and which has resulted in putting crushing burdens of mortgages on the shoulders of the farmers. I know of an instance of a reasonably wealthy man who purchased 800 acres in Natal at £10 an acre. It was quite good soil, but I want to know whether it is possible for 800 acres to pay interest at 6 per cent., an amount of £480 a year. It will be a very hard tussle even in Natal, on good land, with 800 acres to pay interest at the rate of £40 a month, Many of the farmers are in fact bonded above their present value. Mortgages are really in numerous cases more than the actual present value of the farms. How can farmers carry on in those cimcumstances? A friend of mine has a farm mortgaged for £4,000. She has for the past eight or nine years advanced to her husband £5,000 to improve that farm by planting wattles. The wattle bark is now due for sale, and the farm is honestly worth, with its developments, £8,000 to £10,000. But there is no sale at present for wattle bark, and the bondholder is foreclosing on that farm. It is easier for him to do it because the husband has just been killed in battle, and so for his £4,000 he is going to get a farm with £5,000 worth of improvements. That does show to me very plainly indeed that it is not all beer and skittles running a farm, Now may I suggest one or two things, from the point of view of a townsman, which we hope may possibly be done. The House has heard too much probably of five-year plans, but I am going to suggest a five-year plan with regard to the farmers and their mortgages. I suggest that the Land Bank should reduce their capital liability by 10 per cent., I mean the actual debt by 10 per cent. per year for a period of five years, provided the farmer is working constructively on his farm and makes permanent improvements such as the planting of trees, the making of dams, building reservoirs and the like. At the end of the five years of my plan the debt would have been reduced to half and the country would have got some value for its money, because the farms would have been correspondingly improved. As the debt decreased the value of the farm would increase. The improvements would be the result of the man’s own work, the farmer would not be in receipt of any dole. On the contrary, the farmer would be enabled to fight his own way out of this difficulty, while the state would be getting value for its money. The same principle is applied in Western Australia when they put people on to newly surveyed forest lands. The men cut down trees and clear the ground, and the Government buys the timber, giving the settler a fair price. With that money and with other logs that he cuts down, the man builds his house and then the Government pays for that too. They pay him for his own house, which at first sight looks odd. But it is good business for the Government, because after all the farmer is changing a desert into cultivated fields and increasing the real true wealth of the state. It is done there, and I maintain that it could be done here also. In addition to the reduction in the mortgages, which would come about by my plan, the happiness and prosperity of the farmer would be increased and he would be in a better position to work. After all, a man cannot be expected to succeed if he is worried by an overburden of debt. There is a psychological aspect to this matter. How can he make a success when he is beaten before he starts, and often has children growing up around him for whom he can see no prospect of earning a livelihood? There is a second point. Employment needs to be found for the youth of the countryside, not in the great cities always, but in the country towns which are near to the farms. What is required is that industries, it may be small industries which do not attract the great banks, should be established in the smaller country towns. These industries could easily be provided if we were not greedy for profit from them. I am thinking especially of manufactured food products, which would help the farmer still more. There are all sorts of very nice breakfast food products which are sold every day in Durban. Many of them come from America, and they need not come any further than from the Free State. We could make a very much greater use of the fruit grown here in the Cape by making additional supplies of fruit conserves, table jellies, and that sort of thing. Some Cape delicacies are scarcely heard of in Natal, in spite of all the fruit that is grown in the Western Province. With the vegetables on the farms we could produce sauces and things of that kind, and our own children could be occupied working in these little country factories. It would keep the stream of country people out of the towns, those who come there looking for work, though they really are not in any way qualified to perform it. It would certainly also improve the standard of living on the farms if the children were employed in the neighbourhood.

We tried it, and they killed the industry with their freights.

I state what can be done, not what has been done. I am putting before the House what is a possibility, a bridge between the great cities and the farm. That is what is required, and the only bridge is the country town. The country towns cannot carry on and find work for people unless industries are set up there. I venture to suggest industries which could be set up, and I suggest that the standard of living on farms would be improved. There would be greater contentment, and increased virility to the whole nation would result in that way. Moreover, there would be increased spending power, which would in the end benefit the bigger cities themselves. This is my last point. It would be difficult maybe to get the money to start up this kind of secondary industry, humble but very useful industry. No doubt the banking system as we have it to-day is much more interested in shares which will double their value in four or five years. Such industries as I have mentioned would probably never pay more than 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. on the shares, but the value of the shares is not what I hope for; the value of these industries lies in providing suitable occupation in suitable places for people who to-day find it very difficult to get occupation at all. To find that money I fear would be difficult, such is the greed of mankind. A great many of our troubles arise through greed, people are so greedy for dividends that it would be difficult to get from commercial banks the finance which would be necessary to set up these occupational institutions. But a State bank would provide the money. I shall be asked whether interest would have to be paid on it, and I reply that I would rather pay interest to my own people than to financiers in New York or Berlin, or even London. We do not object to paying interest provided that interest is fair and reasonable, which it would be in any State bank. Now where would the money come from? I expect to be hit hard concerning that. Well, I will just ask the House, where did the money come from which England found to finance the last war at the rate of £8,000,000 a day? We are sometimes asked in derision whether we propose to turn a handle and make the money. That is very much like what Governments do at present, and it is precisely what they did in England 25 years ago. You will remember that Norman Angell wrote a book which he called “The Great Illusion,” and he said in it that there could not be a European war because, if there were an invasion, the invading country could not run the conquered territory at a profit. He was himself under a great illusion. He knew so much about banking and finance, that he said no European war could last more than three months, because our present system was so interlocked that it was a financial impossibility for a war to last more than one quarter of a year. Well, it lasted four years and three months, and one very great illusion was the current belief that Mr. Norman Angell knew what he was talking about. A curious thing was that England increased her financial security. Although her man-power was being daily reduced, her properties destroyed, and what are called “real securities” diminished every day, she increased the amount of her paper money by £8,000,000 per day. Yet no disaster supervened. Accepted finance and currency prophets were confounded. People were not worse off, they were better off, and a man with a house which was worth £500 at the beginning of the war actually found it was worth £750 after the war ended. I suggest that when all the froth is blown off the top of the beer that there is a residue beneath. And I am equally confident that the House will find good, solid sense underneath these things that I have said. After all, the real backing for any country’s money is the character of its citizens and the ability of its workmen. We have both these things in abundance, and I submit that we can re-establish our agricultural industry on a self-supporting basis, and I hope we shall have the courage to do it.

I should first of all like to make a few remarks about what the hon. member for Durban, North (the Rev. Miles-Cadman), who has just sat down, said. He alleged, inter alia, that the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) had stated that there were scoundrels in the army. May I be allowed to put the hon. member right, and to tell him what the hon. member for Victoria West did say? He deliberately stated that he assumed that at least 90 per cent. of the army was composed of decent men, but that there was also an element of scoundrels in the army—a fact which nobody can deny. The hon. member for Durban should not give a different interpretation to what is intended to an hon. member’s words. I do not want to make a special attack on members of the army. But let me say this: if a man joins the army he no longer has a name but a number. He is known by his number. That applies particularly to the ordinary men and that gives rise to the fact that a man much more easily begins to lose his character and ignores the things which in the past, when he bore his own name, he set to himself as his standard. That being so, because of the very fact that those men no longer carry their own names but have numbers, it is doubly necessary that the leaders of the army should see to it that proper discipline is maintained, because otherwise it follows naturally that the men who have no very high ethical conception of life may start doing wrong things. We had instances of that in Johannesburg and elsewhere. I do not want to go into those matters, they are well known. One cannot accuse the whole army of insubordination but the fact remains that these things take place on a big scale and that thousands of members of the army and officers too are involved. I do not want to go into that in detail, but I only want to refer to an experience I myself had on the train. One evening I travelled North with two other members of Parliament and when we got into the dining saloon it was chock and block full from the one end to the other with men in uniform. They kicked up such a row and they behaved so objectionably in the dining saloon that I asked the Chief Steward whom I knew whether he could not restore a little order in the outfit. He went and spoke to the men but he had hardly turned his back when it was just as bad as before, if not worse. It is not only we as members of Parliament but it is the public as a whole who see what is going on. It is no use the hon. member for Durban, North, trying to gloss over everything. There are undoubtedly certain objectionable elements in the army. My wife and myself were on a train the other day and there was a terrific noise going on, and there were men who were behaving in an objectionable manner. When the ticket examiner came to us we mentioned it and he said: “Do you know when I recently went South by train I had about sixty soldiers on the train and they were so objectionable and so rude that I made them get off at a certain station (I won’t mention the name of the station). I told them to get off.” A Lieutenant thereupon came along and asked me if I was the man who had made his men get off the train. I said “Yes” and he thereupon said that I had no right to do so, that I could not leave them behind. My reply was that I used to be a soldier myself and I knew that there was such a thing as discipline, and that if he was unable to maintain discipline I was going to make them get off the train, and leave them behind.” Those are the sort of things which are continually happening on the trains. I am not mentioning these things merely for the purpose of making an attack on the men of the South African army, but I want the Right Hon. the Prime Minister who is to-day at the head of our military forces— want him—after all the big and small things which have happened—to see to it that discipline is more strictly exercised. The people who do wrong must be punished. If that is not done, if there is no proper control and discipline, and if the men who do wrong are not punished, we are going to get even worse trouble in South Africa. We hear so little of men who have overstepped the mark in public being properly punished. I hope the Prime Minister who is also Minister of Defence, will see to it that steps are taken so that better discipline is maintained. These things which are happening to-day will then gradually disappear. It is also in the interest of those who are in the army and who behave properly, and whose good name is being spoilt by the attitude of that weaker element. We undoubtedly have men of character in the army, men of just as good character as outside the army. Why should they be tainted as a result of the bad behaviour of the men who overstep the mark? I also want to say a few words about some other matters. Mr. Speaker told us just now that we were at liberty to discuss matters which happened in yesterday’s debate. I should like first of all to say a few words on the subject of the shortage of labour on the platteland. But as there is a motion on the Order Paper on that question I cannot go into details. We may perhaps get the opportunity later on to discuss this question properly, but let me say at this stage that the problem is more serious than we imagine, more serious than members of the Government perhaps realise. I am speaking as a man who had a lot to do with that question in my constituency and I am speaking as a man who does a lot of travelling about. The position has become so critical that a man like the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Genl. Kemp) stated that if the white people can be commandeered to do military service he is in favour of our getting compulsory labour service so far as native labour is concerned, in order to solve this problem which has become extremely critical. Without going into details I want to give the Minsiter of Agriculture the assurance that he and the Government will have to pay attention to this matter. They must not wait until the motion on the Order Paper comes up for discussion, but they should tackle the position at once and face it. There is another aspect of the farming industry which I wish to say a few words about. We are all very grateful for the lovely rains we have had up-country, but as a result of those rains, and as a result of the hot weather following upon those rains, the Blow Fly plague is very serious to-day. I am talking particularly about the Karroo where I often go. The rains came and the veld looks very fine, and after the comparatively hot weather which we have had this year this plague is probably a 100 per cent. or even 200 per cent. worse than it was before. Now what I want to say is this: the Minister of Agriculture who I notice is here will probably have to take drastic steps. If he talks with the farmers about the Blow Fly pest he will come to the conclusion that an effective campaign, a compulsory campaign against Blow Fly, is necessary. This plague is serious and it is more urgent to apply compulsion in regard to this plague so far as combating it is concerned than it is in regard to other plagues, because it is no use fighting the Blow Fly on A’s farm and doing nothing on B’s farm, because these flies fly all over the place and the spread of the disease is much worse than it is with most of the other plagues. It spreads so easily that it is no use cleaning up one’s own farm and destroying bait and putting poison on dead animals which have succumbed to the disease on the veld, if the people round about do not do the same thing. For that reason I say that the Minister should seriously consider the question of compulsion in regard to the combating of this plague, because thousands of pounds worth of damage is done among the stock, especially in the Karroo. Now I want to say a few words on the question of the re-valuation of stock. We know what has already been done in the past and the Minister of Finance yesterday also spoke about what had been done in the past, and of the debts which have been written off as a result of the appointment of local committees. Now we have the position that th e man who has looked after his cattle, who has looked after it as well as possible, is penalised to a certain extent. The man who has lost his cattle, not perhaps through direct negligence, but through his not being as careful as the other man, has had his debt written off. Afterwards the man who had carefully looked after his cattle got into trouble, but not as a result of neglect; in my own constituency there is more than one case of that kind. The cattle belonging to those people have died. One man has had his debt written off but the next one has not had anything written off. I want to urge that this whole question should be very carefully gone into. If a man has been neglectful and has lost his cattle through neglect, well, he will have to pay for it, but if a man has not lost his cattle through neglect then I do think that we should meet such a case. I do not want to go into too many figures but if we have given £1,250,000 for the purchase of cattle under that scheme and if £250,000 had been written off, and £800,000 has already been paid back, then the amount outstanding cannot be very large, say, about £200,000. Most of the people who were assisted under this scheme are poor people. The rich man does not buy his stock under a Government scheme. I therefore hope that the Government, and particularly the Minister of Finance, will give this matter their serious consideration and that something will be done in order to help the people who really require help. Now I want to say a few words on the subject of markets. The Minister of Agriculture—it suits his purpose to say so—told the House that the farmers were flourishing. Of course, he is not going to put up a sombre picture to show what the position is. But it is a fact that quite a number of branches of the agricultural industry of South Africa are far from flourishing. How is it otherwise that the K.W.V. are giving away thousands of tons of grapes? Can it be said under those conditions that the wine farmers and the grape farmers and the fruit farmers, especially those who produce for export, are flourishing? I need not say any more about that because nobody in this House will try to make us believe that the fruit farmers are flourishing. Export is at a standstill, so how can they flourish? I have always said, long before the war started, that I would be sorry for the farmers at De Doorns and in the Hex River Valley if a ‘war should again break out in Europe. Not because they are poor but because they have paid up to £600 for a morgen of land, yes, even up to £1,000 in the Hex River Valley, and I used to say that I would be very sorry for them if a big war were ever to break out again. They paid that price because of what they were able to make out of a morgen of land on export grapes. To-day the market is closed and the local market for export grapes is very weak. We prefer to eat grapes which have a flavour rather than grapes which look very nice. The K.W.V. does not know what to do and has already asked the Government to carry the grapes free of charge over the Railways in order to present them to people who otherwise eat very few grapes. How can those people be flourishing? And what about the citrus farmers, and the mealie farmers? Are they flourishing? Those two types of farmers are found in fairly large numbers in my constituency.

What about the Mohair farmers?

Yes, I don’t want to talk about them. Graaff Reinet and Willowmore and those parts have two good representatives in this House and they will no doubt have something to say about these matters at some time or another. But what about the mealie farmers? They have been getting an average of 7/- per bag, and if the production costs alone are about 6/- per bag, how can they be flourishing? In that connection we must also take our local conditions into account. I have been in Kenya and I have seen with my own eyes what mealie farming is like there. If one rides through the mealies on horseback and if one puts up one’s hands one cannot reach the top of the mealies. It is nothing out of the ordinary for a man to plant one bag of mealies and get a crop of 600 bags. And in addition to that the expenses which these people have in planting their mealies are very much lower than ours. Their labour is cheaper and they do not know such a thing as artificial fertiliser, and what do we get? We may perhaps get 30 or 40 bags from one bag we sow while they get 600 from one bag. Even if they have to sell their mealies for 3/4 per bag they can still do very well, but can we do so in South Africa? At that price nobody in South Africa can make things pay.

Have we to stop planting mealies or what?

The hon. member will naturally know best, and the Government will know best what advice to give; I have just referred to the position as it exists to-day. The Minister with his knowledge of affairs must not come and tell us that the mealie farmers are flourishing. We have not yet exported the previous crop and a new crop is almost on top of us, and it seems as if it is going to be a fairly good crop. Unfortunately it is not a fact that the farmers in South Africa are flourishing. Not that I rejoice at that fact. Far from it. I deplore it. But what are you going to do? It is no use complaining about it and putting up doleful laments. That is not going to improve the position. The first thing we want to solve is to get markets for our products. Apart from the fact that all these things are linked up together I want to make a particular suggestion, but before doing so I want to say that the consumer in South Africa is not in a position to buy sufficient because there is no proper purchasing power. If we were to pay better wages in South Africa, if the wage level of the consumer were raised, there would be no over-production. I have always contended that there is no over-production in this country, but that there is underconsumption. I do not want to go into that at great length, but let me say that we should get an entirely new system of salaries in South Africa. It is wrong that the women, the mothers of this country in the towns, often have to go out to work in some factory or other to supplement the wages of the man who works elsewhere. It is wrong that both parents should have to go out to work, because it leads, for one thing, to the undermining of the authority of the parents in the home. I have had experience as a parson in one of our towns. One finds that the father cannot get work. He is not properly skilled. The family has come from the platteland in order to make a living in town. Some of the bigger children work—the girls and the boys of 16, 18 and 20 years work. What is the result? That the father no longer has the right and no longer is able to discipline or to take his children to task, because the children are breadwinners in the home. These things occur in our towns on a large scale, and the only solution is that the father should get so much pay that we should have such a salary scale, especially for the unskilled labourer, as to make it possible for the family to live properly and decently. There must be a salary system which should include the work of the woman, the work of the woman in the home, and the mother of the home should not be forced to go and work in a factory for a few shillings per day, which, of course, results in the children and the home being neglected. What the mother does in the home should be counted in and the father of the home should be paid on such a scale as compared with the unmarried man that the family can lead a decent life. If these things are regulated we shall have no surplus of mealies and other things. But I said that I also wanted to make a practical suggestion, and reverting to mealies I want to say that to my mind, the Government with all the money it has to spend should take the initiative in the establishment of factories for the manufacture of by-products in South Africa. America, I believe, has forty or fifty by-products of mealies—byproducts made from mealies. In the mornings at breakfast we eat post toasties. I mention this as an instance, not to advertise it. But what are post toasties but mealies which have been made into something else? We send our mealies to other countries at a ridiculously low price, even to Canada. And then we buy them back in manufactured form at an exorbitant price, in order to have it on our breakfast table. We want more initiative also so far as the Government is concerned so that we shall not simply have a few factories in the large towns, but we also want factories on the platteland where those products are grown, so that those products may be manufactured there and turned over into other articles. Our people will then be able to get work, they will be able to make a living and there will be no need to send large amounts of money out of the country to import by-products which are manufactured from our own products. Now I want to come to another matter, a matter on which I have no expert knowledge but because of what I know about it, and what I have read about it. I feel we can do more for the production of alcohol which can be mixed with petrol to be used as fuel. I feel that we can do a great deal more to promote the distillation of alcohol from mealies for purposes of mixing it. I am afraid that there are certain other interests in South Africa which oppose the distillation of alcohol from mealies for petrol purposes, but have we not got a fuel research institute? And is that institute not entirely independent of commercial interests? Why cannot they supply us with proper reports which can be acted upon in connection with this matter? If we deplore the fact that the conditions in this country are not what they should be, we have to look for a way out of our difficulties, and we must not content ourselves with complaining about them—if we do so, if we look for a way out by turning more of our agricultural products into secondary products, we shall be taking a step forward. I could mention the case of farmers who have always bought wheat but who to-day sow wheat, produce it and export it in the form of another product—in the form of meat or dairy produce, because they have found that it pays them better to do so. Why cannot we do more on a wide scale in our national life in order to turn our primary products into secondary products? That applies not only to mealies but also to citrus fruit, for instance. Why cannot we strengthen our local market in that respect? Why cannot we use our citrus fruit in factories which could be established near the citrus plantations? Why could we not turn our citrus fruit into canned fruit? In other parts of the world the citrus peel and even the pips are turned into other commodities. What is the Government doing? It is no use the Minister of Agriculture telling us that the farmers are flourishing. He should tell us what is being done in regard to this cardinal point. He should tell us what they have done and what they are still doing to help the farmers flourish. There are many people who cannot make a living except by farming. And now I want to put the question: How can a man farm without stock or cattle? We have always had a certain section of the population which has had to be helped in order to get cattle. I ask the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture to be good enough to tell me what schemes there are to assist a poor farmer to-day to buy stock? Let the Minister answer me. I am not putting this question merely for the purpose of talking. The country and this House want an answer. So far as I know there is not a single scheme at the moment under which a farmer can be assisted to buy cattle.

He must join up.

I do not want to raise that aspect of the question. I do not want to be unnecessarily venomous and offensive. If I want to attack the Government’s war policy I want to do so outright, but I want to say this, that this war policy has killed off every possible scheme to help the farmer to get cattle. Let the Minister get up and say that I am wrong.

And dams are no longer being constructed either.

Yes, but I do not want to go into all those matters now; I am only asking how a cattle farmer can farm without cattle, and how a poor farmer will get an opportunity of obtaining cattle or stock with the aid of the Government?

I suppose he will have to smuggle his cattle into the country.

Possibly, because I want to say in passing that the special police have been removed from the borders. Surely we do not want those poor people to be forced to obtain cattle by smuggling it in from Bechuanaland; it would be a scandal if we had to tell the poor people: “We are at war, we have no money to help you, but if you have to farm in order to keep alive the best thing you can do is to smuggle cattle into the country from Bechuanaland.” That we must not do. I hope the Minister will answer my questions. The Minister of Agriculture said that South Africa was in a flourishing condition. How can a farmer be assisted to-day to get cattle if he has not the means to buy those cattle himself? I leave it at that. We see very little of the flourishing condition of the farmers. Let hon. members look at the number of bankruptcies among the farmers. Let them look and see how many farmers there are who are struggling very hard to make ends meet. If they do so they will not tell us any longer that farming in South Africa is in a flourishing condition. The farmers are suffering very great hardships.

When I listened earlier in this debate to the argument of the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) and other hon. members as well in connection with the wool farmers, the idea arose in my mind that if you go on telling an untruth long enough, then you will subsequently believe it yourself. That is the position which we have reached in connection with the wool scheme. The story in connection with the wool scheme has been told. It is maintained, and is even still being told to-day, and you find that hon. members opposite are really beginning to believe it, although the wool farmers themselves do not believe it. The hon. members of this House who are condemning the wool scheme of the Government are to-day practically the only people left who believe that the scheme was not in the best interests of the wool farmers. You can preach that kind of doctrine, but you cannot take any steps against hard facts. Inasmuch as the facts prove just the opposite, it is hopeless to try and persuade people any longer that the wool scheme was not meant in the best interests of the wool farmers, and that as a matter of fact it did not work out in their interests either. You cannot get past the cheques which come in, and which have doubled in comparison with what the people got for the same clip before the war.

You are talking nonsense.

I am just as much a wool farmer as the hon. member over there, and I know what I am talking about. I have just as much interest in the matter as hon. members on the other side. The hon. member for Victoria West made the statement that our wool was being sold in America for 24d. I would like to know from the hon. member where he gets the information from that our wool has fetched 24d. on the American market. I am anxious to know, because, just like other wool farmers, I am tremendously interested in the subject. If it is a fact that our wool is fetching 24d. on the foreign market, then it is of great interest to me. For this reason, that we must get back in South Africa half of the profit under that scheme whereby we get more for our wool on the foreign market. I say again that I would very much like to have a reply, because the hon. member is trying to make out that our wool is to-day getting 24d. per lb. on the American market.

He put the question to the Minister.

He made the statement here.

No, he asked the Minister if it was so.

Then I take it that he himself was not certain, and made a wild statement here. I wish that it were not a wild statement, because if that statement can be supported then we shall get a very large profit out of it if our wool went to that figure in America. Our wool farmers were in a parlous position before the war started. We know that every agricultural country, and even non-agricultural countries, have tried to make themselves independent in economic affairs. They tried in artificial ways, by manufacturing artificial fibres to get artificial fibres to take the place of wool. That was done to such an extent that our wool farmers were really in a terrible position. An anxious state of affairs arose in the whole country in regard to the wool industry before the war broke out. The position is to-day altered to such an extent under this scheme that I need only quote an extract from a letter which I have received which will prove what the position of the wool farmer is to-day in comparison with what it was before the war. The letter reads—

That is in the Free State.

What were they last year?

Those were last year’s prices.

What were they the year before?

What he then received may possibly be in point here, but it may also not apply, because conditions altered tremendously in the twelve months of that transition period.

If there had been an open market he would have got more; we had an open market the year before.

My hon. friend says that we had an open market the year before. What countries are there to-day who could buy our wool on the open market?

There are America and Japan.

Last year it was Italy; now suddenly it is said to be America and Japan, and shortly they may possibly no longer be able to buy on the open market. It is easy for hon. members opposite to propose things, but we who are acquainted with the facts know that it is different. Our wool farmers with the prices that they are getting under this scheme, in comparison with the prices that they got before the war, are in clover to-day. I do not in the least grudge them better prices. If they can get better prices, then I shall be the first to try to get them paid for our wool. I will contribute my share to bring that about. But in the circumstances which we are in to-day, I say that our wool farmers are—I say it emphatically—in comparison with the prices before the war, in clover.

You said a moment ago that they are getting twice as much, and I said that I would make a bet with you about it.

We on this side are also wool farmers, like some of my friends on the opposite side. We represent just as good wool farmers as many of my friends on the opposite side who represent woolproducing constituencies, and I say emphatically to-day that the wool farmers I represent are thankful, and very thankful, for this Government scheme. And I go still further, and I say this, that the constituents of my hon. friends opposite with whom I have spoken have also told me that they are satisfied and grateful, and when I said to them: “But what do your representatives in Parliament say?” they replied to me: “Those people are mad, and do not know what they are talking about.” I can even give the names of people who say it.

Give us the names.

I can mention some names if it is necessary. When you have to deal with the interests of the farmers, then you find that people get up here who know just as little about farming concerns as they do about the man in the moon, and they try to exploit those interests, which is extremely reprehensible when a man’s livelihood depends on it, and he finds that his interests are being exploited for party political purposes, as hon. members opposite are engaged in doing. I now want to go on to another matter, and I want to quote a little report to this House which refers to quite a different matter than the one with which I have been dealing up to the present. The report reads as follows—

Hear, hear.

Do my hon. friends opposite approve of it?

Of course.

Then I accept it. But then I ask them at the same time if that is not indirect intimidation, then what is it?

Is it indirect intimidation if they have to close on a Jewish holiday?

We are quite aware of what is going on in the country in connection with that kind of movement, and I want to take this opportunity through the medium of this House, to give the country a serious warning against this kind of thing —a serious warning. We have on our part as yet taken no steps to intimidate people in business.

What are you saying now?

I challenge the hon. member to prove to me that we have ever tried to intimidate people in business. We have never yet tried to intimidate people in business in any way.

What about the circular which was sent out to tell the people as to the newspapers which they were not to advertise in?

We have never yet started any movement whatsoever which proved that we were taking steps to try to boycott certain people, and I just want to say to my hon. friends here that a boycott is a double-edged sword. I warn them. If they go any further in that direction then we will have to hit back, and we will hit back with extremely destructive effect. We have our own party organisation, and we can through our own party organisation boycott just as easily as my hon. friends opposite. But I ask my hon. friends in the Opposition on the opposite side to remember the fuss that was made in this House when there was a possible boycott against German goods on the part of the Jews in consequence of the persecutions which they had suffered in Germany. Did it not re-echo from the Opposition side that the Government should take steps to put a stop to it? But to-day, as this movement is being started on the other side, I notice that that course is being applauded. This is the outrageous intimidation which we find in the public life of our country.

But you are now barking up the wrong tree.

The cat has gone up the other one.

I say that if we took up the same attitude on the occasion of the visit of some of our leading men to our villages and constituencies, then I would like to see what our friends in the Opposition would say. The country would be too small for the echoes of their disapproval, but on this occasion it makes no difference, and the notice is applauded. I want to say a few words to the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom). He had a great deal to say about the loafing about of soldiers and about our war effort. At first, this war was hopelessly lost! In the peace motion that was brought forward, we heard it emphatically stated that the war was hopelessly lost!

It is lost.

Then I must ask my hon. friend to listen to what the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) said here on a recent occasion, namely, that the best we could hope for was a draw. Six months ago the war was hopelessly lost. To-day it is a draw. I can only come to one conclusion, namely, that if we have advanced in six months from a hopeless loss to a draw, and we go on in that way, then after some months more we shall possibly hear from an hon. member on the other side that it is a victory and no longer a draw. Everything that is done by the Opposition is an attempt to thwart us in our war effort. To-day we are again being told by the same hon. members that our army is too large and that it is lying idle, and that we should send the army to the North to go and fight. I must associate myself with what the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) said, to wit, that this is the first time that I really find myself in accord with the hon. member for Waterberg. We will do so. He need not worry himself about that. What astonished me particularly is that every soldier to-day notwithstanding the rank or class he belongs to, notwithstanding what family he comes from, because he has put on the uniform is nothing but a stumbling block to those people in our country. According to the doctrine of my hon. friends opposite, you can be a monster of a good Afrikaner by a mere stroke of the pen. When you are on their side and support their movements, then you are a good Afrikaner, but when you get into uniform then you are a monster. If again you get out of uniform and support them then you are a good Afrikaner. The qualifications of a good Afrikaner certainly go far deeper than that, that a person, because he supports this or the other party, should be either a monster or a good Afrikaner. The same Afrikaner lads that I have referred to here who were good Afrikaners yesterday, are now characterised by the hon. member for Waterberg as unmitigated disgraces to the country. It is unscrupulous and blameworthy to say that of fellow-Afrikaners who are prepared to sacrifice their lives for their convictions. Thousands of those boys are the cream of the Afrikaner nation, and does one of the hon. members opposite dare to rise and say that that is not so? No, they are thousands of the cream of the Afrikaner people, and are they then, simply because they are in uniform, to be regarded by the hon. member for Waterberg as unmitigated disgraces to Afrikanerdom? Those boys are not fighting for their own gain. Those boys have gone on to the battlefield for their own convictions, and they are there because they are loyal descendants of people who, in similar circumstances, were prepared to fight for their faith, and for that freedom for which those boys according to their convictions, are again prepared to sacrifice their lives. This kind of thing is nothing else than a repetition of our history, nothing else but a repetition of what we had here in 1914 as well. At that time also it was absolutely wrong to conquer South-West Africa. But the same people who said that it was such a hopeless mistake to occupy South-West Africa have gone and established themselves in South-West Africa, and have shielded themselves behind the blood of the people who took South-West Africa, in order to go and set up there and to make a fortune there after the country was conquered and after other Afrikaners had shed their blood in this campaign. I want to tell my hon. friends opposite that they ought first of all please to wait a little, until their brothers, fathers and sons are on the battlefield or at the front, that they ought to wait until they first of all hold the same views that we hold in connection with the matter, and then they will be able with the same sympathy about those people as the sympathy with which we speak about them. Let us stop despising and abusing those lads because they are prepared to sacrifice and to lay on the altar their highest gifts for their convictions, for the conviction that they are fighting for the freedom and the interests of their country.

But why then do they inflict damage to Johannesburg?

My hon. friends opposite only look at the matter from one point of view. I will give them examples of the worst scandals on the part of the Ossewa-Brandwag, where those lads were not only teased and interfered with, but bitten to pieces. They were from my own constituency.

That is nonsense.

And it also happens in the Strand. I know that that hon. member does not believe these things. He looks at the matter from the other point of view. He has his view and we have our view. Just as you listen to your side of the matter, so we know what is going on on the other side. Stop teasing those boys. It is dangerous constantly to trifle with the feelings of people who are prepared to make such a great sacrifice as those boys are. You may sooner or later find that you will be burnt by the fire with which you have played. Rightly or wrongly we are in the war by a resolution of this House. This House, the highest court in the country, decided to take part in the war. Our army is to-day at grips with the enemy, and it is there as a volunteer army from its own conviction.

You started badly, and it is getting worse and worse.

Some of my hon. friends opposite claim for themselves the monoply of speaking on certain matters, and apparently no one else is allowed to speak on them. They want us to respect them, but they feel no respect for anyone else. I say that our army exists through its own convictions and will, and the least they can expect is the respect of the Opposition, just as they can expect it from any right-minded Afrikaner, for the convictions that they hold. I can quite understand that the Opposition has the fullest right to criticise, and to criticse sharply. But what I cannot understand is that the Opposition, knowing that the Governmenet has a definte policy which is is now carrying out, want that Government to adopt a policy which is dictated by the other side of the House. The members of the Opposition are engaged in drawing up their own programme for the day when they hope to get into office. We hear here that we shall then no longer have the franchise; our vote will be taken away from us, and we are told about new orders. But we who are in office do not have the right of carrying out our policy, a policy which this supreme assembly prescribed by its decision to take part in the war. They prescribe a policy for the time when they may be in office, but they are hindering us, who are now at the helm, from carrying out the policy for which we stand. I can only tell them that we shall do our duty and continue along the line taken until we get a brilliant and triumphant victory for democracy, for the freedom that we enjoy to-day, for the freedom which is dear to and beloved by us.

I really do not think it necessary to take the hon. member who has just sat down seriously. I am convinced he himself does not believe everything he has said. He told us that these young fellows who have joined the army have all done so voluntarily and that they have done so because they are convinced that they are fighting for freedom and justice. All I can say is that the hon. member is in a state of innocent ignorance. I can assure him that at least half the people who are in the army are not there because of their conviction that they are fighting for freedom and justice, but that they are there because they have been compelled directly and indirectly to join up. The hon. member also seriously misrepesented what the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Strydom) said here. He declared that the hon. member for Waterberg had said that all the people in the army did not know how to behave themselves. He most decidedly did not say that. What he did say was that there were certain soldiers who definitely did not behave in a way one would expect responsible people to do.

And we still say so.

All of us say so. I just want to give the hon. member the assurance that we on this side of the House have every respect for a large number of the soldiers, in any case more respect than we have for those members opposite who draw double salaries as members of the army but who do not go and fight. Let me say here that that is one of the most scandalous things that has ever happened in South Africa, that people who have never yet fired a shot, or never have had a sword in their hand, should become officers, should draw fat salaries as officers while they walk about this House and draw a Parliamentary salary as well. The public outside will take notice of it. This little game is costing the country £15,000 per year, and while they are getting those double salaries we find that there is no money to help certain sections of the community which urgently require assistance. Certain members are paid salaries and the whole amount comes to £15,000 apart from their Parliamentary salaries, and I want to declare most emphatically that that is the most scandalous thing that has ever happened in South Africa. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) is ignorant of what is going on. The reason why I say so is because he intimated that the OssewaBrandwag had declared a boycott. He strongly condemned that.

I read out a report and you applauded it.

I want to ask the hon. member whether he is aware of the fact that a circular has been issued by certain people—I do not know whether it is by the “khaki knights”—which contains a list of newspapers in which the public are advised not to advertise. That list includes periodicals such as “Die Huisgenoot” and “Die Brandwag,” cultural and literary periodicals of the same kind as “The Outspan.”

They are much better.

Those periodicals have been placed on the list of papers in which merchants are advised not to advertise because they are alleged to be Nazi papers. Does the hon. member approve of that? Now he does not say anything.

I cannot say that I approve of a thing which I know nothing about.

Exactly, and that is why I say that the hon. member speaks in innocent ignorance. He knows nothing about anything.

He only pretends.

Hon. members should bear in mind that there is only one speaker addressing this House.

I do not want to waste much time on the hon. member for Caledon. There are certain matters which I should like to bring to the notice of Ministers, and I regret to note that there are only two Ministers present in the House. I am glad to see, however, that the Minister of Agriculture has come in now and is in his seat. I am sorry the Minister of Lands is not here, because there are a few matters which I should have liked to bring to his notice. Before I proceed to touch on those matters I first of all wish to ventilate a few general thoughts. We have every reason to say that the farming population of South Africa, after the spectacle or the tragedy which was enacted here yesterday, must have lost all confidence in the present Government. If we take the attitude adopted by the Government in this House yesterday we must come to the conclusion that henceforth the farmers have to continue to suffer under the mortgage bond burden which rests upon them, because this Government is not going to give them any relief whatever. The rising costs of production have to be borne silently, and the poor prices they are getting for their products will have to satisfy them. The Government is so blinded by its “see the war through” policy, it has developed such a war complex, that it fails to see what is going on in this country. It is blinded by continually looking at the war. I want to use an argument here which has become somewhat worn out, but none the less there is so much truth in it that it cannot be repeated too often. The Government has again given evidence of the fact that it had unlimited money at its disposal to see the war through, but that it has no money for any other purposes. I have already said a few words on this subject—I am referring now to the answer which was given to a question put by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) which showed how money was being wasted in order to create fat jobs for members of this House. I ask whether, bearing this in mind, the country and the farmers are not fully entitled to resent what the Government has done. The people are entitled to say that the Government in wasting money on this war, but that when the Government is asked to spend money on essential services, no money can be found in the country for such purposes. The farmers were told yesterday that they would have to wait until after the war, and that the Government was then going to do something for them. We doubt very much whether this Government will still be in power when that time comes, but I want to ask the Minister of Finance whether he honestly thinks if he were convinced that some bond redemption scheme had to be applied, he would be able to find the necssary money after the war. Of course not. The Minister is perfectly well aware of the fact that after the war it will be very much more difficult to find money than is the case now. Nobody can deny that after this war we are going to have the worst depression we have ever had. And what is going to be the position of the farmer then? Instead of the Government taking steps now to see that the farmer will be prepared for that time, the Government shrugs its shoulders and tells the farmer that nothing can be done. The farmer will have to wait until after the war. It was a very poor consolation which the Minister of Finance held out to the farmers. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister is not here, and that being so I shall have to ask the Minister of Finance whether he is prepared to explain to the House what is at the back of the appointment of Mr. Ivan Walker as controller of labour? What is the object of that appointment? So far, we have had no statement whatsoever on the subject. The Minister is not going to deny that this step which the Government has taken is a very important one. It means that labour is going to be mobilised, and we want to know what is at the back of it. We want to know why it is being done at this particular stage. There can be only two reasons for it, and I should like to know from the Minister of Finance which of those two reasons is the correct one. First of all we have to take it that the preparations which have to be made, or which Mr. Walker is expected to make in regard to the organisation of labour, are not aimed at making provision for the war on the Continent of Africa. I say so for this reason: that if we take notice of the reports appearing in the Press and of the leadingarticles appearing in the Government papers, we have to assume that the war in Africa will be over and done with within the course of the next three months. This morning there was a general article in a certain paper in which it was stated that the Italians would be driven out of Abyssinia ere long. If that is so, then I want to know why all these preparations are being made. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister gave us an assurance when the Union declared war on the 4th September that those so-called “volunteers” of South Africa were only going to be used in Africa, on the Continent of Africa. Now, if it is a fact that the war in Africa is practically over, why, then, all those preparations? Are we to explain these things, as meaning that the Prime Minister intends using our men not merely on the Continent of Africa, but that he is also going to send them somewhere else? Was it only incidental that the Minister of Native Affairs recently made a statement to the effect that the Union was going to introduce yet a further oath, an oath which will have to be taken by those who are prepared to go and fight in any part of the world? Is Mr. Ivan Walker’s appointment connected with that statement of the Minister’s? The second alternative is this, that South Africa must prepare itself in future to be the storehouse, the supply store for foodstuffs and ammunition for the armies in Africa, inclusive of the British Army, in the event of the passage through the Mediterranean Seas being closed. Is that the reason why Mr. Ivan Walker has been appointed? Is the object to organise the workers so that we, together with England and Australia, may become the supply store for the old troops which are fighting in Northern Africa? I am now putting this pertinent question to the Minister of Finance, although I do not think he will answer it. I also want to put a few further questions to the Minister of Agriculture. Unfortunately, he has gone away again, but I hope my questions will be conveyed to him. I should like to draw attention to certain aspects of the agricultural industry, and I am really very sorry the Minister of Agriculture is not present in the House. I realise that there is a motion on the Order Paper on the subject of the wheat industry, and I therefore do not want to say much about it. We shall have an opportunity of doing so later, but I want to say here now that the action taken by the Minister in fixing prices in conflict with the advice given by the Board of Control is one of the most reprehensible things the Minister of Agriculture has yet done. In the meantime, I want to put this question to the Minister: When will the report of the Commission of Enquiry-appointed to investigate the difference between the wheat price and the price of bread and flour be made available to this House? I recently approached the Department on this question, and I was informed that the report had been referred to the Board of Trade and Industries with a request that they should go into it as soon as possible. I want to ask the Minister to make that report available to us as soon as possible, because it will probably contain information which we shall be able to use in discussing the wheat position in this House. Now, there is another matter I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister of Agriculture, and that is the position in connection with the danger of an over-production of tobacco. I want to remind the Minister of the fact that I raised this subject last year, and also the year before. I have received a letter from the Magaliesberg Cooperative Society drawing attention to the fact that they have communicated with the Department of Lands in order to point to the existing danger of a great over-production of tobacco if tobacco is going to be produced on new settlements. The Minister promised me at the time I raised this matter that his Department would give the necessary attention to this question. I asked the Minister of Agriculture to see to it that his Department did get into touch with the Department of Lands without delay, in order to enquire into the question whether it was desirable to produce tobacco on a large scale on these new irrigation schemes. The Minister gave me a promise that he would do so. Now I would like to know from the Minister whether anything has been done in that direction, and also what the findings of that enquiry have been, and whether any recommendations have been made in connection with the Minister’s investigation. There are a few other matters, too, which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister of Lands. Unfortunately, he is not here either. It is not my fault that he is not here. I do not know whether he has gone off again to address meetings. Anyhow, I am sorry he is not here, because I wish to bring some very serious matters to his notice. I do not like attacking the Minister in his absence, but in view of the fact that he is not here I am compelled to do so. I want to point out that if there is one Minister who apparently knows very little about his Department, it is the Minister of Lands. I do not make this statement without having any reasons to do so, nor do I make it frivolously, but I make my statement as a result of answers which the Minister has given to questions put to him in this House. First of all, let me refer to a question which the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) put here yesterday. I do not want to go, into the merits of the case. I merely mention this in order to show the irresponsible way in which the Minister is acting. A question was put by the hon. member for Waterberg whether a certain individual had been appointed as inspector of lands in Waterberg and whether the Minister was aware of the fact that that person had served as an inspector of lands in the past, and had been asked to resign. Now what was the Minister’s answer? The Minister replied that at the time the appointment was made he was not aware of the fact that that man had been in the service of the Department before. What are we to think of a Minister who does not even take the trouble to have a proper enquiry made before he appoints a person? What are we to think of such an appointment? What are we to think of the fact that the Minister did not even know that that individual had been asked to resign because he was not fit to occupy the position. I do not want to go into the matter any further. I only want to refer to it in order to show how little the Minister knows of his own department and how little he worries about it, but I go further. I put a question to the Minister of Lands and the answer the Minister gave to my question displays just as much ignorance. I do not know whether the answer was deliberately or unconsciously false. I asked the Minister whether people on experimental settlements, such as for instance at Wolvekraal in my constituency, have been stopped by officials of the Minister’s department to attend political party congresses, or functions of the Ossewa-Brandwag. And I further asked whether the official or officials concerned had received such instructions from the department. The Minister’s answer was “no.” I must take it that the Minister was not aware of it, but I can assure him that that is not the case. The officials concerned used threats and told the settlers that if they put one foot outside their plots in order to attend such functions he would see to it that they were dismissed by the Department. The Minister knows nothing about it, but he had to give an explanation and he said this:

Let me assure the Minister that this information given by his Department in reply to this question is absolutely wrong. Let me say why. This particular celebration of the Ossewa-Brandwag was held on a Saturday afternoon. Now I want to know from the Minister of Lands whether those experimental tenants are expected to work on a Saturdayafternoon as well? Or are they free on Saturday afternoons?

They are always free.

No, not always. They are certainly subject to certain regulations, but this celebration was held on a Saturday afternoon and they were free then. Then the Minister comes and he wants the House to understand that they had been given instructions to do certain work and that they had just left the work and gone off. That is nonsense, it is not true, but let us assume for a moment that it is true, and that they had received instructions to construct drying sheds. Then I want to ask the Minister whether those settlers get those sheds for nothing, or do they have to pay for them? The settlers very definitely have to pay for those sheds. I therefore contend that the Minister’s reply to this question also proves in the most unambiguous manner that he has no conception of what is going on in his department. And if he does ever get any information from his department, it is wrong information. Before I leave this point I just want to say this, and I want to bring this very strongly to the notice of the Government. Officers who act as they did in this particular instance make things very dangerous for themselves. They are playing with fire. We shall remember them. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) said that we were playing with fire, but let me give him the assurance that that kind of official is playing with fire. What right have officials to threaten people who are just as free citizens of this country as the officials themselves are? They will bum their fingers. I want to state quite clearly that the settlers have the right to attend any meeting they want to, and no official has the right to prevent them from doing so. There was a further question which I put to the Minister and the answer which I got again showed that the Minister does not know what is going on in his own department, and not alone that, but his answer shows how little the Minister cares what results may be caused by his policy. I ask him—

His answer was “Yes, he had instructed people to leave farms.” And his answer to the second question was that his department had not kept any record of it. Now I ask hon. members what one must think of a Minister who allows his department to cast out people who for years have been living on the settlements while the department does not even keep a record and does not know how many people have been moved away from the plots. Am I not entitled to say that the Minister takes very little notice of what is going on in his department, and that he does not worry his head over the results of his policy. I want to protest most strongly against the Minister’s attitude. I cannot find language strong enough to express my disapproval. I think it is a disgraceful policy. If one looks at it from the Minister’s point of view, and from the point of view of hon. members opposite, I can understand to a certain extent that in order to obtain so called “volunteers”—which the hon. member for Caledon spoke so proudly about—unmarried sons above 21 years of age may be told to leave their plots because if these men have nowhere else to go they have to join up. However inhuman that sort of thing may be one can still understand it, if looked from the Minister’s point of view, but how a Minister who, the other day, for an hour and a half held forth about Christianity, which he told the House they were fighting for—how such a Minister can consent to drive away old and invalid men and women from the plots of their sons where they have been living for years—is beyond my conception. I say again that it is a scandal. What is to become of those old people? The children are notified that they must cast their parents adrift. If they do not obey, they themselves may lose their plots. I want to put this pertinent question to the Minister: What has to become of those fathers and mothers? I asked the Minister the same question last year, and his unsympathetic reply was that his Department was not a philanthropic institution. The Minister pleads innocence. What does he care what becomes of those people? Let me say this, a Government which carries on in that way will get all it deserves to get. The settlement scheme for invalids, where those old people might have found a home, is being used for the purpose of establishing an internment camp. On the other hand, the children are compelled to drive their old parents off the plots. A Government which does that sort of thing will have to take what it gets. I am sorry having to say these things in the absence of the Minister of Lands. I should have liked to have told him all this to his face, but I hope his attention will be drawn to it. I want to ask the Minister of Finance whether he agrees with that policy, namely, of driving away those old people without making other provision for them? I ask the Minister of the Interior whether he agrees with it; it seems to me they do not even know anything about it—they live in ignorance. I ask whether that sort of thing is Christian and humane. I hope those two Ministers will use their influence with the Minister of Lands in order to put an end to that policy which is the cause of endless unpleasantness and bitterness. Now I want to ask the Minister of the Interior something. He will remember that his predecessor promised about two years ago that he would introduce comprehensive legislation on the Indian question. At the time there were certain difficulties in that connection. His colleague, the Minister of Finance, can tell us better than anyone else what the trouble was. In any case, it was decided to pass interim legislation, because the Minister stated that he first of all wanted a thorough investigation made before introducing comprehensive legislation. My information is that this temporary measure lapses at the end of April. Now I should like to ask the Minister whether he intends extending the law for a year, and if not whether it is his intention this session to introduce the promised Bill. All these questions I have mentioned require the Government’s serious consideration. We cannot allow these matters to be neglected simply because they are busy seeing the war through. Most of these matters cannot be postponed, because the longer they are postponed the worse the position will become, and the more difficult it will be to find a solution.

I also deplore that the Minister of Lands is not in his place, the Minister who, by his own body organ, is characterised as the person who should get the first prize for saying the silliest things. Nor do I like speaking in his absence, but after the outburst which came from him against me personally, I want to make use of this opportunity to defend myself. He said, inter alia, that I came to him in order to get a farm from him for nothing, and that he had said that there were pool people in my constituency to whom he wanted to give the farm. Now it is the policy of the Government to appoint supervisors over certain farms, or to let the farms temporarily. No farm is given away for nothing, but the farms are let. There is not a single person in my district who has got a farm for nothing. The farms are lying fallow. They were bought by the previous Government, and the Minister did not even know that there were any such farms lying fallow in my constituency. It was owing to my intervention that the Government bought a large number of farms there for settlement purposes. Now this Government comes and says that the farms will not be distributed until the war is over, because they want to give the preference to returned soldiers. I then went to the Secretary for Lands to ask why they did not let the farms until such time as they wanted to allot them. The Secretary for Lands was interested in that suggestion, and also expressed his keenness that I should become one of the lessees. Then I got an appointment, and a contract was drawn up with the inspector of lands which required the approval of the Minister. I had not the least doubt that he would confirm it, but after he had been approached by two Saps in my constituency, and after they had objected to my being allowed to hire the farm, he gave me notice to quit the farm, after I had incurred heavy expenses. When I went to see him about it, he said that there were poor people in my constituency to whom he wanted to give the farm. To whom did he give the farm? The poor man to whom he gave the farm is a stock speculator, one of his supporters. In what way was it given? That stock speculator did not have to pay a brass farthing. That represents the love of the Minister for poor people. That love was also exhibited by the statement which the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler) made, when the Minister allowed the old people who had for years been living on plots with their children to be driven off. That shows the sympathy he has for the poor people. I want to characterise the act of the Minister against myself personally as political swindling. When the Minister made a statement in connection with that, you, Mr. Speaker, called him to order, because he accused me of having told a slanderous lie. I do not like to go back into the past of the Minister, but if I wanted to do so then I find that a judge found him guilty of not having spoken the truth.

Order!

I am sorry that I may not say it, because I wanted to leave it to the House to decide who was speaking the truth and who was not. I want again to repeat that my statement in connection with what took place in the Minister’s office in connection with the offer of a chaplaincy is the truth, and nothing but the truth. The Minister cannot deny it. I should have liked to say these things to him across the floor of the House, but he is not in his place. I want to tell him that I came to this House with the votes of my constituents. The Minister has only come in by the back door as a Senator. He cannot win a seat. I would like to make him the offer on the floor of the House, and I hope that the Minister of Finance will convey it to him, that I am prepared to resign my seat at Potgietersrust provided he will come and stand against me there. Then we will find out whether the voters believe him or me. I might have said many things, but I do not like saying them behind the back of the Minister. I feel aggrieved. He called me a liar, and I would have liked to read out certain things to enable the House to decide who was the liar, but according to the rules of the House I may not make use of the evidence. Otherwise one could have brought many ugly things to light. Now I would like also to speak about the health services in our country. The late Dr. Baumann brought forward a scheme for medical services on the countryside. I am heart and soul in favour of that idea. I am sorry that there are still so many doctors to-day who abuse their position, and for that reason I think that it is necessary for the Government not only to supply free medical services to absolute paupers, but also to the intermediate class man. I have a letter here in my possession which I have just received from someone who lives a long way from any medical man. There was someone ill on a farm in the district, and he got into touch with the magistrate, with doctors and with the police, but they wanted to know whether the man who was ill was poor, or in any case, whether he had any cattle. The answer was then given: “Yes, he does own a few cattle.” The man had to go from pillar to post, and he then wrote to me—

Ultimately he had to hire a motor car and to convey the patient at the risk of his life to Nylstroom. Is that not scandalous? Is it not a disgrace that people on the countryside who live far from a doctor should be treated in that way? There you have the Government with the Treasury full of money and they just allow the citizens to die. The question is asked whether a man can pay or not, and there are constant delays, although the people are seriously ill. I recently made mention of my own case. It was wrongly reported, as if I wanted to get free medical treatment. Of course not. I am fully prepared to pay. But my objection, not only on my own account, but also on account of other people, was against the exploitation which was being carried on by doctors. It surely ought to be the policy of the Government to have a healthy population and a well-fed population. I am sorry that “the lie and rot” Minister, the Minister of Agriculture, is not here. When the Minister announced the scheme for the sale of oranges through one channel, namely, through the Citrus Board, I said: “I hope anyhow that the channel is not going to be Schlesinger.” There is a certain Englishman, Copley, at Zebedelia, who has unfortunately become the victim of Schlesinger. He is the only remaining settler on Zebedelia. The Citrus Board valued his oranges, and it was estimated that he had 10,000 boxes of export oranges. He then asked for an advance from Government funds. The Government made £800,000 available for the Citrus Board. He then applied for assistance in connection with the packing and sulphuring, etc., of the oranges. Then they wrote back that they would give him £1,800 with which he could carry on, but they did not send the £1,800. Eventually they sent £205, and the result was that all the man’s oranges remained lying on the ground and rotted. He only sent 250 boxes to England, and the rest were lost. When I went to the Minister and to the Citrus Board, they brought up the very lamest story that the man was not reliable. I then asked why not, and I pointed out that he was being-ruined. The chairman of the Citrus Board is a certain Kramer, and that Mr. Copley is the only one left on the Zebedelia estates, and it looks as if they want to squeeze Copley out of the estates.

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

When business was suspended I was just explaining what had happened up there in the citrus industry. I explained to the House that the Government had decided to allow the oranges to be dealt with through one channel and shipped. The Government lent about £800,000 to the Citrus Board, in order to give the farmers all loans out of it to pack and to ship their fruit. Mr. Schlesinger’s company, the Zebedelia Estates, got practically £250,000 out of that £800,000, and the rest went to individual farmers. A certain Mr. Copley’s farm comes within those estates. He used formerly to sell his oranges through agents, and he did well. He should have been entitled to about £1,800, and I explained that he only got £205 and that he could only export 250 boxes. The rest of his fruit rotted on the trees. The result is that he is impoverished and ruined. Why did that occur? Why was it not possible for him to be assisted? I have instituted enquiry, and the only reason that is given is that Mr. Copley is not a reliable person to lend money to. It was not said to him. It was said to me. Why was it not said to the man himself, so that he could have got someone else to ship the fruit for him? And the worst of all is that Mr. Copely, who is a colonel in the British army, was offered a captaincy by the Government in the South African army. He was willing to accept it provided the Citrus Board would export his oranges. Mr. Schlesinger’s company should have packed the oranges of two ladies who were in the army. Their quota was granted to them but he did not go and fetch their oranges. He said “Why should I travel ten miles to go and fetch the oranges; my qouta is only 50 per cent., and I will pack some of my surplus oranges for them. Those two ladies are the Missis Davis and Turbey. The oranges were not packed. They sold them locally in little bags. If that could be done for those ladies, why could Mr. Copley’s oranges not have been packed in the same way? The simple reason is that Mr. Copley’s farm lies within the estates, and the orchards of the ladies are outside of the estates. I approached the Minister and the Board on his behalf, but there does not appear to be any grace left for him. Speaking of Mr. Schlesinger, whether he is an ideal person or not, and I think he is still alive, I want to point out that he has an orange farm and also a peach farm. He sent his agents around there to sell shares to the jam factory to be established. This happened some years ago, and no jam factory has as yet been built. If I deprive anyone of the property which rightly belongs to him, then I am put into gaol. This Mr. Schlesinger ought to be shot. He robbed people of their money in my constituency, poor people and not well-to-do people, who took the shares in this imaginary factory which has not yet been put up. I want to say this, that under the national socialistic system that kind of robbery will not be tolerated. It can only be done under the capitalistic system, only the capitalistic system will allow the poor man and the man of small means to be exploited in that way, allow the poor man to die of hunger and the other man to die of disease, and the state to stand by without giving any assistance. We have already talked about commerce and industries, but I want to point out that the Minister of Commerce and Indsutries promised to appoint a commission to institute an enquiry into the rise of agricultural implements. I do not know whether that enquiry has been instituted, or whether a report has already been made, but the fact remains that the price of farming implements has gone up by 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. and that notwithstanding that the agricultural produce is being controlled by the Government. The price of that cannot rise. I am now thinking of a case which is a striking proof of what the hon. member for Marico (Rev. C. W. M. du Toit) said here this afternoon, that our marketing system was responsible for the farmers being exploited. A farmer was only able to get £10 from the butchers for an ox. He slaughtered it himself, and sold the quarters, and in that way he got £28. He came to the conclusion that the farmer got £10 for the ox from the butcher while the butcher got £28 for the same ox. It is not the farmer who makes the profit, but the middleman who robs the farmer of the just profit which he ought to have. I do not represent the wine farmers, but is it not one of the biggest scandals for a wine farmer to get 1½d. for a bottle of good wine, and that I have to pay 2/6 and 3/- for it, and then it is not even good wine, but is possibly mixed with pepper and tobacco. The farmer who works and sweats in the production gets 1½d. for it. The Imperialistic-Jewish press is making fun, and our friends opposite who represent the capitalists are also making fun of the Nazi regime. It is said. What have they done to obtain a solution of the question of poverty and unemployment? I would like to quote from a well-known English writer Ward Price, who says in his well-known book about the Nazi governmental system: “I know those Dictators.” On page 119, he says this—

I do not say that I am pro-Nazi. I am speaking here about the system. If we condemn the German system then we can develop our own South African system, because we at the moment are groaning under that capitalistic system which is represented by hon. members opposite.

But you are now advocating the Nazi system.

That hon. member is the great protagonist of the capitalistic system which is represented by his Government, and which is resopnsible for the impoverishment of the people. You do not find poor Englismen and Jews, but it is the Afrikaans-speaking people who are impoverished and who you find on the roads. That hon. member ought not to speak on these subjects, nor should the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. Wares). They have no sympathy with the Boer nation.

He has more sympathy than you have.

That is another interruption by the hon. member with the consultation fee of £2 2s.! I can also quote what has been done in Portugal under that system in order to reduce poverty. However brilliant the Minister of Finance may be, he will certainly not be able to meet the needs of the country under the system of capitalism and exploitation which exists in this country. This capitalistic system involves exploitation as the first constituent. We allow commerce to exploit and plunder the people. We stand and look on at our poor people being strangled by the commerce of hawkers, and they are very well represented by hon. members opposite. We on this side of the House are striving after an economic revolution. We want to have a republic. We most certainly do want it, and we hope that it is close at hand, but we want a republic which will secure an economic revolution for us where the problem of poverty will be solved, and where the people will get a wage worthy of a white man, where there will be health services, and where the exploiter, the plunderer and the robber will not be tolerated. I wonder whether it is not the time when a commission of enquiry should be appointed by the Government as to the commissions and omissions of our doctors.

What about Mrs. Daly?

You possibly have more experience of her than I have. I do not know her. Health services and medical services ought to be free to everybody. Tax the rich man to pay for them. The hon. member for Yeoville (Dr. Gluckman) pleaded for them, and his predecessor, Dr. Baumann, also did the same. Why cannot a national medical service be brough about? The doctor can then apply for an appointment just like the ordinary offical, and if he is not competent then he can be kicked out. Our system of education has been imported from overseas. We do not educate the child up for life, with the result that he drops down to the condition of a poor white. The rich man’s child and the child of certain classes live in luxury, and are educated for professions, while the child of the poorer man on the countryside does not share that privilege, because his parents cannot afford it. The state sees this, but is does nothing although it ought to be the father of those children. He notices how those children eventually land on the streets, become poor and even become a danger to the state. I hope that when we come into office we shall succeed in bringing about this economic revolution

The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) who spoke here this afternoon waxed very eloquent about the wool farmers who, according to him, are in clover because they are getting such good prices under this scheme. I know of wool farmers, of good wool farmers in the Bredasdorp district, who can compete with the hon. member so far as wool is concerned, and they did not get a penny more for their wool than they got last season. The hon. member was terribly concerned because the Swellendam Chamber of Commerce had decided to close the shops in Swellendam yesterday. If the Chamber of Commerce of which the traders are members, decides to close the shops on a particular occasion, a man like the hon. member for Caledon looks upon that as a reason to start talking about a boycott being provoked by an action of that kind. This is what he said: “We have never yet applied a boycott or intimidated anyone, but look out if we start.” During the last session I mentioned an instance in my constituency where a farmer had not merely been intimidated, but had been victimised, and I could mention three or four similar instances to the hon. member, but I want to tell my hon. friend this, that we are not afraid of his boycott. The emergency regulations prevent us from carrying out a boycott, but it probably does not prevent the hon. member for Caledon. I am not going to say any more about him—I am not going to say a word about the fuss he has made. The Minister of Finance at the beginning of this session came and asked for about £15.000,000 for defence purposes and that money was so urgently required that we had to sit here day and night to vote the money because the defence funds had run dry. Now he comes here again and he asks us for £25,000,000 which is required from the 1st April for the ensuing financial year. I want to put a question to him. At the beginning of last year an amount of, I think, about £46,000,000 was provided for the country’s services. The war made it necessary for us to have more money. So the Government approached us again with the result that so far we have already voted £60,000,000 for the war. Now I want to ask the Minister of Finance why, if he has provided for his expenditure up to the middle of May, this £25,000,000 is wanted.

No, I have already explained on the second reading that we are making provision until June.

The Minister now says that we want to make provision until June. It will take us until the middle of May at the very latest to dispose of the estimates and all the money required will by that time have been voted for the country’s services, but it seems to me that there is something else behind all this.

This is the usual part appropriation which the House is asked to vote every year.

It appears to me that the Minister of Finance does not want to tell the country frankly that he requires additional money for the war—over and above the £14,850,000 which he asked for at the beginning of this session as a special additional contribution. That is only a month ago. He now comes and asks for another £25,000,000 and he tells us that that is for the ordinary services of the country and the public are given the impression that this money is not for war expenditure. I suspect that at least £18,000,000 or even more of the £25,000,000 will go to war expenditure. If he had told the country at the beginning of the session that this additional amount would be needed for war expenditure the country would have become very restive and it would have felt that things were going entirely wrong. I do not think the Minister is doing the right thing towards the country. Let him and his friends tell the country straight out what is going on. As a result of the war there are certain essential services directly concerning the interests of the public, which have been pushed out and stopped, although the Government and members opposite are not prepared to admit it. I remember how often they have told us how many millions—and the Minister of Agriculture told us only yesterday that £28,000,000 had been given to the farmers in eight years’ time—have been spent in order to help the farmers, and then we are told how well the farmers are doing now. The Minister of Agriculture told us that story again yesterday, and I am going to show just now that the Minister is completely out of his depth and that he does not know what is going on with the farming population. He told us about cattle dealers who had informed him how well the farmers were doing. It is possible that the price of slaughter stock is high. In spite of that the Minister comes here with the greatest nonchalence and tells us that the farmers are flourishing. We have heard of all the wonderful things which have been done for the farmer, but I want to draw the Minister’s attention to what the Government is actually doing. We have often complained about the small wage of 5/- per day which is being paid to men on the soil erosion works. We have pointed out that by paying people so poorly they are not being assisted to rehabilitate themselves, and we have warned the Government that the time may come when those works will be stopped; we have told the Government that when that time came those people would be cast adrift with their bundles on their backs although in the past a number of them might have been living on farms. Those works have come to an end, and those poor people are on the streets to-day; what is the Minister of Labour doing to save them? He is the man who has always pleaded for higher wages for those people; he was not satisfied with the 5/- per day they were getting. He used to plead, together with us, for more than 5/- per day. What is he doing now? Is he doing anything to help those people? When we pointed out the other day that numbers of our young men were being dismissed because they refused to take the red oath „he asked what was wrong with it. They should take the red oath and go to the front. Those old men who were engaged on erosion works cannot go to war. Let me mention an instance of an old man of 75 years of age who had been working on the erosion works; part of his old-age persion was taken off him because he was earning a little bit on erosion works. That man has not had his old age pension restored to him since the erosion works have come to an end. I made application to have his money restored and the answer I got was that the matter was being considered. I hope the man will get it back. Meanwhile a year has passed and during that year that man has not been in receipt of his full old age pension. I assume there are many cases of that kind, and when we make these statements here the Government tells us that we should give them chapter and verse to prove that social services for those people have been cut down. That is the condition in which these people find themselves. Now I want to come back to another matter, and I want to draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture, who is having a chat over there, to another point. Of course, he would rather not hear what I have to say, because it gets him into further trouble—he is already in so much trouble as a result of his own statement about the war —about our having to take part in the war failing which our products would lie here and rot—that he does not want to hear any more. I should like to know from the Minister what provision he is going to make in regard to the farmers’ products, and let me say a word or two about the products of my own constituency. Under the Emergency Regulations the Board of Control has been given full control over the purchase and sale of sultanas and raisins. The producer cannot sell to anybody except the Board of Control. I do not know whether the Government has taken any notice of the fact that when they granted those powers to the Dried Fruit Board, they really stepped in too late. The sultana season had actually passed. The farmers were looking for a way out of their difficulty—nobody could see a way out, because the Government had been sitting still and had made no provision to get these products exported. The farmers saw that the Government’s master was entering into contracts with Turkey and with other countries, and they were quite convinced that our dried fruits and our raisins and sultanas would have to lie and rot in South Africa. They realised that the Minister’s words had to be interpreted the other way about, that is to say, that these products would lie and rot here in South Africa if we went to war. The result has been that the farmers pressed their sultanas. If we get half of last year’s sultana crop, that is 3,000 tons instead of 6,000 tons, it means that the rest will go to the pressing rooms on its way to the K.W.V., which already has an over-production of 52 per cent. The K.W.V. is a body which has never yet approached the Government for any financial assistance. They built up their organisation with their own funds, and now they are being stabbed in the back by the Government because the grapes, which if the Government had done its duty to the farmers would have been dried, have now to go to the pressing vats. They have gone to the pressing vats on account of the fact that the Government has not done its duty to help the farmers to sell their products. When the Government started this business, I asked whether the Dried Fruit Board was properly equipped so as to be able to cope with the position, and I asked whether they were able to deal with the grading of raisins and currants. I assume they are not equipped to handle the crops if there is such a tremendous increase in production. They are not equipped to deliver the boxes and everything to the buyers. They are not equipped to go into the market, and the result is that there is dislocation of the trade. I do not know what those people are going to do with their large warehouses and with the large staffs they have. The result will probably be that they will have to dismiss their staffs, and the Government will once again be able to say to those people: “The army is there, you can join up.” I want to say this again, the position is very serious, even though the Minister has told us that the farming community is doing well. I do not know whether the Government is aware of the position as it really is. The Dried Fruit Board has met, and it has decided to fix an average price for Hanepoot, currants, etc. They said: “We shall divide the fruit into five classes.” The average price was put low for four of those classes, but for the fifth class, the “diamond” class, people were to pay 4d. But this is the position, that if large quantities of dried fruit, say 200 tons, are put through the machines, one will get a small quantity of currants, for instance. Although 3.93d. was a low price in normal times, these people are going to get even less now. The sultanas have to a large extent gone through the press, and the Hanepoot will also have to go there unless some concessions are made. The Government has now decided to bring the price up to 2½d. Last year there was a production of 24,254,000 lbs. of raisins and currants. Even if those products had been sold at 3d. per lb., it would still have been a low price, but now we are not going to even get 3d. Now the price is going to be reduced to 2½d. The Government has made the price ½d. lower, and the farmers are going to get so much less. Assuming the crop is as large as it was last year, one can reckon out how much less the farmers are going to get for their products. Now I want to ask why the Government could not have fixed a higher price. The farmer is losing more than £100,000. It is true that the Government has said that it will make a grant of £50,000, but why could not the Government have given at least £100,000? The grape farmers and the wine farmers have never yet asked the Government to write off anything for them, although they (the Government) have written off various debts for other branches of agriculture, £400,000 in one year, £500,000 in the next year, and so on. Why cannot the wine farmers be assisted to keep going, seeing that excise payments and licence payments contributed by the wine farmers and by the liquor trade bring more than £1,000,000 into the Exchequer every year? Could not the Government have given £100,000 to help those farmers to keep going? The Government said they would give £50,000, but they turned to the K.W.V. and said to them: “You can pay this.” The K.W.V. have done so. The Government is unable to fulfil its promises that we would be able to sell our export goods if we took part in the war, and the result is that a large proportion of these products must of necessity go to the pressing vats. It is true that the Government has made some concessions to those farmers, and I want to say that we are grateful for their having done so, but it would have been better if the Government had subsidised the K.W.V. so as to have enabled them to destroy the distilling wine and to keep down the surplus in order to keep the wine farmer on his feet. The exporters of grapes and of deciduous fruit do not know where to turn, and although the Minister of Agriculture has told the House and probably also the country that the farmers are doing very well, the position is extremely precarious. They fail to realise how serious the position is. They should have an investigation made into the position in which our farmers find themselves. The Minister forgets that the wooden boxes which the farmers need to pack their fruit have gone up in price. Labour is scarce on account of the fact that the Government has recruited the coloured people for war purposes—have taken them away from under the very noses of the farmers, and the coloured man’s wife gets such a large allowance to-day that she says “There is no need for me to go and work because I am getting £7 10s. per month.” Everything has been dislocated, and yet the Government pretends that it has done something wonderful in giving the dried fruit farmers £50.000. The position is becoming more and more serious every day. It amounts to this really, that one section of the population is filling its pockets at the expense of the other section. Now I want to put a question to the Government. The Government has now fixed the prices for sultanas and for dried fruits and for raisins. The Minister sits over there and is having a nice chat. He takes no notice of what we are saying, but I want to put this question to the Government—they have fixed the price of dried fruit. Nobody can pay higher prices because there is no competition. I now7 want to ask the Government whether they will see to it, whether they are prepared to see to it, that the prices of currants and raisins and sultanas on the markets up country where the consumers have to buy those goods, are not going to be so high that it is going to be impossible for people to buy them. The prices to-day are 100 per cent. higher there than what they are when they are sent away from here. We want the consumer to be given the opportunity of buying those products at a reasonable price; we do not want to allow those huge profits which to-day find their way into the pockets of the parasites—of the people who sit here to-day and shout in favour of the war. I say that the Government should fix prices in such a way that the consumer is given a reasonable opportunity of obtaining our fruit, and if that is done there will be a chance of large quantities of our dried fruit being used in various parts of South Africa. What is going on to-day is a scandal; one finds that raisins which are sold here at 3d. and 4d. per lb. are marked up country at 8d. and 9d. per lb. Iam not speaking about the “diamond” brand because, I am sure, they are asking 1s. per lb. for that. And prunes are in the same position. Goods which are sold here for 3d. are sold up country for 9d., and that is one of the reasons why our dried fruit are not used to a larger extent. If the Government lays down the price so far as the farmers are concerned prices should also be fixed up country so that the consumers will be able to get their fair share. If that were done, less fruit would be lying here in South Africa and rotting. I feel that so much has been said about the other aspects of the war that there really is no need for me to say anything about it. I expect that very serious questions will still come before this House, and I just want to say this to the Government, on the subject of the Emergency Regulations, which it has promulgated. There are things which do not sound too good, for instance there is the regulation which lays it down that if anyone assaults a soldier he is going to be sent to gaol without the option of a fine. I want to ask the Government to apply the same regulation to the soldiers, so that if a soldier assaults me he will also go to gaol. Much has been said about that. This matter is now being investigated, so I do not want to say too much. It was alleged here this afternoon that the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) had described the soldiers as a crowd of hooligans. The hon. member did not say that. There are people in the Permanent Force whom we are all prepared to raise our hats to. They are “gentlemen” in the right sense of the word, and one gets the same type of people among the men who have been recruited latterly. Some of the very best types are among them, but there is an element in the army which is quite undisciplined—the hooligan type—and I say that if we want to have a good and sound army, discipline has to be strict, so that the officers will be able to control the men. We want to have a properly disciplined army. We do not want a crowd of people among whom outbreaks and disorders may take place. Do not these people realise that if they do that sort of thing they are disgracing their own uniform. Somebody said that if a soldier was in uniform nobody thought anything of him. No, but if a man is a man of character and if he behaves himself, everyone will respect him, but no one will respect him if he behaves like a hooligan. Then I want to say a few words about the trains. In November last I travelled by train together with the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) and the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Hugo). This happened on a Sunday. On that occasion everything was fairly quiet. The hon. member for Paarl and myself came back together. In the evening I said to my friend, “I think we can give the soldiers a clean bill this time.” Those were the actual words I used, but at 10 o’clock that evening a terrific noise, singing and rowdyism broke out in the dining saloon. They were not all drunk.

You should punish the wine farmers.

I say that if a man is under the influence of liquor he should get a proper hiding while he is still able to stand on his feet. It will make him remember it next time. This story which one hears so often when a man is brought before the magistrate, that because he was under the influence of liquor when he did something he should not be so severely punished does not hold with me. I say give a man a good hiding while he can still stand on his feet, and if that is done he will remember it next time and he will behave himself. To deal leniently with people on the excuse that they were under the influence of liquor is no use. Punish those people if possible with solitary confinement and rice water so many days per week—and if that is done I can assure this House that it will put a stop to all this trouble.

This debate has ranged over a fairly wide field, but I want to revert this evening to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), and I more particularly want to say a few words about the reply given by the hon. member for Kenseington (Mr. Blackwell). I refer to the reply he gave not merely in his capacity as a member of this House, but more particularly in his capacity as chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts in regard to the charges made by the hon. member for George which he took from the report of the Auditor-General; but before dealing with those I want to say something else. The hon. member for George deemed it necessary at the beginning of his speech to address a few words to the Minister of Finance, more particularly in regard to the attitude adopted here by the Minister, since the beginning of this session when he replied to criticism levelled against his Department, and against himself, among others, by the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan) and the hon. member for George. The hon. member for George gave the Minister what we think we may call a good hiding which, of course, did not please some hon. members opposite. It was the hon. member for Kensington who particularly resented it. I quite understand that the hon. member for Kensington reacted to it. The hon. member for George took the Minister of Finance to task because of the arrogant attitude he had adopted. Well, I can appreciate that the hon. member for Kensington did not like it, because the hon. member for Kensington himself has never yet been conspicuous by his modesty. There has so far never been any need for reminding the hon. member of the biblical text that he should not hide his light under a bushel.

Nor has there ever been any call to remind the hon. member of that text.

We well remember the hon. member telling us during this session that he was an “economist of standing” and also a “lawyer of standing” and a “member of Parliament” of standing, and a few other things as well.

By repute.

Yes, by repute. I say that the verbal hiding which the hon. member for George gave the Minister was not only deserved, but it was also timely and necessary.

Says you!

Yes, that is what I say, but others also say it. The Minister during this session has adopted the attitude that nobody has the right to criticise him. He has adopted the attitude that the people who have criticised him, including the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for George are far beneath him and display the intelligence of children, and all the rest of it. I do not think I need remind the Minister of Finance that he has not got a monopoly of brain in this House.

There is somebody else in this House who also has that idea.

We have the unfortunate position that in addition to an intellectual superiority complex, he is also suffering from a moral superiority complex, of which we had some experience when he lectured us the other day. Now I want to go into the question of the quotations made by the hon. member for George from the Auditor-General’s report. The hon. member for George quoted a number of points to show that the Auditor-General had severely criticised the way in which things were being done in the Department of Defence, and that had drawn attention to the malpractices which were being indulged in and all the rest of it. One can quite appreciate the fact that members opposite did not feel at ease when those unpleasant facts were brought to light by the hon. member for George, and consequently one could well understand that one of the first members to rise after the hon. member for George had spoken was the hon. member for Kensington, and that hon. member pointed out that he was speaking not only as a member of the House, but principally as chairman on the Select Committee on Public Accounts. Now I want to say straight out that it surprised me, and it also surprised other members, that the hon. member for Kensington, the chairman of that important Select Committee on Public Accounts, adopted an attitude here which had no other object but to create an impression that we could not rely on the criticism levelled by the Auditor-General. He particularly resorted to the introductory paragraph which appears in every report of the Auditor-General. And this is what appears in that paragraph—

If there is one man who should realise that the Auditor-General should be supported by this House, as he is the man who has to see to it that no irregularities take place in connection with the country’s financial affairs, it is the hon. member for Kensington, and what does he do? Certain unpleasant facts have come to light; among others the fact that there is an amount of £99,347 which the Auditor-General cannot approve of, as no vouchers have been submitted to him, and for that reason the hon. member wants to suppress and hide those unpleasant facts, and he wants to create an impression that we cannot really place complete reliance on the correctness of the Auditor-General’s report.

I did not say anything of the kind.

The hon. member may deny it, but I am convinced that anyone who sat in the public galleries and listened to him would have come to the conclusion that we could not rely on the Auditor-General’s report.

That is a perversion.

If he did not want to create that impression, why did he say it?

On a point of order. I may perhaps be allowed to say what I did say. I said that, without discussing the merits or the demerits of the Auditor-General’s criticism, it was quite premature for a member of the Public Accounts Committee to come here and move an amendment based on that criticism before that criticism had been gone into by the Public Accounts Committee. I decline to express any judgment in regard to that criticism, but I can promise the House that that criticism will be fully enquired into by the Select Committee.

That does not take us any further. It makes it even worse. The impression has been created that the Auditor-General’s criticism cannot be regarded as final, as it still has to be investigated by the Select Committee. In other words, we cannot take serious notice of it. The hon. member knows as well as I do that what we get in the introductory paragraph of the report is purely “pro forma.” We would be just as much entitled to say when getting an account with E. & O.E.—errors and omissions excepted—that one could not rely upon that shopkeeper because the words E. & O.E. appeared at the bottom of his accounts. (Laughter.) Yes, hon. members may laugh, but the idea is the same. Simply because that formal statement has been included in the report the hon. member gives the impression that we cannot rely on the correctness of the Auditor-General’s statement.

That is not so.

The hon. member now makes great play of the fact that those charges and criticisms have first of all to be investigated after evidence has been heard by the Select Committee. I want to put a question to the hon. member: Can he tell us in how many instances during the long period he has served on that Select Committee it has been found that any serious criticism made by the Auditor-General has not been fair and justifiable.

Yes

During all the time that I have served on the Select Committee there has not been such a case.

If you will allow me to answer.

No, I am addressing the House now. The hon. member can mention instances later.

Give me the chance.

There may have been an occasional case here and there, but in the years that I have served on the Select Committee there has not been a solitary case of unfounded criticism having been made by the Auditor-General. The hon. member for Kensington knows that whenever any serious criticism is made by the Auditor-General such criticism is invariably well founded. The Auditor-General is not responsible to any department. He is only responsible to this House—to Parliament. The Auditor-General is in no sense tied down, but none the less he takes the trouble to go out of his way first of all to get the necessary information from the department concerned, and he has also done so in the case of the £99,000. This is what he says in his report—

The Auditor-General takes the trouble to find out and he reports to the Treasury before taking the serious step of reporting the matter to Parliament. The hon. member for Kensington also made other complaints here—peculiar complaints. He said, as he did again this evening, that it was premature, and that it was not right for any member of the House, particularly a member of the Public Accounts Committee, to come to this House and to make use of things reported by the Auditor-General. I put it to the hon. member—since when has the Auditor-General’s report become a confidential document? It is a public document which is submitted to this House. The principle proclaimed by the hon. member is an entirely new one. I have not had the opportunity of going into it, but I still want to know whether the hon. member himself and other hon. members opposite have not done exactly the same thing with the Auditor-General’s report as what the hon. member for George has done.

When he was in Opposition he did it.

It is a public document and any member of this House has the right to point to the criticism made by the Auditor-General. The hon. member for Kensington knows only too well that the final report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts is not submitted to this House until the end of the session, and he knows only too well that the result of that practice is that there is no proper opportunity for discussing that report. There is only one opportunity for us to discuss that report and that is on an occasion such as this or during the Budget debate. Now the hon. member for Kensington wants to deprive us of the opportunity of bringing serious matters like this, raised by the Auditor-General, to the notice of this House and of the country. I can only repeat that I am surprised that the hon. member for Kensington in his responsible position as Chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts should come here and not only make an attempt to suppress the discussion of these matters, but that he even went so far as to create the impression that in view of the preliminary paragraph in the report one cannot take it that everything appearing in the Auditor-General’s report is correct, and that evidence first of all has to be obtained before we can accept that report. By taking up that attitude the hon. member has rendered a dis-service to the cause of proper financial control over public affairs in South Africa. I want to discuss one or two matters emanating from the amendment proposed by the hon. member for George.

Are you finished with me now?

Yes, certainly. First of all there is the question of the chaotic conditions prevailing in the Department of Defence which the hon. member went into in detail. Apart from that there are the malpractices committed within the Department of Defence. In regard to the chaotic conditions I feel that the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) has rendered a great service to the country by the question which he put to the Minister of Defence about the additional pay which members opposite who are doing military service are receiving, or rather which members opposite who have a military rank are receiving, because the services they are rendering are comparatively small. I feel that the hon. member for Mossel Bay will probably speak on that question himself, as the outcome of the question put by him. None the less I wish to mention one matter in that connection. I notice on the list which has been issued that all of the 17 members opposite drawing additional military pay have a certain rank. But in addition to that there is an acting rank given; for instance there is the rank of captain with acting rank of Major, and the Brigadier-General has the acting rank of Major General. I feel that even hon. members opposite must be conscious of their shortcomings in regard to military experience, and we can come to no other conclusion but that the acting ranks have been conferred upon them, not because they have any special military knowledge, but because by granting them this acting rank, they are simultaneously being placed in the position of being able to draw higher pay. There is one man among them who should have our sympathy. That is the hon. member for Durban, North (the Rev. Miles-Cadman), because all he has is the rank of third-class chaplain. I do not know whether that rank is determined in accordance with the quality of the sermons he preaches, but as the sermons of the hon. member have had so little effect at Premier Mine and among the other soldiers—if we are to judge from what has happened in the streets of Johannesburg— one can well understand that he has only been given the rank of third-class chaplain. This business of paying a double salary to those members, with their additional acting rank, has become what is called a “racket” in America. It is nothing short of a racket in the worst sense of the word. I find something of the same kind in the Auditor-General’s report. The hon. member for George has already referred to it but I specially want to mention it. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) is sure to say that it is a matter which must first of all be investigated by the Select Committee on Public Accounts, but we find here that the Auditor-General says this in regard to the militarisation of Government departments with special reference to the metereological division—

It is peculiar that the Auditor-General uses the words “put into.” There is a lot in that. He goes on—

I want to point out that putting those officials into uniform involves a difference of £1,492 in their salaries which additional amount has to be paid by the country. Why those people should be put into uniform because the Metereological division has to supply the Air Force with information about the whether is something I fail to understand. Possibly the idea is that the Lord will then give good weather because those people are now in uniform, and are therefore Children of the Cross in God’s war, but the fact remains that this additional amount has been paid to them because they have been put into uniform. But now we can understand why we are asked so repeatedly to vote money for war purposes and why £60,000,000 has already been spent on the war. Now there is something else I want to speak about, namely the chaotic conditions prevailing inside the Department of Defence. One knows that it happens in time of war—it is something which I have mentioned in this House on previous occasions—that both opposing sides display a certain degree of hypocrisy, and tell lies in regard to the aims they have in regard to the war. That has happened in every war so far, and the side which is suffering most is usually the one which indulges in most hypocrisy and falsity. As we are getting this hypocrisy and falsity mainly from the Brtiish side, we must come to the conclusion that they are suffering severely because we have had that sort of thing from the Brtish side ever since the outbreak of war on the 4th September. One of the outstanding instances of that which we have had in South Africa, and which we have had in this debate time and again, is the contention which is continaully made that we have sent volunteers to the front and that we only have volunteers in our army. That statement was made by the Prime Minister and it has been repeatedly made by members opposite. It is repeated over and over again by the Press. The impression is created that all those people are volunteers. But when we who are in the position of having complaints sent to us from our constituency go into the matter we find that a very large percentage of the people in our army and even a very large percentage of those wearing the red tabs can by no means be regarded as volunteers. We have had numerous instances before us of young fellows having been compelled to sign the red oath because if they did not do so they were in danger of losing their jobs, and their previous service. Naturally, there are always “keymen.” They are exempted but the Afrikaans-speaking people in particular have been picked out and compulsion has been brought to my personal notice of police officials, who refused to take the red oath, being immediately given leave. I have had letters handed to me and I have read them myself. It has been brought to my notice that the members of the police of the particular district were called together and that they were afterwards called in one by one before the commandant and pressure was brought to bear on them in every possible way to induce them to sign the red oath. One of the meanest things we have yet had in this war is the way in which an organised campagin has been started against the police to force them to sign the red oath. We have seen the results of those things in the streets of Johannesburg, in the disorders which took place there when members of the police force not wearing the red tabs were hooted and jeered at—and there was no reason for that red oath among the police. The Prime Minister never had the slightest intention of sending the ordinary members of the police in our dorps to the North, and there was only one object in regard to that red oath, and that was to brand the man who did not want to go North as a man who was not in favour of the Government’s war policy, and the result of that was the hooting of the police when those riots occurred in Johannesburg. We on this side of the House have warned against it. But the incitement and flouting indulged by that journalist who is playing such a dirty part in South Africa, namely Mr. George Heard, is going on. He was too cowardly to go and give evidence before the Radio Commission to prove the allegations he had made, but he wrote a scandalous article in the “Sunday Times” which greatly contributed to the attacks made in Johannesburg on the police who did not wear the red tabs. These are the things which are happening, and then one hears people talking in a hypocritical manner about “these men who nobly responded to the call.” Those men who joined up out of a sense of duty, I have the highest respect for. The man who has joined up because of his convictions, like the son of the hon. member for Kensington—for that man I have the greatest respect. But we contend that a large percentage of the men in the army have been forced to join up.

How have they been forced?

By economic pressure. It is a peculiar thing that our hon. friends opposite refuse to admit it. We can assure them that we have the evidence and the facts, and that those things will still come out when we are in a position to make the facts public. We cannot do so to-day. The hon. member for Kensington knows that we are not allowed to do it. Hon. members on this side of the House can produce evidence in regard to numerous persons who have been forced by economic compulsion to join the army. I am going to mention the case of a woman in my constituency who came to me to complain that her son had joined up. I said to her: “But how is that? You are a good Nationalist, and I thought your son was also a Nationalist; why has he joined up?” She replied that he was simply compelled to do so because he was working for a Jewish firm in Cape Town. They called him in and told him that they would guarantee his position, and in addition he would get a small amount of pay if he joined up, but if he did not join up they would give him notice at once. What was he to do? He is a man with a wife and three children. It is the economic pressure which is being brought to bear. Now what is the position in the Defence Force? The position is most precarious. Young men in the Defence Force have come to me and have told me that they are not prepared to take the red oath, but that they are prepared to do their duty in South Africa. They said that they were prepared to be faithful to their oath of loyalty, but they were not prepared to go North to go and fight there. They did not want to sign the red oath.

What does the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) say about that?

I did not expect the hon. member for Kensington to use such a childish argument. He is making a mountain out of a molehill. He knows only too well what the hon. member for Waterberg meant. The hon. member now tries to make people believe that we are in favour of sending troops North. I do not think I need answer that. Young men in the Defence Force tell me that their life is being made unbearable. The hon. member for Kensington himself has been in the army, and he will realise that if there is one thing which a military man looks upon as a gross insult, it is if an officer refuses to return his salute. I have been assured on the best authority that the men who do not wear the red tabs on their shoulders are not saluted by the officers when they salute them—and that is a gross insult to men like that. That is the kind of thing which is being done. These men who have not signed the red oath have been given the dirty work to do. They have to clean latrines, while the others are given the easy work. All these are facts, and hon. members opposite know that they are facts. They have been called Nazis; the buttons of their uniforms have been cut off, and life has been made intolerable for them in every possible way so as to compel them to give in and to say that they will sign the red oath. These letters which I have in my hands are all letters from people in the Active Citizens’ Force, and these letters all tell the same story. It amounts to this, that the people concerned were not prepared to sign the red oath, and the result is that they have not the slightest hope of getting promotion.

Of course not, because they are only half soldiers.

We are very glad to have that admission on behalf of the other side of the House. The hon. member therefore admits that that pressure is being exercised. Every time we say so on this side of the House we are asked what pressure is being brought to bear, but the hon. member now admits at least that that pressure is being brought to bear on people in the Defence Force.

What is the use of a soldier who does not want to go and fight?

They said that they were prepared to serve in South Africa, to be faithful to their oath of loyalty, but they are not prepared to go and fight in the North of Africa to put Haile Selassie on his throne, and that is why pressure is being brought to bear on them. I have also got numerous letters from people in the Air Force, all of whom tell the same story. Here is a letter from a man who has had 19 years’ service, and who sees young fellows being promoted over his head. He says this, inter alia—

In Germany he would have been put in a concentration camp, or perhaps shot.

The hon. member for Kensington knows perfectly well that at the time the red oath was introduced by the Minister of Defence he made it quite clear that he wanted to have two armies, the one in South Africa to defend South Africa, and another army to go North. Can the hon. member deny that that is the statement which was made by the Minister of Defence? He wanted to raise two armies; one for the defence of South Africa, for home defence, and the other one for North Africa. Why this sudden change of front? The one man says that he is prepared to take the oath of loyalty and to do his duty under that oath, but he will not take the second oath. Why bring pressure to bear on him? But if the hon. member now says that that man is only half a soldier, what about the policemen? Let us assume for argument’s sake that there is justification for the Government’s attitude so far as the soldier is concerned; but what justification is there for bringing pressure to bear on the ordinary policeman? I go further —what justification is there in the case of the ordinary road worker on the national roads? He is not doing any military work, why should he take the red oath? No, it is all part of that taunt which has been made to us ever since the beginning of the war, and then the hon. member for Kensington tries to defend it by saying that a man is only half a soldier if he refuses to take the oath to go North. We are going to fight by using soldiers, but the police are in a different position. Why must the police and the national road workers and the young fellows who have gone in for technical training also be compelled to take the red oath? Why have thirty young fellows been dismissed in Cape Town because they refused to do it? These people are not soldiers, and the argument of half a soldier does not apply to them. I say again that all this is part of that challenge and that taunt with which we have been faced ever since the outbreak of war, and then the Prime Minister comes along and makes pious speeches like the one which we had a few months ago when he told us that we had to live together in peace in South Africa. We have to live together in peace, but we are taunted, flouted and challenged and victimised. That section of the Afrikaner people who do not want to go North are taunted in every possible way. Life is made unbearable for them, and then hon. members come along here with fine words about racial peace and racial co-operation. I have another case here. We have the question of essential services. I have a letter here from a man named Kruger of Beaufort West; he is a man of middle age who was employed as a guard at the post office. He took the oath of loyalty but one day he got a letter from the postmaster saying that as he was not prepared to take a further oath his services were to be terminated at 12 o’clock that night; they did not require him any longer. That man was dismissed. Why? That man had to guard the post office so why should he sign the red oath to go and fight in Abyssinia? His duties were to guard the post office at Beaufort West, why should he be victimised because he did not want to sign the Africa oath? He was discharged from the service and a half-coloured man was appointed in his place. Men like that are walking the streets to-day and cannot find work, because wherever they apply for work they are asked why they had refused to go and fight. We are told all day long that we must respect each others feelings. I can understand that there is a difference of opinion about the war, but it seems to me that the other side of the House fails to appreciate that we also have our feelings about this war. I put this question to the hon. member for Kensington and his followers. Assuming Germany were to be victorious and were to take possession of England? Assuming Germany were to give England full selfgovernment thereafter such as England has given South Africa. Assuming also that 500,000 women and children were killed which would be more or less equal to the number of 26,000 women and children who lost their lives in the Boar War; assuming further that Germany, after 15 or 20 years, or even after 30 years, became entangled in a war with America. How many of the English people in England would go and fight against America for Germany? Not one. We are told all day long to appreciate the attitude of hon. members opposite, but they fail to understand that naturally speaking the Afrikaners also have a strong feeling and that they clearly remember that they lost their people, their women and children, in an aggressive war. They want us to appreciate their feelings, but they fail to understand that we are not prepared to go and fight in an Imperialistic war in North Africa. If we are not prepared to go and fight there in an Imperialistic war we are taunted and insulted, and thousands of our Afrikaners have already been forced to join up. But may I be allowed to say this to members opposite? There are thousands of people in the Defence Force who wear the red tab, but who do not agree with the Government’s war policy. They have been forced into it.

Are they traitors?

They have taken the oath but they have been forced to do so; they have no interest in this war; they had no inclination to go and fight in it, but they were forced to go; they are nothing but conscripts, and now the hon. member expects them to go forth enthusiastically into an Imperialistic war for the maintenance of the British Empire in North Africa. Let hon. members over there show us a little of that respect for our feelings which they expect from us, and I say that no member opposite will be prepared to say that under conditions such as I have sketched here an Englisman after thirty years would be prepared to go and fight for Germany. But we have to do so, and if we will not do so then we are Nazis; we are traitors and all the rest of it.

You exaggerate terribly.

Now the hon. member says that I am exaggerating. I have given a concrete comparison and I put it to the hon. member and he is not able to answer it. Let them respect our feelings as they expect us to respect their feelings. Then we shall get racial co-operation, but so long as people are victimised and forced to do things which they do not want to do so long shall we have a racial struggle here in South Africa, and that is why we take up the attitude that we shall never have racial peace in South Africa while we have the British connection here. Everything has to be done with that in view. That is a logical consequence of the British connection and those things should cease. [Time limit.]

I do not want to repeat what has been said by the hon. member who has just sat down. I only want to follow up what he said here, and I am sorry that the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) has now gone out. He thought it necessary to attack the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) in order in that way to show the country that what the hon. member for George had quoted here from the report of the Auditor-General were not actually facts which could be relied on, and that those things which the hon. member quoted had first of all to be enquired into and discussed. I am really sorry that the hon. member has done this, because if we go into those irregularities and we see the maladministration that has been going on in the Defence Force, then you will agree with me that it is high time for the public in the country to know more about it. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) has just quoted to us from the report of the Auditor-General, that about £100,000 has disappeared. No account has been given of that, and I only want to say this with regard to the amount, that it is very strange to find that that amount was drawn and expended not for the purchase of equipment, but on the pay of soldiers. All of it was paid to the different men in the army, and no account can be given of it. If we go further into the report of the Auditor-General, then we can also make this observation, that not only can no explanation be given about that money, but the Defence Department takes up the attitude that it is not necessary for it to give an account of it, that it is not necessary for it to have any responsibility to the Treasury. If they have no responsibility to the Treasury, then I want, in passing, to mention that there is no legislation which authorises the expenditure of the Treasury, except certain special expenditure. Everything the Treasury does they do according to what has been done in the past, in pursuance of usage. In other words, they are to a great extent guided by what the Treasury in England does. It is very sad, and possibly fatal that we should allow ourselves in South Africa to be led by what England does, and how they go to work and act over there. But if they want to follow the example of England, why do they not do so in this case? I want to refer hon. members to page 97, where they will find that what has been done here is in conflict with what they are doing in England. In England there is still certain control over war expenditure, but in South Africa you find that the Defence Force does not bother itself about the powers of the Treasury, or as to what the Treasury wants. They take up the attitude that they can do these things on their own account. You will find in the report of the Auditor-General that all the scales of payment are laid down in Act No. 22, I think in Section 2. It refers to the scale of payment of white men in the Defence Force. But what do you find in regard to coloured people, natives and Indians? You find that in those cases the Defence Force itself fixes the payment. The Auditor-General commented upon that, and said that they did not have the right to do so, but that it should be done by way of proclamation by the Governor-General. The idea is that the scale of salaries has to come to the notice of the population of the country, the taxpayers, and you find that an important provision of that kind in the Act is treated with contempt and taken no notice of, and that the Department of Defence goes to work independently. When you find such irregularities in connection with that department, then it is time for the government of the day to intervene, and see that they do not continue. The hon. member for Kensington, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, said that he could give us the assurance that he would see to it that the matter was gone into. It is very good of him to say so, but can he give us the assurance, or can the Minister of Finance give us the assurance that we shall be dealing properly with the report of the Public Accounts Select Committee this year, and that there will be ample time given to go into the report thoroughly? It is no use for us to sit two or three times a week to go into the Auditor-General’s report carefully if we subsequently find that when we do report, the report does not come up for consideration. Usually it is reached on the last day, and nothing is done. If there ever was a time when the Auditor-General’s report ought to be carefully debated then it is now. This applies particularly to defence expenditure. You find irregularities, for instance, in connection with the Tender Board, you find that the Tender Board is neglected. In one case, to give an example, they accepted a tender which was £700 higher than the lowest tender, without consulting the Tender Board. The Defence Department just accepted it, and took it upon itself to spend the money in that way. I think the Minister of Finance will understand that it is not right and fair, and that that ought not to take place. The people in the country want to have a proper report. We had the experience during the last war of over £1,000,000 being wasted of which no account could be given. I hope that we shall not have a repetition of that in this war. We find that an authorisation committee was appointed, but according to the report of the Auditor-General, they do not demand the furnishing of proper receipts. The people who are responsible for the expenditure come and make certain verbal excuses to them and give reasons why the money should be spent, and then it is left at that. Is that right and fair towards the taxpayers? I make an appeal to the Minister in this case to bring the report of the Public Accounts Committee, which has never been properly debated in the past, before this House in good time, and to give us an opportunity of going into it, and to give the Minister an opportunity of giving information in connection with certain items. Then I want to put a question to the Minister in connection with the £10,000,000 which he intends to spend out of loan funds. This £10,000,000 together with the £14,800,000 which was asked for by him before, brings the total up to £25,000,000, for which we have to give him authority to spend. I would like to know from the Minister how he intends to get the £25,000,000.

I will explain that in my Budget speech.

But we were asked in the additional estimates to approve of £14,800,000, and now we are again asked to authorise £10,000,000 which we are to give on loan account.

The £14,000,000 has already been approved of, and I have already said where the money will be obtained.

You said you were going to borrow it from the Reserve Bank until such time as you could float loans.

The question of financing for the future I will deal with in the Budget speech. I cannot deal with it now.

But you are asking for an additional £10,000,000.

For the coming year.

And with the practically £15,000,000 which has already been authorised by this House, it amounts to £25,000,000 on loan account. How is the Minister going to get the money?

I will deal with that in a fortnight, in my Budget speech.

But we have to vote it provisionally now, and I would like to know how and in what way the Minister intends to get it, at any rate provisionally. He has to borrow, and I assume that he is going to borrow on short term securities from the Reserve Bank. That may sound well, but it is very dangerous, because the Reserve Bank can call them up at any time if they are borrowed on demand, and we must not in that way create the idea in the country that the Reserve Bank is subordinate to the Government of the day. Because then we may possibly again have the same consequences which we experienced not long ago when the public became nervous in connection with the administration of the Reserve Bank. We know what took place, and how fatal the consequences were to those who had shares in the Reserve Bank. I hope that we shall have an explanation from the Minister. Now, however, I come to statements which were made by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Lands. The Minister of Agriculture told us that the position of the farming industry was very good; in other words, that the farming population was flourishing. I can only tell the Minister that he is not au fait with these things if he makes a statement of that kind. Otherwise, he would not have made such a statement. He must have done it in ignorance of what is really going on. I have before me here a White Paper. What did the Minister of Agriculture say in it very little more than a year ago? It will possibly be interesting to the Minister if I just quote it, because the Minister of Finance tried to qualify it just a little to protect his colleague. According to the White Paper, the condition of the farming industry was as follows—

This White Paper was issued by the Department of Agriculture for the special information of hon. members of this House, and here it is clearly admitted that the conditions in farming are as difficult as they were before 1930; in other words, that the position of farming has not improved. What do you find? That the Minister of Agriculture comes here and tells us that the complaints which we are raising and the statements that we make to the effect that the farming position has not improved, are not well founded, and, moreover, that we are not serious in the statement. He referred to a hardy annual. In other words, we only come here to talk and agitate, but we do not really mean it seriously when we say that we want to look after the interests of the farmers. I want accordingly to point out to the Minister that he is ignorant of what is going on in his own Department, that he is not au fait with the position. He ought to find out what the position of the farming population is. But I must honestly say that I cannot understand why the Minister of Agriculture is not aware of the state of affairs which is prevalent in regard to the farming industry. I Rave before me a letter which was sent to me, and also a copy of a letter which was sent to the Minister of Agriculture. They were sent by the Farmers’ Association of Boomrivier, and the letter was sent from Lambrechtsdrift. The secretary of the association writes on behalf of the association as follows—

Then they, in addition, suggest a means of assisting the farmers. The letter was addressed to him, but the Minister of Agriculture comes and says that he knows nothing about the position, that everything is prosperous. One might almost say that he has wilfully misinformed the House.

Order!

I am sorry that I may not say that. I thought that I had expressed myself very mildly. Then let me say that he has not provided the House with the information which he had in his possession. I do not want to say that he has done so deliberately. I assume that the letter was never brought to his notice, but it is a letter which was addressed to him by the farmers’ association in connection with the deplorable position of the farming population. It is not a letter from one individual but from an association, and it was sent to the Minister. The Minister has always said in the past that if the farming population have any complaints or want to lay anything before him, then they must address representations to the Minister through their associations so that he can become au fait with the matter. In this case a farmers association made representations to the Minister, and, notwithstanding that, the Minister comes and says that the farmers are in a good position, and that they have no reason for complaint. I hope that we shall no longer have that kind of information given us in the future, but that the Minister will act frankly and honestly with us. If at the moment he cannot assist and help the farmers because the war is costing too much, then let him honestly tell us so, but he really must not come and tell us that the farmers are in a flourishing position and are practically in need of no help. As I am speaking on this subject, I would like to say a word to the Minister in connection with the promise which he made yesterday in connection with writing-off with regard to the co-operative societies. He promised to have an enquiry instituted with a view to writing-off.

Credit associations.

Well, as that enquiry is taking place, I want to ask the Minister at the same time to have the matter gone into of the debts which settlers have incurred in improving their plots. I want to point out that the debts which those people have incurred consisted of advances given by the Government to improve their plots, and owing to the plots having been improved, the value of the plots has gone up, and now after the plots have increased in value, the people have to pay not only on the original value, but on the improved value, which is due to their own efforts. It is not right and fair to demand the double payment from them. You are now demanding the amount also on the improvements, and I think that the Government ought to go into the matter. If there is one thing that is unfair, then it is that, and as the Minister is going to enquire into certain debts with a view to writing them off, I want to ask him to institute an enquiry in this connection as well. The people are having a hard time now, and they have had to battle with drought, and subsequently also with floods, and it deprives them of all courage if the Government does not do something for them. The object of the Government is to get the people back on to the countryside, to take them away from the villages, and to enable them to make a living on the land, in other words, to stop the rush to the towns. And as the Government is spending all this money on the settlements, the people should not now be strangled by making them pay for something which they have possibly not had, by making them pay double on the original amount, and also on the improvements. I hope that the Minister will also have those cases investigated. I have one complaint in connection with this, and it is that the Minister announced that he would appoint a departmental committee. I think that that is not fair. I think that he ought to appoint independent people, or a few people to go into the matter together with the members of the department, so that it is not exclusively a departmental committee. The people in the country unfortunately have not the confidence in departmental committees that they have in commissions which consist of members of the public as well as departmental officials. It will be more satisfactory to have a mixed commission of that kind, because officials of a department are just inclined to act on the defensive on behalf of the department. Moreover, they have not the experience, and do not understand the circumstances either in which the people are placed. They are inclined to look at matters from the viewpoint of the Government. I do not blame them, but that is not an impartial commission which one would expect in connection with an enquiry of this kind. Then I want in addition, also to point out that this House in 1939 passed certain proposals to provide the farmers in the North West with more drills, and now in this connection I want to point out what took place. At the time the resolutions were passed, there were according to a reply by the Minister of Mines, who at that time was also Minister of Irrigation, 105 Government drills in the country. Of those about 22 were being used by local authorities, namely municipalities and divisional councils, so that only 83 drills were at the disposal of the farmers. That was the position when the Minister of Irrigation, as well as the Minister of Agriculture, accepted motions in this House to provide the farmers in the North West areas with more drills. What is the position now? According to the return which we have just got, it appears that nothing has been done to give effect to the resolutions which were passed by this House. In other words, resolutions of this House are ignored, because you find that there are less drills now than at that time, at any rate drills that are working. There are quite a number not working, but those that are working are fewer than there were at that time. If that is the position then the government of the day cannot blame us for criticising them, and that we more particularly criticise the Departments of Land and Agriculture. No effect has been given to the promises and to the resolutions of this House, and that is the reason why we are dissatisfied. I want to appeal to the Minister of Finance to make representations to his two colleagues in connection with this matter. They are not in the House, and owing to their not being here they of course do not become acquainted with the grievances that exist. I hope, however, that the Minister of Finance will remind them of their promises, and the resolutions which were passed by this House to make more drills available for the farmers in those areas. It is no excuse to say that we are at war, and that therefore there is no money that can be made available at the moment for other services. The Government gave us the assurance that other services would not suffer loss. But now we find that the other services are being curtailed to the detriment of the interests of the farming population, and nothing is being done to assist them. It is the duty of the Government to carry out resolutions which this House has passed. I said at the time that an additional 50 drills would only cost £100,000. What would that not have meant to this country? We must have enough drills so that everybody who wants to bore for water should have the opportunity of getting the work done. We have learned that there are more than 2,000 applications on the waiting list. How in the world can you expect that those 2,000 applications will be dealt with, with the same number of drills which we had two years ago? It is impossible. That is why I am once more pleading for more drills. If there is anything that is necessary, then it is that. The government of the day spends money so freely. They have wasted, so to say, £100,000 on salaries for soldiers, mostly in pay for coloured and native soldiers, and they can give no account of it. And I therefore say that it is high time that they did something more to assist the farming population. I accordingly ask, if the Minister of Agriculture is not prepared to do so—and he is not prepared—that the Minister of Finance will give his attention to the matter and will be fair to the farming population to assist them, and to make more money available for drills. [Time limit.]

I also wish to express my great disappointment at what the hon. the Minister of Finance told us yesterday. We all know that the farmers have been looking forward to a scheme which they expected to be devised to improve the conditions in which they find themselves. The Minister of Finance told us yesterday that the farmers did not really need much help as the Land Bank had told him that the money which the farmers owed was being paid back very nicely, and that the Land Bank would again be using the money which had thus become available, with the result that it would only require part of the capital it had asked the Government for. I want to remind the Minister that in 1939 land was bought by the Native Trust to the value of more than £1,000,000 sterling and that that money was only paid out last year. It is due to that very largely that the Land Bank got all the money in from the farmers whose land had been bought by the Native Trust, and it is not due to the flourishing condition of the farmers. The Minister of Agriculture admitted about two weeks ago that the position of the farmers was not too rosy. Yesterday we again had a speech from him in which he said that the farmers did not need any further aid and that they would easily be able to pull through. To-day we had a speech here from the hon. member for Durban North (the Rev. Miles-Cadman), and although he is described as a third-class chaplain he, as a third-class chaplain none the less did say something we should take notice of. What he said was that he was of the opinion that during wartime one should be able to turn a handle of some kind of slot machine to produce money. He told us that during the last war they turned that machine and they produced £8,000,000 per day for the war. He expects something like that to be done here. If that is the case, if money for the war can be found as easily as all that, then we can come to no other conclusion but that the Minister of Finance thinks he can get the money quite easily in that way. He appears to think that he only has to turn the handle and then members of the House will every time vote more money for the war, one day for £14,000,000, next time for £24,000,000, and so on until we reach the £60,000,000. He spends money so freely in order to see the war through, and then we are expected to vote that money from time to time. Although we on this side of the House are in the minority, we are going to vote against it, even though we know that we cannot prevent this Bill from being passed—because the Minister of Finance knows that he has the support of those people who think of only one thing, and that is: see the war through. This money is being spent in a most extravagant way. We have shown here repeatedly how extravagantly and wastefully the money is being spent. The Minister of Finance and members opposite refuse to admit it, but it has been proved here by many members. For instance, there is that £100,000 which has gone astray in Impala House, and so it goes on. I recollect that a month or so ago certain troops came to my town, and the money which was wasted there was terrible. Nobody cared what was being done. After the troops had gone, a whole lot of stuff was left behind. No tenders were asked for these goods. They were handed over to one person, who on some of these things made a profit of 200 per cent. That is the way in which the country’s money is being wasted. We don’t even talk of the money which is given to the 17 members of Parliament by way of additional salary. That is ample evidence of the way in which the country’s money is being wasted, and then we are told at the same time that the farmers do not need any further assistance at the moment. It seems as if the Government, with the Minister of Finance in the lead, is not finding it difficult to spend money. It is quite easy to spend, because it is very easy to get it. Money is borrowed easily, and then it is spent in this way—and it is all supposed to be for the benefit of the country, but when we talk about the farming population and plead for the farming industry to be placed on a sound footing, seeing that the Government can get money so easily for other purposes, we are told that the farmers do not need any further help, and that they are flourishing. That is what we are told, although unquestoinable proof has been produced to show that the condition of the farmers is far from rosy. The Secretary for Agriculture only recently admitted that the condition was far from rosy, and yet we find that the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Agriculture, now state that the farmers do not require any more assistance. If the Minister of Finance were as liberal towards the farming industry, if he would treat the farming industry as generously as he treats other services in the country, there would be no need for us to come along here day in and day out with complaints. As a matter of fact, we consider the Government should be consistent. It should not do one thing and leave something else undone. If the Government wants to spend all that money—as it thinks in the interest of the country, to send our soldiers to North Africa—then it should realise that there are other services as well which need funds to enable them to be carried out. It has been stated here, and I want to endorse that statement, that the farming industry so far has always been the backbone of the country. About 45 per cent. of the population of the country make their living out of farming, and it is for that reason that this large industry, the biggest industry in the country, which is the backbone of the country, should get its rightful share of the money which can be found for the development and the benefit of the country and the people. The Prime Minister refuses to admit openly that he agrees with a new order such as that which we are making propaganda for, but in spite of that he says that a change must come, and that that change will inevitably come after the war. We say that this is the time to look after the interests of the country. This is the time for matters to be so arranged and put in order that when the time comes, as prophesied by the Prime Minister, our house will be in order, and to do that the greatest service which the Government can render the people is to see that the farming community is rehabilitated. The farming community has to be rehabilitated; if not, it will simply mean that after the war, when difficult times arrive, we will not be able to face those difficult times. One may call that the new order, or one may call it what one likes, but those changes and the difficulties which will come hand in hand with those changes will face us, and the necessary steps should be taken now to enable us to resist the heavy storms of economic pressure. Only by giving the necessary attention to that aspect of the matter now can we secure the future of the people. Hon. members know themselves that after a war there is always misery, anxiety and sorrow, and it would show common sense on the part of the Government if it were now to take the necessary steps to place the country’s greatest industry on a sound basis. Just as easily as money can be found for the war, millions of pounds can also be found for the purpose of placing the country in such a position that the farming industry will be able to render the necessary services to the people after the war. The Minister of Agriculture told us a whole lot of things here yesterday. He asked us if we did not know of Onderstepoort, if we did not know about Gallamsiekte, and all those things. We know all about it, but we say that not sufficient is being done. A great deal more has to be done in order to rehabilitate the farming community. These things have been going on for years, and the Minister of Agriculture has no cause to pride himself on it. These things have been going on for years in the ordinary way, and we expect improvements, and that is where we ask the Minister of Agriculture to do what is needed. We are convinced that the Secretary for Agricu lture could do with several million pounds in order to perform the necessary services. The reason why he is unable to do those services is because of lack of funds, and that is why we ask that the necessary funds be provided for the farming industry. Last year I made a special appeal to the Minister of Agriculture, and I asked him to give us additional extension officers. I went to see the Minister about it, and I also saw the Secretary for Agriculture; nothing has been done, however, and to crown it all, the only extension officer Lydenburg had has now been taken away, and the district, together with Middelburg and surrounding districts, has now to be served by one extension officer. It is impossible for him effectively to help the farmers, as agriculture has several branches in my district. It is impossible for one single official to attend to all the needs of the district. The extension officer has done good work, and there is no doubt that good results have been achieved, but one man we had has now been taken away from us, and we, together with a number of other districts, now have to manage with one officer, in spite of the fact that I asked for three or four men to be appointed. That is what the Government is doing to us. And then the Minister of Finance comes here and says that we on this side of the House talk a lot and complain a great deal, but that we fail to suggest any solution. We on this side of the House show the facts; we have shown the Minister where the shoe pinches, and it is for him and his technical people to give us a solution. We cannot be expected to put forward a solution. If we were to suggest a scheme for the solution of the difficulties, we would be told that the solution came from the Opposition, and that we were only putting it forward for propaganda purposes. I want to say again that this is the time when an amount equal at least to the amount which is being spent on the war should be spent on the farming industry. The Minister must find the money in some way or other, so that the farming industry may be rehabilitated and placed on such a sound footing that when we are faced by bad times after the war, those bad times will not find us unprepared; our house should then be in order, so that we shall be able to face the position and brave the storms.

I want to give the House the assurance that I will not detain it for one-twentieth of the time that I have been spending in waiting for my turn to speak. In the first place, I want to remove a misunderstanding in connection with something which was put into the mouth of the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen). I do not blame the hon. member for Durban (North) (the Rev. Miles-Cadman) for having got the impression which he tried to explain to this House. He told us that the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) interpreted for him while the hon. member for Victoria West was speaking. We can understand his being put under a wrong impression. I want to read out to the hon. member what the hon. member for Victoria West actually said, according to the Hansard report of his speech. The words to which the hon. member referred were used by him at the start of his speech, and not at the end of it. The hon. member for Victoria West said this—

The hon. member for Victoria West therefore very clearly said that a large part of the army was made up of the best men in the country, but that we also had blackguards in the army. I do not blame the hon. member for Durban (North) for having been under a wrong impression, and I only want to tell him to beware of the interpretation of the hon. member for Krugersdorp. I would also like to tell hon. members opposite that if they want to make propaganda in the country with anything of that kind, and want to go and say that it is racialism, that it is an agitation and an insult to the army, then they must quote correctly what the hon. member for Victoria West said on behalf of this side of the House. I would like to speak on matters which have not yet been mentioned in this House, and the first is the use that is being made of the two flags in the Union. When we go about the country we find that the Union flag, the flag of South Africa, is not being properly used by the Government. If we just go outside of the Houses of Parliament and look at the Government buildings on the opposite side of the street, then we see two flags there, and sometimes one. We see the Union Jack at the top of the building, and also the Union flag. Some time ago during a previous session, I asked the Prime Minister why the Union flag was hidden away in a remote corner, while the Union Jack was flying at the top of the building. His answer was that the Union Jack was there to indicate that it was the office of the Prime Minister, where he could be found. I do not think that that is the honest or even any answer which the Prime Minister would like us to take up seriously. I do not think that it is a reasonable answer to give us as to why the Union flag is flown on a corner while the Union Jack is waving at the top of the building. We do not regard the Prime Minister as the leader of the Afrikaans section of the population. We regard him as one of the greatest imperialists that has ever yet lived in South Africa, and if we want to know where his office is, and whether he is in the office, by means of a flag, then it ought to be the Union Jack which waves there, and not our flag, while the Union flag is flying from the summit of the building. The Union flag ought to fly at the summit of the Government buildings in the Union, because it is the only Union flag.

Go to the police station, and you will see the Union flag flying there.

We are not interested in gaols. We are trying to keep out of gaol, and you are trying to put us into it with your emergency regulations. I want to go still further. I also asked the Prime Minister during this session whether the Union flag was being used officially for war purposes by the South African troops. His answer was yes. The Prime Minister will remember that we have repeatedly put the question why the Union flag is not prominently used when companies of troops take part in the parade at the opening of Parliament. The reply was that all the different sections of the army have certain banners, and that they use them. I was talking about the war on this occasion, and I put this question to the Prime Minister—

I also asked—

The Prime Minister’s answer to the first question was that they were fighting under both. He also replied that he had no information as to what flags the troops used when forts were conquered. He added to that that it was not necessary to point out that the South African troops should respect the Union flag. I put this question to the Prime Minister in view of a picture which appeared in “Die Burger” on Monday, 17th February, 1941. It was an official photograph which “Die Burger” published under the caption “Union troops and the Union Jack,”. Below the photograph the following report, appeared—

That confirms me in my belief that this war is not being fought over South African interests. If it were a war about South African interests, then the South African troops when they conquered a fort would have hoisted the Union flag. They hoisted the Union Jack, and that confirms me in the opinion that the war is not in the least concerned with the interests of South Africa, but that it is simply being fought for that flag which is flying on the fort for the Union Jack and the British Empire, and that our sons of South Africa are engaged in fighting for another country. It is no wonder that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Bowen), who is a member of the Sons of England and of the British Empire Service League, thinks so much of the South African flag that he wants to allow it to be flown over the gaol, but not over the Government buildings. That clearly shows that we are fighting not for the Union flag, but for another flag, and that this war is not in the least concerned with South African affairs. When the khaki circus was sent round the country by the Prime Minister, it was welcomed in the Free State by the supporters of the party on the opposite benches, and we did not hear Die Stem van Suid-Afrika, or other Afrikaans hymns. No, they welcomed the troops by singing “There will always be an England.” That was sung to South African troops in our own country. It is strange that they should sing “There will always be an England,” although they know they are wrong in using that hymn. The chief reason why I have risen is to give my entire support to the amendment of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). I not only want to give my support to the arguments which he used in support of his amendment, but I want to give an additional good reason why I am supporting his amendment, and I do it with all the conviction that I possess, and I speak with the deepest convictions of what I believe absolutely—I support that amendment not to give money to the Government to continue this war because the war has already been lost by Great Britain, and I am convinced that every penny which is being spent on it and every life which is sacrificed is being sacrificed needlessly, because it is being sacrificed in a hopeless cause. Nothing more can win this war for Great Britain, because the war has already been won by Germany. As that is my deep conviction—and I am not judging by my feelings but in accordance with facts which have occurred in the past—and as the British troops are being transported everywhere, and as I notice the efforts which are being made, my conviction is strengthened that Britain has already lost the war. If then I am correct in my conviction then I say that every penny which is being spent on this war is being spent in a hopeless cause.

That is wishful thinking.

If you will allow me to say so, then I want to remind you that I have not a drop of English blood in my veins.

We can see that for ourselves.

And accordingly, I can judge impartially. If I had German blood in my veins, or English blood in my veins, then I would possibly not have been impartial, because blood is thicker than water. The hon. members opposite judge according to their hearts and according to their wishes, and not by virtue of hard facts. They want the mother country to win. The mother country plays such a great role in their lives that they cannot imagine such a thing as her losing. I would also like to speak about the wasting of money, and I want in that connection to mention a few items. I also want to say that I respect the soldier who has gone to fight, because he really believes that it is his duty to go and fight. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) told the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) that there were no soldiers who had been forced to go and fight. I want to repeat to the Minister of Finance, who is now in his place, that I have the names of people in whose case that did happen, and I can tell him where it took place. In Mossel Bay eight European Afrikaners were dismissed from the Railway service simply because they were fit for war service. They were replaced by eight coloured persons. The superintendent or foreman of those men personally told me that he was simply carrying out instructions. Those eight men were discharged. Now I want to know from the Minister of Labour whether he approves of those men being discharged from their work simply because they felt that they were unable to take part in the war. I can quite well remember that there was a debate here last year about the apprentices who were being trained for technical work. I quoted from the form which they had to sign, and I asked the Minister directly whether it did not mean that the boy who signed such a form would be forced to go and do military service. I said that that was the case; the Minister differed from me and told me that it was a question in interpretation. I said to him that it was very clear to me that those boys could be forced to go and do military service. Now 30 of those young Afrikaners have been discharged. Is that also a matter of interpretation? Is it not a double proof that those young lads have been discharged because they did not want to join the army? Money is being wasted on this war as it has probably never been wasted before in the history of South Africa. Here we have a list of names which the Minister has given us of members of Parliament who draw double salary. I know that this is a point which they are sensitive about, and therefore it is not strange that the newspapers, which usually publish facts of importance, so that the country can get to know them, have suppressed that list of names. These facts which show how the money of the country is being wasted were not reported in the English newspapers, not one of them made any mention of the list of persons who were members of Parliament, and that the Government was paying them double salary. Not one English newspaper considered it necessary to mention it. Do you know what amount that runs into per annum? About £15,000 is annually paid by way of salaries, apart from allowances, to hon. members on the other side of this House. I now just want to mention a few cases and to tell hon. members what the work is that they are doing. I asked the Minister of Defence what work they did during the sessions of Parliament and during the recess, and I asked what their military duties were. Let me just mention a few. There is Mr. Adler, a senator. He is a colonel and gets 60/6 per day as Director of Field Artillery. I asked what military duties he is fulfilling, and the reply was “Military duties”.

When you ask what military duties anyone is doing, and you receive the reply “military duties”, then it is either an evasion of the question or misleading. I received this list in answer to my question, but allow me to say that the list is not complete. I know, for instance, of one member of the Provincial Council who gets about £45 a month, and his name does not appear on this list. There are hon. members on the opposite side of this House whose names do not appear on it either. Whether they have resigned in the meantime, or what has happened I do not know, but I know that the hon. member for Kensington is a major, and his name does not appear on it.

He has never drawn anything.

But there are others who draw nothing and neverthless appear on this list, as e.g. the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) whose name appears on it. He is lieutenant, acting-captain, and his pay is “nil”. He appears on it, but at least one person that I know of does not appear on this list. Then I take Dr. V. L. Shearer, who appears here as lieutenant. His duties are “Military post”. He gets £65 2s. 11d. a month. I really ought to know what work the hon. member is supposed to be doing, for which he receives £65 2s. 11d. a month. If he can do the work, for which he receives £65 2s. 11d. a month, while he sits in this Parliament, then it really is a miracle. He cannot do the work. It means that, during the session of Parliament, he receives the sum of £65 2s. 11d., in addition to allowances.

Do you know how many teeth he draws?

No, he is pulling the Government’s leg, and they do not see it. Then there is the hon. member for Rondebosch. (Dr. Moll). He gets “£2 2s. a consultation”. Then there is Brig.-Gen. (Acting Major General) Botha. He draws 70/6 a day. His work during the session is “parliamentary duties” and he is also general in command of the Third Division. I do not know where the Third Division is, but I do not know whether a man can be in command of a third division and also do his work in Parliament. The return states that during the session of Parliament he also fulfills military duties when it is necessary. Is it not necessary then for a general always to be with his army? Are his military duties not of such a nature that he ought to be there? No wonder there is so little discipline. During the adjournment his duties are “ditto.” Then we get Egeland, L. He is a captain and gets 34/- a day. He is Assistant Judge-Advocate General. His work, during the parliamentary session, is also parliamentary word and “military duties when required”, and during the recess “ditto”. Then a number of provincial councillors are mentioned here, and I would like the Minister to explain why these appointments are necessary. It seems to me that the bigger Jingo you are the more important is your position. Here, for instance, is T. Mare, a provincial council member. He is lieutenantcolonel, and he gets 50/6 a day. His work is “Demobolisation officer”. Now just imagine, you find the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. N. J. van den Berg) who gets 34/- a day, and he is “Recruiting officer”. He tries to get recruits. But then there is Lieut.-colonel Mare, who tries to demobolise them as quickly as possible, and for that he gets 50/6 a day. During the sesions of the Provincial Council he attends them, and during the recess his work is “ditto.” Now I would like to ask the Minister of Finance what the tests are which a man has to go through before he becomes a soldier. I understand that a recruit is tested before he can be a soldier. The test doubtless is as to whether he is physically sound to be able to do the work which is expected of a soldier. But I think that is not the only reason why a test is made. I think the test is also for the purpose of seeing that persons are not admitted into the army who will subsequently become dependent on the State. Therefore they are examined as to whether they are physically fit, so that you do not admit into the service soldiers with weak constitutions, which develop into a serious complaint and render him no longer fit. Now I speak with every respect, and I want to ask the Minister how it is that you see officers and soldiers in uniform to-day who are obviously unfit for military service? I do not like mentioning names, but there are persons who are definitely not fit for military service, and yet they are accepted. What is the test? I now come to something else. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) referred to the police. If we ever respected the police, then we do so now, and you over there are making their duties absolutely impossible for them. I ask the Prime Minister to make an appeal to the Press to try and prevent feeling being aroused between the police officials and the public. When you read the newspapers you notice every day how attacks with big headlines are being made on the police. How can a policeman do his duty when you are constantly trying to arouse suspicion against the police? We remember how, when the riots took place a little while ago, that people began to blame the policemen for being the cause, and every day there was an agitation in the Jingo Press stirring up the public against the police. Let me give an example of what went on there, so that the Minister can know where he should intervene. It was, for instance, mentioned in the newspapers, that is to say the English Jingo newspapers, that twenty policemen had assaulted one soldier. I think a policeman is a trained man, and we can imagine what would happen and what would remain of a soldier if he were attacked by twenty policemen. But that kind of stuff appears in the newspapers to bring the police into discredit with the population. You find, for instance, the report that six policemen had attacked a woman in evening dress with batons. How is it possible to publish such a thing? Six powerful policemen attacked a woman! What would the result of that have been? A corpse, of course. But that is put into the papers to belittle the policemen in the respect of the public.

Was that not the evidence?

It is done to depreciate the police, and it will later on make the work of the police impossible. If there are little riots and the police defend those who are assaulted, then you will find a report that the Jingo spirit is so strong that the police are being attacked by the Press, simply because it is Afrikaner boys who are in the police, and they have to be belittled with the public. Let me say this, and I hope the House will take my word for it, that I was sitting in the train and offending no one. What happened? Some of the soldiers came and went the length of spitting in my face. If that is not a challenge, then I wonder what is. There were two policemen, and they intervened, and I wrote to the Minister that the police had done their duty. Those individuals have never yet heard from the Minister that they had done their duty. No, they are humiliated and attacked simply because they defend persons who possibly do not share the views of the Government. Now we have been given new regulations, and an Afrikaner is put into gaol if he assaults a soldier. Could not one expect that enquiries would be made first of all whether the soldier was not possibly guilty of being the first offender? In answer to a question which I put, the Prime Minister said that it was not necessary to issue an emergency regulation in connection with the punishment of soldiers who assaulted citizens, because they came under the common law. Why, then, is it necessary to publish regulations in respect of other persons, if they assault soldiers? They surely also fall under the common law. I want to ask the Minister of Finance what he would do if anyone spat in his face. If you have the slightest self-respect, you must hit back. But even if they spit in your face and you hit them, then you go to gaol without the option of a fine, because you have assaulted a soldier. They are fighting for Christianity and freedom! Is that the kind of freedom? Then I want to bring something else to the notice of the Minister as well. Attacks are constantly being made on officials who only to a trifling extent take part in the proceedings of Afrikaner bodies. Such officials are attacked by the other side of the House, and it is said that it is party politics. When an official joins a good movement like the Ossewa-Brandwag, then it is said that it is for something more than culture, that he is a fifth columnist, because he joins such a purely Afrikaans movement. Recently an article running into two columns, by the chairman of the Motor Transportation Board, appeared in the “Cape Times,” in which he attacked the new order of the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow), and when I in the absence of another member read the article and said that the man, Dr. Hjalmar Reitz, ought to be ashamed of himself for writing such an article, then he defended it. Anyone who supports the other side of the House can simply do anything. Then nothing is said about it; then it is not party politics; then you can do just as you like. But if you sit on this side then it is politics, and then it is a scandal. Hon. members opposite can even continue walking during the midday pause without being assaulted, as I noticed in the case of two hon. members opposite, who continued walking after the gun had fired, without their being arrested. They apparently recognised those hon. members as Tipperary people. They were two members of the Dominion Party. They were not assaulted. I want to make an appeal to the Minister to go back in thought to his younger days, to think of the days when he still went to the Strand, and I want to ask him whether he still holds the ideals which he then expressed. I obtained the highest respect for the Minister at that time and believed in his feelings of justice. But I must say that the Minister has during this session seriously shaken that respect which I had for him. As was said by the hon. members for George and Beaufort West, he has taken up an attitude which we do not expect from the Minister of Finance. I want to ask him to remember what happened a little more than a year ago. I was one of the first persons who went to him and said that I respected him, because I knew that he lived up to his principles. But now he has shocked me. I did not expect an attitude of that kind from the Minister of Finance. I want to ask him, for the sake of right and justice, to see to it that an end is put to the oppression of Afrikaners, just because they are Afrikaners. But an end should be put to the assaulting of Afrikaners simply because they are Afrikaners. I also want to ask him not to take any part in that hypocrisy about religion which is so repulsive. I am sorry that he has also taken a little part in it. I do not believe that the Minister actually thinks that they are fighting for Christianity. If he does then I have over-estimated his mental powers. When we meet hon. members on the other side, and we chat with each other, then they laugh when you speak of the fact that they are fighting for Christendom. They do not believe it, they do not believe in Christianity, and if you do not believe in Christianity how can you fight for it? Let there be an end to this hypocrisy about religion. Let the poor people get work, let us use all our powers to procure it, so that they will no longer be sent from pillar to post and not be able to find work. On the Railways you cannot at present get work if you are physically fit for fighting. Even if you go to the labour office in Cape Town they say to you, as an official said the other day: “The Almighty cannot give you work. Go to the war, and then we will give you work when you come back.” They will not be there to give the people work when they come back. But I want to ask the Minister, for the sake of South Africa, not to allow himself to be misled by the Dominionite and by the other groups which are now sitting at his side. Let him remember the high ideals which he used to hold.

I waited to this late hour, but as I always do, I would like to try to contribute something to the uplift of our people, and to humiliation of the Government, if I can. I would like to do something in the service of those who are called upon to serve the Government, the people of South Africa. I noticed that the Minister of Finance has just sent his staff home, and therefore if the fixed time comes for the adjournment of the debate, it will be adjourned to a subsequent occasion. I shall then have an opportunity of saying something more, and now I only want to make a remark provisionally in connection with one of the small lights, of the smaller “leading lights” on the other side, who they put up to try and teach us good taste. There is, e.g., the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet). Well, my father was also a Caledon man. Yes, the old Dominee always called him the “Kaledonder.” The hon. member opposite lacks all idea of good taste in regard to Afrikanerdom. He spoke about the boys who are fighting, and he wanted to explain to us that we were out to depreciate the sons and daughters of our people. Certainly not. By this system of recruiting volunteers, the Government have even succeeded in getting one of my sons-in-law to go to the front. I am sorry that he was foolish enough to go, because his wife and children are suffering. His farming is being ruined, and he will have to come back again to start afresh. But they misled him. Who was it that got him to take that step? That crowd on the other side who take double pay and sit here, the “Kale donders.”

At 10.55 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 27th February.