On a point of personal explanation, it appears that yesterday during the discussion of the motion to proceed with the Attorneys’ Admission Amendment and Legal Practitioners Fidelity Fund Bill, 1940, I inadvertently gave the House the impression that the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) broke faith with me in respect of an arrangement come to. I want the House to understand that in the difficulties which arose, the hon. member for Newcastle was certainly not to blame, and I think that anybody knowing the hon. member, will realise that he is surely the last man to go back on an arrangement made.

I move as an unopposed motion, and pursuant to notice—

Mr. N. J. SCHOEMAN seconded.

Agreed to.

I listened with great interest yesterday to the speech of the Leader of the Afrikaner Party, of the new party (Mr. Conroy). His previous leader assumed to himself the right of giving him (Mr. Conroy) a little advice, after he had broken away and I think that I can in turn give him a little advice. The advice which I would give him is this: Do not exhibit the same hypocrisy that your previous leader showed during the whole of his political career. The hon. member said here that he fully agreed with the motion of no confidence, and in the same breath he stated that under no circumstances was there any possible opportunity for him to vote in favour of the Leader of the Opposition and his party coming into office as an alternative government. The motion of no confidence, however, surely means that if the hon. member votes for a motion of no confidence, and that motion were carried, then he must inevitably bring the Leader of the Opposition and his party into office. As he was convinced that that was not desirable in the interests of the country, and as it was impossible for him to vote in favour of it, and as in addition to that he was convinced of the fact that the government which was in ofice to-day was there in accordance with the will of the people, I want to tell the Leader of the Afrikaner party that he must not speak with two voices. I know him, I know what stuff he is made of, and I know that two-facedness is not a quality which is to be found in him, and I ask him when he is giving a lead to his followers and the party which follows him, he must state in clear words, that although he does not agree with the war policy of the present Government, it still is a Government which is there by the will of the people. The people placed the Government there.

Oh no.

Since the Government came into office on the 4th September the will of the people has, on several occasions been expressed more and more strongly in favour of the present Government, and whatever may be going to happen, whether our friends on the other side change their skins, whether they break up or not, there is not the least opportunity or possibility of them ever coming into office. I would like the Leader of the Afrikaner Party to say to his supporters: We will give a lead. The Government is in office, whether we agree with the war policy or not, but the Government is there in consequence of the will of the people, and although we cannot agree with the war policy, still less can we agree to the Opposition, with its present leader, forming an alternative government. I want to say to the Afrikaner Party that they cannot keep their cake in their pocket and eat it at the same time. Pass a resolution. South Africa is in a state of crisis, South Africa is at war, South Africa needs a clear lead. The pleople of South Africa have put the Government there, and it becomes every Afrikaner, whether he agrees with the Government policy or not and it is the duty of every Afrikaner if he has a grain of love of country or patriotism in his bosom, to support and assist the Government to the end of the war. (Laughter). The hon. member there may laugh, but I say that the man who will not submit to the resolution of the House of Assembly, is a traitor to the interests of South Africa. The hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) laughs. He came along with his New Order, which he took over from Hitler, and of course it does not suit him for this Government to be in office, because he had hoped that he would be a sort of pocket edition of Hitler when the revolution came, which he promised would come as surely as the sun shone. This motion by the Leader of the Opposition, of no confidence in the Government, was, taken by itself, especially with a view to the circumstances in which the party on the other side is, ridiculous. The party is broken up, divided, they are jealous of each other, the one is undermining the other, they have commenced to disintegrate, as the Leader of the Opposition himself said, and I want to say this—the Leader of the Opposition is aware that that change of front has only just started. It is only in the commencement stage, and one of these days that change will break out again in another place. I say that he and his party know that they have not got the least possible chance of passing this motion through the House. But I am nevertheless glad that he has introduced it, and I will tell you why. Since the 4th September we have had the position that owing to the loud voices of my hon. friends opposite, under the lead of the Leader of the Opposition, the people have been told that there has been a reunion of the people, how that the Afrikaner people is now reunited, and united, with the result that from time to time a large section of the people in the country are induced to believe that the Afrikaner people have now been united. Nevertheless the leader opposite and his party know that never yet in our history has the Afrikaner people been so torn asunder and broken up as at this very moment. I say that this motion at least gives us at the present time, the chance and the opportunity to expose that false representation of national unity, and after this debate the people of South Africa will know what the actual state of affairs is. I say that this motion gives us this opportunity to indicate how things stand, and how the party opposite has contributed to divide the people, and also how the party opposite has, since the 4th September, become weaker and weaker.

As Winburg proved.

I will come to Winburg. The hon. member reminds me of it now. They rely now on the result of the by-election at Winburg. Since the 4th September, 1939, until the by-election of Winburg, we have had 19 by-elections in the country, that is both for the Provincial Council and the House of Assembly. Out of those elections we, that is to say this party, have won fourteen seats out of the nineteen.

What party won them?

I say that we, on this side, have won fourteen out of the nineteen seats, and of those we have won no less than five without there being an election. Now hon. members come and shout Winburg, Winburg! How many of the Hertzogites abstained from voting at Winburg? The number was given to me as being no less than 900 Hertzogites who had not exercised their vote, and if we take into consideration that Winburg is the Mecca of the Dardanelles of nationalism in the Free State, and we find a position like this, then I would be the last to boast about the Winburg result if I sat on the opposite side of the House. Let us then, on our side, ask: What about Losberg?

Anyhow, It was a nice majority.

And it was a nicer majority at Losberg. There the people did not stop away from the ballot box. At Winburg, 900 abstained from voting, and I say that that shows the position which the party on the opposite side are in. But I want to show that this motion gives us an opportunity of at least showing the country and the people how weak that party is internally. For that reason alone I say I welcome this motion, because we will expose them to the country, and from to-day onwards the country will see that that party is a paralytic and disintegrated party, and is inexpressibly unfit for doing anything in the government of the country.

Why then are you afraid of a general election?

The Leader of the Opposition put certain questions to my leader, the Prime Minister. My leader has already, in an adequate way, replied to some of those questions. I think there was one particular question that he did not answer. He said. You declared war; you are now in Central Africa and have already spent £60,000,000 on the war; how long is the war to continue, and are we to spend £150,000,000 or £200,000,000 on it.

Per annum.

No, the Leader of the Opposition asked whether we were going to spend £150,000,000 or £200,000,000 on this war. This question was: How far do you want to go, and where will you stop? I, in my turn, say again that that party since the 4th September, when South Africa entered the war, I say it again, in consequence of a resolution of this highest court in the land, that party on the other side has since that time not only said “We do not agree with the policy of the Government, and we are going to remain quiet and do nothing,” but they took active steps and made common cause with the enemy of the country, in order in that way to try to make it impossible for the Government to go on with the task which they had taken on themselves. They were constantly throwing sand into the machinery, constantly they gave those men of South Africa who are to-day standing in the breach on their behalf, and for South Africa, in order to fight for their liberties and existence, a stab in the back at every opportunity. This Government received a mandate from Parliament on the 4th September, 1939. We are going to carry out that mandate faithfully, until we have obtained a successful end to this war. It is not a question of where we are going to end it. We will continue until we have obtained a successful end to the war. And, Mr. Speaker, when we get to that stage, and we have obtained a successful end to the war, we will drive the enemy out of Africa completely. We shall, so far as the future is concerned, assure to our own generation and to posterity the safety of South Africa in consequence thereof. My hon. friends opposite talk about debts. South Africa may have debts; South Africa will have debts. But I, in my turn say that we are fighting for our traditions, for our freedom and for our religion.

And surely, also, for Christianity?

We are fighting for everything that is dear to us, and for which our ancestors sacrificed their property and their blood in our country, and I say that even if it costs £150,000,000 or £200,000,000, if we can attain the victory and can make the future safe for South Africa and our descendants, if we can retain everything which is dear to us, and preserve it for our posterity, then even £200,000,000 is not to be compared with that. What will it benefit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul? No, if we lose this war, then it will mean an end to the soul of the people of South Africa. £150,000,000 of £200,000,000! My hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition is terribly concerned about that debt, and he speaks about retrogression of the people, and that there are certain services in the country which must be maintained, and that we shall not be able to maintain those services. He is particularly the champion now of the rehabilitation of the farmer. Fancy that, the Leader of the Opposition! May I remind him of the fact that they are now using precisely the same arguments as they used during the gold standard period. They refused to quit the gold standard simply because they did not want to run after England. Now the Leader of the Opposition says once more that we entered into the war simply because we wanted to run after England. That is precisely the same argument, and I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition what share he had in the maintenance of the gold standard, which brought the farmers and the country to beggary, and which ruined thousands and thousands of them.

Will you ask that question of the Minister of Finance?

Thousands of the farmers were brought to ruin through the action of the Leader of the Opposition. He will still remember that he, as leader of his party, came to Phillipstown during a by-election which was fought out on the gold standard.

And who lost?

We lost. The Leader of the Opposition succeeded in misleading the electorate temporarily, just as he has once again succeeded to-day in misleading a section of the people. That was the ruin of thousands of farmers, and then he comes and speaks here about the rehabilitation of the farmers. Before the difficulties in regard to the gold standard there was no such thing as a subsidy. The farmers in our country did not know it, but the hon. member knows that the gold standard policy which he and his friends followed, cost the country not £150,000,000 or £200,000,000 but directly and indirectly it cost the country countless millions. My hon. friends opposite laugh, but I say that in consequence of that grievous misleading on his part, he is responsible for the fact that the country has lost twice £200,000,000, and that that money has been wasted and we have nothing to show for it to-day. People became impoverished. It will take years and years before the country will be able to wash away the traces of the gold standard policy for which he and his friends were repsonsible. I say, compare those losses which the country suffered through his collaboration, and what have we got in return? Compare that with what the war is costing us, and with what there is at stake for us in this war. If the war costs us £150,000,000 or £200,000,000 and we can win it by that sum, then we shall obtain this, that the people of South Africa, that the Afrikaner people will retain its soul, and that is worth more than all that money.

You must not speak about the Afrikaner soul.

It is only hon. members opposite who have an Afrikaner soul!

Order!

The Leader of the Opposition put another pertinent question. He asked us where Christianity had ever yet been defended by the sword. He asked us what kind of Christianity it was that you had to defend with the sword.

Ask the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge).

He went even further. He said: You say that you are fighting for Christianity and then you have Turkey or Russia as an ally. My answer is this. The Christianity for which we are fighting is the same Christianity for which his ancestors drew the sword and sacrificed their property and blood in order to uphold it. It is the same Christianity as that for which the Huguenots sacrificed everything when they were prepared to sacrifice all their property. But that Christianity the Leader of the Opposition is to-day prepared to sell and to pledge for a few votes.

And you mortgaged it to Russia.

He is one of the descendants of the Huguenots, and if it were not that the Huguenots were prepared to sacrifice their all to defend Christianity, where would the hon. member have been today? He is a minister of religion, a minister of the church to which I belong.

Are you starting on the predikants again?

Yes, certainly. I expect something different from them than what we got from that hon. member. I do not expect them to come and ask me what sort of Christianity should be defended with the sword, while the hon. member’s ancestors fought and died for it. I ask again: Where would he have been to-day if our ancestors had not drawn the sword on behalf of their faith, and been prepared to die for it? There are other instances also in history where wars lasted for years, for the freedom of the faith. I now want to refer to something else, to the frivolous way in which the Leader of the Opposition spoke, and how he is imbued with Nazism, and that to such an extent that he was even prepared to sacrifice Christianity provided he could advance Nazism. Two years ago the 250th annual celebration of the arrival of the Huguenots in our country was celebrated and the Huguenots were honoured on that occasion in consequence of the role which they had played in the development of the people of South Africa. The Leader of the Opposition was a member of the head committee, but now I have to tell you that six months later, six months after having taken part in those celebrations, he was the man who came and said to us: “The French must be bundled out of South Africa.” Do you see what he is prepared to do? He is so shot-through with Nazism that he now wants to hound the French out of South Africa.

If you say it once more, you will possibly believe it yourself.

He wants to push the French out of South Africa, but it is wrong to push the Italians out, and with the Germans we are not entitled to fight! If we take action against the Germans and Italians then he takes up the battle against us. His own blood-relations, however, he wants to bundle out of the country. On another occasion, when he was attacked about the national socialistic policy of Hitler, that policy which embraced the total rejection of the Christian religion ….

That is not true.

On that occasion he went so far as to reject the Deity. He made these statements and said that the religions of Hitler was a positive religion, a religion with which he would not find fault. He said that, although he knew, just as surely as he sits there, that that positive religion of Hitler’s embraces the total rejection not only of the Christian religion, but even that the God-head is rejected. If Hitler were to come to South Africa then there is not the slightest hope for the Christian religion. If South Africa came under the heel of Hitler, then we should not have the freedom of worshipping God as we wished. The lead which the hon. member gave in this respect is therefore guidance which we would not in the least have expected from a man which had once been a minister of the Christian church in South Africa. Unfortunately, there are still people in our country who look up to him in the capacity of a minister of religion, and who therefore believe what he says. Because he gave that advice, there is unfortunately a large section of our people in my own church who associate themselves with it, and who promote Nazism. I am glad of one thing: that while my church has not seen the light, the Reformed Church, at any rate, sees the light, and is commencing to put up a warning hand against the danger which it sees. And it is not only individual ministers of the Reformed Church who are pointing out the danger—that the Christian religion is in danger—but the synod of the Reformed Church has passed a resolution to warn the people against that politive religion, about which my hon. friend spoke, and which Hitler would introduce into this country, and which embraces the rejection of the Christian religion. I hope that the day will come that the other sections of the church will do the same thing.

Are they in favour of war or against it?

The Leader of the Opposition boasted about the unity of the party, even the little group on the opposite side is commencing to disintegrate. He is concerned about his party. He does not know what part still has to break away. The hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) has already given the ultimatum to him that he is going to make propaganda in the party in favour of national socialism. And do you know, that threat involved this fact, that if they would not allow him to do so then he threatened that he would take a further seven members out of the party. The disintegration will go further. The Leader of the Opposition made a compromise with him, and told him that he would be allowed to do what he wished, and the hon. member for Gezina said that he not only wanted the right to make propaganda for national socialism, but that the Press of the Leader of the Opposition was to support him. And do you know that the Leader of the Opposition cannot oppose him, because he could not stand losing another seven votes? He is simply prepared to do anything to retain his power and to prevent any further disintegration taking place, and once more he bound his party to that. He surrendered to that national socialistic idea, just as he has surrendered to the OssewaBrandwag. To save his own political skin, he said long ago that he would rather come under the wing of the Ossewa-Brandwag, and as the Ossewa-Brandwag has always got away with all the propaganda which they have made in the country, and said that they were a cultural body, I want the public to know that the Ossewa-Brandwag is as stated by the Leader of the Opposition no longer a cultural body, but has become a purely political body. Where is the Leader of the Opposition leading his followers to? If he sacrifices one principle after the other, where then does he want to go to with the people? He is prepared to sacrifice one principle after the other for the sake of votes, and to see if he cannot strengthen his party to fulfil his ambition, which is a hopeless thing, of becoming the Prime Minister of the country some day. No, the hon. member’s action, as I have described it here, that he had sacrificed everything for the sake of votes, that he has bent the knee to national socialism and to the Ossewa-Brandwag, to be able to get into the position of power, shows us that he is more concerned about a few votes than about the kingdom of heaven. After we went into the war on the 4th September, that hon. member and his followers went about the country, and for six or eight months they preached to the people—and they misled thousands of people to believe them— that Germany was going to get the victory in the war.

We still believe it.

They went and told their people that, and after the fall of France they held out the prospect to the people that it would not then take much longer. The hon. member for Gezina told his followers that just as surely as the sun shone, South Africa would obtain a republic.

Most certainly. It will get it.

Of course, that hon. member went to see Hitler, and Hitler probably told him so.

And you sent him to Hitler.

There were cases in which many of our people made a complete mistake, because they fully believed what they were told, that Hitler was within a short time going to conquer England, and in addition they believed that as soon as Hitler set foot in England, at that moment England would be finished, and we in South Africa would get a republic. Thousands of their people believed that they would get a republic at the hands of Hitler. Now, they are asking questions, because these things did not happen. The war has developed, and it is now appearing more and more that those wild promises to the people will never me fulfilled. The public are now commencing to ask questions, and what answers are those hon. members trying to find now? They are doing everything in their power to see that Germany shall obtain the victory, a victory which will also apply to South Africa, so that they can fulfil their promises. Now they no longer say that England will be conquered, but that England will go bankrupt, and if England goes bankrupt then it will mean a victory for Germany. What a hope! They have set their hope on England going bankrupt, and that Germany will then be given an opportunity of obtaining a victory. Now America comes and says that it will add her weight. Now, on the other hand, they tell the people that America will come, England will lose, but America will come and that in the long run South Africa will be handed over to America, lock, stock and barrel. I tell them this: We are going to win this war; America will assist us, and that hope, which they are hugging to their soul, they might as well abandon. Nothing will come of it.

You know that the old prophets are dead.

The Leader of the Opposition, in introducing, said this, that the present was a very suitable time to introduce a motion of non-confidence into the House of Assembly. Do you know what he meant by that? He meant that it was an appropriate time because there had been riots in Johannesburg on the Friday night and the Saturday night. He now wants to exploit those disturbances for political purposes, to try to put a little new spirit into the hearts of his people. They had no reasons to put forward as to why a motion of no confidence in the Government should be passed. Those riots assisted them in their difficulty, and they now want to exploit them. They will not succeed in doing so. We shall, of course, hear a great deal more about the shameful attacks which were made by soldiers on private individuals.

Do you deny that those attacks were made?

We shall hear a great deal about the scandalous attacks that were made by soldiers on bearded men! I say this here, with knowledge that I have, and with all the responsibility that I carry, that those attacks and those occurrences, concerning soldiers and private individuals, were in the first instance the result of the provocation that was given on the part of the bearded men. They were the result of that terrible provocation that there was on the part of the men with beards, and, as we might expect from that class of man, whose liver is as white as a piece of paper—that they would not stand their ground—we also find that they see to it that they have four, five or six men collected, and when they find a soldier by himself then they almost beat him to death.

That is a lie.

There have been tens of cases.

Give one.

When two or three or five soldiers are walking alone, then they are attacked.

Where?

There are many cases. People who support you over there offer two or three soldiers a lift with them in a motor car, and then they maltreat them.

Do the police know about it?

The police know about it, but unfortunately when things of that kind happen, then the cowards run away. They commit the offence, and then they run away. I will give an instance of two soldiers who were taken into a motor car, and both of them were nearly beaten to death, thrown out of the car and left there.

What was the number of the car?

Who knows the number? I go further and I say that they not only attack individual soldiers, but that they even attack women in khaki.

For shame?

Yes. Those are the kind of cowards that one finds. You can only expect it from that class of people. I want to mention one instance. There was a girl from England, she belongs to the English army, and was in khaki.

The brick story.

Yes, of course you do not believe it. The girl was walking in the street and standing in front of a shop window, and she was then hit in the face by a brick thrown from behind. [Laughter.] Yes, when she looked round she got the brick in her face. The girl has been disfigured for the rest of her life. The man with a beard, the coward, ran away and escaped, as usual. The same thing happened the night before last in Johannesburg, where a few soldiers were attacked.

Now tell us a little truth.

I say that the soldiers would not be guilty of disorderly conduct without cause, without their having been challenged, without some of their comrades being ill-treated.

Did “Die Vaderland” abuse them?

The soldiers, the military forces that we have to-day, are the cream of the people of South Africa. They are the cream of South Africa. Every one of them is a volunteer. [Laughter.] All have entered the war voluntarily. I am now talking of the hands-uppers, who wanted to go to the Limpopo with the white flag, and only wanted to fight on this side of it. The Leader for the Transvaal, on the other side, the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom), does not even want to go and fight on the Limpopo any longer. He wants to receive the enemy with open arms. I say that those men have come forward to defend their country out of patriotism. They want to ensure the safety of and to defend our women and children, and I say that one of them is worth more than ten of those wearers of beards. [Time limit.]

The hon. the Minister of Lands is not averse to listening to his own voice. He is fond of talking and of talking often; he likes listening to his own voice.

It is better than to listen to Hitler’s voice.

I believe the last speech he made before he gave his radio talk and before, what shall I say, he gave his show here in the House, was on the Rand. There he spoke on the subject of “He-men and keymen.” Unfortunately for him one of his own papers immediately reacted to what he said, namely, the “Rand Daily Mail,” and the “Rand Daily Mail” said this—

His supporters must no doubt have listened to him with pleasure to-day because hon. members will realise that he has quite a number of supporters … you know, the kind of man who confuses offensiveness with principle and noise with eloquence. And his supporters will be very pleased to hear that so far as this week is concerned the prize again goes to the Minister of Lands. But I want to deal not with the noise which he made, but with the speech made by the Prime Minister. One of the Prime Minister’s own supporters said this about him: “The Prime Minister is sometimes unequal in debate.” I think on this occasion after having listened to him, after his reply to what the Leader of the Opposition said, we can freely say that on this occasion he definitely was not equal to the debate. The Leader of the Opposition for a solid hour and a half made the most serious charges ever made against a Government. It was a summing up of misdeeds such as has been seldom brought against the head of a political party. To those charges the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister replied with one poor joke after the other, with half truths and with irresponsible evasions. Let me analyse what he said: first of all, the Leader of the Opposition accused the Government, and especially the Prime Minister, of being engaged on wasting the assets of the country in the way a lunatic would do. The reply to that charge—the astounding reply made by the Prime Minister in regard to war expenditure was this: “If there is one policy which we are proud of, then it is our financial policy in regard to the war.”

Hear, hear.

Yes, and his back benchers applauded that statement. There are in our country tens of thousands of people without food, and there are hundreds of thousands living below the bread line, and while that is the position we are spending £6,000,000 per month merely in order to show what fine Empire lackeys we are. If an ordinary citizen of the country were to treat his family in the way the Prime Minister is treating his people he would not get applause from back benchers or from anybody—but he would get six months from the magistrate.

That is better than six years from Hitler.

The Leader of the Opposition put another question, namely, what will happen, what would happen, what may happen to the British Fleet, and with other British possessions, if England should lose the war. To that the Prime Minister smilingly replied that he was not going into such a childish supposition. He said that it was such a childish assumption that it was not worthy of his attention. But unfortunately for him this question of what is going to happen to the British Fleet if England loses the war has been put previously. It was not to childish for America to put that question, and it was not too childish for Great Britain to answer that question. This matter was raised in this House a few months ago, and it should be fresh in the memories of all hon. members of this House. It was during the previous session that it was raised. Great Britain on that occasion gave America the solemn assurance that if her fleet bases became untenable, in other words, if England was knocked out, then she would not allow the British Fleet to fall into German hands. But when the Leader of the Opposition put the question, what is going to happen if Great Britain suffered defeat, then the Prime Minister regards it as a childish assumption.

That is so.

But it was not childish for America to put that question, and it was not childish for Great Britain formally to reply to it. But the Prime Minister was so satisfied with his own reply that he became quite indifferent because the next point he dealt with was a quotation from a speech by General Hertzog. I want to congratulate him. He is now actually quoting from General Hertzog’s speeches. But the pity of it is that he did not quote the whole of that speech to us and that he did not quote all the speeches to us. The pity of it is, for instance, that he did not tell us what General Hertzog had to say about him, the Prime Minister, in connection with what occurred on the 4th September, 1939. General Hertzog then said, and it will be a good thing for the House to be reminded of it, that the greatest political betrayal in the history of South Africa had been committed by the right hon. gentleman, the Prime Minister, on the 4th September. In any case the Prime Minister is on the right road; he is already beginning to quote the proper authorities. I hope he will continue to do so, and I hope he will study every one of General Hertzog’s speeches. We do not know what will be the effect. It may possibly be that the man who on the 4th September administered the stab wound will yet become the disciple of his victim. The Minister of Lands, like the Prime Minister, also had something to say about the Rand riots. But neither of them gave a reply to the charges made by the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister made all kinds of excuses, and his first excuse was that we in South Africa must expect trouble from time to time— ours is a people who get excited and we must expect riots from time to time. In that connection I want to ask whether any riots took place from 1924 to September, 1940, a period of more than sixteen years? There were no riots, but from 1913 to 1922 the one welter or blood after the other occurred. I therefore feel that we should alter the Prime Minister’s statement in this fashion: you must expect riots in South Africa when the Prime Minister occupies his present position or when he is Minister of Defence. In the nine years from 1913 to 1922 we experienced the one welter of blood after the other; after that we had sixteen years of peace, and now, since the 4th September, 1939, as we know, there have been riots continually. The second excuse put forward by the Prime Minister was that they had been taken by surprise by these riots; there had been no warning of any kind. The Leader of the Opposition has already made clear what happened at the Werda Club. He referred to the riots in connection with the midday pause, he referred to the happenings at Potchefstroom. The Prime Minister’s answer was a typical one—“These are only trivialities.” Damage to the extent of £1,000 was done at Potchefstroom and dozens of people were hurt, but the Prime Minister calls these “trivialities.” Perhaps the Prime Minister was right; perhaps these were trivialities according to his standards. Compared with the quantity of blood which was shed in 1922, for which he was responsible, these events certainly were just trivialities. What happened at Potchefstroom was probably also so trivial that nobody was punished for it. The £1,000 worth of damage suffered there, the dozens of people who were injured there, all this was so trivial that not a single person was punished for it. I say that it is this kind of language, this kind of attitude, which acts as a direct encouragement to that undisciplined portion of the troops to carry on with things of that kind. It was this attitude on the part of the Prime Minister with his whitewashing attempts of what took place at Potchefstroom which was one of the direct causes of the riots on the Rand, and the fact that he is still regarding these things as trivialities to-day will probably result in further similar disorders taking place. Because if the troops get to hear that notwithstanding the orders given to them, the Prime Minister regards these things simply as trivialities, and that nobody has been punished in connection with Potchefstroom, then we may expect that in future they will act on the assumption that they will get off scot free. Then the Prime Minister told us that the Government had been taken by surprise. The police were at Springs; I do not know what the staff work is like at police headquarters that they could be taken by surprise in that way. But surely we do not pay for the police only. What about those large numbers of people in uniform who walk about everywhere? One cannot pass any electrical works anywhere; one cannot pass over a bridge on the platteland without coming across a man with a rifle, and in the streets one finds the civic guards, the National Reserve, and even Native Commandos with knob kerries. It is not a case of hundreds but of thousands of people drawing Government money to look after the security of the country. But the Government was taken by surprise in regard to the Johannesburg riots. Naturally we know the cause of those riots, it is the attitude adopted by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet who, every time assaults take place, blame people with beards who are recognised by no one and who are not identified by anyone as being the cause of the trouble. When soldiers commit acts which cause disorders and when they cause trouble one can be assured that the excuse is that a day or a week or a month before some man with a beard had done this, that or the other. It is as a result of the attitude adopted by the Prime Minister is looking for culprits where there are no culprits and by stating that all these things are trivialities, that these things take place and will continue to take place. In the second place we know that one of the reasons for what has taken place in Johannesburg is the incitement of the Jingo papers. I shall have a little more to say about that just now. In the third place the cause for what is taking place is the total lack of discipline which one finds among the troops to-day. There was a time when there definitely was discipline among the troops. There was a time when officers of the permanent force were proud of the discipline, and there was a time when authorities who undoubtedly weigh with hon. members over there paid tribute to our troops for their daring, when British officers stated that the discipline among our troops was as good as, if not better, than anywhere else in the British Empire. To-day that is not so. To-day we can compete, so far as lack of discipline is concerned, with the Australians when they landed here in Cape Town. I am convinced, too, that the Prime Minister has been told by his officers on dozens of occasions what that lack of discipline is due to. One of the main reasons is that they are unable to keep the troops occupied. More troops than we can ever use have been sent North, unless, of course, enormous losses are being suffered. The result is that the troops have nothing to occupy themselves with. They are moved from the one end of the country to the other like a circus. Movements of troops are continually taking place in order to give them something to do, and in order to maintain discipline in some half-hearted sort of way. But the reason why there are so many troops is because the business of recruiting which goes hand in hand with the grossest economic pressure is pure political propaganda. Over there we have one of the greatest sinners, the Minister of Lands. From platform to platform they boast that there are ten thousand, fifty thousand, a hundred thousand people who have taken the red oath. Is is purely for political propaganda purposes in order to buy the votes of the people who are in the army that the army has been enlarged in the way it has been, with the result that there is no control over that army. Another reason which is worse still is the poor quality of the officers appointed by this Government. It has simply become a matter of jobs for pals. If one cannot do anything else with some weakling, one puts him into uniform and sends him to Mampara House. We saw as the immediate result when those riots took place in Johannesburg and elsewhere, and according to the English papers, one of the officers did his best to maintain order and with tears in his eyes told the men “Gen. Smuts calls upon you to be orderly,” the reply of the soldiers was “Tell that to the Marines.” Not only in Johannesburg but in connection with all riots, in Potchefstroom, in Adderley Street and elsewhere, there were no officers anywhere able in the slightest degree to maintain discipline. They were unable to protect the civilians against the soldiers. The appointment of those little officers has already led to the saying being quoted continually in the permanent force. “Not every officer is a fool, but every fool is an officer.” If there should be any doubt left as to whether this saying is true, one only need refer to certain people who are drawing double salaries and who are in uniform to-day. They are the best proof of the truth of this saying. I have said that the newspaper incitement is one of the principal reasons why riots have taken place, and the Leader of the Opposition asked what the Prime Minister was going to do in regard to this incitement, but no answer has been forthcoming to that question. I remember how, as long ago as last session, the attention of the Government was directed to the way in which certain papers were carrying on. For instance, there was the “East London Despatch” which, in a leading article, coldbloodedly urged that Nationalist Leaders should be put up against a wall and shot. Did the Government take any steps against this kind of incitement? Has any notice been taken of it? No, not at all, because naturally that incitement was directed against the right type of people. In the meantime there has been no shooting, but it is perfectly understandable that that sort of reckless incitement naturally leads to the sort of thing which we have had, namely, riots. And now, in passing, I want to direct attention to another sinner in connection with this question of incitement, the principal sinner on the Witwatersrand. I am anxious to draw attention to this. He is this well known cad and knight of the truth. George Heard. Let me say here that when I use the word cad in regard to him then I am repeating what one of the Ministers on the other side has said about this individual. It seems to me and I want to suggest it, that very drastic action should be taken against this evil doer, because he is one of those people who has been particularly well treated by the Prime Minister. And to show his gratitude he is now busy inciting the public of the Rand and the soldiers. Apparently he does not understand what it means to be well treated, and it would be a good thing if the Government were strong enough and were not afraid of the Press, to treat that kind of individual rather differently. It will be remembered—and I am only mentioning this to show that one cannot deal leniently with people like that—that George Heard on a previous occasion was the centre of a very distasteful incident, a few sessions ago. On that occasion George Heard bribed an official or persuaded him to tell him certain Budget secrets, secrets which afterwards were published in the “Rand Daily Mail.” We know what happened then, and to show how serious a matter this is was proved in England when something similar happened there, and Budget secrets were also let out. It is a very serious matter if Budget information prematurely gets to the notice of the public. George Heard was summoned under clause 96 of the Criminal Procedure Act. He was summoned to give evidence as to how these Budget secrets got into his possession. He refused to make a statement, and was sentenced to imprisonment. He appealed to the High Court, and he lost the appeal. The Prime Minister thereupon interfered and withdrew the case. So George Heard was treated particularly leniently.

Were you not a member of the Cabinet at the time?

Certainly, and if the Prime Minister wants to raise the question of Cabinet responsibility I shall be pleased to say what happened there. But the hon. member over there who so long and so vainly has been knocking at the door of the Cabinet will pardon me if I say that his status does not count very greatly with me. George Heard was treated very leniently by the Prime Minister, and how leniently he was treated may be realised if we compare his treatment with that of Elsabe Nel, a young Afrikaner girl; there we had a similar case, but there it was not a question of Budget secrets, it was not a question of bribery of an official or of inducing an official to let out secrets, it was merely a question of political persecution; but that girl, that young girl, did not get any mercy. Oh, no. In spite of the attitude adopted by the women she was sent to gaol, and she was kept in gaol, and she was only released when they—that was a statement made by the Public Prosecutor— elsewhere obtained the necessary evidence and were able to get on without her evidence. I mention this to prove how leniently George Heard was treated in regard to a particularly reprehensible business. If the Prime Minister will take the trouble to read the “Rand Daily Mail” of the Saturday just before the attack on “Die Vaderland” buildings and on other buildings, he will know exactly what George Heard has to do with the matter, and now I come to the final question which the Leader of the Opposition put to the Prime Minister. He asked, “What are we fighting for?” Well, the Minister of Lands, who a little while ago wanted to give us information with much enthusiasm and so much noise, had something to say about Christianity. Fortunately, the Prime Minister spared us that hypocrisy. He said nothing about the defence of Christianity, nor did he say anything about the Equator as the Union’s boundary, nor did he say anything about the incorporation of certain territories with the Union. We are grateful to him for having refrained from that hypocrisy. The Prime Minister said that we were fighting for democracy, and, furthermore, he said that we were fighting as a member of the British Commonwealth. Well, Mr. Speaker, you will remember that in the last war those who went to fight also fought for democracy and they fought to make the world safe for democracy, and they only succeeded in making the world safe for Jewish capitalistic exploitation, and now we are again fighting for democracy. We are again fighting for the preservation of that system to make the world safe again for that parasitical exploitation. In regard to the preservation of the Empire, you will remember that that is the same Empire which comes off so badly in the “Century of Wrong,” and it is clear that we are not only fighting to be a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, but to remain England’s chief lackey. The hon. Leader of the Opposition, in putting those questions, showed that there were tens of thousands of people who were starving, that there were hundreds of thousands living below the bread line, that thousands of farmers were on the verge of ruin, and that there were thousands of others in our country who were suffering right to their very marrows. And the only answer which the Prime Minister could give was these inanities about democracy and the Empire. But our consolation is this, the day of settlement will come. Many hon. members opposite, perhaps not so many in this House, but outside, are people who have been honestly misled, English-speaking as well as Afrikaans-speaking, people born in this country and born overseas. Those people will at the right time, when the war fever has passed away, find their way to this party. But there are other people as well. There are first of all those whom the Prime Minister mentioned, I think he called them “hans khakis.” They are the people who have no real patriotism.

They are the people who are fighting you.

Apparently the hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler) is proud of that name. It only goes to prove that a man with a very honourable record, and he has an honourable career behind him, can also be blinded that he boatss of his own shame. First of all, there are those people whom the Prime Minister himself called Hans Khakis, and then all those other patriots from other countries who have never yet become South Africans, patriots from Australia and patriots from Jerusalem. It is to those people that I wish to say that the Afrikaner will one of these days again, perhaps sooner than they imagine, get the reins of Government into his hands, and I want to give the assurance here, and with that I conclude, that once the Afrikaner has got the reins in his hands he intends never to give them up again.

The speech which we have heard from the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) could rightly be described as a “typically Teutonic Speech” and the final exordium was consistent with the taste displayed throughout. It seems he cannot stand up in this House without being grossly rude, grossly offensive and, in fact, grossly Teutonic. The bully and the Teuton can be found in his speech. I would rather be described as a patriot from Australia than a South African Nazi from Germany. I listened with ill-disguised contempt to the hon. member’s attack on the Army which he helped to bring into being, and which he deserted in 1939. I should have thought that he would have refrained from speaking like that, and from holding up to contempt and contumely those soldiers of ours who are now ready to go and fight. I certainly did not expect it from an ex-Minister of Defence. But they will know how to deal with these dark threats of the hon. member of Gezina, and with these sneers at the soldiers which we have heard from the hon. member, who takes up the attitude that everything a soldier does is wrong, and everything his friends do is right. Surely if he were proud of the discipline of the Army which he brought into being he would get up in this House and defend the expanded Army of to-day. Before I deal further with the hon. member for Gezina I want to deal with the main motion and the speech made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition. This is the fifth no confidence motion which I have listened to in this House. The first was a motion proposed in 1923 by Genl. Hertzog against the then Prime Minister (Genl. Smuts).

And he lost the election in 1924.

Yes, that is the point I am going to make—that motion was introduced at a time when the Government was losing its popularity and when a general election was in the offing, and when Genl. Hertzog could offer himself as the former of an alternative Government.

That is a bad omen.

Then in 1929 there was a motion of no confidence moved by Genl. Smuts in Genl. Hertzog’s Government at a time when it was very widely felt that in a general election the South African Party might beat the Nationalist Party. That hope was defeated in what one might call “the Black Manifesto Election.” Then in 1933 when the country was at its worst, groaning under the iniquities of the gold standard, the present Prime Minister again moved a vote of no confidence in the then Prime Minister. And the fourth vote of no confidence was moved in 1934 by the present Leader of the Opposition against his late lamented leader, Genl. Hertzog. In all these motions, except the last, one can say that there was a prima facie reason for voting no confidence in a Government which was losing its popularity; but surely never in the Parliamentary history of this country has a vote of no confidence been moved under more unpropitious circumstances and with less justification than the vote which my hon. friend proposed yesterday afternoon. Just let us consider the position: the Government has been in power for eighteen months. During that time it has not lost a single seat, either in Parliament or the Provincial Council. The Minister of Lands gave the figures and I will not repeat them.

Do you say that the Government has not lost a single seat?

What about Winburg?

Everyone knows that the Government Party is more solid, more united, more devoted to its Leader than ever before in its history. That is common knowledge, and everyone knows also that the Opposition has been torn to pieces by internal dissensions. We still see two empty seats opposite, the seats of the Leader of that Party, and his principal lieutenant, Mr. Havenga, who were forced to mount the political scaffold only two months ago. And that party whose Leader has moved this vote of no confidence, that party which propounds itself as an alternative Government, has just lost ten of its members itself as an alternative Government, has just lost ten of its members, fifteen per cent. of its strength, and the Leader of the new Party yesterday ridiculed the idea that under their present Leadership the Opposition would ever be able to govern this country. Therefore I say that a more ill-starved vote of no confidence has never been moved in the political history of this country. And finally, this is a Government put into power by the majority vote of this House in order to promote the war policy, and to assist in bringing this war to a successful issue. If things had gone badly something might have been said for this motion, but never before has the war been going better than it has been doing in the last few months. Every day when we open our paper we have to move positions on the map of Africa a few inches. The successes of the Allied forces have been almost miraculous, and at such a moment as this when we are right on our toes the hon. member opposite comes and introduces a motion like this. This is the time my hon. friend chooses to move a vote of no confidence. Nothing could have been worse than the moment chosen by my hon. friend over there. And then he speaks for a hour and a half and gives us one of the most rambling, discursive orations ever heard in this House. He reminded me of Alice in Wonderland:

You forget the Kangaroo.

Half the hon. member’s oration was a dreary repetition of the three war debates we have already had. There was nothing new in that; he dragged out of their pigeon holes the stale time worn arguments about the war. On three different occasions we have had this matter discussed in this House. Not a single member on our side has changed his mind, or is likely to. Not a single seat has been won by the Opposition on the war issue, or rather, not a single seat has been turned over on the war issue; and therefore there is no justification for the hon. member saying that the majority of South Africa has changed its mind on the war issue or is likely to.

What about the general election—test it.

Another portion of his speech consisted of ill-timed—I would almost say ill-mannered—attacks on the South African Army, and another consisted of half-baked amateurish financial criticism. We had occasion to welcome in this House last week the new financial leader of the Opposition. It did seem to me that on three occasions when he made three separate speeches—that on each occasion he put his foot into it, but I can say that if ever a person put both feet into it when he ventured into the realms of financial criticism, it was the Leader of the Opposition. One cannot, of course, deal with vague or cloudy criticism; where the hon. member talks in generalities and says that “money is being scattered as never before,” and that “there is a waste of money on a large scale”—one cannot, of course, deal with that.

No, because it is true.

There was a chance last week, when we voted £14,000,000 for war expenditure, for hon. members to get up and produce proof, make detailed criticisms, and furnish the evidence in regard to these charges. But neither the Leader of the Opposition, nor any of his followers, got up to criticise that expenditure, or to bring to light any of the so-called financial irregularities which they now allege. So far as war expenditure is concerned, we are left with this vague and cloudy criticism which amounts to nothing, and cannot be replied to; but there were two specific points of financial criticism where the hon. gentleman deigned to descend from the general to the particular, and to give us some grounds for his criticism, and in the course of that he made some perfectly amazing statements. The first he made was this, that the Government’s policy is to spare the mines and to tax the people; that the income tax for the people had increased by 71 per cent., while the tax on the mines had only increased by 2 per cent. That is the first statement he made, and the second was this, that whereas Australia has set definite limits to its war expenditure, South Africa is committed to a limitless war expenditure. Now I propose faithfully to deal with and to analyse those two statements. The first of these statements is that the income tax for the people was increased by 71 per cent., while the tax on the mines was increased by only 2 per cent. Such a statement is almost breath-taking in its audacity, in its colossal effrontery and stupidity. It honestly looks to me as if the Leader of the Opposition, a doctor, is taking a leaf out of the book of another doctor—Dr. Goebbels—because the latter is known to proceed from this point of view, that the “greater the lie the better the propaganda.” What are the facts? The facts in regard to the income tax are these. In March, 1940, the Minister of Finance restored the 30 per cent. rebate or cut which his predecessor had made. That is to say, where a man was assessed at £100, prior to the war breaking out he only paid £70. The Minister brought that back to £100 by restoring the cut, and in September he increased the assessment by another 20 per cent. Therefore, if a man only paid £70 before the war, he pays £120 now, and that is an increase of 71 per cent. I agree with the hon. gentleman so far. And then he went on to say that whereas the income tax payer paid an etxra 71 per cent., the mines paid only 2 per cent. A more misleading statement, a more complete travesty of fact, has never been made by the hon. member or anyone else. Now what are the facts? On the outbreak of war, when the price of gold went up, Mr. Havenga took the difference between 150s. and 168s. per ounce.

Yes, but you did not want that.

The mines forced you not to.

The Minister decided that he would take the same tax, the same amount, but by way of extra taxation on the profits on the mines, and he added 9 per cent. Then, in September last, when the income tax was raised by 20 per cent., he raised that 9 per cent. to 11 per cent., so that instead of paying an extra 9 per cent. the mines paid 11 per cent. I am now going to give the figures, and show what the taxpayers were paying. Under the first increase made by the Minister of Finance, that is the abolition of the 30 per cent. rebate, £1,000,000 extra was taken from the income tax payer, and under the second increase, an extra £800,000, so that in the two jumps the income tax payer to-day is paying £1,800,000 more than he did before the war. And now the mines: before the war, in the year before the war, the mines paid by way of tax on their profits £9,500,000.

What did the income tax payer pay before the war?

The income tax payer paid £3,700,000. To-day he is paying £5,500,000, an increase of £1,800,000. Before the war the mines paid £9,600,000. After this, after the tax on profits had been imposed, they are estimated to pay in the financial year now closing £18,300,000. And this extra 2 per cent. put on them last September gave another £800,000. So that to-day they are paying in taxation on their profits £19,100,000. Now, if you add to that the amount taken from the gold realisation account, which can fairly be regarded as a tax, that is £2.500.000, the mines to-day are paying £21,600,000, whereas in the year before the war they paid £9,600,000, an increase of £12,000,000! So I say that the hon. member’s statement, in its actual form, is totally and devastatingly misleading, and I say it is a grave—I will not say it is a deliberate, but it is a grave and foolish statement misleading the people—it is devastatingly wrong to put it out in that form. To put it out to the public of South Africa as coming from the Leader of the Opposition, that whereas the income tax payer has had his tax raised by 71 per cent., the mines have been raised by only 2 per cent., is not only misleading and untrue, but is a gross travesty of fact. The fact is that to-day the income tax payers pay £1,800,000 more, and the mines pay £12,000,000 more than before. So I would advise the hon. member, as I advised the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) the other day, that if he wants to make any more incursions into finance, he had better verify his references and be sure of his facts.

I should advise you to do the same.

You have not caught me out anywhere in that respect, because before I speak I study these things; if you ever catch me in a blunder as gross as that made by the Leader of the Opposition I shall stand up here in a white sheet and own up to it. Now, to turn to Australia, the hon. member said that whereas in Australia the Government has put a limit on its war expenditure this country has not — this country is faced with a boundless expenditure. What are the facts? Australia in its Budget this year provides for a normal expenditure of £87,000,000. That is the ordinary expenditure, whereas this country provides for a normal expenditure of £43,000,000, roughly two to one. For every pound we spend, Australia spends two. The Australian war Budget for the year now current is £186,000,000, while the war Budget of South Africa is £60,000,000—three times as much. Whereas Australia spends twice as much on its ordinary Budget, on the war it is spending three times as much as we do.

What is their population?

The Australian population is, I think, about six to seven million.

No, you must look it up again.

What do you suggest it is?

Seven to eight million.

It is at least 8.000,000.

Supposing that is so. This country has a white population of 2,250,000, and a coloured population which brings it close to 11,000,000.

You do not pay the coloureds pay.

I am not dealing with that. I am dealing with the points raised by the Leader of the Opposition, that Australia is limiting her war expenditure whereas we have given the Government a blank cheque.

And you have lost the issue.

And then the hon. gentleman, in the face of the figures I have given, told the House that the burden of the war expenditure, of the war taxation, really falls on the farmer and he went on to say that the farmers of South Africa were expected to bear the burden of the war expenditure. Everyone knows, and my hon. friends opposite know, that for many years the farmers have not been as prosperous as they are to-day.

You know that that is nonsense.

Stick to facts.

I was talking the other day to the chairman of the Land Bank, and he said the farmers were repaying their loans as they have never done for years, and that the trouble of the Land Bank was not to find new money, but to find employment for the money it had. Everyone knows that in war time prices go up, and that farmers do well. And for the hon. member to make out that the burden of this war will fall on the farmers is preposterous. I would sum up the financial part of the hon. member’s speech by saying this, that most of the hon. member’s criticisms were vague, were specific and they were based on false premises, and could not stand the test of examination. Now let me come to the question of the soldiers. The soldiers have been attacked by the Leader of the Opposition and by the erstwhile Minister of Defence, the hon. member for Gezina. I would like you, Mr. Speaker, and I would like the country to contrast the attitude on this very delicate subject of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition could only see one side of the case. He could see only one right in the case. He never bothered as to whether there was provocation. He never stopped to ask whether there were faults on both sides; he was just about as partial on one side as it is possiible for a person to be. The Prime Minister stood upon the floor of this House on Monday and had the very unenviable task of rebuking his own army. He was not frightened to do it; he was not frightened to say what he did. He saw both sides of the case. It is a contrast which the country might note, the contrast between the Prime Minister who represents all the people and the would-be Prime Minister who represents only one side. Now let me come to my hon. friend’s reference to the Potchefstroom College. Surely, if there was one part of his speech to which exception could strongly be taken, it is his reference to the report of the Commission:— [Translation.]

What an amazing statement? What a totally irresponsible statement to come from the Leader of the Opposition.

Have you read the report?

What are you reading from?

He said that the report of this Commission was nothing but a scandal and that any fair-minded man should have been ashamed to put his signature to that report. Who were the members of that Commission? May I remind this House that long before the report was written a systematic campaign was carried on by the Opposition benches to besmirch and slander the members of that Commission, and in advance to prejudge that report. If hon. members will look at the Hansard reports for last year they will see numbers of speeches made to prejudice the report in advance. I do not say that the Leader of the Opposition has done so, but he is doing so now. Who sat on that Commission? Mr. Elliot, a senior magistrate, resident magistrate of East London; Dr. Botha, Secretary for Education; and Mr. Menzies Murray, the Registrar of Companies. And the Leader of the Opposition, who himself in his day was known as a man who would stand up for his own department, and who would protect his own civil servants, has shown so little sense of responsibility—so much has he degenerated in a political sense—and we have seen that process of degeneration going on—so much has he degenerated that he can stand up in this House and use that language about this report. Now I ask him this: Has he ever read the evidence taken by that Commission except in snippets in the newspapers—I know he has not, because it has never been laid on the Table. Has he ever read the report of the Commission?

Yes, of course.

Where?

Here it is.

The official report.

Yes.

I am glad to hear it.

Here it is; would you like to read it?

I am glad the hon. member has read it. I shall tell you why. I wanted to get that report this morning. I went to the library of Parliament but I could not get it.

It has never been laid on the Table of this House, it has never been put before members and if the hon. gentleman got the report—

Then I know more about it than you, of course.

He has got it by courtesy of one of the Government departments. The evidence has never been published yet.

Why not read the report?

I have read the report as it came out in the newspapers. That report was given to the Press and published in more or less abridged form. I am not responsible if it has not been printed and circulated to members, or laid on the Table of this House, but I say it is an extraordinary state of affairs when the Leader of the Opposition can get up and directly insult, as he has done, the members of that commission, after reading a report which has not been circulated to members of this House, and upon evidence which he himself has never seen, excepting in snippets from the newspapers. Now, sir, let me continue. If any stranger had walked into this House yesterday afternoon and listened to the hon. gentleman, he would have thought that South Africa is the prey of a “brutal and licentious soldiery” who spend their time assaulting, without provocation, innocent and inoffensive people throughout South Africa. He would never have got a hint from anything the hon. gentleman said, or any of his friends, that there has been the gravest and repeated provocation before these reprisals occurred. I am going to read one or two things, I am going to give you the facts. Let me first take this from the “Argus” of the 8th January last—

I take another—this was on January 13th—

Then there was a case at Port Elizabeth. I take this from the “Cape Argus” of 16th October—

Mr. Speaker, at the very time this House is sitting, two of the colleagues of the hon. gentlemen opposite are undergoing trial on the most serious of charges. I cannot go further than to mention that.

I would not if I were you.

I wish the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler) were here, and I would like you to send for him. What happened to another Minister of the Crown some months ago? My hon. friend, the Minister of Lands, went to Brits in August last and addressed a meeting there, and I would like to read the Press account of what happened:

Mr. Speaker, this sort of thing has been going on up and down the country throughout the length and breadth of the land. One of our Ministers is to-day on a sick bed. I cannot tell you the reason, but you all know the reason. Now I have another Minister who was subjected to some form of hooliganism and blackguardism when he attempted to address a meeting. I see the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) looking at me. A month ago a paper announced that a soldier was walking along a back street in Nylstroom, and a car went past with several men wearing beards. They got out of the car, they beat this soldier into pulp, and then they went away. I speak now from my experience as a man who has worn uniform for the last four months, and I tell you that there are parts of South Africa where a soldier, if he is wearing the red tabs, cannot go by himself, but has to travel with three or four others for safety. I invite the hon. Leader of the Opposition when he next speaks, to deprecate violence, whether it comes from his own side, his own people, or from any other. The soldiers of South Africa are only human, and may I say to the Prime Minister I have had word that a great deal of heartburning has been caused by his rebuke to them last Monday, because they feel that in his statement he rather ignored the provocation they had received. Mr. Speaker, very strong feelings have been aroused by what has been going on in this country, and I can only thank God that at long last the Government has passed these new emergency regulations, so that in future we will be able to deal with hooliganism and blackguardism from whatever source in South Africa it may come.

I do not think this House can congratulate the Government on the two speakers they put up to-day to reply on behalf of the Government to the charges made here yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition. First of all we have the noisy speech of the Minister of Lands, a speech which brought down the level of the debate of this House to a depth which it had not reached for a long time—and it is pretty bad when a representative of Another Place is responsible for doing so. His speech was full of wrong and distorted statements and he even went so far as to tell the House that the Huguenots defended their religion with the aid of the sword, and things of that sort. Then we got the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) who with a serious mind complained of what he regarded as unbecoming language. He must have forgotten that in his own book which was published some time ago he patted himself on the back because he had been called to order time and again by Mr. Speaker on account of his unbecoming language. I want to say that that did not only happen in his “callow youth” as he called it on another occasion, but we very often get unbecoming language from him now-a-days. The rest of his speech consisted of platitudes. He talked about this 2 per cent. business. Unfortunately I have not got the figures but the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) gives me the assurance that the hon. member for Kensington was quite wrong in his contentions and the hon. member for George will no doubt answer him on a later occasion. But the major portion of his speech once again was nothing but a whitewashing of the soldiers, the same thing as we had yesterday also from the Prime Minister. I now come to the speech which the Prime Minister made yesterday. Lacking any arguments to answer the charges made by the Leader of the Opposition the Prime Minister resorted to the alleged split existing among us on this side of the House. Let me give the Right Hon. the Minister the assurance at once that if he fixes any hope on dis-union on this side of the House, his hopes are vain. The Afrikaner people, the people of South Africa, have decided that they are not going to allow themselves to be split over personal grievances and even less are they going to allow themselves to be split on the question of the so-called rights of English-speaking people of South Africa, because really those are the corner stones on which the Afrikaner Party wishes to build, namely personal grievances and the rights of the English-speaking section of the community. In any case, after the spech made by the Leader of the Afrikaner Party (Mr. Conroy) or rather let me put it this way, after the prophessorial lecture to which we were treated yesterday I do not believe that we need worry our heads about that new Party, and if the Prime Minister cherishes any expectations from that new Party then he will be very much disappointed. The Prime Minister had a great deal to say on the question of the so-called unity of his Party as against the alleged dis-unity on this side of ‘the House. Now let us have a good look at that Party. The Prime Minister is occupying his position to-day by the grace of some seven members of the Dominion Party, a body of seven who were not even prepared the other day to support his motion on the question of a pension for Genl. Hertzog. He further occupies his position by the grace of the Labour Party, two of whom are sitting on those benches over there because of the salaries they are drawing. Furthermore, he is occupying the position by the grace of the four Native representatives. That is the so-called unity. The one thing which keeps that Party together is not the interests of South Africa, but the interests of the Empire, and as soon as the interests of the Empire are broken up that whole Party will fall to pieces. As soon as the war is over that Party will break up. Now the Prime Minister made an effort—and that was the principal part of his speech—to try and whitewash the conduct of what he himself called “his children of the Cross.” He told us that the events in Johannesburg last Friday and Saturday night were practically the first things which had occurred there, that they were the first blot on the good name and the clean record of his “children of the Cross.” He talked about trivialities and then he wanted to tell us that what had happened at Potchefstroom was dead and buried. If in two or three months time something else should happen, and after the attitute adopted by him about Johannesburg we may expect something to happen, we are sure to be told that Johannesburg is also dead and buried. For the sake of convenience he takes no notice, nor does the hon. member for Kensington, of the assaults which have all the time been taking place on Nationalistically disposed Afrikaners in our country. The hon. member for Kensington comes along here to-day with a few cuttings from the “Argus” or the “Rand Daily Mail,” or whatever papers they may be from, but he fails to give us all the circumstances. There is nothing to show what has given rise to those assaults on soldiers. Let me mention one instance. A certain well-known individual in this country, so I am told, recently left three soldiers in a very serious condition. One of them was taken to hospital, and I believe he is still there. If one just reads a thing like that in the papers one is inclined to say that those innocent soldiers have been assaulted in a most disgraceful manner, but when one comes to find out what has actually occurred it throws a totally different light on the position. One finds then that those two soldiers who have been hurt first came along and pulled his beard, and only after they had pulled his beard did he teach them a lesson in the way he did. That sort of thing has been going on for months and months. The challenge did not come from our side, but from the side of the soldiers who are today the masters in this country. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister also said something else here yesterday in respect of which I want to say a few words. I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister, and that is on this subject of the prayer interval which he spoke about. He has now suddenly adopted a change of attitude compared with his attitude during the previous session. During the previous session the Prime Minister openly admitted here that this whole business was a mistake, and he made a promise to us that if matters went on in the way they were doing he would have to step in. He even went further, and at the end of last session he told us that he did not believe there was much praying going on. Yesterday, however, we had to hear about this bother (gesanik) in connection with the prayer pause, and the Afrikaners are now the sinners. They are deliberately in the streets in order to bring about trouble. May I just say this to the Minister, because we want some clarity on this matter? May I tell him that he is the man who made a speech in Durban when a number of soldiers were embarking. He on that occasion told the soldiers that they were children of the Cross, and that they were going to fight a sacred war. He even went further, and he told them that they were fighting for freedom of thought and freedom of conscience. That was what they were fighting for, but when people whose sympathies are with the Nationalist Party demand the same freedom of thought and conscience, if they ask him to be excused of this hypocrisy in Adderley Street during the prayer pause, then he loses sight of those ideals. They can be freely attacked by the hooligans, and by the Prime Minister’s soldiers and by the sailors, and then we are told that we are nagging about this prayer pause, and that we are the people who provoke disturbances of that kind, and while he is talking about freedom he comes along with new regulations to restrict the rights and freedom of the citizens of South Africa. They are not even allowed to move freely in the streets of their towns. What is happening every day? What happened to me to-day? I was in town at five minutes to 12, and I had to try to get back quickly to Parliament House because I did not wish to expose myself to the possibility of being assaulted by the hooligans in Adderley Street. Let me tell the Prime Minister that the reason why nothing, or why so little has occurred during the past few months—and he knows it very well—is because—and I say so on the authority of the man who is in charge of the Ossewa-Brand-wag in the Cape Province, that the Ossewa-Brandwag has gone out of its way to command its members rather to keep off the streets. It is due to the Ossewa-Brandwag that ordér has been maintained here. But the time will come when the Ossewa-Brandwag also will wash its hands of that matter, when the Ossewa-Brandwag will say that they are no longer going to stand in the way. If these sort of things go on and citizens of South Africa have not got the right to move about freely in the streets, have not got the right to keep away from that hypocrisy and deception, and all these things which are taking place in the streets, and if trouble should occur then, the Prime Minister will be the man who will have to be held responsible. It would only require one word from him to put an end to the prayer pause, just as it was ended in Port Elizabeth where the Nationalistically-disposed Afrikaners took up the case and put an end to the prayer pause. The time will come when they will take it up here as well, and if blood should be shed in Adderley Street, if blood should flow in Adderley Street, the Prime Minister will be responsible. All this is part of his hypocrisy, this disgusting hypocrisy which we find to-day on the other side. We had an instance of it again to-day from the Minister of Lands. Never before in the history of this House have we had such of display of disgusting hypocrisy and sham as we have had from the Minister of Lands to-day. He had a lot to say about Christianity and religion. We get the same sort of thing in the Government papers, and we also get it from the Prime Minister. I do not know whether he has suddenly become so religious, but the Prime Minister to-day can hardly ever make a speech without talking about a sacred war and about the spread of Christianity. The Cross of Christ is exploited for political purposes in this country. It is a disgusting display of hypocrisy, and the people of South Africa are tired of it. There was another matter which the Prime Minister spoke about yesterday; he intended it as a joke, but there is an English saying to this effect: “Many a true word is spoken in jest.” The Prime Minister referred to a warning given by the Leader of the Opposition, and in reference to it he said this: “I am just a nervous man.” There is a good deal of truth in what the Prime Minister says, his Government is nervous, is afraid. [Laughter,] Yes, hon. members may laugh, but the Government is afraid, and that is the reason why fresh regulations were issued yesterday. Those regulations clearly show the scare, the nervousness on the part of the Government. They are a sign of it. They are afraid of criticism, and they are scared of Zeesen. Everything is undermined. The words “undermining,” “subversive,” are becoming a joke in South Africa. One cannot go to a meeting and say “booh,” but it is regarded as undermining, and one may be sent to gaol or one may have to pay a fine. In these regulations the Government goes even further, and the Jewish population is being specially taken under its wing. I hope that now that these regulations have been issued we shall at least not have a repetition of this hypocrisy and sham from the Prime Minister, and that he will not again tell us that they are fighting for freedom and democracy. Now I want to say a few words more particularly on this motion which was introduced here yesterday. The Prime Minister and the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) have told us that a motion of confidence in the Government has been passed on several occasions. That is perfectly true, that will continue to be the case as long as the House is constituted as it is to-day; further motions of confidence in the Government will be passed, but the Prime Minister knows none the less that on his side of the House there are members today who, if they had to go back to their constituencies to-day, would not succeed in getting a vote of confidence from their constituents. They would not dare to fight an election to-day. The Minister of Justice went along, I believe with the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. Steenkamp), to hold meetings there, but those meetings were only for members of the United Party. They dare not even hold meetings for the electors generally. I want to say this, that if a census—I am not even talking about an election now—were to be held in South Africa to-day on the question of the attitude of the people in regard to the war, the Prime Minister would get a fright such as he has never had in his life before. And he would be disillusioned in a way he has never been before. Who are the people who to-day support the Government’s war policy? When we talk about the people of South Africa then we have to divide the people into two sections. We must distinguish between that section of the people which has its roots here in South Africa and who have no other home and no other fatherland except South Africa, and on the other hand that section which only regards South Africa as a country in which they make a living. It is particularly among this latter section, the section of the population which one cannot regard as being settled, which cannot be regarded as having its roots here, that the Government finds most of its supporters. The Government first of all gets its support from that large section of English people who have only been a short while in South Africa and from another section of English people who have been here for a longer period of time, but who have never yet taken root in this country, and who have never yet regarded themselves as true South Africans in the fullest sense of the word. Furthermore, the Government gets support from a section of English-speaking people born in this country, but who still have a double loyalty, loyalty towards England and after that, loyalty to South Africa. Then the Government also gets support from another section which in no sense can be regarded as part of the permanent population of South Africa, namely, the Jewish population. The Jewish population to-day numbers something over 100,000. Let us take it that 40,000 or 50,000 of them are registered voters, perhaps the number is larger than that. The Prime Minister will admit that the Jews are people who do not look upon any country as their fatherland. We saw evidence of that in France. When matters became serious there the Jews took their money and left the country. We notice the same thing in South Africa. I put a question the other day to the Minister of Finance. We did not get a direct and complete answer to it, but we want to know why it was necessary for the Minister to impose specially high fines in respect of the sending away of funds from South Africa. Of course I cannot prove it, but I am convinced I am right; so we had Jews here who got scared and who wanted to send their money out of the country. That is a section which has not taken root in South Africa, and which supports the Government’s policy. Then we have a group of Afrikaans-speaking people who have been scared, who have become the victims of this continuous Government propaganda, and finally we have the other section which is known to-day as “the loyal Dutch.” And they support the Government. If we cut out the English section which has not taken root in the country, and the large Jewish population, and if we cut out that section of the English people who have a divided loyalty, and if we confine ourselves only to that section of the population which is really South African, and which regards South Africa as its only fatherland and home, then the Prime Minister will find that if he holds a Census, a Plebiscite, he will have a tremendous minority as far as his war policy i s concerned. Now I want to ask on what grounds the Government can expect to be able to get the confidence of the people of South Africa in regard to its war policy and the continuation of the war. I imagine hon. members will agree with me that when any Government goes to war it does so in the expectation of winning the war, and of being successful in the war because failing that it will lose the confidence of the people. Therefore when we discuss the Government’s war policy here in South Africa and together with that the continuation of the war, we must look at it from that point of view, and if we look at it from that point of view then it is necessary to look at it in conjunction with the position prevailing in England to-day. I say that we must take it in conjunction with the position in England, because this war in which South Africa is involved is England’s war. It is not South Africa’s war. I do not want at this stage to go into the stories that we are fighting for democracy and all the rest of it. We know, and the Prime Minister knows, as Winston Churchill has said, that “England is fighting to survive.” Secondly, the war in which England and South Africa are involved to-day will be won or lost in England and not in Northern Africa or in Greece; then, thirdly, we know that to-day that the war policy of the Union is laid down not in Pretoria but it is laid down in London. A few years ago we had an extraordinary admission from the Prime Minister when he made this statement, that the question of our diplomatic relationship towards France— he said it by way of implication—was also determined in London, and that we followed England’s policy in that particular respect. Consequently, when we put the question: “What is the Government’s war policy?” and “What are the chances of its being a successful policy?” we have to look at the position in England to-day. Is England anywhere nearer a victory to-day? Anyone reading the papers will find that during the last few weeks serious warnings have repeatedly been given in London by prominent Statesmen who have issued words of warning against optimism in regard to the war. The consolation which is being offered is that which we have heard from the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell). They console themselves with what has happened in North Africa, in Libya and Abyssinia. We are being told all day long that the Italians are on the run. They are on the run, but it is remarkable how short the memories of people are. We no longer hear anything about people being on the run at Dunkirk. I say again that the war will not be won in Northern Africa or in Greece, but the war will be won or lost in England. That is the place where it will be fought out. I have never yet adopted the attitude nor am I adopting it to-day—nobody can prove from my speeches made either here or elsewhere in the country that I have taken up the attitude that Germany will necessarily win this war. But at the same time there is not the slightest prospect of England winning the war. In order to justify the British policy and to justify the policy of this Government it is necessary for England to win the war. One hears people talk about a stalemate being reached, about the war finishing in a draw. If England does not win the war then she loses it. Hon. members opposite may laugh, but that is a fact. If this war ends in a stalemate, if Hitler’s power is not broken, then Hitler retains his position of power in Europe. England retains England, the British Empire, but the position of power which she has fought for will not have been secured. That is why England must win the war, failing which she loses what she has fought for. The indications which we have are that England is nowhere nearer a victory than she was before. As a result of the German bombardment a great many of her towns have been converted into ruins. Her industries have been destroyed to a large extent.

That is not so.

If the hon. member says it is not so then I would advise him to read the reports in the American papers. I am not rejoicing about it but hon. members should not shut their eyes to these facts. They should read the reports in the American papers which are friendly disposed towards England and then they will find that the position as a result of the German bombardment is particularly serious. In regard to the shipping losses, there the position is also serious. In some weeks the losses are serious and in other weeks they are less serious. Things cannot go on like that. England’s export trade has been dislocated. Figures are quoted; well, anything can be quoted by means of figures, but the fact remains that as a result of the German bombardment there has been a great dislocation in England’s trade, and if England is unable to export then she is unable to establish her credit support for the purchase of armaments and aeroplanes. Now, in regard to the financial position. Some time ago it was made clear that England’s financial position was difficult. It was officially admitted that a certain person had proceeded to America for the purpose of discussing the position there. But a week or two later the cat was let out of the bag and it came to light that England was in a very difficult financial position, and she was obliged to try and secure the necessary funds in America. Then there is the question of morale. And I say in view of what the British people have to endure, that the British people in the circumstances have stood up well.

Were you surprised?

I was very much surprised, but it will not be denied—and I am not referring now to Reuter messages—but to messages in the American papers, that the morale in England is deteriorating. The fact that her morale has not yet been broken I attributed to the British sense of humour. But her morale has deteriorated and is continuing to deteriorate. Desperate efforts are being made to obtain help from the United States, and as a result of a particularly successful fifth column propaganda in America, England has succeeded in obtaining a large degree of assistance. And seeing that the hon. member for Kensington is ridiculing this, may I be allowed to remind him of the fact that only a few years ago they did not have a good word to say for America. In this House attention was drawn to the one-sided American trade. I am going to tell him something else if he does that. During the seven years that I lived in America I was in touch with a great many English people in America and in London, and let me say this to the hon. member for Kensington and also to other hon. members, that I only met one English person who had a good word to say for America; as a rule it was the “Damn Yankees.” I was astounded that in spite of the blood relationship existing between those two countries the English people had so few good words to say for America, both in England and in America.

What has that to do with this vote of no confidence?

But now that they need America’s help, now President Roosevelt and the Americans are the finest people in the world. I am bringing out these things to show why the people have no reasons for approving of the Government’s war policy as there is no certainty that the war is going to be won. On the contrary, the position as far as England is concerned has not improved by any means. Efforts are now being made to get Ireland to depart from her attitude of neutrality, and when De Valera speaks about Ireland being prepared for any invasion he means not only an invasion from Germany but he also has in mind an invasion from the British side. Tremendous efforts have been made to wean Ireland away from her neutrality. Then we have this continual courting of Russia, which has been going on since the 4th September, a courting which reached its zenith when England a few weeks ago approved of the annexation by Russia of these three small States on the Baltic Seas. If we take all these facts into account then surely we must realise this fact, that England is no nearer a victory to-day. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has dragged us into this war against our wishes, I say that we must study the course of events in Europe, and more particularly the course of events in England, and if we do so we have no reason to tell the people of this country that they must have confidence in this Government. And that is not only my opinion. Hon. members themselves can read in the Press that an American statesman a few days ago remarked in England, “I am greatly worried,” and those are the words of a man whom they like to quote when they need him for British propaganda in America. I now come to the effect all this has on South Africa. Under the policy pursued by the Government South Africa associates itself with England. The Prime Minister stated earlier on in the war—I notice that he has not been saying it so often latterly—that we shall carry on until the end. I am convinced that even the Prime Minister’s strongest supporters are worried about the prospect, whether England is going to win the war, and if that is the position so far as the Government’s staunchest supporters are concerned, what then is the position of those people who are only following the Government because they have been brought into that position as a result of the Government’s propaganda, and it is not merely on the ground of the result of the war that there is a reason for lack of confidence in the Government, but it is also because of the reasons of the results of the Government’s policy. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the financial burden placed on the country as a result of the war. We were told at the beginning of the year that the war expenditure would amount to £14,000,000. That expenditure has now gone up to £60,00,000, and if the war goes on, and especially if it has to end in stalemate, it will next year not be £60,000,000 but £100,000,000 on account of the steady increase in the burden. And what are we fighting for? What have we got for our £60,000,000? Yes, there is El Wak and we have got a little way into Abyssinia. We are going to spend that money in order to restore His Royal Highness Haile Selassie on the throne of Abyssinia. For that purpose we have spent £60,000,000 in one year.

And his slaves will be restored to him.

But we have been told that we must take part in this war, because if we do so a time of prosperity will arrive. The farmers specially would have a time of great prosperity before them. We have heard all about this “lie and rot” story of the Minister of Agriculture, but what actually is the position to-day?

What do you know about it?

The farmers in my district give me the assurance that it is only a farmer who has a cheaper quality wool who is to-day obtaining a decent price for his product. The smaller farmer who has an average class of wool is getting the worst of it.

But you are a shopkeeper, and I should like to know what you know about farming.

I live among those people, and I know them. But no matter whether the farmers are to-day getting a decent price or not the fact remains that the wool production of our farmers has been sacrificed on the altar of Great Britain. The Government could have purchased all the wool itself, and it could then at a later stage have sold it at a profit, exactly what the British Government is doing now.

And your Government refused to do that at the time of the depression.

What is the position of the fruit farmers? What is the position of the mealie farmers, and what is the position of the wheat farmers? They were all promised a time of great prosperity, a time of greater prosperity than we have ever had in this country, if we took part in the war. What has become of that promise? But there is another reason why the people, the permanent section of the population, which has taken root here in South Africa, cannot place its confidence in the Government, because of the Government’s war policy, and that reason is the consequences, the effect of that policy in so far as it concerns the manner in which that policy has been carried out. If there is one man who often has a great deal to say about the need for racial co-operation, it is the Prime Minister. But if there is one thing which has driven apart the two races in South Africa and has caused bitterness, it is the Prime Minister’s resolution to take part in the war. Not only is there a difference of opinion about participation in the war, but there is also cause for no confidence in the Government in regard to the methods which the Government is pursuing to continue the war. The incitement and provocation which has taken place since the 4th September, 1939, against the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population has had dire consequences as far as the country is concerned. Reference was made to-day to a man like George Heard. I do not know whether hon. members opposite noticed the charges which he made against the police service in South Africa last week. I say that it is one of the meanest things I have ever read. He published an article in the “Sunday Times,” in which he made an attack on the members of the police service in South Africa. It is the same George Heard who also made similar charges against the staff of the Broadcasting Corporation, but who did not have the moral courage to go and give evidence. He is the man who is now coming forward with these charges and insinuations against the police. There is a lack of confidence in the Government because of that espionage which is practised in the country, those Gestapo methods which are applied by the Government even in the smallest platteland towns and also in my town. I say that the people of South Africa have no confidence in the Government because of the methods of compulsion which are brought to bear on certain Afrikaans-speaking sections of the population to force them to join up with the army. And then the Minister of Lands has the temerity to come and talk here about volunteers. We have also heard other members talk about volunteers who are joining up with the army. There are a large number of Afrikaans-speaking people in the army to-day who are there as a consequence of economic pressure, and they are not volunteers.

You know nothing about it.

Then there is another matter which we have already discussed, that is the question of the behaviour of those soldiers. I am coming back to that question. The hon. member for Kensington raised it, and he wanted to create the impression that insinuations were invariably being made from this side of the House. We heard him tell a long story of what had happened to the Minister of Lands. May I remind him that I had a similar experience when I was on a platform together with the Prime Minister, who in those days was Minister of Justice? The Minister of Justice is responsible for the maintenance of law and order. I was on the platform with him, and before I could utter a word to put a question, I was pulled off, thrown on the ground and kicked. No steps were taken, however, although this happened in the presence of the Minister of Justice and the police.

When was that?

This happened two years ago. No steps were taken. Why not? Because the people who committed that assault were the Minister’s political supporters. [Time limit.]

I feel it is a good thing that we should have the opportunity in this House from time to time to subject the various political parties to the glare of the searchlight, and also to cast the searchlight on some of the members, especially members opposite, who always have so much to say to the public outside. Nothing suits the democratic system of Government better than the procedure of casting the rays of the searchlight from time to time on both sides of the House, on the Government as well as on the Opposition, in the way we have had it done here. Other hon. members have already said that if a motion of no confidence in the Government has to be passed there must surely be an alternative, and we have to see who are the people who are going to form the new Government. If we put the question under conditions as they are to-day, “Who are going to form the Government if a vote of no confidence in the present Government is passed?” then I not only want to condemn the Leader of the Opposition from this side of the House, but I first of all want to ask whether he can depend on the support of his own followers if he should be called upon to form a Government in this country? I want to ask whether the hon. member enjoys the confidence of his own party and of his own followers? I say that if the hon. member were conscious of the fact that he cannot depend on the support of his followers, he has no right to come to this House and ask us to pass a vote of no confidence in the Government. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes along here to-day with a party which only a few weeks ago decapitated its own political leader, and then he tells us that we must give him an opportunity of ruling the country as though the people of South Africa would follow a leader, and would entrust the country to a party of which he is a member, and of which he is the leader— a party which has committed an act such as they have recently committed. They are too prone to talk about the political grave of their former leader. I imagine that their former leader will see a great many more years of political life than they will do. But I am putting a question to every member on the other side of the House, and also to the country as a whole: “What right has the Leader of the Opposition to ask that we shall hand over the Government of this country to him if his principal supporter to-day, the man sitting immediately next to him, continually keeps on condeming him and continually accuses him of having been responsible for all those outburts which are taking place in the country. The chief supporter of the Leader of the Opposition accuses him of having been responsible for the outbreak which is taking place to-day. I want to give a quotation from the diary of this House, namely the Hansard Report of the 21st of March, 1939, in order to prove this. On that day the chief member of the party of the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Genl. Kemp) made certain remarks about him, and I say that if hon. members take note of what the hon. member for Wolmaransstad said about the Leader of the Opposition in a considered statement, then the Leader of the Opposition dare not in any circumstances ask the people of the Union to hand over the Government to him. Speaking about the Leader of the Opposition the hon. member for Wolmaransstad said this:

It is not this side of the House which says these things. It is not the Government Party of to-day which accuses the Leader of the Opposition of being responsible for this riotous conduct. It is the Hon. the member for Wolmaransstad, his chief lieutenant in his Party. Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask you, could we as responsible representatives of the people of South Africa, ever contenance the reins of office being entrusted to a Leader who has been condemned in such strong language by his own people? Let us take another member of his Party. I again want to refer to the report of Hansard and this time I want to quote from a speech made by the hon. member for Potgietersrust (the Rev. S. W. Naudé). He is not just an ordinary member, he is a man who has had a theological training in piety, morals and the tradition of his forefathers. He took the Leader of the Opposition and his Party in this House to task in such language that you, Mr. Speaker, had to call upon him to moderate his language when he said that the present Leader of the Opposition and his Party were anti-English and pro-Satan. How can we now, if the Leader of the Opposition and his Party in the words of their own followers are anti-English and pro-Satan, entrust them with the government of the country? Surely that would be going too far. And so we can dissect the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as the Leader of his Party, and we shall find that not only were those hard and insulting words used about him, but we must conclude that some of his followers to-day can have no confidence in him, and yet the hon. member comes here with a vote of no confidence. I therefore say, as the Prime Minister has said: I listened and tried to ascertain where he differed so radically from the Government. Instead, however, of his differing radically from the Government, as he did at the beginning of the war, we now find that the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition itself are day by day getting weaker in the attitude they are adopting, in the pro-German propaganda which they have been carrying on in this country. The hon. member did not on this occasion say “No the war must not continue any longer.” His Party’s attitude used to be that nothing would stop Hitler. Instead of taking up that attitude he is now putting a series of questions to the Prime Minister about what is going to happen when the war is over. The attitude he used to take up was that Hitler would knock down everything, destroy everything, and that he would lay down all the rules and that it was childish to imagine that England could possibly win. But now he tells the Prime Minister that the day America takes over the business, it not only takes over the British Fleet but, at the same time, everything Great Britain has. And he asks: “Are you then going to hand over South Africa to the United States”? And he assures this House that if South Africa is handed over to the United States, then he will protest. Yes, the hon. member is getting dangerous. If America takes our country he will protest. Well, hon. members over there have held a great many meetings of protest in this country. The hon. member will recollect those meetings of protest and also the language used at those meetings, and the statements made, statements devoid of all truth, and he may just as well give up those ideas of making protests. If you, Mr. Speaker, like the Minister of Finance, had an encyclopaedic knowledge of everything that has taken place here, I would have called you to testify and I would have asked you whether you could remember the occasion during the last session when I warned the Leaders on the opposite side of the House, and when I told them that they would yet become the victims of those very same people whom they were busy stirring up at the time. I imagine there are many hon. members in this House who will be able to recall these words of mine. Where is their Leader to-day? Has he not become the victim of a mad policy and of unrestrained action, and of an attitude which refused to listen to all reason? And that is not the end of it. He is not the only hero who is going to be dragged down. The two former leaders opposite, Genl. Hertzog and Mr. Havenga, are not the only ones. There are others too who will become the victims of a mad and unrestrained policy, which will not allow anything to control them. Now I should also like to say a few words about the speech made here by the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow). The hon. member for Gezina at one time occupied a key position in South Africa, so far as our international affairs were concerned. He had the privilege of being allowed to proceed to Europe on behalf of the Union Government to make contact with different nations, and inter alia, with Hitler. If we now, as the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) has lately been doing, try to get some indication from Europe as to how we should judge members opposite, and if we read the book “Blackmail or war” by Madame Tabouis what do we find? She states that it was the expressed view of Herr Sell, the Minister of Foreign Propaganda in Germany, that Great Britain was Germany’s Colonial opponent. I am referring to this in connection with the hon. member for Gezina, and she goes on to say that Herr Sell held the following view:

We know that policy of stirring up. The policy of incitement against the Mother country, England, has been carried out in South Africa to the maximum. The policy of incitement in South Africa is unparalleled in comparison with any other propaganda in South Africa, and it is that incitement which Herr Sell had in mind. Attached to this incitement, to this anti-English movement, there is always the so called Republican movement, but one finds very few faithful Republicans—the rest is simply out and out pro-German and pro-Nazi. He states further—

The Minister of War referred to here is called Minister of Defence by us. The hon. member for Gezina, the former Minister of Defence, comes along here to-day and talks about a new Order which is based one hundred percent on the German system, and the hon. member and the Party to which he belongs want the people in South Africa to take that system to their hearts. He is bringing so much pressure to bear on members opposite that that Party has now been placed at his disposal for making propaganda for the new order which is based on the German system. And I want to say in passing that that hon. member took the Minister of Lands to task for having used the word “Christian.” The hon. member got up in holy indignation. He said that he and the people were tired of it. Have not I and other members in this House for a number of years been warning the other side not continually to use the word “Christian”? The hon. member for Gezina comes along and wants the new order to be established here. He calls it “Christian National Socialism,” but we find that the most orthodox church in South Africa absolutely condemns it and tells him: “You have no right to link up the word “Christian” with “National Socialism.”

What does the church say about your war?

But hon. members opposite allow the word to be exploited for political propaganda, and they allow it to be used for the protection of a diabolical policy. If hon. members are tired of the use of the word “Christian” it is only because they are beginning to gather the bitter fruit of the misuse which they have been making of it all those years. It further appears from the quotations which I have read that a certain Mr. Bohle, Professor Bohle, is the leader of that movement in South Africa, to which Madame Tabouis refers and he is the father of the chief of the Berlin department which controls the activities of Germans abroad. We behold that they are all linked up together—it is a family affair. Under the guise of Republican propaganda, German propaganda has to be introduced here, and the first thing to be suggested in that connection is that a policy of neutrality should be followed. The hon. member for Gezina is an able man and the Party on the other side of the House is prepared to sacrifice everything to keep him in the party. The hon. member for Gezina has a weapon in his hands by means of which he can bring pressure to bear on the Leader of the Opposition, and the Leader of the Opposition will yet be forced by the hon. member for Gezina, just as he has already been forced, to run away from the Ossewa-Brandwag. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) would never have submitted to the Ossewa-Brandwag if pressure had not been brought to bear on him. It was the so-called cultural organisation, but the chief of the Ossewa-Brandwag in the Cape Province proclaimed that they would use the sjambok on members of Parliament opposite who did not do as they were told. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition got scared of the Ossewa-Brand-wag which now turns out to be nothing but a political movement. The leader of the Ossewa-Brandwag, speaking at Springs, went so far as openly to challenge lawful authorities in South Africa. And this is what he said:

One of the things which they will, of course, do outside the law is to bring the Leader of the Opposition to heel (“looi”). That is the new method. That is one of the things which is going to be done outside the law. Thank God we have a Government in South Africa which is able and competent to protect us against such a reign of terror, the greatest reign of terror we have yet been threatened with in the history of South Africa. They want to act outside the law of the land, and in spite of that they still want to tell us that they are a cultural movement. The Leader of the Opposition spoke about 30,000 men who had stuck to their positions and who had assaulted nobody. Of course they did not assault anybody. They only attack and commit assaults when they are present in large numbers, and the Opposition constitutes only a small minority. They will “tan” (looi) the Leader of the Opposition if he does not come to heel, but this “tanning” is the new Ossewa-Brandwag Method. The Government is not going to allow itself to be scared off, and it has taken steps in time to put an end to this tanning. I believe there are members on the other side of the House, too, who say “Thank you, Gen. Smuts, for having put an end to it,” because the Ossewa-Brandwag threat has been suspended over our heads like a sword.” Now, let us look at some more recent matters. The Leader of the Opposition, and other hon. members as well, have not been able to find word strong enough to condemn the behaviour of our soldiers. The hon. member for Kensington has answered them. I object to only one of his habits, and that is that he gets up and on every occasion torpedoes the Opposition so that there is nothing left for us to fire at, but in any case, with your permission, and if I am in order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to something which will throw a fresh light on the difficulties which have taken place on the Witwatersrand. The information has been sent to me privately, i and if the Minister of Justice wants it I shall hand it over to him, together with the name of the man who is supplying the information. If, however, it is not in order, then I hope that Mr. Speaker will warn me in good time. I am anxious, however, that this House should also have that information, as it throws a light on what has taken place on the Witwatersrand. It was sent to me, and I shall read it—

I am sorry the military police in South Africa has not got any power because if they had thehre would not be so much trouble; on a previous occasion 250 Ossewa-Brandwag men, wearing the badge of the Ossewa-Brandwag, attacked ten men, and on that occasion those bearded chaps got away with it.

What is the name of the man that wrote that?

I shall hand it to the Minister of Justice, and if he thinks fit he can communicate the name to hon. members.

Is it a sworn statement?

It is information which I am giving to the House,; and I shall hand it to the Minister of Justice and he can do with it what he wants to. Hon. members ask whether this is a sworn statement. I shall have it sworn to if that will make it so much more valuable to hon. members. I only asked for the indulgence of the House so that they might listen to it, because it throws a lot more light on what has taken place. I think it is only fair that the House should get some real idea of what took place. For the rest, not a single hon. member opposite has got up to produce any real arguments in support of this motion. No matters of principle are being raised. They no longer tell us that Hitler is going to win. Just as Hitler left them in the lurch last September so they are now leaving him in the lurch. They are no longer supporting him now, but they are steadily coming along with their story of American domination in the world. The Leader of the Opposition is afraid. He is afraid that America will swallow them. If he really wants to protest, let him do so; then we shall support him, but the real protest was the protest which this Government made against Hitler when he declared war. The Government protested by means of arms in order to turn the danger. That is protesting. I do not think America will be very scared by the protest of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member opposite is more of a man of peace. So far he has always been a man of peace. Still, I can well understand the hon. member’s concern; he is scared of America. He knows from personal experience that it is safer to be near the Union Jack; that is why he is afraid of America and prefers to be near the Union Jack. I congratulate the hon. member on the fact that his eyes are now beginning to open. I believe that he and others are now beginning to realise that our Prime Minister looked far ahead on the 4th September. I believe they are now beginning to realise that the public have greater respect for those who defend South Africa than for Republicans who, with cheap Vierkleur flags, made in Japan, chase around the country and who leave it to this side of the House to fight for South Africa. The Prime Minister in 1900 fought for the Republic; he did not hide, and to-day it is again the Prime Minister who is the man to protect our country. If their common sense does not prove it to them, I hope that the facts will now open their eyes, the facts which show one what the position is. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) is also worried. He asks where the battlefield is now going to be, in Africa or in England. It is for those very reasons that we say that we do not care whether the war is going to be decided in the English Channel or in Africa, but we are not going to sit here and sleep and allow the enemy to approach our borders and only wake up then. If England had not adopted the policy of defending us in Northern Africa this might have been a second Spain as a result of the propaganda made in our country on behalf of Germany. Hon. members opposite are swayed so easily from the one attitude to the other by the propoganda which is being made here. They do not know where they are; they do not realise their duty, they are hopelessly divided, and they are prepared to “hands-up,” and they are not prepared to fight for the honour and the name of South Africa. Hon. members over there are already getting worried about the amount of say South Africa will have when peace comes. South Africa will have a say, not as the result of what the “handsuppers” are doing, but in consequence of the manly attitude which the Prime Minister and his followers adopted in this House.

So far we have certainly not had any reply, of which we can take notice, to the serious charges which the Leader of the Opposition has made against the Government; and least of all have we had any reply from the hon. member who has just sat down. True, the Prime Minister again took cover behind the old excuse, “the House has decided,” but nothing came from him beyond that. It is a pity he is not in his seat, because, seeing that we have so consistenly heard this old parrot cry, “The House has decided,” I should like to remind the right hon. the Prime Minister, as well as hon. members opposite, of the fact that there is a higher authority in the country than this House, and that authority is the people of South Africa. The people of this country, when last it was given the opportunity, gave this House an instruction; in fact it gave two instructions. The first instruction was that the hon. the member for Standerton (General Smuts) was not to be Prime Minister of this country. That was the first instruction which the highest authority in the country gave to this House. The second instruction which that highest authority gave this House was that there was to be peace and no war in this country. Both those instructions to this House by the people have been treated with contempt in the most disgraceful manner. Here we have the hon. member for Standerton sitting here to-day as Prime Minister of the country, against the will and against the wishes om the people, and in direct conflict with the instructions which the people, the public, have given to members opposite. Here we are in trouble to-day as a result of a miserable war of which we have heard more than enough and of which we are going to hear a great deal more— also directly in conflict with the instructions of the highest authority, the public of South Africa. One would like to call this action of the representatives of the people by a different name. One would like to say that it has been a fraudulent way, that the instructions of the people have been treated with contempt. If one takes note of the contemptuous manner in which these instructions have been treated, and if one listens to speeches like that made by the hon. Minister for Lands this afternoon, when he said that the Government was giving effect to the will of the people, then I say that the Government is playing ducks and drakes with the will of the people, because the people have given a very clear instruction— they clearly instructed Parliament in 1938 that there was to be no war in this country; and yet, bearing that in mind, the Minister of Lands comes along here and has the temerity to say that it is the will of the people that these things should be done. One would almost say that it is dishonourable for these things to be done to the people of this country. The very least we can say is that the Government has taken up an attitude of deliberate contempt and irresponsibility so far as the wishes of the people are concerned. I say that the will of the people has been deliberately ignored. We have been told that this House has twice decided on the matter. Two wrongs do not make one right, and in spite of anything the Prime Minister or members of this House may say, all those words are not going to put right the injustice done to the people of South Africa. If there are any members opposite who can distinguish between right and wrong, I should like to submit to those who have a sense of what is fair and just in their make-up, this aspect of the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, namely, that this motion constitutes nothing but a request that they should remedy in this House the injustice which on the 4th September was done to the people of South Africa. Repair that injustice now. That is what this motion is actually asking. Do the right thing by the people, by the highest authority whom you have treated unjustly. If you do not do so, then you should give the people an opportunity of expressing themselves about the misdeeds which you have committed towards them. If you do so, then the people will at least have an opportunity of saying whether you have acted in accordance with their wishes or not. Let this motion be passed, and let us have an opportunity of having a general election. Let us see what such an election will produce. Hon. members opposite know the old English saying, “It is never too late to mend.” The public will not punish you so severely if you give it the opportunity at this stage to pass judgment on you for what you have done, if even at this stage you do the right thing by the public. But if hon. members opposite persist in the injustice which is being committed to the people then they must not expect any mercy. Now, apart from the reasons which I have already mentioned, I should like to mention some other reasons, reasons concerning the formation of the present Government, and they are good reasons in support of the motion of the Leader of the Opposition. But there are other reasons as well, emanating from the consequences of the wrongful formation of the present Government. I should like to mention a few reasons resulting from the formation of the present Government. This Government has no right to be in power to-day. But, being in power, it has declared war on behalf of the people of South Africa against the great nations of Europe. I say that that in itself is a perpetuation of that injustice and a provocation of and playing with the feelings of the people of South Africa. It is a hopeless struggle as the Leader of the Opposition has already shown us in a most able manner. In consequence of the injustice which the Government has committed to the people of the country, burdens and debts will be loaded on the country which generations to come will have to bear, and which will resound as a charge against this Government throughout generations to come. If we behold the other actions committed by the Government in pursuance of its war policy against the people of the country, I would first of all mention the unjust and illegal disarming of the people. Not only have the instructions given by the people been treated with contempt, but acts such as the disarming of the people have been committed against the people. The people are being punished. Citizens of this country are put in gaol, and are humiliated —members of the very same community who instructed the Government that there was not to be war. They are treated with contempt in that manner, they are ignored and subjected to disgraceful regulations, so far as the possession of firearms is concerned. The Prime Minister himself admitted that those regulations were illegal; yet under those illegal regulations the public, ill-treated as it is, has to suffer further indignities. The imposition of these war measures was a further provocation and challenge to the people, the highest authority in the land. The people are provoked in this manner, and they have to submit to these regulations which enable the authorities to punish and fine them for trivial things—they may be fined and punished most severely—fines of 1/- may be imposed, but on the other hand they may be punished with a severity as though they had committed a murder. Those war measures inflict all these things on the people. All those unjust acts can be done against the people—and that is the punishment which the servant is imposing on his master. This House imposes that punishment on its master, in spite of the fact that the nation has already declared that this House shall not do these things. Now I want to come to another reason why I wish to give my strong support to this motion, and I am going to mention an authority no less than that of the Auditor-General in his annual report, which has now been placed on the Table of the House. If we read that report we find that it contains references to numerous irregularities resulting from the Government’s war policy. Let hon. members read that report carefully and they will be struck by the crying injustice that is being done to the people of South Africa. I should like to say something further about that. I am pleased the Minister of Lands is here because at Vaal Hartz 1,000 morgen have been set aside for aged and unfit people. It must be said to the credit of the Department of Social Welfare that it had set aside those 1,000 morgen at Vaal Hartz. Houses had already been constructed and an amount of no less than £30,500 had been spent on those houses and on the land, in order to prepare it for those old people. It was a very fine gesture to settle those old people there. Now, let us see what the Auditor-General has to say about this on page 232 of his report. He refers to it and he says this:

Shame!

In that way these very people, who have been so unjustly treated and who do not want this war, are being subjected to further injustices as the Auditor-General is showing most clearly here. I say that this is a further reason why this vote of no confidence should be passed. Take another matter, the question of the purchase of land for war purposes. I have another instance here which is also mentioned in the report of the Auditor-General, on page 171, where he refers to a farm, the name of which I think, is applicable to the Government. The name of that farm is “Sondersorg” (without care). That is wat I would call the Government. That farm was allotted by the Department of Lands for settlement purposes and it was to have been purchased, but it was not done, because the Department was not anxious to have it. The Defence Department then came along and wanted to buy the land for defence purposes.

Where is this farm “Sondersorg”?

The Minister will perhaps get the information if I read to him what the Auditor-General has to say about it in his report.

Where is it?

It is on page 171, paragraph 12, “Purchase of land for defence purposes.” In terms of a Treasury decision expenditure on purchases of land for defence purposes effected during the war period is being met from the additional Defence Account. The amount charged to the Account for the period ended 31st March, 1940, was £9.665 8s. 2d. which includes £8,989 7s. 6d., being the purchase price, exclusive of mineral rights, of the farm „Sonder Water” No. 173, Pretoria, in extent approximately 2,397 morgen. This farm had been offered to the Department of Lands in December, 1938, for settlement purposes, but after it had been inspected by the Land Board in August, 1939, that body refused to recom mend its purchase. The Land Board’s valuation of this farm was £7,163. De Defence Department bought it for £8,989,’ practically £9,000. That is the way in which things are being done in this war. That is not what I say, but that is the judgment of the highest official on this matter, and that is what he tells us in his report. I can mention other matters as well. For instance, the question of motor transport in the Defence Force, at this time of war. The Auditor-General says that the position is very unsatisfactory. We find for instance in paragraph 4 on page 170 the Auditor-General makes the following remarks—

These things are very serious, if the Auditor General thinks it necessary to complain about them in this way. And that same Auditor-General goes further and refers to other irregularities all of which are the result of the war policy pursued by the Government. He draws our attention to the purchase of stocks to a value of under £100. That is dealt with in paragraph 70 on page 51, and I also want to read this to the House:

And so it goes on. He points to one case after another. For instance, tenders are asked for the purchase of furniture for the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Defence. He points out that two classes of prices are laid down in the tenders. The one class is on a higher scale, and the higher scale is based on the delivery of the goods the day after the placing of the order. The other scale is based on the delivery of the goods a month after the placing of the order. The Auditor-General points out that a firm tendered on the higher price basis, and therefore had to deliver the next day. It started delivering the next day but continued doing so practically until the last day of the month, in spite of which that firm was paid on the higher basis. Those are the scandalous things which occur, and I say that the public can have no confidence in a Government which allows that kind of thing. Then I also want to refer to the payment of soldiers. But let me say first of all what my experience is—I know only very few of these people who wear the red tabs—but my experience relates to one case where I know a man who himself told me that he had never had a better time in all his life than he was having now. The parents of this man were rich; I know that from personal experience. I know that the parents made a lot of money, but the son unfortunately made a mess of his parents’ business, and afterwards he was practically on the streets, but now he has a fine job with the Government as a soldier. He says that he has never had a better time.

Are you sorry about it?

Now I should like to refer to what the Auditor-General has to say about it. In regard to the auditing of soldiers’ pay he says this on page 58 of his report—

Would it not be fair to read the next paragraph as well?

I did not leave that out deliberately, and if the hon. Minister wants me to read it I shall do so. That paragraph reads as follows—

That is what the Minister was anxious that I should read.

That is sugaring the pill a bit.

Then the Auditor-General mentions instances of military posts having been created, and I should like to read what he says about these things. I shall read again from page 58 of the Report, so that the House may see what is going on. I am pleased also to see that we have the Minister of Lands here, because one of the greatest irregularities, I would almost say one of the most scandalous things, occurred in his Department. Now let us see what the Auditor-General says about the militarisation of parts of the Public Service. In paragraph 4 on page 58 he says this:

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

I believe that my time is almost up and I shall therefore hasten to produce further evidence from the report of the Auditor-General to show how the Government, especially the Department of Defence, is wasting the country’s money in a wasteful and extravagant manner and even in an irregular manner. I was pointing out that the Department of Lands in one of its branches “Metereology” was, to use the words of the Auditor-General, “putting officials into uniform.” As a reason for mentioning it, the high pay received by such officials is referred to. May I be allowed to explain the position? The officials do not get the higher pay because they are doing military work; they simply get it because they are in khaki uniform. That is why they get this additional pay. I am sorry the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha) is not in his place. I believe that he this afternoon in an interjection asked whether I objected to that. This objection now comes from a higher authority than mine, namely, the Auditor-General. I should, however, like to say to the hon. gentleman that I also object to him, simply because he has donned a khaki uniform, in addition to his Parliamentary pay, getting at least another £2 2s. per day, and I believe on some days even £5 5s. I seriously object to that, especially as the hon. member is not going North to fight, because fortunately for himself he has the excuse that he is unable to go as he has to assist in this House in maintaining the Government’s majority, so that the public shall be prevented from getting what they want.

I would go to-morrow if I could do so.

I further want to mention the other cases mentioned by the Auditor-General where officials have been paid extra money as a result of their donning uniform. He mentions an official “A” who as a civilian would get £600, but who now, simply because he wears a uniform, gets £755/2/6. Official “B” who in the ordinary course of events gets £575, now gets £730/2/0 because he wears a uniform. Official “C” who usually gets £500, now gets £655. Another one who gets £300 in ordinary life now gets £511. And then the Auditor-General goes on to say this—

But still more serious is another remark which the Auditor-General makes, and that is in regard to the creation of military posts and the matter of grading and promotion. Unfortunately it appears from the report that a dispute has arisen between the Department of Defence, the Treasury and the Public Service Commission. The Department of Defence appropriates unto itself the right to have unrestricted powers of making appointments as it thinks fit. And the country simply has to pay. The Department of Defence takes up the attitude that it can do just as it pleases, and that the Treasury has to pay. Now, what does the Auditor-General say in this connection?—

And the succeeding paragraphs deal further with the position. The Auditor-General adds this—

I could go on and mention numerous instances of the same kind to which the Auditor-General refers as evidence of the fact that the country’s money is being wasted in a scandalous manner. The wheels of the ordinary administration are not standing still. Under the rules of the House I am not permitted to point out how the interests of the farmers are being neglected in every possible respect because unfortunately there is a motion on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Aliwal North (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) covering all these matters, and I shall not be allowed, to go into details in that connection, but my complaint against the Government is that they are deliberately irresponsible, they are deliberately unconcerned and careless in the work they do. I do not want to use any stronger expressions because if I did so you might call me to order, but I want to put this question, and I want to ask the country whether these disclosures of the Auditor-General do not bring to light a disgraceful and I would say unscrupulous condition of affairs. My other complaint against the Government is that they have already given evidence of a guilty conscience. If we look at what they do from time to time it shows that they have a guilty conscience in respect of the injustice which they are doing to the people. If we think of the illegal regulations which were issued by the Department of Defence about the commandeering of rifles … [Time limit].

I listened very attentively to the speech of the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Du Plessis), as I wanted to find out from him whether he could tell us why the House should pass a vote of no confidence in the Government, but it seemed to me that the only reason he gave was that the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha) was getting £2 2s. per day.

And a motor car.

Yes.

And a driver.

Yes, and a driver as well. Now, that is the reason for this motion It shows the mentality of hon. members opposite. Here we have a man occupying a high rank, a man who is prepared to defend his country, a man who has rendered great services to his country in the past. As far back as the Boer War he fought for his country, but now he is being attacked because he gets £2 2s. per day and gets a motor car from the Government as he is occupying this high position. It is cheap. Then the hon. member also complains because officials who were getting £600 per year are now getting a little more than £700.

And they are still doing the same work.

Well, that is the reason for this motion. A man got £600, and now that he wears a uniform and is prepared to risk his life for the freedom of South Africa he gets £100 more than he used to get before—and that is made the cause of a serious complaint. It is not to be wondered at that that party is crumbling and is “skinning off,” because that party is built on the foundations of racialism, mutual division and jealousy. That is why they are skinning off like that—and they will skin off to such an extent that there will be very little left of them. Those members opposite, especially the Leader of the Opposition, are prone to talk of Nationalism and Imperialism. Nationalism is only to be found on their side, and we on this side fight for Imperialism.

Hear, hear.

I derive my inspiration from the history of South Africa, and that history tells me that the Afrikaner people are not a nervous people. The Voortrekkers were not afraid of going into the wilderness, they were not afraid to sacrifice their lives for the sake of the freedom of the Afrikaner people. The Boer people are not afraid. In the Boer War they took up arms against the most mighty power in the world, and on the 4th September, 1939, this country took up arms because it was menaced by the greatest military power in the world.

In what way?

Our freedom was menaced, and we thereupon decided on this side of the House that we would stand together with the Commonwealth of Nations to defend the freedom of South Africa. More than 100,000 young South Africans have voluntarily come forward.

Voluntarily!

Yes, voluntarily. Many of them are young farmers who have large farms, and they have taken up arms, and they now get 3s. 6d. per day to defend their country. That is true Nationalism. The right and proper Nationalism is found on this side of the House. On the other side of the House one only finds division, the one side working against the other, and jealousies to such an extent that they are busy crumbling up, disintegrating, and the man who has founded the Nationalist Party and who has done a lot for the people of South Africa is kicked out.

You stabbed him in the back.

They say that I stabbed him in the back. I did not stab him in the back. I differed from him so far as economic policy was concerned when the depression broke out, and hon. members know that I warned them at the beginning of 1932 and that I told them that they were smashing up the Nationalist Party to such an extent that they would not be able to recognise it themselves in days to come. And that is what has actually happened. I differed from the previous Prime Minister economically, and I differed from him on the 4th September, but I want to admit to-day that he is the man who removed the inferiority complex of the Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaner from them. What do we get from them? On the 4th September he was the great man and the hero of the Afrikaner nation. And then they got married again at the foot of the Monument, the place where he was not allowed to go in 1938, in consequence of the propaganda of Keerom Street. Then they celebrated—the Afrikaner people had come together again, the unity of the Afrikaner people had been restored. And what is the position now? I have had to put up with many insults from the other side, but we on this side are going to do our duty to the Afrikaner people, and I am convinced that the real true Nationalists are on this side of the House and not on the other side. I am sorry the Leader of the Opposition is not here; he moves a vote of no confidence, but he has not got the patience to listen to the speeches that are made in answer to his vote of no confidence. We are told nowadays that England has always been the chief enemy of the Boer population of South Africa. England is the nation which made the three years’ war against us. She was our enemy, and she deprived us of our freedom. Now I want to put a few questions to the Leader of the Opposition. He put certain questions to the Prime Minister. I want to ask him whether it is not he who changed the constitution of the Nationalist Party after 1926? Is it not he who changed clause 4 under which we adopted the Statute of Westminster as a confirmation of our sovereign independence? Is he not the man who at the Nationalist Party Congress at East London stated: “We accept this Statute of Westminster which lays down our sovereign independence. The Nationalist Party has secured what it stands for, and we now have more than we would have been able to secure otherwise. Republicanism is dead in South Africa. We cannot wish for greater freedom”? [Laughter.] The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) laughs, because his conscience is pricking him; the Leader of the Opposition said that the Boer War was over, and the struggle between Englishman and Boer belonged to the past, and that from now on one nation could be built up. Did he not say that England was the Mother of our Freedom? Those are the questions which I want to put to the Leader of the Opposition, and the people want those questions to be answered by the Opposition, and they should honestly answer those questions, so that the people may know. When they tell us to-day that we are hans khakis and that we have betrayed the Afrikaner people, the people laugh at them. The people have found them out. Why has the Leader of the Opposition changed his ground? I want to put a further question to him. I notice from reports in the Press that on Dingaans Day he unveiled a monument near Cape Town in honour of heroes who fell in the Boer War, and that in his speech there he said that as soon as the sounds of the German troops marching through the streets of London were heard, we would secure a Republic in South Africa.

That is not true.

It was reported in the Press. And the sister of the hero who was killed in the war and in whose memory the monument was put up, namely, Hildebrand, sent the report to the Press.

Where.

I notice that members are ashamed of it. Then I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he agrees with the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) when that hon. member states that the salvation of the Afrikaner people depend upon victory by Hitler. Will the hon. member for Fordsburg say that he did not say that? His head sometimes runs away with him. I ask the Leader of the Opposition and responsible leaders on that side whether they agree with the hon. member for Fordsburg, that the only salvation for the Afrikaner people now lies in victory by Hitler? And I also want to ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he agrees with the member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman), who stated from a public platform that the time had arrived for our finances to be linked up with the German Reichmark. Does he agree? If he does not agree he should contradict his colleague, and he should not allow our people to be misled in that way, and to be driven along like that. Let me tell the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg that even if he could get a wagon load of reichmarks he would not be able to pay off one quarter of his debts.

You always believe your own lies.

The hon. member says that it is a lie. I can call his own supporters in testimony of what I have just said. Those are the kind of things which we are told on the platteland, and we are being stigmatised as hans khakies and as traitors because we stand by General Smuts and our people are stirred up an incited in that fashion. But when they are in a place where they can be called to account for what they say, they turn round and indulge in a lot of pious talk. I am pleased the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg is ashamed of what he has said, and I think the hon. member for Fordsburg is also ashamed.

Oh, no. How is it that you got such a lot of votes of no confidence in your own constituency?

The people of the platteland are told that we could have remained neutral and that we have now been deliberately dragged into this war by the Prime Minister, and that the sons and daughters of the people are to be commandeered and sent overseas to be killed on the battle fields of Europe. That is the sort of talk. People are told that the Prime Minister has deliberately dragged this country into the war, and that we could have remained neutral. And let me say that I have respect for the opinion of any honest Afrikaner who says: “We should have remained neutral; our country should have remained neutral.” But then I ask why members opposite exploited the feelings of the people; why have they misled them by proposing a motion here which in appearance is a neutrality motion and not in actual fact. That is what I ask them. And I ask the Leader of the Opposition to answer that. When he was Leader of the previous Opposition he said that we should cancel the Simonstown Agreement because it was impossible for us to remain neutral and carry out that agreement. The then Prime Minister, General Hertzog, stated at the time that we could remain neutral and that so far as Simonstown was concerned we were in a position similar to that of Spain in regard to Gibraltar. But the Leader of the Opposition stated that we must cancel the agreement, because we could not remain neutral and give effect to that agreement. On the 4th September, however, he came to this House and supported a motion of quasi neutrality. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that the people of the platteland will not believe that on the 4th September not one member of the Purified Party, barring the Leader, spoke here? The others kept dead quiet. Why did they keep quiet? There is only one reason. The Leader of the Opposition told them that they must keep quiet; there was a split between General Hertzog and General Smuts. He said, “Now you keep quiet; we have a chance of coming into power and don’t you spoil the whole game.” And what have we been seeing here on every occasion? Whenever a motion is introduced for the expenditutre of a few thousand pounds, every member of the Purified Party is up on his feet to put up a fight.

That was very good of them.

On the 4th September there was a motion before this House to bring our country into the war. It was a question of life and death, but not one of them took part in the debate. They sat perfectly quiet, and the only man spoke was the Leader of the Opposition. Why was that? I could quite understand it. The Leader of the Opposition had told them that although they were in favour of cancelling the agreement regarding Simonstown and remaining neutral, they had to vote in favour of the motion of the then Prime Minister, which contained a clause that the Simonstown agreement was to be given effect to.

We did not stab anyone in the back.

We hear such a lot said in this House about the Afrikaner people having to keep a straight course, but I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he has kept a straight course since 1926? The course which he has kept is the course of a whirlwind, but then the Leader of the Opposition came along and said that he and the whole of his party would vote for the motion of the former Prime Minister. The motion of the Prime Minister did not say that we were to remain completely neutral, but that we would carry out our contractual obligations towards the British Commonwealth of Nations—that we would carry out the agreement in regard to Simonstown. But I have never yet heard on the platteland that they have made clear to the people what those obligations are for which they voted, for which the Purified Nationalist Party voted, and which they wanted us to carry out. No, they keep dead quiet about that because they dare not tell the people about it. I should like to read the obligations which they voted for on the 4th September so that the people may know what they are I read from the Minutes of the Imperial Conference of 1926. It is stated there—

Where did you get that French book?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, if I quote anything from Hansard on the platteland I am asked who has printed it, and if I say “Die Burger” printed it, people will not believe anything I quote from it. The platteland cannot believe that hon. members of the Purified Party voted for that motion, but that is actually what did happen. Hon. members opposite are laughing now. They wanted to have remained neutral. They are telling the country that General Smuts is going to commandeer our sons, and that they will be killed on the battlefield. But they voted for this motion, which means implies that we have undertaken these contractual obligations to help in the defence of the countries constituting the British Empire. Every one of them voted for that motion, but they keep very quiet about it on the platteland. Now I ask this, which Dominions of the Commonwealth of Nations did they have in mind that we would have to defend? I can understand that there would be only one part, namely, Rhodesia, Tanganyika and Kenya. Those parts have to be defended so far as we are concerned; they voted for that, and then they tell the people that they wanted to remain neutral. The people will simply not believe it. When I read out these things on the platteland, and I tell the people that that is the motion for which the Purified Nationalist Party voted, the people will not believe it, and not one of those hon. members have the courage to go to the people and explain to them that those are the obligations which we would have to carry out under the agreement.

The people believe us.

Yes, but it will not take long before the people will not believe you any more. No wonder that some of the leaders of their Party on the platteland say to me to-day: Our leaders have misled us and we have finished with them. That is the distintegration which is taking place.

How many motions of no confidence have you had?

Now they are talking about votes of no confidence. I have held 32 meetings in my constituency. At four of those I got votes of no confidence due to the fact that people were brought along from outside my constituency. The hon. member need not bother about Kimberley District; rather let him worry his head about his own constituency.

Where are you going to try next?

Order, I must ask hon. members not to indulge in so many interruptions.

I forgive those members their interruptions because their conscience is beginning to worry them. If an old Nationalist gets up here and tells them historical facts their conscience cannot stand it. Then we suddently hear them call out about Lord Whitecliffs. Let me tell them again that I am proud of that title, and I am even more proud of the history behind it. I do not know whether they are proud of the title of Lord Whitecliffe of Calvinia. The less hon. members opposite have to say about that the better for them. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister where is this fight going to end? That question is also put to us very often on the platteland. Those are questions which we come across every day. I say that we have undertaken to drive the enemy from South Africa. And we are going to carry out these obligations which the Opposition also voted for on the 4th September, and we shall achieve that object. A little more than a year ago we heard that Germany and Italy were so strong that we should unconditionally make peace. The mothers and the daughters of the Nation were sent in Voortrekker costume to go in procession to the Prime Minister to ask him to surrender. We were finshed. As I said just now the Afrikaner people are not a nervous people. The sons of South Africa will go and will do their duty to their people. We talk a great deal in our country about the Voortrekkers. I say that the Voortrekkers of to-day are on this side of the House, but the English-speaking Afrikaner and the Dutch-speaking Afrikaner are alongside each other on our Voortrekker wagon. And when we go North and when we reach the Monument we take off our hats, but we go further because we say that South Africa’s great future lies in the North where our Afrikaner sons to-day are playing their great part. I feel that the public are beginning to laugh at members opposite; their own supporters are beginning to laugh at them. We first of all heard that Italy was so strong that we must make peace unconditionally. To-day we hear that Italy is not a menace to us. The people are beginning to find them out and they will call them to account.

Who are the people?

They are not pumpkins from Riversdale. The Leader of the Opposition also spoke about the rehabilitation of the farmer, but I want to remind him that at the time when the farmers were suffering great harships as a result of the depression of 1932, when wool was being sold at 3d. per lb. and when thousands of sheep were sold at 1s. 6d. and 3s.—in those days he was in power in this country. I went to him on behalf of my constituency and I said to him: “Take steps and reduce the interest burden on the farmer.” The answer given by the Leader of the Opposition was: “The Government cannot interefere in eocnomic matters. The farmers who are bankrupt must go bankrupt and start afresh.” That morning I stood up at the table and I said: “You ministers are destroying the Nationalist Party to such an extent that you will not recognise it.” It is no use the hon. member turning on me and saying that I have betrayed the Nationalist Party. If anyone has betrayed the Nationalist Party then those who have betrayed it are sitting on that side of the House. The present Prime Minister is held up as a man who is not a friend of the Dutch-spekaing Afrikaner. There was a time when I too believed that. But experience has taught me that when the Afrikaner farmer was brought to his knees an was almost completely ruined, the present Prime Minister stepped forward and said: “Here is my hand and friendship; I shall govern with you and I shall do all I can to improve the position.” He did not ask to become Prime Minister, but he said that he was willing to serve under the former Prime Minister. The people remember all that. But now the Leader of the Opposition talks about the farmer having to be rehabiliated. I wonder how he wants to rehabilitate the farmer. Does he want to rehabilitate him as we heard in those days when they wanted to create the impression among the people that Genl. Hertzog was a traitor of the people and that they were the great patriots? No, the people have begun to find them out. To-day they have cast out Genl. Hertzog and Mr. Havenga. I came forward with a scheme to reduce the interest for the farmers. Did any of them help me? This new Fuhrer of the Free State in those days was eating out of Mr. Havenga’s hands, because he wanted a job, and nobody was prepared to help him. I told them at that time: “It is no use talking to the farmers all day long about culture, language rights, and things of that knd, while all the time their sons and their families are being put on to the streets.” Well they took no notice and that is the reason why the broken Nationalist Party is in the position in which it is to-day. I believe that the present Government is already busy trying to rehabilitate the farming community. Do hon. members realise that there are thousands of farmers who are beginning to pay off their bonds; do they know that everything that is produced can be sold? The farmers are getting large cheques for their wool and thousands of them are paying off their bonds, but I admit that there are thousands too who are so deeply in debt that the Government will have to do something to help them to a gerater extent in order to reduce those bonds. The Minister of Finance has given us that promise, and I as a farmer know that there is only one Government which can do it, and that is the Government which we have to-day. Hon. members have spoken about wool to-day. They hold protest meetings because the Government has sold our wool to the Imperial Government. But members opposite are buying sheep. They speculate in sheep. Let me say this: I challenge any one of them to prove that after France and Belgium had fallen we could have sold our wool. The whole market collapsed. I am speaking as a wool farmer, and not as an attorney or as a shopkeeper, but as a man who makes his living out of wool. It is my business. The wool farmers are grateful to the Government because we know that as long as the war lasts and for a year after we shall continue to get this excellent price for our wool. And when the war is over every farmer knows that he is going to get a cheque for half the profit. We had a similar agitation during the last war, but we know that the farmers who sold their wool to the Imperial Government got large cheques.

They got less than the others.

I want to know from my hon. friends over there whether they ever think of what they are doing. There are only 2,000,000 white people in South Africa. There are large problems which we have to solve. A great responsibility rests on the Leader of the Opposition, and I want to ask him to look to the future of the Afrikaner in this country. The Afrikaner has opportunities to-day such as he will never get again. The Government has a scheme of technical education for the various industries. The people who are being trained under that scheme are receiving pay, and so do their families. But propaganda from Keerom Street is keeping the people away. Those people are told that they must not avail themselves of those opportunities because they will have to take the red oath. I ask them not just for the sake of political ends and with an eye to obtaining seats to do such things, but to look to the future of the people. I am sorry that I have to say it, but I cannot refrain from doing so. At a meeting on the platteland somebody put a question to me and asked who really was the cause of the quarrel between Boer and Briton in South Africa. I told them that in the past it was Downing Street. Downing Street was the cause of clashes, and was responsible for our people moving away, but I added, and I emphasised it, that in latter years Keerom Street has been the cause. Let me say to them that never has the English Jingo done as much harm to the Dutchspeaking Afrikaner as what Keerom Street is doing now.

The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) said in his speech this afternoon that Afrikanerdom could not allow itself to be split over the rights of English-speaking people, or on personal grievances. I want to tell the hon. member this, that along with Gen. Hertzog, along with the right hon. the Prime Minister, along with the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha), and along with the leader of the Afrikaner Party, there were in the second war of independence English-speaking people who sacrificed their lives for the life of Afrikanerdom. That it was in consequence of the action of those English-speaking people who fought along with us, and in consequence of the powers of endurance of our Afrikaner people in the Free State and in the Transvaal, and it is due to that that the rights of the Afrikaner people were eventually so extended that the hon. member for Beaufort West was able to become a Minister Plenipotentiary. He plucked some of the fruit of that type of English-speaking person for whose rights the Afrikaner Party alone stands to-day, as also for the rights of the Afrikaner. We do not stand up for the rights of the Dominion Party. We do not stand for the rights of the English-speaking person who lives in South Africa and whose heart is in England, whose home is over there, but we stand for the rights of those English-speaking people whose shoelaces the hon. member for Beaufort West will find it difficult to tie. I want to remind the hon. member for Beaufort West of this, that it was only owing to Gen. Hertzog that he had those years of ambassadorship—and that it now looks very strange that he should bite the hand which kept him for all these years in that position. I think that all of us in this House were very painfully under the impression that Gen. Hertzog was no longer in this House, especially during the debate which commenced here yesterday. We still recollect that during the last two sessions of Parliament last year, motions were brought before the House by Gen. Hertzog which provoked practically the same tendency in the debate as this motion which is now before the House. And how different was not the position then. The Prime Minister yesterday had no trouble in completely refuting the argument of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. But the Prime Minister will admit that things did not go easily last year when those two motions were introduced by Gen. Hertzog. It was also painful for us to see what a difficult task the Leader of the Opposition found it to introduce the debate as a Statesman should. There we clearly saw the difference between who is a master of statesmanship and an ordinary leader of a party in which there are a number of drivers. The Government boasted yesterday of the fact that it had, with a mandate from the people, declared war, and that it held the reins to-day. May I remind the Government of the fact that when we held the general election in 1938—I make bold to say—neither the Prime Minister who is now no longer sitting there, nor the present Prime Minister nor many of us who at that time got in with the United Party, had the chance of retaining our seats if we stood for a policy of linking ourselves up with wars in respect of which England had been a surety. The Government itself knows that. That is the reason that the Government, every now and then, has to tell us: We hold a mandate from the people. The Government did not ask for a mandate from the people before the 4th September. The mandate of the people had been, I will quote it from the speech of Gen. Hertzog which he made in this House on the 23rd March, 1939. It appears on page 2271 of the Hansard report. He says this—

I want particularly to emphasise the words “warn the people of the Union.” Were the people of the Union ever warned before the 4th September? I asked the Minister of Justice on a certain occasion whether the people had ever been warned, and he said “Yes, the people were warned.” I then asked him “When were the people warned?” His reply was “On the 4th September.” Just imagine that. The democratic system of government requires that when the views of the people are to be obtained the people must first of all be consulted before a vote is taken here. But on this occasion the vote was taken first of all, and only after the voting here the people were given the warning. What we feel, the friends who sit with me in the Afrikaner party, is that we differ radically from the Government in its declaration of war in fighting a war of aggression. We are absolutely in favour of war, provided it is a defensive war. But no case was made out on the 4th September for a war of aggression. That was also clear from the words which were used on that occasion by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Long) who said “Remember our British sentiments.” That is what the Government of the day did, and that is what my friends of the United Party did who voted on the side of the present Prime Minister. That is the great mistake they committed, that they only took account of the sentiments of one section of the population. That is the reason why there is such a powerful opposition or the Afrikaner people against the Government party. That is so, and the Government is aware of it. They are aware of the fact that there are also 10,000 English-speaking people in the country, that section which is sympathetically inclined, and who want to continue living here in the future and who consider themselves bound only to South Africa and its interests, and who do not agree with the Government in this war policy.

You have a hope.

I do not believe that my hon. friend has any acquaintance with the people beyond the streets of Boksburg. If he went beyond them, then he sold ploughs and implements and knew nothing of the feelings of the English-speaking section of the population which he is supposed to represent. The Prime Minister, before the 1938 election, made a statement in order to throw light on the policy of the old United Party in regard to the war, and he said that the policy of the old United Party was that it would protect the country against any invasion, but that it would not mix itself up in European wars and wars which were decided in Europe. That is the basis on which the Prime Minister, and on which my friends and I were sent to this Parliament. But let me point out another aspect. The Prime Minister in his New Year message said that the end of this war would come in Europe. The fact that there was a danger on account of Italy in the North did not make it necessary for us to declare war. We could have followed the example of England herself. She has not yet declared war against Russia, who has taken a portion of Poland, although she had guaranteed Poland against invasion. Hitler has not yet declared war against Greece, and even Japan has never yet declared war against China. Take the words of Lord Halifax when he said in America: “What we need, and what will give the final decision, is ships and aeroplanes.” On the 4th September the present Government undertook that South Africa would not send troops overseas. That would not be necessary either, because they would not give a decision in the war. What was necessary was ships and aeroplanes, and those we did not have, except the few which we have been able to capture in the meantime. We therefore differ as the Poles from the Government with regard to its war policy. We differ from the Government about those large amounts which it is spending on seeing the war through. About the middle of January the Minister of Finance spoke to the Rotarians in Johannesburg, and on that occasion he said that he was convinced of the fact that the population would willingly pay increased taxation. He added to that that he had last year got £16,750,000 out of new taxation. In addition to that, he said he had borrowed £20,000,000 in order to make up £46,000,000. Now we have the position that £60,000,000 is being spent on the war this year. I admit that a war is far more expensive in these days than it was before. As it is mechanised fighting to-day, war is dearer than it was in 1914, but I say that we could have armed our country and guarded our borders, and that it would not have cost us more to do that than £25,000,000 or £30,000,000 at most. And then we would possibly have had better equipment than we have at the moment, and been fully prepared to defend our borders against threat. But when the Minister introduced the war Bud get, he said: “We are going to place no burdens on coming generations. We are going to pay as we go,” and then he only asked for £14,000,000. What are the burdens which have already been laid on posterity now? We have already borrowed more than £20,000,000. That will be charged to posterity. That is the money which has already come out of loan funds, and how much more will there have to come from them? Can we be surprised that even Government supporters say: “Where are things going to with our country—shall we not later on be getting into a state of bankruptcy?” The Minister of Lands, in his radio speech, said that for the sake of our country’s prosperity, and especially for the sake of the farming community, we had decided on the 4th September, 1939, to defend our possessions. I just want to give the Minister of Lands this one point to think over. I see from his newspaper, “Die Suiderstem,” of yesterday, that a meeting was held at De Doorns on the 31st January. It was stated by the chairman of the meeting that export grapes had to be sold at 2d. a lb. for the first 7,500 lbs. for the quota of export grapes, which had to be delivered at the cellars, then 1½d. per lb. for the second 7,500 lbs., and the rest at 1d. That works out: 7,500 lbs. at 2d., that is £62 10s., and 7,500 lbs. at 1½d., that is £46 17s. 6d., a total of £109 7s. 6d. Now take 15.000 lbs. in 10 lb. boxes at 5s. a box, which was the average previous export price, then it amounts to £375. Then the loss is £265 12s. 6d. Is the Government going to compensate the losses? What is the Government going to do? They said that they would see that the farmers got reasonable prices. But what is the Minister going to do to compensate the people for the tremendous losses they are now suffering? The policy of the Government, as stated to me by exMinister Havenga, when he took that sum over 150s. per oz. from the gold mines, was just to provide for the payment of the expenses in connection with armaments, to prepare us so that in case of eventualities we should be prepared, and at the same time to pay compensation to the farmers in case their markets were destroyed. I ask again, is the Government going to help the people? If not, what will the position then be? Bankruptcy. And when that day comes, that is when the Government of the country will be changed. That is the day when the supporters, the present supporters of the Government, will go across in streams to the Afrikaner Party, and when they will say “Come and save the position; reinstate the position; Gen. Hertzog and Mr. Havenga saved us in the past, and they were correct in what they said on the 4th September.” They saved the people after the war of 1914-‘18, when the people were also exhausted. And the day will come when the Afrikaner Party will have to save the country once more. I would like to bring something to the notice of the Government. Why is it necessary now to use these young girls and put them into uniform to drive buses? Are there not enough coloured people and natives in the country to do that kind of work? It was the policy of the United Party, if war should happen to come, that we would use coloured people for that kind of work. Why should we now use these young girls? The people can understand the Government using girls in offices and in factories, but they cannot understand why the girls must be put into uniform, and why they must do this kind of work for which they are not fitted. Why has not the Government taken up an attitude of doing things in conformity with the taste of the people, instead of in opposition to all the feelings of the people? The hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha) will agree with me that we said at meetings that we must prepare ourselves for the evil day when we might need many nurses in this country. We know that many lives were lost in the Boer War because we did not have people to nurse the burgers. Why cannot the Government give a proper subsidy to the hospitals to train the girls on a large scale, so that when the time comes they can be a real asset to the people even permanently? And when the girls are trained, if they are properly prepared for the work which they will have to do, and if they know precisely what to do, then they will be far better able to withstand all the temptations than the girls who are being put into uniforms to-day. What is the matter with the Government? the people ask. The Government went up against the feelings of the Afrikaansspeaking population, and they are the cause of the grudge and bitterness which prevails among the Afrikaners to-day. It was therefore necessary for the Afrikaner Party to come into existence in order to co-ordinate the different sections of the people, English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking, and to unite them into one party which will build up South Africa on the foundation which was laid by Gen. Hertzog. It is clear to me that the Government party, when the war is over, will no longer be able to hold the reins. It is clear to me that the increased taxation by the great war efforts that we have set going will have the consequence of putting the Government and its party out of office. The people who support the Government today will sa y: “No, we are now commencing to see that the policy announced by Gen. Hertzog was the right policy.” They will come to the realisation that a change of policy is necessary, and it is then when the Afrikaner Party will take the reins of office. And the Afrikaner Party is called upon to do that work. Let me now refer to another aspect of the matter. The “War Effort Party” will not last longer than fourteen days after the war. The Labour Party, at their first congress, already commenced to say that they want to give expression to their Utopian views. They now have a say in the Government, and they now want to get the opportunity of realising their ideas. The fact is that the Government is too conservative to their mind, and then there is also the Dominion Party. They want to go the full length, and they want to sacrifice South Africa on the altar of the Empire, so that there should be nothing left, and if they get their way there will be nothing left of the Afrikaner people. A Government of that kind, constituted as that Government is, cannot continue in office long. Who will have to take the reins then? The people who will be able to take the reins will be the people who stand for the principles which are being honoured to-day by the Afrikaner Party. We stand for unanimity amongst the people, then a republic, and an improvement of our internal conditions. The Re-united Party, or People’s Party, as it exists now, will never get the reins of office. What is wrong with a party from which thousands of people separate themselves every day? I want to say what the trouble with that party is. In the first place it is this: the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) said at the congress that the party stood for “eternal principles.” One has to swallow those principles, whether it affects your digestion or not. Then we have a second element, and that is the Ossewa-Brandwag with its unwritten principles which wants to carry out its will, even with the help of the sjambok. They are out to dominate that party. The Ossewa-Brandwag today is actually the chief authority on the “eternal principles” of which we have heard so much. But then there is still a third element—there are certain members in the party who, with the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow), stand for a “New Order.” The hon. member said the other day at Gezina that the New Order would have to take the place of the programme of the Reunited National or People’s Party at the next Congress. Where will it end? The Leader of the Opposition may think that he has the art of keeping the “dismembering” (skilfer) party together. The Leader of the Opposition finds himself to-day at the head of a party which consists of all kinds of elements. He says he stands for national unity, but is it national unity which exists to-day in his party? There are elements in that party which will make it impossible for him to keep control, and that I say is the reason that we have established the Afrikaner Party at the right time. A day will come when our doors will be open to those people who really have the interests of South Africa at heart, and the day will come when the Afrikaner people realise, and many of them realise to-day, what the Opposition is busy doing to-day in regard to the interests of the people. I say again the day is approaching when the people will join the Afrikaner Party in their thousands. I see the day approaching when the reins will be in the hands of the Afrikaner Party, and when the Afrikaner Party will carry out the principles for which Gen. Hertzog stood. The Leader of the Opposition is powerless against the many aspirants to leadership in his party. He stands like a hen which has hatched a brood of ducklings at the side of the water. She calls “Unity,” “Unity,” but every duckling swims where it likes. When the Leader of the Opposition saw in the Piquetberg byelection that the Greyshirts had 600 votes, then not long afterwards he swallowed them, and the Aliens Bill introduced by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. W. Louw) was the price he had to pay, and when he went to Cradock and heard how strong the Ossewa-Brandwag was becoming amongst the people, then he tried to swallow them up also, and the Leader of the Opposition is in a position that he will presently also have to swallow up the New Order. All that is in the political stomach of the party, and these nails in the stomach of the party, are the cause of the disintegration of his party. That is where their trouble lies. And now I just want to say something more in connection with the advice of the Leader of the Opposition to my leader, the hon. member for Vredefort. The Leader of the Opposition said to him: “Now resign your position as a member of the Native Affairs Commission, because by drawing the £1,000 allowance you make yourself dependent on the favour of the Government.” Well, I do not regard it as a political body, but if the Government is worth its salt, then it certainly ought not to have people on the commission who did, in fact, vote for the Act, but who immediately afterwards abused the promoters of the legislation as negropholists. Can you appoint those people there who first of all vote for a Bill, and then accuse the others of being negropholists and oppose the Act?

Whom do you refer to?

They only voted for it in order that the schedule should be referred back in order to revise the list of farms which were mentioned in it. That was actually proposed by the present leader of that party here for the Free State (Mr. Swart). They never voted against the principle of the Bill. You can turn up Hansard if you wish. The Leader of the Opposition gave the advice to my leader to resign as a member of the Native Affairs Commission. I just want to tell him this. Is the Chief Whip of his party the hon. member for Pietersberg (Mr. Tom Naudé) not also a member of the same commission, and is he not also in the position of being dependent on the favour of the Government? But now I want to point out to the Leader of the Opposition what he did himself. He entered into an agreement with Gen. Hertzog for the sake of national unity, all parties were to be dissolved. Just before the De Aar Congress, however, he came with a legal opinion to the effect that if the Nationalist Party in the Cape Province were dissolved, they could not retain the Beyers Legacy, and that meant £700 a year to the leader of the Cape Nationalist Party. The national unity was sacrificed on the altar of the Beyers legacy.

You know that that is not true.

The hon. member can say what he likes. He can say that it is not true, but let them tell me whether they retained the Beyers legacy or not. I say that the public are fully alive to the bluff which the Government is playing off on the people with their war propaganda, but the public are just as much alive to the fraud on the people, which has taken place here in the name of national unity. The day is coming when the people will tell them so, when the people will reject them, and accordingly this is actually a suitable time for the Afrikaner party to be created, because the party here honestly stands for the real interests of the people of South Africa. The Afrikaner Party will guide the people to the end of its destination along the right path of South Africa first, South Africa alone, and South Africa for ever.

Previous speakers have already shown the hollowness of the case made out by the Leader of the Opposition, and the Prime Minister very rightly said there was no case made out for a reasoned reply. Now what has been their case? Nothing but sound and fury, and a rehash of a number of petty grievences. The hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Du Plessis) took refuge in the Auditor-General’s report, and what was the substance of his case? He quoted the criticisms of the Auditor-General as showing that certain mistakes had been made. But, sir, the Auditor-General reports on these matters every year, and if the criticisms which he passes were made the basis of a vote of no confidence, and the foundation of the claim for a change of government, we would have this situation every year. The hon. member forgets that the Auditor-General’s report is only a one-sided statement. After the report has been published it is submitted to the Public Accounts Committee, and that committee has the heads of departments before them, and they have an opportunity of coming and explaining what has taken place. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the statements which the hon. member has quoted as anything final. Then there was the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw), a member to whom we have become accustomed. He seems to have forgotten that the Government of South Africa has spent thousands of pounds in keeping him as a minister in America and afterwards in France. But he cannot forget that he has been a minister, and he makes the most irresponsible statements in a most authoritative manner. What has been the case he has attempted to put up this afternoon, sir. His main case was based on an attack on the soldiers, and on what took place in Johannesburg during the last couple of days. When members of this House quoted numerous cases where soldiers in uniform have been attacked by civilians, the hon. member at once says: “You must give me chapter and verse and tell me what the provocations were.” Before any hostile judgment can be passed on soldiers or civilians the House must take into consideration the circumstances which led up to these occurrences and the provocation which was given. The soldiers certainly are entitled, before any final judgments are arrived at, to have their case heard, and the circumstances which led up to the irritation. Without in any way condoning or explaining what has taken place, I do want to say that a great deal of irritation is felt by the soldiers in connection with what has been taking place. Men in uniform have been attacked by civilians, and there have ben cases of wmone in uniform who have also been attacked, and this has led to a feeling that the Government, in this matter, has been apt to be weak with the strong and strong with the weak. I don’t agree that that is so, but I do say that the Government has been very tolerant, and the public have begun to lose confidence in that policy, and that again is one of the reasons which has brought about the state of affairs we deprecate. I feel that the time has arrived when the Government should show that it realises that it has been unduly patient, and vigorous action should be taken against the disloyal elements and disturbers of the peace. Another point made by the hon. member for Beaufort West is worth mentioning. He again made die suggestion that Great Britain is on the verge of losing the war, and he quoted certain American opinions in support of his view. I do not think he believes what he says, because even he, with all his wishful thinking, must realise that he position has very much changed within the last twelve months. No doubt he spoke to-day in order to encourage his own followers to disseminate this idea in the outside districts, but this, as the House will realise, is now made illegal. He quoted American statesman on the position of Great Britain at the present moment, but I would remind the House and the country that in quoting those statesmen he has overlooked the well-known fact that America has realised during recent months that any jeopardy that Great Britain may be in will be jeopardy to the well-being and safety of the United States, and instead of waiting until that jeopardy takes shape, they are taking steps in America to see that every possible assistance shall be given to Great Britain in the struggle. Col. Knox, in his evidence, showed that he was defintely anxious to see every assistance given to Great Britain. That was when he came before the Foreign Relations Committee. His object was to get the Bill passed, and could it be expected that he would go to the Committee and tell the members that everything was all right, that Great Britain had already won the war and stands in no need of assistance? That aspect must be taken into consideration when these statements are being quoted as showing that Great Britain is in jeopardy. The real American authority upon this question has been the President himself, and also Mr. Wendell Willkie, both of whom, with the knowledge that they possess, have expressed their confidence in Great Britain’s victory. Therefore all this wishful thinking on the part of the hon. member for Beaufort West and his supporters has no foundation at all. Then we have the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow), sir, who has taken up an attitude which, if analysed rightly, will be seen to be of no value. He was once a Minister, and has now become an ordinary politician. He is merely a political hanger-on, he is the unwanted parliamentarian in South Africa. The Nationalist Party don’t trust him and don’t want him. Die Transvaaler, the principal Transvaal organ of the Nationalist Party, has been attacking him day after day, and now he is occupying the position of the Mbongo of the extremist element of the Nationalist Party. The hon. member for Gezina has had a very varied career, and he is now the political lickspittle….

Order. The hon. member should modify his language.

Well, sir, it is very often difficult. I withdraw that statement and say he is the Mbongo of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) at the present moment. Some time ago, when the hon. member was a supporter of Mr. Tielman Roos, he could not find sufficently scathing remarks to make about the hon. member for Piquetberg. And when the time came, when Mr. Tielman Roos needed friends, he left him and went over to those who were in authority. And the same thing happened in recent months. When Genl. Hertzog found that he had ben wrongly advised by the member for Gezina when he had handed himself over into the hands of the Purified Nationalist Party, and when he had to leave that party, the hon. member for Gezina again took up tht same attitude, and in effect said: “Well, now, Genl. Hertzog has no power, I shall leave him, and I shall run after the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) and the Commandant-General of the Ossewa-Brandwag.” That has been the position, and in those circumstances I ask what value can be attached to the argument put forward by the hon. member for Gezina? So that, as I said, the hon. member for Gezina who deserted Mr. Tielman Roos politically, who deserted General Hertzog politically, who is not wanted by the Transvaal Nationalist Party, if they would only admit it—that hon. member is now trying very hard to cling to the extremist element of that party, hoping that they will accept him. It is a peculiar position, that we have to-day two opinions as to what their conception of citizenship is. We have the statement recently made by the hon. member for Piquetberg that English and Afrikaans speaking people shall be equal in South Africa. Then the hon. member for Gezina said: “I am prepared to give equal rights, even to Englishmen born overseas, who come to South Africa.” A few minutes later the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) told us something quite different. He told us that only those who come to this country, who have their roots deep in South Africa, can expect equal rights, or can expect any consideration at all in this country. No one for a moment can suggest that the hon. member for Gezina has his roots deep in South Africa.

He was born here.

The hon. member for Beaufort West said that only those who have their roots deep in South Africa could expect any consideration in this country, and then we have the statement that was made on Friday night by the man who really controls the Nationalist Party. I refer to the Commandant-General of the Ossewa-Brandwag.

What do you know about that?

Very much more than you know about Parliament. He was speaking at Springs on Friday night, and I quote from “Die Burger”—[translation]:

The hon. member for Gezina has not been living here for centuries, I do not even know where he was born. Like Homer, the birthplace of the member for Gezina is uncertain.

He was born in bed.

That is the only certainty. But in the light of that statement of the Commandant-General, can one be surprised that the hon. member for Gezina is politically crawling on these people, in order that they should forget that his roots are not in South Africa, and that it is a pure accident that he is not in the German Navy but in South Africa. And if there is anyone who can be charged with dual loyalty in South Africa it is the hon. member for Gezina.

You are running after George Heard.

The only point he made during his speech to-day was an attack on a well known South African journalist, Mr. George Heard.

Tell us something about him.

I am not here to defend Mr. Heard. I can assure this House that he can defend himself very effectively, but I will say this about him, that he has had the moral courage not merely to criticise in a manner which does not please the Opposition, but he has had the moral courage to criticise the Government during the last twelve or eighteen months when he felt that they were not doing what was right. The point I want to make about the relationship between the hon. member for Gezina and George Heard is that George Heard is one of those journalists in South Africa who built up the hon. member for Gezina, and now the hon. member for Gezina is turning on him as on the other people who have built him up. I only want to touch on one point made by the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister rightly said yesterday that there was nothing tangible in his speech which merited a reply, but there was one point made by the Leader of the Opposition which I think is worthy of a brief analysis. He told this House that one of the reasons why he moved this vote of no confidence was because there was a fundamental difference between his party and the Government Party.

Which Government Party?

All sections of the Government loyally support the war policy. Well, there is a fundamental difference between the Government and the Opposition, but not the type of difference which the hon. member for Piquetberg referred to. He said: “We stand for British Imperialism—that is the Government stands for British Imperialism, and they, the Opposition, stand for South African Nationalism.” There is no such thing to-day as British Imperialism, and they know it as well as I do. Ever since 1926 the hon. member for Piquetberg has been saying publicly that we are now an independent member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, bound together with the other members of our free will without any compulsion. During all these years, since 1926 and for that matter even before 1926 we have had the utmost freedom in South Africa, freedom which our friends over there would not have had if they were in Germany. They would not even be sitting in this House.

Nor would you.

Now, the position so far as that is concerned, is that during all these years South Africa has had complete economic independence. We have been able to enter into barter agreements with any country we wanted to, without any control from Britain, and we have had the right, which we exercised, of deciding in this Parliament whether we would enter into this war or not. There has been no interference. And there is no such thing as British Imperialism or British control here. There is also no British Imperialism in connection with the war. If Great Britain had wanted to look after its Imperial interests it could have entered into an agreement with Hitler under which they could have divided the world, but Great Britain said Imperial interests are of no importance; Hitler is out for world domination, which will mean the end of the small nations of the world, the end of freedom, democracy would have been shattered, and the rest of the world would have been nothing but economic serfs. To prevent that is why they are fighting, and that is why we are supporting this war, because we stand for the principles of freedom, of democracy. It is necessary for anyone on this side of the House to show what this so-called South African nationalism is, which hon. members opposite stand for? We can say this, that their nationalism does not imply rights for all those who have accepted or are prepared to accept the obligations of citizenship. Their nationalism is becoming more narrow from day to day. It does not imply all those who have attained citizenship in South Africa, whether they be English- or Afrikaans-speaking; their nationalism does not even imply all Afrikaansspeaking people; it implies a very dwindling and shrinking section of Afrikaans-speaking people who are to be dominated not by the hon. member for Piquetberg, but actually by the Commandant-General of the OssewaBrandwag, whom the hon. member for Gezina urged the other day to go in less for culture, and more for practical action. The storm troopers of South Africa, that is what the hon. member for Gezina wants them to be, and that is what they are preparing themselves to be—that is the nationalism which they stand for; that is the issue; that is the fundamental difference, and if you look at it from that angle, then I have no doubt that not only the overwhelming majority of this House, but the overwhelming majority of the people of South Africa, will accept the position that they cannot vote for a motion of no confidence which will imply confidence in the other side of the House, which would mean making in South Africa an economic serfdom, making of South Africa a province, or at best a vassal State, of a Nazi-dominated world.

I listened to the speeches this evening which were made by the Afrikaner Party, and I want to say this to them. If that is the start of the Afrikaner Party, and Gen. Hertzog had been here this evening, then from what I have known of him all these years, if he had had to listen to those speeches and how they were speaking up on behalf of the Imperialists and the Jews, then he certainly would not have slept a wink last night, and he would have been bitterly disappointed. I will leave the matter there. Then I come to the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler). Nor do I want to waste much time on him, but one can anyway crack a joke with him. He came and made an attack here on the Leader of the Opposition, who is supposed to have changed seats so much and not been able to keep direction. Let us enquire how that hon. member has kept a course. Before 1902 he wore the uniform of the Boers; then he put on the uniform of a Russian; subsequently I saw him in German uniform; in 1914 he was in English uniform, and now he wants to put on the English uniform again. That is what I have seen of him during this short period in politics. The hon. member is once more engaged in changing ground, and he is so concerned on the point of our assisting England in the war, and he is so much concerned about it, that we have moved a motion of no confidence in this Government which wants to assist England. I do not know that there are many more people who want us to prove that there is a lack of confidence in the Government. Everybody in the country knows that this Government is distrusted. Now take the speech of the Minister of Lands. He stood up here like a minister of religion and attacked the Leader of the Opposition by preaching to him and quoting from the Bible. I did not know that the Minister of Lands was such a godly man. But I want to say this to him: I have a small settlement at Riversdale which falls under him, and I would just like him to show a little Christianity to the people who are there, on behalf of the Government. There are nine old people on that settlement, who are being looked after by their children. One of them is 90 years of age, and the other is 80 years, and then this Minister came and he issued regulations that the children should drive all the parents away from there. Is that Christian? One of them is 90 years old and the other is 80, and they now have to go and live behind a bush. Those people are old. They need the assistance of a wife, of a child, of a daughter, but the Minister is so Christian that he compels the children to drive their own parents away. When I went to plead nicely with him, he said to me that he did not give them the settlement, but the children. What does the Bible teach us? How is a child to behave towards his parents? Thase people are Saps. They are not Nationalists, but they shed tears in that they have to put their parents on to the road. Another family have only one son, but he also has to be chased away. The mother weeps bitter tears at having to send her child away. Are such things not sufficient cause of a motion of no confidence being moved in the Government? Those are the things which are being done by this Government to our poor people, while it, on the other hand, spends millions of pounds on the war. Our own poor people have to be treated in this way.

They are only Afrikaners.

Yes, they are not English. They are our own people, and then the same people come, such as the Minister of Lands, and they make pretty speeches here. Our own people who sit over there act in this way against our own people, and they tell us that England is so tremendously pleased with us. I only want to say this to the Prime Minister: Does he think that it is worth while sending our children to the North to go and fight to reinstate a native king, Haile Selassie, on his throne? Is it worth while for one of the sons of South Africa to die of disease in the North, even if he is not killed, to reinstate that native king on the throne? What does it mean to South Africa? Is it right? Does he sleep well about it, and what does his conscience say to him? The Prime Minister has of late not gone very much to the countryside. He sits up there in his office in Pretoria engaged in carrying on the war. There is a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction on the countryside owing to the children being sent away in that manner. The mothers are weeping because their children are talked over to put the red tabs on their shoulders, and that they have gone the length of putting on khaki uniforms. When they have the khaki uniforms on then they think they can do whatever they like. On the opposite side you have members of Parliament sitting who not only draw a double salary but they also have a motor car and a chauffeur as well. What has that got to do with war? At whose expense are the services of that motor and that driver supplied, which such members use to bring them every day to Parliament House? Is it for their war work, or is it for their Parliamentary work? Take the position of the farmers. The Prime Minister told us here that the farmers were flourishing to-day, and that they did not need to pay more for the articles that they bought. I wish the Prime Minister would go and buy farming utensils. I do not say what he must go and buy. He can buy anything, and he will find what percentage it is higher than the price before the war. The farmers do not get a subsidy. They must manage to pull through, and then statements are made here about the prosperity of the sheep farmers, the mealie farmers and all the other farmers. Do you know what the position of the farmer is to-day? I heard here in passing that the Minister of Agriculture asked a farmer how things were with his mealies. The reply was: “I am expecting a splendid harvest.” And do you know what the Minister replied to that? His answer was: “And what then becomes of me?” The position is such that even the Minister of Agriculture longs for the farmer to have a bad harvest, because he says that there are still 1,000,000 bags of mealies on hand which he cannot shift. I am ignorant about this kind of thing. But they always taught me from my young days that “Brittania Rules the Waves” and now there are not enough ships to carry our mealies. I cannot understand it. What are the people afraid of? This is the first time that England is getting its time for prayer, and now she is appealing to America to come and help her. When I turn on my wireless set, then it is nothing but Washington, Roosevelt and America that I hear. Now they only want to have the help of America. No, I used to think she was a strong nation, but I want to tell the Prime Minister this: I am not such a friend of Churchill’s as he is. I see that the Germans have started on Bulgaria in order to be able to thrust through on Greece and Turkey. He should give advice to Churchill in good time to take away the ships there, or there will be another evacuation. We have now discovered that we must take the supporting ships away when the English fight. That is the warning that he should give to Churchill, and he can tell him that an old Boer fellow out in South Africa gave him that advice. Another thing that I would like to have from the Prime Minister is that he should tell me whether he intends to commandeer the teams of jukskei players also. The Government is afraid, and a frightened person is a weird thing. And do you know when a person is most afraid—when he hears something and does not see anything. Then he is very frightened, and then he loses his senses and does anything. That is what is happening to the Government. The Prime Minister hears all day long about the Ossewa-Brandwag, but sees nothing. He gets afraid and we don’t know what he might do later on. We had here one of the very junior Ministers. I think it was the Minister of the Interior, who started all kinds of alarming stories about the Ossewa-Brandwag. The Prime Minister has more common sense, and he knows the farmers more. But the Minister of the Interior got so afraid that he promptly issued regulations which were aimed against the Ossewa-Brandwag. The Prime Minister need not be afraid that the Ossewa-Brandwag will take their place. They will not throw out the Saps. If they take the place of anyone then they will take the place of Nationalists, because that is where their sympathy lies. I have been watching the game carefully, and this is the first time in the history of this Parliament that I notice the Prime Minister being guarded, I think it is by three detectives. He must surely think that he has done something wrong, and that he must accordingly be guarded, or otherwise I do not know what the meaning of it actually is. He represented here yesterday that he was not a frightened man, and I want to tell him that he can safely allow those detectives to go home, or he can send them to the place where the soldiers break down buildings to stop it, and the Ossewa-Brandwag will look after him, and I can give him the assurance that he will then be able to feel safe. The Nationalist Afrikanerdom is a peace-loving nation, and not a nation which is out to make trouble. We are fighting on constitutional lines, and it is not our intention, it is strange in our view, to want to go and kill people. It is quite needless for him to have himself guarded. It is unnecessary, and it looks very bad. We are moving this motion of no confidence because we see what is going on in the countryside. Just see how things are going with the people who wear the red tabs. The other day one of them came to me at Riversdale and said to me: “Oom At, I have just come to say good-bye, because to-morrow I am going to the North.” A few days later he came again to say good-bye. I then asked him how many times he got leave to come and say good-bye. He gets pay and he travels gratis, and he said to me in addition that every day he eats he gets 2/- a day. And the only fighting they do is with houses and trains. I want to tell the Prime Minister an idle man does no good. Let those people fight, and those that you do not need you should discharge. You have no need of them to come and look after us. We only allow the Prime Minister to be guarded. We are peace-loving people. And then further in connection with these red tabs, I want to tell you this, that it is not a fact that the men with beards are provoking them. I have a young lad with me who has never yet annoyed anyone He is the son of a parson. His mother is a widow, and he assists in providing for her. I know this boy, and he has never yet interfered with anybody. He is a boy who will yet become a big man in the railway service. I told him that his beard might yet bring him into difficulties, and what happened? He has been treated in the most terrible way, and then we are told here that the soldiers are provoked, and that that is the cause of the trouble. I want to tell the Prime Minister that these are the things that are going on in the country, and do you not think that such things lead to want of confidence in the Government throughout the whole of our constituencies, so that we are forced to move a motion of no confidence in the Government? The Leader of the Opposition put questions about America, and he enlarged on the matter. And I do not want to go over the same ground. Nevertheless I am a little curious, because I am ignorant about such things. Therefore, I would like to know from the Prime Minister what the po sition is, because my constituents have already been asking me whether the position of our country will later on be exchanged to America. They are now exchanging pieces of islands with America. And supposing that England does not have any more money at its disposal, will they also take South Africa and exchange it to America? I thought that England was a rich country, but now we are given to understand that England has no more money. Our Government, however, says that it has plenty of money. It looks as if it has plenty of money, because what did I discover in my constituency? There are 700 Hottentots who have been sent to the front, and the wives who have been left behind each get £7 10s. a month. We can no longer hire a maid, and when we ask them why they do not want to work any longer, then they tell us, “No, we are getting £7 10s from the military.” Nor do I blame them. I do, however, blame the Prime Minister for doing things of that kind. Those people have never yet got that pay, and it is only being done in order to offend Afrikanerdom. It is merely to make Afrikanerdom angry. Why should those coloured people go to the North to fight there for our liberty, forsooth? The Prime Minister grew up on a farm amongst the coloured people, and he knows them. He is not a foreigner, and why does he do things of that sort? I am not speaking here for party political purposes. I do not want to catch votes. I need no votes. I have too many votes. You are the Prime Minister of the country, and the people expect it of you to look after these things, and that you do not listen to people like the Minister of the Interior and other young Ministers who suggest things of this kind to you. Do not listen to these papers in the country, and to people who have become war mad Here we see them standing and praying on the streets. Why do they not go to church? They stand right in front of a church and pray, and who is it prays there? It is the natives the Jews and the Mohammedans who stand mixed up together praying, and they do not pray. They stand with their eyes wide open I walked along there the other day, and they did not interfere with me with my old bad leg. I saw one of our Senators there who was also standing and praying, but he cannot pray when he goes to church. The other day the predikant asked him to offer a prayer, and he could not pray, and he asked the man next to him to pray for him. But he stands and prays on the streets, but when he gets into the vestry then he says: “Brother, please pray for me.” No, I say to the Prime Minister, and he knows it just as well and better than I do, that it is hypocrisy and falseness, and I ask him please to put an end to it. If a man honestly wants to pray for England, then let him do so, because we have a free country. That brings me to the religion which has been dragged into this debate. The Prime Minister says that we were fighting for freedom and religion. Do you think the people believe that? Do you think that we would believe that the Turks, the Russians, the natives in the North, who are Mohammedans, and people who are Jews, like the hon. member over there, that they will all fight for Christianity? How can the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) go and fight for Christianity? No, it is hypocrisy and mockery to say that kind of thing. Hon. members opposite know better than that, and I ask them not to come and say that sort of thing to Afrikanerdom, because the Prime Minister must know that this is a tender spot with the Afrikaner when we touch upon his Christian religion. My experience of the great nations is that they are all equally un-Christian. England, as well as Germany, and it is a mockery to say that they are fighting for Christianity. We all know that the old German missionaries who came here were just as Christian as those which came from England. There are people in the country who believe that England is going to win the war. I do not believe it, and do you know why? Because the Prime Minister and I believe that prayers are answered, and the Prime Minister knows about the prayers that were offered in 1902. I am not one of the people who take vengeance and will not forgive. I forgive, but I do not forget. We must remember our history. I have not seen those things. I have only read about them. Do you think that they are not being heard to-day? I saw how indignant people are about houses being burnt down in London. Do they ever remember that they set fire to our houses, that they threw our women and children out into the cold at night? The same thing is being done to the English people to-day. I do not want to be revengeful, it is not my job, but it is in God’s hands, and they will now see what they did to South Africa. This small, little nation. There has been a reference to Afrikanerdom. I do not think that all the people in South Africa are Afrikaners. There are many, including English-speaking people, who feel towards South Africa just as I feel. But there are also people who sympathise very little with South Africa, who still have one foot in England, and the other foot has not been entirely put down in this country yet. The people who sympathise with England and not with South Africa are not Afrikaners, to my mind. The Government we have to-day, and which wants to make out that it is an Afrikaner Government, is imperialistic through and through. It is imperialism which keeps the sections together there. Then the Prime Minister actually comes and says that we on this side will never come into office, because we have never yet been able to govern without the assistance of the Labour Party. How, then, is he governing then? He is governing with a crowd of Jews, Dominionites, Labour Party, and also a group of native members. He cannot govern in any other way. They are all khakis, who do nothing but shout “The Empire first.” They are only people who shout “There will always be an England.” I approve of this motion of no confidence, and there is not one of them, so far, who has proved that confidence ought to be put in the Government.

Mr. Speaker, the longer I sit in this House the more I become a victim of the impression that a mere English-speaking citizen of only two generations residence in this country has no right to interfere in South African politics or speak about South Africa. So I was encouraged when I heard the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Liebenberg) making the declaration which he did on behalf of his small party. But the encouragement did not last long, nor did it do anything to counteract the greater discouragement of this particular debate. I should have thought everyone was entitled to expect that a debate on a motion of no confidence would in due course lead to a fairly meticulous discussion on the different policies by which this country might be run towards the goal which we all hope for it, that is a good living for everybody in the country. I should have thought that there never was a time in the history of this country when it was more important that there should be a full dress debate as to the way in which the business of the country ought to be handled. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw), indeed, took occasion to point out that the Government party was only held together by the thin thread of their common support of the war. I should have thought that that contention would have justified on the part of the Opposition a very careful attempt to put forward some rival policy by which the position of the Government might be challenged. I suppose we all recognise that war is an incident—an unhappy incident in our lives, but an incident, but that the State will go on when the war is finished, and I think there are more people in the country to-day anxious to know how the State is going on after the war than ever before. For this reason I am extremely disappointed in this debate, a disappointment aggravated by the misery of having to sit again through all the old discussion as to why we went to war in 1939, and a repetition of the old accusations that everybody who voted for this war has no real consideration for South Africa, but puts interests outside this country first. It seems impossible to persuade our friends that we are fighting this war in defence of a way of life which we think is a better road to happiness, as a whole, than any other that is offering. It also seems useless even to attempt to show that we are fighting this war not for an Empire but with an Empire. It seems futile to admit that we are fighting because Britain is fighting, because immediately the assumption is made that we are fighting because British interests and British interests only are at stake and that therefore we come in behind her. I do not think there is any possibility of getting our friends to understand that there are relationships that involve obligations. We have a tradition of freedom, and when that tradition of freedom is challenged, there is a moral obligation upon us, if we believe in freedom, to take our part on its side. One of the devastating features of the situation here is the complete refusal of those who are in opposition to the war to take the facts of the war with any serious realism. I personally am supporting this war because I feel that we are fighting for a definite form of government. I think, and always thought, that the nations of the world should have fought the spirit of Nazism earlier when it crept into the life of Europe. I still say it is ridiculous to talk about England not fighting the Soviet when the Baltic States were swallowed by Russia last year. We cannot fight the whole world. [Interruptions.] We are not in a position at one moment to fight everybody who challenges freedom, but we have faced the main danger and when we have conquered that, we can begin to see whether it is necessary to do more. That is perfectly reasonable. It is impossible to get our friends here to realise these things. It may be that they don’t want to understand them, or it may be that we don’t express ourselves in terms that they understand. If that is the case, we are not entirely to be blamed. It is very difficult to understand what the Opposition really is driving at either in international or domestic politics, and therefore to understand the basis in which they challenge our policy. We are faced with a continual shifting of the grounds of argument, so that we don’t know where to tackle the other side. You remember that Gen. Hertzog, who unfortunately is no longer in the House, assured us last year that we were quite mad to go to war with Italy, because Italy had the most magnificent army in the world, an army the power and the prowess of which could never be challenged. Well, sir, there is no need be comment on that. But I was extremely interested to hear that the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) telling us yesterday there had been no need for us to go to war with Italy to safeguard Africa since obviously Britain could deal quite easily with the Italians. It is extremely difficult to know what to do with such shifting arguments. Let me give another example of the same sort of thing. I felt the ground sliding from under my feet when I heard the hon. member for Piquetberg inveighing yesterday against the supposed intention of the Government to incorporate in the Union a whole lot of native territories to the north that were going to destroy completely the dominance of white civilisation in this continent. I cast my mind back two or three years to the agitation, supported at least tacitly, by the Nationalist Party for the inclusion of the British Protectorates in the Union of South Africa. That is evidence of how difficult it is to take hold of anything in the arguments of the Opposition, or to find a stable basis on which national policy might be discussed reasonably and advantageously. We keep on being told that the Opposition is opposed to what we are doing in this war, and incidentally we are told that they are opposed to our whole idea of the State, but we cannot challenge the Opposition because we do not know its foundation. We get a series of charges, of challenges. We who support this war are said to stand for imperialism and are told that the Nationalist Party is going to throw out imperialism at the first opportunity. Again, we were told this afternoon by the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) that all we had done since the last war was to protect Jewish capitalists; and that that must be changed. Sometimes it is British capitalists we hear of. I do not know that there is any difference between one sort of capitalist and another; my own feeling is that they are very much the same when they get into the same position. And one of the things that is worrying me is whether my hon. friends on this side are merely trying to substitute Afrikaner capitalism and imperialism for British imperialism in this country. We have not heard of Communism so far, but I dare say that some of the backbenchers will get to Communism before this debate ends. That, of course, is anathema. Then we have been told that democracy is finished. And I think the hon. member for Piquetberg yesterday thinly disguised his fear that the end of this war would see the establishment of a socialist state in England. That, I imagine, was the inner meaning of his weighty surmises as to what is happening in that country, his fear that England will no longer be a democracy at the end of the war. I am not afraid of that. I am hoping that it is going to be a changed democracy, a socialist democracy; but I strongly suspect that the hon. member does not want that. Then if he does not want any of these things from Imperialism to Socialism, what does he want?

A new order.

We hear a great deal about New Orders in general from the Opposition but nothing specific except the New Order of the hon. member for Gezina. The hon. member for Gezina has indeed issued a long statement about what he proposes to call his Christian National Socialist State. (Interruptions.) Do let me get on with this. Now this Christian National Socialist State is the one positive suggestion we have had, apart from a rather vague South African Nationalist republic. But the difficulty about it is that the hon. member for Gezina has not defined any of his terms. Now in the Nazi state from which he derives his inspiration, it isn’t necessary to define terms. You just tell people what they are to do and they have no option. But this country is still a democracy, at least on its European side, and believe me, it is going to remain a democracy. I think my psychology is better than that of the hon. member for Gezina— certainly my history is—and I prophesy quite confidently that there is not going to be any place for dictators in South Africa, with the tradition of the people of this country. It is understandable that Italy should produce dictatorship with the authoritarian religious tradition. It is also understandable that Germany should produce a dictatorship with its State Church tradition. But can anybody see a country with a Calvinist tradition like South Africa accepting a dictator? It is absurd to imagine that a people who have been brought up on the principle that a man’s own conscience is the ultimate authority which he shall acknowledge should submit to dictation by anybody. No! We have a democratic tradition in this country, and the people whom the hon. member for Gezina has to woo to his new order will want to know what it all means. They will want him to define his terms. No, Sir, I should be interested to hear the hon. member define what he means by Socialist. I should be even more interested to hear him define what he means by “Christian.” Indeed, Sir, remembering the tone and character of the speech which the hon. member made in this House this afternoon, I fancy a great many people would be interested to hear what the hon. member means by “Christian.” If we could get these definitions from the hon. members, we might really begin to glimpse something of the character of the State he propeses to establish. But in the meantime, the hon. member for Piquetberg and not the hon. member for Gezina is Leader of the Opposition and therefore presumably, should state its policy. So far as he is concerned, however, the only specific indication we have had of his intentions is that he is going to wipe out British Imperialism when he*gets the chance. But that also needs some explaining and I am particularly interested in the explanation because I claim to be an anti-imperialist. In fact I would even go so far as to claim that I am one of a very small handful of real anti-imperialists in this House, using Imperialism as I understand it, namely as political or economic control of other people’s life. The question in my mind is, does the hon. member for Piquetberg understand the same thing as I do by Imperialism; and does he think that these controls exist here in South Africa? Some sort of statement as to what he visualises as the desired results of the abolition of what he calls British Imperialism here would help to clarify these points. In other words, what difference does the hon. member think would result from the establishment of a republic in this country. I can’t see that the political change would be very great and, personally, I would not object to the establishment of a republic if it were the general wish of the people. I feel it is quite natural that self-government should ultimately lead to that.

No.

On this matter I differ from the hon. member, as I tend to differ on some points from most of the members of this house. But my interest does not lie in mere political change. I want to know what the change is going to mean for the people of the country. I want to know what it is proposed that they should gain, what the change is going to mean in their lives. Is the political change to be the whole story?

No—a social revolution.

Ah, now that is the thing I am interested in. If there is to be a social revolution, I want to hear about it. I think there ought to be a social revolution. Social revolutions are badly needed. I think we are all agreed on that. But what I want to know is, what sort of a social revolution are we to expect here? I waited to hear the hon. member for Piquetberg tell us something about this. All I heard of a social character, however, was a statement that the farmers must be rehabilitated —a familiar generalisation. I waited then to hear something about the real problem of the country and what should be done about that. I refer to the problem of poverty, which I consider the major problem of this land. I heard nothing about it.

Why didn’t you read this pamphlet?

I am quite willing to read any pamphlet on this subject that is given to me. But I also expect to hear important national problems of this kind discussed in this, the highest tribunal in the land, to which the people of the land rightly look for declarations of policy. I want to know, for instance, what rival policy it is proposed to put up to that of the Government, since I am not convinced that the Government has a solution to the problem of poverty. To-day, while our wealth is increasing our poverty is also increasing, a thing that must be tackled; and I think I was entitled to expect the hon. member to talk about this, particularly since the bulk of the poor are Afrikaners whom he claims the exclusive right to represent and to speak for. As a matter of fact, we get nothing about this all-important question from anybody on the Opposition side. I sat up when I heard the hon. member for Gezina say something about a hundred thousand families being on the bread line, but alas! he didn’t continue the topic, but shot off it almost immediately, back on to more familiar ground. I then looked to the hon. member for Beaufort West to tell us something about his party’s attitude and intentions in this regard, since I have heard him at times speak about the poor; but again, nothing. Indeed, the only person who had anything to say about it was the hon. member for Riversdale, who has a very genuine concern for the problems of the poor which he does not know how to tackle, and about which he gets no lead from the leaders of his party. Now, sir, I claim a genuine concern about the poverty of this country. And the poor here include not only the six million non-Europeans, but about half a million Europeans as well.

What are you going to do about it?

I have lots of solutions, but you won’t listen to mine—at least I’ve got some suggestions that would take you off the wrong road and help you on to the right one. But since you won’t take suggestions from me, what I want to suggest is that the Opposition produce a policy of its own that the country can consider and discuss. As I have said, I don’t think the Government has the solution to the problem, though it has done a good deal in alleviation. That is why I am not a member of their party. But I feel it is a moral obligation on the Opposition to produce a policy in this regard. And I would suggest that they begin by reading the report of one of the more impressive commissions they themselves appointed. I refer to the Poor White Commission. Sir, if they would only read the Poor White Commission’s report, and particularly that section dealing with the miserable drift of the Afrikaner population from the country to the towns, largely conditioned by the wages paid to natives in the country, which are so low that the Afrikaner cannot survive on them, I say if they would read that and take it in and formulate a policy on the lines there laid down, they would be doing something for the urban poor in this country as well, whom they absolutely neglect and ignore. As a matter of fact, they don’t know what goes on in the towns of this country. If they would apply themselves to this matter, and produce a policy on the basis of the reports I have mentioned, we should begin to make some progress. And, sir, in this connection, there was one appeal made in the House which I should like to support. It was the appeal of the hon. member for Beaufort West for an end to what he called the hypocrisy—let me emphasise that the word is his, not mine—of making declarations of policy in the name of religion. Sir, this country has, indeed, a great religious tradition; but I am sure it is, as the hon. member has said, sick of having that tradition prostituted to political ends, sick of having every political hope and ambition clamped on to this tradition. I suggest that, in future, we should avoid, as much as possible, the linking up of the religious feelings of the people with political ends and personal ambitions unless we can guarantee the bona fides of the people by whom these attempts are made. The hon. member for Gezina, for instance, tells us that he plans to establish a Christian National Socialist State which will be under the guidance of God. Now I don’t want to cast any reflection upon the relations of the hon. member for Gezina with his Maker, but I suggest that anyone who recalls the tone and the words he used in addressing this House this afternoon might legitimately doubt his efficacy as a channel for such guidance. I am reminded that the hon. member also proposes to set up a Christian system of education as well as a white Christian guardianship of the non-Europeans based on segregation, under which the nonEuropeans shall develop along our lines in conformity with the principles of National Socialism. I should like to hear the hon. member explain what all that means. But I feel it would be better, in any circumstances, not to link the claims of a Christian blessing on a policy until the policy has given some practical demonstration of its right to the claim. In conclusion, I trust the hon. member for Piquetberg will take my remarks as made in good faith, and consider my appeal to give us a policy for the social problems of this country which will give us something to work on for the future of the country. If we can put our social problems in the front of our political life, we shall have taken a long step forward in this country.

I just want to refer to what the last speaker has said. Possibly I cannot blame her so very much, but if she could understand Afrikaans very well, then she would know that what she has dealt with here is already embraced in this motion. She says that she hopes that this side of the House will begin to think and read. I want to ask her whether she knows that a report recently came out by a certain Professor Batson which covers a period of three years, and which deals with the standard of living of the population of Cape Town and the suburbs. Has she read that report? That report gives us the following details: That more than 6 per cent. of the Europeans of Cape Town and its environs live below the bread line, and that there are no less than 52 per cent. of the coloured people who live below the bread line, and that there are no less than 48 per cent. of the natives who live below the bread line. If those are the circumstances in the country, then this side of the House feels that it should, as a matter of fact, introduce the motion of no confidence in the Government, because while those are the circumstances in the country, that Government which that hon. member supports is engaged in sending a khaki circus throughout the country which has cost the country £30,000 or £40,000. That is what I would like, in the most friendly way, to bring to their notice, to show them what the circumstances of the country are, and notwithstanding that those are the circumstances she supports that Government which is engaged in wasting money. But I wonder whether there is not just one thing which is above everything else of importance to her mind, which comes first in her heart before the object for which she is here, namely, to plead for the interests of the coloured people and the natives, and that is that British imperialistic feeling which is present in her. I challenge the hon. member to deny that the day this war is over she will quit this job like a hot potato. Then her object of promoting British imperialism will be attained, and then she will go back to her own task. If the hon. member had only just allowed herself the time—and here I would also like to refer to the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Liebenberg)—to read the programme of principles of this party, then she would not have made the remark and said that the Afrikaner Party stood for equal rights for English-speaking people as well as Afrikaans-speaking people, and that this party, to which I belong, is not in favour of that, and when she sneeringly refers to this party I want to say that I do not believe that she has taken the time to read the principles of this party which she has criticised. And what right has she to get up in this House and do so if she has not had the decency to read the programme of principles of the party? For her edification I will quote the following paragraph of the principles of this party to the House, and I will read it out slowly, so that she can understand it. No. 8, on page 19 of the programme of principles of this party reads as follows—

There you have it clearly stated that we are out to promote confidence and the hearty co-operation between the two races, and that we will strive to get equal rights granted to the two languages in every respect. Did the hon. member know that? If so, why then did she make that reflection on this side of the House? But there is a third little point that I want to mention, and in that connection I feel that the last speaker, to some extent, exhibited bad taste when she wanted to accuse England of going to work in this way, to wit, that she has a grudge against Russia, but at the moment she is on her knees to Russia, because she wants to use Russia in the war. But in addition to that she says in her heart: But look out, Russia, when I have finished giving Hitler a hiding, then I am going to tackle you, to get the piece of Poland back that you have taken. No, we must be honest in all respects in our intentions and actions. England has been paying her addresses to Russia for the last eighteen months, and if she can get Russia on her side to-day then she will receive her with open arms, and why then does the hon. member say that England will settle with Russia after she has first of all given Hitler a hiding? The hon. member also made the remark: “We are fighting with England and not for England.” I will return to that later, but I want first of all now to come to the Afrikaner Party and the few speeches that we have had from that party on this motion of no confidence. Those speeches do not actually affect the heart of the matter, but when we look at the circumstances in the country and we think of this motion which is before the House, then we cannot feel otherwise than that this matter which we are now discussing really affects the future existence of Afrikanerdom, the question is whether Afrikanerdom will conquer for ever, or whether it will go under. If the Afrikaners in the country suffer defeat, then it is for ever, as one of the members of the Government party told me would be done if this war was won, and they govern the country. That being the case, I want to ask the Afrikaner Party whether they think that Afrikanerdom will ever be able to forgive them that when this turning point in the fight of Afrikanerdom came, they tried to disintegrate from the party, and to break up the party? I am convinced in my soul that the Afrikaner people will never be able to forgive them for that, because they are in fact engaged in assisting the other side of the House to oppress Afrikanerdom, while this side of the House is fighting with all its power to allow Afrikanerdom to conquer. The hon. member for Heilbron said: “We differ from the Government about its war policy,” and he gave a splendid statement of the case. Why did not the hon. member go further and tell us whether they also differed from the Government in regard to other matters? I have before me here an interview which the Minister of Lands gave to his newspaper a few days before the opening of Parliament, and the result of that interview is a magnificent reflection of what has happened here. The Minister of Lands was au fait with what had happened.

Was it a family affair?

The Minister of Lands was au fait, and do you know what he said? He said that the new party only differed on one point from the Government, and that was in regard to its war policy, but it would support the Government on all the other points. My question to them is this, tell the people also what your principals are and what you are going to do in future! Are they going to support the Government in connection with the coloured question, on the native question, the Jewish question and the Asiatic question, and things of that kind? There are two by-elections lying ahead of us, and I think that the public ought to know what actually is the policy and the feeling of that party. But I am sorry that the leader of the Afrikaner Party did not tell it to us.

Occupy yourselves with your own affairs only, and leave us alone.

I want here to refer to a remark of the hon. member for Heilbron. I think that he actually hit below the belt when he referred to something which I think was not very good taste on his part to refer to, and when he in that connection made a reflection on the Leader of the Opposition. He said that in the Cape Province the Beyers legacy had to be retained, so that the Leader of the Opposition could draw £700 a year. I want to ask the hon. member this. Could he not first of all enquired into the matter before he made such a low charge? And does he not know what the circumstances are? Does he know that the Leader of the Opposition came twice and rejected the matter, and we, as a federal council, had to ask him specially—this was proposed by one of the Hertzogites to retain the £700. Why then make such a reflection? It does not become the hon. member. He possibly knew it, and wanted to cause disagreement just as a section of the Press is now doing. I want to tell the Afrikaner Party this: Let us open our eyes before it is too late. A few days ago a report appeared in the afternoon paper which supports the Government, and do you know what it said? They noticed that there was an opportunity of driving a wedge between the two parties on this side, and accordingly it was stated in the paper that two motions had been passed in the caucus of the Nationalist Party. The first was that the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) would be leader of the party, and that motion was taken, those present standing. Subsequently a motion of appreciation was passed in respect of the services of Gen. Hertzog, and that was not passed standing. That is, of course, an absolute untruth, as everyone on this side knows. Why was it said? Simply to drive in a wedge. The very opposite was the position. The motion in connection with Gen. Hertzog was passed first, standing, and thereafter the motion was passed that the present Leader of the Opposition should be our leader. Those are the facts. Hon. members of the Afrikaner Party see these things, and they think that we are not able to appreciate what Gen. Hertzog has meant to us.

Would you have driven him out if you had appreciated him?

As we had no trouble in connection with the Beyers legacy, is that not splendid proof that in the Cape Province there is no such thing as a disintegration? We are one family here, and one party. The Minister of Finance may laugh about it, but go through the country districts in the Cape Province—you may possibly find a member of this House who feels a little doubtful, although I do not know of any such person—but the people in the country are standing together, I can assure you of that. You can try, with all your force and power, to drive in a wedge, but this side of the House will never break again, because it would only lead to the advantage of hon. members opposite. Has not Winburg shown what the feelings of the people are? The opposite side of the House, supported by quite a number of friends who now constitute the Afrikaner party, appeared on the platform at Winburg with a fraudulent policy. The Minister of Justice knows about the fact that he and also the Prime Minister, in his statement, told the people in Winburg that the election had no concern with the war policy of the Government, but that it had to do with the relations between Gen. Hertzog and the present hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart). That question was loyally submitted during visits to houses and at meetings to the public. But the day before the election “Die Suiderstem” arrived with an article in which they said that Winburg would show that the Smuts policy had conquered, well knowing that that newspaper would not reach Winburg before the election. I have all the articles before me here, out of the newspapers which tried to juggle with figures after the election, and tried to argue away that the Saps got 1,000 votes less than in 1938, and they all said that it was a moral victory for the Government. At that time not one of them spoke of a struggle between Gen. Hertzog and the present hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart), but they tried to prove that the war policy of the Government had conquered. Is that not a false policy which has been followed? And notwithstanding the fact that the sons and daughters of presidents and generals had been brought to Winburg, Winburg showed how the heart of the Afrikaner people was beating.

Just look how depressed the Minister of Justice looks now.

Order!

There are some of my hon. friends who know the Free State better than I do, because they know that all of them will not dare to go and hold a public meeting in the Free State. They know what the people are feeling. The people feel that this time the continued existence of the Afrikaner people is at stake, and that the people cannot allow any disintegration to take place, and I have not the least doubt of it that Fauresmith and Smithfield one of these days will once more show how the heart of the Afrikaner people is beating. I want to ask my hon. friends opposite: Who are the enemies of the Afrikaner people; who gave the United Party a stab in the back on the 4th September, 1939, and plunged our country into war? Who is the cause of this taxation, which in the future will be absolutely intolerable? By whom has this embitterment in the country been caused? Is it not caused by my hon. friends who are to-day sitting on the opposite side of the House? And those are the people who want to go and assist the members of the Afrikaner Party to-day to carry out a policy which is only going to be a curse to South Africa in the future. I now come to the Minister of Lands. He poasted very much about the disintegration of the party. That has already been referred to, and I do not want to revert to everything. I only want to tell him that when the war is over there will not only be disintegration in his party, but the plastering will fall off, and even the walls will crack. The Minister of Lands talks about disintegration on this side. If he goes into the figures he will see that in the Cape Province alone during the past year there has been an increase in the United Nationalist Party of no less than 12,000 members.

Those are the Hertzogites, which have joined up, and now they will resign again.

That is where you err. We know what the wishes of the people are. I also want to ask the Minister of Lands when he tells a story to us here, to tell it in such a way as to make the beginning and the end tally. He referred in his speech to a lady who was standing before a window and someone hit her in the face with a brick from behind. Possibly she had put her face on the wrong side, otherwise we cannot understand it. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) also made an attack here and made unworthy insinuations against the Leader of the Opposition, namely, that he is supposed to have said years ago that the farmers had better look after themselves, and that he was not concerned at all with their economic conditions. He knows that that is not true, and why does he make such an insinuation? Simply to benefit his own case, and to try by those insinuations to get people over to his side.

Ask him whether he did not say so.

The Leader of the Opposition will have an opportunity, and he will answer the hon. member.

Ask him whether he did not say it when I moved that the interest on mortgage bonds should be reduced.

The hon. member also said something else which was not correct, and which was in conflict with the facts. He also said, and made a bitter personal attack on the Leader of the Opposition, that he, the latter, had said that as soon as the footsteps of German soldiers were heard in the streets of London we would have a republic here in South Africa. A certain Mrs. van Rooyen, a sister of Hilderbrand, is supposed to have written it. May I refer him to a speech by Olive Schreiner, and point out that the Leader of the Opposition made a quotation from it. Perhaps he can read it and see what she says in connection with the farm.

Ask him whether she said it.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is feeling hurt, but I ask him to remain quiet a little. The Leader of the Opposition quoted these words from the speech of Olive Schreiner—[retranslation]—

My time is getting short. I would just like to put another question, one which is not only being asked in England to-day, but throughout the whole of the world, and also in this House, and not only by this side, but also by a large number of English-speaking members. Whether hon. members opposite wish to believe it or not, it is a fact. The question is: What are we fighting for? That question has especially been put during the past six months, and according to England’s answer which appeared in „Die Suiderstem” of the 7th October last year. England said that she was fighting with the object, and if she obtained the victory, that all the Jews would be reinstated in their previous position. England, however, felt at once that the public would not be satisfied with that. That appeared in “Die Suiderstem”, and I must therefore take it that it is correct. The people throughout the whole world were then given to understand that they would get a Christmas box, and that they would be told what the fighting was about. They waited, and then the King, I believe, broadcast a message over the wireless, and that had to be accepted as the Christmas box.

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 6th February.