I move—

Mr. HIGGERTY seconded.

Agreed to.

When the House adjourned last night I was showing that more than one country was to-day putting the question as to what we were actually fighting about. Before I give the proofs of that I just want to indicate the general fact which we meet with to-day, namely, that the Prime Minister and also some of his supporters on the countryside, as well as at any place where they can get hold of us, give us the assurance that we never could have remained neutral, and then they ask us why we continue to ask the question as to what we are fighting about. Now I would like to point out to the Prime Minister and the persons who make such statements, that they must not blame us, but that the war ministers of England should be ticked over the fingers a little, because here I have a translation of broadcast over the radio by Mr. Duff Cooper one of the Ministers about whom even our Prime Minister would not say that he talks nonsense. He said recently—

If what Duff Cooper says is really true, namely, that we could have remained neutral, but that we had elected to stand by the Empire, then it is a complete reply to the hon. members who said, as did the hon. member who stated that he was fighting with the Empire but not for the Empire. If we could have remained neutral, then it proves that we are fighting for the Empire and not with the Empire. But now the question comes as to why we are fighting. It is a question which is being generally asked to-day. Now we have got a reply from the English Government, namely, that if England wins then England will see to it that the Jews are reinstated in their previous position. I am convinced of it that with the exception of the Jews opposite, no hon. member will rise and put it in that light. But the English people felt that that was not sufficient, and that it was not satisfactory either, and then the King, in his little broadcast speech at Christmas time, said a few things about it. The “Cape Argus” apparently found it very beautiful. The King said that we were fighting because we had—

In other words, they were fighting in order that the wealth should be divided between rich and poor after the war. He further said—

What a magnificent bait is there held out to the poor man. The poor people in the world will share in the possessions of the capitalists, and that is why they should now fight for capitalism. But the Pope also found it inadequate, and then he came along with five reasons. He said that the war would have been carried on needlessly unless five moral victories were obtained, unless five things were aimed at. What are the five things? In the first place, he mentioned “lasting peace rests in victory over hatred.” In his New Year message the Prime Minister said that what Hitler had done to Holland, Belgium and other countries would leave an everlasting grudge in his heart. Here comes the Pope and he says that we are waging war uselessly, if we do not eliminate hatred. As a second thing, the Pope mentioned—I am quoting from an English newspaper—the removal of “international suspicion”. That also is a matter of impossibility, as hon. members on the other side know. Then as a third point, His Holiness mentions the banishing of the point of view “that force stands for right.” In 1900 England taught us the opposite thing, namely, that might actually was right. Then a fourth point was mentioned as the removal of “economic divergencies”. This entire war is in connection with commercial troubles on the other side, and the Pope said that they must be got rid of. As a fifth evil, he mentioned egoism which should also be eliminated. Hon. members opposite know that it is impossible to eliminate these five things. If that is so what then are we fighting for, and why are we spending these millions? The “Cape Argus” itself felt that it was not all in order, and that it was not a complete and satisfactory reply to the question. The “Cape Argus” made a remark that it only appeared to be a satisfactory answer on the surface, but that it would not convince the people that the war should be carried on. In other words, we no longer believe it. It is too superficial. Consequently we still put the question; What are we fighting for? England then sent her best man to America, and she said: This man will tell you what England is fighting for. On the 28th January he made his statement. He said: I cannot say what we are fighting for, but we are fighting to obtain the victory. That is the only reason which he gives. If then that is so, then we on this side of the House feel that it is too outrageous to sacrifice all those lives and to ruin the country financially, for something in return for which we are getting nothing. Now I want to put this question to the Prime Minister. We have this tremendous waste of money, and I put a written question to him in regard to the number of coloured people who were taking part in the war, and whether they would actually take part in the fighting. He replied that there are 753 coloured persons belonging to the military forces, getting different scales of wages which ran from 6/- tot 13/- a day. But he definitely said that none of them would do active service in the war. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister is not now in his place, because I wanted to tell him what I saw with my own eyes at Kimberley. There were 250 coloured people in the train, all in first class and second class coaches, all with bandoliers on and in every coach there was a coloured man who was armed with a rifle and bayonet. If those persons are not going to fight up in the North, what then are they doing with bandoliers round their bodies? I asked them personally where they were going to. They said they were going to the North. I asked them what they were going to do there, whether they were going to fight or whether they were going to drive the lorries. Their reply was: “Master, why should we have bandoliers on if we are not going to fight?” These are hard facts about which there can be no doubt, and I want to know from the Prime Minister if these people are not going to fight there, why then do they have on the full uniform and equipment in which I saw them?

Are they not entitled to defend themselves?

They are going to the North to defend themselves there! I think that my hon. friend is very sorry that he opened his mouth, and the Prime Minister will not thank him for it either. I want to raise my voice against this astonishing waste of money. When we get to the countryside, we find that coloured women are getting their allowances. We are told that it is only married coloured people who get such large allowances. After the khaki circus had gone through the country, we saw how the coloured men trotted about the country trying to find wives, because then the higher allowances would be paid to them. The result was that we not only have 7,350 coloured men in the military service, although they are indispensible on the countryside, inasmuch as the farmers cannot get sufficient labour, but the housewives are also finding it difficult to get housemaids. I understand that we have even got the voice of one Jew. A maid had been working at his house for thirteen years. Now she gets £7 10s. a month allowance. She left, and the Jew was so angry that he said he was going to vote for the Opposition. Let me come back to the great damage which was caused by the soldiers, and I just want to say this to the Prime Minister. I appreciate it of him that the damage which was done in Potchefstroom and Johannesburg is to be made good. We approve of that damage being made good. But is is very easy for him to say that the damage will be made good. Who pays the money? Is it the soldiers of the Prime Minister? No, it is the tax-payer of the country who has to do so. We already had an increase of 76% last year in the income tax, and we know what pill is waiting for us in March. We dare not spend money in this unnecessary way. It is an unnecessary destruction of property which is taking place there, and the taxpayer is made to pay for it. I must raise my voice most strongly against the waste of money that is going on. Just look at the trains and see how many of the window frames and windows are lying about broken, and how much of the food for the table is thrown through the windows. Who is to pay for it? These are things which make us stop for a moment, and which make us realise that is was high time to introduce this motion of no confidence in the Government which we have moved. My time is nearly over, and I want to come to the security code which has just come into force—a day or so ago. I have not yet had an opportunity of studying it, but so far as I can see it is only the soldiers who are protected. No one may touch a soldier, or he incurs a heavy penalty. Now I would like to ask why the Prime Minister always only protects people on the one side. We notice in the “Cape Times” this morning the report of the scandalous attack that was made on a man with a beard, a few hours after the Prime Minister had issued his order. The soldiers simply said: We shall not obey the command of the Commander-in-Chief. I would like to know from the Prime Minister whether he will go into the matter and will impose the same punishment on those people which he imposes on us if we lay a hand on a soldier who has given provocation. Those are things which happen day after day. If I am attacked in Cape Town by soldiers, will in such case the same penalties be laid on them as on other people who assault soldiers? We noticed yesterday that a soldier was punished in the magistrate’s court at Wynberg, and I hope that hon. members noticed what the magistrate said on that occasion, and then they will see who gives the provocation. If the Afrikaner had not got the length that he, with almost unbelievable courage has restrained himself in regard to all the things which are done against him, then we should have had a massacre in South Africa long ago. And if the Prime Minister does not raise his voice against it, and if he does not also protect the other people, then it will still end in that. I was still a young politician when I heard that the Prime Minister’s policy was to let things develop. And now I want to ask the Prime Minister this question: Does he want to do it again in this case? Are things first of all to develop once more into a massacre, so that he can shoot? No, please do not repeat 1922. The people cannot forgive everything that took place in the past, and if the same things have to occur again now, then I want to warn the Prime Minister that the people will never be able to forgive him in future for the massacre which may be expected at any moment, only because the Prime Minister merely protects his own people. And who are his people? You have a sample sitting on the other side of every section which is contained in the army. But that section of the Afrikaner people who really have the right to continue to live in South Africa, may not walk the streets. They are not protected, but they are persecuted in every possible way; and it is high time for the Prime Minister to stop a moment and consider where this may lead us to, and that he should not cause a massacre, as has happened in the past in South Africa.

The hon. member who has just sat down I do not think has said anything which requires replying to, except two points. He spoke about armed coloured men. The Prime Minister has said that there would be no armed coloured units sent to the North. That is a fact despite what the hon. member has seen in Kimberley. In regard to what Mr. Duff Cooper has said—what he has said is what we have said; he said we had the right to remain neutral if we wanted to. That is what we have said too, but the decision we took, we took on the full and free vote of this House. In all the years that I have been a member of this House I can honestly say that I have never heard a motion of no confidence proposed with such a complete lack of responsibility, or consisting of such a weak attack. For close on 1½ hours we on this side of the House sat waiting for the onslaught to commence but we were disappointed, and we were not the only ones to suffer disappointment, for before the apparently interminable discourse of the Leader of the Opposition had ended we realised that his own followers were bored to tears and most of them were not even listening to their Leader. The mover’s speech was really most unfair to the Prime Minister. It was not worthy of his steel and I am sure we felt, like the rest of the House, that in tearing down the weak case of the Leader of the Opposition, he was placed in the unfortunate position of the sportsman who is called upon to shoot a sitting rabbit. A few more motions such as this, and not only will the Leader of the Opposition succeed in further discrediting his own Party in the eyes of the public, if that is possible, but will discredit our present form of Parliamentary Government. Perhaps that is his intention so as to further their so called “new order.” Perhaps he hopes that his public will begin to feel that if that is all they can hope for from their Leaders in opposition to the Government, any form of new order might be preferable, and we will find Field Marshall Sambok Smith wielding his lethal weapon. An Opposition has a responsibility to the public just as the Government has. They should oppose with sound criticism and not merely be an obstructionist party, or beat up unarmed Ministers at public meetings. The Leader of the Opposition said that after a war every Government falls immediately. That after the last war the Government remained in power for five years seems to have slipped his memory. When reminded thereof he put it down to them taking another leg. Well, better a Government with an extra leg than potential or possible future Governments with a foundation consisting of wind only. He went on to say that if a Government was not criticised “dan kan hulle bak en brou soos hulle wil.” I would draw his attention to the fact that there are two kinds of criticism: the fair constructive criticism prompted by patriotic motives, to see that the country’s enemies are defeated as soon as possible, and the purely political spiteful and subversive kind put forward to slow down the war effort, and encourage the country’s enemies. I leave it to this House to decide which type we are meeting with here. He gave us a lecture about Volkseenheid. He stated that the Nation could never grow without it. We all agree. Can there be volkseenheid without co-operation between both races? Did this country not have the greatest chance in its history to accomplish this in 1933? Who set out to destroy it?

The Prime Minister.

No, the hon. gentleman opposite. On the 4th September, 1939, the country had a chance of showing a united front and of proving to the world that we as a Sovereign independent State had the right to go to war if we wanted to.

You know who did.

Who played one of the main roles in preventing this? The hon. gentleman. Then he was to get all the Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaners into one camp and we were to see complete volkseenheid in one section of the community. Hardly had the Party been formed when political assasination was in full blast. I doubt if the hon. gentleman could achieve eenheid and co-operation between an institute for the blind and a deaf and dumb school for more than a week. When man and wife start to quarrel it is safer for other members of the family to keep out, and so I do not intend to make any comments on the split in the Opposition ranks, nor am I prepared to jeer or to rejoice. There is something always rather embarrassing to have a public quarrel among late friends. I merely refer to the position to show the insincerity in the hon. gentleman’s pious platidues regarding “volkseenheid” when he has played the villain of the piece so successfully, and should be the last person to mention the term. The Prime Minister so clearly showed how the hon. gentleman after wooing the coloureds, the English and the Jews in turn—incidentally the Prime Minister forgot to mention the wooing of the Natives by a famous message sent to them at Oukraal—and how not satisfied with attacking the lot together with Afrikaners whose ancestors have been here long before his, and who do not agree with him, but has now turned on the Afrikaners who were members of his own Party and made co-operation even for them impossible. I ask is he the one to achieve or even talk of National unity? If a Leader of the Opposition moves a vote of no confidence in the Government he must, if he has any sense of responsibility, have some idea of what the alternative Government is to be. Would the hon. gentleman in his reply kindly tell us how he proposes to govern this country if this Government resigned, and with whom he intends to do it, and what support he has from the Afrikaans section, not to mention the others? The hon. gentleman suggested that this Government was anxious to get immigirants into South Africa and push the poor farming community into the northern portion of Africa. He is confusing the Prime Minister with Hitler. It is that gentleman who is carrying out a ruthless policy of depriving people of their ancient homes, and transplanting them by force from place to place regardless of the misery, destruction and death caused, like one sends stock to a sale, and he will do so in this country if he wins the war. We know that German officials have stated before the war that one day they will own South Africa. But they will be kind to the Afrikaans farmers. They will, for instance, take over the land of, say, the fruit farmers of the Western Province and compensate them by giving them an equal extent of acreage in the Karroo or the Kalahari, where they will be altogether, and allowed to form their own Republic. Thus difficulties between Germans and Afrikaners due to their being in the same areas will never arise. In his long speech he did not put forward any alternative policy if he got into power, barring a lot of vague promises. It seems a pity that with the great power he wielded during nine long years he was a Minister, and not in times of war, but in the piping times of peace, and with rising revenue and prosperity, he did not do some of these wonderful things. The Leader of the Opposition told us that we would not have thought of going to war had we not been a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Has it ever struck him that one goes to war in one’s own interest and for one’s own safety? That self-preservation, be it in the individual or in the nation, is the great motive underlying most human behaviour. To prove my point I must quote from a speech by General Hertzog. I do not intend to drag him into this controversy. My only reason for quoting him is because when he spoke he was speaking as the mouthpiece of the majority on that side of the House; in fact of all except the nineteen Purified Nationalists. That he spoke for the majority opposite is proved by the fact that they supported his views by their votes in the House, and so his words were, ipso facto, their words. He spoke for the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (General Kemp), the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman), the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow), the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker), the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne), the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen).

Just a moment, I only came here in 1938.

That shows how we never count our blessings till it is too late, and only now do we realise how lucky the House was up to that time. I wish to quote from General Hertzog’s speech during the Abyssinian affair in 1936. Portion of my quotation is the same as that which was quoted some time ago by the Minister of Mines in General Hertzog’s presence. This is what he said when the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. Malan) pointed out that he was risking war—

I think you will agree that Germany is a stronger and more dangerous nation than Italy, and that Germany and Italy combined are a greater threat than Italy alone. Many hon. gentlemen opposite agreed with General Hertzog that if Italy came into North Africa it was a danger to the Union, and if necessary we must wage war to prevent it, solely in our own interest. We knew that sooner or later Italy would come in with her partner in the Axis. Now if there was a danger due to Italy alone, could there be no danger when Germany and Italy were in it together? I voted with them then; I don’t blame them for their viewpoint in 1935-36, but what I do ask is this: “Is their present stand consistent with that of 1935-36?” And here is the point I wish to make: do they agree with the Leader of the Opposition when he says that we declared war only because we were members of the Commonwealth? If they do then they make themselves guilty of the charge that they were prepared to risk war in 1935-36 because we were members of the Commonwealth. But I believe that in 1936 they were looking only to the interests of our country and its safety, just as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and all his followers know that on the 4th September our decision was made solely in the interests of our fatherland. The hon. Leader of the Opposition suggested that we, a small nation, and his tone had a tinge of contempt for our smallness—(and if he had ever been a fighting man he would realise that a small nation can, if it is naturally patriotic and believes in its cause, put up a fight out of all proportion to its size)—are trying to put Europe and the world right. That was not our idea at all. We made the decision we did in our own interests and because we stood for an ideal—namely, the freedom which only a democracy can give a nation. The gravaman of the hon. gentleman’s charge against us was that we could have remained neutral and we did not. We say we could not have remained neutral, but that sooner or later we would have been dragged into the war, either on the side of the Commonwealth or the Axis, and subsequent events have proved us to be right. I wish to prove this. Before I do so I wish to remind the House of Gen. Hertzog’s and the Leader of the Opposition’s undertaking given to this House on the 4th September, that they would always maintain their obligations given under the Simonstown Agreement, and I want hon. members to bear this in mind. What would our position have been in June or July last had we been neutral after the collapse of France? It was obvious to the world that England could not maintain control of the seas round Africa, nor could she reinforce North Africa, nor could Australia, India and New Zealand send troops to Great Britain unless she had the use of Simonstown as well as other Union harbours. This was of the greatest importance to Italy the moment she came in. The result of the use of our harbours has been clearly shown in the defeat of Italy in North Africa. What would have been the first demand made by the German and Italian Ministers—who would still have been here—to our neutral Prime Minister? “If you give naval base or harbour facilities to Great Britain, we regard it as an unfriendly act.” Tremendous pressure would have been brought to bear on the Government. With a world shaking on its foundations, with France in the dust, and England apparently beaten to her knees, practically unarmed and almost naked to her enemies, sustained only by a belief in herself and an indomitable courage never surpassed in history, with a neutral defeatist and in some cases a pro-Axis Government in power, faced with the final choice of siding with the Commonwealth or the Axis, what would the choice have been? I said a defeatist and in some cases a pro-Axis Government in power. I will prove my words. Practically every leader of the present Opposition had stated publicly by the middle of last year that Great Britain had already lost the war. They were obviously defeatists. Others, such as the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) had publicly said that the only hope for the future of South Africa lay in a German victory, or words to that effect, a pro-Axis outlook. Many others gave utterances to similar views. Am I exaggerating when I say that a neutral Government would have been defeatist and in some cases pro-Axis? And I ask again, if forced to make a decision, as they would have been, what side would they have chosen? I maintain we were right, therefore, on the 4th September, when we said that we declared war in the interests of South Africa, and that we could not remain neutral, for sooner or later we would be forced to take sides. Our neutral Government was out for a policy of appeasement towards Germany and Italy. Let me quote an independent neutral, President Roosevelt, who said: “No nation can attempt to appease the Nazis; you can’t turn a tiger into a kitten by stroking him.” In the same broadcast he said: “Can the United States be attacked while Great Britain is our friend? But if Great Britain goes down, then Germany will control the whole of Europe and Africa”—mark his reference to Africa—“and a revolver will be held at our heads.” He is the leader of the greatest nation in the world, giving us his opinion as a nonbelligerent, and it agrees with that of the Prime Minister made over a year before. But we are asked to accept the view of hon. members opposite in contrast to that of a man like President Roosevelt. The President later said: “You can’t run away from danger by crawling under the bed and pulling the blankets over you.” I submit those words to the attention of hon. members opposite. They might also wish to ponder over a few further remarks by the President—“Their agents are out to create division inside other nations— to help Germany,” and one more quotation which we can well take to heart as coming from a man like the President—“The German will say to the South American States, ‘We will take you over to protect you against the United States.’” Apply that to the neutral defeatist Government this country was saved from by the strong action of the Prime Minister, and you have Germany saying to this country, “I will take you over to protect you against Great Britain.” The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) said that we had misled the country when we warned them against the Italian menace. Why has that menace ceased to exist? Because the Commonwealth has been able to reinforce North Africa—that, and that alone. And such reinforcement could only be performed if Great Britain had the harbours on our coast. Had she not had them, and had the Middle East not been reinforced, what would the position be to-day? It is quite possible that Italy and Germany would be sitting on the Limpopo to-day. And now a final word on the new order, which is really the oldest order in the world, the order of Ghengis Khan or Chaka.

Or Dingaan.

Yes, Dingaan. Those of us whose ancestors have been in the country for close on 300 years, and who know no other fatherland than South Africa, are being abused as Empire lackeys, traitors, jingoes, and what not, and new orders are being worked out as a new form of government for us by people, some of whom are not South African in any true sense of the word. We are continually being spoken of with contempt by a certain editor in the North, both of whose parents were born outside this country, I believe, and now we have the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) drawing up a new form of government to rule over us. The hon. member said that the Prime Minister had read a speech made by Gen. Hertzog, and suggested he read all Gen. Hertzog’s speeches, and then he will know what Gen. Hertzog thinks of him (Gen. Smuts). Don’t let us worry about that; the Prime Minister and Gen. Hertzog have never been great friends, but as big men they recognised the great qualities of each other, and respected each other. But what I would like to know is what Gen. Hertzog thinks of his great friend, the hon. member for Gezina, in view of the way the latter has deserted his old leader. That would be of much greater interest. If I might parody the dying remark of a great ecclesiastic of the past, Gen. Hertzog might say, “Had I but served my own interests as I served those of my friends, it would not be necessary for me, in my old age, to consent to accept a pension from the State.” But, to the honour of the House, there have been ten men who still honour friendship and loyalty, and have stood by their old leader. Let me say to the hon. member for Gezina that South Africa is lucky to have people such as himself and his immediate ancestors coming to this country. We welcome such good stock, and they are an asset to the country. It was such stock from Europe that helped to build South Africa in the past, but we would ask him not to presume to be the only true Afrikaner, or to foist some new form of government on us, because we have been here nearly as many centuries as he has been decades, and because we don’t agree with him or are not prepared to knuckle under the jack-boot we are to be called traitors with the soul of a national scout, or some similar elegant terms which the hon. member for Gezina is so fond of using. Frankly, we resent it, for we realise that had his esteemed parents delayed their voyage or caught a later boat, he might never have been born in South Africa at all. I am only going to quote one paragraph from his new order, and leave it at that—

Well, in other words, 140 members of this House, chosen by the people and representing them, can vote against a measure that is contrary to the interests of the country, but the thirteen Ministers can sit there, and although in a hopeless minority, that measure goes through. We hear so much about the Voortrekkers these days, and those dead heroes are being disgracefully exploited for political ends. I ask this House, is this the ideal for which they made great sacrifices? I thought they had given up all and taken to their wagons to face privation and massacre for the right to worship as they wished, doing what they liked and saying what they wanted, and in order that they should be ruled by themselves for themselves. This alone can happen if Germany is victorious, and certain hon. gentlemen are prepared to let us be beaten, so that a new German form of government can rule this country, not through the people and for the people, but in the interests of Germany and a few ambitious politicians. They will certainly play the bully here over us, but will toady to Germany, and our new rulers will play the same role in South Africa as Laval in France, Antonescu in Rumania, or Quisling in Norway. This state of affairs has largely been prevented by the Government’s decision of September 4th, 1939, and can only be finally obviated by an Allied victory. And, therefore, I say that no leader of a responsible Opposition should move a vote of no confidence in a Government unless he has an alternative Government to take its place, and at the present time it is clear there is no alternative Government in this House.

If a Ministry without Portfolio can cause such a noisy storm and hysteria, then I only want to say, “may heaven defend us if the Minister concerned ever gets a portfolio.” The Minister without Portfolio caused a tremendous fuss here, and I can quite imagine what poor Hitler would have done if he had had to listen to it. The hon. Minister spoke here and he was absolutely convinced of the fact that they were going to destroy Hitler and Germany. I want to remind the hon. Minister of a speech Hitler made a little while ago. He sent an invitation to England, and the Minister without Portfolio here is also included in it, and it was “If you are so keen on attacking, just tell me, because then I will evacuate the Continent of Europe so that you can come in.” The Minister without Portfolio said something which is very true. He said that when a man and his wife quarrelled it befitted the outsiders to keep themselves out of the family trouble.

I did not say “outsiders.”

Well, if there are discussions in the ranks of the Afrikaners, and there are troubles, it befits the Minister to keep out of them. He does not belong to the family. The Minister also was himself guilty here this afternoon of very bad taste. He took it upon himself to take Gen. Hertzog under his protection against what he regarded as treachery on this side. I just want to put him the question, who is it that drove Gen. Hertzog out of the Prime Minister’s chair, his side or this side of the House? Who is it that stabbed him in the back? I want to put him this further question: He and others who have made themselves guilty of having exploited the resignation of Gen. Hertzog by their hypocrisy, was it not he and his friends who drove him, Gen. Hertzog, out of the Prime Minister’s chair, and in addition even struck off his name as a member of their party?

He resigned and left himself.

You are not now talking on the countryside.

I am very sorry that the Prime Minister is not in his place, because I would like to say a few things to him. I hope the Minister of Justice will not go away, because I also want to say something to him later on. Now I want, in the first place, to say that I believe that there has never yet in South Africa been greater hatred and jealousy between the two races than there is to-day. The cause of the hatred and jealousy and revengeful feelings is the man who sits on the opposite side, the Prime Minister; he and he alone with his satellites and his British Press in South Africa are the cause of the hatred and envy and bitterness in South Africa, simply for the reason that he is not prepared to bear in mind that the Afrikaners constitute 60% of the population in the country, and that the Afrikaners are not prepared to be the lackeys and boot-blacks of Great Britain.

Whose boots do you clean?

Thank God we do not have him with us. I say that the hatred and envy in South Africa is due to the fact that the Prime Minister will not bear in mind that besides the British and the Jews there are also Afrikaners in the country. The attitude of the Afrikaners in connection with Great Britain and the war is a different attitude to that of the Jews and the British. The Afrikaner has only one home, and it is South Africa. He is rooted in South Africa. The Englishman and the Jew are different. Their love is not in the first place for South Africa. So far as the Englishman is concerned, his love goes out to Great Britain, and so far as the Jew is concerned, his love, in the first place, goes out to capital. I do not blame the Englishman for wanting to take part in a war against Germany, because England is to-day fighting for her very existence, as the Prime Minister said. Accordingly, I can understand that the English are in favour of the war, but then they cannot say that they are Afrikaners. I can also quite understand it of the Jews, that they encourage the war and that they are in favour of participation, because the Jews, rightly or wrongly, have a grievance against Germany and Hitler. But then we come to the majority of the population in the country, the Afrikaners, and their attitude is the very opposite, and you can quite understand why it is so. It arises from their history, the history of suffering which South Africa has passed through. Can any right-minded Englishman or Jew, or anyone else, when he considers the history of the Afrikaner people, the history of suffering, blame the Afrikaner for taking up a different attitude? If he thinks of what the Afrikaners have had to put up with in South Africa from Great Britain, can any right-minded man blame the Afrikaner for not wanting to be the lackey and henchman of England, while England herself is in a struggle of life and death? What is the attitude of the Prime Minister in respect of the Afrikaansspeaking people? If he tries to understand the attitude of the Afrikaners, and the feelings among the Afrikaners, then he would realise that hatred and envy must arise in South Africa, owing to his action. To-day there is hatred and envy between a Boer and Briton simply because the Prime Minister and his supporters have not taken into account the standpoint and feelings of the Afrikaners. The Prime Minister does not do so. He does not take account of their feelings. Ever since 1902 he has broken away from Afrikanerdom, and united himself, heart and soul, with the English. Never yet since that time has he, in reality, associated himself in one single Afrikaans undertaking whether it has been in cultural matters, language matters, or in any other department. The Prime Minister has been cold and natural in respect of those things, and has associated himself with his British spiritual and religious associates, he has associated himself with a Rhodes, and not with the Afrikaner. And this attitude of the Prime Minister gives the answer to the question why things in South Africa between the two races are as they are to-day. He has become completely estranged from the Afrikaner section, he has no longer any sympathy for the Afrikaners. And that is the reason why the Prime Minister, in the present circumstances, is once more acting in opposition to his own Afrikaners, towards the people who are his fellow-Afrikaners, in the unsympathetic manner in which he has done. He acts in an unsympathetic and cruel manner, like a person who is actually inimical to Afrikanerdom. I want, in the little time at my disposal, to give the proofs of what I have said. And now I come at once to the Minsiter of Justice. This lack of sympathy on the part of the Prime Minister and hon. members opposite is the cause of the victimisation and oppression of the Afrikaners who will not associate themselves with the point of view of the Government. There has been victimisation in the public service, there is victimisation in the police force, there is victimisation throughout in respect of all who will not take the Empire oath. The Minister of Justice got up here and denied that there was any victimisation in the case of the police. I did not want to say anything then because I did not want to injure any member of the police force by mentioning his name. Now I am able in any case to mention one name, one case of victimisation, and there are numbers and numbers of such cases. I only mention this case because the man has now left the service, and it is Captain Taljaard. He was staff officer, and would not take the Empire oath. What did the Government do? He was immediately given leave, and subsequently he was transferred to the small dorp of Keetmanshoop in South-West Africa. Now the Minister must not say that that was in consequence of the situation that he was transferred there, that it was in consequence of the urgent demands of the police force there that he was transferred there. Have you ever heard of two police captains being stationed at a small place like Keetmanshoop? That was the case, and both were there, because they would not take the oath. Then the Minister of Justice comes and says that no victimisation is being carried on in his department. If he says that then he is not serious, or he does not know what is going on in his own department. There are far worse cases yet of that kind which could be mentioned, but so far as the Minister’s department is concerned, two are sufficient. Another example of the most cruel victimisation one finds with regard to the young fellows. The Government introduced a scheme which in other circumstances would have been a very good scheme, and it was to give young lads technical training so that they could be absorbed into the manufacturing business. But immediately their training course is over, they are called upon to take the oath, or otherwise they will be put on the street. These young boys have to make a living, and they are forced to take the oath, or they are thrown on the streets. That happens in the case of numbers and numbers of young Afrikaner boys, many of whom have to provide for their parents, and who have no other means of living. A very large number of Afrikaners are compelled, in this way, for the sake of their bread and butter, to wound their souls and to take the oath. And then a Minister of that kind dares to get up here and say that no victimisation is taking place, that no one is forced to take the oath. The compulsion exists in connection with the finding of work in general. I want to ask the Minister in what department an unemployed man can get work to-day unless he is prepared to take the oath? And then the Minister, without turning a hair, dares to say that there is no victimisation and that no compulsion is exercised on people to take the oath. The Minister of Lands is at the moment not in his place, but let us take the position in regard to land settlement. Are plots of land still being given to any Afrikaners to-day? What is being done to assist young Afrikaners to get land? Absolutely nothing. The Afrikaner who does not want to take the oath and will not go and fight, can, so far as this Government is concerned, simply die of starvation. Nothing is done for him in the matter of land settlement. Why not? Because the Government practically keeps all the land in reserve for people who have taken the oath, and the Minsiter comes here, without turning a hair, and says that no pressure is being exercised over people to take the oath. Can we be surprised at the people commencing to be impatient? Is that not sufficient reason for introducing a motion of no confidence in the Government? And that is not all. The Afrikaner has, in his own country, in South Africa, to be subjected to the greatest insults which have certainly ever yet been hurled at Afrikaners in the history of Afrikanerdom. It is their lot to-day to be insulted and to be assaulted. Who is the guilty party? No one else than the Prime Minister. Because if the assaults on Afrikaners are committed by his skollies and hottentot soldiers, then they are ju stified. Even during last session an appeal was made to the Prime Minister to put an end to the hypocritical midday pause in the Cape Town streets. By his answer the Prime Minister practically encouraged the coloured people and the hottentots to attack and assault the people who would not participate in the pause. I want to ask the Minister of Justice whether he thinks that the Afrikaner will easily put up with that sort of thing? The Prime Minister is responsible for the conditions which are existing there. He is apparently still in the best of health. I hope that he, as well as the other Ministers who are guilty of these things, will yet be spared long enough so that when the day of reckoning comes they will still be in office. I will not touch upon Potchefstroom now, I will just leave out all the assaults there, but I want to say something more about the scandalous attacks which took place on “Die Vaderland” and “Die Transvaaler.” It is a miracle that a worse shedding of blood did not take place. In view of all the attacks, in view of the devastation which was effected, in view of the attack which this very day appears in the newspaper about an unfortunate Afrikaner who, just because he wore a beard was assaulted in the street, and knocked down unconscious. In view of all these things I put the question again, who is responsible? It is nobody else than the Prime Minister. By his action he practically encourages it. His speech in connection with the occurrences in Johannesburg cannot be regarded otherwise than as an encouragement to continue the assaults. Accordingly, I say again that I hope that the Prime Minister will be spared long enough in order, when the day of reckoning comes, to be punished for the crimes he has committed against the Afrikaner people. These assaults on innocent people, and in many cases on women, this destruction of property, all the persecutions will be laid to the charge of the Prime Minister. This is not the first time that the Afrikaner has had to experience persecution of this kind. The Minister of Justice has now associated himself with the British jingoes. He has the shamelessness to declare that he still walks to-day in the footsteps of his great father, President Steyn. I just want to point out in what light his father regarded malpractices and crimes of this kind, and I want to quote from the report which he, the late President Steyn, sent to Lord Kitchener in August, 1901. What did he say?—

To-day again helpless women are in many cases assaulted. But the Minister of Justice to-day has the shamelessness to say, without even blushing in the least, that he is still walking in the footsteps of his great father. I think that the Minister, so far as politics is concerned, had better stop referring to his father. In other respects he may take after his father, but it does not befit him to make use of his father’s name in political matters as long as he follows the course that he is taking to-day. I do not want to go into the Klerksdorp case, because it is sub judice, but it was brought up by the Minister of Lands. I want to ask the Minister of Justice what he thinks about the fact that he has done the unprecedented thing of arresting two honourable Afrikaners as criminals, without any guilt being proved against them, when he might have summoned them to appear before the Court in the ordinary way. Does he think that the Afrikaners will stand that? These things wound, these things hurt, and there will be a day of reckoning for these things. My greatest complaint against the Prime Minister is the way in which he goes and undermines the prestige and status of the white man in South Africa, by the new policy of training coloured people and natives as soldiers. I say that in all these years nothing of that kind has happened which has so undermined the position of the white man in South Africa as the act of the Prime Minister in training coloured troops to go and fight against white people. Let us just see what is going to happen. The coloured people are trained in exactly the same way as the European soldiers, and they are treated in the same way. I have before me here the “Cape Standard”—the journal of the coloured people—and there is an article in it which was passed by the censor. It is very interesting to see how the coloured people are treated by the Prime Minister, and then you will also understand why I say that nothing in our history has undermined the position of the white man more than the action which is being taken to-day by the Prime Minister. Listen to this—

Do you understand what that means? It is said in this House that the coloured people are not armed, and that they will not be used for fighting. The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) has already told us what he saw in Kimberley. Here we find that the coloured people have to do drilling with rifles, and why is that necessary if they are not to be used in the fighting line? This article goes further—

But now listen to this. This person now describes what happened when they arrived in Northern Rhodesia—

How terrible!

If the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) does not realise how terrible it is for white women to come and entertain coloured persons, if he does not understand what a scandalous act that is in South Africa, then the sooner he moves to another part of South Africa the better it will be. It is not only in Northern Rhodesia where that happens. Listen to a letter which appeared in the Johannesburg “Star” on the 18th November—

How shocking!

He goes still further—

That is terrible!

It is possibly not terrible to people who are accustomed to the methods of Botany Bay.

Then he comes to Southern Rhodesia, and there he is disappointed. This is what he writes about Southern Rhodesia—

In Northern Rhodesia we found the opposite, and he writes about it—

The hon. member for Kensington—and I assume the Prime Minister sees no harm in it for European ladies to stand at the stations to entertain and wait on coloured soldiers—in spite of this attitude of the hon. member for Kensington, I hope that his wife and daughter will never be exposed to this humiliation, because his wife, at any rate, is an Afrikaans lady. The person who is responsible for all this is the Prime Minister. He is responsible for the prestige of the white man in South Africa being lowered in that way, and I say again he deserves everything which he will get from the Afrikaner nation in the future. The attitude of the Afrikaner in regard to this matter, namely, the army of natives and coloured persons against white people, is generally known, and I need not enlarge on it. But what I do want to draw attention to is the attitude of the same Prime Minister in the days of yore—his attitude in this matter— and I hope his British friends who now praise him up to the skies will listen to what his attitude was while he still was a Boer general, and how he expressed it during the three years war. He was then a general of the Boers and not a general of the British army, as he now is. He sent a report to President Kruger. The report was sent from Van Rhynsdorp in the Cape Province, and this is what he says on these points—

Is the hon. member for Kensington proud of the record of his nation against the farmers of this country? The Prime Minister went further.

But your leader said that England was the mother of our freedom.

The Prime Minister went further, and he wrote the following to President Kruger—

That is the report of the Prime Minister with regard to the facts, and now we come to his opinion about the action of the British Government, and I would like to hear the hon. member for Kensington again asking what is wrong with it. Listen to the view which the present Prime Minister expressed at that time about this practice of arming natives and coloured people—

The Prime Minister characterised this set of arming coloured persons against white persons as one of the greatest crimes which anybody could be guilty of. I agree with him, and I emphasise it—but I also say this, and I say it directly to him to-day, that what he at that time accused Kitchener and Roberts of he is making himself guilty of to-day. And I say once more that the Afrikaner nation, the Boer nation, will not forgive him for it. But he has become so completely English and British since 1902 that to-day he even apes that crime which he condemned from the depths of his soul, and he is making himself guilty of the same crime which he reprobated and complained of at that time. For this reason we on this side of the House cannot do otherwise than move a motion of no confidence in this Government, because as we feel about the matter, so does the Afrikanderdom in the country feel. There is also another reason why we have moved it, and that is to expose the fraud by which people are persuaded to support the war policy of the Government. One of the reasons which was given was this: that if we do not go into the war, then we would be able to export nothing, and the farmers would be ruined. It was the old story that out’ produce would lie and rot at our harbours. Now I want to ask the Prime Minister: Where is the produce of the mealie farmers lying; where is the produce of the wool farmers, and where are our grapes and other produce? Are they lying and rotting in our country or are they in England? For this reason a number of our farmers thought that they ought to give support to the war policy of the Government. It was fraud which was committed against them. I am sorry that the Minister of Lands is not in his place, but I hope that someone will report to him what I am saying here. He said here yesterday that those of us who did not associate ourselves with this war effort of the Government were nothing else than traitors to the interests of the Afrikaner. There is a time for war traitors, and there is also a time for peace traitors. There are traitors in the battlefield and there are also traitors on the political arena and on other national fields, where the interests of the nation have to be looked after. I can say this to the Minister of Lands. If there is any question of traitors, so far as Afrikanerdom is concerned, then it is not we on this side—who interpret the Afrikaner point of view fully—who can be accused of that, but then it is they who subject the interests of the Afrikaner to the interests of Britain, and who have dragged the Afrikaners against their wishes and will into this war. The Minister of Lands is the last person who should accuse people of being traitors, because, considered from that point of view, he is doubly a traitor. He has Afrikaans blood in him, and he also has Irish blood. Just as the Afrikaner takes up the position that he does not want himself to be used for the wars in England, so Ireland also takes up the position that she will not allow herself to be used for England’s wars, but the Minister of Lands is prepared to allow himself and his country to be used for that, and he is, from that point of view, regarded as doubly a traitor. It does not befit that Minister to cast the reproach “traitor” at this side of the House. The Minister of Lands has become so undignified, so far as the Afrikanerdom is concerned, that, shortly before his death, he drove a man like General Manie Maritz off Government land like a native. General Maritz was engaged in negotiating for the taking over of Government land. As usually happens in such cases, he went to live on the land that he wanted to take over while the negotiations were in progress. This came to the notice of the Minister of Lands, and before he gave the Land Board an opportunity of considering the application, he issued an order that General Maritz should vacate the land. That is what he did to the man who fought all the fights on which the fame of the Prime Minister rests in the three years’ war. All the fame that he earned was to a great extent due to General Manie Maritz, and now when General Maritz came and applied for the assistance of his father-land, it was that Minister of Lands who chased him off Government land like a native. I hope that the Prime Minister is still able to feel ashamed about this act which was committed against his former companion-in-arms. I hope the hon. member for Kensington will not go out now, because I want to refer to him. He yesterday quoted a number of extracts from newspapers in the hope of being able to prove that it was the Ossewa-Brandwag and the Afrikaners who committed assaults on soldiers. You will have noticed that in not a single case did those newspapers indicate that an Afrikaner or a member of the Ossewa-Brandwag was prosecuted for those assaults. But because soldiers are attacked he simply accepts it as a fact that it is members of the Ossewa-Brandwag or Afrikaners who have committed the assaults. Time after time we read in the papers that soldiers are tried for attacks on the civil population. Why should the people who commit these assaults then not be tried as well? It is not only the soldiers who are being attacked. I will tell you why no names of Afrikaners are mentioned who ought to be tried for assaults on soldiers, it is because they are not Afrikaners, but here in the slums soldiers and sailors are attacked by skollies.

How many skollies are there in Nylstroom?

I will come to Nylstroom. The hon. member quoted a newspaper report that a soldier was assaulted in Nylstroom, and that he did not know whether the man was still alive to-day. It is a small village, and I live there, and this is the first time that I have heard that a soldier was assaulted at Nylstroom.

It was stated in the newspaper that he was attacked.

But does the hon. member know who sent that report? The journalist who sent that report is the same man who is characterised by the Minister of Native Affairs as the greatest liar in South Africa.

What is his name?

He is the Sapa correspondent there, and the Minister of Native Affairs called him the greatest liar in South Africa. This, then, is the authority whom the hon. member for Kensington has to confirm his statements. In no case have people been brought before the Court for assaults on soldiers, or has it been proved that it was Afrikaners who attacked them. Possibly it was some drunken soldier or other who assaulted his companion. Nevertheless, the hon. member comes to this House and he wants to create the impression that those soldiers are attacked in a reckless way by Afrikaners.

I did not mention Afrikaners.

That was the object of what you said.

I did not say so.

That, anyhow, was your intention. [Time limit.]

I think that it is a new thing in the history of South Africa for a motion of this kind to be moved in Parliament by a party which, in consequence of discord and lack of confidence in its own ranks, does not even have a name. I do not think that it has ever yet happened in the Parliamentary history of the Union of South Africa that such a thing has occurred. But I think it is nevertheless necessary to analyse the position a little and to see who ought to deserve the non-confidence of the country, the Government or hon. members opposite? I think we ought to go back to former times, when the Leader of the Opposition took a prominent place as a party man in South Africa, and we must enquire how many times he committed a breach of confidence in the country. I shall confine myself only to the period of my own political history, and I will begin at the year 1932. At that time fusion came about, and what did the Leader of the Opposition do? There we had the first case where he committed a breach of faith. We then go a little further, and come to 1939, and we find that on the 4th September another split and crisis occurred in the country, and allow me to let the House clearly understand that I assume that that crisis arose in consequence of the representations that were made from the opposite side to the then Prime Minister. That breach took place, and I think that we ought to investigate this point a little closer. You will remember that a party was immediately formed, but the then Prime Minister, with his good faith, thought that he was now dealing with the Afrikaner bloc, that it was such an honourable Afrikaner bloc that there need be no formal agreement, because they were too honourable to treat each other badly and dishonourably. Since that time there have been various by-elections in the country, and there were six which up to 100 per cent. were held by supporters of Gen. Hertzog. I want in connection with this to put a question to the Leader of the Opposition, and I am sorry that he just happens to be leaving the Chamber. I want to ask him whether, in one case, an agreement was come to and whether he ever offered the Prime Minister to allow one of those seats to be defended by one of the supporters of Gen. Hertzog? No, it did not happen in a single case. In every case they were outmanoeuvred, and the seat was defended by a Malanite. That was the first wrong that was committed in the Afrikaner bloc. We go a little further. There has been a reference to disintegration, to oppression, and to undermining. It is often said here that the Jew is the cause of the Afrikaners being divided, that the British are the cause of Afrikaner divisions, and it is often said that the present Prime Minister is the cause of Afrikaner divisions. Let us enquire what happened at Bloemfontein. There a congress of the Afrikaner bloc was held. There was not one Jew or Englishman present. Britain was 7,000 miles away, and I think that the Prime Minister was 400 miles away from there, and the greatest treachery and undermining, the most shameless undermining, actually took place at that Bloemfontein congress, and that against one of the greatest of Afrikaners. One of the greatest Afrikaners was politically murdered there by the Leader of the Opposition, who now holds himself out so much here as the great protagonist of Afrikanerdom in this country. By whom was that undermining caused; by whom was that thing set on foot? It was caused by those people who were not out to promote national unity and co-operation, and to build up the nation, but who were out for political expediency to try to get into office, and to promote their own political interests. Something happened there which has never yet been known in the political history of South Africa. It is indeed now said that it was purely a question of procedure. No, that was not so. I definitely deny it. It was the undermining element which was present there, and which was going on, and which weeks and months before—quite a time before that congress— had made arrangements in some way or other to get rid of Gen. Hertzog, because he, in their opinion, was not sufficiently intolerant. He was prepared to look for co-operation in a great measure, while my hon. friends opposite only wanted the elements with them who were prepared to promote racialism, to the detriment of their country and people. The question will now be asked what right I have to say that those undermining elements had already been engaged for a long time preparing for that act. In order to prove that, I want to quote a document here. I have here a copy of a sworn statement, which reads as follows, and which I would like to read out to the House—

That would give him the opportunity of defeating Gen. Hertzog. There were other things mentioned as well, but I think that that is enough to prove that the intention was that Gen. Hertzog should be rejected; he had to be politically murdered. I am not a follower of Gen. Hertzog, but when these scandals are brought to light about the actions of Afrikaners towards each other, then the whole Afrikanerdom is besmirched by it, and then I feel ashamed to call myself an Afrikaner.

Were you not ashamed on the 4th September?

No, I was not ashamed of what I had done, because I knew that I had acted in the best interests of the country, and I did not act in the interests of Nazism and treachery to the country. I was proud of what I did, and I am still proud of it to-day. I want to come to the last speaker, the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) who expressed himself terribly in regard to coloured people who were armed. In the first instance, I would like to know why my hon. friends opposite are so concerned about coloured persons being used against the natives who are being used in the North against our own white troops? They are being used against the smartest white boys of South Africa, and why then are my hon. friends opposite so concerned about our arming coloured persons in order to use them against the natives who are fighting against our own sons, and who are apparantely their allies on the other side? But apart from that, let me ask them this: Is this the first time in South Africa that the natives and the coloured people have been introduced into the disputes of the Europeans? Is this the first time in South Africa that European persons are employing natives and coloured persons for political purposes and war purposes? Are the memories of those hon. members so short that they have absolutely forgotten what occurred in 1938; have they absolutely forgotten this little picture? Then I wonder what the hon. member for Waterberg will say, and if he will continue to talk about neutrality and that kind of thing. Let them look at this little picture of 1938 (picture exhibited to the House). Let them make their remarks about that. But I go further. Is it not a fact that while they are now making complaints against us about attacks they, that is to say, their adherents even used native commandoes in the Board war?

Who was that?

The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) will probably know him, that Mr. Snyman.

You dare to mention his name. Give the facts, you scandalmonger.

These are things that happen, and which they cannot deny. The hon. member talks about creating a scandal, but here is the portrait.

Is it your portrait?

No, it is the scandalous portrait which they issued of the white woman who was living with a naitve in South Africa.

You will not assist to put an end to it.

Those are the things that they do.

Do you approve of those things?

Of course I do not. But let us come to other things. A great fuss is being made about the money which is supposed to be wasted. Let met say that during the time of co-operation by the United Party more was done for the forming population than—as the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) knows—in the whole history of South Africa. That is why he also was one of the persons who supported the United Party (quorum). A great deal is being made of assaults, and it is said that soldiers are not punished in connection with assaults, and let us also ask the question, who is the cause of all the assaults? Who are all the agitators?

I shall not be surprised if it is you.

At Boksburg some time ago a large meeting took place and the Leader of the Opposition made a speech there. He got up there and said that if anything were done to the Ossawa-Brandwag he would give a lead. I just want to say that the people on the East Rand are still laughing about that lead. Not long ago an order was issued to the police that they could not become members of the Ossewa-Brandwag, but no lead was given. But the agitation is constantly taking place, and the people subsequenly feel entitled to be guilty of rioting and causing trouble. The Leader of the Opposition said emphatically: “Leave the Ossewa-Brandwag alone.” Threats are constantly being uttered. The hon. members for Victoria West and Waterberg both rose and uttered threats. A certain Dr. Van Rensburg also recently addressed a meeting at Springs, and allowed a threat to be heard again. He said that if the Afrikaners could no longer breathe under the Government, and under the laws of the country, then they will have to go beyond the law. He said that if the Government exercised the least pressure on the Ossewa-Brandwag then they also would exercise pressure. Let me ask what the effect of these threats is. Let me say to the Ossewa-Brandwag: Leave the church alone, leave our public festivals alone, leave the schools alone, leave all the ideals which are dear to Afrikanerdom alone. Then such a movement as the Ossewa-Brandwag will possibly effect something. Do not use this kind of thing for dirty politics. Do not introduce it in connection with culture and Christianity, etc.

The Ossewa-Brandwag is the best movement that there has ever yet been.

But they are now introducing a motion of no confidence because this country has declared war on its enemy, a long-standing enemy of the country.

Since when?

It reminds me of the statement of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) at Bloemfontein, where he said that South Africa is looking for a German victory for its salvation. Do hon. members opposite approve of that? If they approve of it then they must help Germany, then they must do everything in their power to assist the Germans, because then they can only attain their salvation in that way. But if they do it then they will be the greatest crowd of traitors that South Africa has ever yet known, then they do not possess the right to come here as Afrikaners with a motion of no confidence. We are out to-day to maintain the South African ideals of freedom, and if they on the other side want to undermine it, and if they want to hand us over to Germany and Italy, then they are a group of traitors who ought not to be in South Africa. I just want to ask whether they approve what, in this connection, was said on Dingaan’s Day by the Rev. F. P. du Toit. We hear so much about Christianity, and that we must build up our people on Christianity. Do they approve of this?—

And then about hypocrisy—

Tell us when you last attended a Dingaan’s Day celebration.

That makes no difference, because I do not want to come and listen there to men like the hon. member. Then I prefer to stop away. It is better for me. I am not prepared to go there when it is being used for dirty political purposes. Not only in connection with Dingaan’s Day, but also in the church are politica being introduced.

Do you still go to church?

Reference has been made to Judaism, but hon. members opposite have attacked their approval to what recently happened at Bloemfontein, and they approve of the treacherous speeches there, and to-day regard themselves as good Afrikaners.

What speeches?

I want to refer the hon. member to what I said a little while ago, and if he institutes an enquiry he will find that I am right. He had now better remain silent.

When did you last go to church? You are speaking so much about it.

The hon. member some time ago made the charge against soldiers of having attacked him in the train. I just want to say what I heard from soldiers who were on the train. The hon. member was lying dreaming and made a terrible noise. Then the soldiers thought that they should go to his assistance, and they rushed to his compartment. The hon. member then woke up and he saw the soldiers, and then he brought forward the story that they had attacked him. They wanted to assist him in his alarm. I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition was entitled to move a resolution of this kind. They are absolutely divided. The hon. member for Waterberg dare not any more even accept the leadership for the Transvaal. They may not even debate leadership. There are now joint leaders. They may not debate the republican question. They may not even discuss the name of their party. Now I ask whether a party of that kind has the right to move a motion of no confidence, and to set itself up as the alternative government. Of course, it is hopeless for them ever to get into office. No, I can give hon. members the assurance that we declared war, and they are making a great mistake if they think that we will not see the war through. The remark has often been made as to why we do not go to the war. I just want to tell them that some of us here must remain to protect people like the hon. members on the other side.

When a motion of this kind is introduced by a responsible leader of a party, then one expects it will be done only after he has assured himself of the validity of the reasons which have induced him to introduce such a motion. The Leader of the Opposition stated his reason here yesterday. The Prime Minister replied. The Leader of the Afrikaner Party put forward his strong grounds why we have no confidence in the United Party, and still less in the Re-united Party. The question of confidence and no confidence in any government in our country will always be more or less connected with the measure of success or otherwise which such a government has in its action in regard to the maintenance of equilibrium between the two big European sections of the population, viewed in the light of a clear historical perspective. The Afrikaans-speaking section of the population has been living in this country approximately 300 years, the English-speaking section about 150 years. Since they first made the acquaintance of each other there has, from the nature of things, been a conflict, envy and competition. These conflicts, in the course of years, ended in the shedding of blood, in hatred, envy, bitterness and misunderstanding, with all their ancillary evil results. The establishment of the two British colonies in South Africa, after the conquest, and the arising of the two Afrikaans-speaking republics, characterises the zenith of the competitive process. This process ultimately ended in the bloody struggle of 1899-1902, after which the Afrikaner of South Africa was stretched out in weakness and powerless at the feet of the conqueror: Without hope, economically ruined, spiritually humiliated, and hurt. South Africa was therefore a heteregenous jumble, in which despair, sorrow, seething hatred and bitterness reigned supreme. The conqueror eventually had to take notice of this state of affairs. The leaders of Afrikanerdom raised their heads, made demands, negotiated, formed plans and consulted with the conqueror to create a new South Africa out of the chaos and build the heteregeneous elements gradually into a South African nation. The Union of South Africa was the result of all that. The whole of South Africa was filled with hope and courage when this important milestone was reached, because everybody believed that under the new Union a new dawn had come in South Africa which would mean (1) language equality, (2) civil equality and (3) political equality for the whole of the population. It was, as a matter of fact, General Hertzog who placed these foundations for national unity and national happiness in the immediate foreground. Nominally, the whole nation accepted it; in practice there was very soon a rude awakening when the people in office shrank back under the compulsion of one section of the population. Four years later, in 1914, these foundation stones, the only ones on which national happiness and national unity could ever be built up, were recklessly put aside when the principle of equality was recklessly violated and South Africa was plunged into a European war. The war went by. It brought with it its aftermath of bitterness. General Hertzog remained on the political scene. He continued to propogate his attitude of equality. South Africa progressed. The principle of equality commenced to have the victory in language matters, in constitutional matters, in civil affairs. It looked as if a new era of national unity, coherence and esprit-de-corp had come for the people of South Africa, when suddenly a new cruel occurrence overtook South Africa in September, 1939: a new European war, out of which General Hertzog wanted to keep South Africa. The Prime Minister of to-day is one of the outstanding dramatis personae, who was going to see South Africa through all those difficult times. He assisted in making its history No one had a better comprehension than he of the misery which South Africa had already experienced in consequence of his own action when he, time after time, violated the principle of equality as laid down by General Hertzog. Does he expect this party to have, and cannot it have, confidence in his policy in such circumstances? The Prime Minister claims time after time that the decision to take part in the war was taken on a democratic basis. That is a shield behind which he hides every time that the matter is raised, although he is not entitled to take up that attitude. The principle of equality as explained by General Hertzog is at stake. It is a matter of equality, equality between British and Boer, between Afrikaans-speaking people and English-speaking people, no Minister, no government, has the right in a matter like war to push the principle aside simply on a majority decision of this House. It is a matter concerning the people. If you declare war then you need the consent of both sections of the population. The Prime Minister would not dare, in the times we are living in, to bring about any constitutional change without consulting the English-speaking section of the population. What right did we have to endanger the form of government which we have at present without consulting the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population. When you have to do with two sections of the population, as in South Africa, then such a resolution of Parliament in connection with a matter of war is not sufficient. Now what are the consequences of his new trick? (1) He takes South Africa back to the times which existed before; (2) he has lost his historic perspective on his way to establish and to promote British holism; (3) he has again unchained all the forces of hate, discord, disputes, envy and bitterness; (4) he refuses to learn that equality must prevail in South Africa in respect of both sections of the people; (5) he is wasting and spending South Africa’s money recklessly, and is condemning her to stand still and sterility in economic matters; (6) he has allowed the chance of his lifetime to pass of consolidating South Africa once and for all, and of making mutual racial trust permanent; (7) he has been captured by a war spirit verging on hysteria, which is being inspired by the ultraimperialists in South Africa. Hence his muddled outlook on South Africa’s interests and the creation of the impression that he is behaving more and more strangely towards his own compatriots. Does he expect confidence to exist under such circumstances? Why did he not follow the example of Ireland, and keep South Africa out of the Eurpean maelstrom? He would, in that way, have gained the everlasting thanks of a grateful posterity—Afrikaans- and English-speaking—in spite of the fact that the ultraimperial section would have despised him. But, Mr. Speaker, if this motion were to be agreed to, then the question arises, what and who is to constitute the alternative Government? The Leader of the Opposition mentioned that he and his party would then be called upon to take over the reins of office. To my own mind and that of my party, it appears to be just as impossible for the Government in office to continue on the fierce wave of war on which they are to-day being carried forward, because the direction which will then be followed, judging by the spirit which is to-day the authoritative one in the party, South Africa would be plunged into the same state of restlessness, running amok and reckless conduct in other directions. No, there is only one national basis on which South Africa can be governed with success, and that is as laid down by that great figure, James Barry Munnik Hertzog— the layer of the foundations of a political code in South Africa, the germ of which is going to be perpetual in South Africa: (1) Language equality, (2) civil equality under the slogan of South Africa first, and (3) political equality. It is now said by leading lights on the other side that we undervalue Gen. Hertzog’s great services as leader of the fight of nationalism possibly against British imperialism, by representing the position that Hertzogism is the struggle for equal rights. This, of course , is a serious misrepresentation of the sort which one can expect in these days, and it has been mentioned since 1933. No one, unless he is a stranger in Jerusalem, dare deny that the policy of Gen. Hertzog (call it the Hertzog-Havenga policy if you like) has up to the present been the most effective weapon for propagating South African nationalism, and for fighting the British imperial policy. I referred to Gen. Hertzog’s equality policy in its three phases—(1) language equality, under the slogan South Africa first, and (3) political equality. When, therefore, it is now denied that the germ of Gen. Hertzog’s policy was that of equality on a national basis, I want to ask whether it is suggested, then, that he was struggling for inequality, namely, the domination of the Afrikaner over the Englishman? What, then, in short, is the real difference in policy between what we will now call the Botha policy, the Malan policy and the Hertzog policy? Gen. Botha first of all looked for unity by Empire service, and hoped thereafter to reinstate equality. Examine his Education Act in the Transvaal carefully. The policy has failed hopelessly. The Malan policy has been wanting ever since 1933 to commit the same blunder, but from another direction. They are only aiming at a republic now in order thereafter to establish equality; just as little as Gen. Botha succeeded in converting the majority of the population to his point of view, and in his attempt sent his party to destruction, just so little will the Leader of the Opposition, with his cognate policy, succeed in converting the majority of the people to his point of view, and his party will be ruined in the attempt. The only policy which, in the circumstances of our heterogeneously constituted population, can succeed is the one already laid down by Gen. Hertzog in 1913, namely, first of all equality on a South African national basis, and then national unity. That policy was the policy of the Nationalist Party while Gen. Hertzog was the leader of it. It is the policy of the Afrikaner Party, which is carrying on the same national struggle against British domination, which the Nationalist Party carried on under Gen. Hertzog. While Gen. Botha’s policy was a policy of conciliation on a false basis, and the policy of Dr. Malan was a policy of isolation, also on a false basis, the policy, on the other hand, of the Afrikaner Party, racial co-operation, is on a footing of equality on an Afrikaans national basis. In other words, the policy of Hertzogism— honour to whom honour is due—a policy which meant racial peace to South Africa during the first Ministry; and also industrial peace and prosperity; constitutional advancement on the way of complete freedom. Speaking politically, one cannot omit, so far as South Africa is concerned, to deplore the fact that the seat of that great figure is vacant to-day, and to say with Hamlet, about Gen. Hertzog—

I am sorry that the formation of the Afrikaner Party has evoked so much venom on the part of the Leader of the Opposition. I think that the manner in which the Leader of the Opposition behaved in regard to the origin of the Afrikaner Party is not worthy of him. He called it the Conroy Party, and the disintegration party. And then he gives this party his advice. We would welcome his advice if he would give it to us in a spirit of good feeling and goodwill, and not in a spirit of venom and bitterness, such as that in which he has done. The Leader of the Opposition started with a serious reflection on the leader of the Afrikaner Party. Has he forgotten that our leader holds his appointment here as a member of the Native Affairs Commission not by the grace of the Prime Minister who sits opposite, but of the former Prime Minister, and Minister of Native Affairs, who was then in office? When, then, he puts things on a high ethical basis, when he gives that advice, he forgot there has for a very long time been a person in his party who occupies a high post in the party, who held his appointment by the grace of the previous Prime Minister, and he has forgotten to give that advice to that other gentleman as well. I hope that South Africa will welcome the existence of this party, and I make bold to say that I know that on both sides of the House we shall be looked upon with a certain amount of, what shall I call it?—anxiety. But at the same time I want to say this, that however much we may be despised, a flame has been lighted, even if it is only a small start, which neither the Government nor the Opposition will be able or dare to put out. They may attack us and try to squeeze us to death. I have pointed out the spirit of excitement and war hysteria which has arisen in consequence of the war, but calm will come back again, and in those days the only way for South Africa is the way which the Afrikaner Party indicates, the way of Hertzogism, and that is why I thought it necessary to express these few ideas.

I would like, briefly, to associate myself with the motion of the Leader of the Opposition, in which he expresses no confidence in the Government, and I want to give a few reasons why I am doing so. I just want to say here that after the comparatively serious complaints made by the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister rose and he tried to shake off the matter easily by briefly saying: I plead not guilty. He made the impression on me, I could not help thinking of it, of the title of one of Vondel’s poems on Mary Stuart, namely, “Die Vermoorde Onnoseldheid,” which of course means murdered innocence. The Prime Minister wanted to tell this House that he was absolutely innocent, that he was the murdered innocent. Nevertheless I think that the Prime Minister deserved the chastisement that he got from the Leader of the Opposition, and I think that he deserved a great deal more. He took South Africa by the neck and dragged her into this unnecessary war, and so far as the object of the war is concerned, I just want briefly to say this. The Leader of the Opposition again asked: What are we actually fighting for now? We have already heard so many different reasons and war aims that we no longer know at all where we are, and I want to remind the House of the fact that the day before yesterday the same question was debated in the British Parliament, and I see a British Minister, Mr. Greenwood, said that England would not state its war aims until it had conquered. Just imagine, here we have a Government which itself tells the people that it is not going to say what it is fighting for before the country has won the war. If they win, then the world, England herself and we may possibly know the reason why the war was conducted. If they lose the war then we shall never know what they fought for. So far as South Africa is concerned, the position is not much better for us, because we do not yet know why we had to enter into the war. The few reasons which were given to us are not at all adequate. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) told us that we were not fighting for the Empire but we were fighting with the Empire. In other words, we are fighting on our own. Neither did she tell us what we were fighting for. She only said that we were fighting with the Empire. If the Empire had not declared war, would she have been in favour of fighting on our own? Would the Government have declared war if England had not declared war? I see that there will be a radio talk to-night by Professor Haarhoff, and he will speak on the subject “We are fighting for the freedom of South Africa.” Will the Prime Minister and the whole of his Cabinet try to persuade us that our freedom was in such danger that we would have taken part in the war, and have gone to war even if England had remained quite out of it. It is only necessary to put the point in that way to realise how ridiculous that proposition is. I do not know what the contents of Professor Haarhoff’s talk are going to be. I only know what the subject is. But I say this, that the Government does not believe it, and Prof. Haarhoff himself does not believe that South Africa is fighting for her freedom.

How much is he paid for the talk?

I do not say that he is only doing it for the money. Perhaps he is not being paid. But I say this, that it is not true that we are fighting for the freedom of South Africa, because our freedom was not threatened. If England had not declared war, then we would not have known that the freedom of South Africa was in danger. In the meantime I say that the Prime Minister has dragged us into the war by the neck, and he is responsible for the divisions that exist amongst the people, divisions such as we have seldom or never had in our country before. The poor Afrikaner people are inclined to divisions, and to encourage that tendency of division in the case of such a people who already have that tendency was a wrong step on the part of the Prime Minister. He divided the people to such an extent that he even tore his own party apart. By that act he split his own party and the party of Gen. Hertzog right through the middle. Apparently he was not scared by that, nor by the tyranny which he had established in South Africa. I do not want to speak again about those things which have taken place in the country. The Leader of the Opposition has already done so, but it cannot be so lightly allowed to pass that a tyranny should be permitted in this country, and the soldiers and sailors should commit violence towards the rest of the population. My own son is in Potchefstroom, and accordingly I got into close touch with what was happening. There we had a case of students who were attacked in that institution. When I was a student in that institution we were also attacked by soldiers, but we were armed, and we were able to place an armed group of students in the main building, when they threatened to burn it down. This Government first of all disarmed the students along with the rest of the population and then left them to the tender mercies of reckless soldiers. I have talked about divisions which the Government had brought into the country; I have referred to the assaults which took place and the destruction of buildings. We know enough about that, and I need not delay on it any longer. What is the intimidation which came from the side of the Government which is responsible for peace and order in South Africa? From top to bottom of the railway service, and I think also of the public service, we find that intimidation. As I have a considerable amount to do with the railway service, because people from time to time come to us with their difficulties, I can give the Government the assurance that there has been gross intimidation. There is more than intimidation. There is victimisation. I want to say this, that the Minister of Railways is not to blame for it as far as I can find out. He said in public—I think it was at Mossel Bay—that no one would be persecuted or victimised in the railway service on account of his political convictions. And I still believe that he keeps to that. But if he seriously means it, then he will have to institute enquiries in the office of the divisional superintendent and his chief clerk.

Immediately after he said that there were eight people kicked out in Mossel Bay.

He still sticks to that, but he stands alone.

He stands by that, but the hon. member says that he stands alone. There is no doubt that those things are going on. I had occasion this week to go to the Minister’s office to see him about at least two cases. The one affected a man who has been discharged from the service, and he is absolutely innocent as far as I can judge. I do not now want to go into the merits of the case. The other case affects a person who was in the service for years, and he was suddenly transferred. When I went to speak to the divisional superintendent in Johannesburg about it, he told me he could do nothing in regard to the matter because the orders came from head office. When I went to head office, I was in turn told that it probably was a case of promotion. That man just as little got promotion as I got promotion. It was an absolute case of victimisation with which we were concerned. He was compelled at a time when it was difficult for his family to move to go elsewhere, because his children were at school and were sitting for examinations That man has now been transferred back again, but the Minister knows how many representations it cost me. It is a rase of domination with which I had to deal. I had dozens of cases of intimidation with which I had to deal, and how many cases do not other hon. members here know of? In another case people were degraded on the Railways without there being any reason for it. Permit me to refer briefly to the extension of the emergency regulations which appeared in the Government Gazette. I do not want to dwell long on the matter, because I think that there are other hon. members who have possibly prepared a speech on it. The first regulation which I want to refer to is on page 288, paragraph 6, sub-paragraph 3. I will quote this paragraph, and then I will tell the House why I am mentioning it here. This paragraph reads as follows—

An Administrator or Minister can appoint anyone they wish to examine me, if I am in the public service, and I believe it applies to the Railway service as well, and he can then put me on oath so that I have to speak straightforwardly and tell everything that I know, not only about associations that are in existence, but about anything about which he feels inclined to ask any questions. That is a scandalous regulation. If it were not that during the past year we had had practical experience of that incredible victimisation and intimidation against the Afrikaansspeaking persons more particularly, we would not have been so disquieted about this regulation. The same people who persecuted the Afrikaners in the public service and Railway service in that way can now be appointed to put Afrikaners on oath, to examine them and to prosecute them if they wish. That is what these regulations amount to. The Prime Minister has a Cabinet which has full power. They can do what they like, and they also govern just as they like. And then they come and tell us that they are fighting for democracy. The Prime Minister is the man who spoke at St. Andrews in Scotland. He is the man to whom the Minister of Finance appealed when he spoke on liberty, as a matter of fact, on liberty of conscience and thought. I say that it is no use to use words like those which the Prime Minister used in Scotland to say that we are fighting for democracy, and then to compel us to live under such regulations. These regulations are just as drastic as any that could be made on earth under a dictatorship. While speaking on this matter I also want to refer to another regulation, and this is the one which deals with undermining statements. Here it is explained what an undermining statement is, and it lays down, inter alia—

That is No. 1. The Minister of Native Affairs laughs. I wonder whether he will still laugh when I get to the end of my speech.

That is the Minister of the Maginot Line.

In the second place, is states here that an undermining statement is a statement which is intended or will probably have the effect—

Can we find anything which goes still further? We may practically not say a word against the war policy of the Government. I want in all seriousness to ask the Prime Minister whether we may continue to hold meetings. May we, as an Opposition, still hold meetings? If I read these regulations aright, we can practically not say a word against the war policy of the Government, or the Government can immediately call us to account.

They want us to hold meetings, so that they prosecute us.

The regulations goes still further—

This means that we may not dissuade anyone from joining up with the army. We may not prevent a recruiting meeting. We will not do so. Fortunately, it is not necessary, because the consciences of the people are alive. Then we come to the fourth point—

What do you mean by a “feeling of hostility?” We are rendering ourselves liable to a fine if we do anything which comes under this paragraph, and we would like very much to know what this clause means. Suppose I hold a meeting, and I speak there as a party man, I criticise the war policy of the Government, then I believe that I arouse a certain amount of feeling of hostility towards the Government party. Can I then hold that meeting, or must it be a very mealie-mouthed affair, so sweet that I might just as well remain at home? There will certainly be other speakers getting up on the opposite side, and I beliey the Minister as well, and I shall be glad if you will explain this paragraph to us. They must tell us whether we can continue to hold meetings, and if we may make political speeches there, or whether we shall become punishable under the provisions of this clause. Let the Government be honest and straightforward with us. If they do not want us to hold meetings, then let them prohibit the meetings. I believe that they do not want to do so openly. If they wanted to do that then they could have proclaimed martial law. This will, of course, mean that their own meetings were also prohibited. No, they only want to stop the meetings of the Opposition. Then let them come forward honestly, and tell the people that they are prohibiting the meetings of the Opposition, so that only the Government party can hold meetings. They must not publish emergency regulations which contain these provisions which they can apply arbitrarily. If I do not read this paragraph wrongly, then we are now faced not only with victimisation of individuals, but with victimisation of a whole party. In the fifth place, an undermining statement is regarded as a statement which is intended to have the effect, or probably will have—

I say again: Will it still be possible to say a single word about the war at a public meeting? As it stands here, you may not say anything which will weaken the confidence of the public, or of a section of the public, in the successful ending of the war.

Quite right.

According to that hon. member, it is of course quite right, but then let South Africa know what domination they are exercising here, and then do not let us talk about nothing else than freedom and a war for freedom.

That is war.

Then let us know that we have been taken by the necks in South Africa and dragged into a war, and that we are being deprived of our freedom by people who are not at the front. It is those people who should go to the war, but who are still remaining here, who are applying these regulations to us, and then come and tell us that we must fight for liberty. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) wants to win the war by talking in Parliament. I do not want to say anything more about these emergency regulations. I think these few cases which I have mentioned have proved to the country the calibre which these emergency regulations are made of. I said that I would give reasons why I was supporting the motion of the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition referred to the position of the farmer, and in connection with that the Prime Minister also shrugged his shoulders, and said: I am innocent. He goes still further and he says that many farmers are in as flourishing condition to-day as they can hope to be in the circumstances. I would like the Prime Minister to go to the Paarl amongst the fruit farmers and hold a meeting. He should go there, or send the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Agriculture, who mentioned the story about “lying and rotting.” Let them go and hold meetings at the Paarl among the people who grow export grapes. The Cape Town markets are full of the large black grapes, and also of the white grapes which we have never bought here before, because they are not nice. In England they want beautiful grapes, but not nice grapes. Here now we are left with grapes which the farmers cannot sell, and I again invite the Minister of Agriculture to go and hold a meeting at the Paarl.

What do you propose?

My hon. friend asks what I propose. They dragged us into the war, and they promised the farmers that they would be able to sell the produce when we were in the war. If we had remaind out of the war, then the farmers would possibly have been in the same position, so far as their produce is concerned, but then we should not, in addition, have wasted £60,000,000 on a war with the result that the farmers have to pay heavy taxes, in spite of the fact that they are saddled with their produce. I understand that we cannot even get a return any longer of the quantity of wool which is lying in our harbours. It is forbidden for it to be published. Nevertheless the Prime Minister says that things are going excellently with the wool farmer. What quantity of mealies has been exported? And one of these days we shall have the new harvest on us. It is not necessary to dwell long on these things, but let me tell the Prime Minister, who rose here with a cloak of innocence about him, that, apart from the fact that the farmers cannot export their produce, and all the difficulties that they have, they do not any longer even get a meteorological reports today. They can only be broadcast after a definite time, and it is said that if it were done at once then the enemy might possibly hear it and make use of his knowledge of the weather conditions. Is that not a ridiculous state of affairs. Have we not then got every right to move a vote of no confidence in such a Prime Minister, and in such a Government? What state is the country and the farming population in today? One scheme after the other that was intended for the farmers has been cancelled. Is it because there is no money, or is it because that money has only to be used for the war? The same farmers who cannot export their produce have to pay higher prices for their commodities. I am certain whom the farmers believe, the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. I am afraid that the Government which is in office to-day is turning our people into slaves, in a military sense, or it is trying to do so. We know that the old Romans used to tie up their enemies in the war to war chariots and drag them along in that way. This Government has dragged us into the war, and tied us up to the British war chariot, with which we are being dragged forward. We must pay; our people are discharged from the service to compel them to join up with the army. Let me tell the Prime Minister that a grudge is being accumulated which is always soaring higher and higher in the feelings of our people, and we cannot stop it. He will not be able to stop it either. You can try to suppress the internal powers of resistance of a person, but the more you suppress them the stiffer does the spring of resistance become, and there comes a day when the spring breaks. The Government is engaged, I say, in withstanding that resistance by bringing forward British imperialism more and more strongly, but the reaction will come. This motion of the Leader of the Opposition makes me think of the English expression: “Coming events casts their shadows before them.” This motion is simply the shadow which is already falling across the path of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. The day of reckoning will come, and then I assure my hon. friends that when that day comes there will be no mercy, in a political sense. Now I come closer to the point. As I have said, the Minister of Native Affairs will not laugh when I get to the end of my speech. Let me tell you this. It has constantly been mentioned by the other side, I believe again this afternoon by the Minister without Portfolio, in connection with the so-called new order. I prophesy that the Government and all of us here are not going to stop the coming of a new order in South Africa, and I personally shall not be sorry if this pernicious English party system is thrown overboard, because it has constantly divided our people, and constantly plunged them into a sea of discord and dissension with the hollow cry of democracy. I shall welcome the day when a new order comes about in South Africa, when we shall have a government which will not exist in the interests of the mining magnates, not in the interests of the big capitalists, not in the interests of this one or the other, but a government which will stand for the people as a great whole, which will look after the interests of the South African people, and all who have actually adopted South Africa as their home—a government which will do so in deeds and not in nice promises. Then you will have a government which will put economic interests in the foreground, and which will live and work for our country, a government which will see to it that the people as a great whole comes into its rights, which will see to it that the Afrikaner willreceive something of his birthright. We certainly want to have a new order of things, and we are certain that we shall get it under the republican form of government. The Afrikaner people can only be happy under that form of government. We have no royal palace. The people who want to have a king must belong to a people which has a royal palace. The Afrikaner people have no such thing. Under the new order which will come, both languages and the members of the cultural societies of both sections of the white population will be respected. I do not believe, from what I know of it, that there will be room for British imperialism and jingoism, and allow me to say a word in this connection. I think it was the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) who also referred to it. I am now referring to the attitude of the church, the objections which are said to have come from the side of the church against the new order so far as the scheme has already been worked out by the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow). Let me just say this, let me just quote something in connection with the scheme. It contains, inter alia, the words—

The man who wants to live like a foreigner will be treated like a foreigner under the new order. But I want to go further in connection with the so-called religious objection. On page 11 of this little book in connection with the new order, it says—

Christian in this sense, “that the ethical values of the Christian doctrine will everywhere be the deciding factor in the national life.” I only say this, that there is no party at the moment, either on the other side of the House or here, which so clearly emphasises Christian principles than what is done here, where it says that they are to be the deciding factor everywhere in the national life. The definitely un-Christian elements will have no say in the State. Let us be honest and honourable. I am speaking about this matter because it was raised by the other side of the House. The people who go to the synagogue and the mosque will have no vote under the new order.

Is that Christian?

It will not be merely a matter of words on paper, but South Africa will be governed on a Christian basis. The national socialistic Afrikaner State will be a Christian Republic. The national socialistic Afrikaner State will, without denying the rights of other groups, direct itself to that source of power which has become the founder of our independent nationhood and culture, namely, the Afrikaans-speaking, Protestant section of the people in South Africa. That will be the point which will be the deciding factor. Other groups will not be suppressed, but this will be the deciding factor. I think that if we had introduced such ideals earlier, and had had a government sooner which was less concerned in increasing the burdens of the people, as this Government is now doing with its war policy, and was less concerned with dividing the people asunder, as this Government has done with its policy, then we should have had better conditions in our country. This Government only thinks of one section of the population, and the deciding factor is given by a section of that part, the foreigners who have never yet really become one with South Africa. If we had sooner had a government in office such as I have advocated then we should not have had all the divisions and trouble in South Africa. For that reason I hope that the day will soon approach—and I am convinced of it that no one will be able to stop it—when we shall have a new order on a national socialistic basis. I am not afraid of those words for one moment. What is wrong with “national”? What is wrong with socialistic”? If you do not have them, if you do not have a nationalistic socialistic basis, a government which stands for the people as a whole, then you get sections which dominate the other sections, then you find that one section exploits the other under so-called democratic principles. Then you find that the financial group—as we have found in South Africa— will strangle the people. Thank God that we are going to have a new order, and that then the parasite will disappear. He will have to disappear and the government of the day will make him disappear. Hon. members opposite come forward with a few irresponsible words of abuse. Let them make a study of the new order. Then they will feel that we, together with them, can progress along the road of a new order on a national socialistic basis.

The hon. member who has just sat down must have found it rather difficult to associate himself with this motion of no confidence. If I remember rightly, he is the one who, at the Transvaal congress of his party, spoke of the unsound element which had latterly come to the front. He spoke of a process of purification.

Speak for yourself.

He spoke about the ulcers. The hon. member said that there was something very unsound in the body of his party. He spoke of an unhealthy ulcer which had rooted itself deeply into the party, and he said that a knife would have to be used to cut it out. The knife was, as a matter of fact, used, and a piece was cut out, namely, the best and the healthiest part of the body. The part fell away, and it is now the Afrikaner Party. They are still standing for neutrality, and although we differ from them we respect their opinion. But for the remaining section who are nothing but Nazis, we cannot have any respect. It is just the ulcer which has remained behind, and it will continue to fester and cause pain. The hon. member is the last man to speak on a motion of no confidence, because before he can support a motion of no confidence he and his friends must prove that they have confidence in themselves. Before anyone can make claim to that, and to control the business of another man, he must give proof that he is master in his own house Has the Leader of the Opposition given any proof of that? After the devastating statement in the matter of the breaking-up which has taken place—I mean the statement of the Leader of the Afrikaner Party and his followers—it is practically superfluous to go further into the matter. But allow me to mention a few things. Gen. Hertzog said in this House that the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan) has always been consistently disloyal to every great principle for which they were fighting together during their cooperation. Yet Gen. Hertzog was prepared, on the 4th September, 1939, to trust the hon. gentleman again. He thought that in spite of the past, and in spite of the fact that the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) had proved that he was not trustworthy, he might venture it once more, and he identified himself with the Leader of the Opposition. When we speak of loyalty, then we do really expect a different kind of treatment than that which was given to Gen. Hertzog by hon. members on the other side. We could detain the House for a long time with other examples of disloyalty. The hon. member there spoke about political hypocrisy. He did not hesitate to make use of religion to set out his political hypocrisy. The case of the Ascension Day session is still fresh in our memory, and it is unnecessary for me to go into it. I mention it only as the grossest abuse of religious feeling which has ever yet taken place here. Greater hypocrisy could not be committed by a man who at one time was a minister of the Gospel.

The hon. member is going too far. He will have to modify his language.

I like to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, but there is so much abuse being made, and so much religion being dragged in, and politics are so often carried on under the cloak of religion, that we feel that we cannot always remain quiet, and that we should also raise our voice against it. But I express my regret for what I said if it went too far. To return. What right has the party to expect it of us, to expect it of the people, that he should be trusted? We take another hon. member, a prominent leader of the party. I am now thinking of Senator Fourie. I understand that he is one of the leaders in the other place. Has he proved to Gen. Hertzog that he is a man in whom any confidence could be shown? If the accident were to occur that the party opposite ever came into office, then he will probably be one of their Ministers. But can we, after the way in which he treated Gen. Hertzog, place any confidence in him? Here we are dealing not only with a case of shameful ingratitude, but also with the grossest abuse of confidence. It is said of us that we are the lackeys of the Empire, but what has become of the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow)? He is the lackey to-day of his new fuehrers, of the hon. members for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom), Winburg (Mr. Swart), and Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). He takes pleasure in cleaning their boots, just because he thinks that he will in that way retain his seat; but he will be disappointed. I come back to what the hon. member for Marico (the Rev. C. W. M. du Toit) said. He said that the emergency regulations which have now been issued are too severe. But whose fault is it that the Government were compelled to publish these emergency regulations? We had to listen to a great deal in the House in connection with alleged immorality on the part of the soldiers, but the other side is never stated to the House and the public. Only yesterday I received telegrams from my constituency that riots had taken place owing to the supporters of the Ossewa-Brandwag. We never hear anything about that from the other side of the House. Did we ever hear that they disapproved of the attacks by organised bands on defenceless soldiers and citizens? Do they approve or disapprove of that? Who is to blame for those attacks being made? Hon. members over there have greatly contributed by speeches they have made, to excite the minds of the public. They are encouraging the public by their speeches, and then they expect that we on our side will do nothing. If any responsibility has to be attributed for the issue of the regulations, then it must be laid to the charge of the other side of the House. It is their fault. Have they, as a responsible party, contributed anything to assist in the maintenance of order in the country? No, it is their fault that the riots have taken place, and it is not their fault that they have not been on a larger scale. I say again that in no other country in the world would you have found a Government which was so patient and long-suffering in connection with the occurrences as this Government has been. But, unfortunately, the concessions of the Government are abused, and to-day we are obliged of necessity to issue the emergency regulations. I only hope that they will be firmly applied, so that no further riots will take place in the future. The hon. member for Waterberg has with his usual fire and flame expressed his disapproval of the Prime Minister. He charged him with having been the cause of our not having any racial co-operation in the country. Was his speech calculated to promote racial co-operation? Does he long for that? Does he want to have co-operation between the races, or does he hold fast to the idea of Afrikaner mastery, of domination by one section over the other? If he really desires co-operation, then he must keep himself from that kind of speech, then he must not exploit the bitterness of the past to inflame the racial feelings. What has happened in the past has gone by. Our duty is to work for the future. We can take off our hats to the past, but then we must take off our jackets for the future. We have a greater duty to the future. If we arouse race hatred, then we are doing something which will cause the greatest damage in the future. We stand where we do because we are sacredly convinced of the fact that our policy is in the interests of South Africa. We expect the other side to point out to us where we are wrong. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) said that our salvation only lay in a German victory. I want to ask him to make a statement, and to tell us on what grounds he said that. Did he get it direct from Zeesen, or through the mediation of the hon. member for Gezina? What does he base the statement on? Does he think that he will retain his seat in that way? No, if the Germans come here, he will not retain his seat. Let me mention one case of a person in South-West, a great karakul sheep farmer. He was wanting a manager for his farm, and an Afrikaner applied for the appointment. He sent in his testimonials, and gave proof of being a competent farmer. Then the German said to him: “Very well, I am convinced of the fact that you are a capable farmer, and have the experience to manage my farming operations. I will give you the appointment, but I want to know something about you. What are your politics?” Then he said: “Sir, on that point I can set you at rest. You need not worry yourself about my politics; I am absolutely opposed to Gen. Smuts and the Government.” Then the German said: “If you are disloyal to your own people, you cannot serve me. Here are your papers back.” I want to ask hon. members opposite to give the proof that this land will be benefited from a German victory. They have already made prophecies which have all been proved idle. I want now to ask’ them whether it will be in our interests for Germany to win. Gen. Hertzog, the greatest authority on the other side, said that the Afrikaner who was looking for any benefit to South Africa from a German victory, was a fool. If that is the case, are we then to look for our salvation in a victory by the opposite side? From whom?

From yourself.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) will not be able to assist us if the largest and richest country in the world, with a steel production twice as large as that of all the other countries put together, thinks that the freedom of America is only safe as long as there is a free England and a British navy, then what about us? We stand where we stand because we are absolutely convinced of it that it is in our interests. With us it is a serious matter. I see the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) is in his place. We hear so much about wool. Has he possibly sold his sheep? Our farmers are satisfied with their wool cheques.

We are not.

I would like to know from the hon. member whether he has sold his sheep. He has not. On the contrary he is buying more sheep. All the talk of a German victory is so much nonsense, but they are misleading the people in the country. They have been talking all this time about a German victory, but now that has been frustrated, and now they no longer speak about it. They still tell the poor people on the countryside that if Germany wins it will no longer be necessary for the poor people to work. They say: “Help us to stab the Government in the back, and if Hitler wins, then each one of you will get a farm.” That is what they are getting the people in the country to believe, but here they no longer speak of a German victory.

Don’t talk nonsense.

I am not talking nonsense. I can give many proofs that they said to the poor people: “Stand by us, and if the Germans win, you will be masters.”

Who said that?

What right have they to tell that to the people?

Who are “they”?

The Opposition. I can mention numbers of cases. The other day a young man in our town wanted to join the technical training college. He possessed nothing, was not very well educated, but there he had a chance of learning a trade, and to be paid in addition. But then members of the Ossewa-Brandwag came and persuaded him against it, saying that he should not join it, that he rather ought to join up with the Ossewa-Brandwag, and they said that as long as he joined the Ossewa-Brandwag he was safe. Was that showing a service to the boy? Let the hon. members opposite give us the proofs that if we follow them, and if the country follows them, it is to our advantage to conclude a peace to-morrow with Germany. Then we will listen to them. But if they come into office what will the position be then? What terms of peace will they get from Germany? Will they be prepared to surrender the best part of the Union and to welcome the Germans here? And how is Germany to come here and help them? The statement is ridiculous, it is nonsense. The motion of no confidence has exposed the nakedness of the Opposition as never before, and there is not the least danger that the people will support them.

It is most remarkable how seriously concerned hon. members on the other side are as far as this party and the treatment Gen. Hertzog received are concerned. The hon. member who has just sat down for instance asked how they can trust us after we have treated Gen. Hertzog in the manner in which he has been treated according to their views. He asked how one can have faith in a party which has treated Gen. Hertzog in such a manner. But how can the public trust them, seeing that they stabbed Gen. Hertzog in the back.

We did not stab Gen. Hertzog from behind, we differed from him openly.

What did they do to Gen. Hertzog when on the 4th September he proclaimed the point of view of what would be, in his opinion, the best course for our country? They betrayed him then. They are the last people who can accuse us of betrayal and of being unfaithful to our principles. Furthermore hon. members ask what we have done and what the Ossewa-Brandwag has done to maintain order in this country. I ask them to tell us where and when we took Up an agressive attitude or disturbed the peace in the country? Dit we ever attack anybody, did we attack the universitis, did we attack newspaper premises?

You attacked the troops.

We are very sorry to notice that the hon: member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler) has also been taught the ways of a parrot.

He fought his election with money from De Beers. That is the trouble.

The hon. member for Kimberley District now dishes up the story of the soldiers who have been attacked. Where dit it happen?

Didn’t you read the evidence which was given before the Commission?

I did read the evidence in connection with the happenings at Potchefstroom and I also read the report. What most astonished us, of course, is that no steps where taken in connection with the lawlessness that took place and that no steps were taken against the soldiers. I think not one of them was punished.

Children of the Cross!

What sort of cross do you worship?

Order!

We want facts just as we give them facts. When and where did members of the Ossewa-Brandwag ever attack soldiers? All kinds of accusations are made, but no facts are given. It has even been asserted that the Ossewa-Brandwag is practising with machine guns. Can you find anything more ridiculous in this country than that hullabaloo. Where on earth do those persons obtain the machine guns with which they are supposed to practise? I wish that oiir friends when making such accusations would come here with actual facts, so that we from our side can submit the facts of the cases where we have been attacked. To-day we are being attacked in our own country, so that we are no longer safe. Before going further, I should like to address a few words to my friends here on my left, the Afrikaner Party. First of all I want to tell them that the motion of no-confidence now before the House is not a motion of no-confidence in the Leader of the Reunited Party, but a motion of no-confidence in the Government. Since they are prepared to support this motion, they would do well to fight with us and not against us in, shall I say, a most vicious manner.

Yes, their attacks were vicious.

Let them fight the Government and abstain from making those vicious attacks on our Leader. The accusations they have made against us we shall settle somewhere else. Perhaps at Smithfield and Fauresmith. But is is most regrettable that our friends now attack the Government and the next moment the Opposition. That is slightly improper. I want to ask them not to continue so and I want to congratulate the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen) on not having gone to the extreme of attacking the Opposition. Let us attack our common enemy.

What party do you belong to now?

. Seeing that the hon. Minister wants to know from me to which party I now belong. I want to tell him that I very well remember the time when he very severely attacked the present Prime Minister. I must admit that the hon. Minister can hit very hard when he makes an attack, and I can remember how hard he hit the Prime Minister and that party on the other side. But where is he sitting to-day? He asks me to which party I belong. I am still with the party to which I belonged when I came to this House and I hope I shall remain in that party. When this motion of no-confidence was introduced the Prime Minister replied in a most contumelious manner, and said that if this motion were to have the slightest chance of being adopted, there should be an alternative Government which could take the place of the present Government. We know very well that as we are sitting here to-day we are not in a position to form a government. But let the Government give us a chance to appeal to the country and then we shall show the alternative which exists to form another Government. The main thing, however, is this. He says he sees before him a crumbled party which has fallen to pieces and that he does not know how many more splits there will be. I just want to tell the Prime Minister that he can at least not boast of the parties sitting behind him. I can very well imagine what will happen when the war is over; then those parties will fall apart again. The Dominion Party will not remain in it and the Minister of Labour and his party will certainly not remain in the Government. What will then be left? Why does the Prime Minister boast such a great deal with his consolidated party. The very moment when the war is over he will find that he has no party left behind him. We all hope that when the war is over some day, he will take his courage in both hands and go to the country with a general election.

He won’t do it.

If he does, we shall show him the alternative that exists of forming another government. The hon. member for Kimberley District unfortunately is not in his seat. I should have liked to address a few words to him in connection with the speech he made yesterday afternoon in this House. He was very proud of our wool position, and told us how well off we are and how safe we are, and that we can sell our wool at a fixed price during the war and also during the year after the war. This year after the war will perhaps be the worst. That is the time when all those countries which are not now in a position to buy will be eager to buy wool on the market. Perhaps they will pay far better prices than the Imperial Government will pay. But I want to tell the hon. member that we as wool farmers are none too well off. I also want to tell him that I am now talking as a wool farmer who is not ashamed of the quality he produces. Before this English wool scheme came into force I obtained a price which was higher than the price I receive under the scheme. This was at least as good and better, and before the war the average price of my wool was equal to that which the English Government offers now. Our wool farmers were prepared to take the risk of selling their wool in the open market, but then we should have had a well-meaning government, a government which would have been prepared to keep the market open, and if necessary the Government could have done what the British Government is doing now. They could have bought our wool and have speculated with it and given us a part of the profits. What is happening to-day? We sell our wool to the British Government. Do they buy it out of pure sympathy towards us? Do they buy it for their own use? Oh, no, that is not the position. They buy it from us in order to speculate, and when we remember that they made £70,000,000 profit on the wool they bought from us during the last war, it is as clear as daylight why they are so keen to buy our wool again at the present time. Our misfortune was that we had a government which was unwilling to do anything and which refused to help in any way whatever. They only had one object, and that was to sell our wool to the British Government, and nothing else. Last year I said that our wool farmers will contribute the largest share of the war expenditure under this scheme. In my own district we find farmers contributing as much as £100 and £150. I still maintain that our wool farmers of South Africa under this scheme as a whole are going to contribute most towards the expenditure of this war with which we have nothing to do and into which we have been dragged. I should like to tell the hon. member for Kimberley District also the following: He bitterly complained of the people in the country not believing his stories. Well, if he tells the same stories there that he told us yesterday in this House, I am not surprised at all that they do not believe him. If we only think of the experience he had at Somerset East. There he also told his stories. Incidentally I may mention that he appeared there before an audience which is as enlightened as one may hope to get anywhere in the country. I see the hon. member has just come in, and I want to tell him that I am not surprised that the people in the rural areas do not believe his stories, judging from the stories he told us here. I believe he is still thinking of that experience he had at Somerset East. I was not present at that meeting. He spoke to an audience which is capable of judging matters itself, and the result was that he got a formidable vote of no confidence.

They tell me I shall get a vote of confidence when I come next time.

I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition would certainly have failed in his duties if he had not proposed a motion of no confidence in this government at the present time. When on the 4th September this government most unfortunately came into power, we at once felt that a period of difficulties and unrest was to come, and not only a period of unrest, but we felt that we were also facing a period of danger. We have had the experience in the past under the government of the present Prime Minister. Those were times of unrest and danger. If the Leader of the Opposition had not proposed his vote of no confidence at this stage, he would certainly have neglected his duty. And what we feared in view of our past experience of the present Prime Minister has come to pass. Never before as far as I can remember have we had such a feeling in the country as we have at present. I have never before seen feelings run so high as they do to-day. There are various reasons for it. First of all we had the taking away of arms from the people; then we had serious provocation; and to be honest I must say that even during the Anglo-Boer war the feeling in the rural districts did not run as high as it does to-day, and not only in those parts of the country, but all over the country. At that time we had to deal with the English. The English declared martial law and they made things very difficult for us under that martial law. We expected it from them. As the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Bowen) pointed out a few days ago, at that time there existed a feeling of superiority amongst the English people. That feeling was very strong. We experienced it, and the treatment that was meted out to us by the English under martial law was what we had expected. But when we come to the present government and we undergo the treatment which is now being meted out by the government under the present Prime Minister. I must also say quite honestly that I am not surprised that feelings are running so high at present. We have to realise one thing, and that is that shooting may take place amongst our people. I hope, and I am quite certain that it will not come from our side, but when we look at the new regulations and realise the powers which are given to the Government, we are very much worried that these things may happen, for we know that things happen in our country and may still happen which otherwise would not have haappened. What is the position to-day? The position is that where feelings are running so high and where the Afrikaner is being provoked to such an extent, this Government has put the clock back for at least 100 years as far as social conditions in our country are concerned. There are certain things in the history of South Africa which the Afrikaner people will never forget.

What are they?

I would not have mentioned them, but if you ask me, I will tell you that 135 years ago five men were hanged at Slagtersnek.

Why not go back still further?

I know there are friends on that side of the same type as the hon. member for Kimberley District, who laugh at these things and say that we ought to be ashamed of there having been a Slagtersnek. I did not mention this instance out of my own. The hon. member asked me to mention an instance, and I then thought of this one. There are things in our history which we can never forget.

Why rake up old stories?

You put that question to me, and I replied. But is not the reason for there being a Slagtersnek the fact that at the time Hottentots were used to capture that man?

Go back still further.

Order!

To-day we again find that coloureds are being armed.

Where?

To-day we find again that coloureds are being armed, not only to take part as motor drivers, but in order to fight. What influence will that have on our history?

Do you doubt the assurance of the Prime Minister?

Speak up. I cannot hear you.

You don’t want to hear me.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself, talking like that to an old man.

I maintain that there are certain things in our history, and there are things which have happened in our country lately, which it will take more than one hundred years before the results thereof have been eliminated. Socially our country has suffered a setback of a hundred years. In the economic field it has been pushed back for fifty years at least. In spite of this, we find that the hon. member for Kimberley District says that even if it costs £200,000,000 it will be a very cheap price if we can drive all Italians out of Africa.

No, to preserve our freedom.

If hon. members on the other side had followed the advice of Gen. Hertzog to stay out of the war, we would not have had that feeling in South Africa and we would not have had this squandering and wasting of money.

Did you understand the proposal for which you voted?

I hope the hon. member credits me with slightly more brains than are reflected in his question. If I say that I have never yet experienced feelings running so high in South Africa, I think of the things that have recently happened in our country. It is in fact no longer safe to travel by train or walk in the streets. It even is not safe any longer to be somewhere in a private establishment. One is exposed to attacks, premeditated attacks by soldiers. Read the report of the Commission which enquired into the difficulties at Potchefstroom, and look at the damage that was done there. That altercations took place between the soldiers and the students we do not want to deny, but is that a reason for the soldiers making a premeditated attack on the building in order to destroy it?

Did you hear about the soldier who broke his leg?

In the building?

No; before the attack.

If the soldier broke his leg, it was an isolated instance and could have been enquired into and the persons who attacked that soldier could have been punished. That would have been a matter standing apart. No, the soldiers went out on purpose and took the law in their own hands.

But what did happen?

If it happened.

The report says there was no such thing.

I saw it with my own eyes.

If the hon. member wants to state explicitly that something of the sort happened, that instance should have been enquired into on its own merits without all the destruction that took place. We can understand that some altercations may have taken place between the soldiers and the young people. Sometimes it was in the nature of a joke, and at other times it may have been something else. But I cannot imagine that the army of the country, which is disciplined and which is there to maintain order and law, can on purpose start this destruction which has taken place there. It looks to me that under these regulations we shall have to expect still worse things than those we have had already. These regulations definitely protect the soldier. Do they also protect the public? Do they also protect the private man? No, they do not protect him. In other words, those soldiers can to-day behave far worse, and if a person to-day walks in Adderley Street and is attacked by those persons and defends himself, he is exposed to serious penalties. He exposes himself to imprisonment without the option of a fine, and is in danger of losing his vote. If we could at least feel that we are being protected equally, that we shall obtain the protection we need, that feeling of unrest would largely disappear. Since the Prime Minister himself has admitted that the disturbances in Adderley Street ought to stop, and since a few days ago from his seat on the other side he deplored the disturbances in Johannesburg, and in fact openly admitted that they had been caused by the soldiers, we are anxious to see what will become of these troubles and whether any steps will be taken to prevent those happenings in the future. But there is another matter which I should like to mention by the way, and that is that when these attacks take place in Adderley Street, one finds that it is usually a, sailor who leads the attack, and in whose service are they?

And soldiers, too.

†*Yes, the soldiers are ours, out the leading man mostly is a sailor, and what right does he possess to start disturbances in our country?

He fetches your wool.

If he fetches our wool, he is welcome. But we hope that when they are allowed ashore they will behave themselves and will not lead these attacks. There is another point I should like to stress, namely, in connection with the internment camps. I do not know how many there are to-day. Some time ago, I think it was during the last session, the Minister of Justice declared in this House that only 180 citizens of the Union had been interned, and he added that this small number was proof of the leniency with which the Government acted. The fact remains, however, that the Government interns persons without any trial and the ground of any accusation that is made against them, and it is very unfortunate that the persons who supply the information are safe from prosecution. We cannot do anything against them. I have here the case of a wool buyer from East London. He went to the department and talked quite openly to them, and assured them that he would not do anything to disturb the peace of the country. A certain day he was arrested. The Minister of the Interior declared that there were three ways in which steps were taken to intern Union nationals. First of all, they warn these persons. This man was arrested. His family is in unfavourable financial circumstances. They took him away, and it took no less than five months before his case could be enquired into. And what was the complaint against him? The complaint was that he bought wool and exported it to countries where Germany could buy it again. But what transpired eventually? It appeared that not less than four of his competitors also bought wool on the market and exported it to those countries, and, what is more, sent it to the same agents as those to whom this man sent it.

Were the others Jews?

In spite of this the man was interned on account of these actions, which were identical to what others had done. In conclusion, I want to say this. If matters are allowed to go on like this, it will eventually happen that people will be shot. But the spirit of the Afrikaner—and I cannot do better than quote the Prime Minister’s own words from “Een Eeuw van Onrecht”— he shall never kill as long as he lives.

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

I did not take part in this debate before because I waited for financial criticism. I thought, and I believe rightly so, that where a motion of no confidence in the Government is proposed we would hear a great deal about the financial policy of the Government. I have now been waiting for a long time for such financial criticism.

You will not wait in vain.

When I introduced the Additional Estimates the Leader of the Opposition emphasised the importance of that matter and pointed to a large amount of expenditure we proposed and he pleaded for time in order to study the Additional Estimates. Well, in spite of this, we had a little financial criticism last week and the most important vote of the Estimates, a vote of £14,000,000 for Defence, was agreed to without discussion. When I pointed to the fact, I heard—I think from the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) “Oh, but a motion of no confidence is coming,” and I thought that we should hear a great deal in connection with our financial policy. I expected to hear something more than vague platitudes about the colossal expenditure by the Government. As the case is, we heard very little.

Your presence in this House was none too frequent.

Important points were raised only by the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. du Plessis) and the Leader of the Opposition and I shall now go into those points. The hon. member for Vryheid tried to frighten this House and the people by quotations from the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General. He said that this report teems with irregularities and that the people have been terribly wronged. We all expected something terrifying, but when the hon. member read out his extracts we found that it was the same type of criticism we read about every year. Proportionately there have been laid bare no larger number of irregularities than there have been in the past, and if that is the basis upon which this House has to proclaim its lack of confidence in the Government, a vote of no confidence will have to be passed in every government at the beginning of every session. But there is an important aspect I wish to dwell upon. The Controller and Auditor-General is not the final judge in these matters. He only supplies the criticism. He draws up the charges, but we have instituted a procedure to enquire into those charges. The procedure is by means of a hearing by the Select Committee on Public Accounts. That Committee provides the officials charged with an opportunity to appeal’ before it and one cannot say it is fair on the part of my friend over there to come here before that hearing has taken place and to proclaim that those charges have been proven.

They are the findings of the Auditor-General.

You see to your having a majority on the Committee.

The hon. member knows full well—he himself was a member of that Select Committee—that the Select Committee has a reputation of impartiality and is always prepared to uphold that tradition faithfully. The latest charge by the hon. member is the strangest of all. As a reason for no confidence in the Government he pointed to the Auditor-General having emphasised a difference of opinion between the Treasury and the Department of Defence on the question of the control of certain expenditure. I do not know why the fact of two departments differing in opinion should be the ground for a no confidence vote. The policy of the Government has not been doubted and I think it is fair, especially in view of the fact that I as Minister of Finance am concerned in this matter, that I should say something about it. The Law Advisers have decided that the point of view of the Department of Defence is correct as far as the law goes. In other words, the Department of Defence did not act in contravention of the law. This, however, is not purely a legal question. There is also the question of policy. The Government has to go into the question of policy and it is doing so at present. I may say that the Government will lay down that as a matter of policy sufficient control on this point will certainly be exercised. But my friend is not entitled to make this charge against the Government before the Government has expressed itself on the question of policy. I now come to the Leader of the Opposition. I am sorry he is not present at the moment, but I want in all friendliness to say a few words in connection with the remarks made by him. The main point of his financial criticism was that we have increased by 71% the income tax of the ordinary man and by a mere 2% the taxation on the mines. There were two serious mistakes in this statement made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. He drew a comparison between two figures which cannot be compared. First of all he forgot that during the past year we twice increased the income tax and also twice the tax on the gold mines.

No, you only once increased the taxation on the gold mines.

What he did was to compare the result of the total increase in the income tax with the result of the most recent increase in mining taxation only. The unfairness of that will be obvious. But let us go further. Take the latest increases which took place in September. What happened then? We then increased the income tax by 20%. In other words, the scale was increased from 1s. for every £ to 1s. 2 2-5d. for every £, and the increase therefore amounted to 2 2-5d. for every pound. We increased the gold mining taxation not by 2%, not by two for every hundred, but we added 2 to 9 and this is not the same as adding 2 to 100. If you add 2 to 9 the increase is slightly more than 22%. Even a mediocre school child would have realised that, but the hon. member for Piquetberg did not realise it. He comes here and draws a comparison which is entirely wrong. In all kindness I want to give my friend the Leader of the Opposition some advice. We do not often hear him take part in debates on financial matters. I want to give him the advice to leave the financial criticism in future in the more able hands of the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys).

What?

I am sorry if the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) feels any jealousies as the result of my remarks. We have heard so little in the way of financial criticism, that I now have to proceed with a few remarks of a more general nature. I want to make these remarks as a reply to the final words of the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow). When the hon. member for Gezina sat down, he used these words: That, after the Afrikanerdom has obtained the reins of Government it does not intend ever to part with it again. It was not boastfulness, it was a threat. He made it known that when he and his kind have gained the day in the political arena, they will change our constitution to such an extent that it will never again be possible for another Government to come into power. The declaration of the hon. member amounts to nothing less than a declaration of war against our parliamentary system. The essence of our partliamentary system is that one always has an alternative government and if the alternative body, the Opposition, obtains the majority, it takes the place of the existing government. There on the other side we find to-day this alternative government. It is a weak alternative government, but nevertheless it is there and it has the opportunity. This Government very good and very strong as it may be, does not expect to be in power for ever. The parliamentary system demands that we should have an alternative government. This is the guarantee against the danger of dictatorship given us by the parliamentary system. What the hon. member did yesterday amounted to declaring war on the parliamentary system. In the past he has put the position still more clearly. In his first statement about his so-called new order he said that under the new order “the government will be independent of a temporary majority in the legislature.” The majority will no longer govern. And he added: “At last the parliamentary procedure will have to be reduced to sound common sense, and by means of executive council resolutions provision will have to be made for urgent legislative measures when Parliament is not sitting.” This is his threat against the parliamentary system.

What does your Government do at the present time?

Reference is made to regulations we have issued, but they have been made in conformity with powers granted to us by Parlaiment. I want to point to the irony of the situation. In using his parliamenetary privileges the hon. member for Gezina is busily undermining the parliamentary system which gives him those privileges. In the exercise of his democratic freedom he is working to attack democracy. We fight for the continuance of a system which enables the hon. member for Gezina to fight against this very system and he wants to replace this system by another system which will make it impossible for us to do what he is doing now. The irony of this position must strike everybody. But the opinion of the hon. member for Gezina on this point is perhaps of less importance, but what is of importance is the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition on this matter. I regret that he, having proposed this motion of no-confidence, is not in his seat at the moment. I regret having to ask him questions in his absence.

The Prime Minister is not even present.

But this is the motion of the hon. member for Piquetberg. He is responsible for it. I want to put a few questions to him. I want to ask him what his attitude is in regard to the theories proclaimed by the hon. member for Gezina, what his attitude is in regard to democracy and the parliamentary system. We know where he used to stand in the past. He used to be a good democrat. He defended the parliamentary system. As recently as the previous session he strongly protested against the guillotine procedure which we instituted as a temporary measure. He described it as undemocratic, as a violation of parliamentary custom, as an intervention in parliamentary privileges, and even at the beginning of this session he said the same and again stated that he is opposed to the curtailment of parliamentary procedure. But the hon. member for Gezina is not satisfied with a temporary change in the parliamentary procedure. What he demands is that parliamentary procedure “shall be reduced to sound common sense—the sound common sense of the hon. member for Gezina.” We know where the Leader of the Opposition stood in the past, but the country wants to know where he stands to-day. He has so often already changed his point of view. Probably he had good reasons for doing so and I do not wish to express myself on this aspect, but whilst we know where he stood in the past we now want to know where he stands at present. We know his past point of view in regard to the coloured people and we know his present standpoint. He repudiated his previous point of view. We know where he stood in connection with the Jewish question, and where he stands to-day — he repudiated his previous point of view. We know where he stood in connection with the English-speaking people in South Africa—we do not know what his present views are but do know the views of some of his sppporters who are now proclaiming the dogma of “one people, one language,” and so forth. We also know that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is very well versed in the art of following his followers. Like the Duke of Plaza Toro: “He leads his party from behind; he finds it less exciting.” For that reason we do not know what his present attitude is in regard to democracy and parliamentary freedom. Is he of the same opinion as the hon. member for Gezina? We are entitled to demand an answer in this debate. For is this not a motion of no confidence, implying that they think they ought to take the place of this Government? They want to form the Government in our stead. What is his policy in relation to the parliamentary system when he has formed his Government? Before Parliament can vote on this motion, Parliament must know where the Leader of the Opposition stands as regards Parliament, what his attitude towards democracy is. What is his point of view as regards the theories of the hon. member for Gezina? Does he also hold the opinion that the government should not be dependent on a majority in this House? Does he also think that the procedure of the House should be “reduced to the level of the common sense of the hon. member for Gezina?” Is it also his point of view that the Government should have the power to effect legislation when Parliament is sitting? The hon. Leader of the Opposition has to make his choice. I am glad he has now arrived in his seat here. Does he agree with the declarations of the hon. member for Gezina? Before we vote on this motion we must know what his point of view in connection with these matters is. He has to take sides, and he should take sides before we put it to the vote. In the past he used to be a champion of the parliamentary system. Now he has either to repudiate his past or he has to repudiate the hon. member for Gezina. If he is not prepared to take sides, and as a matter of fact to take sides during this debate, then we shall know that we have to look upon him as a coward who is not worthy of being the Leader of the parliamentary Opposition. Whether the Leader of the Opposition decides about the matter now or does not, sooner or later he will make a decision on behalf of his party. I know what their decision will be. The indications omit all doubts. They will repudiate their past. They will run away from everything they have said in favour of democracy and the parliamentary system in the past, for we know that their party has been repeatedly unfaithful to everything that has been worthy and good in their own past. In the past we always thought that, no matter how far we might differ from hon. members on the other side, they were nevertheless persons with love for their country and their freedom. But since they have taken sides against the policy of the Government against participation in the war which is being fought for that freedom, they have also lost their love for their country and their love of freedom. We thought that the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters were patriotic people who would be prepared to defend their country at all times. We thought we knew where they stood, but we have seen that in this war they were not willing to defend their country. They do not want to go just outside the borders of the country to defend it. That is a matter on which there may be a difference of opinion. But they are neither prepared to defend the country within its borders. Repeatedly front benchers on the other side have told us that they are not even willing to defend South Africa within our borders. In the past we looked upon them as champions of our freedom. That always used to be their slogan, and where are they now? To-day many of them proclaim the Nazi dogma. To-day they pray for a Nazi victory. They have chosen the side of the dictator countries against the democracies. Many of them have declared war on the Parliamentary system and the freedom of Parliament. How are the mighty fallen! This is the renunciation of principles for which they stood in the past and which they now weaken and break down, and since they took sides with the dictator countries they will also go down with the dictatorships. I think they are beginning to see the writing on the wall. We have already noticed the difference in spirit which prevails amongst them during this session in contrast to that existing when we met here in August. We then had to hear that Hitler had already gained the war, that the war was over.

We still say so.

They do not say so any longer. They say that the war is ending in a draw, in check-mate. They have now reached this check-mate mentality and comfort themselves with the heavenly thought that if England does not win the war, England will lose it. They did not say so four months ago. At that time England had already lost the war. My friends on the other side miscalculated the war position. They told the people outside and made them believe that Hitler had already won this war. They were wrong. As the starting-point of their policy they took the assumption that Hitler has gained the victory. They were wrong. Hitler had not won the war then, he has neither won it now and he cannot win the war. Gradually the people outside, who were misled by them and their false prophecies, have seen that they were false prophets and blind leaders of those who were still blind at the time. That is the reason why our friends on the other side are now so anti-democratic, that is the reason why democracy has had its day. What does democracy mean? It means the rule for the majority.

We do not have that here.

They are not in the majority, and for that reason they are opposed to democracy.

Is that so?

They do not have the majority and therefore they are against democracy. Democracy has had its day because the majority are against them. First of all they said that the majority of the people were behind them. All they now claim is that if they can decide which is the established section of the population, and if we then leave that established section vote, then they shall have the majority! The hon. member for Gezina also was a champion of democracy in the past. He was strongly in favour of democracy as long as the majority of the electorate kept him in his ministerial seat. When the majority was on his side, he was a good democrat. But because the majority is against him, and he knows that he cannot get the majority of the electorate on his side, democracy now is dead. He and his kindred spirits, I do not know whether we have to count the Leader of the Opposition amongst them—we shall no doubt know it shortly— but he and his kindred spirits have said good-bye to the democratic principles of the past. Democracy to them is now nothing but a dishcloth. It was useful, but now that it has lost its usefulness, they throw it away. For that reason we now have the Opposition on the other side as it is. Last week they were a disorganised Opposition which could not conduct a proper debate in this House and which passed a vote of £14,000,000 for defence without objection. To-day it is a weakened Opposition, a scaling Opposition, an Opposition deriving its strength from an abundance of aspirant leaders who continually come out of their shell, but who in fact never reach maturity. That is the Opposition which now dares to come before this House with a motion of no confidence. That is our Opposition. What can we put against them? We have a Government party, strong, united, healthy to the core, without a good case, with a great leader behind whom we stand united and as one man. With that party are associated other parties and groups which are collaborating wholeheartedly and whose collaboration is so wholeheartedly that it has repeatedly happened in divisions in this House that our majority was very much larger than we are entitled to according to Parliamentary representation. We here can also point to the performances of the Government. We can point to the success we have had, in spite of the opposition from the other side, to build up a South African army, a large, well-equipped army, which will see to the interests and security of South Africa being looked after and properly defended on the continent of Africa. We can point to the success of our financial policy, to the expenditure in connection with the establishment of the army having been paid by us out of moneys found in South Africa itself. Australia could not do it; New Zealand could not do it, but we did it. On top of that we have been able to repatriate debts we had in London. Our overseas loan debt hate been diminished. We can furthermore emphasise the success of our agricultural policy. I only want to mention one fact in reply to what we have heard in connection with the agricultural position. The point is this. We have our Land Bank. This year we voted an amount of £850,000 as additional capital for the Land Bank. I arranged with the Board of the Land Bank that they should extend their limits in regard to the granting of loans. In other words, that they should adopt a more lenient policy and grant loans where in the past they would not have granted them. What happened? A few weeks ago the Board of the Land Bank came to tell me that the farmers are so prosperous, that they pay their debts so well, that they cannot use the £850,000. All they need is £200,000. And finally we have a good case. The most important part of our policy under the present circumstances is, of course, the war policy. In the interests of South Africa we decided to take part in the war. The question was repeatedly asked: What are we fighting for? We fight in order to secure our freedom, we fight for the abolition of the threat constituted by the dictatorships against democracy and religion. Yes, I use these words knowingly. I know it is easy enough to ridicule assertions in regard to democracy and religion. Some people like to do it. I do not say that all the States and individuals which are at present taking part in the fight against the dictatorships are exactly perfect representatives of democracy or religion. I agree with the hon. member for Eastern Cape (Mrs. Ballinger), who told us that we here in South Africa do not have a perfect democracy, and that we are also sorely lacking in practising the true religion. But what I do maintain is this: that a victory of the Axis Powers in this part would bring with it a tremendous setback, a great danger to democracy and religion, and I consider it to be an honour and privilege for South Africa to be able to take part in a war against those dangers. It may be said that England and France declared war on Germany. But Germany and Italy declared war on democracy. It is very evident that Hitler will not be satisfied, if he can manage, before the last remnants of democracy have been eliminated in this world. Furthermore, we have the fact that there exists an irreconcilable struggle between dictatorship on the one hand and the Christian religion on the other, that is, religion as we understand it who value the Calvinistic tradition. How can one reconcile the ideology which considers every individual citizen a mere tool in the hands of the omnipotent State, and a religion which is based on the immortal value of the individual soul? Those two things cannot possibly be reconciled. In all honesty, I therefore declare that it is quite clear to me that a victory of the Axis Powers in this war will bring with it the eclipse of religion and the reversal to heathenism. It is well that we should go on with this struggle against that danger. In that struggle are also embodied the spiritual factors which should be taken into consideration, and the value and significance of which none of us should under-estimate. I want to move the following amendment—

I second.

†*Mr. TOM NAUDÉ: I listened with interest to the hon. Minister of Finance who just sat down, and I should like to reply immediately to a few points he brought forward. In the first place, he again used the argument that the Opposition did not use its opportunity to properly criticise that amount of £14,000,000 on the additional estimates for defence purposes. I am sorry that he is the person to criticise us. It makes one think that he is without shame, for he knows that the reason is that he as the Minister of Finance is the cause of it. He does not tell this House and the people that on the first reading, the second reading, and again at the third reading, when we had the opportunity, we discussed the matter fully. No, he emphasises that we did not discuss it in the Committee stage. During the Committee stage he should have given us all the information which has always been given in the past in relation to that vote, and which we are entitled to expect on this vote. On a previous occasion I pointed to the fact that during the past not less than 12 pages of information in regard to the defence vote were supplied to us. On this occasion the Minister of Finance did not give us any information at all, and how can he then expect us to discuss the vote in detail? He knows quite well that he is himself the cause of this. The Minister and the Government refuse to give us this information, for they are afraid the people will hear about the way in which this Government is squandering its money. And then the Minister gets up here, and in the most shameless manner accuses us of not fully discussing this vote. Until this Government came into power, sufficient information was always submitted on the defence vote to this House. It is this Minister of Finance who has started to withhold the information from us, and then he gets up here and dares to ask why we did not fully discuss the vote. Furthermore, the Minister said something which I really did not expect to hear from a Minister of Finance. He even commences to question the facts in the report of the Controller and Auditor-General. Just imagine the Minister of Finance of the country wants to make the people in the country outside this House believe that one should not attach too much value to the remarks of the Auditor-General in his report. It is scandalous on the part of the Minister of Finance to say this. He knows full well, and the people outside should know it too, that before the Auditor-General drafts his report, he most definitely obtains all the information from all the officials who stand accused of irregularities. It is only when they cannot properly refute the accusations made against them that the Auditor-General mentions it in his report. It is quite true, but even on this point the Minister tried to mislead the House that the report of the Controller and Auditor-General is afterwards dealt with by the Select Committee on Public Accounts. The Report of the Controller and Auditor-General is laid before the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and I had the honour to be chairman of that particular Committee for a number of years. I therefore know what happens in connection with the report. The Select Committee on Public Accounts is a committee on which the Government has a majority. Naturally it has to have a majority. On the present Select Committee on Public Accounts the Government has the overwhelming majority. In this case the said committee will not have to take decisions on the figures which are submitted to it but it will have to discuss the policy of the Government and take resolutions on it. What can we expect from that Select Committee with its Government majority. The chairman of the Committee is the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) and is he going to criticise this war expenditure? Will he agree with the Auditor-General where the latter shows that wasting and irregularities take place?

Yes, if there is anything wrong with it.

No, this report of the Controller and Auditor-General is fatal for the Government, for it proves the terrible waste of money which is taking place. The Minister tries to whitewash the position, for he knows that he is responsible. He should have prevented it taking place. It was his duty to do so. But instead of doing his duty in putting a stop to this wasting and squandering, he now tries to whitewash the situation in such a manner. The Government does not care what the Defence Force is doing and in which way it is wasting money, for the Prime Minister is also Minister of Defence. Then the hon. Minister criticised the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) for saying that if the Afrikaners should again hold the reins of government they would never hand them over again. I want to express my agreement with that. We shall see to it that the party over there does not again come into power in the way they did last time. They did not come into power in an honest way, and we shall see to it that that does not happen again in the future. We shall also see to it that there will be no officials who can undermine the policy of the Government in power. They will have to hand over their jobs to officials who will execute the policy of the Government. The government constituted of members of our Party, which will come into power, and it will no doubt come into power very soon, will see to it that the reins of government will not slip out of its hands again. The Minister says the Government does not expect to remain in power, and he is quite right there. They would never have been in power if they had done their duty and appealed to the country at the very first occasion when they could have done so. But the first opportunity the people will get, will throw the Government out. This is one of the things where the Minister was correct in saying that they did not expect to remain in power. I am glad the hon. Leader of the Opposition is in his seat. I just want to point to the trifles they make use of over there. A few minutes ago when the Leader of the Opposition was not present, the Minister of Finance asked: Where is the Leader of the Opposition? I now ask: Where is the Prime Minister? We have here before us a motion of no confidence in the Government and the Prime Minister is not present. This is the contemptuous manner in which this House is being treated by them. And then they want to talk about the defence of democracy. The Prime Minister is not even present—this shows the contempt they have for this House. And the Minister of Finance should not talk as he did here tonight and accuse others of having changed their point of view. If there is anybody who has repudiated his past, he did it, namely on the question of the gold standard. He said that the gold standard is something they must never part with. But now that he is a member of the Government one never hears him speak of the gold standard any more. He made some remarks here to-night and said that we first of all said that we should not take part in the war because Germany would win the war, and he now maintains that we have said that it will be a matter of check-mate. I am quite positive that Germany has already won the war and that England has lost it. But this is not the question. The question is, what are they still fighting for? Don’t they fight for the preservation and protection of England? We were told that we went into the war for the restoration of Poland and for the restoration of Holland and Belgium. But to-day it is the question that for God’s sake we must help and for God’s sake America must help to protect England. To-day the question is no longer the winning of the war; the war has been lost already. I do not say I am elated about that. I maintain that we should never have taken part in the war, for we had nothing to do with it. And I say again that as far as England and we as its ally are concerned, the war has been lost. Then the Minister boasts about the ease with which loans were subscribed for the continuance of the war, and he talks about the easy terms and the healthy financial position of the country. But the Minister should be quite honest—he inherited that healthy position. It is something he has his predecessor to thank for. Mr. Havenga was responsible for the healthy financial condition, but what does the present Government do? They waste the money. How long will this healthy financial position last if we spend £6,000,000 per month on the war? I am afraid it will not be very much longer possible for us to go on in that way. I now want to say something in connection with this motion of no confidence, namely, that they never had the confidence of the people in the first instance. I should like to return to some other points. The Prime Minister said that the Leader of the Opposition had found it necessary to make use of the disturbances on the Witwatersrand—which inter alia took place after the introduction of this motion—in order to find reasons in support of the motion. Yes, to some extent this may be right, but then the position of the Opposition is becoming stronger every day, and more facts crop up to bear out that the Government is busy strengthening the distrust in it by the people and is not gaining the confidence of the people. And the best proof of this is, and we have pointed to this before: Why is the Government afraid to appeal to the people and give the people the opportunity to express its confidence in the Government? On the 4th September they had the opportunity of doing so and any respectable Government would have appealed to the people. I emphasise the word “respectable.” But they did not do so. The Prime Minister never was appointed Prime Minister by the people—during the past six or seven years he never was the leader of a party. He was Gen. Hertzog’s deputy, and at the election the people expressed their confidence in the Leader. The present Prime Minister never afforded the people the opportunity to express its confidence in him, and they at no time did express it. And still far less in the mish-mash behind him. For one cannot call that a party. We find there a few former S.A.P.s, a few former Unionists, the leaders of the Dominion Party and the Labour Party—those people represent nothing but themselves, and certainly not a healthy party which has some performance to its credit. Then we find there a man such as the Minister of Lands, a man who was never yet able to be elected to a seat in this House, and he dares to take part in the debate on a motion of no confidence. The people have never yet had any confidence in him, and he ventures to talk about a question of no confidence. This is purely a question of no confidence—they never yet enjoyed the confidence of the people. But the people demand the opportunity to express their distrust, and it is on this point that the Government is lacking in its duty towards the people. What happened in Johannesburg is enough proof to show that they are not worthy of the confidence of the people. One of the most important duties of a Government, and which any respectable Government will always do, is to show that it can maintain law and order. But this Government has only shown that it is powerless, and such a Government ought to resign and thus provide the people with an opportunity to express its opinion. The Prime Minister knows that he has a few followers who will blindly vote in favour of anything he proposes, as long as they get their double salaries. And as long as this is the case, we cannot expect that a motion of no confidence will be adopted when people like those are in the majority. They on the other side will vote as the Government tells them to vote. We know that. We must, however, make use of this opportunity in order to inform the people about the way the Government is wasting the money of the State. They are at the moment busy doing things which are unworthy of any Government. There have been hundreds of occasions in connection with which we could express our lack of confidence in the Government, but now something has happened which entitles us st ill further to do so. The other day we listened here to the Minister of Lands, who expressed himself so loudly on the matter of democracy. I was surprised when I heard him. For what has happened? Whilst Parliament is sitting here, and whilst we as the representatives of the people are present here to pass legislation in the interest of the people and to object to legislation which in our opinion is not in the interest of the people, this dictatorship Government comes along and puts through, by means of a mere proclamation issued in Pretoria, a number of the most radical measures which concern all sections of the population. This takes place whilst Parliament is in session. Without consulting Parliament, without consulting anybody, without any notification that they were going to put this legislation on the Statute Book, they simply do it. And then they still declare that they are fighting for democracy. The whole thing s a farce when the Prime Minister behaves like a dictator, and when the Prime Minister passes regulations of this kind and has them put on the Statute Book. Dozens of regulations closely affecting the life and freedom of our population are put on the Statute Book by the Prime Minister. Every individual is affected, without Parliament being consulted—without us having any say in the matter. If ever there was a dictatorship you will find it here under our Prime Minister. He does not know the people; he disregards Parliamentary institutions. For that reason I want to repeat what I have said on a previous occasion, namely, that if I had to choose between a dictatorship such as we have now, with all the bad qualities of a dictatorship, without any of the good ones, and a Hitler dictatorship, I shall rather be under Hitler than under our present Government. I prefer not to have any dictator at all; but if I had to choose, I would prefer to be under a proper dictatorship rather than under a farcical democracy. And what are these regulations? The regulations are already in force. I have here before me the Government Gazette. It says here:

This means the 3rd February. It is therefore possible that we have contravened the regulations before they became known. You find here that legislation has been put on the Statute Book without notice having been given, and any individual can be labelled a criminal if he has contravened the laws of which he could not know anything. If ever there was a dictatorship, we find it here. The heaviest penalties are provided for in these regulations. One finds, for instance, that (a) interference with lawful gatherings is prohibited by a regulation which provides that nobody do any act (including the utterance of any words or other sounds) which in his opinion will have the effect or which is likely to have the effect of preventing, interfering with or disturbing any lawful meeting, and (b) the minimum penalty for a contravention of this regulation, resulting in persons being hurt, is imprisonment for not less than six months, while the regulation does not prohibit the addition of a further sentence in addition to this imprisonment. Just imagine, somebody attending a meeting and saying something which does not meet with the speaker’s approval may be subject to a minimum imprisonment of six months. I want to ask the Minister what the idea of it is. Is it the intention that nobody may attend a meeting any longer without exposing himself to prosecution? Say, for instance, that a person attends a meeting addressed by the Minister of Lands, and the latter uses insulting expressions, as he is wont to do, and the person concerned objects to it, then this man may find himself in difficulties and be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. We know that in South Africa it is customary for the public to attend meetings, and we encourage it. We are not afraid of S.A.P. supporters attending our meetings. We know that they no longer hold political meetings, they are afraid, and prefer fairs at which politics are the subject of speeches made. But if they make speeches there and attempt to enlighten the public, they apparently expect that everybody has to keep quiet. If the regulations as they are printed here have to be read as I am reading them now, it will for instance no longer be possible to move a motion of no-confidence in the policy of the Government. This is one of the things resulting from the regulations and then they come here and maintain that they represent democracy, but they deny the people the right to express their opinion at a political meeting by a motion of no-confidence—or even by asking questions. If the public dares to do so, they contravene the regulations and must be punished severely. We know that by means of this motion of no-confidence the House of Assembly has the opportunity of voting for it and we demand that the people be given the same opportunity, but under the regulations that will no longer be possible. There is not a single member on this side of the House who wants to approve of any disturbances. But when a speech is being made by somebody from the other side, we claim the right to ask pertinent questions and, if necessary, to show at the end that the public is not in agreement with the views expressed by the speaker, and we claim the right to propose a motion of no-confidence. It is, however, quite obvious that the Government intends to prevent meetings by members of the Opposition. They would like to hold meetings only at which their followers will say yes and amen to everything. We shall not even be allowed to ask questions in regard to what they have said. I should like to know what the intention is. Shall there be no more meetings at all by opponents of the Government? The public wants to know it and the sooner it knows the better. We now come to the following regulations, the largest and most comprehensive crime. It is very hard to say how far it goes, for it has been worded very vaguely. It declares that the making of a “subversive declaration” is prohibited, and the making of such subversive statement is such a terrible crime that it is punishable with a penalty of £200 or one year’s imprisonment or both—a penalty of £200 plus imprisonment. I should like to know whether it has purposely been worded in such vague terms, so that the Government obtains another chance of making criminals of Afrikaans and throwing them into prison. Is it the intention to prevent us from doing anything in the field of politics? What is a subversive statement? It is explained here. It is in the first place—

Where is the authority of the Government. They have no authority. They do not even possess authority over their own soldiers. The soldiers look with contempt upon the Government and have no respect for it, which has now been borne out by the happenings on the Witwatersrand. Therefore the soldiers do not recognise the authority of the Government. I should now like to know what is going to happen to us if we go to the rural districts and tell the people how hopelessly bad and rotten our government is. By that we, of course, undermine the authority of the Government and shall be punishable. If we cannot say such things, what are we there for then? I intend saying it, but I should like to know what the results will be. If the result is going to be that one is imprisoned on account of such a declaration, well, then the Government should get ready to make room in the prisons for most of us here. In the second place a subversive statement is—

Under this regulation a parent will not be entitled to dissuade its own child from joining up for the year. And a statement to only one person is sufficient. If a son goes to his father to ask whether it is advisable to join the army or not and the father says that he distapproves of it, then the parent can be imprisoned. That is the purport of this regulation. And if we go to the public and tell them, as I intend telling the public, that the present Government wants their sons to be used as British cannon fodder in a war in which we have not the slightest interest whatever, it will be a contravention. We know that this war has been hopelessly lost, and what right, if any, has the Government to expect that still more of our sons will have to join up? I now come to the following definition of subversive statement.” It says that a subversive statement is a statement which is meant to result in or will likely result in—

What I want to emphasise is that if you make a speech and you show in which way the Government is wasting the country’s money and causing poverty and unemployment, and you thereby create a feeling of hostility towards the Government, it is again a matter of being broken into prison. You are of course creating hostility. And then they declare that this is democracy, the freedom for which we fight, that we are in a free country and we can say and do what we like. According to the regulations which they are too afraid to bring before this House and which they therefore promulgate is this other manner, our freedom is being entirely and completely handcuffed. I now read the following further definition of a subversive statement—

There cannot be a successful end to this war. The war has already been lost. How then is it possible to weaken the confidence in victory? I do not know. No confidence exists in the successful outcome of the war. Hon. members on the other side assert that they have such a tremendously strong case. Why are they then so afraid of criticism? Their case is so strong, isn’t it? And now the next one—

Here we come to a very important point. Provision is made in this regulation for an association being declared illegal. Whom do they mean by it? Which association is to be declared illegal? If a member makes any statement in connection with such an association or does something which is in favour of such prohibited association, it amounts to a crime. We know quite well. It won’t be the “Sons of England,” but they have cast their eyes on the Ossewa-Brandwag. That has to be prohibited. This association has already become their nightmare. They can no longer find sleep on account of it. I want to warn them. If they ever want to experience unpleasantness and the great difficulties imaginable they should dare to touch the Ossewa-Brandwag. The people to-day stand as one man behind the Ossewa-Brandwag. This is not a small institution or establishment, and if they are looking for trouble in South Africa they should try to lay their hands on the Ossewa-Brandwag. We know that the Minister of the Interior who was in charge of the carrying out of the regulations has already announced that the Ossewa-Brandwag is one of the institutions he is going to exterminate. I want to warn him not to try it. He is far too small for that. He will not succeed and he will encounter greater difficulties than he has ever done before. There are not sufficient prisons and fencing wire to enclose all the persons concerned if they wish to lay their hands on the Ossewa-Brandwag. Then there is another so-called subversive act, and that is if you print any subversive statement. Take for instance the speeches which are being made here and the reports of meetings that will be or are being held. Nobody will be allowed to print a declaration in relation to the war policy or other matters. This now becomes a crime. May I ask whether the proceedings of Parliament will still be allowed to be published by the newspapers? Is it permissible that the speech I am now delivering appears in print? This certainly amounts to the printing of a subversive statement. We should like to know just where we stand. It would be a shame if that were the case. And they still brag with the freedom of the Press, “This British Freedom,” of which they are so proud. They now want to take away from the Press the right to express any free opinion, and they threaten us with imprisonment and fines. I now come to another subversive act, namely—

Our civil servants, which we admit are persons of intelligence, for they have been appointed in responsible positions, no longer enjoy the freedom of becoming members of an association which in the opinion of the Minister is an association which does not agree with his policy. At this moment there is not a single Minister in this House. Here you have the parliamentary system of which we are so proud. None of the Ministers takes any interest. They have issued the regulations and that is all. Of course we know what the intention of it is. People can join the khaki knights without being dismissed from the Civil Service. They may be members of the Sons of England. But they want to prohibit that members of the civil service or the railway services or even the provincial administrations be members of the Ossewa-Brandwag. Many of them are members today, but in this vile manner the Government tries to fight its opponents. And now we get perhaps the worst of all—

Born South Africans, citizens of the country, may in that way be deported from their own country by the Minister if he thinks they are a danger to the country. I want to warn the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan). In their eyes he undoubtedly is a very great danger to the country. Most likely he will be one of the first to be deported. Then there is the leader of the Ossewa-Brandwag, Dr. van Rensburg. I want to pay him a compliment. If there is one South African who has shown to be worthy of the name of Afrikaner, it is Dr. van Rensburg. He held a very high position with a salary of a few thousand pounds a year and he sacrificed all to accept a position in which he can serve his people. Put against that the hon. members of the other side who are also prepared to serve the people, provided they can remain in Parliament and draw double salaries. I am glad we have a man like Dr. van Rensburg to whom we can look up and who will still climb very high in the future. The Government can deport anybody from this country according to these regulations, but I want to warn the Government from doing so. They will not dare to lay their hands on those men. The people will not stand it. Incidentally I want to refer to the arrest of two members of this House. The matter is still sub judice and I therefore shall not go into it. I want, however, to express my agreement with the remarks of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) who said that it is a shame that two members of the House of Assembly should be arrested without being given a chance to be served with a summons. And on top of that the Public Prosecutor declares that he received orders from Pretoria that bail was to be refused. Just imagine, two members of the House of Assembly are arrested, bail is refused and they have to go to prison. What is the purpose of granting bail? It is to ensure that the accused will make his appearance when the case is being heard. In this case bail has been refused on the authority of Pretoria, in other words, on the authority of the Government, for they wanted to disparage the Afrikaners again—they had to go to prison!

On certain conditions.

We know what happened on previous occasions when people were also deported without any trial. We know that the result of it was that the Labour Party was returned to this House much stronger than before. If the Government should take the risk of deporting Afrikaners on account of their political feelings, the reaction will be just as strong. The people won’t stand it. Then there is a further regulation—

But the worst is still to come, namely—

Just think of it, the poor enemy subject, the German or Italian who is still free— and the fact that he is not yet interned is proof enough that he is not a danger to the state, for otherwise he would no longer be free—is not allowed to ride a bicycle or in a motor car. Has the Government gone stark, raving mad? Many of these people are old ladies and gentlemen, and for that reason they have not been interned, but they are not allowed to ride in a motor car; I suppose we may not give them a lift either, and they are not allowed to ride a bicycle! And speaking of enemy subjects, I want to mention one case of which I know personally—not an enemy subject but a subject of South Africa, a man who has done far more for the country than members on the other side. This is a man whom they all know, viz., Dr. Merensky, and to-day he is not allowed to leave his farm. He is the man who is the cause of the Minister to-day being able to talk about all the money the Minister has in the Treasury. He is a man who has given a very large part of his money to charity, to the Merensky school farm and to other institutions in the interest of the people. To-day he is not allowed to leave his farm. He is an old man of 70 years. And then the other side is still babbling about Christianity. Here we have the thanks of a grateful Government towards a man who has done more for South Africa than the Minister without Portfolio or any other member of the other side. I also do not understand why enemy subjects should not be allowed to have a wireless receiving set. How will they get to know the truths of Mr. Wilson now. I am afraid they will no longer be able to hear it, and this is again one of these trifling things we can only expect from that narrow-minded Government. I now come to another inexplicable regulation which we find here. If a person attacks a member of the army who is in uniform, such a person will be punishable with imprisonment without the option of a fine and additional penalty can be added. If an ordinary civilian attacks a man in uniform, he cannot have the option of a fine. But what about the soldier who attacks a civilian? This is our greatest difficulty in this country that soldiers attack civilians. Why should provision be made to punish the civilian without the option of a fine when he attacks a soldier, whereas the soldier, who is much more accustomed to discipline, is not subject to this punishment. On the contrary, the soldier is being encouraged by the Prime Minister and others to continue doing so. In our morning papers we saw what I call one of the lowest and most cowardly attacks which, of course, we can expect from that class of person only. Six soldiers went to an office of a person who has been wearing a beard since 1938 and they assaulted him. These are things we can expect from those people in the army. They told him that they knew quite well that the Prime Minister did not approve of their actions, but that they did not care what the Prime Minister said. I maintain that attacks of this kind coming from the soldiers are a hundred times worse, because the soldier is accustomed to obedience and discipline, and he should be capable of better controlling his temper than the civilian who perhaps loses his temper and smacks a man. I cannot understand this stipulation being applicable only to civilians attacking a soldier. I shall not say much more. I repeat that the Government has come into power without the confidence of the people. It sits there without the confidence of the people, and since it came into power we had nothing from the Government but misgovernment and those acts which we have described here and which strengthened the distrust in the Government. This is the reason why the Government is afraid of a general election, why they do not write out an election as was done in Canada. There they also had a war situation, but the Prime Minister of Canada held a general election. Here the Government does not want to risk it, for it knows that it will not come into power again. Before sitting down, I should like to say something to my friends of the Afrikaner Party. I should like to ask them not to allow any fighting to be started amongst us here. Let us fight our common enemy, the Government, on the other side, the enemy of the Afrikanerdom, and fight him unitedly. We shall have plenty of opportunities for it. I regret that on both sides there should be attacks of a Dersonal nature between our Opposition parties. [Time limit.]

There seems to be a little bit of excitement on the other side. The House was entertained for a few minutes yesterday afternoon by the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow). There was somewhat of a Gilbertian situation created when we found him using his pet aversion, the “Rand Daily Mail,” as a means of attack on the Minister of Lands. Perhaps, sir, now that he has used that paper as an authority in expressing opinions of people, the House would like to know exactly what opinion the “Rand Daily Mail” has of him, and perhaps, sir, I may be forgiven if I quote from an issue of the “Rand Daily Mail” approximately twelve months ago, in which it referred to the hon. member for Gezina in these terms—

That, Mr. Speaker, is the authority he uses himself, the “Rand Daily Mail.” The article goes on—

I won’t read the whole thing, Mr. Speaker, but the end is rather amusing [Interruptions.] Why don’t you laugh as you did yesterday? Referring to something in the context of the article, the “Rand Daily Mail” goes on—

The article goes on to say—

Order. I don’t think the hon. member should continue reading that kind of material.

I am merely quoting, sir. I want to quote another four lines. May I?

I think the hon. member had better make use of some other opportunity.

I was only just following the hon. member’s own way of doing things, and probably you have made it much easier for him by stopping me from going ahead.

What a remark!

Does the hon. member wish to insinuate anything in regard to that?

No, sir.

The hon. member should not make remarks of that kind. The hon. member may proceed.

If I have said anything, I withdraw. We have heard a lot from the hon. member for Gezina in the last few days about Afrikanerdom. I think he has said more about Afrikanerdom this session than we have ever heard from him before. I wonder exactly what opinions he has always had of Afrikanerdom. In order to analyse the position of his attitude of mind towards Afrikanerdom a couple of years ago, I would like to tell the House what transpired between the hon. member and myself when he was still Minister of Defence. Perhaps he will take his mind back to one occasion when I went to him and asked him if there was any possibility of getting an active citizen force regiment for the East Rand. He told me that if there was to be another active citizen force regiment on the Witwatersrand, it was to be Afrikaans. I told him I had no objection to that, I had not come to ask him for an English regiment, and that if the people on the East Rand did not care to associate with the Afrikaans regiment, then let them stay out of it. He then turned round and said: “Yes, but where my trouble comes in now is that I cannot trust the Afrikaners on the Witwatersrand sufficiently to arm them.”

That is untrue.

It is true.

It is deliberately untrue.

That is the truth, sir.

It is a deliberate lie.

Order. The hon. member must withdraw.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. He knows what I think about it.

That was told me by the hon. member for Gezina, it is not a story made up by me. At the time, sir, there was a movement among the Afrikaans section of the Witwatersrand, people of a different political persuasion to what he was, to get control of the Mineworkers Union. It was the occasion when the party led by the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) were trying to get control of the union, and that was the time when he could not trust them. What I have told this House is word for word what transpired between the hon. member for Gezina and myself. We find that that particular section that he could not then trust are to-day his closest associates, these same people whom he could not trust. I sincerely trust, sir, that the next time he comes back to support any candidate standing for Germiston, that the people who howled him down and would not allow him to speak, will now give him a friendly reception. That, sir, is how things have changed. They have changed rather remarkably, particularly as far as the hon. member for Gezina is concerned. Perhaps he will cast his mind back to a couple of years ago, when he was interrupted by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom), and his answer on that occasion. He referred to him (the hon. member for Waterberg) as a “Platteland Prokereurtje.” Things have changed so much to-day that we find that the Platteland Prokereurtje is his political boss, the leader of his party in the Transvaal. That is how things have changed, how the mighty have fallen. We have heard him tell us all about Christian National Socialism, which he has told us is inevitable. I tell him that it is doomed, as certain as anything ever was, doomed to die. What he will do then, sir, I don’t know. He has tried conservatism, nationalism, he is now clutching at national socialism, and when that disappears what is he going to do, how is he going to amuse himself, and what is he going to talk about? I can only think when Italy and Germany are no longer able to exploit their doctrines, he will probably turn to the third member of the party and take a trip to Japan and come back here and tell us about Shintoism. Unfortunately, he will have to pay his own expenses this time, and there will be no banquets at our expense, and I don’t think they will present him with a stallion. Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said in this House about the shocking and scandalous way in which soldiers behave themselves. From the other side of the House they have been blamed for every little disturbance that has occurred since war was declared. I was very very sorry the other afternoon to hear the hon. Leader of the Opposition refer as he did to the situation and the position at Potchefstroom. I know all about the position in Potchefstroom, and I would like to assure the hon. member for Piquetberg that there has been not the slightest sign of any unpleasantness in Potchefstroom for the last six months.

Have you read the Report?

There has not been any indication of any disturbance in Potchefstroom for the last six months.

And they are disappointed.

Naturally. As a matter of fact the position at Potchefstroom to-day is such that when the Normal College gave a rendering of the Messiah not very long ago they invited the soldiers from the camp to come down, and the hall was packed from end to end by troops. When the camp had a concert they invited the students of the Normal College and the University to come up to the camp, and the Y.M.C.A. Hall was packed from end to end with students. And sir, that spirit will prevail provided the members of the Opposition let it. But if we have many more speeches like the one we heard from the hon. Leader of the Opposition the other day no one can expect that happy and satisfactory position to remain. “Opsweepery” is the word, and that is what they specialise in. We have heard all about these disturbances at Grootvlei. Not a word. Not one of them has stood up in this House and condemned any sabotage and bombing. They have not even expressed resentment at it, not a single one of them. To come back to the last election. I have already referred to the fact that the hon. member for Gezina was chased out of Alberton. And we know what happened at other places. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) knows what happened to him, and the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) knows what happened to him, and the supporters of members of that side of the House, and I challenge them to tell me one instance where the supporters of this side of the House broke up one of their meetings; not one instance from Cape Town to the Zambesi. You cannot do it. All this trouble is caused by your own political yap. Mr. Speaker, we heard yesterday and we heard the day before about the blood bath that South Africa experiences from time to time when the hon. the Prime Minister is at the head of affairs. We have always heard that. The actual position is that the hon. the Prime Minister has never been fortunate enough to have a decent Opposition who knows how to behave itself. Every time that he gets control that type of Opposition stirs the country up and blood is the result of it. When that side of the House was sitting here they had an Opposition that never went round to stir the country up by all sorts of malicious and untrue reports, and the grossest exaggerations. That is the reason why blood has on occasion been spilled, when the hon. the Prime Minister is at the head of affairs. I definitely put down the whole cause of it to the manner in which that Opposition goes round and stirs the people up. It has happened for years. In the 1922 revolution they had more to do with it than anybody else, and they know it. They have been responsible for more blood than ever the hon. the Prime Minister.

What about Benoni?

I have listened to the hon. member for Beaufort West and the hon. member for Waterberg continue with their Jew-baiting this afternoon, and a lot more from the hon. member for Beaufort West yesterday. It is surprising when we realise that thousands of pounds were in this country subscribed by the Jews to put the Nationalist Party in power in 1924. It was Jewish money that founded that Party. Thousands of pounds were paid in and collected from Jews.

Rot!

You cannot tell me rot. Jews have confessed it to me. The hon. member for Beaufort West, the biggest Jew baiter in the Southern Hemisphere got his trip to Europe and to Washington because Jews gave the money to put his Party in power.

On his merits.

The hon. member knows it. Here we find a Party founded on Jewish capital condeming the Jews from end to end —sheer black hypocrisy, the kind of thing that they simply scintillate with. It is a case of take, take, take, and bite the hand that fed you. There we have, talking of the hon. member for Zoutpansberg, the mosquito …. he is looking forward to playing a similar role to that of Himmler.

Order! Will the hon. member not make such personal remarks.

I withdraw. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg, we know how he intends when this National Socialism comes along, to specialise in a similar role to Himmler; how he is going to get hold of Mr. Schlesinger’s books and is going to tell the country all about it, and how he did it. But we know he will never achieve that ambition, Mr. Speaker. There is no doubt about it because, as I have said, National Socialism is dead. Just to get back to this one subject, these disturbances with soldiers. We heard the hon. member tell us about this trouble in trains. Is he surprised? Do you think any body of men, self respecting or otherwise, would stand for the insults that his newspaper hurls at them. Will he deny that his newspapers have referred to soldiers in this country as „Rooi luis.” Will he deny that they referred to them as „khaki pes”; Smuts Hot Nots. If his press continues and hon. members continue with these utterances they must expect that kind of treatment. It is self invoked. I can assure them that if they drop their present attitude and carry on with their own politics in a decent way—which will be difficult for them I admit—they will find no trouble from any troops.

Are you justifying assaults, because they are provoked?

We heard an hon. member talking about the drunkenness of sailors in this town. Will he be surprised if he walks down town and gets assaulted by a sailor after what he said about them? We know sailors get drunk in all ports of the world. I would like to conclude my few remarks this evening by telling this hon. gentleman that these self same sailors are the sailors who smile in the face of death as they sail out of the docks with their ships carrying the products of our farmers to the world’s markets.

Have you been a sailor?

Yes, on Boksburg Lake. I would like in conclusion to make an appeal. Let that sort of thing be dropped. Leave the soldiers out of it. Leave the sailors out of it. By all means push your politics. If you do that you will find that any misbehaviour that may have emanated from sailors will cease. I ask you to believe me when I say that.

I do not think anybody expects me to take the noisy utterances of the sailor for Springs seriously. I only want to refer to the two points he made, viz., the good spirit prevailing between the students and soldiers at Potchefstroom. If to-day there exists a good spirit, it means nothing else but an acknowldegement of the fact that the Government has been lax in the past and could have prevented many difficulties. If it had not been so lax, the difficulties which did occur would not have occurred. If there were any discipline amongst the troops the position would have been an entirely different one and if the Government had done its duty before the troubles started there, those disturbances would never have taken place. The hon. member furthermore asked why it is that the meetings of the Government party are broken up and not the meetings of the other party. Well, this is quite clear to me. Since the country has been plunged into the war, the United Party has always been afraid of meeting the electorate and if they do hold a meeting, a small public meeting, they do not want to allow the public the freedom of airing its feelings or of electing its own chairman—they take that right away from the public and try to hold meetings in a manner which they deem fit and proper. This is the reason of the difficulties that take place. This also happened at Klerksdorp. They hold a public meeting and do not give the public the right to elect its own chairman. We are not afraid of meeting the public or to let it choose its own chairman; but the other side does not want to allow that and for that reason troubles occur. This is my reply to the question of the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter). I now want to address a few words to the Minister of Finance who unfortunately is not present. He should not expect us to take him still seriously, for the Minister of Finance has become very well-renowned as being eloquent and ethical and British. Every time he gets up to speak we notice that he wants to put himself forward as the moralist of South Africa. The Minister of Finance takes himself much more seriously than we take him. We know him as an intellectual sponge. He is a person who has acquired a reputation, not because he has created something, but because he has a very good memory. He is a subjective being who receives everything but cannot create anything himself. On this account he is such a good product of the English imperialist capitalist civilisation, of which he is a university product. His whole background is English, and he has no other perspective except such as seen through English spectacles. And if he gets up here he behaves like a Britisher. Thus, when he speaks about democracy, his speech is that of an Englishman for whom any other system is a product of the jungle. If he were not such, he would not have come only under the influence of English professors; he would then have been able long ago to see through the hypocritical British system in all its bareness. Under that system the rule counts that the mightiest is boss. Where he wants to come here and dictate that lesson to us, and wants to tell us that we should fight on England’s side, he should therefore not blame us for refusing to be dictated to by the professor of Oxford. Neither is he original in regard to matters of internal affairs and problems. In South Africa he is nothing but the shadow, the echo of the Prime Minister, whom he follows so loyally. We have noticed that in his political career. In all his actions we are able to notice that he is looking for protection under the wings of the Prime Minister, and if the Prime Minister does something and announces it, he just repeats it like a parrot. The Minister pretends to be that wonderful champion of the freedom of the people. We saw, however, that on the 4th September when the Prime Minister, with the most flagrant deception that ever occurred in the Parliamentary life of South Africa, succeeded in obtaining the majority in this House to vote in favour of war, he even succeeded in misleading the Minister of Finance. This was none too difficult, for the Minister of Finance cannot think for himself, but he lets the Prime Minister think for him. He has been misled, but unfortunately other members on that side also. I want to state that many of the members on the other side would on the 4th September not have voted in favour of the war policy of the Prime Minister if they had not been misled by the Prime Minister.

We knew what we were voting for.

I know of several members on the other side who would not have voted in favour of war but for the fact that the Prime Minister told them that this war would not be conducted as an active war, but only meant the severance of the relations with Germany, and so they were caught and misled. I want to quote the Prime Minister’s own words. When he spoke after the motion of neutrality had been introduced by Gen. Hertzog, he said—

The impression created amongst the members was that we were only severing the connection with Germany and would not take an active part in the war. For that reason they voted for the war. The Minister of Finance, when he spoke, proved that he had been caught by that argument. For what did he say? I quote from Hansard—

That is what we are doing now.

The hon. member says that he is now standing guard in this country. They are standing at guard in the country of Haille Selassie. By means of that incorrect representation of the situation, the Prime Minister succeeded in obtaining the support of several members on the other side who were against the war policy.

Who were they?

If I am not mistaken, the hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler) was one of them. After the decision had been made in Parliament, members on the Government side succeeded by the same misleading representation of facts in getting a large section of the population outside to accept the war policy. At that time we warned the people that this would be but the first instalment, and that at some later date we would be taking part actively. The people were misled, and matters developed so that we are now actively taking part in the war. There was another deceptive argument which succeeded, and I think it may have been that piece of bait which caught the hon. member for Kimberley District so easily, namely, that we had to take part in the war, because otherwise our produce would be rotting on the land and we would not be able to sell our produce. The produce is rotting away in our harbours to-day, although we are at war. Yesterday the Minister of Lands got up here and appealed in a new role. He now speaks on behalf of the Government and said: What does it help one to gain the whole world and to lose his soul? Just think of it, on the 4th September the soul had to be sold to save the produce of South Africa, and now the Minister of Lands declares: What does it help one to gain the whole world and to lose his soul? He made that declaration in connection with the argument that we are not in the happy position in which we would have been if we had not taken part in the war. Those two misleading arguments caught a large section of the people. But the eyes of the people now become seeing again, and to-day they notice what is happening. They see that this rotting produce story was a deception put forward to trick them.

The farmers are paying off their bonds.

I said at that time, and to-day I repeat it again, that England is not buying our produce out of love for South Africa. If it buys them, it buys them because it needs that produce badly. It would have bought that produce whether we had taken part in the war or not. The proof for my assertion one can find in the fact that there are many products we cannot get rid of, and which England does not want to purchase. What is the position of the maize farmers to-day? England buys maize from the Argentine, but not from South Africa. As far as the last maize crop is concerned, England undertook to buy for it needed the maize. In spite of that, only 2,000,000 bags were exported, and practically the whole of the old crop is still here, and what is going to happen to the new crop? Is England going to buy? So far there have been no signs of it yet. England does not buy because it does not need the maize, and it does not buy for the sake of charity, but because it needs it. The maize farmers have been misled, and now they are beginning to see what the position is. Now take also the fruit farmers. The fruit farmers to-day are not able to sell their produce abroad. A promise had also been made to the citrus farmers. They would be able to sell their citrus to England. What is the position to-day? England is not prepared to buy any further citrus, and our citrus farmers are not able to sell. They also have been misled by the rotting produce story. What about the other deciduous fruit? Go to Paarl and Stellenbosch, and ask the fruit farmers whether they are able to export. To-day England does buy our butter and eggs, and we even cannot supply enough. This is not charity, but because England cannot get butter and eggs from Norway, Denmark and Sweden and Holland and Belgium. It buys because it needs them, and it would have bought whether we had been in the war or not. I mention these facts in order to show up the deception that took place. Take our wool farmers. They have no reason to be grateful to the Government. On the contrary, I think there is no other section of the population contributing a larger amount to the war funds of England than the wool farmers of South Africa. I am convinced that if we had had an open market, we would have received at least 4d. or 5d. more to-day than we are receiving.

What is the open market?

The same as we had during the last war. We then had more or less the same position as to-day, and we received remarkably high prices. Japan, America and England all bought, and those three would have bought again if we had had an open market. To-day the position would even have been more favourable. Countries such as Russia and America would have bought much more than ever before. Did the Prime Minister not tell us yesterday that our trade with America is expanding every day, that the shipping traffic between us and America is greater than ever before? America would have bought much more than it did during the last war. In the last war England still was a formidable competitor of America, but England is to-day no longer such a serious competitor of America in the world, for it has been ruined. As the result of the British wool scheme, the farmers lose approximately £5,000,000 per annum.

Why did Japan not buy last year?

If England has so much love for South Africa, why doesn’t it buy our mohair?

Why is Japan not buying it?

Because the Government has closed the open market. England buys raisins and tobacco in Turkey because it wants to get Turkey to take sides with it in the war. If we were a neutral country to-day, I can well imagine how England would go out of its way to obtain our friendship by buying our produce, which is to-day rotting away. The people not only cannot have confidence in the Government on account of this shameful deception, but it can also not have confidence in the Government because the Government made use of an opportunity to come into power in a manner which is unknown in the history of any democratic country in the world. The way in which this Government came into power cannot be described otherwise than as a parliamentary coup d’etat. They do not have the right to sit there to-day. Has it ever happened in any democratic country with a parliamentary system that a new coalition has been formed, and that simply and purely as the result of an accidental majority in Parliament, a new government was formed? They now are desperately holding on to their Government seats. What is our experience in South Africa? Coalitions have been formed before in our country. We remember the coalition between the old South African Party and the Unionists. But then a general election followed immediately. The people sanctioned that coalition. The people were misled, but they approved of it. In 1932 Gen. Hertzog formed a coalition with the present Prime Minister. Again a general election was written out and the people in its wisdom approved of that coalition. In both these cases the usual practice has been followed which is in use in democratic countries where we find a parliamentary system. But here in South Africa we now find that the Prime Minister uses an accidental majority in order to form a government and that he is sticking to that accidental majority without affording the people with a chance of approving or disapproving of it. The people furthermore distrust the Government because they are now beginning to discover what the price is they will have to pay for the war. At the outset they were told: We are not going to have active warfare; this is going to be a stay-at-home war and the expenditure will not be very large. Initially the Minister of Finance introduced a budget, and he assessed the war expenditure at £14,000,000. But that expenditure is mounting every day. Our Government is becoming more loyal and more British and they spend more and more money on the war so that now already we are spending the terrific amount of £6,000,000 per month for war purposes. If the people had known this on 4th September they would have revolted. But the Government then proceeded to disarm the people and now that the people have been disarmed, it spends millions and millions of pounds on this British war. Not only do we pay £6,000,000 per month now already, but we do not know what the war’s aftermath may be. I agree with the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé) that England has lost the war, for it cannot revivify Poland, and that was the reason why it started this war. There may be a patched up peace, but England has lost the war. And if it has lost the war we shall have to pay indemnity together with England. If Germany wins I shall not be surprised if it imposes on South Africa a very heavy tribute of maybe £500,000,000. This war therefore does not only mean to us the expenditure of £6,000,000 per month, but on top of it a few hundred million pounds which may be laid upon us in the form of a fine, if we do not lose our freedom altogether. Even our freedom is in danger as a result of the policy of the Government, and then they want the people to be still loyal to this Government in spite of that tremendous price it has to pay for actual warfare and in spite of the danger of losing its freedom and having to pay indemnity.

What about Holland and Belgium.

Another price we have to pay for this war is the dislocation in the field of social and economic matters as a result of the policy of this Government. Is there still anybody who doubts that the social life of the Union is divided at present as it has never been before? And this is growing worse every day.

Whose fault is that?

That is the fault of the people who dragged us into this war, who plunged a people into the war when it was unwilling to go to war. Only on the road of peace can the welfare and unity of the people be found. In the war we cannot find those. In this respect De Valera set us an example. De Valera took the road of peace and he made his people united. Even the Minister Plenipotentiary of the Union, Dr. van Broekhuizen, who recently went to Ireland, said that he found unity in a country which was always proverbially divided. Why is this so? Because Ireland broke away from Great Britain and its wars. We could have done the same. Not only do we find here dislocation in the social life, but also in the economic field. What is going to happen after this war when those hundreds of thousands of boys and girls who have been taken out of the normal life of the country and have been sent up North return some day? Will they fit in again in their former work? Will there be openings for them when they return, and if there are openings for them what is going to happen to those who occupy their positions at present? Another price we pay is the neglect of our essential services. It has been pointed out already that the Government has withdrawn and curtailed all assistance in connection with land settlement, soil erosion and irrigation. We find that there are hundreds and thousands of persons clamouring for plots on the settlements; we have the settlements at Vaal-Hartz, Pongola and Loskop, but the Government is unwilling to establish the people on those settlements. The Minister of Finance to-day boasted here and declared that the Land Bank needed far less money than had been granted to it. If the Land Bank does not need the money, then the Department of Lands needs that money in order to put those settlers who have no soil of their own on the settlements at Vaal-Hartz and elsewhere. Use the money for that purpose. But the Minister will not use the money to that effect He will not use the money for land settlement, the fight against soil erosion and irrigation works, he will Use it for this English and British war. And our hon. friend over there who since his visit to the white cliffs of Dover has become so loyal, and is now the foremost champion of British imperialism, will support the Minister there. He is the incorporation of a logical contradiction in terminis. There also are essential services which are being neglected. We have, for instance, the housing schemes. And this is my experience, and perhaps the Government will be able to explain it, that the payments in respect of old age pensions and invalidity grants have been severely curtailed. Persons who last year still received their grants according to a certain scale must now find that their grants have been cut. If the war continues many of those things will grow worse still. There is furthermore another price we have to pay for this British war and this is one of the heaviest prices—the playing away of our chance to follow a policy of economic reconstruction in South Africa.

Is this the redemption of mortgages again?

The hon. member anticipates the matter, apparently because it is an inspiration of his guilty conscience. He knows that the Government owes a great deal to the farming community of South Africa. He knows that the position of the farmer is still such that a scheme of rehabilitation is necessary. Nobody, knowing the position of the farmer, will fail to realise that far-reaching measures will have to be taken to rehabilitate the farming community, and not only to rehabilitate it, but also to stabilise it against the dislocation which must follow this war. If to-day we were not engaged in this war, we could have rehabilitated the farmers and that in such a way that to-morrow and the day after they would not again be in the same humiliating position of having to come to the Government for assistance. We do not want alms for them. We want to assist them in such a way that we can free them from government help and that they can become independent, and if those farmers who would get government assistance would not provide themselves for becoming free from further government assistance so that they need never again ask for further help, drastic measures would have to be taken and the freedom of those would have to be curtailed in such a way that their own independence would not again come to grief. This might have been done if the Government had not spent those millions of pounds in order to carry on a British war. Not only could we have rehabilitated the farming community but we could have instituted a general policy of reconstruction in connection with our industrial life, and this is a dire necessity. The fact remains that to-day we find certain anomalies, weaknesses and deficiencies in the industrial system of South Africa which have to be changed. The industries of South Africa are not in reality popular industries. They are either branches of foreign industries or they are controlled by foreign capital. It is a fact that South Africa is not master of its own industries, but that the industries are the masters of South Africa. That state of affairs will have to be changed. A great section of our population are absolute strangers as far as our industries are concerned because our industries are not really national undertakings. They should be controlled in such a way that they are actually South African industries and not foreign industries. We know that the whole economic system of South Africa is dependent on London. We want to make South Africa free to such an extent that also in the economic field we shall be able to claim that we are a free people. And if it be true that the people are dissatisfied because it has been dragged into this war, that it is dissatisfied because of the price it has to pay for it, then the people are still more dissatisfied about the way in which the Government wages the war. Proof of this is first of all the lack of control over the expenditure in connection with it. When I was in Koffiefontein I came in touch with the internment camp of the Italians. At that time there were approximately 800 internees and there were between 500 and 600 guards. There were nearly as many guards as there were internees. Those people have to be paid salaries. I do not even talk about the joy rides the soldiers have on our trains there and back. No wonder that the people who see these things are dissatisfied with the waste of money carried on by the Government. The people are also dissatisfied with the lack of control over the troops and the supporters of the Government. This is proved by what happened in Potchefstroom, in Cape Town and the other day in Johannesburg. The Prime Minister so to say raised his hands in despair and admitted that his soldiers ran amuck and that there was not sufficient discipline amongst them. There is no control over the troops. It is a fact that they go about in the towns and villages and on the trains like a lot of street rogues in order to molest persons and ruin property in a way which any civilized country in the world would be ashamed of. We feel ashamed to think that those things have happened in South Africa. But it is not only the army that is out of control. The supporters of the Government are not disciplined either We see that here in Cape Town. Most of the people who incite the soldiers to acts of violence and improper deeds are the ordinary supporters of the Government. I need only refer to the happenings here in Adderley Street. It is always asserted that those stupid sailors and soldiers are the cause of the troubles, but often the supporters of the Government incite those men and they are afraid to do the fighting themselves but remain behind here in order to incite others to misbehaviour. They are the cause of the disturbances. I had an example of that at Oudtshoorn. A large number of members of the Royal Air Force went there for their training. And after those men had been there for a few days, a few of the supporters of the Government approached them and incited them to molest persons who left the bioscope when “God Save the King” was being played. Those people should now be stopped from doing so and they should be forced to pay homage towards that anthem. And a certain night when the film had finished, there were standing outside that hall not less than 200 soldiers to prevent the people from getting out before “God Save the King” had been played. The result of this was a scuffle. I just want to say this. There were about fifteen sons of farmers there and there were 200 soldiers. Those farmers sons hit the soldiers so hard and good that one of the latter had to be sent to Cape Town by aeroplane for treatment. The soldiers came to the bioscope armed with pipes and other weapons, and our sons had no weapons at all. The police envisaged the danger and the next day steps were taken immediately. They called in the general of the Ossewa Brandwag and they told him: “Look here, there is going to be trouble here. Yesterday night there were fifteen Ossewa Brandwag people at the bioscope and there were disturbances.” The reply of the general was: „The Ossewa Brandwag had nothing to do with it. If it had been organised by us, there would not have been fifteen, but 1500.” Then the police asked: “What do you suggest” and he replied: “We are not looking for trouble, but we want our people to have their freedom and if they want ‘to leave the hall before that anthem is being played, they must have the right to do so.” An agreement was then reached, so that after the film has been shown, a grammophone record is being played and any person wanting to leave can do so, and no further trouble occurs now. What we want from the Prime Minister is that he shall see to it that there is discipline amongst his people. And if the Prime Minister cannot effect this, he will have to call in the assistance of the Ossewa Brandwag, for we know that they can keep perfect discipline. They have shown that again in Johannesburg. Then there is another thing to which I wish to draw the attention, and this is the scandalous way in which our people have to suffer victimisation and intimidation. We are being told that no pressure is being applied to get the people to join the army. I want to prove again to-night, by reading out a letter, how much compulsion is being used in order to force persons to go to the front. One of my constituents was near Pretoria at Roberts Heights and not knowing what to do and in the hope of not being sent North, he took work from the Government because he was out of work and could not get other work. As he states he signed a document; but he did not know that the result of that would be that he would perhaps be sent up North and this is what he writes—

I am sorry the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) did not give that last little bit of information earlier, so that we could have had all the facts. I understood from the hon. gentleman that a man had joined the Mechanical Transport, and when he was told that he had to proceed north he refused to go. Then the hon. gentleman went on to say how this man was thrown into the guard room and badly treated. Mr. Speaker, it flabbergasts me that an hon. gentleman can get up in this House and defend a man who, when he is told to do a certain job, after he has signed on to serve his king and country anywhere in Africa, refuses to do it. That only means one thing, it is cowardice. Refusal to obey an order to proceed to the front is cowardice, and let me remind the hon. member for Oudtshoorn that the penalty for cowardice in the face of the enemy, and that is what apparently this is, is to be shot.

[Inaudible.]

I can assure the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Rooth) that his military experience has been sadly neglected, so my advice to him is that if he signs on the dotted line, to be careful. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) said he was very worried because if we lost this war South Africa would have to pay an indemnity. Mr. Speaker, does the hon. gentleman think that if we lose this war, Germany has not got her eyes on this country? She does not want any indemnity from South Africa, not one penny of indemnity will she claim, she will just take the lot. She does not want German South West Africa again, what does she want with desert when she can have our fertile plains, our gold, diamonds, copper and everything else which South Africa produces? Sir, don’t let the hon. gentleman go round and tell the country that they will have to pay a lot of money. We are fighting for our lives, for our very existence, and the sooner hon. members on the opposite side realise that the better. The third and most vital point I want to deal with as far as the hon. member for Oudtshoorn is concerned, is the charge he made against the Prime Minister of misleading this side of the House on the 4th September. Well, I am one of the supposed poor misled, misguided people, and I say thank God for Gen. Smuts, the whole country says thank God for Gen. Smuts, and hon. gentlemen on the opposite side also say thank God for Gen. Smuts if the truth was known.

And the double salary.

Gen. Smuts has kept this country on the straight and narrow path….

[Inaudible.]

There is the member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) interjecting now, and I am very pleased, because I have something I want to say to him. I don’t like to attack a man unless he attacks me first. I was one of the poor fools who was misled by the hon. member for Fordsburg and not by the rime Minister. The hon. member for Fordsburg, a few days before the 4th September 1939, told me and quite a number of my colleagues on this side of the House, that there was only one thing for South Africa to do, South Africa must follow Great Britain, if Great Britain declared war South Africa must follow. But he said we were representing two sections of the South African population, and he suggested that we should adjourn Parliament for three weeks, go back to our constituencies, tell them how necessary it was for South Africa to follow Britain’s lead, and then we would have the whole country with us, and then we could come back to Parliament and the decision would be practically unanimous. The only people who would vote against us would be the small Malanite section. I was one of the poor fools whom the hon. gentleman tried to mislead, the Prime Minister did no misleading. Now let us see if the hon. gentleman is a man of his word. I have a cutting here dated 6-11-40 —

That lets the cat out of the bag. The hon. gentleman really wanted to declare war on England. That is why he wanted me to support him, to delay that decision of the 4th September, and make it three weeks later. Well, I say again, thank God for Gen. Smuts, who gave us the lead. We thought of no sedition, we wanted to do the right thing for ourselves and for our country, and to-day South Africa stands very high in the eyes of the whole world for the attitude that she adopted. I am glad of the lead given us by Gen. Smuts. Now I want to go back to the Leader of the Opposition, when he, a couple of days ago, assumed the role of the armchair critic, what a weak case he put up. He gave me the impression of a man who was drowning and was clutching at anything to save himself in the water. He asked one significant question and that was, “Why should we have gone to the expense of sending an army up to the North?” He asked that question of the hon. the Prime Minister. Why he did not ask the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) I do not know. Surely the hon. member for Gezina would have been able to tell him that in his own Caucus. The hon. member for Gezina warned the country about the hordes in the North, and the hon. member for Gezina also told us and warned us in what a vulnerable spot South Africa was. He made all of the people’s flesh creep, when he warned us of the vulnerable spot we were in. That was when the hon. member for Gezina was Minister of Defence. Is the hon. Leader of the Opposition not on speaking terms with the hon. member for Gezina, because if we listen to whisperings we hear in the lobbies the hon. member for Gezina is undermining the Leader of the Opposition Party from inside — this New Order. Rumour also says in the lobby that the hon. member for Gezina is going to remain in that Party until such time as he is kicked out. In the meantime he is practising his new Order, making new converts. Mr. Speaker, the old, old story, the fifth column moving in their own Party, the fifth column movement again white-anting from within. The hon. Leader of the Opposition, does not know our Bush Cart Fuhrer. And who knows the hon. Leader of the Opposition might be suffering to my mind with Nazi Catarrh, and if he is suffering from Nazi Catarrh he won’t smell that fifth column smell. But I want to warn the hon. member. We have had the experience on this side. The hon. member must be very careful over there. Anyway, I will tell the hon. Leader of the Opposition why we have sent an army up North; Sir, it is just to protect ourselves, that is all. Just to protect South Africa, and to protect the Opposition also. We did not have a general election in September 1939, and if we had, most of them would have gone. The hon. the Prime Minister was very considerate towards the Opposition, very considerate indeed, and especially I say to the hon. member for Fordsburg, it was a very close shave for him. But nevertheless, I am sure, he is very grateful to the hon. the Prime Minister. Anyway, we sent this army up North to protect ourselves, and to chase the Italians out, because as the hon. member for Gezina would have told you if we had not chased them out they would have chased us out, and that is why he was going to build up his army of bush carts to scavenge around the bush veld when we were turned out of our country here. We have had bomb shells dropped in this House, and I often wonder when I hear some of these idle speeches from the Opposition side whether it would not be a good thing for the country if the war was not brought nearer to South Africa— if the last war had been brought nearer to South Africa. If some of those hon. gentlemen sitting on the opposite side had the experience of being under fire, and knowing what warfare was we would not hear such idle talk. We have some hon. gentlemen on the other side who have fought for their country but they are few and far between, and they say the least in this House. The ones who have the most blow are the ones who have never seen military service at all, and who do not know what war is. In regard to the hon. Leader of the Opposition I wonder what would happen if one of the enemy planes came over and dropped a bomb in our grounds outside. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition is used to dropping political bombs, and this is all. Only political bombs, and those bombs usually smell, but not the same as a gunpowder bomb smells. Anyway, that is the sort of bomb that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has been used to handling, and used to dropping in and around this House, but I often wonder if the real Mackay bomb dropped outside while the hon. Leader of the Opposition was speaking, whether any speed records would not be broken in getting out of this House. I can visualise the Hon. Leader of the Opposition getting into the first motor car and making for Simonstown, that snot Simonstown that they all condemn. I think the Leader of the Opposition with his Musketeers would make for that same Simonstown, and we would possibly have the case of the recurring decimal again, the thing that has happened before with the Leader of the Opposition, when he had sheltered under the Union Jack for safety. I wonder whether he would not be back there again with a Union Jack wrapped round him singing the old song “Wrap me up in my old stable jacket”.

Are you a clown from Simonstown?

The flag that shelters us and the flag that guarantees freedom to anybody. Anyway, we have also had some talk from the hon. member for Waterberg. There is another member a non-fighter gentleman, a gentleman who has in this House shewn that he was proud to be a non-combatant. Well, sir, when a man is a non-combatant over a fateful war like this we must only assume that he is just a hands-upper. But, I want to remind the hon. member for Waterberg—he is not here now—that he will have to represent another constituency, because I read in the papers, and I am sure my colleagues must have read it, and I am sure hon. members of the Opposition must have read it also, that Waterberg supplied a Spit Fire too, not the hon. member, the real Mackay, a fighter plane. Well, if Waterberg did that we are proud of Waterberg, and the hon. gentleman will have to make his own peace with his constituents.

Are you proud of the non-fighting Captains?

The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) interjecting I hear. I will deal with him in a few minutes because I do not want to break the sequence which I have. I have said it in this House before, and I want to repeat it here again, this House is the breeding spot of racialism. This is where all the racialism exists. What happened during the last session and the first portion of this session in Capetown here? We had these incidents during the two minutes pause. As soon as the hon. gentleman on the opposite benches left those incidents completely disappeared. Now the hon. gentlemen are back again. The hon. gentlemen are sitting back in their seats, and they are busy stirring up this racial strife again, coming into this House and shouting racialism and preaching civil disobedience too, from their benches. Civil disobedience against a Government which is at war. The same thing is going on again. I am very sorry indeed that these hon. gentlemen on the opposite side stoop to these tactics. They think that they are making headway in the country but they are not. They vied with themselves at one time when they expelled all the English speaking sections from the Party. They did their best to stir up as much trouble so as to divide the English speaking and the Afrikaans speaking. After this Sir, they had competitions among themselves to see whether one could not beat the other and they did the job perfectly. The result is that there is a division now among the Afrikaans speaking Party; they have even quarreled now among themselves and split. A remark was passed in this House this afternoon, about the new Afrikander Party and I am with it, that they are people who stand on their principles, and honour their principles. They were bluffed on the 4th September. We were not but they stood by their principles. Now what do they say: “Yes, we were bluffed, and now we are out”. “We are not mixing with you now.” “You have turned our Leader out, we follow our Leader.” „As you have turned our Leader out, now we will turn you out.” We look forward to the day when those hon. gentlemen will come back to the United Party. The United Party is the only Party that will ever survive in this country, with all due deference to my Labour friends and my friends, the Dominion Party. Both their Parties are doomed because South Africa is determined that there shall be no racialism. The differences of opinion and the racialism that these people opposite are stirring up will not be tolerated. The United Party is busy building up a South African nation with the material we have here in this country, and this material includes the members on the opposite side of the House. They will all come over. They will be pleased to come over when they realise the only safe seats that can be had are by being members of the United Party. They will come and they will come as an avalanche. Now I want to refer, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition referred, to those deplorable incidents which happened in Johannesburg on Friday and Saturday evenings. I as one of the Johannesburg members deplore it. I think we are all very, very sorry that they ever occurred, and we sincerely hope now that as this Commission of Enquiry has been appointed that the evidence will be thoroughly sifted, and particularly when we see that there has been one case of death. It has gone as far as that. We sincerely hope that the perpetrators of this dastardly crime will be severely dealt with. Wherever the blame is, whether on the civilian side, whether on the police side, or whether on the soldiers’ side, there must be no more of it, and now that the Security Regulations are in operation we sincerely hope that these regulations will be properly enforced, and that it will be the death knell of these “incidents” happening between civilian and soldier, and soldier and police. I want to come back now to my hon. friend, the hon. member for Mossel Bay. I have here a cutting from the “Star” dated 4-11-40. I am sorry the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) is not in his place. It reads: Mossel Bay, Monday, 4-11-40.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we had a remark passed by the hon. member for Gezina during his speech saying that a paper suggested if a prize was given out for the worst speech it would have gone to a certain gentleman. Well, sir, I think the hon. member for Gezina has been trying to win that prize. I thought at the time that he was a good winner of that prize, and well worthy of that prize. I thought he even beat the Leader of the Opposition, but when I heard the hon. member for Beaufort West in his speech here this afternoon, and when I turned up this cutting — I am afraid I must give the prize to the hon. member for Beaufort West, because he says the British Navy is a spent force. This afternoon he said that the war was over, the war was lost to Great Britain. The hon. member for Beaufort West said the war was lost by England if she did not win it. It was lost if she did not win it! Now, he said on the 4th of the 11th month that the Navy was a spent force. Suspension of the child evacuee scheme was sufficient proof that it was unable to protect its children on the high seas. I think this is a lovely dream, a dream that Hitler would love to have. If Hitler himself could only think that that Navy was a spent force half of his trouble would have been over,— this war would have been over. It is that same spent force which is going to win this war, has turned the scales already in cooperation with the Air Force. This spent force has put us on the winning side of the war. Now the hon. member for Beaufort West goes on. He could only say so in a constituency like Mossel Bay. He praises the South African police who refused to take the new oath, and describes them as heroes of the Nation.

They are heroes.

This report goes on to say that whenever the hon. member for Beaufort West meets them in the streets he felt like taking his hat off to them. Mr. Speaker, that is mere idle talk which emanates from supposed leaders of the people. Unfortunately they mislead a few people when they make these statements. Acutally it amounts to this, when a man makes statements like this, instead of, as he tries to make out here, making him into a hero, he is making that man into a traitor. This is what idle words like that lead to. Now another point that the hon. member for Beaufort West dealt with in his speech. He complained that at a meeting at Marico he was thrown off the platform, and he said, “Why were not these men arrested who assaulted me?” I will now continue reading this same report.

Nonsense.

I am quoting the report. I take it it has come from your Town, the reporter of your town has supplied it. And on three occasions people who were interjecting were ejected from the hall.

Where was that?

That was at Mossel Bay. So we have the hon. member for Beaufort West complaining when he was thrown off the platform, but when anybody interjected when he was speaking he was thrown out of the hall. Three of them were thrown out of the hall. Now, Mr. Speaker, I will have to cut it short. I had a lot more to say but my time is just about finished. Great play has been made in this House about this last Winburg Parliamentary election. The Opposition have tried to tell us that that was the turning point. We have lost votes. Mr. Speaker, I want to address these few remarks to the hon. members of the Afrikaner Party, who have done a wise thing by breaking away from the Nationalist Party. Don’t let us talk about the Winburg Parliamentary election. Let us think about the Winburg Provincial election a few months ago. That is where the Hertzogites had to win. The agreement was the Malanites pledged themselves to suport the Hertzog candidate. What happened? The Hertzogite lost by 700 votes. That was an honourable thing for them to do, wasn’t it?

He never stood for Winburg.

The seat was lost by 700 votes. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate them, the hon. members of the new Afrikaner Party. They got out in time. I say to the old Hertzogites who are still left among the Nationalists, the day is not far distant when you will be pushed out, before you have a chance to get out.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naude) gave us a well meant piece of advice when he said that we of the Afrikaner Party should not attack their Party, and we should confine ourselves to the common enemy, the Government of the day. I have no quarrel and I do not think my Party has any quarrel with the hon. member for Pietersburg if he seriously means that, because, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietersburg, and others like him in that Party, are there for one purpose and one purpose only. We are to accept what they said. That is the difference between us. They said: “Don’t leave this Party, stay in this Party. We admit it is in a terrible mess and the proper thing to do is to clean it from outside”. We had lost faith in that story because it was not a new story in the Party. We do not believe that the hon. member for Pietersburg, and those that think like him, have any power to bring about that cleaning processes of the Party. That is why we broke, apart from other reasons. I think that I can sum up the position of the Hertzogites who are to-day in that Party by this example; it is the Hertzogites who still profess Hertzogism who still want to see Hertzogism as part of the policy of that Party, part of the policy that will eventually become the ruling policy in this country. My experience and the experience of my friends here with me is that the Hertzogites is that party are in the position of a buck that has been swallowed by a Luislang, and is being steadily and quietly digested. Just as powerless as a buck in the stomach of a snake to do any harm to that snake. So powerless are our friends within that Party who still profess Hertzogism. The only effect they will have on that Party will be perhaps the same effect as the Buck will have on the snake. A little bit of indigestion perhaps. Mr. Speaker, we have broken from that Party because the difference between them and ourselves is vital. It involves the question of principle. It involves not only the question of what stands in that programme but whether that programme of principles has been honestly designed in order to bring peace to the country, whether it has been put there, certain of those principles, with a view to deceiving the other section in this country. In order to do that one must analyse the strength within that Party and the trend within that Party. Let me say that to my mind and from the expericence I have had, fifteen months within that Party, the strong man of that Party is the hon. member for Waterberg. The hon. member for Waterberg must not be derided because the hon. member for Waterberg, however misguided and wrong he is, — as I think he is in his policy — is sincere in that policy. This country will still have to recognise the quality and the danger of the hon. member for Waterberg. He is by far the strongest man in the Transvaal. Anybody who attended the Congress in Pretoria would have seen that that is so. The hon. member for Waterberg has associated with him within that Party the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) who is the Leader in the Free State, and with him again is the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw), who is the Leader of the dissenters in the Western Province. Without a doubt those three men give colour and dictate the true policy of the Herenigde Party. The hon. member for Waterberg must be accepted as sincere. He said it here, that he was always against Fusion, because he disbelieved in the principle that there could ever be any cooperation between the two races in this country, and the hon. member for Winburg was the same. I do not know what the position was of the hon. member for Beaufort West because at that time I think he was on the Continent.

I do not think he knows himself.

Mr. Speaker, when I say that these three gentlemen represent the strength of the party, they also interpret the true feelings and the principles of the great majority of the members of that party. Mr. Speaker, their extremism is not out of step with the feelings of that party, but very much in step, and their popularity with the party to-day is because they are so very much in step with the party. I now come to discuss that policy, and in order to do so I must begin with the origin of nationalism in this country, and state who the apostle of nationalism is. There is only one man who is the founder, and that is Gen. Hertzog. He is the man who achieved nationalism and played a part in building up that policy in this country, and eventually the party became the government. Gen. Hertzog had the foresight to see that nationalism could never achieve anything, and its supporters would always be a howling minority in the wilderness unless they got the co-operation of at least a portion of the other section of the population. The hon. gentlemen who sat in Gen. Hertzog’s Government should have learnt the value of that lesson. Starting from that point, Gen. Hertzog developed that policy, but the tragedy of Gen. Hertzog’s nationalism is that apparently it was never understood by the great majority of Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaners who followed him at various times. There v;as a section who thought that Gen. Hertzog’s policy of nationalism was based on Afrikaans domination, if one can put it as strongly as that. That was one of the fundamental things that Gen. Hertzog never stood for, and does not stand for to-day. He always stood for equality in every respect in regard to those who enjoyed the franchise in this country. That was the early struggle, that was the struggle that he continued. I think I might here quote words which I remember reading in 1928. They are words which Gen. Hertzog used at the conference at Bloemfontein, words which turned out to be prophetic. This is what he said —

Mr. Speaker, there you have the task which Gen. Hertzog set himself, and if the party could not succeed in that, then there was nothing further for the party to do. Now, Mr. Speaker, what has been the trend of policy since 1933 when the experiment was attempted? The whole strength of the hon. member for Piquetberg’s cry in the country was due to the fact that those who stood behind him believed that true happiness for the Afrikaner, I mean Afrikaner in the narrow sense, could only be achieved on the basis of race and language. That is the whole policy of that party. In a country like this, where you have all these different elements, where you have not a common language or a common tradition, where you have nothing that is universal except the soil of South Africa, you can only appeal to the people of this country on the basis of a love for the soil of South Africa, because that is their only common heritage, and once you get away from that fundamental principle, you must land in the wilderness, because that is the only basis of a universal policy. Is there anything wrong in it? You say to a man, “All I ask of you is that you have a loyalty to this soil of ours, that you have no loyalty that is greater than that.” What more can you ask of a man? Upon that basis you can start building up. The hon. the Prime Minister said something that I have never yet heard expressed before. He put is very succinctly. He said, “Unity on the basis of race is impossible, it is alone possible on the basis of principle. Mr. Speaker, that is the basis of the policy of this party, it is not a new basis, we are merely continuing the policy that Gen. Hertzog established in 1913, and carried on through the years, and we are prepared to go on along the road where he led, even if others are not prepared to go with us. There is a vote of no confidence in the Government moved by the Herenigde Party. (Interruptions). Oh, I have not finished with the Herenigde Party, not by a long chalk. My hon. friend over there says it looks as if there is a motion of no confidence in the Herenigde Party, and let me assure him that he was never more right. That no confidence, as far as the Herenigde Party is concerned, is based (a) on their wrong principles, and (b) because we are satisfied that along the road that they are travelling they will never be able to rule in this country. Mr. Speaker, the members of the Opposition are busy along the wrong road, and what will the consequences be to their own followers? Gen. Hertzog made the Afrikaans-speaking man and his policy a power in this country, because he saw that he could only do that with the assistance of the other side. Along the road my hon. friends are travelling now, they are going to make the Afrikaner politically powerless, along that line, Mr. Speaker, as we say in Afrikaans, the Afrikaner will be onmagtig. That is what they are busy with. If we had an election to-day the Herenigde Party, which presumably furnishes the alternative government, will lose the day hopelessly, and why? Not because of the good policy of the Government, but because their own policy is worse than the bad policy of the Government. The policy of my hon. friends is worse, because they are not attracting support, but driving it away. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) says I am a S.A.P. If I am, then Gen. Hertzog is one, and where he is prepared to be, I am prepared to be. Don't let this side of the House allow its feelings to run away with it, let it use its common sense. Take the position in the Cape. If an election took place, the division would be equal. There would be equal strength returned. Whatever they did in the Free State would be cancelled out by Natal.

By the Dominion Party.

I am not prepared to speculate on the chances of the Dominion Party, but I am perfectly prepared to say that the Herenigde Party has no chance of any success in Natal. That is the point. We then come to the Transvaal, which is the key of the situation. By the new delimitation there will be 35 seats on the Rand, I would ask my friend, the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman), who is chairman of the party and knows its strength, what they can possibly hope to get on the Rand; at the outside, three out of the 35 seats. Then we get Pretoria. That may be equal; and so we come to the platteland. Unless the party improves its strength, it cannot win any election. Now I ask the party honestly, how are they going to get any strength on their present policy, a policy of “down with everything,” nothing to attract, down with the Jews, down with the coloured people, and down with the English-speaking section, down with everybody “except just us few.”

Down with Hertzog too.

Yes, they downed him all right. The Leader of the Opposition bases his presnt policy on this. He says we must always have eternal division in this country because of the British connection; take away the British connection, and then you will have peace in this country. Now, this British connection would suggest a link between this country and Britain, a link having a point here and a point in Britain. Mr. Speaker, neither the British people nor the British Government in any way influenced the position in September last. The British connection that my hon. friend complains about is no constitutional bar to our South African independence, and a republic can be set up under the existing constitutional law of this country. The British connection is no longer Downing Street, or any authority on that side. It must have its roots in this country, and if he wants to eliminate that he must deal with it entirely in this country by applying himself to the majority of the voters here.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Wodehouse (Mr. S. Bekker) says the South African Party will nominate me. Well, I have no guarantee; he has the guarantee. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, he got one guarantee, and the Leader of the Opposition thought so much of the first guarantee that, as soon as this party was started he went out to Piquetberg and gave my hon. friend another guarantee. If there is a doubt about the first one, I think my hon. friend from Wodehouse should lose a little sleep wondering whether the second is any good. The Leader of the Opposition appeals to the country on a limited basis of race and language, and he tells his people “When we rule, you will be baas.” In other words, “You will dominate. What the other man has you will have, and where you are to-day he will be, when we rule.” That is the whole basis of the appeal. Now how does my hon. friend ever expect to get any support for his party beyond what he has to-day? He can never have any more. He wants a republic on the basis of the national will, but in order to get that republic he has to have the support of the other section. Now, if he is honest in his declaration of policy, how is he going to get any self-respecting English-speaking man in this country to vote for his republic, when after he gets his republic, that man has no guarantee that he will be equal in his citizenship? I have always understood a republic to be on the basis of equality and freedom, there is no guarantee of equality here, consequently there is no guarantee of freedom. The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) says that we must read the principles of the party. I don’t care what the principles of the party are, because the spirit of the party is not the principles of the party, and whilst I am dealing with the hon. member, may I ask him what he meant when referring to the Afrikaner Party last night, he said, “You won’t be able to hold any meetings in Smithfield and Fauresmith.” We are entitled to know whether we are going to be allowed to speak, and if there is a threat to our freedom to hold meetings, then there is a lot to be said for this security code. The break between our party and the Herenigde Party is a breach on the question of principle; the cleft is deep, the fight is on, and we are going to continue that fight in Fauresmith and in Smithfield. We know that the basis we stand on is sound, and the basis they stand on is unhealthy.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member. (Interruptions). Naturally, the dogs will howl. I merely want to congratulate the hon. member upon what one must describe as a very fine effort indeed. Unlike most of the speeches from that side of the House, we have had some conception of the rights of man demonstrated here, and one has the right to express one’s concern and interest, and at the same time one’s congratulations, upon such an exhibition as has been given by the hon. gentleman. With nearly every word of his speech I agree, and it is a most remarkable thing that I should find myself in agreement with one of the Opposition. I agree with him except on one or two points. One thing that does emerge from this is that when thieves fall out, wise men get a little information, and honest men also. We are learning something, and there is none more capable of giving us the information that the hon. gentleman who has just sat down, because he has always taken a very intelligent interest in the operations of the party to which he belongs at the moment. One thing I join issue with him on is the direct accusation he made when he referred to his old partners over there. He said he was supporting us by word, if not by vote, not because our policy is good, but because their policy is worse. When a member of Parliament draws attention to the weakness of the policy of the government in power, surely we should be given some of the grounds on which he bases his accusation that our policy is bad. I would like to ask him in what way our policy is bad.

That would take at least another 40 minutes. I will take the very next opportunity.

My hon. friend must remember this, that the situation from the point of view of general policy, I am not referring to the war policy, is the result of his own leader, Gen. Hertzog, so that if what we are doing is bad, it is a continuation and development of Gen. Hertzog’s policy, and he must blame his present leader, Gen. Hertzog. Mr. Speaker, you and I have witnessed a great many votes of no confidence, or rather motions of no confidence in this House, and I will defy you, sir, in all the wealth of your experience and whatever imagination you possess….

The hon. Minister will not be so bold as to defy the Chair.

Thank you, sir, for your tribute to my courage. Perhaps my language is too strong, but I surely can associate your experience with mine, sir, and state without fear of contradiction, that never have we had a motion of no confidence based upon such flimsy foundations as that we had expounded two days ago. There has been no word expressive of any lack of policy on our part, and not one word demonstrating any omissions on our part in carrying out the Government’s policy.

You have not listened to the speeches.

One need only hear one speech and you have heard the lot. All I will do figuratively is to point at the hon. member and his friends. What was the ground for moving the motion of no confidence in the Government? Whenever in the past a motion of such a character has been moved, the mover of that motion has always started off by demonstrating the faults and failures of the Government in power.

The faults and failures are that we are at war.

My friend, as he usually is at this time of night, is in a happy condition. Morning, noon and night, but a little better at night.

Order!

Having demonstrated the delinquencies of the Government in power, then the mover proceeds to clash his alternative policy against that of the Government in power. That is the only way and the only ground upon which a motion of no confidence can be moved against the Government in power. But did you find that? Certainly not. Let me go down the order of accusations made by the Leader of the Opposition. What was the first? Potchefstroom. Mr. Speaker, when a responsible member of this House, such as I presume the Leader of the Opposition claims to be, rakes up the ashes of the past, brings back to our memory occurrences long gone by….

No doubt you would rather forget that.

When, as was completely and adequately demonstrated by the hon. member for Springs, all the differences have been composed and the sections who were warring on that occasion are now living amicably together, what can you say?

Thank the O.B.

We may thank the O.B. and those people over there for a good deal of the unrest that is occurring in this country to-day and I am coming to that in a moment if you will permit me.

I will not.

The point is this, sir, that we have the right to suspect that underlying the reference to the Potchefstroom trouble is a desire for stirring up more trouble. Remember this, Mr. Speaker — and it cannot be repeated too often, although I know it has already been said—the Leader of the Opposition put the notice of his motion of no confidence on the Paper before knowing what had occurred in Johannesburg, so we have leave to suspect that originally his intention was to found his motion of no confidence in the Government wholly and solely upon the dead past of Potchefstroom.

Don’t you read the current newspapers? Don’t you know about the daily assaults by soldiers on civilians?

Sir, is this then another example of the extraordinary prescience of the Leader of the Opposition, what I have to regard as suspicious anticipation. Did he know what was coming off in Johannesburg? Did he know? I am going to tell this hon. House that my opinion, an opinion shared by the majority in this House, and a majority outside, is that most of the trouble, if not all the trouble, that has been occurring in this country since we declared war, has been the result of the efforts of those people on that side of the House and their friends.

Your intimidation and victimisation.

Your intimidation and victimisation. Bicycle chains and pipes at Grootvlei, and an innocent bioscope audience.

And benches in Johannesburg.

Can you wonder at it? How dare you expect no retaliation? How dare you expect it? In the course of reference to God Save the King yesterday I heard an interjection by that four foot six of inconsequential nothingness on the other side of the House, “God save us from the army.” That was the expression, “God save us from the army.” Imagine any member of this Parliament making such a sneering reference to the army of South Africa, the vast majority of whom are of the same race as the hon. member who interjected. I say I have the right to characterise that as a disgraceful interjection, and typical and indicative of the outlook of those people upon the whole question, “God save us from the army.” God help you, if there was not an army. And I want to tell you this, the fact that you have the opportunity, and shall I say the right— not in the sense of the opposite of wrong— that you possess the opportunity to sneer at that army, is due to the existence of that army itself. And instead of sneering at them you ought to be eternally grateful to them.

Grateful for burning down buildings in Johannesburg and assaulting citizens daily in the streets.

My hon. friend and his friends are past masters at creating the necessary atmosphere. Any defence. They have constantly been stirring up trouble and then they blame the other fellow. I will make no bones about it, and they have the impudence, if you will excuse my using that expression, Mr. Speaker.

Call is audacity.

Impudence passes, and I think it adequately describes the operation of coming down here and moving a motion of no confidence based upon the accusations they have directed against our soldiers in South Africa. A most disgraceful state of affairs. And, Mr. Speaker, the truth about the Johannesburg trouble is only just beginning to filter through. I have witnesses, neither soldiers nor Ossewabrand-wag, nor the dupes of the people who sit on that side of the House, but eye-witnesses, inoffensive citizens, and I will show their letters to hon. gentlemen over there, signed by the people themselves, telling the truth over their own signatures, of inoffensive soldiers being attacked. Soldiers doing nothing, merely going about their business.

And assaulting people who wear beards. Is that the business of the army?

Cowardly attacks. My hon. friend sits here and sneers at the soldiers who are defending his rights and the soldiers’ wrongs.

They have done no defending yet. They have only done assaulting.

The hon. member for Piquetberg has a marvellous imagination which grows with his own introspection. He is so obsessed, as undoubtedly all his friends who sit behind him are, with their detestation of Great Britain, that they will see nothing good, even to the point of sacrificing South Africa. He even went so far as to visualise the possibility— they say the certainty — of Great Britain’s defeat, and the British Fleet being taken over by America. You will notice if America, in carrying out the responsibilities of Great Britain, having taken over her fleet, comes to South Africa, the gallant member for Piquetberg will retire strategically to the fastnesses of Piquetberg, and from there register a protest. I hope it will not be an apology. And, of course, if the protest is unavailing, then, sir, he will move a motion of no confidence.

Have you lost your notes?

I do not have to have notes to deal with my hon. friend. That he knows quite well. Now, Mr. Speaker, there are one or two details to which I want to make reference. In the course of the afternoon, yesterday afternoon I understand one of the hon. members over there complained that £30,000—and this is one of the charges against the Government and incidentally it is one of the reasons for detesting Great Britain — that I, in my position as Minister for Social Welfare had allowed £30,000 to be spent on the Vaal Hartz Settlement Scheme and had then handed it over to the Military as an internment camp. What he wants to know is what became of those families who were settled there. I not only handed over the Vaal Hartz Scheme but also the Kimberley Coloured Training Scheme and another place in Pretoria for military purposes. It sounds awful, but what were the conditions? The Vaal Hartz Scheme had not got a single family on it.

No one could go there.

My hon. friend could not go there and I want to tell him that we exercise a wise selection, so my hon. friend is perfectly safe. But with all these three concerns what were the conditions? My hon. friends, those of them who sat behind Gen. Hertzog, know perfectly well that there was very little likelihood under that regime of improving in the direction of rehabilitation the condition of the people in the country. We have altered all that. And side by side with the carrying on of his war to a successful conclusion we have also gone ahead with the development of our rehabilitation schemes, and strange as it may seem in the handing over of these three institutions I have advanced rehabilitation by at least 20 years. Why? Because the conditions under which the military has got these three institutions are that they should erect buildings in consonance with our general plan, according to its general requirements, and they have to give back those schemes to us with all those buildings intact, in proper order, good going condition, and as I say, by that means we will be advancing at least twenty years in the development of rehabilitation. We would never have got anywhere near it, strange as it may seem, had it not been for the war. Now, sir, when the hon. the Minister for Finance moved that trenchant amendment of his to the motion moved by the hon. member for Piquetberg he included the support of the domestic policy as well as the war policy. My hon. friend over on the other side who is always tenderly regarding my reputation and my future, the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) sent a note across to me. He said: “Is the Labour Party, especially the Minister for Labour, in favour of the domestic policy of the Government?” Well, I told my hon. friend that our domestic policy at the present time, in about 18 months, plus our war effort, has developed far beyond what it ever was before—whilst not to my entire satisfaction—I want to tell him what we are doing and what will be to the satisfaction of the country what they were never able to do, on which they let us down. We are introducing as soon as they come from the law advisers two industrial measures of tremendous importance and magnitude. One is a new Workmen’s Compensation Bill and despite all the machinations of big finance, despite all the lobbying, despite all the influence that is being brought to bear through various agencies, that Bill is going to pass this year. There is my challenge to you. A new Factories Bill will be laid before Parliament and if in the whole course of your fifteen years of running this Government, running this country, you could have shewn two measures on the Statute Book such as that, you would have had some grounds for crowing. And we, sir, who have been in power 18 months, carrying on a major war, and all that is associated with such a thing, all the effort and all the disabilities associated with it, have had time in our domestic policy to improve the condition of workers in that most emphatic manner. That is why I tell the hon. member for Mossel Bay we are prepared to record ourselves on this occasion as being in favour of the domestic policy of the present Government.

Are you still starving your erosion workers?

Your erosion workers are much better off than when my hon. friend’s party was in power.

They were not starved.

They were, and that is another accusation, another one of the items of misrepresentation that has been brought by the other side so frequently. One is that we have been cutting down invalidity payments. That is untrue, like everything else. Old age pensions and every type of relief of a rehabilitative character. They have accused us of having decreased or dropped those and it is definitely untrue.

It is true.

Definitely untrue. My hon. friend cannot bring me a single case.

Will you be satisfied if I bring you two cases?

You can bring me an individual case where perhaps there has been a mistake. You can bring me an individual case but the general accusation was that we are neglecting the invalidity grants, we are neglecting all those other grants of a similar character, because we are concentrating upon the war effort, and I throw that misrepresentation back at hon. members on that side of the House. There is not one scintilla of truth in it. We are carrying out all our obligations and more also.

Much to their annoyance.

Of course the gravamen of their charge is not that we are doing nothing. It is that we are doing something. All this fire and fury, all this sound that has come from the other side is based entirely upon their outlook, that South Africa should have remained neutral.

Sound.

My hon. friend had better be quiet. He has not altogether covered himself with glory. I want my hon. friend to recognise his own limitations and keep quiet. South Africa should have been neutral—once again, sir, I must express what I have expressed in this House over and over and over again, that South Africa has the right to be neutral if she so desires.

You ask the Minister of Justice.

I am telling you what I think.

What does he think?

The Minister of Justice can think; my hon. friend can’t.

Cut out the cheap wit.

Is it hurting? But that South Africa in her wisdom decided that she would not remain neutral, and I want to ask hon. members on that side of the House if the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister had not given that very wise lead in September last, and this hon. House and the country had not followed that lead, where would you have been to-day? He has held immobilised 250,000 Italian soldiers, who had their covetous eyes on an African Empire, including South Africa, the richest gem of them all. And do you mean to tell me there would not have been a victorious march of Italian soldiers down here instead of this ignominious rout. And where would you have sold your wool and your maize? I suppose, sir, they would have made an arrangement with Japan, but every ship load that got beyond our territorial waters would have gone to the British Empire. Is it not obvious?

And they would not have paid for it.

I wonder if they would have protested to the Italians if they marched down here or whether they would have welcomed them with open arms. Mr. Speaker, the British army would not have been able to push the Italian army back to Libya if we had remained neutral, and not immobilised all those 250,000 Italian soldiers on the confines of Kenya and in Abyssinia. I suppose that would have been desirable to my hon. friends, and now I am going to ask them a question I have been longing to ask them for some time. Whom do you want to win? Do you want Great Britain to win or do you want Germany to win? Do you want Britain to win, or do you want Germany to win? Come on, my hon. friend from Beaufort West.

I told you yesterday.

You have to select one side or the other. You cannot be neutral. I want it on record. Do you want Germany to win or do you want Great Britain to win?

We want peace.

You cannot have peace. All you will have is pieces. And if you are sensible men, and I think on occasion you are when you give yourselves an opportunity of considering matters, which you have not been doing lately, you will agree with me that you cannot be neutral. You must be on one side or the other and I want to know if you are on the side of Great Britain or are you on the side of Germany?

We are neutral.

We know what in their hearts they want, but they are in a most unfortunate position. They are torn both ways. Their sentiment desires a win for Germany. Their hardheaded conception of what is best for them industrially and politically is a victory for Britain, and I am sorry for them. Well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I have detained the House sufficiently long. I apologise for having detained you so long but I think I have shewn, at all events to my own satisfaction, that there is no ground, if you only speak the truth, for your motion of no confidence, no ground at all, and sir, this House would do well to turn down that motion of no confidence by an overwhelming majority.

I do not intend replying to the speech of the Minister who has just sat down. For that Minister is known for this kind of buffoonery right throughout his whole political career. He sat in this House with all the various parties and on all the various benches and all we get from him is that kind of clap-trap. I think the Government made a serious mistake in connection with the sending of the member of the Labour Party with that mobile circus which went through the country. The Government should, instead of sending the other member of the Labour Party along, have sent along this Minister for he is a much better buffoon than the other member. If they had sent the Minister they might perhaps have had greater success too in their campaign. I just want to refer to one point. The Minister of Labour was absent from this House the whole afternoon and to-night he comes here and kicks up a great deal of noise about things that have not been said, and now that he has let off steam, he runs out and does not listen to what may be said further in reply to his remarks. I really should not blame him for he himself does not understand what he is saying. How then can he be expected to understand what we say? But still I want to expose one of his flashes of oratory. He says that the Minister of Justice agrees with him that we could have remained neutral. I should now like to have the attention of the hon. Minister of Justice; I see he is now talking to the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg). I should like to ask the Minister whether he agrees with what the Minister of Labour declared; but it looks to me that the hon. member for Krugersdorp is afraid that the Minister of Justice might listen to me and so he is attempting to distract his attention by talking to him.

That is not the member for Krugersdorp, that is the member for the Kruger National Park.

No, no, he is still the member for Krugersdorp and not yet for the Kruger National Park. Well, the hon. member is now leaving so that the Minister has an opportunity of listening and I want to ask the Minister a question. He denied having said that South Africa could not remain neutral. I now read here from the “Star” of the 29th April, 1939, in which appears a report of what he said —

I said that we could not in an honourable way declare our neutrality.

No, the Minister of Justice is not a very strong man, but he does himself an injustice by saying things like that now.

The Afrikaner party has put up candidates there.

Yes, I come to that now. The hon. member for Frankfort Brig.- Genl. Botha) is now already thinking of the future of his Frankfort seat. He knows what Frankfort will do to him, for he is now sitting in Parliament with the support of the Hertzogites after he had repeatedly tried to gain that seat. He is one of those people receiving an extra salary here and also a free motor car. I have all respect for his past, but in the position he is in now, he does not even have respect for himself. What is that party doing now? After the hiding they got at Winburg, they sent a New Year’s message to the Free State by means of the Friend of the 1st January. A meeting was then held by the Executive of the United Party in the Free State and from there they sent a message to the supporters of their party at Smithfield and Fauresmith. They decided there that they would invite the followers of Genl. Hertzog and Mr. Havenga to cooperate with the followers of the United Party in view of the coming bye-elections. They gave their followers authority to meet the followers of Gen. Hertzog and Mr. Havenga. Apparently those United Party men made use of that authority. I looks to me that that Party is so ashamed of itself that it does not want to put up its own candidate, but that they wish to obtain the support of the followers of Gen. Hertzog and Mr. Havenga. This again shows that they have not the slightest confidence in themselves. And then they want to come here and prate about confidence. If they want again to come here and ask again: Where is the alternative government? and if the Minister of Finance again wants to get up to talk about democracy and to deliver another moral sermon, then we tell him: “The alternative government is in the bosom of the people.” Give the people the opportunity to put into effect that old saying—the popular voice is the royal voice. Give them the chance to effect their choice and give the people the opportunity to say whom they want to govern them, and that it will not be the Dunkirk of this Re-united Party, but it will take the reins of Government into its hands.

I speak but rarely in this House because I believe in the old saying that it is deeds and not words that count. But when I listened to the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) he reminds me of the old saying, “Empty barrels make most noise.” He made a lot of noise here and said nothing. He only made attacks on the Prime Minister and on other Ministers. He first attacked the Prime Minister and he said that whenever the present Prime Minister is in power there is a crisis, but the fact is that the present Prime Minister is a man who can handle a crisis. The other people simply run away. We now have a vote of no confidence before us, and my friends over there are now applauding the troubles which have occurred in Johannesburg because if those troubles had not occurred they would have nothing to talk about. I naturally deplore what happened because it does not redound to the honour of our people to cause troubles like that, and to take each other’s lives. I am one of those who has had a lot to do, and still have a lot to do with the burgers of this country. For the moment I am not going to call them soldiers because they are the burgers of the country. They are the people who are willing to sacrifice their freedom and their lives for the freedom and independence of the country. They are the real burgers. They are willing to make sacrifices and they are not willing like a lot of weak-kneed individuals to stay quietly at home.

But where are you? How is it you are staying here?

Who is the weak-kneed individual now?

I can assure this House that these people, the true Burgers of this country, are willing to do their duty to the country, and to defend the honour of the country. I want to tell this House that the discipline prevailing among those people is good and when these men went North Gen. Cunningham himself said that they were the best type of men he had ever seen. I am very sorry that the previous Minister of Justice, the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) saw fit to talk jeeringly about those young officers. I remember that he himself was a young officer at Potchefstroom in 1914, but when the crisis came he got on to a white horse and ran away. I can assure him that these young officers whom we have now fighting in our army will not run away. The bullets that will strike them will strike them in front and not in the backs. And I can assure the hon. member that those people are prepared and determined to defend the country. They are the type of men that we want in our Defence Force, and not the type of men who when dangers threaten stand back and then incite and provoke other people to do things which are to the detriment and dishonour of the decent people and of the citizens who are prepared to do their duty to this country. I am sorry this has happened, and I am one of those who strongly deprecate it; but as we know, as all of us know, those people, our soldiers, have had to contend with very serious difficulties. There are some of our young fellows who, when they get leave, ask „Please allow me to go in civilian clothes because the contumely and contempt to which I am subjected are unbearable.” Those people are human, they lose their temper, they hear that their pals have been hurt, and then they indulge in things which we as officers strongly deprecate. Now we have before us a vote of no confidence in the Government, and I was surprised to hear the type of argument that was used by some hon. members here. I have not been a member of this House for very long but I have never in all my experience heard anything like what I have heard here. They do not come forward with facts, all they do is call each other names. I am surprised at the hon. member for Gezina because he said that as soon as we crossed the Limpopo he would give a lead. We have crossed the Limpopo, we are well across it. I think we must have misunderstood him. I imagine that what he meant to say was that he would give a lead when we returned. Possibly we may still look forward to his giving a lead. Some hon. members have spoken jeeringly about myelf and other officers, but if those people who have such a lot to say and who like to sneer at us knew anything about defence they would realise that is is impossible for us to keep our troops in one particular spot. They would know that we must be prepared to meet any eventualities which may arise, and the steps which we have taken so far have been of such a character that we have always been prepared for any eventuality anywhere. Hon. members opposite have told us that we have already lost the war; that I do not believe, and I say that we are going to win it, but what is so peculiar to me is that some hon. members who are not prepared to stir one finger to help us bring the war to a successful issue are anxious to see our Burghers go North. They are quite willing to send others North; they are opposed to the war but they want to get all the benefits they possibly can from the war; they tell us that they are good Afrikaners, but they are not willing to do anything to help the country. They remind me of Italy. When France collapsed Italy came into the war so as to benefit from it, because she imagined that England had already lost. They want to derive all the benefits but they are not prepared to make any sacrifices, and they refuse to co-operate in order to help us win the war.

What are those benefits, the higher taxes we shall have to pay?

The question is what one’s freedom and one’s independence are worth. Or does the hon. member want Hitler to win the war? If he does win the war no taxes will be needed, he will take everything he wants. But I want to get back to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He made a speech on the 16th December at the grave of a man named Hildebrand, a man who was well-known in the days of the Boer War. He said that it was a pity that the Boers had not stuck it out a little longer at the time of the Boer War. But where was he in those days? What help did he give us? What is even more striking is that some time ago I noticed in the Press that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had said that our sympathies in the last world war were with England because we knew that England was going to win. I can understand now that that must have been the reason why he did not take part in the Boer War because he knew then that we were going to lose. If his feelings were sympathetic towards Afrikanerdom then he should have taken part in that war which was a just war. I am convinced that we did the best thing possible for South Africa when we decided on the 4th September that we were not going to remain neutral, and I prophesy that the time will come when hon. members opposite will hide their faces and when they will be ashamed of the fact that we have been victorious in that war. We have never been cowards, but we have always fought to the end. And now we are being told that we should start negotiations with Italy and Germany so as to make peace. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) has been telling the country that if Hitler wins we shall be able to negotiate. I always looked upon the hon. member as a man possessed of more common sense than that. If I am victorious to-day over my enemy and if he is defeated and his lines of communication are broken then I do not start negotiating—I capture him unconditionally. What chance would we have to start negotiating in that eventuality? We hear a lot of remarks of members opposite about the £60,000,000 which we are spending on defence. If we could have been victorious in the Boer War we should have been very pleased to have spent £60,000,000, but that £60,000,000 is not merely spent for the payment of our soldiers; the money is also expended for the establishment of factories which will remain a permanent asset to the country. A great proportion of that money will be used for factories, and a large part of the country will derive permanent benefits from this expenditure. It will also prove a solution of the unemployment question. Thousands of people are already being employed in the factories, and we are still looking about to find people who want to be trained for factory work.

But they first have to take the oath.

Naturally we cannot afford to have traitors there: ammunition is produced in these institutions and we cannot take in people whom we have to guard all day long, and who may perhaps try to blow up those places. But the oath is taken voluntarily. We hear from members opposite that a great many of the men in the army to-day have been forced to join up. I have never come across a single one yet and I am in daily touch with them. I have told them straight out that if there is anyone among them who is in the army against his wishes and who does not want to sign the oath he can go home straight away because I would rather fight with 100 soldiers behind me whom I can trust than with 1,000 whom I cannot trust. In the Boer War I preferred to fight with ten men alongside of me whom I could trust than with 100 who were likely to run away. Hon. members opposite are on the run. It is not a pity that they are not near the Italians—they would be able to run away together. Some hon. members have spoken in a most sneering manner about our burgers—I am not calling them soldiers at the moment. The Burgers are prepared to sacrifice their greatest possession, the greatest thing they have for the freedom of their country—they are ready to sacrifice their lives. They are not there merely to enjoy the good things of life. They are willing to take their share of the hardships of life so as to achieve their freedom. We hear a lot said about coloured soldiers going North. If all those Burgers and especially hon. members opposite, did their duty, there would be no need for us to call on coloured men, but we require their services now as drivers, trench workers and as cooks, I doubt wether many of those hon. members opposite could be used for the purpose of cooking for the troops. All they can do is criticise, but they cannot do anything. The Burgers are now doing their duty; they are not waiting until the war is over to come along then and make a noise. Members opposite take up a sneering attitude towards us who are still here, but they do not know anything about war because if they did they would realise that one cannot concentrate one’s troops in one lot on one particular spot. One has to take account of all possible eventualities. I do not expect this war to be over very soon. It may last a good few years longer. Some people even say that it will last another six or seven years. I do not think it will last as long as that, but we must be prepared to sell our rights and our freedom dearly. We are now producing our own armaments in this country and that industry will prove a great asset to us in days to come. The industries we are establishing will stay. Our future under the guidance of Gen. Smuts is a safe one. Under his guidance we are going to be victorious and we are going to make South Africa a happy country, a country in which our white people will be able to live in peace and prosperity, a country in which the people who are now trying to hide behind us will also be able to live in peace and contentment.

I would have expected that a man who has had a lot of experience, who was a good General in the Boer War….

I was not a general in those days.

I would have thought that a man who was a good fighter would not have got up here to talk such a lot about fighting. I do not know where he is fighting. I only notice his photograph in the paper in uniform while he himself is hanging about in town. I must say, however, that I was most surprised at the reasons which he gave for members of Parliament drawing a double salary while having to stay here. He said that our troops could not all be concentrated at one spot. Surely it is strange that members of Parliament should be specially selected to stay here and not to go away and fight. It makes me feel that the name of Hans Khaki suits them particularly well. When this vote of no-confidence was moved I felt that it was something the country definitely wanted. The country has no confidence in the present Government. I would have expected that our friends of the Afrikaner Party would have fought the enemy together with ourselves. May I be allowed to explain my own personal attitude towards the Afrikaner Party? I look upon those hon. members over there as good Afrikaners. I think they made a blunder by leaving this party but I do not want to fight them from this side, nor do I want to stigmatise them in any way as bad Afrikaners. When the hon. member for Germiston North (Mr. Quinlan) was speaking, the enthusiasm prevailing among members opposite was striking. I recollect the hon. member always saying to me: “If that side of the House applauds you, or if the English papers applaud you, you must know that you are wrong.” I want to remind the hon. member of what he said himself: “Look out that our common enemy does not applaud our division.” I regret this division but if hon. members over there think they have done the right thing then I am prepared to respect them. Naturally if Afrikanerdom is split our common enemy on the other side will score. But I want to say particularly on behalf of the younger generation that the Afrikaner nation will not tolerate anything that will allow us to be driven apart again. I want to tell the Government that we Afrikaners for the first time in our existence are organised as an Afrikaner nation and that for the first time in our existence we are learning discipline, and the Afrikaner nation will never again allow itself to be split or divided. We can face the future with courage because the one Afrikaner will stand by the other in order to get rid of British Jingoism and Jewish domination in this country. I should like to give my reasons now why I am first of all against the present Government. We always hear, and when I was a little boy I heard a great deal about it —we always hear about British fairplay and about British justice, and I want to ask the Government to show us a little of that British fairplay. Can they tell me who the people are who have chosen them to be the Government of this country? What right have they to occupy the seats of Government and to speak on behalf of the people? Because they have not been chosen by the people? We opposed Gen. Hertzog in the old United Party on his war policy. In those days he, and even the candidates who opposed me, said this—just as the other members of the United Party did—that if a war should break out they would not in any circumstances drag South Africa into that war. The United Party secured thousands and thousands of votes as a result of their promise that they would not drag South Africa into the war. In spite of that members opposite did drag South Africa into the war, but they did so without first going to the people. If they say that we are wrong when we say that they do not enjoy the confidence of the country then we challenge them to proclaim a general election and to do so now. If they are convinced that they will be returned to power, why are they not prepared then to have a general election? For the simple reason that they know that in spite of all divergent elements which support them they would not be able, after an election like that, to form another Government, and to come back to power. Now let me see who the people are who support the Government. First of all we have those doubtful people, those people who are unable to think clearly, who sit here and yawn when they have to listen to a debate. And then we get the people who support the Government—the people who are not Afrikaners and who can never become part of South Africa. We get people supporting the Government who are of no value and who are not assets to South Africa. Their presence in South Africa is a menace to our people. Let me say why I am so bitterly opposed to this Government. The Government has the full support of the Jewish population. That we cannot get away from. When the war broke out we had the fact in this House, that every Jew voted in favour of the war. When we voted in this House before the outbreak of war on a question concerning the danger which the Jew constituted to this country, we were told, and all the Jewish members opposite gave us that assurance, that we were wrong, and that the Jews were not inclined to favour war, but when we voted on the question of our participation in the war every Jew, and not merely every Jew but every individual with Jewish blood in his veins on the opposite side of the House, unanimously voted for the war. Now let me show hon. members the danger they are to this country. Hon. members opposite with their “old home tradition” will no doubt believe what I am going to read to them if I tell them that this was printed in a paper which is published in England. I am quoting from a paper published by the “Militant Christian Patriots,” 93, Chancery Lane, W.C.2. I want to quote briefly to show the menace of having those people in the country. This is what that paper says:

I think I prefer to go out.

You should rather go and sleep because you have been sitting here yawning all the time. This is what this English paper says about the Jews: He goes on to say this—

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

I am showing the danger to the country of the people you have in your ranks and who support your Government, and I say that that is a reason why I distrust the present Government.

Have you not got Jewish blood in you?

No, fortunately not. Fortunately I have not got English blood in my veins either. I further want to point to the menace which the Jew constitutes in this regard. Hon. members know that as admitted by the Prime Minister the present war is the outcome of the Treaty of Versailles and of the injustice done to a great nation. Now, who are the people who were practically responsible for the passing of that Treaty? The paper I have been quoting from says this—

We find therefore that the Treaty of Versailles was to a large extent influenced by the Jews, and that is the cause of the present war. If we watch the revolutionary movements in Europe we find that, generally speaking, it has been a Jew who started those revolutions there I want to mention the names of Jews who started revolutions in the various countries, and I want to say that they started those revoloutions not because they were patriots but because they were International. The present war policy of the Government and of England is supported by the Jews. Not because they are good Nationalists but because they are International. They want to fight Hitler because in Germany he has succeeded in getting rid of the Jewish menace, so that the Jews there no longer have the rights which they used to have. Now I ask hon. members to listen to the following names of people who have created troubles and revolutions in the various countries—

I could mention quite a number of other names of people who have set themselves up against the Government of the country with a view to starting a revolution on an International basis and with a view to destroying Nationalism. In Great Britain Communism is still playing a great part today. Who are the leaders of Communism in Great Britain? They are Victor Gollans, Harold Laski, Israel Moses Sieff, G. R. Strauss, Emanuel Schinwell, Professor Levy and Ivor Montagu. Those are the people who are taking a leading part in Communism in Great Britain. I am not obeying the regulations now. If I were to adhere to the regulations I would have to say that a man like the hon. member for Cape Town Castle (Mr. Alexander) is a good Afrikaner, but if I am allowed to talk from my heart, as I want to talk, then I have to say— and perhaps this may be the last opportunity we shall have of saying so—that I regard the Jews as the cause of this war. We find that the Government in its war policy is being supported by every Jew, both here and in England. Why? Because war had to come, and every time there is a war the Jew benefits from it. I further want to say that I support this vote of no confidence because of the terrible assaults which are taking place throughout this country. I was surprised in listening to the Prime Minister to hear him say that he did not know that trouble of various kinds was being experienced in this country, and that there might be riots in the country, and that something of this kind had already occurred. It was because he did not know about these things that he was not ready for the riots which occurred in Johannesburg. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he does not remember the Leader of the Opposition sending him a telegram to which no reply was received, referring to the troubles and riots in Adderley Street. Does he remember that numerous questions were put in this House and that letters were written to the Minister of Justice asking him to interfere before these things got worse and blood flowed in the streets. The matter was put before the Government, but nothing whatever was done to take steps against those Tommies who had committed the assaults. Even to-day those assaults are taking place. Members opposite have stated that those assaults only occur when Parliament is in session. That is absolutely untrue. Assaults occur almost every week in Adderley Street, assaults on Afrikaans-speaking people who give no offence whatsoever, but who simply do not want to stop for this co-called prayer pause. I am the last person in the world who wants to see a man punished who has not committed an offence. But no law is being broken. If I refuse to stand still in the street for two minutes I am not breaking any law; this prayer interval is not there for the sake of honest prayer from a religious sense. I want to ask the Jewish members opposite whether they believe in that kind of prayer. No, there is another reason for this prayer interval, and the object is merely to provoke the Afrikaner and to make him feel that he is not at home in his own country, and that the Imperialistic spirit is triumphant in Cape Town. I want to ask the Prime Minister to put an end to this prayer pause in Cape Town for the sake of the peace and order which he says he wants to maintain, and I want to put this question to my hon. friend opposite who is a minister of religion: Do you believe in the kind of prayer which is taking place in the streets of Cape Town? Do you want to cause discord in your church because a man feels that he does not want to pray? You, as a supporter of the Government, must see to it that this playing with religion shall cease, and that people who have conscientious objections to standing and praying in the street shall have the right to carry on without being assaulted. I was on the train at Robertson when people were assaulted. People are assaulted on the trains and in their private homes, and the community is being provoked in the most serious manner. And the worst thing of all in this particular instance was the fact that there were coloured soldiers present. They did not know how to behave. Coloured soldiers got out at Robertson and the language used by them was such that nobody dare put his head out of the window. We were ashamed on behalf of the ladies who were present. If that is what is called fighting for the sake of Christianity then the sooner we get a different order the better. Another reason why I am going to vote for this motion is because there is intimidation of the workers taking place on a big scale, as people are being persecuted, and as young Afrikaners who have conscientious objections to taking part in the war are not longer able to find work and are being compelled to join up. If the Government is worth its salt it should see that every man looking for work gets work. But to-day there are people walking the streets as they are unable to find work, and in that way they are being forced to join up, and if they refuse to go and are unable to find work, they are forced to go and steal and then they are put in gaol. Here in South Africa the poor man gets very little assistance. He is persecuted by the Government. We have the Minister of Railways—people say that he is not responsible for the things that are going on in his department, and I want to pay him this tribute, and say that perhaps he does not know about it, but I want to tell him this, that white Afrikaners are being dismissed, and that the foreman tells those people, “You men who are fit for war service must join up, failing which we have no work for you.” And what do they do? They employ coloured men in the place of those white men. The white man to-day has to try and find work—he has to go about unemployed in his own country. The white man cannot find work, and is forced to go and fight, and then we get officers sitting in this House and we are told that they are here because it would be bad strategy to have all our troops concentrated in one spot. Well, South Africa would be better off if all those people could be sent away, or at least if three-quarters of them were sent away, and if we could get rid of our British Jingoes here, because it is the spirit which is wrong to-day. The spirit which sings “There will always be an England.” That spirit has to be destroyed, as sure as we are sitting in this House to-night. Now, there is another matter I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance. He is the man who spoke about Christianity. He is the man who holds religious services on the sands for the children. I want to, ask him whether what is going on to-day cannot be described as persecution? I want to read a letter to him which I have here, and this is what the letter says [translation]—

Those people were sent to Cradock, and when they arrived there they were told: “There is only casual work for you.” After that they had to return at their own expense. I have sworn affidavits here to the effect that the foreman said to them: “There is no work for you because you are fit for war service and you have to go to the war.” I went to see that foreman and I asked him: “Have you any authority for saying that the men who are fit for war service are to be discharged, and have to join up?” and he said: “Those are my instructions.” But he refused to tell me who gave him those instructions. He said: “Those are my instructions, I have to do all the dirty work.” How dare the Government tell us that people are not being compelled to join up? The hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha) stated that he did not know of one single individual who had been compelled to join up, and that those who did not want to go North could go back to their homes. Naturally, those people who cannot find work are forced to join up—they are forced to go and fight in a war which is already lost, and which can never be won by the Allies. And now I want to go further still. At the railway station here instructions were issued that if a man was looking for work and he was less than 40 or 45 years of age he could not be employed for work here. I want to know whether that is so? I went to the Labour Bureau, and the clerk told me: “We are not allowed to employ people who are suitable for war service.” Is not that compelling people? Is not compulsion being exercised if a Government Department lays it down that they are not employing people who are fit for war service? The Government is engaged on a policy of breaking the Afrikaner’s neck, and it is using the Afrikaner for British imperialistic purposes, but at the same time the Government is digging its own grave; the Government has forced us to stand together, to stand up for our Nationalistic principles, and I am grateful that the Government has forced us to establish our own organisation, an organisation like the Ossewa-Brandwag. Hon. members will recollect that when on occasions we pleaded for better pay for the workers, when we pleaded for an additional 6d. per day for the soil erosion workers, the Minister got up and said: “Where is the money to come from?” I just want to know where we are getting the money now. We have a white population of 2,000,000 people, a mere handful of whites.

And those people want to set up a Republic now.

Yes, I wish we had that Republic to-day. I wish it were to be established to-morrow.

And will that handful of people be able to defend themselves?

The Republic would have been here sooner if members like the hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler) had not strayed from the fold.

Will those people defend their Republic?

We are now defending the Empire.

We have a white population of 2,000,000 and we have a public debt of £290,000,000. I am not going to try and prove anything with figures, because the Minister can juggle with figures to suit his own ends, but I am going to mention facts. Imagine, we have a population of 2,000,000 and a public debt of more than £290,000,000. The last Great War cost us £40,000,000. Hon. members will recall the depression which we had after the war, and they will remember the hardships which the farming population had to suffer as a result of that depression. They will remember the difficulties the country had to contend with. Yet on that occasion we were on the winning side. We were in the war on the side of Great Britain and Great Britain and the Allies won that war. We are again involved in a war, and let us assume that we were to lose the war. Can hon. members over there tell me what will happen if this war is lost? Assuming I am right in my belief and that they are wrong. What is going to happen? Last time when we were on the winning side we had a depression and we know the hardships the farmers had to endure; what is going to happen this time if we should be on the losing side, and another depression comes over this country.

Then Hitler will settle with you.

Yes, and it will be due to the Government over there which is British Imperialistically inclined, and which has dragged us into this war, a war with which we have no concern, and with which we have no interest. If I am right in my view that the war is already lost ….

That is what Zeesen says.

Assuming I am right; am I not entitled to advise the country as best I can not to spend a single penny on the war? And if those are my feelings am I not entitled then to tell the young Afrikaners: “The war is already lost, and you must not go and sacrifice your lives any longer in this war.” Would I not be entitled to say that? But regulations are now being published as a result of which, if I want to act in accordance with my convictions, I may be put in gaol for six months. I am not allowed to give expression to my convictions. Well, the time will come when the Afrikaner will refuse to put up with these things any longer. One is almost getting scared of taking part in politics. I well remember when I was a young man and the hon. member for Kimberley District sat in this Parliament I admired him as an Afrikaner. And if the hon. member condemns me for what I am doing then I say that he is one of the people who have taught me to follow the doctrines for which I stand to-day. He is one of those who has taught me that if I go into the wilderness I must go there with my people. Now I find that the man who has taught me these things, as a result of personal grievances, or because he has been influenced by British jingoism, no longer stands by his own people. I find that he is now siding with people who are not fighting for South Africa but for England. Nationalism will help us on to the right road; the road of the Ossewa-Brandwag, and along that road we shall become the masters of South Africa, the country which the Almighty has given us. We are not fighting for Nationalism because we hate anybody, but we are fighting against the Government because the Government stands for injustice, and we are fighting for Nationalism because we truly love South Africa, and because we want to uplift the Afrikaners who are to-day walking the streets, while rich men are enjoying all the comforts and are exploiting our country. The poor man of South Africa has always been the man who has stood up for Nationalism. The more one tramples on the poor man the more he sticks by his Nation. The time is coming, we can see the signs, when the lot of the poor man will be improved, when the man who has stood by his people will get his chance to enjoy the good things he is entitled to enjoy. The Government is using the poor man to fight this war, and they are trying to compel the poor man to join up by refusing to give him other work.

Why do you not give him work?

I cannot employ all of them.

How many do you employ?

I employ as many as I can. I do not put my sixpennies into collection boxes for people overseas; I give my money to the Afrikaner children. I try to support my “Helpmekaar” and “Redmekaar” funds. That is something which hon. members opposite are unable to do. They are busy feeding children in other countries but in their own country they are not willing to give employment to the poor man. A Government who is unwilling or unable to help its own poor is not worthy and is not fit to remain in power. If the Government should go to the country and have a general election there is one outstanding reason why the Government would be kicked out, and that reason is that the Government has jetisoned the poor man. The Labour Party supports the Government, but they look after themselves first. Every one of them has secured an extra job for himself. I remember that when on a previous occasion I spoke about the opportunities which young men were now getting to learn a trade the Minister said that I need not be afraid. I said that when I read the form which the young people had to fill up it appeared to me that the Government was going to force them to render military service. The Minister replied that that was not so, but what has happened? These young fellows were compelled to take the red oath when the Labour Office had hardly been opened. Nobody who had not signed the red oath could be given work, nobody who was not prepared to go to war was to be employed. If anybody held the view that South Africa should have remained neutral, if anybody was against the war, he could starve, and his wife and children could suffer simply because he was not prepared to go and fight in this British Jingoistic war. I want to make an appeal to those hon. members opposite, who still have feelings left for the poor man, and I want to ask them to put an end to this bitter persecution of the Afrikaners. I am not speaking about the Labour Party now; they are dead. All that is left of them is a grave with the name of Labour Party on it. What would hon. members opposite say if we who live in the small towns where we have a majority of Afrikaans-speaking people, a majority of true and upright Afrikaners, were to retaliate and assault every man who differed from us as a sort of retaliation for the men who have been assaulted in Cape Town, not because they have broken a law, but because they have refused to stand still and to pray. [Time limit.]

It is not my intention to take up any of the time of the House in order to reply to the last speaker at any length. But I would, however, like to say this to him, namely, that this House has become accustomed to his perorations, and particularly to his attacks on sectional interests. I would like to add also that I am sorry that the hon. member does not take advantage of the facilities which exist at present for him to do excellent work in his professional capacity. It is a great pity, because I feel that he would find he would be infinitely happier doing that than attacking sectional interests in this House. Ever since I learnt of the notice of motion of no confidence in the Government, I have tried to answer the following question: “Under what circumstances is a ‘no confidence’ motion in a Government justified?”

The failure of the Government to maintain law and order.

And in order to get an answer to that question, not having the advantage of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell), who has been here many years and who can personally recall the various similar motions, I searched into the past and found that in 1933 a similar motion had been moved. In that “no confidence” motion I got a reply to my question. One found then that the following circumstances existed. There was a Government which had insisted on a certain policy, had stated that it would resign if it had to abandon that policy. In due course it abandoned the policy, but failed to resign. The second point that one learns from dissecting the arguments of that particular debate was the fact that having abandoned that particular policy, it was compelled to give effect to a policy which it had stated would be detrimental to the best interests of the country. The third thing that emerged from that “no confidence” motion was the fact that there were at that time grave economic conditions prevailing. Again the Government of the day prognosticated that if they departed from the policy, namely, by leaving the Gold Standard, grave forebodings with regard to the welfare of the people. Here, then, were a set of circumstances existing at that time which I take as my criteria with regard to the circumstances as they to-day exist. I do not propose to go over the arguments which have already been used. It is unnecessary to refer to the fact that in September, 1939, this Government laid down a definite policy, and proceeded immediately to give effect to it energetically and persistently. Its consistency is characterised by the fact that when Italy joined the Axis Powers the Government, in pursuance of its policy, declared war on Italy also. It gave effect to that policy by mobilising, training and equipping an army. There are no grave national economic conditions. On the contrary, speakers on our side of the House have pointed out the extraordinary progress which this country has made since the Government adopted this policy. The finances of the country, as the hon. the Minister of Finance has indicated, have never been better. In other words, there is not a single criterion which justifies a no confidence motion. With regard to prognostications, I have indicated that the no confidence motion moved in 1933 by the hon. the Prime Minister, who was then the Leader of the Opposition, the prognostications were then very grave. It was said by the Government of the day that if they departed from their policy grave events would follow. It is therefore fair to examine the present Government’s efficiency by its prognostications. Let us examine them. Let me first remind the House that the hon. the Prime Minister, when statesmen in this country, political leaders here, and statesmen overseas, were saying that war was far away, said and kept on insisting that war was imminent. It was he that foretold from the very start that Italy would join the Axis. Memories are short. Hon. members have already forgotten the questions which came from the Opposition benches as to what we were going to do with our army. Again, the Prime Minister prognosticated the fate of neutrals long before Norway and Denmark, Belgium and Holland had received the attention of the aggressor. He predicted further that our entry into the war would result in a great national industrial expansion, and that it would enhance this country’s status on the African continent, and in the world as a whole. These prophesies have all come true. With regard to our new position on the African continent, one need only refer to the neighbourliness which exists between ourselves and our northern neighbours. A new sense of African independence is coming into being. The following recent events are indications of the new Pan-African conception: On December 17th an air service was inaugurated between Cape Town and Angola, and between Germiston and Uganda. A regular shipping service has been established between South Africa and the Belgian Congo. A continent of Free Frenchmen have set out from the Union to join General De Gaulle’s forces in Equatorial Africa. These are big advances on the Pan-African transport and postal conferences of pre-war days. Again, in the face of a contrary opinion from the Opposition, the hon. the Prime Minister foretold that Britain would, as time went on, be getting ever-increasing aid from America. We all know what has and is happening. Let those who doubt the sincerity of this aid read the speeches by President Roosevelt and his advisers. America has re-elected Mr. Roosevelt, and is now convinced that “Britain is the first line of defence of the democracies.” She will soon pass her Land and Lease Bill. The American help is more than material, it is a sign of confidence. She is backing her faith. Let us not forget how America reacted to France’s last appeal. They did not consider France a good risk. Apparently they consider Britain an excellent one. Finally, to continue with these prognostications: in the darkest hours, when all seemed to be lost, the hon. the Prime Minister predicted “Victory” for the Allied cause. He never faltered, his cheerfulness and confidence are not amongst the least of his contributions in this great effort. “The night is always darkest before the dawn” was his advice. We have every reason to trust that just as all his other prophecies came true, so also will the one which foretells a victorious conclusion to the present struggle. There is good reason for this optimism, because the essentials of victory are being fulfilled. These are: A good cause, unity of purpose, and good leadership. Let us never forget the present war is being fought simultaneously on three fronts: (1) Military; (2) civilian morale; (3) financial resources. As far as the latter two are concerned, Britain and her Allies have proved abundantly that they are stronger than their enemies. The manner in which the British people have withstood the indiscriminate bombing of its homes, and attacks on its lives, have confirmed the opinion about their morale. The association of America with Great Britain brings into being a front of financal resources which is unbeatable. From the military point of view, it can be said that whilst initially the successes went to the enemy, that is also being rapidly transformed. In short, there is growing evidence that Britain and her friends can stay the course as none of the rivals possibly can hope to. Those who are still in doubt about the ultimate issue of this war cannot do better than review the events which have followed one another so rapidly during the last year. Even the most wishful thinking could hardly blind them to the fact that the tide has turned. It will be recalled that during the early months of last year there was comparatively little activity. In Europe 6,000,000 soldiers lay scattered awaiting battle with the Maginot and Siegfried lines between them. The Italians were taking full advantage of their nonbelligerency and feeding themselves through the courtesy of the British Navy, and supplying their Ally with much-needed materials of war. The neutrals deluded themselves that they could escape. Goering’s Luftwaffe was still intact. It had not yet met the R.A.F. And then the blow fell. The war machine which had been secretely perfected over a period when its creator was protesting peace, was set in motion, and what were the series of events? Taking advantage of the lack of confidence amongst themselves, the neutrals were descended upon one after the other, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Holland —betrayed from within they were an easy prey. France, relying on its Maginot Line, and torn by internal strife, was overwhelmed. Then came the capitulation of the King of the Belgians, followed by the fall of Paris and soon after that the epic of Dunkirk where 3,350,000 of the flower of the British Army were extricated from the jaws of death. Mussolini, hungry for easy spoils, plunged Italy into war at the collapse of France. But since then the prophets have been showing a loss. Those who were counting on a Hitler victory have been sorely disappointed. Hitler prophesied a victorious march through London on August 4th. It is true that he postponed it to August 15th, but he was sorely disappointed because across the path of the Dictators were: the English Channel, the British Navy, the growing Air Force, the ever-increasing help from the Dominions and the United States of America. The first battle for Britain ended triumphantly in her favour. On one day in September, 186 planes were brought down. The only German troops so far in Britain are those which are either lying in hospitals or are buried in cemeteries. The only planes are those which are on the scrapheap. Hitler’s Ally has suffered serious and crushing defeats in Africa and Albania, and her fleet has been driven from the Mediterranean. The initial brilliant diplomatic German moves have been followed by badly camouflaged failures. France will not co-operate, Weygand remains in Northern Africa and 80% of the people in France hope for an allied victory. The new world has rallied to the cause of freedom. Hitler intensified his fury against the only power in his way by intensifying his submarine warfare, by torpedoing merchantmen with women and children evacuees and by trying to set cities ablaze. But he succeeded only in in flaming the rage of the British people, and the reply has been an intensification of the British effort which has become enormous. Factories are working night and day to equip the armies. Nor must we forget the five thousand visits which were paid by the R.A.F. in five months to Germany, and enemy occupied territory attacking military objectives such as: Embarkation ports, transports, trains loaded with war material in marshalling yards, aerodromes from which bombers, troop carriers, and parachutes were to be dispatched to Britain. Britain has now passed from the defence to offence. Deflected from his main objective, Hitler turned to the Balkans, but the only country which he was able to persuade was Rumania. What has happened to her? Her richest lands in Besarabia have been ceded to Hungary. The Germans have occupied her oil wells. Her King has abdicated and her people are murdering one another. We await the next onslaught with confidence. Let those who still hope for a German victory contemplate these events and let them pause before passing a vote of no confidence in a Government whose prognostications have been so abundantly vindicated. No, Mr. Speaker, on its activities to date the Government merits the congratulations of the House and the support of the country, and certainly not a vote of no confidence. Now, what of the future? Here again the Government is acting wisely, for concurrently with its war effort it is planning for the struggle which is bound to follow victory, the struggle to recreate from the smouldering ashes of destruction a world worthy of the sacrifices which are now being made and of the principles for which we are fighting. Great wisdom, statesmanship, experience, and vision will be called for. A great responsibility will fall on the shoulders of those who are charged with the task of governing the people of the world. For our own part we pray that our Prime Minister will be spared to take his rightful place in this “world reconstruction.” Would it be too much to suggest that in this reconstruction hon. members from all sides of the House should co-operate, for there should be room and work for all. It is correct and proper that, even at this juncture when we are straining every fibre to win the war, we should devote some of our attention to the peace which will follow. Failure to do so may well lead to the hasty improvisation with the attendant shortcomings of the last peace. The creation of a committee to safeguard the re-absorption into employment of demobilised soldiers after the war, with Maj. van der Byl as Chairman, is practical proof that our Government is already planning for the post-war period. It is also both encouraging and significant that a number of matters dealing with social and industrial legislation figure prominently on the legislative programme of this Parliamentary session. Other examples of this post-war planning are seen in the Government’s policy in regard to those military medical problems. New hospitals are being contemplated in areas where they will provide a solution for the more urgent post-war civil needs. The great benefits which post-war days will derive from the present enormous industrial war expansion has already been referred to. Thousands of youths are being trained in industry and thus equipped for the future. This represents a new method for solving the poor white problem. It is an offer of settled industrial employment to replace the past costly and unsuccessful attempts to maintain them on the land. A word or two might be said in reply to the remarks made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition in connection with Anglo-American relationship. I venture to suggest that this ever-increasing co-operation between these English-speaking peoples may yet form the foundation of the new world order. There was never a time of more cordial relations between the two countries. In conclusion, then I maintain, sir, for the reasons which I have given, I shall have no difficulty in voting against this no confidence motion before the House.

We on this side of the House have at various times asked the question: “What are we fighting for?” We have been told by the Minister of Justice that we must take part in this war for the sake of our position in regard to Simonstown. The Minister of Agriculture has told us that we must take part in the war because if we do not do so our products will “lie and rot.” The Minister of Finance this evening told us what England is fighting for. She is fighting for the preservation of democracy; England is fighting for the sake of small nations and England is fighting for the sake of religion. When the Minister tells us that we who know England’s history are aware of the fact that in every war England has fought so far she has always had a great and high ideal which she has held up to us. She also fought in South Africa, and here she fought on behalf of the poor oppressed uitlanders. But Paul Kruger told us the truth when he stated: “They are not fighting for the sake of the franchise of the uitlander, but they are fighting because they want to possess my country; because they want to get hold of the gold in the Transvaal.” No, we know why we are in this war to-day, and why the Government has dragged us into it. It is because of the Jewish influence, because of the influence of Imperialism, and it is because we always want to be linked to England. We are fighting because England fights. If there were a war between Germany and France and England were not in that war we would not be at war either. If England makes peace to-morrow in spite of the fact that the rights of small nations have not been restored, we shall also make peace. I have told the House what England is alleged to be fighting for. We know that England is fighting because she wants to preserve her position among the nations of the world. We know that England has batoned on the small nations of the world which she has robbed of their freedom, and now she comes along and puts forth this hypocritical reason which she is supposed to be fighting for. She says she is fighting for the sake of oppressed Poland. And while doing so she is trying to curry favour with Russia. If she were to succeed in getting Russia on her side then I should like to know what she is going to do about restoring that part of Poland which is to-day in the possession of Russia, and how she will manage to get that country away from the influence and the power of Russia. We know England, and we know what kind of an ally she is. We know how she has acted towards her Ally, France: after having left that Ally in the lurch she did not hesitate to use her guns against the French Fleet. It behoves us as England’s Ally to keep these things in mind. If it should suit England’s book she would not hesitate to use South Africa to-morrow for her own purposes. The Minister of Labour this afternoon excelled himself. But the Minister of Labour who sits in this House as the representative of the Labour Party has never yet told us how our participation in the war is going to affect and benefit the poor man. He knows, and all of them know, that the effect of this war is going to be felt most severely by the poor. For many years when the Labour Party was sitting on this side of the House, and when there were no jobs going for them on the Government side, they stood up as the champions of the poor. In those days they made capital of the poor. But these people know what to expect from the Labour Party now, and they will judge them by what they have done to them now. And then the Minister of Labour comes along and wants to accuse this side of the House of being responsible for the riots which have taken place on the Rand. I want to know whether the Labour Party was held responsible for the riots which took place on the Rand in 1922 when there was a great deal of blood shed there? Every time the present Prime Minister is in power we have bloodshed, and riots occur. The answer given by the Prime Minister to the motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition was characterised by frivolity, by an effort to hold the motion up to ridicule. His speech was the kind of speech one would get in a debating society, and it was unbecoming of the high position occupied by him. The Prime Minister knows that when he takes up an attitute like that he proves the weakness of his case. While the Leader of the Opposition proved every one of his charges up to the hilt the Prime Minister simply contended himself with frivolously passing over the charges and with making an attack on the Leader of the Opposition. He, the Prime Minister, again expressed his concern about what had happened to Genl. Hertzog. He shed crocodile tears. It ill became him to take up that attitude. He should not forget that Genl. Hertzog stigmatised him here as a traitor, as the man who had stabbed him in the back, as the man who had not hesitated to undo all the good work which he considered had been done; he should not forget that Genl. Hertzog said that he was responsible for the fact that for the next fifty years there would be no co-operation between Afrikaner and English-speaking people in this country. That being so it ill becomes him to come here and lecture the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister knows that so far as the Leader of the Opposition is concerned, no blame attaches to him for the fact that a greatly desired National unity does not prevail in South Africa to-day. If we study this country’s history for the past fifty years, we find that the Imperialists, the people who have come in from outside, knew only too well that they could not get the reins of Government into their hands, unless they succeeded in doing so by means of the motto of “Divide and reign.” They never concerned themselves as to the methods adopted in bringing that about. First of all they had Cecil Rhodes; he tried to pose as a champiom of Nationalism, and he succeeded in getting the reins of Government into his hands, and when het got as far as that he stabbed the Afrikaner in the back. He was faithful to the traditions of his people. But the Afrikaner people very quickly succeeded in gettting out of the clutches of Cecil Rhodes. Cecil Rhodes did not hesitate to try to perpetuate the ideals which he cherished for the future, to use the money which he had made in this country. He used his money for the purpose of attacking the Nationalists, and he set aside money to enable Afrikaners to go and study overseas, and we have evidence of the fact that he succeeded in his efforts, in the prescence here of a man like the Minister of Finance. When the Imperialist found that they were unable to achieve their purpose by means of someone for their own ranks, they went out of their way to get an Afrikaner through whom they would be able to achieve their purpose, and they found that Afrikaner in the person of the Prime Minister. During the course of this debate we have been told that the Prime Minister stated that since 1910 he had followed one course only. Yes, he always followed the wrong course; he has always supported the enemies of the Afrikaner, and he has always done the things that were wrong towards his fellow Afrikaners. He has never yet stood by the Boer people. Not for the last thirty years. He has never stood by the people who have only one home, and who know only one fatherland. He rules to-day by the grace not of his Afrikaner people; he rules by the grace of those people who have always persecuted his people, and he rules with the aid of the coloured man and the native, and a handful of “loyal Dutch.” It is due to the division which exists among the Afrikaners for which he is responsible that he is Prime Minister to-day. We have heard the Prime Minister tell us that he is in power to-day in consequence of the decision taken by Parliament, but he forgets that the people rejected him in 1924, and that never since that time have they called on him to become the Prime Minister of the country again. He came here under Gen. Hertzog’s wing, and for six and a half years he remained quiet.

Gen. Hertzog was here under his wing.

Yes, that is what we hear now, and those are the people who wept such crocodile tears about Gen. Hertzog. For six and a half years the Prime Minister kept quiet and waited for the moment to come when he would be able to stab his Leader in the back. And they are the people who weep crocodile tears and who declare themselves to be indignant over what has been done to Gen. Hertzog, but in actual fact they rejoice at what has happened and they do not deplore it. I am pleased that the hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler) is in his seat. He and his old Voortrekkers near him rejoice at what has happened. I can see it. One of the old Voortrekkers, the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) sits near him, and then he has the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Col. Wares) near him. Now I want to ask him what part those fellow Voortrekkers of his played in the Boer War? If he knows what part they played, he will be less pleased about having these old Voortrekkers sitting near him.

And what part did many of your friends take in those days?

When the hon. member for Kimberley District stood by his people, the people put him in his present position— they put him into a public position. But when he became unfaithful to the people they rejected him and he ran away from them. And by whose grace is he sitting here to-day? He is sitting here in this House today not by the grace of his own people, but by the grace of the people whom he always used to fight in the past. Who are his friends to-day at Burgersdorp? Not the people whom he used to stand by, but the very people whom he used to fight as his enemies in the past. The Minister also told us about the very fine prices which farmers were getting for their products. Well, will the Minister go and tell that story to the fruit farmers of Paarl and Wellington? The Minister says that the farmers are satisfied. Dare he go and tell the people of Wellington, Malmesbury, Caledon and Bredasdorp that story? Has he the pluck to go and tell those people about the fine prices which wheat farmers are getting for their products? Do not let us forget that the Minister without Portfolio is just as responsible as the other Minister for the fact that the farmers are not getting good prices for their products. He will not raise his head just now—if he is ashamed to show his face then I am pleased.

Don’t talk nonsense.

Yes, I know you will call it nonsense, but now I want to quote from a speech by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet). I am sorry the hon. member is not in his seat. When the hon. member is among his own people one cannot get near him—he makes so much noise. But I will not be surprised if after all he has said he votes for this vote of no confidence. Now I want to read what the hon. member said. This appears in “Die Burger” of the 21st October, and I am convinced that he will not deny that it is a fact that he said this. He said there that there are no producers who are not thoroughly in accord with the protest against the increase in the price of wheat that is expected. This is what he said—

It was correct.

The hon. member cannot discuss the wheat question now. There is a motion on the Order Paper dealing with the wheat industry.

The motion on the Order Paper asks for an enquiry into the price of wheat for the future. But this speech of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) referred to the price which the farmers are getting now, and has nothing to do with the future.

The hon. member cannot discuss that at this stage.

Seeing that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister went out of his way to talk about the price which has been fixed for wheat, I think you should allow me to go into it.

†The hon. member can discuss it when the motion comes before the House.

Very well, then, I shall proceed to deal with another point. The question has been put to us, what grounds have we for this motion of no confidence in the Government? I want to ask what the Prime Minister and his Government have done during the time they have been in office to deal with our big problems? There is the Asiatic problem. They talk about a split on our side of the House, but we know only too well that there is a difference of opinion on the other side of the House on all these important questions. The people want to know whether these big questions have again been put off. There is the colour question. What is the present Government doing? It is making this question more difficult by recruiting coloured men for military service. It is stated that they are not actually fighting, but none the less we are told that they are wearing bandoliers, and the question has been put in this House by hon. members opposite who want to know why the coloured men are not taking an active part in the fighting. We know what would be the consequences of that sort of thing. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has drawn attention to the fact that white women and white girls have to serve the coloured men. We know how much more difficult that already complicated question is being made as a result of that sort of thing. Then I also want to know what has been done to deal with the poor white question and the question of providing work for those people. Work on the dams has been stopped. Instead of increasing the wages of those people as we asked for, they are being deprived of their work. Our poor people are being forced to take part in the war. Are the Ministers giving us a true explanation, are they acting honourably when they tell us that no pressure is being brought to bear, while they know all the time that direct and indirect pressure is being exercised? And that sort of thing is being done with the country’s money. We have the strongest objection to that. Those are the reasons why this Government has not got the right to remain in power. On the 4th September, 1939, we were dragged into a war which is to-day costing us at the very least £60,000,000 per year, and if the Minister comes along to impose taxation it will not be the mines that will be taxed, but the poor people of the country who will have to pay most. I have never yet expressed my opinion as to which side is going to Win or lose the war, because I do not think I am competent to express an opinion on that score, but what I want to ask is what we stand to gain by taking part in the war? If England wins the war, it will not be decided in North Africa, but in Europe. And if the war is to be decided there, then what have we got to do with it? This £60,000,000 is a waste of money, and if Germany should win then we are going to be much worse off as a result of our declaration of war against Germany than we would have been had we remained neutral. I just want to say a few words on the amendment proposed by the Minister of Finance, an amendment expressing confidence in the domestic policy of the party over there. We have a Labour Party on the other side of the House. I want to ask them whether they are in agreement with the Government’s domestic policy. And the Dominion Party, do they agree with the domestic policy of the present Government? Let them answer that question. If the Labour Party do agree with and accept the Government Party’s domestic policy, then they should resign their seats as Labour members, and they should go in for Fusion with the Government Party.

I had no intention of joining in this debate, but for the one point which has been made by speaker after speaker, about which I want to say a word or two. Speaker after speaker has emphasised that the position here in this House and the country is one of nationalism versus imperialism, and the Empire has been held up as something which is harmful to South Africa and the world. I wonder if hon. members really realise the position of the Empire in the world to-day. If not, it is time they did. To-day the British Empire, to which we are proud to belong, is the rallying point of the freedom-loving nations of the world. It is more than that. It is the only force which stands between the world and the state of tyranny under Hitler which is something more terrible than anything since the world emerged from barbarism. The ignorance of hon. members, if they try to controvert that statement, is something which should be placed on record. The British Empire to-day is the only hope that France has, that Holland has, that Belgium his, and that Normay, Dénmark and Poland have, of ever being free nations again. You know it, or you should know it; otherwise your ignorance is abysmal. Those nations are suffering to-day what no nation has suffered for the last 500 years. They are in a state of abject slavery—their manhood, their wealth, their food, and everything that is dear to them and their country, is being swept up and confiscated by Germany.

And who was the cause?

Are you really so ignorant as to put that question? The cause is the senseless ambition of one man to rule the world. Are hon. members so ignorant, Mr. Speaker, that America, which hon. members used to quote as an example of independence and neutrality, is saying to-day that if England) goes down then America goes down as well.

That is what the Jews say.

That is what America says. I don’t think the hon. gentleman’s intelligence goes the length of studying the position in the world to-day. Why is America doing what she is doing to-day? Is it for love of Great Britain or is it because she realises that Great Britain is America’s first line of defence? That defence of freedom and democracy is what imperialism stands for, and every man and every woman who has any common sense knows that if the British Empire is conquered to-day, freedom as we know freedom, and as your forefathers knew freedom, will be gone for ever, and you know it. Now what is Nationalism. That imperialism is what you have on the one side, the only force which stands between the world and Hitler’s tyranny. What is Nationalism? I have not heard a word of explanation from any single member of what Nationalism means. I will tell you what it means. In the first place it is a definite attempt to herd the people into two camps in this country. I am very glad an hon. member admits it. It is anti-everything in this country. It is anti-English. That is not denied. It is anti-Jew.

Exactly.

It is anti-native, it is anticolour, and now, so help me God, it is anti-one another. And it is a shocking thing when Nationalism represents what the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Strydom) explained last year, that it was a party that would not even fight to defend its own country when it was attacked. He stood up in this House and said even if it was attacked he would not defend it. I wonder you are not ashamed of it. Is that Nationalism? There are no principles about Nationalism. They change in accordance with their audience. In the Free State you have your new Leader of the Free State getting up and saying “Een volk, een vlag, een taal,” and you have the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. Du P. Viljoen), who says it stands for equal rights for both sections. What are your principles?

They have not got any principles.

Of course not. They remind me of the late Mr. Sammy Marks, who sat at a round table with his board of directors, and he described how he was managing his companies, and he said: “Gentlemen, those are my principles, but if you do not like them I have got others.” i-That seems to be a very typical example of the Nationalist Party as I see it Then it also seems a plan for what they call Christian National Socialism, but a Socialism which is so bitterly hostile to everything else that it can hardly be considered Christian. It wants to drive everybody out of South Africa except the purified Nationalists.

Ridiculous.

You have just admitted it. A socialism which stands apparently for a kind of dictatorship like that can hardly be called Christian. The most biting criticism of members opposite and the principle is that the own sons and the sons of their supporters are fighting for the cause up in the North.

No.

What about the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen)? You are silent now. Your sons are fighting for the cause that you are afraid to fight for. Hon. members opposite are villifying these men, including their own sons, who are fighting for the freedom that the Empire stands for. It would not surprise me if the son of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) went to the front, but what sort of cause is it when the sons disown the very principle of their own Party and fight for something which you opposite hold up as anathema. Some of your own sons have already gone, and I say it would not surprise me if others went too. The very men and women in the war whom you members claim as your supporters, as I have seen them, are not unwilling to send their sons to go and help fight for that Empire, and yet hon. members opposite claim them as their supporters. Go and look at your roll of honour of the last Great War in the Queen’s Hall of this House, and you will see as many Afrikaans names as you will see English names, and when again the roll of honour comes to be written after this war you will again see that the real Afrikanerdom, not the false Afrikanerdom, which sits opposite me, will have inscribed its name on that roll of fame just as it did in the last war. We have had put before us a new order of things. Well, that new order of things seems to me not only to be based on Nationalism but it seems to me to be based on what today is the characteristic of that Party—I will not use the word, but it is “verraaiers”— Mr. Speaker might rule me out of order although the word has been freely bandied across the floor. What did the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) do to Tielman Roos? He deserted him. Take your former Leader, Gen. Hertzog. Your Party has now betrayed him.

You stuck him in the back.

The dagger you thrust there is stuck in his back now.

You are one of themain instigators.

Let me tell you there isno man in this House, in this country, noAfrikaans-speaking man for whom I havea greater respect than Gen. Hertzog. I donot expect hon. members opposite whobetrayed him to be the judge of respect. Leave that to us. Gen. Hertzog did more forthe Afrikaans-speaking people of this countrythan any other man has done, and what hasbeen his reward? In his old age the verypeople he raised out of the depth of nationaldespair and built up into a nation in thiscountry cast him out.

You always called him a racialist.

Can the hon. member oppo-site quote one occasion in the 16-17 yearsI have been here where I ever described himas a racialist?

You have.

No. It has gone to thislength, even after you have turned yourleaders out that you cannot agree amongyourselves. The men with the decent feel-ings, the men who respect what their oldleader has done for them, have come to thestage where they will no longer sit with you. It is an act of loyalty on the part of thosemen to their old leader that they disownthe disloyalty of the Party that sits there. Now let me just analyse this new orderwhich we heard such a lot about. Let mejust ask you first whether the NationalistParty or Nationalism to-day accepts the neworder. We have again Sammy Marks’ prin-ciples, “If you do not like these principles, I have another set.” I am going to make asuggestion, but I think there is a tremendouslot of good in the hon. member for Gezina’snew order, but why wait for some time inthe future to put it into operation? Why notput it into operation now? If it is good, I am throwing out the hint to the Govern-ment. I think it will be an excellent thingto start now. Let us analyse what the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) wants to do. In the first place he wants to put all hisopponents into a concentration camp. He isquite frank about that. “All those that donot support the new order are to go into aconcentration camp.” Well, let all thosepeople who are not prepared to support the Government which is elected, such as here, by the will of the people of the country, beput into a concentration camp. If it is agood thing why not do it? Then again it isgoing to muzzle the Press. That is the nextthing it is going to do. An excellent thing. If you are going to muzzle a hostile Presslet us put a good muzzle on Keerom Street. It is only following up the principle one of your Leaders and I would suggest to theGovernment: “Let us give this new ordera trial,” and I think after a few monthstrial you would have a very much quieterand a very much tamer lot of individualssitting on those benches opposite. They haveasked for the new order. They have held itup as one of the principles of this neworder, and if it is sauce for the goose it issauce for the gander, too.

You are the goose.

It will be a good thingif it can be put into operation. Now I donot want to labour what I have been sayingbut I am going to reaffirm again that whatthese people jeer and jibe at—I think thename has been mentioned—is the word“Imperialism”—and the Empire is somethingthat they cannot well ignore in this fight. I think the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. R. A. T. van der Merwe) was returnedto this House, if I am not wrong, by theJewish vote in Bethlehem. In fact, in theold days I heard him boast that all the Jewssupported him, so he should show a littlemore gratitude.

I neverhad a Jewish vote.

There is still time forrepentance. I will only say that if theNationalist Party really means what they arepreaching in this House, what apparentlythey are praying for that is the downfall ofEngland, that England shall be the loser inthis war, I can only say that it is veryevident that they are absolutely “Hitler”at heart. You have the choice of only twocauses to-day. If my hon. friends run downthe Empire and freedom on every occasion, as they are doing now, let me remind themthe Empire is fighting as much for themas it is for the very small nations of theworld, and I can only say it is obvious toevery thinking man that their sympathiesare with Hitler, and they would rather liveunder Hitlerism than in the absolute freedomwhich their own leaders have from time totime assured them has come from GreatBritain, and that there will be no othercountry generous enough to grant them thatfreedom.

The hon. the Ministerof Labour this morning asked members ofthe Afrikaner Party which side we wantedto win this war, England or Germany. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the Afrikaner Party expectsand hopes that South Africa will win. If Ilook at the millions of pounds which theGovernment is spending and which Parlia-ment is asked to vote then I feel that theyreally think they are going to lose the war. They remind me of the young fellow who in-herited a lot of money and got rich, and who set about spending his money as fast as he could so that there would be a bankrupt estate left for those coming after him. Are there any hon. members on the other side of the House who would have voted for war if they had known that at this third session since coming into power the Government would have come along with the request for money amounting altogether to £60,000,000 to be spent on the war? Apparently they are thinking they are going to lose the war and that they should spend the money in such a manner that if Hitler comes here he will have to take over a bankrupt show. That is all I can think when I look at the way in which the Government is spending money. The Prime Minister said that this House had passed a resolution, as a consequence of which South Africa was at war. To my mind the Prime Minister was wrong. At one time he was one of my sub-leaders. I held thirty-eight meetings, two of which he attended. At those meetings we told the public that we would not take part in any war unless we were attacked or unless England was in danger. And it was on those declarations that I was elected. And that is why I am going to vote for this motion of no confidence. It was a decision of the United Party that we would not take part in any war which did not concern us. At Marico the Prime Minister said exactly the same thing. The hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Genl. Botha) spoke about soldiers this evening, and said that we should uphold their reputation. I thoroughly agree with him. Those people are volunteers and we must help wherever we can. If the Government wants to wage war and if they consider that they have to carry on with the aid of volunteers then I am not concerned—if we had to defend our country I would be satisfied even if it were to cost £200,000,000, but if we have to spend that money so as to reinstate Haile Selassie on his throne, then we should not have to pay for it. We know how the Government sitting over there to-day succeeded in getting into power. They got there with the aid of the Labour Party and the Dominion Party and the Native representatives. The Minister of Lands stated yesterday that even if the war were to cost £100,000,000 or £200,000,000 it did not matter because when the gold standard trouble was on the then Government cost the country £400,000,000, through refusing to come off the gold standard. Well, if the farmers lost £400,000,000 then surely somebody must have gained. But what is the Prime Minister doing. He takes the one man who was in favour of our staying on the gold standard and he appoints him his Minister of Finance. Surely that shows that he was not convinced that it was in the interest of the country for us to have gone off the gold standard. There are many people joining the army to-day. Many of them who have never been supporters of Fusion, and never will be, but they could not help themselves; they had no alternative but to join up. Many of them find that they cannot pay their interest on their bonds, and it is that which has forced them to join up. We must be very careful. I do not know who is going to win the war or who is going to lose it. England may possibly lose, but I am not going to say so. I say that we must be tolerant towards the soldiers because they may be perhaps getting a little nervous. One knows what happens if they are provoked. And I want to say this: I am sorry that we can no longer co-operate with the re-United Party. I tried for fifteen months to co-operate with them, but the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) made an attack on us the other day. We should not call each other names. I still believe that hon. members sitting over there on the Opposition benches are honest and I still believe that they are Afrikaners, just as we on this side are Afrikaners. But may I be allowed to give the Leader of the Opposition a word of advice? The public will ask him how it is that 12 members of Parliament, six Senators and six Provincial members, and thousands of other people have resigned from his Party. There must be something radically wrong. And the Leader of the Opposition should try to get people together in a room so that they may go into the whole question and discuss what has occurred, because the people who have left his Party surely have not done so without a reason. And then I want to say this: the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) remarked that Afrikanerdom would take us to task for what we have done and he said that not one of us would dare make a speech in the Free State. A remark like that is offensive and I hope the Minister of Justice will take note of it. The hon. member said that we would not dare hold meetings in the Free State—what does he mean by that? If I should hold a meeting in the Free State and anything were to happen there I would hold him responsible for it.

I think the hon. member who has just spoken hit the nail on the head when he said that there must be something radically wrong over there, having regard to the large number of resignations that have taken place from their party of members of the Senate and of this House, and hearing him make that remark reminded me that I could see now the real reason for this motion of no confidence. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has put a motion on the Paper amounting to a categorical negative, and when one remembers what the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Fullard) has just said of the disintegration that is going on opposite, the very thing a tactician would do would be to attack the Government, to try and reunite the forces behind him, and to some extent he has succeeded, because although each one of the members belonging to the new party has unmercifully attacked the Leader of the Opposition from which they have seceded, they are still going to vote with the Opposition, so the Leader of the Opposition has managed to get his scattered units together on one issue, because they all hate the Government. It is not really intended as a motion of no confidence, but is an attempt to bring those forces together again so that they can vote in the same division. The Minister of Finance has opposed this categorical negative by a categorical imperative, and I am sure that it will be carried by a substantial majority. I am sorry the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) is not in his place. I have been in Parliament since 1908, and I do not know what I have done to have to listen to the impudence of a member of Parliament denouncing me and those who sit with me who happen to be Jewish members. I have done my duty by South Africa. I have been in Parliament since 1908, with a short absence in 1930-’31, and I have still to listen to a man who was probably at school when I was already in public life. Always we have to listen to this absolutely silly abuse. This time he did not quote the forgery of the Elders of Zion, but he quoted a number of silly things, and denounced Jews as Bolsheviks and capitalists. I notice one thing, and I mentioned it in the House once before, and that is that he himself comes of a Jewish family. The Van Nierops in Holland are a Jewish family, and a Van Nierop is buried in the Jewish cemetery at Brixton, Johannesburg.

You know quite well that the Jews have taken names from every country in the world where they settled. The hon. member for Mossel Bay is not of Jewish descent.

I know it to be the truth that the Van Nierops are Jewish. My friend can shout and interject in that rude manner of his as much as he likes. The same thing applies to the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. A. J. Badenhorst), as has been pointed out on a previous occasion. The Badenhorsts are descended from Jewish stock, as appeared from the Afrikaans work read by Gen. Conroy in this House. I have always read that the zeal of the convert is greater than that of those who are born in the faith, and I notice that those hon. members who are descended in that way are the worst offenders in regard to these racial attacks that go on. [Interruptions.] I can only say this, sir, that in spite of the impudence of hon. members opposite who attack me and other Jewish members, I tell them that I claim, and we all claim, our full rights as South Africans exactly in the same way as they do. We are not elected only by Jews, but by all sections of voters in every constituency, and I dispute the right of any man to insult me or my faith in this House. I will not stand it, and every time these attacks come up I will answer them. [Interruptions.] Well, really, Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that the name of Alexander has been our name for many generations. [Interruptions.] You made an impudent suggestion, and if you are a man you will accept my statement.

What about Kentridge?

I am not now answering for Mr. Kentridge but for myself. Hon. members have sunk so low that they make use of this kind of attack as argument. The hon. member for Mossel Bay made a deliberate attack upon all of us, and if hon. members such as he, when they make these attacks, think that they will not be answered, they are making a great mistake. They are bankrupt of anything in the way of statesmanship, they are doing exactly the same thing that Hitler did, starting with the Jews and using them as a scapegoat. What they really want is to take away the liberties of the people, using the Jews as a scapegoat. That is no longer a trick that will succeed. Hitler was the last man to use that trick, but the world is now wide awake to it. Every member of this House who is elected by his constituents, whatever his race may be, or whatever his religion, should be entitled to that respect from hon. members that they themselves expect. That is all I ask. I am not asking for any favours, nor for any special recognition, but I am asking for my simple rights as a member and the rights of my constituents. I am not surprised that these tactics should be adopted, because hon. members opposite are so poor in argument, so bankrupt in statesmanship, that they must seize upon something of that kind in order to conceal their incapacity. The object of this motion, as I said, is to put something forward upon which they can get all the members on that side to vote together. They will vote together against the Government, but you have heard from the speeches of the new party how they differ from their former colleagues. How inconsistent it is. According to constitutional usage, if this motion is carried, the Government must call upon the Leader of the Opposition to form a Cabinet, but the ten hon. members who have left the party would not vote for such a government, they have told us what they think of them. Although they will vote for this motion, they will not vote for a man being made Prime Minister who, they say, on account of what he has done to General Hertzog, is not fit to be Prime Minister. They even went so far as to say he is not fit to be Leader of the Opposition. The chief feature of this debate has been this question of the soldiers. I am not going to cover the ground that has been already covered, but I would like to quote some figures which have not so far been given to the House, to show how beside the mark are hon. members who seek to show that the soldiers were the aggressors, and the police were only doing their duty, and that they were attacked and civilians were attacked. An ounce of practice is worth a pound of theory, and I have here the figures of the casualties of the disturbance who were admitted to the General Hospital, Johannesburg, where most of them were sent, and then the House will see who the aggressors were. Of civilians 32 were treated at the General Hospital and eight were detained, a total of 40. Of soldiers 198 were treated for injuries, and 75 were detained, and one of them died. The figures of the police, who were supposed to have been attacked, show that only two policemen went to the General Hospital, and one was detained. These figures speak more eloquently than anything else, and show conclusively that the soldiers were by no means the aggressors. Something has been said by the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) in criticism of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger), in regard to non-Europeans who are living below the bread line. There is no doubt there is cause for disquiet in the statistics, but any member who is fair will acknowledge that very much more has been done by this Government than by any previous one to remedy that state of affairs. I want to point out to the hon. member, who says nothing has been done, that when anything is attempted in this House to ameliorate the position of the non-Europeans, hon. members opposite are dead against it every time. They try to introduce the colour bar on every occasion, and yet they have the audacity to quote Professor Batson’s report against the hon. member for Cape Eastern as a reason why the Government should not be supported by her because there are so many non-Europeans below the bread line. As far as domestic policy is concerned, the Minister of Labour gave a very convincing statement to the House, showing that domestic policy is not one on which to challenge the Government; with regard to the financial policy, the Minister of Finance gave a very adequate reply to the Leader of the Opposition especially in regard to gold mining taxation. One statement has been made that for some time the Government has been afraid to face the people, but when the Leader of the Opposition was at Piquetberg recently, he told the people there, on the 31st January, that the Government was contemplating a blitz election, but when the Winburg result came to hand they decided not to go on with it. It seems remarkable that the Government has been attacked all along because it is said they are afraid to meet the electors, and yet the hon. member for Piquetberg tells his constituents that the Government had contemplated a blitz election. I don’t think there has ever been a time in South Africa when the Opposition has been so weak. There was much opposition on the part of a responsible section of the Afrikaans-speaking people against the policy of General Botha in the Great War. That was a far greater opposition than exists to-day. General Smuts is far stronger in South Africa to-day than General Botha was when the war broke out in 1914, and so far from there being any question of no confidence, people are coming over to the Government. The hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Fullard) let the cat out of the bag; thousands are coming over to the leadership of General Smuts, and I venture to think that when the army returns and elections take place the Opposition will either have to change their policy or give up their seats, because they will shrink more and more as the result of their mistaken policy in following Germany instead of realising that the interests of South Africa are the interests of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

I want to express my thanks to the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Fullard) for the moderate tone he adopted when referring to us on this side of the House. I deeply regret the words used towards us by the hon. member for Germiston North (Mr. Quinlan). I do not want to aggravate the quarrel, and I do not want to give the English-speaking people on the other side, and the Hans Khakis over there the satisfaction of being able to think that they have scored a point on account of there being differences of opinion among the Afrikaners. I want to say here that so far as the Afrikaner Party and those of us who sit here are concerned, we have the same feelings, and we should realise and face the fact that we have a common enemy, and the enemy are those people sitting opposite on the Government benches. We shall have our hands full in fighting them, so we should not fight among ourselves. The hon. member for Cape Town Castle (Mr. Alexander), who has just sat down, referred to the incidents that occurred with the soldiers in Johannesburg. He quoted a number of figures to prove that a larger number of soldiers had been injured, and he tried to give us to understand that that proved that it was not the soldiers who had started the trouble, and who had attacked the others. I should like to refresh the hon. member’s memory. If he were to study the history of South Africa he would see that whenever there has been a fight in South Africa between the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people, the number of killed was always six to one. If the hon. member wants to adduce this fact as evidence that the soldiers were not the attackers, well, then I can only tell him that it is beyond my comprehension that he should try to prove a thing like that. All we have to do is to go through the country and see for ourselves what the soldiers are doing. It has got to the pitch that it has become almost impossible for a public man to move about on a train on which there are soldiers. He is subjected to the grossest insults. I have had personal experience of that sort of thing. I have been insulted by soldiers who have done nothing whatsoever for the country yet, and they have insulted me simply because they knew that I did not feel the same as they do in regard to the war. Fortunately, there are some among them who know how to behave and who do not dishonour the uniform they wear. Unfortunately, however, there are also a great many of them who are a disgrace to the uniform they wear, and I should like the Prime Minister to send them up North as soon as possible. If they go North, and we find that the list of killed is composed largely of people of that kind, then there will be no great harm done to South Africa. I should regret it if it were the better class of soldier who were killed, but when we are dealing with people who are not amenable to discipline and whom the officers are unable to control—if we have to deal with people who do not even take notice of the Prime Minister, who is their commanding officer—then I say that they have gone a long way on the road to hooliganism. All we have to do is to look at the most recent issue of “Die Vaderland.” From what we can see the amount of damage which has been done. Damage which can only be done by people who have nothing themselves, and who have no feeling for right and justice, and yet we find that in this House people get up and want to defend the soldiers. Two or three days ago we noticed in the Press that six soldiers visited the office of a certain man named Venter in Johannesburg. They got round him and forced him to proceed to a barber and have his beard shaved. If we find that soldiers, whom we should be able to look up to, and who we should be able to rely upon to do their duty—if we find that people in uniform go so far as to assault private individuals in their offices, and force them to have their beards shaved off—their beard, which is a national characteristic, then surely it is going very far, and it is high time that the Prime Minister not only gave orders, but that he saw to it that those orders were carried out, and that those people were punished. I support this motion of no confidence for several reasons. I support it for this reason, too, that we have Ministers to-day who travel all over the country and treat the public in a most unfair manner. I want to support the motion of no confidence in the Government because I am of opinion that we have Ministers here who have not got a sense of justice. We have one Minister who travels round the platteland and has notices issued that he is going to address a public meeting. The public are invited to attend the meeting, but if the public come along and insist on appointing their own chairman, difficulties are created, and the people who suffer for those difficulties are as a rule the members of the public themselves, or our members of Parliament. It is a well-known fact among the members of the public on the platteland that when meetings are addressed the public have the right to elect their own chairman. I had an instance concerning the Minister without Portfolio. I arrived at the meeting with my chairman, and the public insisted that they should be allowed to elect their own chairman. The chairman who was presiding at the time went to the extent of saying that the Minister was not going to address the meeting unless he—the man then presiding—took the chair, with the result that the Minister left, and I had to address the meeting. I do not want to expatiate on what happened at Klerksdorp. I only want to refer to it in passing. If it had not been for the defiant attitude, the insulting language and the threats made by the Minister, there would have been no trouble, and that being so I can well understand why the Minister will henceforth be known as the blue-eyed boy of Salt River. He has been looking for that. The day after the trouble at Klerksdorp I went over there and I addressed a meeting. Why is it that when we address meetings on the platteland everything is perfectly orderly? For the simple reason that out of a sense of justice and fair play, we allow the public to chooose their own chairman, and now we are told that this Government is fighting for Christianity and democracy. Is it democratic for Ministers to adopt that attitude? If so, then I must say that I foresee a very sad future for this country. What are we to think of the security code which has now been issued? We can come to only one conclusion, and that is that it is a security measure for the Government itself. Ministers opposite will be able to go round the country. Members of Parliament opposite will be able to go about, and they will be able to say what they like. But if anyone from this side of the House goes around and gives expression to his sacred convictions, he will get into trouble. If I, since the issue of these regulations, go and address a meeting in my constituency, and express my sacred conviction so far as the war is concerned, and if I say to the public “As sure as I am here, England is going to lose the war,” then I am at once in trouble.

There is only one Minister here just now, and I want to ask him whether it is fair to try and force people who do not agree with their war policy, is it fair and is it just to try and close the mouths of these people so that they are unable to go about and tell their constituents what their honest views are in regard to the war? Assuming the question is put to me by a parent, whether he should allow his son to join up, it is my solemn conviction that it is my duty to tell such a parent that he should not allow his son to go as it is a war which does not concern South Africa. He should not allow his son to go because he will merely go and fight for the Empire which might prove to be to the great detriment of South Africa. Am I entitled to say that? Under those regulations I am not entitled to say it, and I ask the Minister of Justice whether that sort of thing is right and fair. I say that the Government is oppressing and persecuting Afrikanerdom, and it is not to be wondered at that when we go through this country we find that such a feeling of hatred is arising between the two sections of the population that it will take years to remove that feeling if it will ever be possible to do so. The Afrikaner is being provoked in every possible manner. The people who are in the service of the country are persecuted because they will not take the red oath, people who go about looking for work are unable to get it unless they take the red oath. The greatest injustice is done to those who do not agree with the Government’s war policy. I want to ask the Minister who is here this evening representing the Government how long he thinks matters will go on like that. Does he think the Afrikaner is going to stand for this sort of thing? Does he think that the Afrikaner is going to swallow everything and is going to allow himself to be driven like that? If the Afrikaner afterwards cannot stand it any longer, and an outburst does occur, who will be to blame for it? I lay the blame at the Government’s door. It seems to me that the Government is openly looking for trouble. Members of this side of the House have to the best of their ability been trying to see to it that order shall be maintained. We have done everything in our power to keep people calm, but we have not had the slightest assistance from the side of the Government. Wherever we look we hear of incidents, of persecution and of oppression. In my own constituency I have heard of cases of people being interned and persecuted, and I can only say that these things have happened as a result of business jealousy and hatred and malice. People are interned and they are not given the slightest opportunity of defending themselves. They are interned and their business has to be disposed of practically for nothing. A business which a man has built up by the sweat of his brow is destroyed in no time. The man is in the internment camp and he cannot possibly run his business from there, and everything he has done, everything he has worked for, is destroyed in a couple of weeks. Now I want to say a few words in regard to the Minister of the Interior. I am sorry his nerves have undergone such a shock that it has been necessary for him to get a month’s leave. I should like to have had him here, because there are a few things I want to draw his attention to. He travelled through the country and indulged in all kinds of threats against the Ossewa-Brandwag. I want to tell the Minister this, that although he makes all those threats against the Ossewa-Brandwag and although he tells them that he is going to destroy them, he has as much chance of doing so as a snowball has in a hot place. His chances of putting a stop to this Afrikaner movement which is supported by between 300,000 and 400,000 Afrikaners who are determined to see to it that the rights of the Afrikaners are maintained … I say that that Minister can as little put an end to that movement as he can stop the waves of the sea. I want to avail myself of this opportunity of thanking those who have taken a lead in the Ossewa-Brandwag movement for the attitude they have adopted. I want to thank them for having formed such a strong organisation and for the help they have extended to the Afrikaner, and for the manner in which they have maintained order. I also want to thank them for maintaining discipline in the country. I know that when the Government is unable to maintain order they will be prepared to do so. Then there is another thing which has struck me very forcibly. The Minister of Finance stated that we on this side of the House had surrendered our love for our country and our love for our freedom. That love for our country, and that love for our freedom which we are thirsting for, and which we know we shall achieve one of these days, is something which we shall never surrender. But the only love which we can never possess is the love which animates them namely, to use their own people for something which does not concern South Africa, to use the sons of South Africa as the satellites of the British Empire. Every member on this side of the House is animated by love of his own people, animated by love for the freedom which they are striving for. And I say that even the Minister of Finance will not succeed in inducing us to surrender that love. I was amazed that words of that kind should come from a man like the Minister of Finance. Has he or any of his people ever done anything for the freedom of South Africa? People come here and throw stones at us, but those people live in glass houses. There are people here who are prepared to sacrifice everything for the freedom of the people, who are prepared to sacrifice everything so long as we can obtain our freedom in South Africa, and so long as there is nothing to bind us to the British Empire. The Minister of Lands got on to dangerous ground the other day when he dragged in the church and when he spoke about Christianity. He is the very last to talk about Christianity. Is he not the man who drove a man like Manie Maritz off the farm which he was going to take over from another person? He did not give Maritz the opportunity to live on the farm in the meantime. He gave him 24 hours to leave the farm, and that a man like Gen. Maritz! Whether we agreed with him or not we cannot lose sight of the fact that he was a man who was prepared to sacrifice everything for South Africa, and the man who took up that attitude towards him is the Minister of Lands. And he comes here and talks about Christianity. When he spoke of a snowball in another place I realised that he was talking about something which he knew more about than he did when he spoke about Christianity. It would have been very much better if he had confined himself to things of that kind. I support the vote of no confidence because I have the deepest contempt for what the Government is doing as a result of the misdeeds they have committed. I support the motion because they have appointed people to persecute their own people. I support the motion because no confidence can be reposed in this Government. Everything they do is wrong, and that being so it gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity of voting for a motion of no confidence in a Government towards which I have feelings of the deepest contempt.

I have listened attentively to the speeches made here in order to find out what are the reasons for the motion now before us. But the whole thing has ended in a fiasco, and I imagine the Opposition must be very sorry that they introduced their motion. The Leader of the Opposition made a lengthy speech here. In his speech he made a disgraceful attack on the members of the Commission which enquired into the trouble which had occurred at Potchefstroom. I feel that he did so in a reprehensible, I would almost say scandalous manner. A man in his position who has held the position of Minister of the Interior should not have done a thing like that; it was unworthy of him to have made insinuations of that kind.

You do not understand Afrikaans at all.

He stated that the poverty and retrogression among our farmers were attributable to the war. He must be a stranger in Jerusalem if he is unable to see that the position of the farming industry to-day is very much better than it was two years ago. I do not think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has the right to make those remarks about the condition of the farmers. I am going to mention certain facts; we find that in the last few years, and particularly this year, farmers have been paying off their bonds, and they have been paying their debts to the Government in an unprecedented manner.

Where do you get that from?

I can state facts from my own district to prove that an amount of between £50,000 and £70,000 has been paid off in one year and that it has been done without any pressure having been brought to bear. Further proof is to be found in the fact that this year and last year an amount of £800,000 was placed at the disposal of the Land Bank for farmers and of that amount only £200,000 have been taken up. That is evidence of the fact that the farmers are able to get along without the aid of the Land Bank.

No, that is not so, there are thousands of people who have had to leave their land.

The Leader of the Opposition stated that since September, 1939, the Government had instituted a reign of terror and that it was due to that that the people were in trouble to-day. That of course, is pure nonsence and the hon. member knows it, but assuming he believes that to be the case. Then it is he and his fellows on those benches who are responsible for it by the inciting speeches made by them not only in this House but also outside, which have caused the feeling of dissatisfaction and rebellion. But now that we have this security code I hope they will come to their senses. We are told every day that the day of reckoning is near. Well, we on this side hope so too. This vote of no confidence is nothing but a repetition of the old, old story which we have heard over and over again. The Opposition are opposed to the war; they wanted to remain neutral so that they might have been better able to help the enemy of this country, Hitler, to achieve a victory which according to the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) offers the only salvation South Africa can hope for.

What do your constituents say?

Yes, what do my constituents say? Last year I told the member of this House who has now passed away that he and any other member can come to Rustenburg to test the feelings there. I do not challenge them, I invite them to come. I can go through my district without fear of trepedition, and I am not afraid to visit any part of my district. This motion is the old old story, all over again. They do not want to take part in the war, they want to remain neutral so that they can help Germany to win the war. We have decided repeatedly and we have decided freely, as a free Parliament of the country, that South Africa shall take part in the war. The people of South Africa are determined to see the war through, until eventually peace shall come with victory. We on this side of the House are all day long stigmatised as Jingoes. The hon. member who has just sat down also used the distasteful and disgusting word “Hanskakies.” I am proud this evening of being able to say that the Rustenburg farmers, not Jingoes and Jews, but real farmers support the Government, and that more than 1,000 people from Rustenburg have joined up and are now at the front. That is better evidence than anything else of the fact that the people of South Africa stand behind the Prime Minister.

Fie!

I am now going to read out a letter and the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) will not say fie when he hears whom that letter comes from. It is written by a prominent member of the Nationalist Party, an out and out man. And this is what he says—

I shall lay this letter on the Table of the House. There are numerous other indications which show that the people are beginning to see how they have been misled. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) who is a young man talks about a victory for Hitler. He is not prepared to fight for his country and for the country’s freedom, but he appeals to Hitler. Anyhow, for the reasons I have mentioned, and for many other reasons, I am going to vote against the motion and in favour of the amendment of the Minister of Finance. And I imagine that hon. members opposite will be pleased when we are finshed with this motion.

I had intended discussing a very serious matter in order to show the degree of distrust which the country feels towards the Government. The matter is one of the greatest importance. We have on previous occasions brought it to the notice of the Minister of Finance, but unfortunately he has not taken any heed. It seems as though the Government sitting on those benches over there is dead and buried. They take no interest in Parliament. The Minister is absent; there are only a few remnants of them left. The interests of the country do not concern them at all. That by itself is adequate reason why the country cannot have any confidence in the Government. A great many facts have been produced justifying the vote of no confidence in the Government. The point I wish to raise is this: It is within the Government’s power to do something effective for the country and to carry on the great work which has to be done. A year ago I considered it my duty to indicate in this House to the Government the fact that in time of war it is essential for the Government to tackle certain big national matters, as these are matters for which in time of peace they have not got sufficient enthusiasm and initiative. After I had drawn attention to the urgency of the matter, the Prime Minister said that he agreed with me. It appears, however, that so far as this Government is concerned, serious national matters are pushed entirely into the background. True, the Prime Minister did write me a letter to inform me that he agreed with me, but beyond that nothing is being done. Now we have come here and a year has passed. Let us see what has happened in that year. The national problems to which I referred as problems that should be tackled are not tackled at all. I mentioned the question of finding work for the people, I mentioned education, feeding the people, and raising the standard of living of the people. I want to say to the credit of the Prime Minister that he realised that it was essential to give attention to these questions, but while he always realises things he does not move a hand to put things right. During the year that has passed things have become worse from day to day, from week to week, and from month to month. The Government has not given any evidence of its wish or its ability to carry out its functions. It knows only one function, and that is to make soldiers, not to go and fight, but to come and cause trouble here in South Africa. Now I want to say that the previous Government displayed a certain degree of anxiety in regard to these matters, and as a result of that we were able to get a great deal done. I pointed out last year that in spite of our being at war we should yet do what was best for the country in the circumstances, and that we should maintain the work that was already being done. I pointed out that it was essential for us to attend to the health conditions of the people, because one does not know how long the war will continue, but we do know that after the war great problems may arise, and that one can to a very large extent tackle those problems in time, and cope with them. Now as regards the question of under-nourishment and the standard of living of the people, I want to say that the previous Government showed its interest in the question of under-nourishment, as a result of which a Nutrition Council was established. That Nutrition Council was brought into being with the specific object of going thoroughly into the condition of the people, but they also had to go into the question as to what had to be done in order to improve the condition of the people. Two years ago an amount of £6,000 was placed on the estimates for an investigation to be made, and last year a further £5,000 was provided. Very important information was obtained, and I may say that so far as my own knowledge is concerned, and from what I know has been done, the information so far as South Africa is concerned is alarming, alarming so far as the white population is concerned, alarming so far as the coloured people are concerned, and even more alarming so far as the natives are concerned. All this goes to show that the Government in no way can enjoy the confidence of the country. They now propose to stop all those investigations. Not a penny is being voted to-day for that work to be proceeded with. I want to mention this as an example of what is being done in the Union. And that is not all. We have been told that the interests of South Africa are to be fostered, but it is clear that they are not out to look after the welfare and the happiness of this country, but that even the Government supporters are to-day very much concerned over the money that is being spent. The Government supporters are best able to find out what the various amounts are being spent on, but hon. members over there have not given us a great deal of information. Hon. members on the other side of the House are in a better position than we are to know how the money is being wasted. They know best where the money is being wasted, because they are among those who are nearest the feeding trough. Members of Parliament who are getting double salaries are in the best position to know how the money is being spent. I have mentioned this matter as one of the reasons why we have no confidence in this Government, but I want to reach another object this evening by mentioning it, namely, that it is essential to carry on this investigation into under-nourishment, as it is a matter of the utmost importance to South Africa. The Minister of Railways and Harbours is the only Minister who is present in the House, and I am anxious that the Minister of Railways and Harbours should bear this matter in mind and inform the Minister of Finance of what I have said, and also the Minister of Public Health, as it is a matter of the greatest importance that the work in connection with under-nourishment in South Africa should be proceeded with, and that for this reason. In this war one of two things may happen. Great Britain may win, and then there will be an economic collapse which will have serious repercussions in South Africa. Or something else may happen, the other side may win, and in any case serious conditions will develop in South Africa; and if there is one thing which is of the utmost importance it is this, that even at this stage we should take the condition of the people into consideration, and we should make our plans well in advance for after the war, so that we shall be able to prepare South Africa for even more serious conditions than already exist in the country to-day. We know only too well that whatever the result of the war may be, the eventual result will be that the people of South Africa will be poor, and the condition here will be a serious one. It is therefore essential that we should enquire into the available means which we have to feed the people in this country so that we can place them at the disposal of the people. It will not be a question of wages or of money. We shall have to make the food available to the people irrespective of the ability of the people to buy it or otherwise. We shall have to produce, if the people need it, and we shall have to know what is the quality of the food of our people. The food investigation committee is the only body able to do that work, and it will be able to do it if the Government will spend only one hundredth part of the money which is to-day being wasted on the war. I am not talking about the money which is being spent. I am not talking about that. I am speaking of the £100,000. I am speaking about the contracts far in excess of that amount which are being issued, and if just one small proportion of the money now being wasted is set aside for that purpose then the work can be carried on and the co-ordination of the work in connection with the question of feeding the whole people can be continued, and if that is done the Government will be doing a very good thing. I am begging the Government, and I am putting it to the only Minister who is present, and almost the only member on the Government side, to allow thi s work to continue. It is a matter of £5,000 or £6,000 being needed, and I ask the Minister to see to it that this work is carried on. It is a fact that we have to plead here this evening to empty benches. We have to talk in the air, and the only Minister who is present is the Minister of Railways. I admit that he is not as easy going as most of the other Ministers All this goes to prove that the country cannot have confidence in that Government. What do we find in regard to public health? Everything that used to be done in regard to public health is being neglected at the moment. If we go to the department and try to get anything done in regard to public health, what do we find? They have no time for it. When we come to medical training in respect of which the previous Government appointed a Commission four years ago, of which I myself was a member, and when we try to get the recommendations of the Committee given effect to, we find that the gentlemen concerned in the matter are lieutenant-colonels in the army. They have not got the time to give attention to medical training. The universities of Johannesburg and Cape Town are keen on carrying on with the work, but the gentlemen who are lieutenant-colonels in the army have not got time for that sort of thing, and they take up the attitude that they are the people who have to be present when questions relating to medical training are discussed; and what do we find in regard to ordinary matters of public health? The Government has no time and no money to carry on with that important work which affects the everyday life of the people, and in regard to which the condition of the population requires to be improved. It is a sad condition of affairs, and I say that, apart from the mismanagement of affairs in connection with the war, it is even more serious for the future of our people that there should be mismanagement in every department of the ordinary Government of the country. This mismanagement in every department implies that the whole of our people are dissatisfied, and the moment this enthusiasm for the war disappears, that very moment spells the end of this Government. We do not want to rejoice at the future when this Government will come to and end, but we want to ask the Government which is still in power not to neglect the interests of the people. While they have the power in their hands they must not simply sit there with their pious faces, but we want them to look after the interests of the people. They must realise that these matters in connection with the public health are not merely of importance in connection with the future interests of the people, but that they are also of importance looked upon from the point of view of the war. Apart from the ordinary course of events they should also realise that from the point of view of the war these things are essential in order to build up the morale and the power of resistance of the population of this country. But we have this position to-day, that even education is only being encouraged for war purposes, and for that reason it is my duty also to bring this aspect of the matter to the notice of the Government if I want anything to be done. They have lost the whole of their perspective of life, and they look at everything through one pair of spectacles, and through one pair of spectacles only, the spectacles of the war. It is high time that this Government should come to a realisation of things, and that in the interests of the country it should do something and should abandon this feeling of impotence which apparently is making it impossible for it to do anything, and to carry on with those activities of the country, those ordinary activities, with which a government should concern itself. I therefore ask, and I demand of the Government, that it shall this year not refrain from doing this work which I have been speaking about, and that it shall provide the necessary money for the purpose, as it is extremely urgent that it shall do so. It is extremely urgent to-day, and also with a view to the rehabilitation of South Africa after the war. It is also essential in connection with war time, and as we are able only to get money from the Government if such money is required in connection with the war. I want to bring that aspect to their notice. I am making this appeal to the Government, and I ask them to go on with this work, and I make the definite statement that in this respect we are not getting any support from the department. The Department of Public Health in that respect is dying. It is wilting and it is dying in the circumstances of the day. This matter must be put right and it might be improved. I do not want to blame all the officials for what is going on; they know the spirit which prevails in Government circles, and they know that there is no time for things of that kind while the war is on. That sort of thing is wrong. We should have an end put to it, in the interests of every section of the community. There are a few other matters I wish to touch upon, matters which are also of the greatest importance so far as the people are concerned. The first question is the ill-treatment of the ordinary population of the country which is now going on. Throughout the country we find that the rights of certain business men doing certain kinds of business are being taken away. People who sell radio sets in certain small towns can no longer obtain licences to carry on their business. Why is that? Is it because certain enemies of those business men are living in those towns, people who themselves want to do that business? They have greater influence with the Government because they belong to that one section of the community which has more influence with the Government and which gets up in this House and pleads with the Government because they know that by doing so they are able to promote their business interests against the interests of Afrikaners already doing that business. They are the same people who for business purposes and financial purposes are stealing the money of other people. They are the people who have influence with the Government to tell the magistrates that no more licences are to be issued to this or that person.

Or they are sent to the camps.

That is not all. We get people who have had a business for a long time and that is how they are treated. We get farmers who have telephone lines on the platteland. They are lines serving a number of people and the call office has for years been at the house or the business of a particular individual. Then other people find that it is to their benefit to have such a call office at their own place. The farmer is suddenly notified that the public telephone on his farm is to be closed down. No reason is given. The telephone is not removed but the wire is cut and the line is closed. If he goes to the department and asks why it is done he is told that the reason is that the particular telephone has only produced £4 or £5 during the year. We know only too well that that is not so. The telephone is not taken away to be put somewhere else, it is taken away because certain interests are up against those particular farmers and they do not want the people in the neighbourhood to have the convenience of a telephone. And so small-minded is the Department that it acts on the demands of those people to shut down the telephone. Now the Department has the power to close down a telephone, and they have the support of the Minister. All this goes to show that a systematic persecution is taking place in all branches of life. But they do not stop at that. They make use of the lowest, meanest, dirtiest and most drunken agents in the towns to bring charges against honest and honourable people. They bring charges of the most disgraceful kind against ladies. In a small town in my constituency they have brought charges against a lady to the effect that she held meetings with coloured people and that she was guilty of subversive activities. The dirtiest tactics are used against honourable people and everybody knows that it is the dirtiest and most lowest, and most drunken agents who are used by the Government. And they will never be forgiven for having availed themselves of those methods against honourable people. That is how they want to win the war. But by using those methods they have already lost the war in South Africa. Can a Government which uses methods of that kind ever expect Providence to allow them to be victorious in the cause they stand for? A cause like that must be lost if there is any justice in the world. This goes on not in one or two dorps only, it is the general method which they avail themselves of. We were told this evening that soldiers who were hurt in their hundreds in Johannesburg were not the attackers. One hon. member came here and said that the people who were hurt had been attacked. The fact that there are people who are trying to defend this business fully proves that the Government has lost the war ip South Africa; they can never win a war by methods of that kind. An injustice like that cannot be done to the people. The Lord will see to it that they do not win the war. If right and justice prevail they will never be able to win a cause by means of methods like that. Now, we have been told repeatedly by the other side of the House that no alternative Government is available in the event of this vote of no confidence being carried. On these benches and on the benches of the new Party over there we have a Government available which could immediately take the place of the Government in power to-day. We have not merely got the men available for one Cabinet but we could form five Cabinets which could replace the one in power to-day to the benefit of the country. In every row on this side of the House we have members who could form a much better Cabinet than the one in power to-day. The country could not be worse off than it is to-day. The time has now come when the Government should give the country the opportunity of saying what South Africa thinks of them. The country wants the opportunity to express itself. The country wants the opportunity to show the extent to which they mistrust this Government which is in power to-day. A Government which has split South Africa in twain in the way this Government has done can have no future; there can be no future for a Government which systematically and deliberately has split South Africa and divided the people. They boast of the fact that they are one party. Where is that much vaunted unity of theirs? Now they are asking this House to pass an amendment stating that Parliament has confidence in the Government’s domestic policy as well as in its war policy. The Labour members will vote for anything—the Government has given them good jobs and as long as they have those jobs they will vote for anything. Then we have another group over there—the Dominion Party. Are they likely in a time like the present to vote against the Government? No, they will not. They would swallow their teeth if necessary to support the Government—their tongues they have long since swallowed. Then we have the representatives of the natives, but they are now going to vote in favour of the Government’s domestic policy. For years they have been criticising every Government most volubly in regard to certain matters. To-day they will swallow everything because the natives are not concerned. Oh, yes, the native empire of Haile Selassie is concerned, but beyond that the natives are not affected, and they will vote for anything. They who were not full of criticism of everything the Government has done in respect of the workers, they are going to vote to-day in order to approve of the Government’s domestic policy. The whole business has been shown up. They are here to vote for their own position, their own pockets, and naturally also for the Empire. But now first of all they are going to vote for their own interests, so that they will be able to draw a double salary and perhaps be able to vote their shirts at a high price, or their milk or their bottles, or their sour cheese, or their services as officers, or their rotten eggs.

I want to say that I agree with a great deal of what was said by the hon. member who has just sat down. It may perhaps be surprising to hear that from a member on this side of the House, but I am referring simply to those parts where the hon. member displayed greater selfcontrol and dealt with matters on their merits. I do not at all agree with the final, noisy part of his remarks. I agree that after the war we shall be faced with a very difficult condition of affairs here in South Africa, and I agree that we have ahead of us a time when we shall have to contend with a great many difficulties, and I also agree that now is the time for the Government to lay down a policy and to indicate various directions in which we should go, so as to help South Africa over those difficult days. I think the House and the country are aware of the fact that that actually is the Government’s policy and that the Government is engaged on making the best preparations possible in the circumstances. As regards the tremendous war expenditure, a large proportion of that expenditure is actually being applied to the purpose of providing and of coping with the difficulties which will arise after the war. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) told us that there were two possible alternatives before the country. The one is that England wins the war, arid whether England wins the war or not, we have that position. The other alternative is that Hitler wins the war. I want to ask members on the other side of the House to tell the country unequivocally and clearly which of the two alternatives they prefer. Does the Opposition want Hitler to win the war or mot? Their supporters on the platteland are defintely under the impression that hon. members want Hitler to win the war, but they have not got the moral courage to get up and say so. They ask why I do not go and fight. The insinuation of course, is that we on this side of the House have not got the courage to go and fight. Now, I want to point out that the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) has been saying that our salvation depends on victory by Hitler. What has he done to try and fight on Hitler’s side? If our salvation depends on victory by Hitler, he should surely go and fight for Hitler. The Italians were on the borders of Kenya, and it would have been quite possible for the hon. member to get to the Italian troops and to work from that side for a victory by Hitler. What is keeping him here? In August, 1940, there was also a lot of trouble, there was internal trouble among the Opposition; they were at loggerheads then as to whether they should go and fight on the Limpopo. Some of them only want to go and fight on the other side of the Limpopo and some of them on this side. But before the House was prorogued they decided not to go and fight at all. If they had waited till now they could safely have said that they would go and fight on the Limpopo, because as a result of the Government’s actions I can assure hon. members over there that there will be no fighting on the Limpopo. Now let the other side of the House unequivocally state how they want the war to end, and what they think would be the most beneficial result of the war so far as South Africa is concerned—a victory for England or a victory for Hitler? There is another matter which the Minister of Finance put very clearly during this debate, and on which we expect a clear statement from the Leader of the Opposition, and that is the question whether the Party over there agrees with the hon. member for Gezina’s ideas on the subject of a new order of Government for South Africa. The Minister of Finance has given an answer to that, and we are fully entitled now to be told by the Leader of the Opposition whether he agrees with the ideas of the hon. member for Gezina. Hon. members opposite, in some cases noisily, acclaimed the hon. member for Gezina when he spoke. I wonder if they know how the hon. member for Gezina intends keeping what he calls Afrikanerdom in power. How is he going to do it? I shall tell hon. members in what way we on this side are going to remain in power. We are going to remain in power through the support of the people. The hon. member for Gezina, speaking in the constituency of the hon. member who is interrupting, put before the people of South Africa two nations as examples, namely, Portugal and Spain. He held them up as examples for the children of the Voortrekkers. How is he going to perpetuate his Government if he should come into power again? The United Party after coalition in 1933 was returned to power with a tremendous majority. He could easily have taken steps then to make it possible for him to remain in power, but the United Party did not take those steps because it would never have approved of anything of the kind being done. There we have a former member of the United Party in the person of the hon. member for Gezina, and he tells us that if one day he gets into power again he will take steps to see to it that he remains in power. He did not give us any indication, however, as to what steps he would take to keep in power. Let me tell him that the people who support him are better balanced than that and they do not allow themselves to be confused by such nonsensical talk. People on the platteland have more common sense than that.

But surely your Party is not talking on behalf of the platteland.

We have had typical speeches from the front benches of the other side during this debate. The hon. member for Gezina came after the Minister for Lands. The Minister’s speech was interrupted the day before by the adjournment of the debate and the hon. member for Gezina prepared himself in the meantime. On the resumption the Minister dealt with matters which specially concerned the hon. member for Gezina. He asked him what his answer was to the charge made by one of the Dutch Churches in regard to his proposal for a new order. The hon. member dare not reply to this. The Minister asked him in all seriousness what his answer was to the charge “un-christianity.” The hon. member for Gezina was unable to answer that question; he and the people behind him are divided on it. The hon. member had to try and make some poor jokes about it. I believe that, knowing he was going to follow the Minister, he looked up a very weak and poor comment which months before had been made in one of the English papers on the Rand and which had been exploited to the full—and that was his answer! Then the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) got up after the hon. member for Kensington had spoken. The reply of the hon. member for Kensington was a destructive one. He clearly showed how the Leader of the hon. member for Beaufort West had been juggling with figures and had created a misleading impression. The hon. member for Beaufort West thereupon got up and had the temerity to say in reply that the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) had told him that the hon. member for Kensington was wrong. The hon. member for Beaufort West is the responsible front bencher, and he dare tell us that the Government will never tax the mines. That is what he has been telling people outside, that is the impression he has been creating among the public. But when it is proved that he is wrong, he says: “The hon. member for George says so.” And now the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Du Plessis) has come along and has taken refuge behind the report of the Auditor-General. There must have been at least thirty reports from the Auditor-General since Union. If a vote of no confidence has to be proposed on every occasion in consequence of the Auditor-General’s report, we should have had thirty votes of no confidence by this time instead of the five we have had so far. Irregularities have taken place, but, unfortunately for him, the hon. member for Piquetberg mentioned a number of instances where the Auditor-General has not condemned the irregularities. It was rather striking that the Leader of the Opposition did not on this occasion supply a fresh epithet for the Prime Minister. We did not in his introductory speech get an epithet from him such as “Cecil Rhodes redivivus,” Red Chaka, or Petain of South Africa, or Leopold, or something of that kind; as a rule we get ā new epithet in every speech. But possibly when the hon. member replies to the debate we may get two epithets. The Leader of the Opposition told us that we could have achieved a great deal with this £60,000,000, which, according to him is now being wasted. He told us that with this money we would have been able to buy out the English interests and industries, or parts of them, in this country. The position is simply this, that we want to protect the industries which we have here, and that we are not going to hand them over to Hitler. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had his way, everything would be handed over to Hitler. What astounded me most of all in the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is that he should stand up here and argue that he started out from the assumption that Great Britain was going to lose the war. But then he told us again that if Great Britain lost the war her ally, America, would take over South Africa. He referred to that possibility, and even put it forward as a serious probability. Hitler, he said, was going to defeat England and bring England to her knees. But England’s ally would inherit the estate. That great democratic country, America, a country which is absolutely anti-dictatorship, would take over England’s estate. Then what did Hitler make war for? What in the name of goodness would he have been making war for if he was going to allow America to inherit the estate after he had won the war? It would appear that the hon. member has abandoned the attractive prospect of serving under Hitler here in South Africa. Now I should also like to say a few words to the old members of the United Party who are now sitting on the other side of the House. The question is one which since the 4th September has been repeatedly raised in the country. I do not want to go into it at any length, but it has been repeatedly said that this side of the House, the members on this side of the House, who were members of the United Party, on the 4th September outraged the policy for which the United Party stood. This question can be discussed ad infinitum, but I want to put just one question in this regard. Nobody will deny that the policy of the United Party, at least in its practical application, had been clearly and unequivocally laid down, namely, that the party would decide on the day war broke out whether or not we were going to take part in that war. The United Party stated that it did not agree with the policy of the Purified Nationalist Party, which wanted to state in advance that we were going to remain neutral. We said that we were going to wait until the day arrives, and then we were going to say whether we were going to be neutral or not. Now I want to put this to the members of the United Party who are sitting on the other side of the House. What possible war did they have in their minds at the time in which South Africa might possibly remain neutral, except the war which has now broken out? I hope that those hon. members can follow me. The United Party said that we would wait until the day when war broke out, and we would then decide whether we were going to be neutral or not. Naturally, there was no war contemplated which would imply a direct attack on South Africa. In a war like that there would have been no question of neutrality. Now, leaving out the war which has broken out between England and Germany, I should like to know from those hon. members what war they had in their minds in which South Africa might perhaps not have been neutral. It is being rightly stated that those members of the United Party have misled the people in regard to this matter. Even to this day the people are in the dark as to what war the Hertzogites might perhaps have taken part in. If there were no possible war in which they would have taken part, why, then, did they not support the Purified Nationalist Party’s neutrality policy, and why, then, did they hold back this coming together of the two parties for such a long period of time? Instead of allowing the two parties to come together, however, they always told the people on the question of neutrality that they would decide when the necessity arose, and now I ask which possible war they had in their minds except this war in which South Africa was not to have remained neutral? I can understand that responsible people who are in power may take up the attitude that they did not want to anticipate matters of that kind, but those people are not in power; they are irresponsible, and they can tell us which possible war they had in mind in which they would have remained neutral. I am afraid they will not answer my question. The whole position in regard to the policy of the United Party amounts to this, that if on the 4th September we had adopted the attitude which those hon. members have adopted, then there were only two possible reasons why those members did not vote with the Purified Nationalist Party on the neutrality question. The first is that they might possibly have injured the United Party, as it would have led to a split in the party. If that is the reason, then it is only right that the people should know that they put party interests above the interests of the people and above that wonderful national unity which they talk such a lot about today. The other reason is that it would not have been in the interest of the British Commonwealth of Nations if one of the Dominions had proclaimed that it was going to remain neutral under all possible conditions. Then the people should be told that they did not vote for neutrality because they put the interests of the Commonwealth of Nations above that much vaunted National Unity and the interests of the country. That they dare not do. Now we come to the fact that they kept the members of the United Party in the dark until the 4th September as to what their attitude was and that they stabbed the present Prime Minister in the back. The boot is on the other foot. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Liebenberg) the other day in all seriousness referred to the declaration of policy made by Genl. Hertzog in March 1939 in which he stated that if conditions overseas should develop in such a manner that one could conclude that South Africa was being menaced and that countries and nations were being deprived of their freedom, that it would then be time to warn the people to take notice of these matters, even if otherwise they were not interested in them. Now the question has been put as to when such a warning was given to the people. I say that that declaration of policy was itself the first warning. When the hon. the Leader of the House laid down that policy it was to my mind time for the people of South Africa to take heed of the developments overseas. We need not go into the question of what conditions in Europe were at that time, but on the 4th September there was confusion, and people were hesitating and doubting and a number of people ran away. There are people who ran away from the attitude which they had hitherto adopted. But a solution was given to us during that confusion. The hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) speaking at a few places in the Transvaal stated that apparently the former Prime Minister of South Africa was the only statesman in the British Empire who knew what the military strength of Germany was and I ask where did the Prime Minister get his information? Did Hitler tell the hon. member for Gezina and did the former Prime Minister take his stand on the 4th September not on the ground of whether Hitler was right or wrong, but on the ground of the military power of the Axis countries, that wonderful military power of the Axis countries of which the former Prime Minister was aware when he was my Leader, but of which his followers were never given any information. There is another matter which I wish to bring to the notice of my former friends, and that is that they are now supporting a vote of no confidence and as has been repeatedly pointed out to them this means that they are willing to form an alternative Government. I have mentioned quite a number of instances and it has been repeatedly shewn that they are in agreement with the official Opposition on hardly any points at all. There is not one solitary important question on which they agree. And now we come to the latest development in that Party. It has been going on for months and is doing so to-day. When this vote of no confidence was placed on the order paper, I can give hon. members the assurance that people in Lydenburg asked “But where is Nic” going to stand? The people in Midelburg said “We wonder what Piet is going to do?” and the people in Brits asked “Where is Jan going to vote?” and in Bethal “What will Coen do?” The electors did not know what those people were going to do. The electors were wondering what their own representatives were going to do and yet those members have the temerity to come to my constituency and to try and tell the people of Carolina what they should do—and they had a lot to say about me, but I can assure them that in Caronina there is not a single elector who does not know exactly where his member stands on this question.

The hon. member who has just sat down put a few questions and I should like to answer two of those questions. First of all he asked which war we had in mind in which we were going to remain neutral.

No in which you could not remain neutral.

Very well, I want to ask him what war there could have been which his Leader, the present Prime Minister, for instance had in his mind at Fauresmith when he told the public that we were not concerned with England’s wars. I put questions to him and I read out a statement to him to the effect that he had said in Johannesburg that if England was at war South Africa was at war. He said that he had made that statement in 1926 before we had achieved our higher status. I read out his words to him and I thereupon put that question to him at Fauresmith, and he said that we were not concerned with England’s wars. In 1938 the present Prime Minister was in favour of neutrality at the time of the Czechoslovakia crisis. Why was he not also in favour of neutrality in 1939? The reason is that he knew quite well; in 1938 that England was not inclined to declare war, but in 1939 England was ready to declare war, and South Africa had to follow England like a lackey. Now I should like to draw attention to the oratorical efforts of the hon. member opposite. He talked about the hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Du Plessis) who had quoted from the Auditor General’s report. He tried to answer the hon. member, and what was his answer? His answer was that since Union there had been thirty reports from the Auditor General and there should therefore have been thirty votes of no confidence. Surely the hon. member knows that the Auditor General every year goes into the financial position and that he shows up irregularities when he does so. Does the hon. member expect a vote of no confidence to be proposed on every occasion the Auditor General does so? The hon. member wants to know on which questions and problems this side of the House is in agreement. I want to ask him to mention one single problem on which we do not agree. But on what problems does that conglomeration on the Government benches agree?

On the anti-Nazi question.

That is the only one. And what about the colour question and many other questions?

You people also disagree on the colour question.

On what questions do we disagree?

There are so many that I cannot mention them all.

The Leader of the Opposition and other members on this side have tried by quoting facts, and convincing facts, to show what is going on to-day. This side of the House tries to speak on behalf of that great section of Afrikaners whose rights are trampled on to-day, whose rights are ignored by the Jingoes and by the knights of the truth we have in South Africa. We have the right on behalf of the Afrikaners, who are suffering to-day as a result of the acts of this Government, to lodge a protest, and to put their demands before the country. The Government is responsible to the citizens of this country. It expects the Burgers of the country to be orderly and to obey the laws, but the responsibility to protect the Burgers and not to allow a small section of the country to trample on the Burgers, as is being done to-day, rests on the Government. The rights of the Afrikaans section of the people are trampled underfoot to-day by a small section of the community. The most sacred sentiments of the Afrikaners are treated with contempt. Why did the Minister of Justice see fit to place guards along the women’s monument in Bloemfontein—he did so to protect it against the khaki knights and the supporters of that side of the House.

Well, anyhow, it is this side of the House which protects the monument.

The hon. member prides himself on the fact that he still has so much sense of honour as to protect that monument against his own people.

Who says it is our own people?

The hon. member knows that the scoundrels and the cads who desecrated the monument are his own supporters. At Harrismith the Burger Monument was desecrated by his supporters, by the khaki knights and then he tries to get up here and to speak on behalf of the khaki knights. We have charged the Government with being powerless to take action against the soldiers and the sailors. And what does the Prime Minister say? He said that they got a bearded man on a tram who was drunk. Is that an excuse? If the man was drunk the police should have taken him off the tram. The policemen who do not wear red tabs are taken off the streets so as not to give offence to the soldiers. That goes to show how far the Prime Minister has gone to satisfy the soldiers.

Are not those soldiers Afrikaners?

They are just as much Afrikaners as you are. The Prime Minister condones the action of the soldiers by telling us that the soldiers had been told that some of their fellows had been killed, and that was why the onslaught was made on “Die Vaderland.” The Prime Minister must have reached his zenith in putting forward those ridiculous excuses in favour of the soldiers. Not a single word was spoken by him in defence of his own people.

But if half of those soldiers are Afrikaners, what then? They will settle with you one day. Those people who were injured are Afrikaners.

What is the reason why the Prime Minister has not got the courage to stand up for the Afrikaners who wear beards and who to-day are treated with contumely and contempt? The Prime Minister did not mention the real reason. The real reason is that he is afraid that the English-speaking elements will be offended if he gives the real reason. We can remember that the Prime Minister, shortly after the declaration of war, addressed a meeting at Bloemfontein when he said this: “I shuddered at the thought of what would have happened if we had not declared war." Why? In the next session the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) told him that if we had not declared war the English people would have rebelled. Did the Prime Minister shudder then? The Prime Minister did not shudder in 1914 when the Afrikaners rebelled; but he took action and he painted the country red with Afrikaner blood. But if the English threatened to rebel then he shudders, and the Jingo Press faithfully stands by him. Let hon. members read papers like the “Cape Times”; the Jingo Press was established to serve certain capitalistic interests. We remember the instance of an editor of the “Cape Argus” being kicked out for failing to defend the Government’s policy. And by whom was he kicked out? By the Chamber of Mines. But the Press which supports the Government has always belittled and has always spoken in an offensive manner about any South African statesman. About President Kruger, President Steyn, Gen. Hertzog, Gen. de Wet, and also about Gen. Smuts. They have belittled him and held him up to contumely and contempt. That was after he had written the “Century of Wrong,” but to-day he is the greatest Imperialist and today the Press sings his praises. We are told ad nauseum about the Parliamentary majority which the Government has to-day. They use that majority as a mandate to permit acts of hooliganism, to allow street hooligans to assault people and to revenge themselves on men who have beards, and to molest innocent people in the trains. And then those members come along and every Dick, Tom and Harry who only came into the country a few days ago is regarded as a good patriot; but that section of the people of South Africa who have given their lives and who are born here and have built up the culture of this country, and who know no other fatherland—that section of the community are trampled underfoot and are accused of being fifth columnists and they are called Nazis. We hear that they have a so-called Parliamentary majority, but how did they get it? It was scratched together by the Prime Minister and his lieutenant, the Minister of Justice. It was scratched together so well that people who during the morning were still opposed to the war voted for it in the evening. That was the greatest Parliamentary somersault we have ever beheld. We are told that one of the great things we are fighting for is the maintenance of democracy. One of the main objects of democracy is a health Parliament in which members of Parliament express their convictions and vote without being influenced by others There must not be the slightest suspicion of any kind whatsoever against them. And in South Africa’s constitution it is laid down that no member of Parliament shall occupy any official position for which he is paid. The object of that is that a member of Parliament shall have no financial obligations towards the Government, If a member gets up in the House he must be able to vote in accordance with his convictions, without having any financial interests in the way he votes. If a clause like that is essential in our constitution in time of peace, it is doubly necessary in time of war, when Parliament has to decide about the wheel of the country and the blood of the people. For that reason Parliament must be absolutely convinced that representatives of the people vote according to their convictions and not because the Government has given them jobs, and because they may lose their jobs if they should vote against the Government. The Government removes the safety valve. It has decided that members of Parliament can go on military service and can get extra pay for doing so. It is unfair and unjust to create suspicion against members of Parliament among their own electors in that way. Why does the Government allow members of Parliament to go on military service and to be paid for doing so? Does the Government absolutely need those people in carrying out its war policy? Are the services of members of Parliament of such value that the Government is unable to get on without them? And that for that reason the law has to be amended? I do not believe it. The Prime Minister does not allow any of them to go North, so not one of them will ever get anywhere near the battlefield. If the right hon. the Prime Minister had really required the services of the hon. member for Carolina (Mr. Fourie) he could have given him extra pay and the hon. member for Carolina could have resigned his seat, following the example of some Rhodesian members of Parliament who have gone to the front to fight and in whose stead somebody else has been appointed. Why does not the hon. member for Carolina go and fight? He has voted for a war and he has pleaded in favour of members getting double pay. Still he does not go and fight. Is it possible that the Government feels that it only has a small majority in Parliament and that if it allows members of Parliament to resign and by-elections take place, it may perhaps lose some of its people, and it may no longer have a majority? Perhaps the Prime Minister is afraid of losing his majority.

A large majority.

Well, let us test the position in the hon. member’s constituency; let him go to his constituency and we shall then be able to see whether he has acted in accordance with the wishes of his constituents. I say that the Prime Minister is possibly afraid of by-elections. Does he need the military knowledge of members opposite so much that he has to keep them? In reply to a question which I put to the Prime Minister on that subject, I was given an astounding answer. The answer was that those members are getting £40, £50 and £60, and they are sitting in this House and some of them have never even been members of rifle clubs. Some of the members of Parliament who are getting military pay have perhaps never even handled a rifle. So it is not likely that the Prime Minister needs those people so badly because of their military knowledge. I think he was afraid of losing their votes. If they were to resign their seats the Prime Minister may perhaps lose the by-elections. Now they put on a uniform so that one day they may be able to tell their children that they have also done their bit, and that they have taken part in the war. Those people without military knowledge are given this extra pay. Why do they not get 5s. per day the same as ordinary soldiers get? Why should they start off at £1 or £1 5s. per day? The fact of the matter is that hon. members opposite are misleading their constituents. They are not running the risk of being killed. They are quite prepared to have the children of other people shot but they have not got the moral courage to go themselves. We are dealing here with a vote of no confidence in the Government. Everyone has to vote according to his convictions, but if some of those members over there were to vote against the vote of no confidence it would mean that they were voting against their own salaries, against their military pay, and if the motion were passed they would be losing £50 or £70 per month. Hon. members opposite are making very fine speeches, but they are not doing what Rhodesian members of Parliament who have gone to fight have done. They are using a convenient argument about having to help maintain the Parliamentary majority. I do not know whether you have noticed, Mr. Speaker, how cleverly the Prime Minister played his part. On the 4th September he came along here with an innocent-looking amendment. He told us that all we had to do was to break off the diplomatic relationship with Germany. He could not regard Germany as a friendly nation. We were not going to send any troops overseas. Italy was not in the war. We were going to spend a few thousand pounds but we were not going to fight. That was how it was put to hon. members, and that was how they were caught. He knew that once he had broken up the party and he had a majority hon. members like the hon. member for Carolina would have to defend the Government’s war policy. Millions and millions of money are borrowed to-day and spent on the war, and if the English Prime Minister is right that the war will only be at its height in 1943, it will mean that we shall have spent something like £200,000,000 on the war by that time, and we shall have to borrow the money for that purpose. When the Prime Minister dragged us into a war last time we had to borrow about £40,000,000, and after the war we had an estate tax and a medicine tax, and a stamp tax, and a tobacco tax, and an income tax imposed. And it is the middle class, the working class, which has to bear the burden of the war and not the capitalists.

We are going to impose a tax on members opposite talking nonsense.

Perhaps the tax on trousers would be best because they are wearing out a great many trousers. It is said that no economic pressure is brought to bear on the people. It has already been proved that people are being forced to go and fight. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) drew attention the other day to the position of people drawing old age pensions and told us that those pensions were being cut down, he drew attention to the position of widows whose allowances were being cut. The Government is robbing the poor widows who are getting a very small income, and the State is compelling those poor widows enthusiastically to support the war policy.

That is a misrepresentation.

Yes, let hon. members listen to what others are saying. If they do not do so, then they lose the little bit they have been getting. In Benoni there is a charitable organisation which gets a grant from the State so as to pay small allowances to widows. The secretary of that charitable organisation, a certain Mrs. Ramsay, announced that the day before she had refused assistance to a certain person because that particular person had attended a protest meeting at Benoni at which an immediate peace was demanded. The Minister of Labour and Social Welfare is responsible for this. He makes a grant to this institution, and they state openly in the Press that assistance is refused to a widow for having attended a peace meeting.

Is that the policy or is that an isolated case?

I am going to quote to the hon. member what the wife of the Minister of Labour stated, according to a report in the Press. That report says that Mrs. Madeley, the wife of the Minister of Labour, had made a statement that that society was not going to give assistance to people if they were opposed to the Government’s war effort.

Those are simply allegations.

Yes, but those are allegations made in the Press, and if they are just allegations it is the duty of the Minister of Labour to go into them. I say that this is one of the most scandalous things any Government could possibly allow, because it means that the poor widows are being robbed of their livelihood, simply because they refuse to support the Government’s policy. It is a blot on this Government, a blot which I think the Minister of Labour should remove as quickly as possible. Now there is something else I want to refer to: some time ago I made a proposal in this House when the present Minister of the Interior was still Minister of Labour. I first of all asked that the immigration of skilled artisans should be more strictly controlled, and that the necessary opportunities should be created for the training of unskilled and semi-skilled adult whites so that they could become skilled workers, and could draw the wages laid down for those particular trades. We have been told by the 1820 Settlers that they bring something like 1,000 people into this country every year, and that those people are given employment in competition with our own people, and that they draw wages of £8 and £9 per week, while our own white labourers are paid £5 and £6 per month. What was the reply which the then Minister of Labour gave me? He said that we would greatly prejudice the future of our young men if we allowed large numbers of artisans to enter the trades without their going through the ordinary channels. He said that he could not allow unskilled labourers to be trained as artisans, as this would have the effect of the interests of apprentices, that is, the tradesmen being trained under the Apprenticeship Act, being detrimentally affected. He put up his hands in indignation that a proposal of that kind should be put forward, that adult labourers should be trained so that they might draw fixed wages. But what happened? When war broke out the Department of Labour sent me and other members of Parliament a circular letter in which they stated that the Government was now providing for technical training for adults over twenty-one years of age and under forty years of age who had passed Standard VI. They cannot be trained as artisans, and this will perhaps be the only opportunity they may get. We were asked to encourage those people to avail themselves of that opportunity. Inspectors had already gone to the trade schools and had advised young fellows to take that course. They were promised that they would earn £35 per month when they finished their training. But what happened? Thousands of people started taking that course, but when they completed the course they were told that they would not be employed on military work unless they took the red oath. There were young fellows who had given up the work on which they had been engaged in order to take this course. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down has made a whole lot of loose statements which I am quite convinced he is unable to prove. He said, inter alia, that the majority of the members on this side of the House were induced to vote for the war as a result of a process of scratching them together from all sides. I do not know how the minority on the other side of the House was got together. I can only say, speaking for myself, that I voted voluntarily for the war, and I can therefore testify personally that the step I took on the 4th September in voting with the majority was taken absolutely voluntarily. But quite a number of members of the Opposition came to me, I do not know whether they were sent, to try and induce me to vote the other way. The majority on this side has not been scratched together. We are a united party here and hon. members opposite would be able to thank Providence if they had 1% of the unity on their side which since the 4th September has been experienced on this side of the House. The very subdued tone which has prevailed among members opposite during this debate has been very obvious to me. We can see that they are on the run. The hon. member over there said that we on this side are afraid to go and fight. I want to tell him this, that if he is prepared to go North I will go with him.

I did not declare war.

The hon. member cast doubt on our courage. If he had any courage let him show it anywhere he likes. He stated that the war was going to cost £200,000,000 and that the money would have to be borrowed. That again is one of those exaggerated statements which we have got accustomed to from members opposite. A large proportion of the expenditure this year has come from revenue, and in the way we are going a large proportion of future expenditure will come out of revenue. A large proportion of this expenditure is being used for economic purposes which in days to come will prove the greatest benefit to this country. The hon. member also spoke about poor people being compelled to join the army. No man is compelled to do so; there is no compulsion; it is left entirely to the free will of any person to join up or to refuse to join up. It is left entirely to the individuals to join up or not to join up. We know that the Opposition has availed itself of every possible means to try and influence people not to join up.

You do not believe what you are saying.

Can any hon. member say that I have ever said or testified to anything in this House in which I did not believe? The hon. member for Bloemfontein South (Mr. Haywood) told us here that the Prime Minister had acted disgracefully because a few policemen had been sent to South-West Africa. I am sorry that the hon. member for Gezina is not present because we know that it was on at his instigation that the police were sent to South-West Africa. We had ample evidence that if that step had not been taken there would have been an outburst in South-West which might perhaps have caused the war which eventually broke out a year later. The hon. member also complained of the acts of violence which occurred a few days ago, and he said that those assaults are encouraged by the attitude of the Government. He has no justification whatsoever for a statement of that kind. A few days ago the Right Hon. the Prime Minister hurt his own troops by taking drastic action in connection with the misdeeds that have been committed. But as time is passing it becomes very clear to us that the elements responsible for those riots in Johannesburg were not only the soldiers but that the guilty people were other elements, and I am quite sure that it will be proved when the enquiry takes place. I do not want to anticipate the findings of that Commission, but there is ample evidence to prove what I have said. The fact that such a large number of soldiers have been sent to hospital, and that one has already died of his wounds which must have been inflicted by a piece of iron or by some weapon of that kind, goes to prove that, and if we compare those casualties with the number of casualties among the civilians then it goes to prove that the soldiers were totally unarmed, and that they were not the guilty parties. And that is what happens in life. I want to refer to the unequal treatment between the so-called mebers of the Ossewa-Brandwag and the soldiers. At Oudtshoorn somebody pasted a label on the motor car of a so-called general of the Ossewa-Brandwag and he was fined £2.

Not so-called, he is a General.

Yes, we know all those so-called kinds of Generals. We have been told about assaults on soldiers in respect of which there has never been any prosecution, and it may perhaps be difficult to find the culprit in a case like that, because these things are done in the dark. Soldiers are attacked from the rear and women have stones thrown at them from the back. We have heard a great deal about assaults on soldiers and about the way soldiers are insulted. I do not propose going into that any further. The Klerksdorp case is sub judice but we know that the Minister of the Interior was assaulted and was so badly injured that he is not yet able to attend this House. Mr. Teichman, a well-known man in the Transvaal, was also knocked about. At other places soldiers have been attacked, so much so that their legs have been broken and we hear very little about the police having arrested their assailents. At a dance some soldiers were assaulted with pieces of lead and bicycle chains, and what do we find? We find that it is not always the soldiers who are responsible for these things. I travel a great deal by train and I get into touch with those people, and what I have found is that they always behave very well. Here and there one gets one or two of them who are a bit jolly, just as members of Parliament are sometimes, but I have never come across any others. I have never come across men who are anything but innocent of acts of violence of that kind. The Leader of the Opposition made a great song about so-called discontent in the country. I want to state here that whatever discontent prevails is that which has been caused by the speeches of members of the Opposition when they go to the platteland. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) even declared here that people’s pensions had been reduced in order to pay for the war. There is not the slightest bit of evidence to support a statement like that, and I say that one of the causes of the dissatisfaction is to be found in speeches made by members of the Opposition, because when the hon. member for George goes to his constituency where there are a great many pensioners, and when he tells that story, people believe him and they are dissatisfied even before they find out that there is no truth in the story. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux) said that the Government were opposed to farmers being rehabilitated and that they prove this by fixing the price of the products.

Who fixes the prices?

Those are the statements which are made on the platteland. We know that it is not the Government which fixes the prices, it is the control boards which do it, and the hon. member for Oudtshoorn knows perfectly well that he is one of the members who strongly urged the establishment of boards of control. The Leader of the Opposition further stated that the income tax of individuals had been increased by 71 per cent while the tax on the mines had been raised by only 2 per cent. That statement is absolutely untrue. The mine taxation has been increased from £9,600,000 to over £21,000,000 while the income taxpayers are paying £1,800,000 more than they paid before. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. Tom Naudé) got up here and stated that he was going to break the security regulations. He adopted a defiant attitude which will cause trouble on the platteland. That hon. member also said “rather under Hitler than under the present Government” and yet when we accuse them of being proNazi they deny that that is their sentiment, and they get annoyed. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) spoke about coloured men joining up and about the entertainment accorded to them on their way to the North. We have a solemn assurance from the Prime Minister that they will not be armed. But I want to remind the hon. member of the way in which his own ancestors behaved towards the coloured people and I want to tell him that coloured people were often admitted to the Dutch church. It is only within recent times that they have had their separate churches. The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) told us that wool prices before the war were better than they are to-day. The hon. member could not prove it. The hon. member for Somerset East forgets that after the fall of France we could practically get no price for our wool. I admit that the figures are not as good as they were during part of last season, but none the less I clipped nine months wool and my average price was 11½d.

You must have put a nice red cross on your bales.

No, I have never done that. I contribute to the war funds through my wool, but not by putting a red cross on my bale. I do not do what members opposite do who put red crosses on in the hope of getting a little more for their wool. Then I want to say this. The way hon. members opposite feel towards our soldiers is very obvious. People are stirred up and excited, and I am quite convinced that hon. members opposite would have preferred if the soldiers who were taken to hospital had been taken to the cemetary.

Shame!

Yes, we need only look at the views that are expressed in this House and on the platteland. Hon. members will remember the story which was spread throughout the country about lorry loads full of bloody clothes of soldiers who were alleged to have been killed on the battlefield. And now they are making such a fuss about all the soldiers not having gone North. It is quite obvious why hon. members are so anxious that they should all go North. There are plenty of them, however, to do the work up North and more would go if needed.

Are you an officer?

No, I am not an officer, but if necessary I am also prepared to go North. There is no doubt that the hopes of the Opposition are based on a German victory. Just after the last session when we were going home one of my friends belonging to the Opposition said to me: “Look at Parliament House for the last time. You will never see it again”. I asked him what he meant and he said that before Parliament met again they would take over. He hoped for a German victory, but that hope was not realised. The hon. member for Gezina was away for eight days and we heard whisperings that Hitler was going to invade England on the 16th September. Then round about that time the little Fuhrer made his reappearance in this House. Hitler had disappointed him, and other members on the other side as well. What did Wendell Wilkie of the United States have to say about the Germans? He sent a message to the German people before returning to the United States, and this is what he said in his message:

May I briefly point out that the man who spoke those words recently in the American elections secured 17,000,000 votes from the American people, which is eight times as many as the whole of our white population in the Union. I also have in mind the words of a Senator from Virginia who said “I would rather die fighting Hitler than live under Hitler”. We are continually being accused of taking part in a war of aggression. It is perfectly true that England declared war on Germany in order to carry out its obligations, but we went into the war because it was in our interest to do so and in order to secure our safety, and our future. If we are accused of aggression then I want to remind hon. members that the Orange Free State in 1899 carried out its obligations to the Transvaal when England declared war against that country, and that being so the Free State can also be accused of aggression? No, just as little as the Free State or the Transvaal can be accused of having acted aggressively, just as little will history accuse England or South Africa for aggression in the holy war which we are fighting to-day.

Hail Selassie!

The hon. member forgets that his former leader solemnly declared that he was even prepared to go to war over the crime committed against Abyssinia. The hon. Leader of the Opposition ridiculed the statement that we were fighting for Christianity, but he forgets that Holland fought for 80 years against Spain for the freedom of religion. He forgets that the Crusaders for hundreds of years made pilgrimages to the East in defence of their faith, and he forgets that the French Huguenots took refuge in South Africa on account of their religion. Hon. members talk sneeringly of the Smuts Circus when referring to the mechanised column which travelled through this country. Personally, I am very glad that the military authorities decided to send that column through the country. To thousands of people it was a revelation, but, of course, it did not suit hon. members opposite. The people of the platteland saw what had been done, and many stories which had been spread were shown up. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) advised the people at Aberdeen not to go and look at the mechanised column when it came there, but I am told that the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) was wiser, and that he told the people: “We cannot blame you if you should stand behind a tree or behind a window and peep at them when they pass by.” The column had an excellent reception everywhere.

A very poor one at Willowmore.

They had a first-class reception there. We hear a lot about the war debt, and we are told that we, who declared war, will have to pay. Hon. members who make that statement have not explained how we are going to pay. We now hear that the farmers will have to pay, although they are already in trouble. We know for a fact that debts owing to the Land Bank are actually being paid off very quickly at the moment.

Where?

We have received the assurance from the Minister of Finance. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker), of course, knows everything, but I would rather accept a statement made by the Minister of Finance. My bank manager also tells me that overdrafts are being reduced to a great extent. My bank manager at Steytlerville told me that. People are satisfied with the exception of the few who are being stirred up by the Opposition. The wheat farmers are getting an additional 2s. to meet extra costs of production. The wheat farmers have said that production costs have gone up by 7s. 6d., but a commission of experts has come to the conclusion that the amount is 2s. The wheat farmers have got what they are entitled to. The hon. member for Somerset East urged that the Government should buy up the whole of the wool clip, so that it should make the profit which the British Government is making now. We have been assured that any profit that is made will be shared with the farmers. Our Government here have never bought up any products, but if hon. members over there are dissatisfied they are at liberty to keep their wool until after the war and make the profit themselves. So far as the mohair farmers are concerned, we are satisfied with the price we are getting to-day. We know that if shipping is available we shall get a lot more. There is an agitation going on to ask the Government for something to be done in this respect. If we could send 1,000 bales to England now and again, our position would be satisfactory. Now I particularly want to say a few words about the position of the citrus farmers. The chairman of the Citrus Board recently stated that the citrus crop amounted to about 4,800,000 export cases, of which 3,861,000 had been exported, equivalent to about 80 per cent. This quantity realised an amount of about £2,000,000, a price which is better and higher than the citrus farmers have had for years. The amount of £800,000 which the citrus farmers had borrowed from the Government has been repaid.

What has happened this year?

I have full confidence in the Government, that it will use its utmost endeavours to do what it can for the farmers. The hon. member admits that we are dependent on the price which our products get on the English market. That to me is a recognition of the position as it really is. The production will be more or less the same, and if it is so we shall be perfectly satisfied. The Opposition has latterly been jumping from one point to another in an effort to find some point of attack on the Government, so as to confuse the people of the country. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has started something. When he did so it was liberalism and, we had to listen ad nauseam to the disadvantages of liberalism. When that hobby horse had been ridden to death, they started on Communism, especially after the return of the hon. member for Beaufort West. After that they started on democracy—it was a waste of time, and it was the cause of all evil. Now, again, it is the Government’s war policy, and, taking everything into account, the Leader of the Opposition made out a very poor case here. Latterly we have been hearing a lot about orders. We also have a sjambok order. We have heard how many members opposite talk about the Ossewa-Brandwag, which, so we understand, stands for the sjambok order. They may stand under the sjambok order opposite, but we on this side of the House are not going to do so, and we are not going to submit to any sjambok order. We are not going to revert to the days of slavery. If they are willing to do that sort of thing, we on this side of the House are certainly not prepared to do so. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) spoke here about an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. As that hon. member has to-day undergone a serious operation, all of us in this House will be glad to hear of his complete recovery. But when he talks of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, we ask what would have happened to that hon. member if in 1914 he had been dealt with on that basis? He would have been put up against a wall and shot. But that is what we get when mercy is shown to anyone. I am one of those who assisted in paying his fine of £2,000 with the 2s. 6d. subscription which was started. [Time limit.]

I really feel that it is necessary for us to raise our voices and to lodge a protest against this wholesale deception of the people which may lead to the most serious consequence in days to come—I refer to the deception practised by nobody less than the hon. the Minister of Finance who was followed by other members opposite who know nothing about the conditions of the farmers on the platteland. It was started by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister when he told us that the farming community was now enjoying an excellent and prosperous condition. If we do not put a stop to statements of that kind it may have serious consequences, and I want to warn those hon. members that they are rendering the greatest possible dis-service to the farming community by telling the people that the farmers are so prosperous to-day and that there is a flourishing future ahead of them. In days gone by in our history we had similar stories told about the prosperous condition of the farmer, with the result that the farmers were encouraged to such an extent that they undertook commitments which they should never have undertaken. They were told that everything in the garden was lovely. To make statements of that kind is thoroughly irresponsible. The Minister of Finance spoke without his book when he said that the farming community had been rehabilitated and was in such a wonderfully fine financial position. May I just tell the Minister of Finance where he is wrong? He told the House that £800,000 had been voted for the Land Bank and that the Land Bank did not require that money but only needed about £200,000. Does the Minister of Finance realise that that is exactly where he is making the mistake? Does he not know that we are to-day facing the greatest crisis in the world; is the Minister of Finance not giving the farmers credit for a little common sense? Does not the Minister of Finance think that the farmer has asked himself whether this is not the time to go in for development schemes, and to borrow some money and to buy land and all the rest of it? And then the Minister of Finance comes here and he is the man who is entrusted with the money bags of the country, and he draws such stupid conclusions about the position of the country. By doing so he misleads the people and he encourages the farmers to enter into commitments, and as I have already said all these things are based on illusions and moonshine. Now I want to refer to another point which the hon. the Minister has dealt with. I cannot claim to be an authority on questions concerning the gold mines, but the hon. member for Port Elizabeth District (Mr. Hayward) gave us the figures just now. He told us that in the past the gold mines used to pay about £9,600,000 in normal tax, while to-day they were paying £21,000,000. The Minister also told us here that there has not been an increase of just 2% but that there has been an increase on the normal tax of 11%. What he has not told the people anything about, and where he is trying to bring the country under a false impression, is where he very carefully maintains silence on the fact that he has given the gold mines a present of no less than £13,000,000 after the gold price had been raised by the Minister of Finance. As a result of his not taking the difference in the price of gold he gave the mines the greatest present that the Minister of Finance could ever have given the richest people in the country. The Minister of Finance might well have been given the medal for having given the greatest and most valuable present to the richest people in the country. He gave the gold mines more than he took from them in additional taxation, according to the figures which the hon. member gave us. That is simple arithmetics. The price of gold went up from 150/- to 168/-. The previous Minister of Finance had intended taking that 18/- by which the price has gone up, but the present Minister of Finance gave that money back to them. If we calculate that difference of 18/- on the number of ounces produced by the mines this year it amounts to £15,000,000. I have put it at £13,000,000 because I want to be conservative. That is the amount of money which the Minister of Finance has returned to the gold mines, and I say that the gold mines have contributed nothing at all towards getting that additional profit. It is due to a stroke of the pen by the Minister of Finance that those huge profits have landed in their pockets. The Minister of Finance must not imagine that he can come here and tell us all those things and that we are going to swallow everything he tells us. He did not tell us the whole story, he only told us half of the story, just as he did with his estimates of war expenditure. It really reminds me of the time when the Minister of Finance came before this House with estimates of £14,000,000 as the war expenditure for this year. This side of the House pointed out to him that if they went on spending money in the way they were doing they would never come out on their £14,000,000. The Minister then told us that he still had certain reserve funds which he would be able to use if the necessity arose. Three months later that same Minister came along and asked us for an additional £32,000,000. Now I want to say again that surely the Minister of Finance is entitled to get a medal. He should not get one only for having given the gold mines the greatest present they have ever had, but he should also have one for being the most incompetent Minister of Finance any country has ever had. If he should not be given a medal for that then he should be given one for the greatest bit of political fraud which a Minister of Finance has ever perpetrated on a country. I want to say that the Minister of Finance knew when he came and asked for that £14,000,000 that he was deceiving the people because he knew that if at that time he had told the public that the war was going to cost £46,000,000 in that one year many of the people who are supporting him would never on that occasion have given him their support on his war policy, and then we find that the Prime Minister got on to a platform at Bloemfontein and told the South African people that irrespective of the war which was declared on the 4th September he could see nothing but prosperity ahead for South Africa. He could see nothing wrong; everything was flourishing. The farmers would make money and prosperous times were ahead. That was the impression which the Prime Minister created when for the first time after the 4th September he appeared before the people. I believe that it was in December of that year, and there we find the reason why the Minister of Finance in February the year after came along with estimates of war expenditure to an amount of only £14,000,000. But when the people had been paid out, the cat was let out of the bag, and a further £32,000,000 was asked for. For that reason I say that the Minister of Finance deserves to be given a medal for being the cleverest man who has ever handled the country’s financial affairs. But in this sense, that he has perpetuated the grossest piece of public fraud ever experienced in this country. But last night the Minister of Finance came here and took up the lofty attitude that we were fighting this war for the protection of Christianity and for the continuance of democracy. He accused the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow), and told him that his new order was something un-Christian. Well, if that is the kind of democracy which the Minister of Finance wants the country to accept, then who on earth is going to have anything to do with it? If that is the kind of democracy he is fighting for, then I say that the new order which the hon. member for Gezina stands for will be a great improvement on the conditions which we have to-day. I feel that this Government is busy spending money in a scandalous manner, and that it is doing so while there are thousands and thousands of people in our country who are not only living below the bread line, but who are unable to make a living in their own fatherland. I t hink, Mr. Speaker, that while this self-same Minister is wasting money in this wholesale fashion, it is my duty to point out that there are lands which have been bought by the previous Government for settlement purposes, but that people who are anxious to go on to those lands have not yet been put there. Is the Government going to close that land to our poor people? Our people are forced to take the red oath and to don the khaki uniform. And the land is leased to large landowners. I am making a very serious charge. The Minister of Lands, who was so extremely noisy here yesterday, but who has not been here since then, is the authority who is closing down the vacant ground to the poor man, and he is the man who is forcing the poor man to take the red oath and to don the khaki uniform. And the land is now being let to people who own farms, and not to the poor man who is thirsting to become the owner of a small bit of land. If ever a vote of no confidence was merited, it is this one, and the Government merits double what it is getting here, and we would be failing in our duty if we did not avail ourselves of this opportunity to show up the conditions prevailing in the country. The Minister of Finance stated here that the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) wanted to establish a Government which would be in power for ever. And he said: “But surely you have your alternative Government there. Those are the advantages of the democratic system.” These words of the Minister of Finance sound peculiar when compared with what the Prime Minister said yesterday or the day before, when he told us that this party over here would never come into power. It is typical of the kind of speeches which we get here—we have those two people who are united in the Cabinet. The one makes a certain statement, and the other one says the very opposite. They make statements, each of them to fit into their own story. I go further, and I say that the people who most of all are undermining democracy are the present Government. Never before has there been a Government which has made democracy so intolerable as the present Government is doing. Let us see what is happening. Parliament is in session, and while Parliament is actually in session a whole lot of regulations are simply put before us, and they have the force of law. Why should they not be submitted to Parliament? That Government over there is a dictatorship just as bad as the Hitler dictatorship, with this one difference, that Hitler’s dictatorship is there for the benefit of Germany, and our dictatorship is here for the benefit of England.

And which of the two do you prefer?

It is not worth my while answering that question. I prefer a Government which acts in the true interest of South Africa.

Well, that is the Government which we have in power to-day.

I hope the Minister of Finance will never again stand up to tell the country that the farming community is now doing so extremely well. I have explained the reason why the money available in the Land Bank is not being so keenly taken up to-dáy. I hope the Minister of Finance will not tell his story about the farmers’ prosperity to the Prime Minister, because he will be misleading the Prime Minister as well if he does so. We are told such a lot about democracy. If this kind of action on the part of the Government is democratic, action which leads to the destruction of private property, which leads to men being dragged out of the trams and assaulted, action which results in the ordinary man no longer being able to walk along the streets in safety, then I say that the sooner we get rid of that type of democracy the better it will be for the welfare of the country and the people. I want to say that democracy has outlived its usefulness during the last few years, in fact it has already outlived its usefulness for the past few hundred years, and what has been the result of this democracy? It has succeeded in turning one-third of the population, the people who have cleaned up the country, who have rid the country of wild animals, and other things, into poor whites. And who are the people who under this system of democracy are enjoying heaven on earth? It is the exploiters—the people who have driven the others off the land and forced them to go and live in the slums of the towns after they had cleaned up the country—I am referring to the people who have exploited the country and who are now living in luxury. We have reached this stage in South Africa to-day, that the people who should be the owners of the land are to-day the hewers of wood and the drawers of water. And it is high time that we took stock of the position, and the man who refuses to do so will find that the eyes of the nation have been opened to all this hypocrisy and to the kind of democracy which we are experiencing to-day.

Since when have the eyes of the people been opened?

It has been a steady progress. If the Government had gone to the country on the 4th September, 1939, instead of illegally occupying the Government benches, they would have found out even then that the eyes of the people have been opened. Now we are told that an Electoral Bill is being introduced to give the franchise to soldiers who are minors. Will that Electoral Bill be confined to white people, or is it also to be extended to cover the minor Hottentot who has gone North for his pleasure—is it intended to give that individual the vote as well? Then there is another matter which savours of hypocrisy, and that is the “hear, hear” which members on the Government benches shout whenever General Hertzog’s name is mentioned; they now want to take General Hertzog under their wing. General Hertzog would refuse to have anything to do with hypocrisy of that kind. Yes, I know that they want help and they are now wooing the new Hertzog Party in order to get that party to help them. But they will never get the help of General Hertzog’s followers. Then there is another point. I well remember the promise made to the people that we would have nothing to do with England’s wars. In other Words we were going to live in peace and friendship with all the other countries in the world. All we were concerned with were the interests of South Africa. Those were election promises made to us, and those were the things which the S.A.P. men sitting on the benches opposite told the people. Those members are sitting on those benches illegally to-day. I say that the party which is on the Government’s benches to-day is there as a result of false promises, and I say that the Government which is sitting over there is not a lawful Government.

But how is it you are here; were you elected by the Purified Nationalists?

No, I am sitting here in consequence of an honest agreement which was entered into after the 4th September when we were left in the lurch by the English section of the United Party, and I am standing here with a clear conscience. I did not make any promises to the people in my constituency—I did the other thing. I should not like to say anything against my friends, the members of the Afrikaner Party, but I listened with a sense of sorrow to the hon. member for Germiston South (Mr. Quinlan). My friends over there are now making out a great case of the rights of the English-speaking section of the population. I say that the constitution of the Re-United Party to which I have subscribed contain the same points as the constitution of the old United Party concerning the rights of the other section of the population. Now I want to put this to my friends over there—while we are still seeing the blood flow as a result of the stab in the back administered by our old friends, I want to ask them—is it necessary now to worry ourselves about being so particularly well-disposed towards those English-speaking members who have stabbed us in the back?

Afrikaners.

No, I cannot call them Afrikaners. If they want to become Afrikaners I will rejoice, but then if we should have another 4th September they would have to prove their bona fides. If hon. members over there try to make political capital on every possible occasion out of General Hertzog’s name, then I want to say that it ill becomes them to do so. Just one more point. The Minister of Social Welfare told us that on the old Settlement at Vaal-Hartz there never was anyone who had to be moved in order to make room for internment camps and so on. If that is so, then it is a serious charge against the Minister. It is true that the Government has put a stop to the whole of the machinery which was intended for the promotion of the welfare of the people, and they have only one thing in their minds, and that is the war, because our people have been promised for years that a settlement is to be established there, small plots of land with small houses; that scheme bad hardly reached the stage of completion when we were manoeuvred out of the Government by hon. members over there, and it all goes to prove that since the 4th September they have scandalously forgotten the old people who were to have been settled there. They discovered there was a settlement there, all complete with buildings which was intended for the old people, but that settlement is now being used for other purposes and the old men are left helpless on the platteland. I want to say a few words now to the hon. member for Cape Town Castle (Mr. Alexander). He has told us that he is going to produce facts to show how our soldiers are being ill-treated. He told us that large numbers of men have been taken to hospital, and that the number of police and burghers taken to hospital was much smaller than that number of soldiers. Does he want us to understand that it is the police who attacked a military camp or is it the soldiers who attacked “Die Vaderland”? Is that the hon. member’s logic? Well, well, well! That is about all one can say about it. Hon. members who are doing their best to condone that kind of thing are playing a dangerous game. They are digging a hole to prepare for clashes which are going to lead to serious consequences. They should have contented themselves with the words of disapproval spoken by the Prime Minister. He said that no words could be used strong enough to disapprove of what had happened. That is the language of a responsible man, but hon. members over there are now defying and provoking the people of the country. Surely we have our laws, and if an injustice is done to the soldiers the matter should be dealt with in the courts. No, that sort of talk is all rubbish. Mention was made here of an incident which is supposed to have occurred at Waterberg. I believe it was the hon. member for Kensington who told us this story—a story to the effect that certin soldiers were put on a motor and they were nearly killed at Nylstroom. The people of Nylstroom and the member of Parliament for Waterberg, who lived at Nylstroom, knew nothing about it. This sort of talk is only intended to stir up the people. I just want to say that if Nationalists should resort to violence I would strongly deprecate it. If things of that kind happen, they should not be done by the Afrikaner, and I hope hon. members will realise the responsibility and that they will not stir up the feelings of people.

Tell us something about the Ossewa-Brandwag.

The Ossewa-Brandwag fully proved in Johannesburg that it is able to exercise discipline over its members. Only a small number of them went there to protect their officers; all the others, thousands of them, kept away on instructions they had received.

They stood behind the police, not in front?

Did the hon. member expect that they would make an attack on the soldiers? All they did was to prevent the soldiers from doing the work of destruction which they had done at the buildings of “Die Vaderland.” The Minister of Lands made a hypocritical speech here a few days ago. He poses as a champion of religion and a champion of the church. I only want to tell him that the people of South Africa will remember him as a man who took action against one of our greatest old soldiers, one of the greatest soldiers produced by South Africa, simply for political purposes. They have not forgotten it. The Minister of Lands treated that man in a way worse than he would have treated a kaffir. I want to say a few words about this victimisation which is going on. There is a scheme in force for young fellows to join the Technical College at Roberts Heights so that they may be trained as fitters and turners. I have in mind the case of a young fellow who had taken the course but who was not prepared to sign the red oath.

Those incidents are very tedious.

The life of a young man is not a tedious matter so far as I am concerned. This young fellow had taken the course for three years and then it was notified that those who would sign the red oath and go North would be granted their certificate of competency on special conditions. The man who signs the red oath is let off two years training, and after three years he is given the certificate stating that he is qualified. That young fellow refused to sign the red oath so he was kicked out. He had to return home. His father brought his son along to come and see me. That young fellow had been studying for his matric for three years and he had had three years training. They even refused to give him a certificate that he had had three years training for a particular trade. [Time limit.]

Before I put my case, I would like to have an explanation from the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen). He made the statement: I challenge you to address a public meeting in the Orange Free State. The challenge was addressed to the Afrikaner Party, and the only interpretation I can give to the statement is that he was trying to threaten us with the violence which would take place there. That is the only explanation which I can give to it.

I would just like to say here that I never in my life meant such a thing, that I thought of any use of violence. With regard to the Ossewa-Brandwag, it would certainly never do such a thing, even if I had something of the kind in my thoughts, or had suggested it, but I never had such a thing in my mind.

I am very glad that the hon. member has given me the assurance, and I accept it. I am only sorry that he now speaks about the Ossewa-Brandwag. Now it looks as if I had the Ossewa-Brandwag in my thoughts. I have not. There is another small matter in connection with the hon. member for Carolina (Mr. Fourie). He wanted to create the impression here that no other war was possible when the United Party drew up its declaration of policy, and that the United Party consequently drafted its declaration of policy in such a way that it could plunge the country into war on the 4th September. That then is the explanation about which the hon. member was lying and thinking all night, and which he had to repeat three times in order to explain it to us.

On a point of explanation. I said: Can you tell me what possible war on earth you had in view in which South Africa would not have to remain neutral?

I do not understand the hon. member yet. I shall ask him to think over the matter again, and if he can then get clarity, I shall be prepared to answer. I would just like to bring to the hon. member’s notice that his own Prime Minister made this statement in connection with war and neutrality. He says that what he said in East London he repeats now, that it is clear to him that when Great Britain was attacked and is in danger—and not only if she goes to war in Central Europe as the ally in France—will this country feel called upon to go to her assistance. The Prime Minister speaks here of England as the ally of France. What must we say if she enters the war as the ally of Poland? The hon. member’s own leader definitely gave the assurance that if England meddled in the difficulties of Central Europe, and it is not a case where England is being attacked, then it is not a matter with which we have any concern. What struck me during the debate was that there was a conflict going on between the Government party on the one hand and the Opposition party on the other, as to who had given Gen. Hertzog the dagger stroke. Well, I leave it to them to settle who it was. I now want to enlarge a little on the violation of the equality principle which took place in this House on the 4th September, 1939. I think that the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen) and other hon. members have already explained it sufficiently. But I want to confine myself more to the consequences which there were as a result of that violation of the equality principle, which was supposed to be carried out in South Africa. I say that this Government cannot evade its responsibility. They adopted the policy of plunging South Africa into the war, and in consequence of that we have had this state of affairs as we have heard from the Jeremiads on both sides of the House. After the Government declared war on the 4th September, they introduced the emergency regulations, and when they proclaimed those regulations, the mouths of those who did not approve of their war policy were closed. The voice of the people had been silenced by the Press, by Ministers under these regulations, so that I was afraid that the other section of the population would no longer have the courage of expressing itself. It became necessary for Gen. Hertzog to make an appeal to the people to oppose that oppression, and that provocation which was going on in the country. Who was the first to start that oppression? It did not come from the members of the Opposition, but the first steps of that oppression came from the Government of the day. I am saying this in the first place specially to the Minister of the Interior. We remember how we were immediately abused as being the fifth column; how we were abused as the enemies of South Africa, and that we had betrayed South Africa. This vituperation went on against the other section of the population until the “blue-eyed boy” ultimately came along, and he came and provoked the Afrikaner by calling him the Amalaita. I do not know whether hon. members know what the Amalaita are. It is the native name for a band of robbers which continually go about in the dark corners of the towns, committing robberies and murders. It is the lowest term of abuse that they could find, and it is that name which they applied to those people in South Africa who cannot see eye to eye with them in their war policy. Let them do it if they wish, but then they must accept the responsibility for that act, and for the consequences of it. I tell the Government that it is that action which has driven the two races in South Africa into opposition with each other. It certainly does not promote racial co-operation, and certainly the people cannot trust a Government which does things of that kind to the people. I am giving my personal view, and if hon. members want to criticise me for the way I see these things, then they are at liberty to do so. The state of affairs which we have in the country to-day is clearly the result of the unwillingness on the part of the Prime Minister to listen to the good advice which was given to him by Gen. Hertzog. He would not listen to Gen. Hertzog. Gen. Hertzog told him that he must not plunge this people into the war, and he particularly gave two reasons to him. His first reason was that it would conflict with the will of the people, and the second reason was—he uttered the warning with anxiety in his heart— that if the Prime Minister plunged us into war, the people would then fall back into the old bitterness. Those were the reasons which Gen. Hertzog gave as to why he did not wish to declare war. What was the answer given by the Prime Minister? He said: “I also know the people of South Africa, and that statement by Gen. Hertzog is nothing but a bogey.” That is recorded in the Hansard report of the 4th Sepember. Now I ask hon. members and the Government on the opposite side Who was right? The Prime Minister comes to-day and says that he admits that it was not a bogey. He admits that he was not aware that such an unfortunate state of affairs prevailed in the country. He told us in his speech the other day: There is a state of deep-seated division between the races and the people of South Africa. That was the first thing he said, and then he added: “Public opinion has been inflamed.” By this he showed that the advice which Gen. Hertzog had given him was sound advice. In addition the Prime Minister said this. He wanted to give us advice, and he said: “We must avoid all statements bound to incite ill-feeling.” I also say “Hear, hear” to that. I would like to accept that advice of the Prime Minister, but then I also want to ask him to give his advice to his own party as well, and the first person in that party who ought to get it is the Minister of Lands. He is the Minister who once qualified for the prize of making the most foolish statement. We can now grant him the championship prize. He made a speech the other day in this House, and he said that all of us who were opposed to the war policy of the Government were traitors to the country. I want to ask the Prime Minister to give that advice to this colleague: “Avoid all statements bound to incite ill-feeling.” He should also give that advice to the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler), who calls those who differ from the war policy of the Government, the enemies of South Africa. But I also want to give still more advice to the Prime Minister. Stop belittling the people in South Africa who are not sympathetic towards the war policy. That action on the part of the Government causes bitterness. If the Prime Minister will accept good advice then I want to tell him that the sooner he prohibits the wearing of badges in South Africa in connection with this war, the better will it be for this country, and the more peace and quiet we shall have here. It is just the persons who wear those badges who are the cause of bad results in our country. Think of the men in our police force. Let me say this in honour of the South African people. They are a people who have respected the police for the work they have to do. When there is a disturbance and a few policemen come on the scene, then they can immediately control the position. To-day some of the police are wearing badges, and what happened in the riots in Johannesburg? When the police came on the scene it was shouted out to them: “Where are your red tabs?” This is advice which the Prime Minister can give to the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice must immediately at least prohibit the policemen from wearing any badges, or otherwise he makes it difficult for those people to carry out their duties, and he puts them into the position of their lives being in danger. If troubles supervene, then the responsibility is with him. The Government must admit that it acted wrongly in this respect, and it must be prepared to take advice when we give it to them. In addition, I want to say this to the Prime Minister. If he wants to take the mote out of the eye of those who are opposed to his war policy, then he must first take the beam out of his own eye and that of his ministerial colleagues. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition when he says that the Prime Minister allows the Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaner, people who have had their origin here, and have no other love than a love for South Africa, to be accused of being enemies of South Africa. This charge can indeed be endured from people who also love South Africa, but people who have no love for South Africa should remain silent when we are dealing with these questions.

Why are they?

There are the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) and the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). But I also want to warn the Leader of the Opposition. He blames the Prime Minister for having allowed these things, but I want to ask my hon. friend also to fight the spirit that people who do not belong to the United Party are regarded as enemies of South Africa. It is well-known that that action on the part of the people on the countryside has had the result of their losing the confidence of the English-speaking people, and also of 10,000 Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaners who have been alienated by their action. I want to say this that they cannot achieve the impossible and they will not win confidence by banning people from their party. When the hon. member for Germiston (South) (Mr. Quinlan) correctly reproved them this afternoon and told them how they were condemning the Afrikaans to powerlessness, they took great umbrage at it. And this is what the chairman of the party in the Transvaal —the hon. member for Marico (Rev. C. W. M. du Toit) agrees precisely with what the hon. member for Germiston said and the words have become true since the 13th December. But the members of the re-United Party did not take notice of that warning. I now want to put a direct question. We must have clarity in South Africa with regard to the position. What hope have our friends of the Nationalist Party to ever have a say in the government of the country along that isolation road which they are engaged in following? I say that those people have been engaged in driving the people into the desert for twenty years. That is the warning which was given by Gen. Hertzog and I want again to warn them that they are on the road to the desert, and I hope that they will not allow Afrikanerdom to die out in the desert. This crack started with the people themselves, before the members of Parliament seceded. We did not want to form a new party. It appeared after the 4th September, it apparently looked as if reunion was possible, and it started with great enthusiasm. And there was a possibility that reunion would become a success. But unfortunately reunion had its enemies, and when the enthusiasm was at its height, then certain people exploited the enthusiasm and caused the people to quarrel and to break asunder. When we tried to establish the unity of the Afrikaner, then the enthusiasm was exploited for a republican demonstration at Bloemfontein, and immediately the enthusiasm which we had aroused was turned into mutual discord which made it impossible to put the extremists under control. And there you have the extremists in connection with whom that party is to a great extent at fault. As far back as the 13th December, the chairman of the Transvaal re-United Party issued a warning. These things made me think seriously, and subsequently four of our Transvaal members decided to try to establish an Afrikaner Union with the object of putting things right. Did the leaders of the re-United Party then warn the public, and did they then say: “Do not go on acting in that way.” No, they turned round and gave us a knock-out blow on the head. I say, what did the Leader of the Opposition do, the present Leader of the Opposition, to rectify these things which were going on? Did he try to do anything? No, what he did do was this. A deputation was sent from the republican demonstration at Bloemfontein to Gen. Hertzog, and Gen. Hertzog, knowing what the object of it was, refused to meet it. But it got recognition from the present Leader of the Opposition, and it was used in the campaign against Gen. Hertzog. The Leader of the Opposition defintely showed me, and left no doubt on the point, that he was weak. His extremists took him where he did not want to go. Therefore I say that whatever may be written on paper in regard to principles, I do not care. What is the guarantee that it will be carried out? He may make a promise of equality at Piquetberg, but then his drivers come, the people who lead him in the wrong direction, and the Leader in the Free State (Mr. Swart) at the Bloemfontein congress wanted to abolish the English language.

That is not so.

One people, one language, one flag. Then the Leader of the Free State presumably was only thinking of the English language!

That is a lie.

I am sorry that the hon. member calls it a lie.

Order. An hon. member may not say that. He may not say that another hon. member is telling a lie.

On a point of order, may an hon. member tell lies?

The hon. member must withdraw the statement and apologise.

Then I withdraw and apologise.

I am sorry that there should be an incident like that at the end of my speech. I want, however, to say that in the distance I see the dawn breaking and that right will prevail.

Mr. Speaker, rising to speak at this hour of the morning after a wakeful night rather reminds me of the old story about a duke who sat in the House of Lords and was notorious for the way in which he used to go to sleep on all occasions. On one occasion he is said to have dreamt that he was making a speech in the House of Lords, and then to have wakened up to find he was making a speech. That is really how one feels when one starts to speak at this time of the morning. I am glad to see the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) has roused himself a little from that pleasant little sleep he was enjoying a moment or two ago, because I want to take up one or two points he made. He referred to the promise or undertaking which was one of the conditions of fusion, that the interests of South Africa would always be consulted first. That undoubtedly was one of the chief understandings of fusion. He said that when the English-speaking members of this House voted against neutrality and against Gen. Hertzog in September, 1939, they broke that promise or understanding. I hope I have got the hon. member right. Well, now, my contention is that far from doing that, it was the English-speaking members and our Afrikaans-speaking allies in this United Party who on that occasion, when we voted about neutrality or war, in September, 1939— it was we who were thinking of the interests of South Africa, and it was Gen. Hertzog and his followers who failed altogether to think what the interests of South Africa were.

That is interesting.

I know the hon. member has also not considered this point. What were Gen. Hertzog and Mr. Havenga and those who voted for neutrality really thinking of on that occasion? They were thinking of vindicating the independence of South Africa, were they not? They said: “Now is our chance to show how independent South Africa really is,” and therefore they voted against joining in the war with Great Britain. But what kind of an independence is it which compels a country always to vote one way in a moment of crisis like that? What kind of independence is it which would have compelled South Africa always to refuse to go into any war in which Great Britain was involved? What kind of independence was that? That was the independence which Gen. Hertzog and Mr. Havenga were thinking of when they decided to go for neutrality in September, 1939. It was not independence at all. It was a compulsory vote, because they thought so much of their independence. It was a compulsory vote for non-independence, to be compelled to vote against going in with Great Britain and her Allies. The people who really considered what the interests of South Africa were on that occasion were the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and those who followed him. We were the people who took the long view, who asked what, in the long run, is going to be in the interests of South Africa in this matter? Was it better for us to stand out and be neutral, or was it better to stand with our friends in the group which was led by Great Britain, to resist this aggression of Nazism which was threatening to dominate the whole world? We were the people who saw that, as the war went on, neutrality would disappear from the face of the earth and become a farce. We were the people who foresaw that. Is there a single country which is neutral to-day the violation of whose neutrality would have been of benefit to Germany? Is there a single one? We might think of Switzerland, but why is Switzerland allowed to be neutral? The explanation is very, very simple, because Switzerland is going to be the bolt hole for Hitler and his Government when the day of doom descends upon them, and they must have a place to escape to. That is why Switzerland is allowed to be neutral to-day.

And their money is there already.

And the money, as my hon. friend reminds me, is there. The hon. member knows about those millions which were safely tucked away by Goering and Goebbels, and Himmler and Hess.

You should be speaking in the House of Lords.

Surely everybody knows of that accusation which was brought by Mr. Knickerbocker a month or so, I think, before the war; one of the most respected American correspondents in the world.

Do you believe him?

Of course I believe him. He produced conclusive proof, absolutely conclusive to every man whose mind was not completely shut by prejudice on that matter. But that is by the way. I am only suggesting that the reason why the neutrality of Switzerland is still observed by Germany is that it is a very convenient place to get away to, to find some protection when the day of doom arrives.

What about Jugoslavia?

The hon. member may be a little premature in mentioning Jugoslavia. There are signs that the Balkans are once again beginning to heave under the pressure of Germany. There is a telegram in the paper, this morning I think, which says there are credible reports that German troops are now beginning to infiltrate into Bulgaria, and if into Bulgaria, Jugoslavia too. Does the hon. member for Woodhouse (Mr. S. Bekker) really believe that the fact of Jugoslavia being neutral means two pins to Hitler and the Nazis? We have had the excuse made on that side of the House, when the neutrality of various countries has been violated, that Germany was compelled to do this because she could not attain her aims unless she did so. The hon. Leader of the Opposition suggested that within a few days of the invasion of Holland. He said: “Yes, I know. Dreadful, dreadful. Our hearts bleed in sympathy for the poor country from which we are descended, but of course in these days of air warfare air bases are most valuable, and if the interests of Germany require that air bases should be collared, even though they are in neutral countries, we must make allowances for those interests.”

Why did you not quote Norway?

I cannot follow hon. members into all these by-ways, but my object, to return after a rather long disgression, is to point out to the hon. member for Delarey that this assumption which has been so generally made by Gen. Hertzog, by Mr. Havenga and by all those members who went to the other benches in September, 1939—this assumption that they were thinking of the interests of South Africa, and we were thinking of nothing but the interests of Great Britain, is entirely incorrect. They were not really thinking at all of the long range interests of South Africa.

That is why your troops are marching up and down the streets singing “There will always be an England.”

They also sing “Sarie Marais.”

They were quite honestly thinking that it was necessary for them to vindicate the independence of their country. They did not realise that in September, 1939, there was not the slightest necessity to vindicate our independence. That had been established for years, in the mind of every sensible man. Of course, there are extremists on both sides who have not yet realised the facts of national life in South Africa. Of course we admit that, as the hon. member for Delarey reminds me, during that neutrality debate one hon. member from this side expressed that view. But I venture to say that the support which he got on this side of the House—and the hon. member knows it—was very small indeed. He said it for himself and he knew that all the English-speaking people on this side of the House on that occasion disagreed with him. There was no need to vindicate this independence. It was one of the most foolish mistakes which a statesman in South Africa has ever made, that mistake of Gen. Hertzog’s. It was fatal not only because it was based on wrong premises but because it also in my opinion backed the wrong horse. It calculated that in a war between Britain and Germany, Germany was likely to be the winner.

She is the winner.

I know that that opinion still prevails on the benches on the other side of the House. The hon. member for Beaufort West—I wish he was here, though I envy him the sound sleep no doubt he is enjoying —the hon. member for Beaufort West yesterday delivered what seemed to me a very-clever speech from his point of view, and he has delivered similar speeches in the country, making out that it still is more probable that Germany will win than that Great, Britain will win. My real object in getting up here this morning is to try and contest some of the conclusions which the hon. member for Beaufort West tried to prove. He suggested, for instance, that we here in South Africa are not getting a really genuine and trustworthy account of conditions in Great Britain. He stood among hon. members on that side of the House and he told them: “Don’t believe what comes from England; read what the American papers say.” Well, I do not know what American papers the hon. member for Beaufort West habitually reads. I know I read three every time the mail comes in from the United States. They come to me direct from the United States and those three, or at least two of them, are by no means what you might call pro-British. One of them, the “Saturday Evening Post,” has been conspicuous for taking every opportunity of putting the anti-British side in its articles—in special articles and leading articles ever since the war began. Yet when you read those responsible American newspapers you can come to only one conclusion, which is that American public opinion has now come to the point where it is in the large majority convinced that the Nazis are a danger to the world and that the fight which Great Britain is making is the bulwark for the whole civilised and free world against this Nazi terror.

It is the same as usual.

That is the impression one gets from reading the American Press, or which I get from reading the American Press. As the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister reminds me, they have in the United States now developed a technique for testing public opinion which is called a poll.

The Gallop Poll.

Yes, but there are various others. There are dozens of these things. And these polls of public opinion have shown exactly the same result—an enormous swing over of American public opinion in favour of Great Britain and against Germany, in the last six months, ever since the collapse of France. When France collapsed in June, America, and our hon. friends here, when they came down in about August, thought that it was all up with Great Britain, that Britain was finished. I do not know what American papers the hon. member for Beaufort West reads, but I am afraid his reading-must be a little coloured by his desire to find in those papers what will suit his opinions as a Nationalist politician in South Africa. He made rather a point, Mr. Speaker, of England’s financial position, and said that it had gone to the dogs, and that altogether her financial position was rotten. Well, the “Cape Times” published an article the next day which showed that, on the other hand, British imports have, as is quite natural, largely increased in the last few months, and that the decrease in her exports, even in war conditions, even with all her factories turned over to make munitions, with the difficulty of finding shipping for exports, the volume of her exports has only gone down by 5 per cent.

A deficit of £600,000,000.

The hon. member must see if his figure is correct, that only shows the enormous magnitude of British exports. I can only conclude that when the hon. member for Beaufort West made his point about British finances, it is his desire to give the House and the country the impression which he wishes to give about the condition of Britain. If it comes to a question of financial position, why not be honest and compare the financial position of Germany with the financial position of Britain? If the financial position of Britain is bad, as the hon. member for Beaufort West has said, the financial position of Germany simply does not exist. Long before this war began, the financial position of Germany was so hopeless that nobody could understand how she was going on. We know how she does go on. She goes on by a ruthless taking away of every penny from her citizens, and for the most part she does not pay cash.

Lord Rothermere does not say that.

But he has been dead nearly eight months. The hon. member does not seem to realise that Lord Rothermere has been dead for eight months, and in any case I do not know that Lord Rothermere was much of an authority on finance. He knew a great deal about the finance of newspapers, but I do not think anybody regarded him as an authority on international finance. And also, may I suggest to the hon. member that there is the possibility that he has misread Lord Rothermere or misunderstood him. These are high mysteries into which the hon. member should not delve.

He has misread the Bible for years.

Then the hon. member for Beaufort West also said that England was no nearer winning the war than when France collapsed. Well, as I have already said, and as hon. members will remember, just after the collapse of France, when this House assembled at the end of August, the hon. member for Beaufort West dismissed every possibility of England winning the war. He said the whole thing was “up the spout,” and Germany had practically won, and it was perfectly useless for Britain to resist. The hon. member for Beaufort West now tells the House that England is no nearer winning the war than she was last June, which is an enormous testimonial to the improvement in Britain’s war prospects.

That means she has lost it.

The prospects which did not exist in June last now obviously do. Let me tell hon. members that if anybody tries to form an impartial judgment about the chances of this war, he can only come to the conclusion that the chances of Britain are far better than the chances of Germany.

What did your Prime Minister say?

I am sure the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister did not say anything against that. He entirely agrees with me. I know he entirely agrees with me on this point. The hon. member must really try to understand the ordinary meaning of words. He must not read into speeches and books meanings which exist only in his own mind. I do not want to go into this point, but let me say to hon. members that in all the great wars in the past the Power which has controlled the sea has always beaten the Power which controls the land. Now Hitler’s and Mussolini’s conclusions were that the old supremacy of sea power had been done away with by air power. The House will remember, when the Abyssinian incident was on, Mussolini made a great song about being able to drive the British out of the Mediterranean with his air force, and for some mysterious reason, which has never been explained, the British Government allowed him to get away with that bluff. From that moment Hitler and Mussolini both genuinely thought that the power of the air which they were accumulating would be victorious over the power of the sea, in which Britain was their unchallengeable superior. That has proved to be wrong. There has been no single instance in this war in which a major warship, anything larger than a cruiser, has been sunk in any way by attack from the air. There was a cruiser called the Southampton, which was an oldish cruiser; she was sunk off Sardinia. She was not a new cruiser, and if she had been a modern one she would not have been sunk. Hon. members can take it from me—now that this war has gone on for nearly eighteen months—that if air power had been able to blot out sea power, Germany and Italy would have done that long ago. The mere fact that Britain still holds unchallenged command of the sea is sufficient to show that the dictators miscalculated when they thought they had a weapon which could conquer Britain’s sea power. But there is more than that. When this war began the air power of Germany was infinitely superior, in numbers, to that of Great Britain and France combined. It still probably is superior in numbers, but there is no question whatever that British air power in numbers is rapidly catching up with German air power. Mr. Winston Churchill, the Prime Minister of Britain, who has never been a rash optimist, since he became Prime Minister, made a definite statement last October, that during this year, 1941, British numerical air strength would defnitely pass that of the Germans. I believe that statement, because Mr. Churchill has always warned Britain of the worst, and has never tried to encourage her by foolish optimism, arid has shown a very ‘responsible view of his position as Prime Minister. Now, once British air power becomes numerically superior to German air power, the combination of air power and sea power must inevitably defeat Germany. Nothing else can happen.

Has Germany stopped building aeroplanes?

The hon. member should not ask questions which would be thought deroatogry in a school for mental deficients. Of course Germany has not stopped building aeroplanes. She is building aeroplanes as fast as she can.

And so is America.

If hon. members will let me put a point, which to a certain extent tells on their side, one real danger is what is called the counter-blockade against British shipping by Germany. If Germany succeeds in stopping the flow of supplies into the British Isles, that may bring the war to an end and threaten the British Isles with starvation. There is no doubt that for some weeks during the British autumn of last year, during September, October and November, the amount of shipping which was being sunk by a combination of air attack and submarine attack was very very serious. In some cases it was rising as high as 150,000 tons to 160,000 tons a week, and if that had gone on the plight of Britain, after a few months of destruction of shipping at that rate, would have threatend disaster. But if hon. members look at the figures which are published —and they are honest figures, because the British shipping ministry has never hesitated to publish these large shipping losses—they will find that after great spurts for a week or two, these figures fall down to a very much shrunken total, to totals like 30,000 tons or 35,000 tons to 45,000 tons a week. Very serious—I am not minimising the seriousness for a moment, but not vital, not distastrous, not really threatening either the munition production or the actual living supplies of Britain. It is a very surprising thing that the Germans have not had more successes in destroying British shipping. When you see that, whereas in the last war, they were confined to their own ports, they now have ports round the English channel and down the Bay of Biscay to the Spanish frontier, from which they can operate both submarines and aeroplanes to attack British shipping going in and out of the British Isles. It would be very surprising, and an enormous reflection on the war capacity of Germany, if they had not done much damage to British shipping, but actually that damage has never lasted for periods of more than two or three weeks, and has always been reduced to a fraction of what it was during these dangerous periods. What does it suggest? It suggests that Britain has a weapon against submarines which is far more effective than anybody suspects. The tactics of Germany have been to send out quantities of submarines from all the ports into the Atlantic, and attack British shipping wholesale. For two or three weeks they have succeeded and the figures have gone sky high. But then the deadly methods of the new British tactics for attacking submarines have come into operation. The figures have fallen, and the fall means that out of these submarines a very large proportion goes down, and the relatives of the crews will never hear of them. In the last war, after the terible losses of the German submarines became known, the morale of the German seamen broke, and they could not be induced to take a submarine out. That will happen this time when the crews of the German submarines hear of these losses. Let all of us in this House not put our eggs too much into one basket. We on this side must realise that Britain will face appalling dangers. Hon. members on the other side must realise the balance of chance in this war, with American aid for Britain coming in within the next nine or twelve months. The issue of the war is very much more likely to be in favour of Britain than it is to be in favour of Germany.

While the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward) was speaking, my thoughts went back to 1915, when Gen. Botha addressed a meeting at Steytlerville. I also think of the year 1933 when the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District), at that time acted as a supporter of Gen. Hertzog against the policy of the Saps. The reason why he is sitting over there this morning is that he had to depend, in those days on the votes of the Saps, and that is why he has now finally landed in the Sap Camp. I want to say to my friends belonging to the Hertzog Party, that if they make use of Sap votes, then they also will later on find themselves in the Sap Camp. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) always felt that the Afrikaner should stand up for his rights, and that they ought to stand together. Yesterday the Minister without Portfolio accused us on this side of having had opportunities in 1933 and 1939 of coming together. We had rejected the opportunities, and accordingly we were now the peace-disturbers and the racialists in the country. Let me say this. If we had accepted the advice which was then given us in 1933 or 1939, then there would no longer have been an Afrikaner party, and then we would have been swallowed up by the other parties. We remember how in the days of the Bond, when we stood up for the rights of our people, we were also accused of being responsible for racialism. I am thankful that there are people still left here who can stand up for the rights of the Afrikaners. Now I come to the war. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) said that only volunteers were being recruited for the armed forces. But that is not so. There are two ways of calling for volunteers. The one way is to compel a man to become a volunteer, and the other is really to make a man a volunteer. In our district people were working on erosion works, and those works were stopped and the men could then either become volunteers and join the troops, or otherwise they could not get work. That is the kind of volunteer. Most of those people are poor, and they were forced in that way to join up. I can mention a case of a policeman who worked himself up until he got into the detective service. They asked him to take the Empire oath, and he refused. A short while after he was sent back to the uniformed police. That is the way the people are forced. Then I want to say something about the technical institute in Port Elizabeth. Before the war it was difficult to get children into the technical institute. To-day such children are offered entrance into the institute without paying for it. They get their training there, and then they are sent to Pretoria for further training. But they have to take an oath to do service at any place in South Africa. Is that not a scandalous attitude on the part of the Government to get people to go to the war in that way. How can we say that we are only accepting volunteers? That kind of thing ought to be stopped. The Prime Minister said in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, in connection with the Potchefstroom troubles, that they were now dead and buried. But the same kind of thing is still always going on. When hon. members come here and tell us that soldiers are attacked by private individuals, then I say that it is the duty of the Minister to see to it that the people who attack soldiers are prosecuted, and appear before the court. And I am prepared to agree that if a man attacks a soldier without reason, that he, in that case deserves to be punished. But I am convinced, from all the cases that I have heard of and which I have seen for myself on the railways, that people will not attack soldiers who usually are collected in groups. My experience is that it is the soldiers who start the trouble, and that nothing is being done to stop it. It is because the Government does nothing that we say no confidence can be placed in the Government. A great deal is being said to-day about the price which the wool farmer is getting for his wool, and about the mortage bonds which are being paid off. The price which the wool farmer gets is not so very high. The best lines of wool produce about 15d. to 17d. That is not such a wonderful price. The cost of the production of wool is also fairly high. In the past we also got 13d. to 15d. and we might possibly get 1d. or 2d. more to-day. But the Minister must remember that when the farmer needs anything on his farm, and when he has to buy agricultural produce, then he not only has to pay 1d. or 2d. more, but what he needs has in many cases gone up by 25 per cent, 50 per cent or even 100 per cent. That is due to the war, and that is why the farmers ought also to get a decent price for their wool. During the last war they got 3s. and even 4s. a lb. After a war there is always a depression. If the farmer can now get a decent price, then he has an opportunity of paying off his debts and of putting aside nest eggs, so that when the bad times come after the war, he will be able to face the depression. To-day the position is that the wool farmer is more or less paying his way, and when the bad times come the wool farmers will once more have to be supported by the Government, because in these times they do not get a decent price for their wool. But apart from the wool farmer, who can come through, I want to ask what the position is of the mohair farmer. I represent a mohair district. My constituents are holding a meeting on the 22nd of this month to ask the Government to do something in connection with their position. The product cannot be sold, or it is very difficult. There is not a proper market. It was always formerly said that the British navy existed to protect us so that we could export our produce. Where is the navy now so that we can send our produce overseas? Owing to our mohair having to go to England and there is no opportunity for sending it, you do not find any buyers here. There is only one buyer, and he does what he likes with the prices. The wool farmers possibly got a sufficient price to-day to cover their expenses, but the mohair farmer and many other farmers, do not get a proper chance to-day to obtain a paying price for their produce. We have heard how much money the Government has for spending on the war. When we examine the position and look at the number of poor people in our country, then we find that the number of poor whites during the past 30 to 40 years has mounted from 30,000 to 300,000 or 400,000. Now I ask whether there is no chance of saving these people? To-day the Government sees its way to spending £70,000,000 in one year on a war which does not concern us at all, a war which we did not start, and which we could have remained out of completely. There is plenty of money to shed blood in a war which we should have kept out of, and to create disunion and discord in the country. But I want to ask the Prime Minister whether the poor man has ever had a fair chance in our country. Can the poor man with his wife and children exist on the wages which are paid in our country? Can they maintain the white standard on them? They have to go into the cheap houses in the big towns, which are usually in the quarter where the coloured people live. Are they then able to maintain the white standard? If we go on spending money as at present, then our national debt which to-day is nearly £300,000,000, will have to have almost another £300,000,000 added to it. What for? To fight a war with which we have nothing to do. The war was not even started by Germany against England. An hon. member over there spoke about aggression, and said that we were not conducting an aggressive war, and that one might just as well say that the Transvaal and the Free State had started the attack in 1889 and were the aggressors. Does he not know that English troops were brought here? Were they brought here to attack Natal or to attack the Colony? Everybody knew that it was intended to invade the Transvaal, but did Germany at that time send troops to England? With regard to Poland, Germany had a claim to a piece of land which belonged to her. We were dragged into the war, and are now being ruined, and reduced to beggary. If the Government has so much money to spend, let it spend an equal amount on the uplift of the poor people in the country. The wages which are being paid in our country are lower than in other countries, notwithstanding the fact that all the wealth is being taken out of our soil.

Where are the wages higher?

In Australia, where the minimum for a white man is 13s. 11d. a day.

What is the purchasing power of their money?

What is the purchasing power of our money? The position is that not only is nothing being done for the poor people, but the pensions of the old people are being taken away. To that remains to be added that young boys who are suited to farming cannot to-day work on the land. It is useless to apply for land under a land settlement scheme to-day. The boys cannot be given assistance. They must just go to the war. Your dam construction works are stopped, your soil erosion works are stopped, all of which are things in the interests of the country. For them there is no money, but there are millions and millions of pounds for war, with which we have no concern. We have not confidence in the Government in regard to these things. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) said that the farmers were satisfied with the conditions and the prices, that they were flourishing and paying off debts. If that is so, then I want to ask the hon. member why his farmers no longer want him in the district where he lives? Not long ago there was an election where a farmer had to be chosen, and the hon. member was beaten by 160 votes against 40. The farmers have no confidence in the Government and its supporters. That is the reason. The attitude of the Government in connection with the war and in connection with farming matters is the cause of our people distrusting the Government. We heard last year that an enquiry would take place in connection with a rehabilitation scheme for farmers. Now it is said that owing to the death of an official, whose passing we deplore, it is much delayed, but I wonder whether we shall even hear during this session whether there is any scheme in connection with the rehabilitation of the farmers now. The Government is wasting money on the war, and I fear that it will be said in the future that there is no money for the rehabilitation of the farmers. Accordingly we have the right of saying that this House has no confidence in the Government.

I regret that the Leader of the Opposition is not in his place because I want to draw his attention and the attention of other members of his party to a statement made by the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. A. L. Badenhorst) yesterday afternoon. The hon. member for Riversdale’s statement was to this effect, that he thought it quite right that England, and London in particular, should be bombed because certain things happened during the Boer War. I understood the hon. member to say that during the Boer War houses were also burnt down. But I was in the country at the time and I do not know of any case where, when a house was burnt down, or people lost their lives living in those houses. And for the hon. member to say that he approves of what is happening in London in particular, bombing involving thousands of innocent lives of women and children, is, to say the least of it, amazing. I fail to understand how the hon. member can make such a statement, how he can say that it is right that women and children should lose their lives in the City of London because of what happened during the Boer War. They are no more responsible than the mace on Mr. Speaker’s desk, and for the hon. member to become so bitter and vindictive as to approve of the killing of thousands of innocent people, passes my comprehension. I do not think those people in London knew what happened in the Boer War. I understand the hon. member took up no attitude against England in the Great War. The hon. member was deceived on that occasion. He has also made a similar statement in regard to this war, and he will be wrong again because history will repeat itself, and what happened in the last war will happen again in this war. Let me draw the attention of hon. members to what has taken place in North Africa. When one comes to realise the number of Italian prisoners taken in North Africa one must be amazed at the attitude which hon. members over there are still adopting in this House. Do they not realise what is going on? Do they not realise what America is doing? Do they not realise, as reported in the Press, that Italy has made representations for the repatriation of no less than 100,000 Italians from Abyssinia? I was in America two years ago, and I saw the great things that America can do to come to our aid in this war. The Lease and Lend Bill no doubt will become law in the United States of America in the very near future, possibly before the end of this month comes round. And that, sir, will give Britain and her Allies an enormous advantage; there is no doubt about that, and it will be one of the greatest factors in winning the present war. See what the Australian and what South Africa is doing in the North and what the great Commonwealth of Nations generally is doing. I say again it is amusing to see the attitude of members on the opposite benches. I want to refer to what has taken place in Johannesburg. Now, sir, I am sure that every member of this House regrets what has taken place there, and I know the people in Johannesburg were against what took place, but what one is surprised at is to see the Leader of the Opposition grasp at a straw like a drowning man when he refers to what took place in Johannesburg. I am not sure that when the enquiry has taken place some of the supporters of the Opposition may not be held responsible for what has taken place there, and may I be allowed to read a statement which I have just got from one of the Johannesburg newspapers, the “Rand Daily Mail”:

Now, sir, in the face of a statement like that I think that when this enquiry is held members of the Party sitting on the opposite benches may become embroiled in this disturbance that has taken place. We all regret it and I want to say that I hope no member of the Opposition Party will be committed with what has taken place in Johannesburg. I do not think I have very much more to say. All the points have been covered over and over again, not only in this debate but in several other debates as well during the past months. I want to tell hon. members over there that Great Britain will win this war for the nations of the civilised world.

When the Prime Minister replied to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, he said that he had listened to his speech, but that he could not actually find out what the reasons for the motion of no confidence were. In my opinion the reasons which we can adduce are legion. I have no confidence in the present Government, inter alia, because we are absolutely opposed to this stupid, mad and unnecessary war. The Prime Minister made one point, and so did his colleague, the Minister of Lands, that Parliament had decided. But the Prime Minister has never yet asked himself the question as to who the people are who stood behind him and who voted for the war. It is not the people with whom he fought in the three years war, when he held the title of a Boer general. It is not those men. But it is the men against whom he fought at that time, who have now voted with him for the war. Amongst others, there were also people who voted with him, like the native representatives, although the natives do not take part in the war. The Minister’s eight representatives, who are dependent on the coloured vote, also voted with him, although the coloured people also, according to his statement, are not asked to go and carry on the war. They are asked to be lorry drivers and things of that sort, but they are not asked to take part in the war. Then a large number of Jewish friends also voted with him, and I think that the Prime Minister has now, to his disappointment, we imagine, found that the Jews are not taking part in the war. They remain at home. I can give you the assurance that in my district not one has gone. They are at home, and they are carrying on their businesses. As the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé) said, they are not key men, but they are “Ikey” men, they shield behind the blood of the Afrikaner who is compelled by necessity to go and carry on the war. He has no other choice. Then with him has also voted the loyal Englishman, who out of loyalty to England and the Prime Minister wanted to participate in the war. He also remains at home. This House, which voted for war, did not represent the opinion of the people in the country. The coloured representatives, native representatives, Jews and jingoes, they are the people who have pushed us into this war. The House of Assembly is the representative of the people in the country, and why is the Government just as afraid of that republic as the devil is of holy water? The day will come, and it is no longer far off, when those supporters, the coloured people, natives, Jews and jingoes, will desert him, and he will stand alone, and he will look about to see where the Afrikaner people are. The Afrikaner people also will desert him. He cannot rely upon the Jews and jingoes and the representatives of the coloured people and the natives. We are not in the present war because the people want it. The people constitute the highest authority, and we are not in the war because that highest authority wishes it. False reasons have been given why we should go. In the first place, it was because we had to guaarntee the freedom of Poland, and where is the independence of Poland to-day? Great Britain guaranteed Poland’s freedom, but she knew when she gave that guarantee that she could not fulfil it, and she knew that in that way she would plunge the world into war if justice was done to Poland. There was not one English gun and not a single English aeroplane to go and assist Poland. To-day we find that English aeroplanes are flying over the whole of Germany distributing pamphlets. Poland, however, they were unable to go and assist. England was not serious when she gave that guarantee. When Renaud begged for aeroplanes, England could not let him have any of them either. Now we learn from the speeches of hon. members opposite that we are fighting to put Haile Selassie, the Lion of Judah, back on the throne. This is not a war for Christianity or democracy, but it is a war on behalf of Jewish capital, and ultimately we come to the Lion of Judah, who is also a Jew. Democracy! No, the war is being carried on under the cloak of democracy. We have no liberties under this democracy, but rather slavery of the worst kind. I have not yet been to England, but I have read a great deal of England and her slums. We are told that within a stone’s throw of the Royal Palace there are slums where people live in the bowels of the earth in rooms for which they pay 2s. a day. Then they tell us that this is freedom and democracy. There is the greatest poverty in England, and 5 per cent. of the population, on the other side, have the control over the whole of England. They are the great landowners and landlords. It is slavery of the worst kind, and then it goes under the cloak of democracy. In South Africa we have an impoverished white population of approximately 400,000. We have poverty and distress under the cloak of democracy. That is the freedom for which we are suposed to be fighting. Starvation wages are paid here by a Government which says that it is fighting for democracy and freedom. England is, if I may use the English expression, “Jewridden.” There are quite a lot of Jews in the Cabinet. When we go to America, we find that it is they who are the protagonists of the war in America, because they want us to assist them to maintain the capitalistic system. This war is destroying capital, which is a good thing, because money has become the god of the world. It must be destroyed. Why is America so anxious for England to win? If you would not call me to order, Mr. Speaker, I would say that I have the greatest contempt for America. If she has any sympathy with England, then she ought to enter into the war along with England, but at the moment she is shielding behind the blood of England, and all the time it is nothing but “business.” She will sell aeroplanes and machinery to England. Now she is lending them, but they will have to be paid for later on. She is shielding behind the blood of the Englishman. The chief adviser of President Roosevelt is Morgenthau, a Jew. The president of New York State is a Jew. Those are the people who stand behind Roosevelt in this policy of America. They talk about democracy, but what they are thinking about is capital, and capital is money. We can understand that they cling frantically to the democratic system, because that is the cloak which is issued for the maintenance of the capitalistic system. They protect capitalism under the cloak of democracy. Is that the Christianity and freedom for which those people are fighting? It is a shame for them to ridicule religion and liberty in order to use the words in that way. I have listened here to the speech of the Minister of Lands about Christianity, which was in bad taste. He wants to persuade us that the praying-on the streets is Christianity. It is pure hypocrisy, and using of religion for political fraud. When they speak of God they mean gold. Texts from the Bible are quoted, and the Minister of Lands comes here and says: “If you gain the whole world and lose your soul, what benefit have you?” That is what they want to do. They want to retain the world and lose their soul. They are not fighting for their souls, but for money. Now if we have to fight for Christianity, the weapons of human beings are not necessary to enable the good God to fight on behalf of Christendom. Not by force, but by His spirit. Now we are told to protect Christianity by the sword. We are told about the lack of Christianity towards the world on the part of Nazism. We Afrikaners have no knowledge of lack of Christianity on the part of the Germans, but we have full knowledge of the barbarity of the English. The barbarity exhibited by the English we will never forget. The English permitted our wives and daughters to be dishonoured in the last war. They allowed the natives to violate our Afrikaner women, and they tell us we must fight for Christianity. They sent Phillips and Livingstone with Bibles in their hands, but with the devil in their hearts, to introduce their godless trading. Now we have to fight for Christianity. We fig ht for Christianity, but they are fighting with non-Christian allies. The Leader of the Opposition exposed the fact that if they could have that denier of God, Russia, as their ally, they would embrace him. The Hindu of India is an ally. The native of North Africa is an ally, and the Jew, who crucified Christ, is the greatest ally, although he does not fight. The Minister of Lands said that if Hitler came here it would be all over with our religion. I will tell him what it is that will be finished with—this hypocritical midday pause. We distrust the Government because we are opposed to the wasting of money and to the immorality which is being exhibited by the troops. It is said that we are the people who attack the soldiers. I do not know why our people are being attacked, but I do, indeed, know about their having attacked our people. Just wait a little at 12 o’clock in Adderley Street, when the bugle goes, and do not stand or pray. Then you will see how the populace attack you and tear your clothes off your body. That is the freedom of democracy. We are opposed to the Government owing to the waste of money which is taking place, and owing to the ill-treatment and humiliation of our people. We think of the grey-beards who have been put into gaol because they would not hand in their rifles. Their hair was cut off and they were put into convict garb and their finger prints taken. There is an interment camp at Ganspan, where 60 Afrikaners are enclosed by barbed wire. They do not know why they are there. They have been put there without any complaint being made as to why they are there. There is a student with the name of Adler in a cell where, on a warm day, the heat goes to 108 degrees. He is put in there. There are two Bothas in the gaol. They do not know why they are there. They arrested the wrong Botha, but the wrong Botha is kept there. We are opposed to the Government owing to the bitterness and hatred which has been let loose in the country. I remember what the then Prime Minister, Gen. Hertzog, said: “The path that you are taking is the path to the death, the death of the party, and the death of good feeling towards Great Britain.” The party was torn from top to bottom, and the good feeling that there was in my heart— and I can testify that there was good feeling —has gone, and there is bitterness in my heart. The powers of hell have been released. I am thinking to-day of the immorality which is in full force on our platforms and in our public places. All religion has been destroyed by the declaration of war. It affects the foundations of immoral and spiritual life, and that is why we are opposed to the Government. And then they talk about preserving Chrisitanity. We were willing to defend South Africa. Now they say we are not willing to defend within the borders of South Africa. Of course not. They went and fetched the enemy. If the Prime Minister had followed the advice of Gen. Hertzog he would have had a united people to-day up against any aggressor, Germany or Italy, in order to resist him. Now they have a divided people. But on whose behalf actually are we fighting? We have heard from the mouth of the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Long) that we are fighting for the Union of South Africa. Why then is there a large Union Jack hanging at the Town Hall of Johannesburg, and below it a painting of the Prime Minister? The Union Jack is on the Government coach which travels about with a woman blowing the bugle, and a Union Jack….

Johannesburg is not the defence headquarters.

And if a riot takes place, and when they walk past a cafe, it is not our national anthems which are being played, but “Rule Britannia,” and “There will always be an England,” and if you do not rise they knock your head off. One would swear that we were the chattels of England, and that you had to do precisely what they are doing in England. I can tell the hon. member for Gardens—I am sorry he is not in his place—that he is comforting himself with a false hope. He should comfort his friends, and say as my hon. friend from Langlaagte (Mr. Bawden) did: “We have won.” If I am able to read the signs of the times he cannot win.

Is Germany going to win?

Of course she is going to win. Mr. Speaker, this war, as the Prime Minister said, started with a war of Hitler’s and it is ending with a war of God. It is God’s war, because it is God’s rood over England for all the injustice which England has committed in the world, in India, in Australia, in New Zealand, America and South Africa, throughout the world. There is no country on earth which has committed so much injustice and crime in the world. God is now settling accounts with her, and he is using Hitler for the purpose. My hon. friend from Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) is in London with his one and three-quarter feet—but he will not remain in London, he will have to go to Palestine. Mr. Speaker, there will be a time in the history of our Afrikaner people when they stood alone, and to-day England is standing alone to meet her God. In Bloemfontein there is a monument which like a finger points up to heaven as a complaint against England. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Clark) cannot speak on behalf of the Afrikaner people, because he knows nothing at all about them. No wonder that cases of hatred and bitterness are proved if we Hertzogites are so keen on making friends with England. We have held out the hand of friendship, and the English-speaking people have stabbed us in the back.

We wanted to forgive you, but you did not wish it.

I still have respect left for an Englishman who feels for England, but I have the greatest contempt for an Afrikaner who holds himself out as an Englishman. Mr. Speaker, an attack has been made here on the order of my hon. friend for Gezina (Mr. Pirow). I stand here to-day as a Nationalist Socialist, you can call me a Nazi if you like. The capitalistic system is a Jewish system, which is responsible for the impoverishment of our people, of 400,000 people, and the Minister of Finance spoke here about democracy. But what did we see in the Houce last night? There was hardly a single one of them in their places. Our parliamentary system—I hope the newspapers will take it up—they lie and snore and sleep on the benches, and then they say that it is the parliamentary system, they who are responsible for the misery that there is in South Africa—this liberalistic capitalistic system which is responsible for one man being sucked dry and one man becoming rich at the expense of the others.

When did you discover that?

When I read his book. Read “Mein Kampf.” I have with me here a book by Lord Rothermere. On page 8 he says:

And that is an Englishman. The national socialistic government has saved Germany from the abyss of bankruptcy, and the whole of Europe is engaged in adapting itself to that new order. The party system has permitted of our exposing people to disorders. On the farms as well as in the towns it has been said to our Nationalists: “We will give you work on the roads. We will pay you 4s. a day.” Is that not a crying injustice, for a man with a wife and eight children to have to receive 4s. a day? And that is the result of the capitalistic system. Take my own case. I have experienced the greatest distress as the result of poverty. I had to take my little boy to a specialist. The child had a stoppage in the nose, and there was a little placard on the specialist’s table: “Two guineas for the first visit, one for the next.” After my son had been examined I asked the specialist what was the matter with him. He answered that he did not know, and that I had to come back again. I paid the £2 2s., and the second visit cost me £1 1s., and the X-rays £3 3s., and then the specialist said there would have to be an operation, which would cost me 25 guineas. I then said the child would have to die, because I could not pay that amount. How often have we not asked the Minister of Finance to give us vocational schools in the Northern Transvaal so that we could teach the children how to make a living, so that it will not be necessary to import people from America and other countries to come and earn money here which our own people could earn. The rich man who have children can give those children the opportunity of rising in the world, but what about the poor man, his child can just become a poor white. When we go to the Minister of Finance to get something, then he says there is no money, and the children simply have to become poor whites, and those are the people who do not have the money to give the children the education which they would like to give them—it is their children who become poor whites, and the alien who comes into this country lives on the fat of the land, he goes about in a big motor car, he drives along the roads which my people have made, and he spits on the Afrikaner. The capitalist system will not solve the question, but the system of national socialism will do so. Under a system of national socialism it is not possible for a single member of the family in the country to have a bad time. Everyone will get the opportunity of making a living, because the great scandal is that under our present system so many of the children of the poor people become poor whites. But the greatest scandal of all is that we have hon. members sitting here who get extra pay, double salary …

Did you not want to take it?

No, the Minister of Lands offered it to me. He offered me an extra £70 a month if I would come over, but I refused. I am poor, but I do not allow myself to be bribed. But the Minister of Labour has looked well after his people, one is a captain, the other is a chaplain, and the third, the one without a leg, is also a captain. The chaplain does, at any rate, work—he preaches, but what do the others do? This is all the result of the capitalistic system. But I say this, that the day is no longer far off when the capitalistic system will be abolished, not only here, but throughout the world, because it has become a curse in the world. The capitalistic system has permitted of our being plundered, and this plunder has been the cause of so many of our people having become poor whites. An end must be put to the smousing that is going on. There are 400,000 Afrikaners who have drifted from the farms to the villages owing to the plunder of the international smousers. In Germany there were 7,000,000 unemployed, but under the system which Hitler introduced the position was completely changed.

The hon. member who has just sat down raised a number of points which it is not necessary to answer, because they are a repetition of what has already been said. He told us about the system he stood for. He says democracy is played out and no longer means anything to-day. But I want to tell the hon. member this, that he should stick to his guns when he lays down a policy. The hon. member told us that he had applied for free treatment for his child in the hospital.

I did not say so; I paid £5.

He made application to get it for nothing, but he could not get it; but at the same time he admits that he has a de luxe car.

I got it for nothing.

Then he has no right to drive about here in a large expensive car and create the impression that he can afford it. It is not the purchase price of a car which is so expensive, but it is the upkeep. The hon. member has created a wrong impression. He must look at the whole question generally, and not only the question of his personal point of view. What would the dictatorship system do in this country? We know what the position is, a man who possesses capital to-day is placed in the position to do something by his own work. If the leaders of the hon. member and my leaders have neglected opportunities in the past of assisting the people under the democratic system, then he ought not to condemn the system, but he ought to condemn his leaders. But to come here and talk about national socialism, which is preached in Germany, and to want to apply it here, seems to me to be quite wrong. That is a doctrine which is only being preached for a short time, but it does not stand on a sound basis. In the long run that system will not have the effect which the people expect from it. Let me remind the hon. member of the fact that the advantages which the Afrikaner to-day has in this country, were obtained in consequence of the democratic system.

Yes, but under the other system they will get more and enjoy more advantages.

The hon. member says that, but it is a novelty, and I do not believe that it is a sound system which will stand the test of time. Let hon. members get up here and tell me that the system which is in force in Germany is a system which can compete with the capitalistic socialistic system which we have here, under which one can use the money of another section to develop the interests of the other section. That new system in Germany is an unnatural system which will ultimately end in nothing. If democracy in South Africa has failed owing to the incompetence of previous governments, then they must look for the blame there and not elsewhere. The hon. member now says that if we on this side of the House had listened to the appeal of Gen. Hertzog not to go to war, the people would to-day have been united. I want to refer the hon. member to what his present leader (Dr. Malan) did when Gen. Hertzog in 1933 decided on coalition. If he had then joined up with Gen. Hertzog the English would, of course, have been in a minority, and the Afrikaners in a majority, and then war would not have been declared. Why does he not tell his leader that he is the cause of what occurred there, that he is the only guilty party? And now I want to say that he must not forget that the English-speaking people, as a minority, co-operated with the majority of the Afrikaans-speaking people. They trusted us Afrikaners as the majority.

Is that the reason why you stopped with Gen. Smuts on the 4th September?

I want the hon. member to admit that we are not an original people. We are descendants of various other nations who had to flee for their beliefs. We arrived here in Africa as fugitives for our faith, and gradually we started to build up, and we tried to develop a national consciousness. But what I want to make clear is that if Providence so willed it for us to land in this country, where we could not establish ourselves as an independent original people with a country of its own, then I would like the hon. members over there to admit that inevitable fact, and to look it in the face. If that is so, then I want to say that in my opinion any policy such as the hon. member over there supports, with all the hatred and envy which the hon. member has developed, any policy to unite the Afrikaans-speaking people into one group, can only end in failure and in the ruin of the Afrikaner people. We must co-operate with the other elements in the country which have accepted South Africa as their country. As the hon. member for Germiston (South) (Mr. Quinlan) so well put it, that broad bottom is the only one on which we can continue to exist. In America the same process took place. People from nations from all over the world have established themselves there, and have created a strong nation, and there is no reason why we cannot in the same way develop a South African nation here. No one can say that the Americans have not every reason to be proud of being Americans. Why cannot we develop in the same way here?

Owing to “God save the King.”

The hon. member for Potgietersrust (Rev. S. W. Naudé) now hates the English in consequence of the declaration of war of the 4th September. Does the hon. member suggest that England, as a country, had anything to do with the resolution of the 4 th September? The resolution was passed here in the House without any intervention of the Government of England. No one less than the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) emphasised that. Why then this hatred of the English section?

The English use pet soldiers such as you are.

I took a decision, an honourable decision, and I gave my reasons for it; possibly they were wrong. Gen. Hertzog also took a decision, possibly he was wrong. But there is no necessity for all this bitterness. We can debate the matter as decent people, and in becoming language. It is not necessary to use abusive words all day long towards each other. Leave the threats alone. They hurt people unnecessarily, and that increases the difficulties. The question was put here why we are now at war. Let me give hon. members over there the assurance that we on this side went into it, I at any rate did, because I felt and believed that Hitler, or Germany, was the aggressor nation in the world, and to my mind the only question was that our turn would come. How did I arrive at that decision? The hon. member over there said that when he read “Mein Kampf” he became pro-German. Since I read it I have learned what Hitler’s object was, and after he has gone step by step, committing violences, so that on the 4th September he practically had everything in his possession which had been taken away by the Treaty of Versailles— except South-West Africa—it became clear to me that he was out for world domination. Why did not the previous Government hand over South-West to him as a thing which had also been taken away? Why did they not say “Here, South-West is given back”? Hitler first took Austria, then Sudetenland, and all the time it was said that it was not aggression, but just the restoration of the Treaty of Versailles. What has that got to do with Czechoslovakia? What has the Treaty of Versailles to do with that? What happened subsequently? England and France then agreed with Hitler that force would no longer be used, but negotiations and discussion would take place. What then? Then his striving for world domination was shown again, until France and England said that if he went further then they would stop him. He then took Poland. With regard to Poland, there was possibly a little justification, but subsequently Holland and other neutral countries, small nations, fell, and there were further signs that he showed no respect towards smaller nations. When Italy made the attack on Abyssinia, at that time Gen. Hertzog clearly stated that Italy was a danger to South Africa. But who declared war against Italy? Did not Italy declare war against us?

When?

Italy declared war.

Against whom?

That is splitting hairs, because the big Nazis regard us as a part of the British Empire. The hon. member knows very well that Germany did not declare war against us either. The big countries do not take much notice of us. They do not even take notice whether we declare war or not. It is not even worth their while to declare war against us. Then the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) said that even if Italy wanted to come down from the North with native troops, he would not move a finger. What did that mean? In this House we have the complaints all day long about our sending coloured troops to the North, but he was prepared to allow the Italians to come in here with native troops. I came to the conclusion that Germany and Italy were aggressor countries, and what better proof do you want than the invasion by Italy of Greece? The only reason is that they want to annex them. But hon. members still allege that they, the Germans, are not out for world domination. When the attack took place on Holland—and no one will want to deny that Holland is the native land of the Afrikaners—what did they say then? They said that Holland did not assist us in the Boer War, and therefore we would not help them either. That is my opinion, and I consider it my duty. Those countries were invaded one after the other, and the question, to my mind, was only when my turn would come. If that is the position, then I cannot wait until the enemy was on our doorstep, but I must go to war at the right time. Alone we do not count for anything. Alone we are not strong enough to defend ourselves. If that is my honest opinion, is my attitude then not justified? Must I then, just because England is in the war, be afraid of being called an imperialist, and is that to stop me from doing my duty towards my own country? Hon. members talk about freedom and democracy as things that are dead. I give the preference to the doctrine of democracy, but my hon. friends there are following the dictators. The Union is of great value to Germany. We declared war on Germany, and if Germany were to win the war Germany would have every reason to annex us as being part of the British Empire. Nor will I blame them for it. Germany is an industrial country, and particularly needs raw materials, and if Germany can annex the Union it will do so. I should not blame her. But I am not going to sit still until she comes here. If I am convinced that she is out for world domination, then I am going to do my best to stop her. When, therefore, I say that Germany is acting in a way which frightens me, and which makes me think that I must do my share to try and save the country from that danger, then hon. members must not think that I am talking nonsense. I will quote to them what a man whom we respect very much says on this point. I have here a cutting of a statement where Mr. Wendell Willkie says the following—

If I am wrong in my convictions, then I say that this great American also shares that view, and that I therefore agree with him. We have America with us, and they have the same feelings that we have here. They also ask: When is our turn coming? A great, strong country like America has that fear, and that is why they are giving assistance to England and are practically taking part in the war. In addition to that, we must remember that America is not so close to the danger as we are. We must remember that the former Prime Minister said that Italy is on our borders, and he warned us that there were great dangers before us in Northern Africa. Now there comes a big and strong nation which says that there is danger to freedom and democracy, and that it is best to intervene in time in order to save those things. America is in the war. It is no longer a question of declaring war, and sending men. We have enough men; we need things like aeroplanes and machinery, because this war is being fought with machinery, and America has told the world that she is going to assist us with all those things. I therefore say that I am in good company, in the view I hold. I want to refer to another point. I know that hon. members opposite do not like hearing it, but I am speaking here as an Afrikaner, and I feel that I have done my duty as an Afrikaner to give my support to this war. It is stated here that people cannot get jobs and work without their having to take the red oath. Mention was also made here of young people who are being trained as mechanics. Well, those people are being trained so that we can use them in connection with the carrying out of the policy of the state.

The Minister of Labour did not say that.

I am not concerned now with what the Minister of Labour said. I say that these people get the opportunity of being trained as artisans, so that they can assist the Government in carrying out its policy, namely, the prosecution of the war.

Where can they get an appointment without taking the red oath?

I am coming to that. With the doctrine which those hon. members preach, that of hatred and envy, and with their pro-German attitude which they are propagating in the country, with the announcement of a republic and all kinds of statements that a lead will be given, that this or the other thing will happen, together with hatred and envy against the English-speaking population, we have reached the position in the country that the people do not want to boycott the Ossewa-Brandwag and the Nationalists, but they feel that they must protect their industries and be careful as to what people they employ. They are obliged to do so. If they have to deal with people who preach those doctrines then hon. members opposite will not be able to blame an employer if he is far-sighted in regard to appointing someone in his business who can possibly get a lead as to how to blow up his factory. Those are things which have happened in other countries, and they may also happen here. These people must be careful that they do not put themselves into that position, and hon. members cannot blame them for it. I want to call the attention of hon. members opposite to something else. I am talking as one of their fellow-Afrikaners, and I would like to point out something to them which they do not always realise. That preaching of hatred and envy which is taking place has brought about a great change of view, and if they continue with that hatred and envy towards the English-speaking people, then they may later on completely isolate themselves in the country, to their own detriment. You will find that thousands of English-speaking people come into the country in this time of war. They see for the first time now what a pleasant Climate prevails here, that it is a civilised Country with great prospects, and I am convinced that many of those English people will elect to remain here. I know that those hon. members do not like it. They are only thinking once more about the doctrine of isolation. But if they form an Afrikaner bloc against the English-speaking people, then it finally ends in this fact, that after the war a large number of English-speaking people will remain in this country, and then it may very possibly be that such an Afrikaner bloc will end in their own ruin. Why do they not accept the policy which Gen. Hertzog announced, and which the hon. member for Germiston (South) (Mr. Quinlan) explained so clearly? Why do they not accept the principle of the Scots “A man is a man for all that.” We must not say that we are anti-English, anti-Jewish, and think of a policy of isolation, if we wish to create a future for this country. We shall yet live to regret it if we follow a policy of isolation. Moreover, I am afraid that the hateful attitude of hon. members opposite towards Afrikaners who do not share the same point of view that they hold, also has very bad results in our national life. I am honest in this view. I think that I meant just as well by my people, when I came to the view which I adopted on the 4th September. I am in fact convinced that I acted more in the interests of my people than they did. But we are for that reason insulted by hon. members opposite, and what is going to be the consequence of that hatefulness? It makes us later on feel not at home in our church, we do not feel at home in our cultural unions, and it ends in one thing—we cannot continue to swallow all the unpleasantness, and we have afterwards to resign from those organisations.

That is what your friends on the opposite side want.

I want to warn my hon. friends opposite that it will be a fatal day if that kind of thing happens, and then they will have been the cause of it. Spare us from those things in our cultural life, in our church, and in our social life. If we go to work as we are doing at the moment, and we have later on to go along the same road, then we shall feel out of place next to each other. I want to say this to the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). He said here the other day that he would give his support to this motion of no confidence in the Government because the Government was ranging itself on the side of England, because he is not certain that England will win. He must admit that when a country or a people has to decide whether to make war or not, then that decision must not be grounded on the principle whether that nation that he wishes to join up with will possibly win. It is a reprehensible method for a country to decide on that ground. It is the principle which has to be decided, and whether we win this war or whether we lose it, it will make no difference to the decision which I took to take part in it. I decided in favour of war because I honestly thought that I was serving my country by doing so. I thought that it was in the best interests of the country to fight along with the British Commonwealth of Nations. I decided because I thought that I was bound to do it in order to fulfil my obligations to the Commonwealth of Nations. I do not want to be a member of an organisation and draw all the benefit of it, and when the time comes to protect those benefits, to run away. The hon. member for Beaufort West also said again what he had said on a previous occasion, that we should read the American newspapers. I want to remind him that on the former occasion he said that if we read the American newspapers we would see that America would not enter the war; and yet she is practically in it now. Now let me debate the matter on its merits, but has the Leader of the Opposition discussed this motion of no confidence on its merits? When he introduced the debate he told us that this Government raised its army to attack jukskei clubs, and that it had not moved a finger in the real fight. Are those statements which we ought to expect from the Leader of the Opposition? He must know that when the war broke out our army was in such a position that we could not attack a native location. We had to deal with great and strong nations. Now we have an army; now we are equipped once more, and the hon. member will yet see the day when he will be proud of the battle which that army will fight for South Africa. But to hear language of that kind from the Leader of the Opposition does not befit him. Did he want, us to send our troops to Abyssinia before they were properly armed and equipped? That would not have been right, and we had to have time to equip our army properly. That is not the kind of thing which ought to be said here vilifying your own people. Other people read and hear what those hon. members say here, and it does not rebound to the honour of this country. We are in the war, and why cannot we follow the example of a man like Willkie? America has decided to help us in the war, and they are standing together.

If you also had decided to make war in that way then there would have been no objection to it.

America is in the war, and she is standing by us. Those hon. members may not feel happy about it, but America is in the war and she is standing by us. But the way in which we are acting here and the undermining with which the Government has to deal are not things that befit us. If hon. members on the other side differ from the war policy of the Government, then let them remain at home and leave us alone, so that we can go on doing our duty as we see it. Why should they continue abusing us and abusing England? I do not want to go into what their own ex-leader and their present leader said about the British Empire. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) said that England was the mother of our freedom. General Hertzog said that the British Navy was protecting us to-day just as it was protecting England. At that time, when the hon. member for Piquetberg attacked the Simonstown agreement we all sat behind the hon. member for Gezina, and we saw, amidst hearty laughter, how he smashed up the hon. member for Piquetberg in connection with it. Why then should we now pretend that England has done nothing for us all these years, and why should the Opposition go and condemn the resolution of the 4th September because they are opposed to England, or because they thought that England was going to lose? Hon. members must admit that the prophecies which they made last session have gone wrong. They told us that within a few months England would be beaten and that they would come into office. They wanted to put the people in the country under the impression that it was time for them to join up with the party opposite, or otherwise they would be standing on the wrong side. Why should we prophesy those things of a defeatist nature? Then I want to say a few words about the statements of the hon. member for Potgietersrust (Rev. S. W. Naudé). He stated here that Almighty God was engaged in putting England in her place, and he was using Hitler for the purpose. Is that language which ought to be used here? I come to another point which I would also like to deal with before my time expires. Reference has been made to the money which has been spent. Let me briefly give a summing up of the position. In 1912 we passed the Defence Act, in which we accepted the principle that money should be voted every year for the Defence Force. In 1938, when the war clouds commenced to threaten, we voted £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 in one year. A principle was accepted that we should equip an army for the country. When those war clouds began to thicken, is there one hon. member opposite who will tell me that he would have stood for a policy of the Government doing nothing to equip the army, and that that policy should be carriéd out? If they want to spend nothing in defending their country, is that the love which they are exhibiting towards their people? When we spend £300,000,000, then we think we are defending the country, and we have no reason to complain. The question is being put as to who would attack us. Italy would have attacked us if the British massed troops were not on the spot. Then we would have been unarmed here, and Italy would have come with their native troops to attack us here. I do not believe that my fellow-Afrikaners, not one of them, believe in the idea that we should not have prepared ourselves for the war. I go further. Complaints are constantly being made about the development of industries. We are developing industries, and in an abnormal time industries develop much more quickly than in normal times, and if they show the least lack of confidence in the Government, they must also do it in the case of all previous Governments. Those industries will not be idle after the war, and they are industries which are being extended, and which can actually be used after the war, and that is a thing for which they ought to be very thankful. The money which we are spending is not lost. Many of the industries can be used after the war, and the assets can be sold. They are industries which will employ many of our Afrikaners in this country, a thing for which they will be very grateful. There is another thing. Do you know that thousands of pounds are being spent every day in our country at our own front to preserve the peace. Is it not a shame to protect our own people and country with the essential services and the reserve brigade. That, to my mind, is a slur which will not be washed out of our history for years.

Are you afraid of the jukskei?

The Government is being attacked here on account of the riots that have taken place in thé country. Are they not due to the hatred and envy which they preach? It would have been in their interests to say: “We do not agree with the war, but as we are at war, we are not going to obstruck you, because if we lose the war, then we are going to share the fate of a conquered nation.” Now that policy of an undermining nature is being preached, with the result that the Government has to spend thousands of pounds to maintain order and protect property. [Time limit.]

I thank you for the friendly concession enabling me to take part in this debate at this stage, especially more particularly because I see the right hon. the Prime Minister back in his place, and also the other Ministers after the last speaker, the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) has played such a wonderful role in this debate, aS he did this morning, when he learned that there was not a single Minister on those benches, and he was able to carry on on behalf of this Government and defend their malpractices. What I want to mention here is that I do not want to be guilty of reading my speech according to the habit which is cultivated by the new party members, because I have noticed that the leader of that party and another hon. member, who anyhow expressed his own ideas, have done so. But I shall be guilty of actually referring to my notes which are before me, because I have so many complaints against the Government, and also against the right hon. the Prime Minister. I would not like to forget a jot or tittle of that which I have already said on the countryside, which I accuse them of. I have not said a single thing outside the House which I do not say inside it, and therefore on this occasion I am not going to say one jot or tittle which I cannot say outside the House, and these bulky regulations which he has introduced, if they do not affect me here, then they dare not affect me outside the House. I also want to say this. I must first refer to the last speaker, the hon. member for Vereeniging, who has become so concerned as to what our future is going to be, and why, therefore, we do not possess the right to criticise this Government, a self-constituted Government and not elected by the people. Certainly not a Government which stands for democracy, a democracy which rests on the doctrine of the greatest teacher of all democracy, the teacher in whose name we commence these proceedings every day. This is the second day, but we are still proceeding under the blessing which you, Mr. Speaker, prayed for yesterday, of Him whose name hon. members opposite spit upon.

The hon. member cannot use language of that kind.

Then I regret that there are members of that kind in the House. The hon. member for Vereeniging got very much concerned about a German victory. I heard a prayer the other day of a good old friend. He prayed for a victory for the Allies, but he did anyhow say “Thy will be done,” and we may actually say that the will of Him who reigns will not be done. Now what that victory is going to be does not worry me, because care will, as a matter of fact, be taken that His will is done, and not the will of this Government or myself. They are so concerned about the fact that it has taken them ten years, nay, more than ten years—there are persons to whom I refer who were good Afrikaners ten years ago, with the Afrikaner Nationalist spirit, which also subscribed to the code for which the South African nation stands, the Calvinistic code which is being defended by this side of the House, and I now want to say to the people of South Africa that because this is the South African national spirit, and it is in their interests that we are now fighting. What about? I shall, in a moment, come to the Prime Minister’s statement as to what we are fighting about. Before I forget I want to say that it has taken more than ten years for them to become good Britons. The German psychology, the imperialistic inference, but I am certain of it if the war ends differently to what they think, that they will all after six months become good disciples of St. Paul. Mr. Speaker, I have so much to say that I really do not know where to begin. I have in my hand here an Extraordinary Government Gazette, to which I want to refer, and circumstances have brought us to this through a majority of members of Parliament which has no right to exist. This confirms the Bill which this Government based on that common law on which this national Afrikanerdom is based, of which the former citizens made use to say how this birth of a nation took place, a birth of its own volition, not under the lead or this or the other group, but under the Lord, to whom I bow my knee and to no one else. What this national creation will be I have on a previous occasion tried to bring to the notice of the House, which refused me the opportunity. Now I have the opportunity to explain to them, to the Prime Minister, and to every hon. member who sits on this or the other side of the House, what the birth and history of the South African people were, and what it is striving for under God’s guidance. When I examine this, and I make a remark that I or anybody in this big country under a democracy really does not have the right to criticise the affairs of the Government, then I or he is guilty of a contravention. The hon. member for Vereeniging pleaded for the people who wear the red tabs—these people have to take the red oath in this free country with a free democracy. It conflicts with their principles, and it impinges still more on their princples, when they have to be forced to take that oath. What does it mean? In this free country a man does not have the right of having his own confession of faith. A man must be forced to do what the Government tells him to do and what the Government demands of him. I am myself an employer. I also have other people in my employ, but although I may demand the services of those people I dare not influence the religious convictions that they hold. They have not leased their souls to me. I can merely use their services. God gave their faith to them, and I have not the right to ask those people also to give me their spiritual life in my service. What is the Government doing now? The Government is claiming the soul of those people, a thing which they have not the right to do. And then I want to ask this: Is the Government placed here by the vote of the people, and at the desire of the people? No, in September, 1939, they refused to ask the people to decide whether the policy for which they stood met with the approval of the people. No, that is wrong. I want to say this: The attitude which the Government took up has convinced me still more strongly of the fact that what we ought to have in South Africa is a republic. This has made me an even stronger republican than ever I was before. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am proud of it. I have always been a republican and I shall die a republican, and this Government has never yet been able to rob me of my soul, nor will they ever rob me of it. The Afrikaner people moreover will never give the Government the right to take possession of my soul. The Government came along and wanted to commandeer the souls of the Afrikaners, and they claimed the right to do so, but the Afrikaner who is as honourable as he is honest, and who is fixed in his national feelings, will never hand over his soul to the Government. And now I want to say this. When Gen. Herozog in 1933 commenced to co-operate with the present Prime Minister he discussed this question with me, and I said this to him: “Gen. Hertzog, do you know what you are going to do, you are now joining hands with people who will stab you in the back.” He answered: “Those people offered me their hand, what then should I do, am I to reject their offer?” I said: “Well, I know your intentions are honest, but they do not intend it honestly, and they will stab the dagger into your back.” And that is, as a matter of fact, what they did do. And it is due to that fact that we have the greatest division amongst the people today. It is a tragedy, Mr. Speaker, and it is so much the worse when I look at my colleagues in the Hertzog party who are now sitting here, because it is due to the confidence which Gen. Hertzog placed in the present Government that my companions are now sitting here as a separate and small party. I have a large number of Afrikaners in my constituency, people with English names, the Browns and the Whites and the Haywards, and I even have Irish there, with the name of Murphy.

And the Jews, too.

Yes, I also have Jews there. I have Levenstein and also other people there. But I have descendants there of the 1820 Settlers, and there are many of them who have identified themselves with the Afrikaner people, and who have the same outlook on the British imperialistic policy of Downing Street that I have. They are people who became Voortrekkers, and who are just as good Afrikaners as I am. Those people who come to this country are the people who assisted in the development of the distant corners of the country, the development of Christianity. And it is from those people and the other people in my district which our people were born. I now want particularly to confine myself to the new order, and the old orders that there are, and I want to say this, that the new order is there because the old orders are obsolete, because our democracy is being used to drag us into this war, and that is the reason why so many of us are advocating a new order of things. We are told that this is a democratic country, but the absurdity of it is that we are bound by these regulations. The regulations have the force of law. We are told that we are in the war for the preservation of Christianity, but people who told us that ridicule us and ridicule the doctrines of Christ, and that grieves me, Mr. Speaker, just as it must grieve you. An hon. member gave a statement of what was going to happen. I think the Minister will remember that I gave a statement last year of what, in my opinion, would be the result of these things. And the Prime Minister knows my view, because I have discussed it with him ever since I became a member of this House for the first time. I said that diplomacy, as I had got to know it, and so far as I understood it, and politics as that is being practised, and as I understand it now, had bitterly disappointed me. I cannot sink to that low political level, I cannot have recourse to the lowest and most reprehensible methods to lie cleverly and to deceive, but that apparently is diplomacy and politics. I cannot sink to that, but I want to try to hold up the high ideal of honour. That is why I utter truths, without the trace of a blush or any respect of persons when I feel religiously on something. I have here the Hansard report for the 4th September in my hand, and it has taught us a lesson. There are English-speaking people, many of them whose intentions are honest, and who are just as honourable Afrikaners as I am, and who have the same home as I, and no others, and who also, if there is a conflict of interests, will put the interests of South Africa first. Why then are we in the war? What was the question in dispute? At that time we had an opposition party which counted, viz. the Nationalist Party, and the United Party sat on the Government side. There were members of the United Party who are now sitting here, numbers of them who had not become stay-at-home soldiers. They entered the United Party at that time because they honestly thought of building up a new order for the welfare of the people. This is not the first failure of an attempt of that kind. Now the Englishman says “Britons never will be slaves,” and I, on my side say, and I have the right to say it without any inferiority towards any nation, that the Afrikaners will never be slaves, either of Great Britain or of Germany, or of France or anybody else. I have just as much right to say this, because my nation and people have not been built up on the exploitation and oppression of small nations which cannot defend themselves. My two small republics were destroyed, and 26,000 women and children were laid in the grave. All for the protection of small nations? Someone spoke about the splendid spirit of Great Britain to give us back what we had lost. It, in the first instance, in its process of exploitation of small nations, suited it to destroy the two republics, because a world war was coming, one could see it, and subsequently it suited them to give a little more margin, to be clever in their diplomatic game, and to restore violated rights. That is why at the peace conference of Vereeniging it was stated that our freedom would be given back, our self-government. What is that? It is the right of self-determination. But we were supposed to be under the protection of Great Britain, just like Ceylon and other parts of the world. And then, after the World War, there came the Treaty of Versailles, and the late Gen. Botha and the Prime Minister signed it under protest. The Prime Minster saw that the corridor would in turn give rise to another war. That injustice would lead to another war, and he issued a waring against it, but he signed the treaty, that un-Christian peace. So far as our country is concerned, I remember what an Irishman said: “Ireland devastated by sword and fire.” The same can be said about the Free State and the Transvaal. The question is again being put now as to why we are at war, why he should be in sympathy with Great Britain. That is the consequence of the pernicious policy of conciliation, conciliation between the injured and the man who has injured them. Is it necessary for me to seek for conciliation from the Government? Not in the least, because I differ as the polis from their views in regard to the interests of South Africa. I believe in dispensation of God, and they believe in Great Britain for their future. It is said that we are praying for the victory of Hitler. We are praying that peace should come. Now it is said that we cannot leave our friend in the lurch. I want to choose my own friends, and I want South Africa to follow its own course. It has the right to do so. The then Prime Minister, Gen. Hertzog, in the days of coalition came to me and I said that he was taking a hand which would stab in the back. He then said he was taking the hand which has honestly advanced. [Time limit.]

I here that the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. R. A. T. van der Merwe) spoke about me as a man who bears his name and who is now a Hanskhaki. I want to assure him that there are a great many people who have the same name as he has and who stand by the Government and are proud of that fact. No, we are ashamed of the lost sheep sitting on the opposite side of the House. What was so striking to me was that the hon. member, immediately hé started speaking, used the name of Providence. Providence had caused the war and Providence would see to it that peace would come. I want to ask him this: What about the 4th September—if Provindence arranges everything was not that decision also arranged by Providence? I believe in Providence but the hon. member only thinks of Providence when it suits him. No, we cannot go on in that way. It does not become us to do so, and it does not help us. The hon. member accused this side of the House and stated that we did not represent our constituents any longer.

That is correct.

I take it that the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) also says so. If there is one man in this House who does not represent his constituents then it is the hon. member for Delarey. He is already trying to curry favour with others. He held a great many meetings before he became a follower of the Malanites.

Let both of us resign our seats, and stand against each other.

The time will come for that sort of thing If my hon. friend is prepared to come and stand at Potchefstroom, the time will come when we shall be able to oppose each other. The hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. R. A. T. van der Merwe) stated that the old order had passed. Can the hon. member tell us which of the hon. members opposite are followers of the new order? We take very great interest in that question, because we want to know which members opposite are supporters of the new order. We want to know which of them can reconcile their Christian training with the religious conceptions displayed in the new order of the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow). But hon. members over there only tell us half of what the rëal position is. Now let them tell us straight out, so that we may know who of them are in agreement with this new order.

What did the Church have to say about this war?

I shall answer the hon. member. This side of the House is always prepared to take notice of the Church so ‘long as it concerns itself with Church matters, but as soon as the Church enters into politics we take no notice of it. The Church should not interfere in politics.

But still the Minister of Lands, wheh he spoke here, referred to the resolution of the Reform Church, and what does he say of your contentions?

The Minister of Lands did not answer the question which the hon. member put. I was in the House when he made his speech. He replied to the first portion, but not to the second portion. I am answering the hon. member’s question to the best of my ability. But I should like the hon. member for Delarey to tell us what he told the farmers of Rhodesia in the message which he sent them before he returned to the Union. Does he still stand by that same message, and if he does stand by it then I want to ask him how he reconciles that message with the views of the people on whose side he finds himself to-day.

I would expect the same thing from an Englishman if he came to the Union.

The hon. member advised them to associate themselves with the inhabitants of Rhodesia. But here he is continually attacking us. I should like to know from the hon. member for Delarey whether he is also a supporter of the new order; he did not tell us in his speech whether he did or did not favour the new order. Now I should like to hear from him whether he is going against his Church in that respect.

I addressed the House for forty minutes in opposition to the hypocrisy of democracy.

That hon. member once told us that he stood by Gen. Hertzog. Does he still stand by Gen. Hertzog? During the course of his speech he spoke of his former leader. He did not do so in to-day’s speech but he did so on the discussion of another motion. Now, that is the same member who told us that Gen. Hertzog was his leader, and that he would never have another leader. I want to ask him Whether he still stands by Gen. Hertzog. No, there is a new party now, and the hon. member no longer stands by Gen. Hertzog. We on this side of the House are told that we are trying to use Gen. Hertzog’s name for political purposes.

Exactly.

I want to say this, and I am saying it on behalf of all of us on this side of the House, that there is not one of us who does not deplore the fact that that hon. member is not in the House to-day. He is a man and we honour and respect him. We have seen in this debate how great a loss this House has suffered through his no longer being here. We have seen that his influence is no longer making itself felt over there, and we have seen what a difference this has made, His broad-minded leadership is no longer there How different this struggle would have been if Gen. Hertzog had still been on the other side of the House. There is just one other point. As matters are on the other side of tht House to-day, I am pleased that there is a separate party there, and I respect that party because of the fact that they still believe in honour and duty. That party knows where they must stand and they know what it means to be faithful. They have their principles and they stand by their principles. The difference between them and ourselves is the Government’s war policy, but now I look at the members of the so-called re-United Party, and they are not going to tell me that all of them have swallowed the principles of the Malan Party. The Afrikaner Party did not do so, but we can see clearly that tht old Hertzogites who stand by the Malan Party are swallowing those principles daily, and that they are doing so in spite of the promise made in September, 1939, that that was not going to happen. We heard a lot here about England always using other people to fight for her. Who is now fighting for England? Before I leave the Afrikaner Party and the Official Opposition, I just want to say that we should give honour where honour is due. If an Afrikaner has done great work on behalf of his people I am always prepared to raise my hat to him, even though I may differ from him. I am not going to try to drag that man through the mud. One of the members of the Afrikaner Party said that we had stabbed Genl. Hertzog in the back. When one talks about stabbing people one thinks of something mysterious, something which is done behind one’s back. We differed from Gen. Hertzog but we differed from him openly on the floor of this House. I appeal to the hon. member for Delarey, the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. A. P. Swart), and the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Venter) and other hon. members, to tell me whether that is not a fact. We differed from him on the 4th September, but we differed from him openly in this House. If there was a question of stabbing anyone it certainly was not done by us on this side. No, history will show who stabbed Gen. Hertzog, and I am pleased that my name will not be among the names of the people who did so. We have also heard a great deal about the causes of the riots which are taking place. If there is one thing I am convinced of it is that if we did not have people in this country who were pro-German we would not have had those riots, and there would have been no other troubles in this country. There would have been no need for them. Will any hon. member deny that? It was found that emergency regulations were needed here, and here, top, I say that if there were no proGerman people in the country, those emergency regulations would not have been necessary. Hon. members opposite will admit that those people are not On our side, but that they are on the side of members sitting opposite. I do not say that all hon. members opposite are pro-German, but I say that all the pro-German people are found among them.

Do you approve of those riots?

The Prime Minister himself, and every speaker on this side of the House, has expressed his disapproval of those riots, but I failed to hear a single word of sympathy from that side of the House for the soldiers who were attacked, and who were injured in those riots.

I have more sympathy for the innocent members of the police who were knocked about.

This is a question which I want to put: whether there is anyone on the other side of the House who has spoken a word of sympathy for the soldiers who were injured on that occasion? I want Hon. members over there to think this over. A soldier has to leave his own country and has to go and fight on distant shores. He knows that pro-German propaganda is being made in this country, and he is nervous of it. He says to himself: “What is going to happen to my people while I am busy fighting far away?” If a man like that afterwards feels disposed first of all to knock that propaganda on the head, before going away to fight, it is only human. They first of all want to make sure that their homes and their families whom they are leaving behind will be safe before they go away to fight, and I say here that the speeches made by hon. members opposite have been the chief cause of those assaults. Nobody can doubt it. The contempt which is continually showered on those people is the cause of all those troubles. Do hon. members forget that they have done the greatest harm to the country by that sort of thing? Even our Judiciary is being attacked by them. The Leader of the Opposition attacks our Judiciary. Everything is attacked, everything we have here for the purpose of maintaining law and order. Everything is brought into contempt in order to cause disorders so that hon. members opposite may see whether they cannot succeed in making political capital out of it. The previous Leader of the Opposition said that ons of the reasons why he could no longer agree with them, and remain with them, was because they were so absolutely irresponsible. If we would only make them more responsible we would be rendering a great service to this country. I want to get to another point now, and I want to put this question to the Opposition. The difference of opinion between the Afrikaner Party and the re-United Party of Bloemfontein was on the question of the rights of the English-speaking people; as we understand the position the constitution submitted to Congress provided that the English-speaking section would retain social and cultural rights equal to those of the other section. Now I want to put this question to my friends. All of us are citizens of this country, and I should like to know whether our Afrikaans-speaking people to-day have only cultured and social rights. Are those the only rights they have. No, we have many other rights besides social and cultural rights. If that is so it means that they want to give the English-speaking people less than what we, the Afrikaans-speaking people, have to-day, and if that is so then we shall never have peace in this country.

Where do you get your knowledge from?

Is my hon. friend who talks so much nonsense so full of this question? All the papers contain reports of what is going on. One of the main reasons why this country has no confidence in the Opposition is that a new position is being created as the result of an association of the Ossewa-Brandwag and the jukskei, the cultural and religious bodies, and we have no confidence in that party, because it is trying to destroy social life in this country, and because it approves of efforts to drive Afrikaans-speaking people on this side of the House out of the country. We are called Hanskhakis. We shall never run away. The fact that we are here proves that we are not of the type who run away. At a meeting which I recently attended there were people who asked me whether something could not be done to stop the Opposition from trying to disgrace our Afrikaner people. That question has often been put to me, and I say this to hon. members opposite. Differ from us in your speeches if you must, but this spreading of rumours about illegalities, contempt for our Judiciary and so on, brings disgrace on our people. The way in which the former Leader was treated brings disgrace on us. We hope that that Party will maintain their reputation and that we shall fight like men. When the day comes for them to run away, they will run away like the Italians, and they will not be proud of themselves. An hon. member of the Opposition told us the other day that war time was the very time when the Government should be most severely criticised on account of so many things being done then. I want to know where the hon. member gets the right to say a thing like that. Our Voortrekkers did not say that war time was the time to find fault; they took up the attitude that they had to carry on and fight, and now we hear that this is the time for criticism, and that this is the time to find fault and to make things difficult. I want to put another question to the Leader of the Opposition: He told us that the Government was turning Africa into a black compound. He is not here, but I should like to know whether they do not take any interest in the question of under whose authority the natives in the North stand? Do they want the natives in those countries to come entirely under foreign control? They refuse to answer me. We know that that sort of thing would not be to our good. They now want to tell the people that the Government is trying to turn Africa into a black compound. They want to resuscitate those old kaffir pamphlets.

Which pamphlets?

The pamphlets which you had in 1927.

The hon. member for North-East Rand (Mr. G. C. S. Heyns) was the first to mention those.

The Leader of the Opposition complained that we stigmatise certain people as patriots and that we cut them out. That is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said. How can a man call another man a patriot if he is not prepared to defend his own country? During our last session we were told that they would not be prepared to defend this country if this country were attacked, even if it were attacked by natives from the North. For these reasons I congratulate the Afrikaner Party. They are not going to associate themselves with questions of that kind. They may differ from us about the war policy but they will stand by us when we are threatened. The Opposition has been purified of all patriots; the patriots of that party are among the Afrikaner Party to-day. I think it is a disgrace that people should speak on that question and still call them patriots. One more point. We are told that we are fighting this war for the sake of Haile Selassie, a native, in order to put him on the throne. What did the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. H. Grobler) do a few years ago when he voted for sanctions?

I voted for a principle.

The hon. member pleaded for the same things in order to stop the country being taken by Italians.

I shall answer you just now.

We must remember that we have had discussions, we must carry on our arguments, but we must not come along every day with a different principle or a different argument. There is another point which I want to put to the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom): He said we were indulging in victimisation, and after that he said that the day of reckoning would come. What sort of talk is that? Is not that victimisation. We have been told by all the members of the Opposition that the day of settlement was coming. Can they produce any evidence that this side of the House has gone as far as that? Are they afraid—is that the reason why they tell the public these things? I am convinced that if the party were to come into power at some future time we would learn what victimisation really means. If that new order comes into power we shall really learn what victimisation means.

It depends whether you are susceptible to reason.

And now we get the difference between the old Hertzogites and the Malanites. I should like to be a little more clear on the point. I know that not all of them over there would drag their fellow Afrikaners through the mud, but the majority of them would, and that is what we can expect of them. But we shall continue to do our duty to our country in spite of any threats.

Amen!

The hon. member who is so keen on saying “Amen” would do better if he said it more often in the right place. Only yesterday he was called to order It may happen again. This Government is at war. Why? As the hon. member for Vereeniging has said won’t hon. members leave those trivialities alone? We are at war now, let us stop this sort of thing. If hon. members are unwilling to do anything let them allow the Government to carry on with its policy. When the war is over the Opposition can come along and say, “The time for a settlement has now arrived.” This is not the time to say it, when we are in the middle of a fight. This is not the time for us to try and upset each other because let me say this, the Opposition will suffer just as much as we shall; we are all going to suffer. I hope all of us have heard what has been said in this debate, and if there is one thing I am convinced of it is that this debate has shewn the small mindedness of the Opposition. They have shewn their small mindedness by having dared to introduce this motion If we are to have any confidence in the Opposition they should at any rate display a sense of responsibility; that is what the public expect of them and they also expect of them that this spirit of hatred which they cherish against their own people will disappear once and for all.

The hon. member who has just sat down spoke about what we had done in 1936 when we were prepared to support sanctions against Italy. He wants to know why we are not prepared now to support the war. That shows how little the hon. member understands the position. I can understand that the hon. member is under a misapprehension, but that the Minister without Portfolio who knows what the position is….

Did you want to have somebady else put on the throne?

I shall make clear what the difference is between then and now. In 1936 we adopted that attitude as members of the League of Nations. The former Prime Minister explained the position at that time in the House and it was clear from his speech what was the difference between the position as it was then and the position as it is to-day. Gen. Hertzog said this —

I think that that is very clear. I am sorry the Minister without Portfolio is not here, but I can appreciate his absence seeing that he missed his beauty sleep last night. Anyhow, I think it is most unreasonable on the part of the hon. member, and on the part of the Minister without Portfolio, to intimate that the present position is analagous to the position in connection with Abyssinia in 1936. I do not intend wasting much time on the hon. member. He is one of those who generally indulges in a lot of big talk, but when the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) challenged him to resign his seat and to fight a seat against him, he looked for all sorts of excuses. But we know what the hon. member’s position is. He will stick to his seat and nobody will be able to move him.

Yes, but your electors will move you.

I am quite prepared to resign my seat to-morrow and then he can come and oppose me if he wants to.

Why should I do so?

Oh, yes, the hon. member is running away again. Now I should like very briefly to go into a few of the points mentioned here this morning by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt. Col. Rood). He said, inter alia, and he stated it as a fact, that if we had remained neutral Germany would in any case have come here and have conquered us. What evidence has he to prove that? What more evidence did he have that we would have been conquered by Germany than that Germany was going to conquer Egypt or Ireland?

What about Holland and Belgium?

Is it necessary for Germany to go through South Africa to get to France? Of course not. Hon. members should realise that the position in regard to Belgium and Holland was such that they were in between the belligerent countries and that was why Germany went through those countries.

And do you approve of that?

I am only mentioning facts. I am not saying whether I approve of it or not. The hon. member said that that also applied to Norway. That is correct. Germany’s whole policy is to get the whole of the Coast of Europe into its power in order to attack England, and that being so hon. members should not compare the position of Holland and Belgium with that of South Africa. I am dealing with South Africa’s position on its own merits. There are hon. members here who stated that we are fighting for the freedom of South Africa. We wanted to keep out of the war because we did not want South Africa’s freedom to be endangered. Whatever contribution South Africa may make to the war is not going to have any deciding effect on the war, but members opposite were prepared for South Africa to throw in its lot without South Africa being able to contribute anything towards the final decision of the war. We admit fully to-day that South Africa is in danger, but it is members opposite, it is the Prime Minister, who have endangered South Africa by declaring war against Germany and Italy.

And do you refuse now to assist in getting us out of that danger?

The hon. member reminds me of the case of the man who was warned not to jump into the water. He jumped into the water and then shouted out to people „You must come and help me out now.” The hon. member for Vereeniging further contended that America was already in the war. Well, I do not want to go into that question except just to say this: if we on the 4th September had decided not to take any greater part in the war than America is doing now, there would not have been any split. That I am convinced of. We said, and the Prime Minister at that time proposed, that we should carry out our obligations in regard to Simonstown, and we would have taken all the necessary steps to defend South Africa against any possible invasion. But the hon. member for Vereeniging, of course, knows nothing about that, because at that time he was in England. Now I want to come back to the Minister without Portfolio and I want to deal with what he said here Yesterday. Throughout the whole of his speech he emphasised only one thing, and that was our declaration of war against Italy. He never said a word about Germany. He told us where he thought South Africa would have been in danger, and that danger, he thought, would have come from the side of Italy, but if the danger only came from the side of Italy, why then did we declare war on the 4th September? Why did we not wait until Italy was in the war? The danger which the hon. Minister emphasised so strongly did not exist on the 4th September. All this goes to show that there is not the slightest doubt that there was only one reason for our declaration of war and that was that Great Britain was in the war. Now I want to revert to a few matters which were raised by the Prime Minister in his answer to the motion of the Leader of the Opposition. First of all I want to say this: if one reads the papers one can quite realise that the Prime Minister must be very grateful for the fact that he has those papers. This applies particularly to the English Press. One would really think from what those papers say that that side of the House has completely knocked the bottom out of the case put up by this side of the House, although all of us know that the very opposite is the case. The Prime Minister said that he failed to understand on what grounds the vote of no confidence has been proposed. Naturally, there are none so deaf as those who will not hear, and none so blind as those who will not see. And that being so one can quite understand the Prime Minister’s attitude, and if the Prime Minister, after everything that has happened, can still say that the farmers have reason to be grateful for what the Government has doen, and that he is proud of the Government’s financial policy, then I can quite understand why he fails to see the grounds on which this motion has been introduced. I do not propose saying much about the position of the farmers. Quite a lot has been said on that score already, and in addition to that there is a motion on the Order Paper. The same thing applies to the Government’s financial policy. I only want to put one question to the Minister of Finance on the subject of this so called sound policy of the Government’s. If the Government’s financial policy is really as good as the Minister has told us it is, then I want to put this question to the Minister. How is it possible that South Africa during certain months spent more money per head of white population than is the case even in Great Britain? We can judge the waste of money that is taking place if we take into account the fact that Great Britain is already fighting for its existence to-day. Great Britain is not fighting only on its home front but is fighting in the Continent of Africa, while our Union troops had not fired a single shot until about ten days ago. While we have already fired a shot at all we have spent more per head of population than Great Britain, and Great Britain is fighting for its existence. That being so, are we not entitled to say that there is a terrible waste of money? Yet the Prime Minister tells us that he sees no cause for this motion. The Prime Minister, however, while making an interruption during the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, admitted that we had good cause for this motion of ours. The Leader of the Opposition was showing that on the 4th September there was an irreconcilable difference of opinion between the two sides and the Prime Minister immediately admitted that that was so by remarking “from both sides”. Now I ask the Prime Minister whether he considers that he as a responsible statesman had the right to drag his country into war if he knew that by doing so he was going to split the people form top to bottom? I want to ask him whether he can mention any other country where a responsible statesman would have dared to take a step like that under similar conditions?

It was the will of the people.

Why don’t you test the will of the people.

I again ask this House and the Prime Minister whether in view of this irreconcilable difference of opinion which existed he had the right to plunge this country into war. I say it was his duty in the very first place to study the feelings of the people. The Prime Minister is not here and that being so I shall put the question to the Minister of Justice. In view of what I have said, namely that the declaration of war was going to divide the people, and in view of the fact that the Minister realised that on the 4th September there was a farreaching difference of opinion between the two sides of the House—for those reasons I want to know whether the Government under those conditions had the right to plunge the country into war, and whether we are not entitled, bearing in mind the reckless attitude adopted by the government, to introduce this vote of no confidence. Have we not got the right to mistrust a responsible person when he is willing to split his people from top to bottom? For those reasons I say that we had every right to introduce this vote of no confidence. But not only did we have the right to do so because of the fact that the Prime Minister should have realised that he was going to split the people, we also had the right to protest against the manner in which the Gevernment and the Prime Minister plunged the country into war at that stage. Let us see what the Prime Minister promised the people before the 4th September. I am not going to repeat any of the quotations which have already been given by several speakers. I only want to point out that the Prime Minister at that time went out of his way to assure us that if a war should break out in Europe in which England would be involved, in consequence of obligations which she had taken upon herself, South Africa would have nothing at all to do with such a war. We supported the Party of which the Prime Minister was Deputy Prime Minister in those days, and we went to the platteland in all honesty and we told the country that if Great Britain should be involved in a war in Europe we would not take part. We said that on the authority of the present Prime Minister. Did he ever publicly state that we were misrepresenting his opinion? No, he remained silent until the 3rd September. And yet the hon. member for Potchefstroom has the temerity to say that they did not stab the former Prime Minister in the back! We were honestly opposed to such a war and we honestly thought that they stood by us, but they dragged us into the war on false pretensions. I want to mention another reason why we have no confidence in the Government. We have no confidence in the Government because the Government appears to be determined to keep South Africa in this mad war. Why? Not because, as is said, we are fighting for Christianity, nor because we are fighting for democracy. Consequently we did not enter the war on the 4th September because we were in any way menaced. Nor for any of the reasons explained in thirty speeches which have to be broadcast to tell the people what we are fighting for. So there is only one reason and that reason can be summarised in seven words: „We are in because England is in it.” There is no other reason. Now I want to put a very definite question to the Minister of Justice in order to prove this. They say that we are not in this war simply because Great Britain is in it. Assuming for a moment that Great Britain were to decide to-morrow to make peace—would South Africa then carry on with the war? Not for one moment. Even this Government would not be foolish enough in that case to carry on with the war. Let the Minister answer that question.

We shall only make peace when we have won the war.

That is a typical Steynsian excuse. He answers the question put to him by evading it. Let the Minister if necessary give me a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question. If England makes peace to-morrow, will South Africa then carry on with the war? Of course not. I do not propose going into that question any further. It is said that we are fighting for Christianity and democracy. The hypocrisy of this contention has been shown up sufficiently, and I do not propose going into that point any further. All I want to say is that hon. members over there do not themselves believe those stories. Then we have the argument that South Africa was threatened. Was South Africa really threatened on the 4th September? If so, why then is it only necessary 18 months later to attack the enemy a few thousand miles away from the borders of South Africa? But let us assume that South Africa was menaced. Does the Minister want the House to believe that South Africa was menaced to a greater extent than Egypt or Ireland, or Turkey, or Hungary, or Bulgaria? Certainly not. Even when Egypt was invaded the Government there did not think it necessary to declare war. But we had to declare war although we are thousands of miles away from the scene of war. We therefore have the right to propose this motion because South Africa was plunged into this war and is being kept in this war under false pretensions. We furthermore mistrust this Government because it refuses to see what is going on under its very eyes. I need not say much about what is going on in South Africa, but after the answer which the Prime Minister gave to the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the riots on the Witwatersrand we are doubly entitled to propose a vote of no confidence. Let us look at what is taking place in Johannesburg. Scandalous happenings are occurring every day, the same as are occurring here in Adderley Street. The hon. member calls it “a lot of bother!” when we talk about it. He describes the attitude of people who are assaulted as deliberate provocation. Who are provoking those people? We are to take it then that the skollies and the soldiers and sailors in Adderley Street are provoked. But in what way are they being provoked? We do not prevent people from praying if they want to do so, but what happens? They can pray as much as they like, but we are forced to pray as well, and to stand still. How can the Prime Minister expect that there will ever be a good spirit in South Africa if things like that are allowed to take place? Let me mention what happened to me personally. The Leader of the Afrikaner Party and I were in a café one Sunday night. The orchestra played Rule Britannia and because we refused to get up they wanted to knock us about. Now, where is this so called freedom and this so called democracy? It was not even a National Anthem they were playing, but an ordinary war song. What right has the Government to demand that we shall trust them if things like that are allowed to go on? The answer given by the Prime Minister to the charges made by this side of the House proved that he was powerless. That fact is also clear from the regulations which he has now again issued. He is so powerless and he is driven along to such an extent by the extremist element on his side that he is actually making provision in the regulations that if anyone assaults a soldier he renders himself liable to punishment. But no provision is made that soldiers will also be liable if they assault anyone. Is not this a scandalous instance of preferential treatment? The regulations do not speak of white soldiers—this refers to all soldiers. We have large numbers of coloured troops, and we take it that they are to be allowed to knock an Afrikaner about as much as they like, and it will not matter. They will not be dealt with under the regulations. How can the Government expect the people to have confidence in them when they proclaim regulations of that kind. Is it fair for one sided regulations like that to be promulgated? The troops should also be liable to punishment if it can be proved that they have attacked others. I am mentioning this particular regulation in view of the very serious complaint that some soldiers are assaulting the public. Many statements have been made by the Government against the people who they describe as the “bearded men”. It is always the bearded men who attack the soldiers, but now I want to ask the Minister why he does not appoint an impartial Commission, if necessary under the chairmanship of a judge, which can go into all those complaints and which can decide whether there is any truth in those loose charges made for instance by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell). The hon. member has not produced any evidence to prove his charges, but if a Commission is appointed the troops will be able to prove their complaints of assaults having been made on them, and we shall then be able to see whether there is any truth in those stories. But the Minister is not going to appoint a Commission, because if a Commission were appointed it would be found that it is not the Ossewa-Brandwag and the bearded men who are responsible for all these assaults. The Prime Minister apparently realised that he had a poor case, and that is why he followed the tactics which a good advocate usually follows, and he tried to distract attention from the weakness of his case by directing it to the alleged weakness of the case of his opponents. He states that this party is unable to put up an alternative Government. I do not want to argue that point with him but I only want to point out that the Prime Minister has with him on the other side of the House a conglomeration of people—it is a pot pourri Government consisting of four or five different parties. What right has he then to accuse us of being unable to form an alternative Government? The only thing on which hon. members opposite are in agreement is that they want to see the war through. May I just be allowed to say here that we on this side of the House are just as unanimous in opposition on that particular point, namely to stop the war immediately. That group of parties on the other side of the House stand together on only one point, namely the “see the war through policy”. In other respects they differ from each other even more than the Afrikaner party differ from us. We agree for instance on the Native question. I want to ask the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig. Gen. Botha) whether he agrees with the policy of the Native representatives? Certainly not. Do the hon. members for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe); Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) and others agree with the policy of the Minister of Finance towards the Asiatics? No, there are great differences of opinion among them, and that group which now stands behind the Prime Minister can never remain united when the war is over. Let me point to the difference there is between the official Opposition and the Afrikaner Party. The difference is really not even a difference in principle. We find that even the Leader of the Afrikaner Party said this in his speech:

Consequently it is not a difference on principle. Hon. members opposite cannot say the same. There are far-reaching differences of principle in that Coalition which supports the Government. A further accusation which the Prime Minister made against us, and in this respect charges also came from members of the Afrikaner Party, is that this Party is out for Afrikaner domination. That is a charge which is made against us repeatedly. But on no occasion has any of those members ever referred to our programme of principles to show justification for that interpretation. No, there is no such thing in our programme of principles. In times such as we are passing through at present when feelings run high, and especially when we are dealing with a Government such as we have now, which has committed political fraud as it did on the 4th September, we can understand that people’s feelings sometimes run away with them, and that they say hard things which they regret afterwards. But we cannot quote such statements as the declaration of policy of a Party. I say that when feelings have calmed down everyone will realise, that is everyone who uses his common sense, that a policy of domination of the one race over the other can never be applied in South Africa. Why is that impossible? There are two facts which we have to take into account in this connection. The first is that we must take it as an accomplished fact that Providence has placed two races here, whether we like it or not. That is a fact which we cannot change. We have to accept it as an accomplished fact. Providence has placed them there. If we realise that, the time will perhaps come when we shall respect each other’s just rights. If we appreciate that fact, and if we accept it as an accomplished fact, we have the other fact emanating from that, namely, this I say this with the greatest emphasis, that no Party in this country will be able to get into power by democratic means without to a certain extent enjoying the support of English-speaking South Africa at the poll. I say „by democratic means” because we have to provide for several alternatives. There are three alternatives; the one is that Germany may win the war; the second is that a position of checkmate may arise, and a third is that Great Britain may win the war. All these we have to take into account. I am not going to deal with the merits of those three alternatives. I am only pointing out that one has to take those three alternatives into account. If England wins the war, or if we get a position of check-mate, then the position of South Africa from a social economic point of view, remains practically the same. If Germany wins the war, then all the Parties are finished. Hitler will do as he pleases and is not going to ask us what we want. But if England wins the war, or if the war ends in a position of checkmate, South Africa will be obliged to fight elections on a democratic basis, and the Party which along those lines wants to get into power will find it necessary to obtain to a certain extent the support of the English-speaking section. [Time limit.]

When this motion of no confidence came before this House I had naturally supposed, sir, that it was based on most serious grounds and that, of course, there would be placed before this House not only criticisms on the major problems that face this country, and the methods and ways by which the Government conducts these major issues, but that there would be placed before us, as the hon. the Prime Minister said, an alternative form of Government. I also think that you would hold, sir, that a motion of no confidence has no right to be merely a peg on which to hang all the small petty party grievances, especially at a time when the country is facing grave issues on account of the war, therefore. I think with great justice one must expect, and I certainly expected, that proposals would be put forward by the Opposition as to how the Government of this country should be conducted and as to how they themselves would be able to do it. Well, sir, of course since the question has already been discussed in the other part of the session, the question of peace and neutrality, that motion could not come up again, and one did not expect that this motion would hinge round those questions, more especially since very great changes now have taken place in the war situation since then, like the successes of the British in North Africa, but especially the coming of America more closely into the orbit of the war. It seems to me as the Debate has developed that it has been almost an impertinence to bring forward a motion of no confidence in the form in which it has been brought into this House. It is true there were, or there are, by implication from former speeches before the session opened by members of the Opposition, two alternative forms of Government for this country. We have the Government that can be set up by the Leader of the Opposition. What Government is it that he proposes for us. It is difficult to follow them because their principles have been changed so often and so rapidly that I could not help being struck by the remarks credited to Sammy Marks “If you do not like our principles we have others.” But what were those principles? In fact, and I must take this to be absolutely correct because it is the point on which Gen. Hertzog broke, their alternative Government, according to their principles must be a Government based entirely on the domination of that small section of the Afrikaans speaking people and the victimisation of the English speaking people in this House, and probably the other section of the Afrikaans speaking people. It is true I did hear some talk about victimisation on the other side. I think it came from the hon. member for Waterberg. How he dare talk about that based as it is on totally untrue facts when he himself proposes to victimise a whole section of these people by depriving them of their rights ….

That is a reprisal.

I do not see how an alternative Government based on those considerations, where one half of the people will be victimised in this country, can possibly be put up as a sound argument, even when they were a united party. The only other alternative, again by implication of course, is the new order of the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow), which is so alien to this country, especially for the reasons which the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) expressed namely the calvinistic ideals of this country, that it could not be considered for one moment. If those alternative plans are not proposed by the Leader of the Opposition then one would expect to hear how he would deal with the major difficulties and problems of this country. Did he do so? Did he deal with any of our major problems laying down any policy as to how he proposed to deal with them? Did he deal with our Native question? Did he even deal with the malconduct of the war itself on the part of the Government? He dealt, sir, with none of those main issues, and on the one grave issue that is ever present in this country—to me perhaps the gravest of all, the relations between the two races—so far from showing how he was going to improve those relations exactly the opposite charge can be laid against him. I have sat in this House now for seven years and at one time there were a great many members who now sit on those Opposition benches who were with us, men whom I thought were our friends, men whom I thought were honestly trying to promote the unity of the races in this country. I want to say here now I have never in all my life been so profoundly disappointed and so profoundly shocked as by some of the speeches made by some of those whom I have always considered not only as my friends but friendly towards the English speaking people in this country. I think of the bitter speeches of the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé); I think of the bitter speeches and interjections of the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel), and I can mention a great many others who were with us. There is the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne). I say I have been very greatly shocked by the bitterness, the deep seated bitterness against my people, the people from whom I spring, and so far from telling us how they proposed to better the relations between the two peoples in this country, I have always had a feeling, and I am sure my instincts are not wrong in this matter, that every bitter and unkind thought or word that can be said across the floor from that side of the House to this side to injure our feelings was being done.

How many unkind feelings go to make up for one assault by many soldiers on one private individual?

They do not come from the English speaking section in this House. What is it that they have so against us that their every attitude over there can only lead us to suppose that they hope Germany will win this war? Hatred is a most expensive luxury, the most expensive of all. I remember in 1937 I went through a great many countries of Europa, and the bitterness and race hatred that I sensed in Central Europe made me see that nothing could save the countries of the old Austrian Empire from domination of Germany. The hatreds in those three Nations that had formed the old Austrian Empire was so great that I came back to this country and used that as a peg on which to hang my pleadings for race unity in this country. Let me recall briefly the history of this country and the British connection with it. I want to put this point to you; if Britain had not come here you would have been part of the French Colonial Empire to-day. Do not forget that?

We do not believe that at all.

Britain came here because she had to forestall the entrance of Napoleon here. That is the only difference, again, how can hon. members opposite claim that my people have not had as great a share—I say as great a share because I do not give you the kudos in having the greater share—in the building up of this country than the Afrikaans speaking South Africans. We are here and you cannot do without us. You are always stirring to the surface this bitterness against the English speaking people, but that will not in the end serve your purpose in any shape or form. It is making poor whites of your children, not because you want it, but because they are so politically-ridden. You are destroying your children by the very fact of the type of school you institute, and your methods. I refer to the division of the schools into English and Afrikaans medium. You are taking from them that right they have of becoming thoroughly bilingual. I repeat there is no luxury more expensive for a nation or a people than the luxury of hatred.

Are you bilingual?

Now sir, let me say this, we take the broader view because we are accustomed to look at things more internationally than you are. We feel we have a better perspective of world affairs than you have. Sir, I think that my friends opposite who know me, and who know many of us on this side, will realise that we genuinely believe in our own minds that we are helping to save this country from a dreadful disaster by entering the war. They must believe that that is true, because we are backing up our opinion with the life of our children. Is there anything more that you can do, than to give your sons for a war like this? Surely, you must agree that we believe in our minds that we are fighting to save South Africa from a dreadful disaster.

I have very good reasons, quite apart from all the other reasons, for the safeguarding of democracy, reasons why I think this war has to be fought. I remember making a speech in which I spoke of German family life. I have never had an opportunity of answering the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) who tried to pooh-pooh the correctness of thé data I had given in the picture of German family life which I drew. Everything I said in that speech was taken not at random from pamphlets and newspaper reports printed outside Germany, but from articles printed in Germany itself, I want to expand that point for a moment, because it is my reason for being absolutely determined that if the last Englishman in this country has to give his life, Germany will never enter here. These two articles I am going to read are very brief — and I will give you my authority. They deal with family life and the schools and the position which is deliberately being brought about in Germany to-day for the sake of the state, and just as a contributory remark, I will point out the danger of the same sort that is starting in this country to-day. This article, which I am going to read to you, is taken from the journal of the Hitler Youth, and the date is the 1st May, 1940 —

Is it not perfectly clear, then, that with regard to the Hitler Youth movement, its one aim is to protect children against the family influence, and may I say is not that what our teachers in our schools are beginning to inculcate in our children? I will read one further extract from a speech of Dr. Goebbels made in Munich in May, 1934—

Those are the beliefs and teachings in Germany and I see the writing on the wall in this country to-day in the teaching of some of our own teachers in regard to biassing our children against democracy and all the things which I stand for. I will say as long as I am alive I hope the Germans will never come into this country. With all these thoughts behind us and remembering the fact that we feel we are the real patriots in this country, remembering the fact that we are willing to shed our blood and that of those who are near and dear to us, in that light I wish to speak of the riots which have occurred in Johannesburg. For months past the soldiers have been unable to go about in safety except in groups of twos and threes. I have often picked up soldiers on the roadside who have said we have accepted your lift because you are a woman alone but we are afraid to get into cars to-day. Twice have I picked up soldiers who have told me that within the last month they had been waited for outside the Johannesburg railway station and offered a lift and were taken into the veld and beaten; the numberplates had been carefully covered up beforehand, showing the attacks were deliberately planned. These soldiers have the feeling that they are unprotected and their feelings have run very high; from all the information I have had from telegrams from Johannesburg, I am convinced that in their own mind they feel that the riot was organised by the Ossewa-Brandwag who came armed in Johannesburg and that the police, at any rate, seemed to be taking sides against them.

The Police only did their duty.

A most curious interjection took place in the House last night. I wonder it was not taken up. I heard it. It came from the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). I think it was the hon. member for George. When the hon. Minister for Labour was speaking about the inflammatory action of civilans he said: “What about the incitement against our side, our police.” Was he associating the police in Johannesburg with, and was it his intention to associate these police with the Ossewa-Brandwag?

Oh No.

That is exactly how in an angry moment your interjection sounded to me.

On a point of order. I am being falsely accused.

I am merely saying, Sir, the words he used and how they appeared to me. They were said in the heat of the moment. I will leave that alone but I want to say this. It is a very strange thing that to the Johannesburg hospital 140 injured soldiers were taken but practically no civilians and only three policemen.

The civilians did not attack.

One can understand that because the only people who were armed are the civilians who took part in the riot and the police. These casualties have still to be explained. How can it be expected of us on this side of the House to have kindly feelings towards them when we know they are deliberately trying to harm the people who are, rightly or wrongly, — you may think wrongly — giving their lives for this country. As long as that goes on and as long as the attitude is adopted on that side towards soldiers of this country who are near and dear to us, the bitterness must increase in this country and I say again that there is no luxury more expensive than hatred and bitterness. Now Sir, I want to make my main point which was really in my mind when rising. I know what hon. members opposite hope for. They hope for a Republic with complete isolation. I understand their republican aspirations and in part I also understand their desire for isolation out here. I understand because I am also one of those people who likes to be on my own and who likes to sit in my own backyard and let the world go by. But it is no use ignoring world facts. Isolation is not possible to-day. Can these hon. gentlemen name any neutral country which is neutral by the fact of just staying out of the war but who in my opinion is neutral only because they are backed by some powerful nation?

Ireland.

She is backed by Britain. Ireland cannot exist without Britain.

What about Switzerland?

You may suggest the Argentine Republic who surely to-day owe their independence and their failure to be involved in this war purely to the fact that the Munroe Doctrine and that they are dependant on the protection of the United States. We who have travelled far more widely than you and have read far more widely than you on these matters know how this is simply a fallacy. South Africa’s strategic position alone makes it impossible to stand alone. We have no navy. What is there to protect us? You must know it must be the fleet of one of the four great powers to-day, the United States, Great Britain, Germany or Japan? You cannot stand alone in this country. I am quite convinced that the most amazing future is opening before us in the Union of South Africa which is completely missed by the sort of people who sit opposite. What is happening in Africa? By the abolition of first the German element from Africa and now of the Italian element the position is arising of a great Continent to which in the future this country might almost be able to apply a doctrine like the Munroe Doctrine.

That is what you would like.

It is so. A sweep of conquest is taking place that will bring Africa almost entirely under the domination of the British Commonwealth of Nations. What stands in our way? We are to-day fast building up an industrial nation in South Africa supplying many of the needs of Africa to our work and, Sir, it does not matter what the Opposition and their like do or what they think in their narrow outlook, there is nothing that they can do to stop this development. But what they are trying to do is to break away from the Commonwealth of Nations, thereby what they are doing in fact is to deny to their children the tremendous privilege of being the dominant nation in the whole of Africa. There are two things I do plead for: I can say here absolutely that there is no Afrikaans-speaking in this country against whom I have any rancour or any bitterness. Is there any reason why you cannot say the same towards us? Do you really believe that the Afrikaans-speaking people can go on alone withouth the English-speaking people? The very fact of this great native population in our midst and our need for mutual protection, for the pooling of our mutual resources and our intellect to solve this difficult question makes it impossible for us to quarrel. I suppose it is quite useless asking you to take some pride in these young fellows, members of your own families and members of my family going out, rightly or wrongly, to give their lives because they feel that they are doing their duty towards South Africa? Well, Sir, these boys are giving up their chances of their profession while all their boys are staying behind making themselves snug. Our sons are throwing away their chances of a livelihood and they cannot pay tribute to their courage and their patriotism.

What about our sons who are out of work because they won’t sign op?

I believe in my heart that they are ashamed, Sir, another plea I would like to make is on this question of isolation. Take the long and big view that you can take part in something very great, this great development taking place in Africa, by associating ourselves wholeheartedly with the British Commonwealth of Nations, which in future may be so strong that it can for ever keep the peace of the world. But whatever you do, we can go on without you as a United Party and a united people. You can not destroy the things we stand for, however narrow your outlook is, and you cannot deny us that heritage which rightly belongs to us.

I have got up in order to give my hearty support to the motion introduced by my Leader, and I do so because I personally have no confidence in the Government which has placed itself on those benches. I also say that because those people whom I represent have no confidence in the Government, and I say so because there are hundreds of thousands of Afrikaners in the country who would not dream of having any confidence in the Government’s policy. We mistrust this Government; we distrust it principally because of this fatal war which the Government is waging to the detriment and possibly to the ruin of this country. A great deal has been said here to give the impression that it is the people who put the Government in power, but we know that the people never had a chance of expressing themselves on the question as to whether they wanted this Government or not. The Government knows how they availed themselves of the opportunity of taking the reins of office into their own hands. I want to go into the reasons given by the Government as to why it was necessary for us to take part in this war, even though we have had to listen to those reasons ad nauseam. I want to mention a few of those reasons, and I should like to analyse them. At one time the Prime Minister used to travel through the platteland and on those occasions he told the people what were the reasons why we were at war. The people took no notice of him and in my constituency they gave him a big vote of no confidence. He said “We must take part in this war because this country is a Nabob’s vineyard, and the eyes on every country are fixed on us.” He said that the other countries of the world were anxious to have this vineyard of ours—so much so that they would take it away from us. Hon. members who know the history of South Africa will realise how much truth there is in that story. I know my history, and when I tell hon. members about our history I do so because it is a history of suffering. I want to ask the Government whether this England on whose behalf we have been dragged into this war is not the very country which most of all wanted our Nabob’s vineyard? Is it not this very country which not only desired to have our vineyard, but which actually took it away from us by means which she adopted forty years ago? Is there any other power which desired to possess itself of this Nabob’s vineyard? Can the Prime Minister really make use of arguments of that kind?

Yes, but you must also remember that England returned our country to us.

I admit that. We have a certain amount of freedom and we want to enjoy and live our freedom. That is all very well, but if one has one’s house taken away and one is given a back room to live in, can one be expected to be satisfied with that sort of thing?

I wish you would explain that.

We had a free independent sovereign republic, two free independent sovereign republics, in which we were able to enjoy our freedom, and live as a free people, and Great Britain came along and deprived us of our freedom, and the freedom which we have to-day is a freedom enjoyed by a baboon with a chain round his leg. And that is the back room which I am speaking about, and the other thing is the fact that we have been foorced into this war.

Will you explain that.

It is true that we were not been forced to go into this war, but on the 4th September the present Government scraped together as many members as it possibly could in order to drag us into the war, and that is our much vaunted freedom! We heard other arguments as well; we had this favourite argument of the Prime Minister’s put before us, that England was our best friend.

*Mr. STEYTLER; But that is what your own Leader stated.

If the hon. member knows our history then I ask what right the English speaking section of the country have to expect, after what we have suffered at the hands of Great Britain, that we should now go and fight for Great Britain?

Read our history.

I know the history. I read that part of our history which the Afrikaner people will never be able to forget, though you have forgotten it. If England is our best friend how is it that we buy two thirds more from her than she buys from us? And England is only too pleased at the fact that we are buying from her and that she can buy from us, and then we hear all these stories about friendship and protection which we can expect from Great Britain, and we hear about the love she has for us, and the freedom she has restored to us—stories of love! It is that sort of love which make me think of the story of the elephant which comes across a bird’s nest; the mother bird flies away and leaves her chickens in the nest. The elephant says, “I myself am a mother, and I shall look after your little ones”, so she goes and lies in the nest. We know what the other side of the House has been telling us; we know that they have told us that it is our honour and our duty to be on Great Britain’s side, it is our honour and our duty to stand by Great Britain in a war in which England has involved herself. If we are a sovereign, free and independent country, what honour is there in making sacrifices, financial sacrifices, for the sake of helping England? What honour is there what duty rests on us, to do these things, if we are sovereign and independent? How can we be free? What duty rests upon us? No, the only honour I know is this—the honour to me, and the only duty resting upon us is the duty to respect that freedom and that independence and to preserve it and to enjoy it. And then we get this ridiculous “lie and rot story”. I do not want to say much about that. I only want to ask what about Ireland? Ireland is close to Great Britain, it is subject to attack by the enemy, but it has remained neutral and it trades as never before with Great Britain. Ireland is selling more potatoes to Great Britain than ever before— even its rotten potatoes which it was never able to sell in the past. And then we hear the story of democracy. The Government has made a farce of it. We now have emergency regulations in force and under those regulations we have not even got the right to breathe. If one wants to inform one’s constituents about the Government’s misdeeds one runs the risk of being put in gaol and of being fined. If that is democracy, then what is autocracy? Then we get this playing about with religion. They say that they are fighting for the maintenance of religious freedom. The fact is that they are busy trying to put Haile Selassie, the black man, back on his throne. I want to ask the hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler) what Haile Selassie’s religious convictions are to-day? This contention of theirs that they are fighting for religion is nothing but hypocrisy. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister said here that he was proud of the Government’s financial policy. I wonder what the Government is going to do after all this waste of money that has been going on. Will the Government ever be ashamed of having wasted all this money? Are they ever to show us anything for the millions they have spent, with the exception of the circus which has travelled through the country and which has cost thousands of pounds. The circus with the clown from Krugersdorp on the box seat, who was eating monkey nuts all the time? All this has to be paid for by the public who are already suffering great privations. The hon. member for Carolina (Mr. Fourie) asked where there were any starving people in this country. Naturally, they are near the feeding trough, they get double allowances, and they do not do anything. In their position it is quite easy to ask where the starving people are — they are having an easy time of it. But we who know those people and are in touch with them, we are conversant with the conditions that prevail in the country and we are aware of the reckless waste of money going on, the end of which we are unable to see. Now the Prime Minister says that the farmers have been saved, but the Minister of Lands comes along immediately afterwards and tells us that it is due to the gold standard that half of the farmers to-day are still in a state of bankruptcy and subservience. How can one reconcile those two statements? We are farmers who carry on the business of farmers, and we know that these people are doing everything in their power, that they are even selling their stock in order to reduce their debts, because they know that after the war it is the farming community which again will have to bear the heaviest burdens and which will have to beg the Government to help them make a living. It will be the farming community in particular who will have to bear the burdens and who will have to pay for this fatal war. Millions of money will have been spent, our borrowing ability will have been curtailed, and the taxpayers will be exhausted, and the Land Bank will no longer have £800,000 at their disposal to lend to the farmers, and the farmers will be in trouble. Hon. members on the other side of the House tell us that we are carrying on in a reckless manner, that we are breaking up our party, and that we will never get anywhere on account of our having refused to co-operate with the English section of the community, and on account of our having put them out of our party. The Leader of the new Afrikaner Party got up here and to the amusement of the people who are now going to suck him dry like a lemon, and who will cast him aside when they are finished with him, he set about belittling the Afrikaner in the eyes of the people on the other side of the House, and he did a lot of harm and caused a lot of sorrow to the people who put him here and who will never send him here again. The hon. member is cutting off his own nose and he will spite his beautiful face even further than he has already done, and when he has lost his nose I wonder how Professor Cilliers will be able to lead him by the nose any longer. Now, what do hon. members opposite say? We are already hearing talk about the junior S.A.P. We are now being accused of being inspired by hatred and malice towards the English-speaking section of the population. What are the facts? I want to quote what Genl. Hertzog said at Smithfield in his own constituency, shortly after the 4th September—

These are the words of the man on whose behalf the hon. member for Vredefort is getting up here. He just follows a person. He is unable to show us anything Wrong in our programme. What is the position? When we got our freedom in 1926—

The freedom of the baboon.

Yes, but a great many other baboons are walking about freely. When we obtained that sovereign independence with which I am no longer satisfied to-day, because I want to go a great deal further, we had to get a flag in order to symbolise our freedom. We could no longer hoist the old Vierkleur, and ever since the Boer War we have been saddled with the objectionable Union Jack of another Power. The Afrikaner people thereupon let the Vierkleur go, but demanded that we should have a clean flag in our country. Did hon. members opposite support the then Prime Minister in those days? Did they meet the Afrikaner in that respect? Did they appreciate the concessions which the Afrikaners made to them? No, they strongly protested and we almost had civil war. What are the results? We have our Union flag here today.

Are you already running away from your flag?

I am trying to explain that it is due to the attitude of those people that we did not get a clean flag, but that we are saddled with a flag which has a rotten blot on it, the Union Jack, which is a bone of contention to the Afrikaners in this country. We made the sacrifices but once again those sacrifices have not been appreciated. Our free people also wanted a National Anthem. We cannot always sing “Tipperary” and “God Save the King.” We are no longer allowed to sing our own National Anthem. We were prepared to give it up, and then we got “Die Stem.” We wanted a National Anthem of our own, but once again the other side was not prepared to meet us. It was pleaded for in this House and a tremendous demonstration took place in Pretoria at Monument Koppie. There was a big outcry in favour of having “Die Stem” as our National Anthem, but in spite of all our concessions they refuse to give us our National Anthem. The English-speaking section, and the Afrikaner Jingoes make it very difficult for us to get a scintilla of love for them. Their trouble is that they stand on Afrikaans soil with one foot and in London with the other foot, or on the white cliffs of Dover, like the hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler). They have a divided loyalty which makes it impossible for them to become good citizens of this country. After we had obtained our sovereign independence there was a strong demand for us to have an Afrikaner Governor General, a man born in this country. The Afrikaans-speaking section of the population strongly advocated for it and we had the right to do so. Eventually we did succeed slightly in that direction, and we obtained as our Governor General a so called man of this country, born in Scotland, and he first of all had to be sent overseas so as to obtain a declaration there although we had abolished all titles; he had to get a Knighthood before the English section here was satisfied. There again we had to take a back seat and what were the thanks we got for all our concessions? The 4th September was our thanks. There it was a question of peace or war, but the people were not allowed to have a say in this matter. Those were the thanks for all the concessions we had made. They do not appreciate concessions. Then on a later occasion the wish of the people was given strong expression to, that the name Roberts Heights be changed to Voortrekkerhoogte. The name Roberts does not rouse very sweet memories in the minds of our people. What did we get? When the Government of the day wanted to change the name in order to accede to the desires of the people, there was a great to do in the Cabinet, and to-day we are saddled with a name which is neither one thing nor the other. It is now called Roberts Heights and also Voortrekkerhoogte. The one part of the body is called Roberts Heights, and the other part Voortrekkerhoogte. We get no centre course, no concessions are made to us, and we have to be satisfied with what we are given. Now I want to say a few words to the members of the Afrikaner Party. They are breaking down the strength of the people. There is no difference in principle between themselves and ourselves. They say that they have broken away from us for the sake of the rights of the English-speaking people which we are alleged to ignore. What does our constitution say at the very beginning? That so far as membership is concerned anyone with a white skin has the right to be a member of the re-United Nationalist Party. We also say that at this stage our people who are not out and out Republicans are not to be turned away. We admit them and no obstacles are put in their way. We do not keep the English speaking people out. We know that many of them are useful members of the community, and they are welcome in our party. We do not make things impossible for them, but we go a great deal further. The greatest principle of this party is the Republican principle — it is our great ideal. The final object we have in view and the final step which we are striving for. It has been said that the achievement of that ideal would mean doing away with all the rights possessed by the English-speaking section. We have been told that it is our intention by means of a simple majority in Parliament, to proclaim a Republic. That is not so.

What did the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) say?

He spoke on his own behalf. I am saying here what appears in our programme of principles as a reunited Party. What he says there was not the resolution of the Congress.

But he is the Leader of the Party in the Transvaal.

Let us see what our programme of principles has to say in this respect. Every English-speaking Afrikaner, every Jew, or every man of any other Nationality, who has a white skin and who has a vote in this country, will be entitled to express himself through a referendum whether he desires to have a Republic or not. That is what our programme of principles lays down, on this question of the greatest ideal which the Afrikaner people are striving for. This is the only thing endangering our ideals, and then we are reproached by these empty shells who have now founded the new Afrikaner Party and who are in actual fact stabbing Afrikanerdom in the back, much to the amusement of members opposite, and they accuse us of trying to deprive one section of its rights. A further argument used against us on this side of the House is that if this vote of no confidence were passed we on this side of the House would not be able to form a Government. If this vote of no confidence is passed we shall go to the country, we shall have a general election, and we shall come back here with a majority of Afrikanerdom, and we shall look after their interests as they should be looked after. I want to tell members of the Afrikaner Party that they do not represent their people. They are getting scores of votes of no confidence passed against them in their own constituencies. It is very nice for them to sit here and to form a party and to amuse themselves as party leaders.

I do not want any Nationalist vote in my constituency.

You cannot expect them to vote for you because you compared them at one time with kaffir dogs. The hon. member may laugh but so far as I am concerned I must say that I am grateful that the Leader of the Afrikaner Party is no longer in our ranks. We are going to get a man of good calibre to represent Vredefort, a man who will look after the interests of the people there with more ability than the hon. member who jumps about from one place to another and who now represents that constituency. I do not wish to make any threats against the Government, but I want to say this to them: the people are tired of them and they are being driven to despair. They are not going to tolerate the blows which are being aimed at them very much longer. When the opportunity arrives they will settle with the Government. The party which does represent the people in this House tells the Government that we are nearing the last lap, the goal which we have in view, namely sovereign independent republic. That is what we are striving for. We are pointing Afrikanerdom to that ideal, an ideal which is close at hand, and which Afrikanerdom will achieve as a reward for its sacrifices and determination. I support the vote of no confidence in the Government.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the hon. members of the Opposition who claim to speak on behalf of the people of South Africa, that it is abundantly clear from the nature of their speeches, that they only speak for a section of a section of the people. I feel, sir, that the Leader of the Opposition must bear a heavy responsibility for what is taking place in our country, because the people, through his activities, are being sharply divided into sections, British subjects of British origin and British subjects of foreign origin, and I think when we consider the result of that policy, it is futile for the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) to talk about an Afrikaans nation. Under that policy, followed as it is to-day, they can never be more than a section of the nation. I want to recall what is believed by those citizens of South Africa, who sent me to represent them in this House. They certainly do not believe the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. Reitz) when she says there is no British Empire. We believe that there is a British Empire, and that it is an organic whole and not a loose confederation of independent states, and we believe in the status of the Union of South Africa as defined in the Act of Union, which says that the Union is an autonomous community within the British Empire. I would like to refer to that group of persons who look to the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) as their leader, and who I have heard referred to as the latter day saints, because they stand for the very doubtful blessing of a Christian National Socialist republic.

It sounds all right.

It will probably turn out much worse than it sounds, if we ever get anywhere near it. The hon. member for Gezina has never told the people of South Africa how he proposes to give effect to his ideas, and how he is going to get over the many obstacles in his way. He will find a very stiff hurdle in front of him if he endeavours to put this idea into operation in the determination of the so-called English-speaking South Africans, who cherish and are determined to maintain their rights and privileges as British subjects. Momentous things are happening in this world to-day, and one would think listening to the speeches that have been made, that nothing matters outside this small country of the Union, and small things in a small country at that.

You read the Natal Witness.

Yes, that is quite all right. I want to say this, I listened to the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) and the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. E. R. Strauss), and they reminded me of Aesop’s fables. Aesop tells of a fly that sat on the hub of a chariot wheel, and as he saw the dust rising from the road he said “My word, what a dust we are raising.” These hon. members work themselves into a fury of agitation over things that are relatively quite unimportant, as the world stands to-day. I have heard hon. members on the Opposition benches talking about Hitler winning the war, and some of them said that Great Britain has lost the war. Well, that does not give us any sleepless nights. We are confident in the ultimate result, although we know there is a hard row to hoe before us. I do want to say what is my firm belief, and that is that when this war is over, Great Britain will stand on a pinnacle, as an example to the world, of self-sacrifice and generosity, and I think that when all these spiteful remarks of the Opposition are thought over in the light of afterevents, they will bring shame to many, because the countries they came from are looking to Great Britain as their only hope to save them from a disastrous situation, and yet some hon. members here are content to jeer at her; that is the only word to express the speeches that have been made by a number of hon. members. I don’t want to delve into the past, but the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. A. P. Badenhorst) had said it served the English people right to be crushed because of their treatment of women and children in the South African war, and in regard to that I say that he should verify the facts of South African history before he ventures to stand up in this House and berate a nation for acts that were not committed. I would refer the hon. member to the word of a very eminent South African, who was proud of having German and Dutch blood in his veins, the late Sir John Wessels, who said of the Afrikaner people that their Christian charity does not extend beyond their own narrow outlook. I commend that great South African’s words to hon. members opposite, and I think if you consider your attitude calmly, and the consequences that will accrue from it, we shall not hear so much of this racial talk in this House.

I think the whole of this House to a certain extent should thank the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for having introduced this vote of no confidence, because it gives all of us who are so inclined an opportunity, which is recognised by Mr. Speaker, of explaining his position on the war question and on other questions affecting the Government or the official Opposition. The Hon. the Minister of Lands gave some advice to us in this Hertzog corner. It was friendly advice which he gave us, namely that we should refrain from voting when this vote of no confidence was voted on, and he gave us to understand that we should not vote as we were not the type of people who wanted to be on both sides at the same time. I want to avail myself of the opportunity to indicate as dispassionately and clearly as possible our attitude as Hertzogites towards this motion. It has come out in this debate; first of all that in the official Opposition certain streams show up clearly, and anyone having a slight knowledge of politics in South Africa will not be unduly surprised at that fact, because we know that the political body, the official Opposition, the re-United Party, is the home of a whole lot of organisations such as the Ossewa-Brandwag, the Broederbond, the Handhawersbond, the Grey Shirts, the Christian Republicans — the people of Dr. De Wet— and also the Christian National Socialists. And all their members who have spoken here have clearly shown one way or another that those streams run through that party. According to the Press the re-United Party as a whole is under to the Ossewa-Brandwag which holds the sjambok over them and their Caucus. The name of re-United Party for that political body is misleading, because there apparently is one section which can never find a home in the re-United Party. Gen. Hertzog and Mr. Havenga have been driven out of the party.

Have you people any objection to the Ossewa-Brandwag?

I have no objection to anything in the world; that is your business. It is my intention to explain our position as the Afrikaner Party. It is perfectly clear that according to public statements, both here and outside, there is no room in the party for the Hertzogites. Now, I want to come to a very important principle which has been a guiding principle to us in connection with the declaration of war. I want to refer to what the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. E. R. Strauss) said just now. He said that he was in favour of proclaiming a Republic.

I did not say proclaiming one.

Are you not in favour of a Republic? I am in favour of a Republic. Apparently the hon. member differs from me. We in the Afrikaner Party are Republicans, but at the same time the Hertzog principles are our principles, namely that the proclamation of a Republic must depend on the will of the people.

That is the Parliamentary agreement which was approved of here.

That Parliamentary Agreement which was arrived at here is not being carried our by the re-United Party. That is our grievance, the dishonesty which is being displayed by the re-United Party, and that principally is the thing which has forced us out. It is clear from the statement of the hon. member for Harrismith and other members that our great Leader Gen. Hertzog, was perfectly correct when on the 6th November 1940 he stated at the Bloemfontein Congress: “This spirit in the Party is not the spirit of the Afrikaner-people I know, and it is not the spirit of the Free State”. The hon. member for Harrismith in his speech said that the programme of principles was perfectly clear on this and other points. But what is that programme of principles? Nothing but words, words, words. What was the spirit displayed at the Pretoria Congress of the re-United Party? It was proposed there among other things, and enthusiastically passed, that a Republic was to be proclaimed even if only with a majority of one vote in Parliament.

You know that that is not true.

I know perfectly well what happened. Nobody can deny what my ears heard and what my eyes saw. Ask your Transvaal leaders. I call upon the hon. members for Brits (Mr. Grobler) and Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) to testify to what I say. And what is the spirit which has again been displayed by the hon. member for Harrismith? He said: “We are glad to have got rid of Genl. Conroy”.

And I meant it.

Naturally, I do not want to accuse the hon. member for Harrismith of dishonesty. I only want to make it very clear what it was that forced Gen. Hertzog and all of us out of the Party. And I repeat that a resolution was passed unanimously and enthusiastically at the Transvaal Congress in favour of the proclamation of a Republic, even if it were only with a majority of one vote in Parliament. No upright patriot can approve of that sort of thing, because the results may be fatal. I want to compare this attitude adopted by the re-United Party with the attitude of the Government in regard to the declaration of war. This is what happened on the 4th September, 1939. Suddenly, without any warning, a declaration of war was forced on to the people without the people having been consulted. That is where the Prime Minister was wrong. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition in his introductory remarks on opening this debate started off with the words that there was an irreconciliable breach between the Government and his Party because the Government had declare war for the sake of Poland. Our attitude is a very much wider one, and is based on bigger principles. We were opposed to the declaration of war because that important step was not based on the broad will of the people. Gen. Hertzog clearly stated that, and he also said so on the 4th September. Hon. members will recollect that I begged on the 4th September that no declaration of war should be made, and I am convinced that 90% of the members at that time agreed with me, and I now ask whether that is not correct? I begged: “In Heaven’s name don’t let us declare war; may this cup pass from us”. The Government committed a serious error in acting as it did and in declaring war without knowing what were the wishes of the pepole. What has been the result? The result is that the people of this country have been hopelessly divided into two sections and that the unity which the Afrikaner Party is striving for has been destroyed. National Unity is further away than it was and that is due to the fatal declaration of war by the Government. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in his speech the day before yesterday said: “I stand by the supreme authority of the country”. We consider that he is not correct in what he said there, because as true democrats we say that the supreme authority rests with the people and the people have not had the opportunity of giving clear expression to their authority. Now, let me say to hon. members of the re-United Party that if a Republic were to be proclaimed by a majority of only one vote in this House it would mean that the people would be divided even more than is already the case. The one section will rise up against the other, and the result will be that South Africa will be plunged into a welter of blood and the freedom of the people will be destroyed. I have tried to put our case as simply and as clearly as I could. It is not a question of personality. With me it is a question of deeply rooted principle for which we have fought for years and years. So far as I am concerned I am convinced that that principle namely the principle of complete equal rights between the two sections of the population must be maintained in every respect and for that reason we have to vote for this motion of no confidence, not because we are “double hearted”; on the contrary, because we want to give honest and frank expression to our feelings and our principles.

Before I say what I have to say, I want to deal with what I believe is a misquotation from the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler). This is concerned, as far as I can gather, with the policy which was pursued by Gen. Hertzog subsequent to the war, and that policy is a policy which unfortunately goes back over a number of years previous to the war. It is a policy which I have attacked as an Opposition member, and I was supported by very many members who now occupy benches on the Malanite side of the House. It is a policy which I think ought to be clearly stated to the people of this country. It has been said of Gen. Hertzog that during the Abyssinian crisis a few years ago, that he was prepared to support sanctions to the utmost degree. In that respect I believe he was supported by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop). I assume that that is so, because this is the first time I have spoken for three minutes without the hon. member interrupting me. I therefore presume that for once he and I are in agreement. The argument put forward by members of the Opposition benches is that Gen. Hertzog was in favour of sanctions at that time because South Africa happened to be a member of the League of Nations, and I understand the hon. member for Brits has quoted a speech by Gen. Hertzog in this House to show clearly that the attitude of the then Prime Minister was based purely on the fact that South Africa was a member of the League of Nations. I want to show, and then I shall leave the point, that the attitude of the then Prime Minister was not based altogether on the fact that South Africa, as an independent sovereign state—something which the hon. member for Mossel Bay is at great pains to deny—was a member of the League of Nations. We also want to show that that was not the only argument put forward by Gen. Hertzog, the then Prime Minister. I want to show that the argument put forward by him was precisely the argument which is now put forward by the present Prime Minister (Gen. Smuts). The hon. member for Brits quoted just precisely what suited him, and did not quote what did not suit him, tactics to which we have become accustomed from the Opposition. Gen. Hertzog said—

I don’t think any of us is prepared to disagree with the ex-Prime Minister on that point. At that time I was one of the foremost critics, if I may presume to be a foremost critic, of the policy of Great Britain, and I was at that time one of the greatest adherents of the point of view put forward by Gen. Hertzog, that we must assume the responsibility which we have undertaken. Gen. Hertzog went on to say—

I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the motion of no confidence is in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and that he has not been present in the House for many hours. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) seems amazed that I should take exception to that fact.

You mean you have not seen him for twelve hours.

The man who represents the alternative government shows his sense of responsibility as a possible new Prime Minister by absenting himself for the last twelve hours. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said he did not believe that Great Britain was fighting in defence of democracy or Christianity. I would like the hon. member for Mossel Bay to listen to this, because there is more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner that repenteth than over 99 just persons who need no repentance. The Leader of the Opposition said, in a flight of eloquence, that Britain was not fighting in defence of democracy or Christianity.

Hear hear.

Oh, you agree with that. Well, that does not put the Leader of the Opposition on a very high plane of intelligence. The Leader of the Opposition also asked what would be the fate of democracy in Britain after the war, and would Britain, exhausted by war, still retain its present system? He did not produce any evidence of the effectiveness of other systems. He said, however, that the most un-Christian attitude rested in the idea that Christianity could be decided by the sword. That idea has always proved a failure, but the Leader of the Opposition wants to decide Christianity by the sword. The Leader of the Opposition will say that if you are a European you are entitled to certain things, but if your skin is tinged by colour, if you are a mixed race, you are entitled to less things, and if you are an Indian or a native, you are entitled to nothing at all—and then he talks to me in hypocritical fashion about the duties of a Christian state. Does he realise that the philosophical foundation, so called, of his new theory, is founded on the teaching of the Jew, the Jew of Bethlehem, the Jew of Jerusalem? And yet he comes here and tells us of the disabilities he is prepared to impose upon the coloured, upon the native, and the Indian. He is also prepared to impose those disabilities upon the Jew, who is the natural successor of the Christ that he tells us he worships and in whose name the new principles of the Nazi Party in South Africa are inspired. Before I proceed to deal with the general question I want to say one or two things on the question of the riots in Johannesburg. I do not know if anybody has so far drawn the attention of the Government to the complete absence of the front benchers on the Opposition side, but I am also prepared to raise strictures on the complete absence of Government front benchers. I am almost inclined to move the adjournment of the House in order to ask the responsible Ministers to be here.

You dare not do that.

I see the Minister without Portfolio here. It was suggested the other day that 12 of the Ministers get paid, and one does not, yet he is the one who is here now. I am a bit perturbed because I wanted to say a word or two to the Hon. the Prime Minister. However, whatever you say here is duly transmitted to the Prime Minister. Part of the case of the Leader of the Opposition, a case which was obviously framed before these events took place in Johannesburg, was the riotous happenings in Johannesburg last Friday and Saturday evening. The hon. Leader of the Opposition had already decided to move a vote of no confidence in the Government; so one assumes that if he used the riotous happenings on that particular Friday and Saturday for his argument that he had pre knowledge that such happenings might take place.

No, no, no!

Yes, yes, yes, because I am going to tell you that I had fore knowledge of such happenings. I tell you I knew that inevitably such a clash must take place, because it had been reported to me on numerous instances that in Johannesburg and in Pretoria and in the Reef towns generally it was dangerous for a single soldier to walk about alone. In other words, that it was sufficient for a man to wear a red tab to bring down upon him not only approbrium but also violence from people who actually disagreed with his point of view. A Commission of Enquiry has now been appointed and I want to say this, in a sense of responsibility, that I disagree with the statement made by the Prime Minister in this House. In that statement the Hon. the Prime Minister went out of his way I think to meet the views of the Opposition, which unfortunately it is his duty to do as General Officer commanding the Army, where the Army is guilty of undiciplinary behaviour. As Officer Commanding he laid strictures on them and subsequently he issued a general order in which he carried out, in words at least, the strictures which he laid in this House. And that brings me to the point that I think it was an unhealthy position for the Prime Minister of the country to be Minister of Defence and General Officer commanding the Army at the same time. I think that is entirely wrong. Not only is it wrong, but it has been counter-parted in other ways, because we find that Dr. Van der Byl is Director General of war supplies, is in charge of Iscor and Escombe, is chairman of the newly constituted Industrial Corporation, and chairman of a lot of private things as well. I want to suggest this to the Government, and in saying it I am sincere, because I am quite prepared to support the Government, especially its war effort, through thick and thin, that it is wrong for the Prime Minister of the country to be Minister of Defence and General Officer commanding the South African Army. I say that because I want to come to a suggestion made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. But before I do that I want to venture a word or two on behalf of the Army and I want to oppose in the most uncompromising terms the strictures laid on the South African Army by the Leader of the Opposition. I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition and to the people who support him that in South Africa we have an army, I am not going to say how many in number — which has gone forward and done something which challenges comparison with anything in the whole world. It is a good army. It is a well disciplined army, very well disciplined, and it is a well officered army. It is an army which has made very many sacrifices and it is an army which certainly does not deserve the strictures which were paid upon it by the Calvinistic Leader of the Opposition. He uses the name of Christ now that he has rescended from the pulpit to the Opposition front benches in a manner that I am quite sure very few Christians will uphold. But to that I will return later. Somebody mentioned in this House that one soldier was killed in the riots in Johannesburg, but nobody mentioned in this House in the course of this discussion an affidavit made by a young lady supported by five independent witnesses to the effect that not only was he killed but that he was brutally knocked down and subsequently kicked by a member of the Police Force, which probably accounted for his death. Are hon. members over there going to tell me that this lady with five witnesses are all guilty of committing perjury, or is it a fact that this man was knocked down in the course of an unassuming walk through the town? And that when he was lying on the ground hors d’combat he was kicked by a member of the Police Force, and as a result of this kicking he died. Have we heard a word of regret from the Opposition? Have I heard any member there say those are the facts, supported by affidavits, sworn to before a responsible officer? Has a single member on that side said that this man should be adequately punished? No, they glory in it. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) glories in it. The Leader of the Opposition glories in it.

I won’t say that.

I say that. They gloried in it because we have not had a word of protest. They must have had information which all of us had. I have no faith in the Commission of Enquiry which is going to be appointed, because I say right now, and I want the House to take this as my considered judgment, that until such time as the Government are prepared to use their new regulations and completely disband the Ossewa-Brandwag there will be no peace in South Africa. If they do not, I am prepared to use what ability I have with a counter organisation on the same lines as the Ossewa-Brandwag. I am coming to that.

We are getting the wind up.

I am not speaking from lack of knowledge of what happened in Johannesburg; I just want to quote to you from the affidavit signed by a lady who has had 29 years residence in Orange Grove, a district I know very well. She says in her affidavit “The soldiers were not to blame for I saw those men who stood on the steps opposite the hall, standing shoulder to shoulder, some 200 strong, and in every one’s pocket they had chains, knuckle dusters, lead pipes and pieces of iron, as well as a variety of weapons.” So that they were well prepared. Soldiers are nothing whatsoever evidently. Now let me carry on. She quotes a particular incident: She tells me “I have lived at Orange Grove for 29 years. Unfortunately I had to be in Town on Friday night last and this is what I saw. A lone soldier was standing quietly by a car, just an onlooker like myself, when a few of the Ossewa crowd came forward and started bickering him. Then his hat was pushed from behind his head. This soldier’s hand went up to catch his hat naturally as it was knocked about This seemed to be a signal. About a dozen tackled him. The police came and looked and then cleared off.” Here is a man actually attacked. He is challenged and when he starts to put his hat back it is knocked off, he is tackled and left unconscious in the street. I think it is quite right that I should read this. What a disgracéful state of affairs. “I have been in Johannesburg with other riots but never have I witnessed such disgusting conduct as last Friday.” Then she goes on to make a criticism of Genl. Smuts. I myself am going to make a criticism of Genl. Smuts. The hon. Member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Rooth) has been at great pains to throw in our teeth the fact that some of us are earning double pay. He forgets that he is a lawyer and when he leaves his Parliamentary duties he goes back and conducts his legal business, and sometimes uses this House as an adjunct to it. If he earns £1,000 outside Parliament that is quite legitimate, but if we contribute in our special way, as I do to the Army, the position is quite different. I consider that it is not different. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé) challenged a couple of us. He said we were earning double salaries. He is earning over £1,000 per year on the Native Affairs Commission, a job he knows nothing about. He was appointed there because he was the United Party Whip. He was a very good Whip, but he is a very bad authority on Native Affairs. He is earning £1700 per year, and now he says “Why should you fellows be earning double pay?” What does he know about the Native Affairs Department? The job I am doing—I do not know about my colleaques here, but they can speak for themselves—is a job where I put in 12 to 14 hours a day. Now I want to deal for a moment, if you will let me, sir, with the essentials of the argument put forward by an hon. member for the Opposition. [Time limit.]

The Hon. the Minister of Lands stated yesterday that the Afrikaner Party should support the Government. Well, I am anxious to explain to the House why the Afrikaner Party cannot do so, is not prepared to do so, and will not do so. First of all this Party stands for what we call Hertzogism. One of the great points of Hertzogism is the absolute equal rights of both sections of the community in this country. When we say that we have no confidence in the Government we mean that the Government on the 4th September violated that doctrine of Hertzogism by declaring war. And, Mr. Speaker, I cannot put that point any clearer than by saving to the Government that if the Opposition Party were to come into power and if it were to proclaim a Republic with a small majority of votes, it would also violate the doctrine of Hertzogism. I think this House will agree with me that a change in the constitution is not as important as a declaration of war. If this House were to pass a change in the constitution with a bare majority we should be violating the doctrine of Hertzogism and that is one of the main reasons why we cannot support the Government at this juncture, because by its declaration of war on the 4th September it also violated the doctrine of Hertzogism. I believe that members of this party have already mentioned the fact in their speeches, that we on this side will do every thing in our power to stop the Government in its war efforts. Now, let us assume that members on the opposition side were to bring about a change in the constitution by proclaiming a Republic by a small majority of Parliament — would members opposite not oppose that Republic as long as they were able to? But if a Republic were proclaimed as a result of the will of the people with a majority of the broad will of the people, then we shall not get that opposition. If the Government on the 4th September had obtained a majority of one third in favour of their declaration of war they would not have met with the opposition they are meeting with now. There is another point on which we oppose the Government. That point has already been gone into at length by other members, and I shall therefore only refer to it briefly, and that is the way in which the war is being carried on. I do not think that any one of us can agree with the way in which the war is now being conducted. We find that people are being brought into the war by means of threats, by economic pressure being brought to bear on them and by all sorts of other methods, and yet hon. members opposite have the temerity to tell us that the army is composed of volunteers. And then we have this question of the waste of money caused by the war. If we go into the streets we can see the way money is being wasted. Wherever we look, we see military cars chasing about — it seems to me that they are all out on pleasure jaunts. Then we also have the other instance, which have already been mentioned in regard to the large number of soldiers who are kept in the country and who are not being sent away to fight the enemy. Yet they have to be paid. I think that that is one of the reasons why we should express our mistrust in this Government. If the position in the country were of such a character that thousands of troops have to be kept here in order to preserve peace, then it goes to show very clearly that the position in the country is unsound, and that position is due to the Government’s policy. The riots which have occurred on the Witwatersrand have already been referred to and it is not necessary to discuss them any further. But I do want to draw attention to this fact; we know that the Prime Minister is disposed to allow matters to develop and then to take drastic action. That has been our experience in regard to Bulhoek, and that is also what we found in 1922 in connection with the strike on the Rand. He allows matters to develop and then he takes drastic action to stop any disorders. I think the Prime Minister has had ample experience, and ample time to realise what is going on in the country. We have had evidence of these things for a considerable time. He must know of the disturbances which are occurring; he knows about the riots at Potchefstroom; he knows that assaults have been committed on bearded men and he knows what is going on here in Cape Town and what is happening on the Railways. We know that the soldiers — I want to mention a personal incident. When my wife was coming down to Cape Town during the last session of Parliament she was in the same train with a number of soldiers, and they made conditions so impossible in the dining room that my wife found it impossible to even drink a cup of tea there. The windows were smashed to pieces, plates were thrown out of the windows, and the dining saloon was so dirty that no decent person could go in. That fact must be known to the Prime Minister, and yet he has done nothing to put a stop to it. That briefly is why we heartily support this vote of no confidence in the Government. But I also want to say a few words about the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition in his speech referred to the Government as conglomeration Government. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. If he talks of a conglomerate Government, we can talk about a conglomerate Opposition. If we study the Opposition and see what it is composed of and why it is impossible for that Opposition to form an alternative Government, we must realise why I call it a conglomerate Opposition. First of all we find in that Opposition a crowd of extremists who are led by Swart-Strydom-Verwoerd clique, the people who have always set their faces against co-operation in the Party. Then we have a number of people who are well disposed — they are Nationalists and a number are well disposed Hertzogites in that Party, and who do not feel at home there. We have quite a crowd of well disposed Nationalists and Hertzogites, who do not feel at all at home in that Party. I fail to understand why those people who feel out of place there continue to sit behind the Leader of the Opposition as they do not trust him at all. Then we also have that “New Order” in that Party. Now, Mr. Speaker, imagine, an Opposition which is composed of so many elements cannot form a new Government. When they talk about a conglomerate Government we have to concede them that point, but we have to bear in mind this fact, that that conglomerate Government sitting on the Government benches to-day wholeheartedly supports their great Leader, and that they are loyal to him. But what is happening on the Opposition side? They have undermined their great Leader, they have cut the ground from underneath his feet and they have slandered him until it became impossible for him to remain there. And then we have this extraordinary phenomenon in the Party that they actually make use of a Hertzogite to attack the Afrikaner Party here. We have been atacked by the Nationalists, but we have had the unhappy phenomenon of this Afrikaner Party being attacked by an old Hertzogite. Now I want to repeat briefly what the Afrikaner Party stands for. I shall content myself with mentioning just a few of our principles. It has been stated that there is no difference in principle between the Malan Party and the Afrikaner Party, but I feel that there is a very great difference in principle between those two parties. When one talks of principles one need not only look at the written word, but I feel that one should look at the spirit of that party, and one should see how the written word is being given effect to and observed. It is stated in the principles of the re-United National or Volks Party that they will grant equal language and cultural rights to both sections of the population. We go further than that. We do not only want to give equal language and cultural rights to both those sections, but we want to give them absolutely equal rights in every possible way. It is further stated in that programme of principles of the Opposition Party that equal language rights will be maintained. I want to ask: „Is that principle maintained in their Party”? I make bold to say that there is not one copy of that programme of principles in English. If we were to go a little further and see whether those principles of equality are given effect to, and are maintained, we get to these riots which recently occurred at Klerksdorp. We find that when Mr. Campbell, the chairman of the meeting, addressed the meeting first in Afrikaans, the people listened to him, but as soon as he started speaking English the trouble started. Is that maintaining equal language and cultural rights?

It was not because he spoke English but because of what he said in English. You have heard something but you do not know exactly what to make of it.

That is not true. He started repeating in English what he has just said in Afrikaans. I am simply referring to it in passing. We get similar instances every day. There is just one other point I want to refer to, and that is this question of a Republic. I want to say very clearly that the Afrikaner Party stands for a Republic in this country. It is one of our strong points but we want to achieve that Republic on the broad will of the people with the co-operation of the English speaking Afrikaners. If we cannot get their co-operation then we shall be unable to achieve our Republic, because to try and achieve our end without their co-operation would only lead to bloodshed and trouble and difficulties in this country.

I feel it is very much up to me to say what I have to say in ten minutes, because I understand there is some honourable agreement about the duration of this debate, and that the time has almost expired. I want to say, to begin with, that I have tremendous respect and regard for the hon. member for Potgietersrust (Rev. S. W. Naudé) and indeed for most hon. members on the other side. And it is for that reason that I propose to show that they have taken up a position which is not fair to themselves, or perhaps to anybody else. Virtue is said to be its own reward, and a poor reward it is at times, or appears to be. One virtue which will not be denied to Great Britain is’ that of generosity to a, beaten enemy. I don’t think anybody will deny that, looking back over her history; but it has been a lot of trouble to her, it produces a lot of problems in its wake. For example, when a real fight is staged between say Britain and Germany, a couple of heavy-weights, there are apt to be lots of feather-weight nations littered about the place, all more or less in the way. They fuss about and want to help, and they rather talk in this way. Remembering that Britain is generous to the people she has beaten, they say “Well, if we oppose Germany, and she wins, we are sunk; but if we fight against Britain, and she wins, she will let us off.” They play for safety, and Britain loses allies. I am sorry to think that probably inadvertently the Opposition have got themselves into some such frame of mind. I am sorry to think, in the event of Hitler winning, which God forbid, a good many people will be inclined to expect that the Opposition would in such case say to Germany: “Remember, we were always on your side.” On the other hand, they know that if Britain wins they will gain just as much as anybody else by that victory. I don’t say it is so, but I say the situation is likely to be regarded in that way, and the attitude does not seem to be worthy of the Opposition, or of South Africa. It does not seem to me to be sporting. I want to reply to one or two points raised by the hon. member for Potgietersrust. His speech seemed to me to be a sort of glorification of Hitler, and the belief was quite clearly expressed that if Hitler dominated this country, it might in some way beneficially affect those now suffering from poverty in the Union. If it would, then to that extent I would almost welcome it, but there is no sort of hope that the advent of Hitler would help those who are poor. Look at his own country during the five recorded years he has had power. Certainly wages, in the aggregate, have gone up by 15%. But working hours have been raised from 25% to 50% for that little increase in wages. The cost of living has gone up 8%, and the standard of food has seriously fallen. National Socialism has not been a good thingin Germany for the poor, and nobody who has studied the facts claims that it has. It has been a pretty good thing for the others, as the hon. member I am sure will be interested to hear. During that same five years 1,136 new millionaires have arisen in Nazi Germany, and Goering and Goebbels and Hitler himself are among them. The state and pomp in which those men live, their castles, their luxuries of general equipment, is a disgrace to the whole world; so I do not think we can look forward to any help for the weak in the event of Nazi domination being exerted over this State of ours. There was another point made quite definitely, and that was that this was a war to punish England, to punish Britain for wrongs she had done. I am not going to keep you long on this contention, but I must certainly say this, that God could have no more curious and revolting a champion in the course of the world’s history than the present one, if that is so. If we are to regard Hitler as God’s champion, then our era and our future are dark indeed. Hitler is the champion breaker of his word, the champion breaker of little countries, and the champion breaker of his own friends. You might make out a case for anti-Christ, but not for any champion of God, at all. May I remind the House of what I said when I came back from South West Africa? One or two members may remember I visited that country in 1938, and about the first time I spoke in this House in 1939 I told hon. members of another practice current even in our own mandated territory, and that was the granting in schools, not only at Swakopmund but also at Windhoek, of cheaper terms to those children who would have an image of Hitler and worship it in their rooms. For this cheaper rate they also got a bigger room. We are told that there shall be false messiahs, that these shall deceive the very elect. I think it has happened here. If anybody does believe that morally Hitler will help the world there is something wrong with the mentality of that man. I am not wanting to make things harder but easier, but there is a tremendous tendency in this place, and that at least this debate has proved by all sorts of querulous fault-finding the one with the other, to be hypercritical about one another. I am very much reminded of the story of the censorious Quaker who remarked to his wife, “All the world is mad except me and thee: and even thou art a little mad.” Whenever anything goes wrong in South Africa it seems to me we abuse one another. This side says that the other side is wrong. The Opposition blames the Government for allowing some trouble at Littlefontein, and the Government blames the Opposition for causing it. We both blame each other, and the truth is we do not know who is responsible for the wrong done. I submit, Mr. Speaker, we accuse each other across this floor of practically diabolical crimes. Can we wonder if people in the country take us at our word? Some people believe me, and others will believe the hon. doctor, and why not? But I suggest we should make less of each other’s faults, and use good politics and not merely quote religion. The time has come to do that. The talking stage is past. The time for doing things has arrived. I do not admit that the troubles in this country are chiefly caused by the Opposition or by the Government either. We have to recognise this, whether we approve of it, or like it, or not. We are at war with Germany, which is incidentally being at war with the most extensive and the most skilled espionage system in the whole world. We seem to forget that those foreign agents make the trouble because it is their business to make trouble, and they are doing it most extraordinarily well. And paid German spies in this country—shall we count them in scores or in hundreds or in thousands, do you think? Is it not possible, is it not a certainty that some of those, our enemy, your enemies and my enemies, South Africa’s enemies, and most dangerous enemies, have made contact with the Army and with the Police? I do not solely blame the police for what has happened, but I am perfectly sure that people we ought to have locked up have been in contact with members of the police, and with the Army. I ask you not to look upon your soldiers as delinquents, or your police as the real malefactors. It is to the advantage of these foreign agents, and to their advantage only, to cause these clashes and disturbances. It is not to the advantage of your country and of my country, and it is our common duty, to prevent them. I suggest, and that is my only suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that we have been bombarding each other with hard words, and wrong words too, and words that were not truly in point all the time; but we have rather tended to overlook the real menace in this Union, men and women paid by our enemies to do certain skilled work. They are doing it and surely we should unite against them. I was disappointed and surprised to hear some of the things that have been said about our army, the South African Army, a body of about 100,000 men, who come from all over this country, half Afrikaans-speaking and half English-speaking. I have served, after my fashion (and I thank my friends over there for a tribute they paid to my work this morning, and which I also und erstood) in three or four armies. I served in the British Regular Army, the Canadian Army and the Australian Army, and serve now in the Union forces. And I say, for the heartening of those men of ours, that I have never had contact anywhere with better troops than these same Springboks who belong to you and to us. It is a great Army. The Army has done what it could. It has been subjected to temptation and difficulties, And it has been “bothered” about. But it has come through with colours flying. A year ago we had not even the complete backbone of an army. The vertebrae were not all there, but since then, as it says in Ezekiel, the “dry bones” have leaped into life. “Breath came unto them, and they lived, and stood upon their feet, an exceeding great army.” The Springbok men are an exceedingly fine army, and it is your army and my army. It is an army of the Union of South Africa. How can any of us in cold blood, in common decency, level a charge generally against that army? It is the best behaved army—I have lived with it for seven months—I have ever had anything to do with, and it is an army that looks up to South Africa, and in company with the wider field of South Africa looks up to the man who made it. I am not very good at passing out bouquets and paying tributes to the great, but we have to be fair, or at least we have to try to be fair; and I say without hesitation that the Prime Minister, whether he ought to be, as my colleague says, in two offices or not, is the same unshakable rock to South Africa to-day as Lord Kitchener was to Britain, and its Empire, in the early years of the other war. Mr. Speaker, I have taken more time than I meant to take, and possibly I have not made my feeling and hope entirely plain even now. It is not usual to do so, but I ask everyone to look beyond our differences, beyond that which is controversial, to that which is common and the birthright of us all. Look to your Army. Don’t call it names, except fine names, because it is a great army. The men come from your homes, and they will come back to your homes, please God. They will come back and help those of us who are older to build up a better South Africa. We have to build it up! There is not going to be a new order in 48 hours. The safer world can only be built by ourselves, little by little, step by step. Co-operation, not conspiracy and strife, is our only road to security and a place that will stand. The immediate cure for these things that happened in Johannesburg would be, and I say it deliberately and in all sincerity, to give side arms to all the troops. It has been suggested that they used bayonets, but only N.C.O.’s of any Unit are allowed to walk in the streets wearing a bayonet. I suggest that is one way. To close the public bars to them is another. Let them have as much beer as they like in their camps or canteens, or homes, but close the bars. Onslaughts upon soldiers have happened over and over again. I am not mentioning it out of malice at all, but I am mentioning the absolute facts. Things like this have happened over and over again. Men—we won’t go into where they come from—men or at least male persons stand behind a street corner. Along came three soldiers. They are allowed to go by. Along comes two soldiers and they are allowed to go by too. But along comes one, who is “half seas over,” or mellow, a little bit tipsy. He does not get by. He is the man they are waiting for. One soldier could I think always walk in Johannesburg alone provided he is entirely sober. It can be said it is his own fault if he is not: that is not always true. But at any rate it is the man who is drunk who gets sandbagged in the ordinary way, and this is what happened to one soldier who was knocked down when he could not defend himself, by certain men, and his ribs were kicked in when he was on the ground. The police did stand by and see it done. Such a man might come from my family or yours, but he comes from somewhere, and it is hooliganism to do that, and that section of the police is “hooligan” who stand by and allows it to be done. I can prove that that happened. With this I have now finished. I say close the bars to the soldiers, and let them wear side arms.

The Government dare not even enforce the non-treating regulations.

I hope they will have an access of courage in the New Year. I will ask the Hon. the Minister of Justice, and perhaps he will do for me what he will not do even for you. Furthermore, I suggest that our country requires that an absolutely just investigation should be made into both sides. I did understand from the Prime Minister, or misunderstood, as I so often do, that in any case the soldiers were going to be punished, that disciplinary action was to be taken against them. That looked to me like sentencing the men beforehand. It should be enquired into, and if they are guilty they should be punished, only not too much; and exactly the same thing should also apply to the police. I believe the time has come when we should get together here. I know this, that if you are not proud of the Army, the Army is almighty proud of the country, and rightly so. But fair play is bonny play. In a modest little coffee shop that I go to sometimes I saw last night a poster that is world wide in distribution. What I believe is termed a clarion call is inscribed on it. The statement is: “Your country demands: Service; Sacrifice.” From whom? From some or from all? On the foot of that poster was attached another one, much less dignified which said, “Enquire for your Max Album within.” This seems to show that while some were expected to join the army, it was definitely anticipated that others would stay at home and continue to collect their cigarette cards. There is a certain amount of feeling in the Army. The men hope we shall find a way of equalising the sacrifices that are being made. There is no just reason why some people should make a fortune out of contracts as a result of the war, while other men and women risk their lives for 3/6d. to 6/6d. per day. In supporting the Government I do so with the hope that we all will support the Government, and that the Government will support all South Africa, and to that end will amend their domestic policy to this extent, that they will subscribe to the Labour Party policy, and pay the soldier, whether infantryman, airman, or gunner, not less than £1 per day.

The hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. L. A. B. Reitz) spoke with such earnestness that she certainly deserves a reply from this side of the House. She believed every word she uttered and although I could not follow her all the way I can certainly understand the fear and horror which she apparently feels as regards racialism. She knows what the result of bitter racial strife was in Ireland 25 years ago. She knows what the Black and Tans did and she does not need a very wide stretch of imagination, nor does any intelligent person require it, to imagine what may possibly happen in South Africa. We already have our Tans and I think if the Government is not very careful we shall soon have Black and Tans. I speak just as earnestly as the hon. member over there and I do so because I hope that I may perhaps in some way convey to the Government and to the members on those benches exactly what our feelings on this side of the House are in connection with this matter, this very serious matter about which the hon. member who has just sat down also seems so concerned. Now, sir, having before us the example of Ireland surely we should take heed in time. Surely we should take steps to prevent assaults which to-day take place by armed, soldiers, prevent these assaults from in the future taking place by armed men. It does not need a very big stretch of imagination to bring about this horrible change which hon. members over there seem to foresee. I for my part can quite understand the hon. member for Parktown feeling concerned about the possibilities which the future holds in store for us. I can even understand that she looks upon hon. members on this side of the House as untravelled, uneducated, fools. Perhaps she should not have said so, but I can even understand that feeling. Mr. Speaker, what I do not understand is how such an intelligent person as the hon. member for Parktown, one who is no doubt entitled to survey us from a mental eminence, fails to see the other side of the picture which she so eloquently painted this morning. She entirely fails to see it or fails to understand it. She tells us of some soldiers who were taken in a car by some hooligans who beat them up. Surely we do not justify such action? We condemn it. We say that people who do that kind of thing should be punished with the utmost severity of the law. She mentioned I think, the case of a woman who had been injured by some hooligans. I know I am speaking on behalf of everyone on this side of the House when I say that conduct of that kind should be punished with the utmost severity of the law, without any option of a fine. But what I do not understand is that she did not mention the Potchefstroom incidents. Surely you cannot excuse an incident like that by saying that some schoolboys assaulted one or two soldiers on a few occasions—does that justify 500 of 600 men marching from their cantonments and beating up the boys—and the girls— and putting nine of them into hospital. How can an intelligent person like the hon. member for Parktown justify that? Surely her womanly heart should be touched when conduct of that kind is alleged to have taken place—a thing like that may be raised in mitigation, but not as an excuse. And what about these daily assaults at these prayer pauses? Does she believe that these hundreds of troops go to Adderley Street to pray? It is notorious that the troops have to to be coerced to go to church on Sundays. No, it is known that they go to Adderley Street to beat up Afrikaners. And let me put a hypothetical case to the hon. member for Parktown. We hope it will remain hypothetical, and that it will not come to pass. Let us, for argument’s sake, say that the Germans were to succeed in this war, and were in some manner to get possession of South Africa, and that they, in their turn, were to instal a pause at midday would that proud lady stand still at the behest of some foreigner…

That midday pause was originally instituted to commemorate Delville Wood by your own people.

Our own people get beaten up. They get beaten up because they are Afrikaners.

There was a pause at one time in memory of Delville Wood.

I am sorry to see that the hon. member justifies this, and cannot see the other side of the picture.

I am not justifying it.

What is the difference between justifying and excusing it? But now let us leave the alleged pause for prayer in Cape Town. But before I go from that subject, let me reiterate that the assaults in each case have turned out to be committed by men in uniform—by sailors or soldiers, or even by coloured people. They have been committed not on one or two occasions but on a number of occasions. In don’t blame the army for that. In every army you will find hooligans, but hooliganism must be put down, and it must be dealt with very strictly. It must be put down by the hon. gentleman over there. I see he is holding his head—I hope in shame. Now I want to go on to another aspect. I want to talk of the daily assaults on the Witwatersrand on men wearing beards—assaults on single persons wearing beards by numbers of men in uniform. Let me ask the hon. lady, why are these assaults committed? I am not afraid to say why. They are committed, because of racialism.

Why don’t they shave their beards?

Why don’t you ask the Prime Minister to shave his beard?

These assaults are inspired by hatred and racialism. Has one hon. member on that side of the House got up to deplore this, has one of you suggested the means of stopping this? No, they have one and all justified it and explained it away, and excused it, and encouraged a repetition. Not one of them has got up and roundly denounced it. They have made excuses, and they have said „Well, after all the soldiers may have been justified.” No justification, no verbal justification will justify assaults of that kind. Someone said this afternoon, I think it was the reverend gentleman who just sat down (Rev. Miles-Cadman), that in future these assaults would stop, that the right hon. gentleman had now issued a mandate; the day after the mandate was issued six uniformed men walked into an office in Johannesburg, took out a man with a beard and had it shaved off. That man was in an awkward predicament, because had he resisted he would have been guilty of an assault and he would have been necessarily sentenced to six months imprisonment.

The soldiers have not been provided for at all.

How can hon. members be surprised if we resent the attitude they take up? But none of them got up to express regret at this unfortunate incident. Nothing is done to stop them. The hon. member for Parktown can perhaps be excused in the matter. Why should she worry when the Prime Minister encourages these assaults? He encouraged them in his speech the other day when he referred to these pause assaults as “gesanik.” He knows that these assaults are still taking place, and have been taking place ever since the midday pause was instituted. He promised in the Other Place last session that he would put a stop to it but on finding that he has not got the necessary authority behind him he now evades the issue by saying this is something arranged for the benefit of Parliament. He calls it “gesanik”—a matter to be dismissed with a shrug of the shoulders. He knows that his own countrymen are being assaulted but after all no one has been killed yet, so he may well dismiss it with a shrug of his shoulders. If others are in danger, if there is a danger of reprisals then we have a law passed. We have a law now which is without parralel in this country, it makes it a criminal offence and punishes people only with imprisonment for assaulting a uniformed soldier. Do hon. members realise that assault in South Africa to-day is a common law offence and can be met with a common law defence? A charge of assault can be met by a plea of provocation in extreme circumstances and certainly by a plea of self defence, but not a charge under this regulation. To a charge under this regulation it will be no defence to plead self defence or provocation. And a magistrate will have no option but to impose a sentence of imprisonment. And the regulation goes so far as to say that a minimum sentence of four days must be imposed. Is that to encourage these assaults by these uniformed gentlemen or to discourage them? Is it to give them a feeling of security or what? Is it to give an impression that the Rt. Hon. gentleman the Prime Minister encourages these things? I doubt whether any Government in this country has ever taken a step like that. I do not say that assaults by civilans on soldiers should not be put down. They should be and as firmly and strongly as the law allows. The Prime Minister protested against this motion of no confidence and said it was unmerited and yet every day in South Africa there are assaults which the Government either appears not willing, or powerless to suppress; but surely the first thing a State can expect of its Government is that it should apply law and order, that it should see to it that law and order are maintained at any price. And yet the Rt. Hon. Gentleman says there is no call for this motion of no confidence. How can we have confidence in him when he neglects his duty, when he neglects to protect the people of this country, and when he shows, as a matter of fact, that he has no confidence himself in his own colleagues. The Minister of Justice is deprived from functioning, various powers are removed from him and placed in the hands of the Minister of the interior. Was it a vote of no confidence to deprive the Minister of Justice from the administration of the concentration camps? No, the Prime Minister himself has very little confidence in many of his colleagues, and rightly so. How can he have confidence in the conduct of his colleague, the Minister of the Interior, after that incident at Klerksdorp. I cannot go into that now, because the matter is sub judice but I shall do so later on. But I should like to say this now, that I should like the Minister of Justice to explain to us how it came about that instructions were issued from Pretoria that two members of this House should be arrested out of sixteen accused when the others were not arrested? Why? Was it political victimisation or what?

It was malice.

How does it come that instructions were issued that no bail should be granted and that they should be clapped into gaol. Who gave these instructions? Is that political victimisation? Is that an action which will create confidence in the administration of justice, or will it do the very opposite thing. I leave it to the Rt. Hon. gentleman to answer that, and I know he will not answer it because he cannot. I want to say one more thing and it is this. Where is this surge of racialism which is arising in South Africa going to stop. What of the future? Has the hon. gentleman contemplated the possibilty of Great Britain not being able to extricate herself from the plight in which her politicians have landed her? Has he contemplated the possibility of our having an enemy, a real enemy, at our gates, not a sham enemy faked up for political purposes, but a real enemy? And what would he expect our attitude to be when he turns to us and says: “Now we are going to be attacked?” Must we forget the past, must we forget the beatings up by his uniformed soldiers, must we look upon him as an enemy as we do to-day, the enemy of our people? We have armed forces, armed with all the weapons of modern warfare, and they are now being armed with the law. Surely being human will there not be a tendency on our side to say: “Let us try the Foreign Dictator, at any rate an open Dictator who has a repuation for administrative ability, which the Rt. Hon. gentleman and his colleagues so sadly lack. I have no intention of stirring up feelings, but I want to impress upon the Rt. Hon. gentleman that it is time for him to change his attitude and to stop these assaults. I do not say assaults by soldiers on civilians, or by civilans on soldiers, I simply say “Stop the assaults and instil a spirit of discipline”. Let me tell him of an incident which I myself beheld in shame. I was going home in September and wat sitting in the dining saloon when the train stopped at a station and six young officers walked in wearing the uniform which I had worn with pride as a soldier in the last war. A sailor and a soldier entered the dining saloon, both drunk. That did not excite criticism because the train was full of drunks. The sailor walked in between the officers and while he was walking in between the tables he said: “Blimey, Officer boys”, and he turned round and shook hands with each of them. And when he got half way down the gangway he stopped again and said “By God, I shall kiss them” and he turned round and kissed each of them.

Kiss me, Sergeant Major.

I am mentioning that to show the state of discipline in our army. I do not blame the whole army, and I am not referring to the permanent Force; I am referring to the men drummed up so hurriedly. We cannot expect things to go right in this country, or out of it until some form of discipline is substituted for what we have to-day. Let me emplore the Prime Minister not to wait until it is too late. If he expects co-operation from us when the enemy is at our gates, at the gates of South Africa, it may well be too late — let him start now.

I have watched this debate for the last 24 hours hoping against hope that the division would not be too prolonged, but I cannot allow this debate to close without taking exception to the remarks made by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) some 12 hours ago. He was dealing with an incident at the departure of troops to the Northern fields of operation and as is customary, with the hospitality shown to these people when our men are going away to defend their freedom and their homes, all kinds of offerings are made to them when they pass through villages or through stations in uniform. These men wear the uniform which is a badge of service, service to the call of South Africa. Now, the hon. member for Waterberg took exception to the fact that European ladies had offered hospitality and had handed cups of tea to non-Europeans who were soldiers in the forces of South Africa. The language with which he criticised these acts of hospitality was calculated to be decidedly provocative and I am not going to take more of the time of this House than is necessary to say that I for one distinctly and decidedly repudiate with all the emphasis possible so dastardly an attack upon the serving soldiers of South Africa.

I should like to discuss this matter without dragging in any personalities. I have been sitting here and listening for twenty four hours and I imagine that possibly only one out of the six speakers opposite has not indulged in personalities. I am a young member, but I feel ashamed of the attitude adopted by some members, and I shall try as far as possible to refrain from personalities. The other side has raised a few arguments on the ground of which they contend that a vote of confidence in the Government should be passed. But the largest group have been trying to make their case good by indulging in invective. I imagine that that is something which the lawyers do — if they have a bad case they try to run down the other side. I was surprised to hear the Minister of Finance. I have never heard him speak as bitterly and as sharply as he did last night. He made charges against this side of the House. It was unnecessary for him to do so, and uncalled for, and if he had had a good case there would have been no need for it. The Minister without Portfolio indulged in a lot of boastful talk, and he reminded me of my childhood days when we used to learn children’s rhymes—

Boastful talk and invective do not get one any further. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) put forward one argument and it was this: How dare we oppose the Government and the Government’s war policy, seeing that it has been approved of three times by this House. Apparently because the Government’s war policy was passed by this House we have to sit quiet and put up with everything. It is not we who have turned the war into a political issue, it is the Government which has turned it into a political issue, when it had the resolution passed by a small majority in this House, and when it declared war immediately afterwards. It could have been taken for granted that the Opposition would oppose it. If we think a thing is wrong then it is our duty to oppose it. We have a democratic country and the public are entitled, if they feel the Government is wrong, to oppose the Government. But just because this resolution was passed by the House we apparently have to keep quiet and acquiesce in it. That is no argument for hon. members to raise here, and then to expect us to take any notice of it. We are just as much entitled to oppose it, seeing that it is a political matter, as we are entitled to oppose any other political matter. Another argument which the hon. member tried to raise was that the expenditure was not as large as we tried to make it out to be. He mentioned the case of Australia, and then we proved to him that his figures were wrong, he eventually abandoned the question in a most miserable manner, and now I should like to say a few words to the Minister of Finance. He came here and told us that the farmers are not suffering hardships and that they were flourishing and he told us that the Land Bank had informed him the other day that they were unable to invest their money. If the Minister had taken the trouble to have gone to the Deeds Office he would have found out how many bonds are being taken up. He knows as well as I do that for years the country has not been in as precarious a position as it is to-day. Let the Minister talk to the people of the platteland and let him talk to the business men in the town; they will tell him that business in the country is very bad. The Minister promised us that prosperous times were ahead, if only we took part in the war. He knows as well as I do that business is bad, and if the Minister wants to try to get the country to follow him by taking up that attitude then I can tell him in advance that he will not succeed. I just want to say this to the Minister of Finance, when he tells us that the Land Bank is unable to invest its money and that bonds are being paid off, that is quite true, but that is partly due to the bad condition in which the country finds itself to-day. Let me tell him what the position is. I spoke to one of the assessors of the Land Bank and he explained the position to me. He said that the farmers are deteriorating and that the Land Bank is not prepared to advance more than two thirds of the valuation. Farmers are therefore compelled to go and borrow somewhere else, and to pay off the mortgages which they have with the Land Bank. In other cases they are unable to pay their interest and redemption with the result that they borrow money elsewhere, so that they only have to pay interest as money is now plentiful. Money is withdrawn from business concerns and things of that kind. Let the Minister go to the Deeds Office and he will find out how many bonds there are, and let him come to my constituency and he will see what the position is. I want to tell him that for small things such as currants, for which we were getting 4d. to 5d. last year we are only getting 2½d. now. We are in this position to-day, that we do not know what to do with our sultanas and our raisins. He knows that to the extent of 75 per cent. we depend on our export market and we are unable to export to-day. England is not in a position to take these goods and we do not know what is going to happen. We all know that England does not simply want to buy from us because she loves us so much—England wants 20/- in the £ and quite right too. Now I want to ask the Minister what is going to become of those sultanas and raisins which are produced this year. 75 per cent. are surplus and we are unable to export them and there is no market for them. The price of distilling wine has dropped by 8s. and we do not know where to turn. We do not know what is going to happen. Our export market in England has been stopped. We are trying to extend our market in the East and we hope to be able to do so. We have tried to find markets in America but brandy from Spain and Portugal is exported to America. So we are stuck with our brandy. I can say this to the Minister, if that is the position as a result of the war, it would have been much better had we remained neutral. We fail to understand on what grounds the Minister told us that the country was flourishing. We have a surplus of 51⅔% of our wine and brandy. The farmers who export their grapes have now been helped by the Government, but they have been helped in this way, that the Government has said to them “We shall give you a subsidy of 2d. and 1½d. per lb. on your export grapes. Last year the Government gave a subsidy on grapes suitable for export. This year it is giving it, whether the grapes are suitable for export or not. The Fruit Board presses the grapes and the farmers have to be subsidised. If the Minister wants to help those people he should send the grapes which they are now trying to keep off the market to the pool’ people. If one visits the small dorps in the Karoo one is told by the people that they have no grapes. Why should the grapes be used for the production of wine while we have a large surplus? I am mentioning this to explain the position. We have a surplus and we are faced with the difficulty that we have no market for our surplus. How can the Minister say that the country is flourishing. Every day I get applications for employment. There is ample work, that is not the difficulty. Our industrial legislation should have provided ample work. Here is a letter, one of many that I have received. I received this letter on the 14th January, and this is what it says—

Then he goes on to say—

This is one of the many letters I am getting. People are told that the conditions in the country are good and that there is ample work, and that nobody is in want. The farmers are paying off their bonds. If the Minister would go to a platteland dorp he will find that the parents are worrying about the children who have passed their matric and who are unable to find employment. Now I want to say a few words about the emergency regulations which have just been issued. Hon. members boast of our being a democratic people, and they say that the people have a right to say whatever they want to say. But now we have these emergency regulations dealing with political meetings. We are not at war here. People are not fighting here. The battlefield is a few thousand miles away from us, and we are having normal times here. Now they come along with those regulations, so as to exercise control over meetings. In other words we are prevented from doing certain things when we have a meeting. If one claps one’s hands there may be trouble. We want the Minister to understand that we Afrikaners are afraid; why should we, when we walk down the street, have to look round to see whether anyone is listening when we want to say anything? Why, when I talk of freedom, am I not allowed to hold a meeting in my own country? These meetings have been held for years. True, there have been disorders, but we have a law which can control them. We know what steps have been taken to deal with misdeeds and crimes, and now they come along with their regulations. The position is simply that they want to rule us with force, and if a man holds a meeting and states what policy should be followed he gets into trouble. Surely, that sort of thing is impossible, and it is absolutely unnecessary. I have addressed hundreds of meetings and I have not had any trouble. There was trouble when the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. E. Louw) addressed a meeting at Marico and when he was knocked down. People get excited, but that is the sort of thing one has to expect in an election. One is not allowed to talk about any matters of importance, and it would seem that these regulations have been passed in order to enable the Government to continue holding meetings, but if anyone else opens his mouth to put a question, or if anyone applauds, or shouts, the authorities may step in and one may be charged with disturbing the meeting, and one may be put in gaol in the same way as the Wilkens brothers were put in gaol—one may be put in gaol even without a warrant being issued. We who have had something to do with the law know that if a decent person has committed an offence they will naturally arrest him and let him go out on bail. It used to be the custom in cases of that kind simply to issue a summons as was done with the other fourteen people in the Wilkens case. What rights have we to-day in our own country? To-morrow or the day after they will come along and deprive us of our vote, or they will take our seats away, and they come along here with legislation because we have been forced into this war, and they expect us to have confidence in them. Even that section which wanted to go into the war will surely not approve of the Government’s action if it considers the position for one moment; surely even that section cannot approve of what the Government is doing in regard to these emergency measures. Is not this a democratic country. Can one imagine provisions of that kind being made in respect of a country like this? Why are these provisions being made? Are they being made simply to get us into trouble? I do not for one moment believe that the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance would approve of regulations like that, but yesterday I sat here and watched the hon. member in front of me, when he asked the Prime Minister a question in regard to the crimes committed by the soldiers. At the end he said: “I want to make an appeal, I have received a number of telegrams and letters.” He appealed to the Minister not to be so hard on the people. If anyone forces me to do anything he will not get me to do it but if I am convinced that the man is right I shall pay attention to him. But to come here and to force those regulations down our throats is not right. The Afrikaner does not know what sort of prosecutions he may be faced with next. Here is a man who asks for bread. But because he refused to sign the red oath, he cannot get it. We cannot tolerate that sort of thing in this country. It is taken amiss if we on this side of the House say that we shall settle with the Government, but let me tell the Government that we must not smother people’s feelings. I have kept my mouth shut lately because I do not know how things are going to be repeated. The Minister says that that is the danger, the danger lies in false rumours. If those people want to fight I have no objection, but what right have they to expect better treatment than we? We have the instance of one of the members who said: “Why do you wear beards and if you do wear them why don’t you shave them off?” and that in our own country! It is a terrible thing. It is a clear case of racialism, and then they talk about stirring up feelings between the two sections of the population. Is it possible for us after all that to give them our confidence? I could stand up here for a whole afternoon and give any number of instances where people have been treated unjustly. Well, I see at least one Minister here, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. I want to ask him something in connection with a letter which I have before me. It is dated 18th November, 1940, and reads as follows —

The previous letter dated 31st October, 1940, reads as follows —

I want to ask the Minister how it is that a letter like that was sent out. This letter was sent to one Lance Tomlinson — I do not mind mentioning his name. His is the largest firm at Swellendam, but naturally those people are Nationalists. I can mention the names of other firms at Swellendam which are much smaller and much less important, but they were granted their licences. I want to know from the Minister how these people are selected. At Robertson only the two Nationalists were picked out. The SAP and the Jew were allowed to carry on, but only the two Nationalists were picked out. The same at Worcester Here at Swellendam we have the same thing again. There we have William Spilhaus with a staff of five, Blumberg with a staff of seven and then a few small firms. They are not touched, but Tomlinson with 21 people in his service gets a letter like that. Did the Department really send out men to find out who were Nationalists and who were SAPS? That is how it appears to me. Of course, the Minister will say that matters were put right afterwards. Yes, after they had protested they were notified that their licences would be renewed, but even now the position remains uncertain. After correspondence had taken place and a deputation sent to Pretoria—the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Wolfaard) went to Pretoria, but Tomlinson received the following letter—

After that protest he now has his licence, but the firm does not know were it is. If it refuses to wear the red tabs it does not know whether or not it may lose its licence tomorrow or the day after. Surely it does not matter to the Government how many trading licences there are covering the sale of wireless sets. The more wireless sets sold the more fees does the Minister’s office get, and the more people are employed. A number of people are employed even to-day; why should a step like this be taken, and what is the position? Are they going to have a repetition in 1941 of what has just happened? If I look at the regulations and at the pinpricks to which people are being subjected, then it seems to me that men who refuse to sign the red oath and who refuse to wear the red tabs are being prevented from earning a livelihood. How can we be expected to trust such a Government? They say that their policy has been thrice approved of by this Parliament. We know that, but we say that the people are opposed to the war policy, and we call on the Government to have a general election to let the people decide. The Government was elected under conditions totally different from those which exist to-day. That is to say, the Government formed itself under conditions different from those which prevail to-day. The war policy to-day is entirely different from what it was in those days. If the Government is so certain of having a majority among the people, why then does it not go to the country? The Government wants to tell us that practically the whole of the people are behind them. Let them hold an election to prove that. If it so, then surely they will come back stronger than they are to-day after an election. We cannot allow things to go on as they are to-day; we cannot allow the Afrikaner to be treated as a stranger in his own country, and we cannot allow him to be prevented from living his life as he wants to live it in this country. The Afrikaners are being consistently threatened and persecuted. For instance, we have this regulation saying that if anyone assaults a soldier he will be sent to gaol. Surely a soldier is assumed to be a trained man and to be able to defend himself. Yet we have this regulation. What is the reason for it? Is it not simply that the Government says: “We are the masters, as we are going to show you, and we are going to oppress you until you cannot breathe”? Can the Government expect us to be satisfied with a policy of violence and force of that kind? What was the answer which we got to the criticisms levelled against the Government in this House? We have had no answer. They simply say that we are divided. What has that to do with them? If they have not got the confidence of the country, then they are not entitled to sit on those seats over there. And how is this Government constituted? There is the Dominion Party, there is the Labour Party, there are the native representatives; they govern by the aid of those people. The Minister of Finance has now come along with a totally different proposal. It is no longer a question of the House expressing its confidence in the Government’s war policy. The various groups on the other side agree with that; they do not hide the fact that they want to fight for Great Britain. So far as the war policy is concerned, they are in agreement with the Government. But now the Minister of Finance comes along, and he moves that they must also swallow the United Party’s party principles. What is the Labour Party going to do? Perhaps it does not matter very much what they do, because they do not carry much weight to-day. The Minister of Labour has said in so many words: “I have sold my principles for the sake of two laws which the Government is going to introduce.” He has told us in other words that he is being bribed, that he is satisfied because he is not going to get legislation passed which otherwise, so he says, he would not have been able to get passed. What are they going to tell their constituents? They are now supporting the Government’s capitalistic policy, they are swallowing it. They have been elected as representatives of the Labour Party. They are now swallowing the policy of the United Party; they are now going to accept the principles of Gen. Smuts’ party. And what is the Dominion Party going to do? Do they agree with the United Party’s policy in every respect? The Government could not even induce them to approve of a pension for Gen. Hertzog; they have come along now and are joining the United Party, because if they swallow the principles of the United Party—as proposed in the amendment of the Minister of Finance—they might as well join that party. They were elected by the Dominionites, which stands for a totally different policy than what the United Party stands for. Are they prepared to swallow the principles of the United Party in their entirety? They talk about division on this side, but they cannot even show any agreement on the question of a pension for a man who has served this country throughout the whole of his life. The Minister of Finance comes along and tells us that the Leader of the Opposition has done a terrible thing. The Leader of the Opposition had told the House that the mining tax had been increased by only 2 per cent., while in actual fact it was 22 per cent. It does not matter very much, even if the Minister is right. The point is that even then I cannot be satisfied. Why should the income tax be raised by 70 per cent., while the tax on mines is increased by only 22 per cent., if we accept the Minister’s figure as being correct? For all these reasons I am in favour of this vote of no confidence. If the Prime Minister is not prepared to accept it, let him go through the country and see for himself how much unemployment and poverty there is, and let him make a serious effort to do away with this unemployment. We have been told that certain industries are being established, but I do not believe that under the new Act in connection with an Industrial Corporation one single industry has so far been established. The position is more serious than it was before the war. The products of the farmers cannot be sold, and the prices, so far as our part of the country is concerned, are lower than ever. People have large surpluses, and they do not know what to do with them. Under those conditions, we feel that this vote of no confidence in the Government is fully justified.

I heard the appeal of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) when he said this motion of no confidence should be discussed in a calm atmosphere, but he will admit that on both sides there is very often a little provocation given and sometimes it is a little difficult for certain members to keep calm, but I must say he discussed it very moderately, and I am not going to keep the House for very long. I am going to try to raise a few points brought before the House in the early hours of the morning by my friend, the hon. member for Graaff Reinet (Dr. Bremer). I have seldom seen him in a more fighting mood, and I have seldom seen him in a more vigorous attitude than in the early hours of this morning. He has a perfect right I admit to air his opinions that this Government does not have the confidence of the country, but when he advances an argument that owing to the war all Government Departments are grossly neglected, I think he goes a little too far. He especially blamed the Public Health Department as being to-day the most neglected department of this Government. I can assure him, if he will only have a look at the Estimates which came before the House and which will be discussed again later on, he will notice that the Public Health Vote was actually increased this year over the amount spent on public health last year. My work and I am sure the work of the hon. member for Graaff Reinet brings us in contact with this Department almost every day, and although there has been a loss of personnel owing to men leaving on active service, the Government Department has been working overtime in order to do all the medical work necessary. My experience, and the experience of most medical men in this City, and in other towns in South Africa, is that we have found that the Government Departments have been most obliging in doing the necessary medical work in the shortest possible time. He said the Government had not the confidence of the country because of a Commission on which he served which was appointed to give a report on the medical education in our universities, and he blamed this Government for not putting that report into effect. My hon. friend knows very well that that report was published nearly two years ago when this Government in power to-day actually was not in power. Although I admit that the report brought out is a very worthy one he has not the right to say that the Government has not got the confidence of this country because this report has not been put into action. It is a very far-reaching report and the Government could not possibly put a report like that into action, at any rate not for many years to come in this country. But my hon. friend went further and he said that at certain universities—and we all know which ones he referred to—the staff were not interested in the work of the students unless the students were prepared to volunteer for the front. Let me assure my friend, and he knows it too, that in a certain university in which both he and I have the honour to be on the teaching staff, that is not the case. Many hundreds of men have gone to the front, but the staff are making great efforts and in fact the work of the medical curriculum has been increased this very year notwithstanding this war. To blame the Government for the work in the university which he must know is carried on for all available students, is not fair. Actually the number of medical students were greater at the university of Cape Town now than last year, before the war ever started in earnest. Now, if these statements are taken seriously they will convey to outside people that it may be true that actually the Government is neglecting the educational departments and the medical services in the country for their war effort. I have not found it so, and I think my hon. friend, the member for Graaff Reinet was not honestly serious when he made those statements. Other statements he made I am in full agreement with. I have on previous occasions spoken in this House, not only to this Government but also to the previous Government on the question of food supplies in this country. There I agree with him. He dealt with another point. He said in a jocular way that he had so little confidence in this Government and in the Cabinet especially that two Opposition back bench seats would provide as efficient a Cabinet as the one we have. I do not think that that can be taken seriously. There is only one point where my friend, perhaps more than he thought, hurt the member for Maitland (Mr. Mushet) when he made rather a personal remark about the member for Maitland in the warwork that I know the member for Maitland is doing. My friend I know is one of the leading men in his profession and in a moment of anger perhaps said something which I am sure he is sorry for. He told the hon. member for Maitland that he made an extra profit out of the war. Now I just want to say this, that it is no use talking in this strain in this House from the Opposition or from this side. You cannot convert anybody on this side that the Government has not got the confidence of the country. We all know how things are in this country, and the Opposition must know in their hearts, that this Government has the full confidence of the great majority of the Union of South Africa, among all sections of the population, and I feel confident that we can keep this Government in power, and that it will be a wise, a safe and a steady thing for this country to do so.

I entirely agree with the hon. member who has just sat down when he said that it was quite impossible to induce any of the members opposite to leave the Government and to get rid of the Government side of the House because the great majority of those who support the Government are in receipt of double salaries and if they were to vote for this motion they would endanger their double salaries. We have listened to a great many charges during the course of this debate and we have heard many facts stated. The answer vouchafed on behalf of the Government was that they were now fighting for one or other Christianity. They have repeated this statement so often that they almost believe it themselves. We listened to the lecture of the Minister of Lands. He tried to show that those who did not support the Government were traitors of the country. I feel that we on this side of the House have a greater right and more reason to say that not only the Government but all those who support the Government have betrayed our people’s interests and the interests of the country. The Government has never told us the full truth in regard to the war or in regard to the steps that have been taken to conduct the war. When the Prime Minister, who at the time was Minister of Justice in the previous Government, used to discuss the possibility of a great war he gave the assurance that to his mind South Africa would not take part in any war unless England were attacked or unless England’s existence were threatened. Nobody is going to say to-day that England was attacked. It may be argued perhaps that as a result of the developments which have taken place the existence of England as a country is threatened. But the Prime Minister at the time went further and said that even if those two conditions were complied with and if there was evidence to show that England was attacked and that her existence was at stake, then there was still, so he said, another condition, and that was that the Parliament and the people of South Africa must decide whether or not the country was to take part in the war. He stated that it was not for him to say whether South Africa was to take part, but that it was a matter for the people to decide. That is what he said on the 25th August, 1938. What has become of that promise? The people of South Africa are still waiting to-day, they are anxiously looking forward to the Prime Minister carrying out his promise that the country would be consulted. No, by means of a snap majority in this House the war has been forced on to South Africa. And after that war was also declared against Italy, and Parliament has not even been consulted in connection with that declaration of war. The Government is not giving effect to its promises, it is breaking those promises. The Prime Minister told us that he was going to fight this war with volunteers and nothing but volunteers. A great many instances have been given of people who have not gone forward voluntarily, and the way in which those people are forced to go has been shown up here. To mention one instance, in my constituency there was a young fellow who had been working on the Vaal-Hartz scheme. I was in my constituency about a week ago and he told me that on the 7th August, 1940, he was given just 15 minutes to decide whether he would sign the red oath or whether he would leave his employment. On account of his having refused to take the red oath he had to leave his job at 7 o’clock in the morning. I have another letter here from a man who has tried everything in his power to get hold of a bit of land, so as to make a living. He has sent applications and the reply he has received has invariably been “The Department does not employ anyone who may be liable for military service.” Is that voluntary? People are deprived of the opportunity of making a living and they are being forced in that way to join up. They have to become cannon fodder in a war which does not concern us at all. They are being forced into it. I know of a policeman who had arrested a drunken native in Johannesburg. The native wanted to resist and in the rough and tumble which followed the policeman and the native fell on top of each other and the native broke his leg but he quietly got up and went to the charge office. He had not been there a long time when one of the officers wearing a red tab came along and the policeman was told that he either had to sign the red oath failing which he would prosecuted. That man had parents whom he had to support so the only thing for him to do was to wear the red tab. Talk of volunteers! And now the Government, so I understand, is going to introduce another tab. In addition to the red tab we are going to have a blue tab. The red oath has caused a tremendous lot of trouble and bitterness, and now the split between the two sections is going to be widened even more by the introduction of a blue oath. Things have to be made as unpleasant as possible for those who do not want to take part in the war. I want to warn the Prime Minister not to cause more bitterness in this country. I have another instance of deception. The Minister of Finance came along first of all and said that he only needed £14,000,000. He boasted of the fact that future generations would not be called upon to bear the burdens of the war. Within a few months he had spent £46,000,000, and to-day it is £60,000,000. More promises that have been broken. Another promise was made when the Prime Minister during the last session stated that if there was a continuation of the trouble in Adderley Street he would put and end to the prayer pause. We know what has happened? The Prime Minster has not moved a hand. The people who do not agree with him are persecuted and assaulted, and in addition they are made the scapegoats. The Prime Minister comes along now and says that he is tired of all this bother about those things. I want to ask him whether the Afrikaner has not at the very least as much right in the streets of Cape Town as the coloured people and the scoundrels who attack those who refuse to take part in this prayer business. Cannot we say that the Afrikaner even has more right than those people in the streets of Cape Town? We know what happened at Potchefstroom; we know what happened in Johannesburg. The Prime Minister adopts an attitude of complete innocence in all these happenings. He did not know that there was any trouble—he was taken by surprise. It is all part of his old and unfortunate policy to let things develop, and he is applying that old policy again. Another reason why we are supporting this motion of the Leader of the Opposition is that the Prime Minister not only gave this House the assurance that coloured people would not be armed, but in replying to questions he repeated that assurance. The people of South Africa are not going to tolerate a thing like that. I want to emphasise what has already been said by the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen), namely, that on the 31st November, 1940, on the Sunday night, a train of armed coloured men left Kimberley for the North. I personally asked those people, and also the white supervisors, where they were going, and they told me that they were going North. Another witness in the hon. member for Kimberley City (Mr. Humphreys), who, in an interjection, asked here whether those coloured people were not to be allowed to defend themselves. If they are not going to fight there will be no need for them to defend themselves. Another reason why we are supporting this vote of no confidence is that the Government which knows the constitution of the people must be aware of the fact that by means of its war policy it is creating a deep chasm between the various races in this country. Since the outbreak of war we have had ample evidence of deep-seated friction between the races in South Africa, which has been aggravated by this intolerance which is being fostered by the frivolous manner in which the Government is pursuing the war, and by the disorders which have taken place in the country, and which has had the probable effect of render ing any future co-operation impossible between the two races. After the provocation which has been given it is almost impossible to expect the Afrikaner not only to help England to win her war, but also to help her pay for it. A spirit of intolerance has been fostered in this country not by us but by the Government. What happened in Johannesburg? We even know the spirit which is prevailing there, because the police were not wearing red inflammation plasters on their shoulders they had to be removed from the streets of Johannesburg. All this tends to show the feeling that has been created. Do hon. members know what happened in my constituency? A magistrate came from the Transvaal to address the natives in the location, a location in which not only the natives from the settlement and from the town are living, but also from the surrounding farms, and he started off by asking for a financial contribution so as to award a prize to the man who would shoot Mussolini’s son. And he told the natives who worked on the farms that they must try and hear what their boss and their foreman were saying to each other, and then they must come and tell whether they were supporters of Boss Smuts or of Boss Hitler. He also told the kaffir women that they must listen to the talk of the women in the homes. This low type of espionage was started. If that sort of thing goes on in South Africa then it will be easy to understand why we are fully entitled to say that it will not be easy for racial co-operation to be re-established in the future. Another reason why we support this vote of no confidence is that this Government, in spite of the dictatorial powers it possesses, has failed to punish the culprits and the people responsible for causing the disorders at Potchefstroom, with the result that we have had a repetition of the occurrence in Johannesburg, which was worse than the first one. I take it for granted that the Prime Minister regrets these occurrences. But it is the result of his old policy “to let things develop.” I want to say here that I am not one of those who look down upon a soldier as a soldier. In our army there are many decent men who have chosen soldiering as their profession and there are also people who have been forced into the army by the type of letter which I have quoted here, but at the same time we get people in the army who are no use for anything, and they have joined up because they get a magnificent salary in the army, and in addition to that they get married in order to get the increased allowance. The discipline which is maintained is not what it should be, although there are good officers in the army as well. There are also Ossewa-Brandwag members in the army, so there must be good men in the army. But the discipline which is maintained in South Africa is of such a character that if the Prime Minister wants the historian to be filled with as much admiration of his red tab doctrine as he himself is, he will have to see to it that better discipline is maintained than has been the case so far. If the Prime Minister fails to do that, future historians will not be able to say about his doctrine what Ward Price to-day has to say about the German soldier. He gives a description of what happened when the troops marched into Prague, and he says that in spite of the greatest provocation they simply looked straight ahead. He mentions the instance of an officer who was washing his hands when the chef, who was a drunkard, kicked him so hard from behind that he struck his head against the wall. The German officer simply clicked his heels and walked out of the building. If the Prime Minister wants the historian to be able to speak like that about our soldiers he will have to see to it that better discipline is maintained than is the case to-day. One of the reasons why the boundaries of South Africa have become so elastic is that we are now going to meet the common enemy whom we ourselves have created so far beyond the borders of the Union, merely to prevent damage being done to property in the Union. But what do we find now as a result of the way in which the war is being conducted in South Africa? We find first of all that as a result of the Government’s war policy we have made enemies of two of the biggest powers abroad. Secondly, we find that we have not created a condition of security internally, but that we have become insecure not only as regards property but also as regards life itself, and those are the people who are supposed to-day to be fighting in the front trenches for the sake of Christianity and democracy—the kind of Christianity which we have had members preaching about to us in this House during the last few days. Another reason why we support this vote of no confidence is that the financial policy of the Government directly conflicts with the interests of the farmers. The Minister of Lands was in my constituency where he tried to catch votes by making wild promises as to what was going to be done for the farmer. When I asked him here in black and white whether he was going to give effect to those promises I got the reply, also in black and white, that present conditions rendered it impossible. Conditions on the platteland are not as rosy as the Minister of Finance wants us to understand. Various schemes have been completely stopped or curtailed to a large extent. The Minister of Agriculture came along here with supplementary estimates and in order to put up a smokescreen he put £100,000 on the Estimates as assistance to farmers. It is not assistance to farmers but assistance to the towns’ people. I do not want to go into the wool position at this stage. I am a wool farmer myself and we shall come back to that question later on. All I want to say now is this, — if ever we have had proof of the fact that this Government is the lackey of Downing Street then we have it in the wool position. I asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it had been definitely agreed that the wool clip if South Africa would be sold at an average of 10¾d. per lb. He remained silent, and I thereupon said that I took it as an admission that that was not the case, because we had information that that was not the case. They wanted to mislead this House and we have now to be satisfied with what we may get as a result of the arrangement that wool is to be sold on the basis of a few hundred types. For the first fine and light wools we got that price. That was the first wool which came on the market. And then the hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler) comes along, and says “Yes, but the farmers know that they are going to get a cheque for half of the profit made on the wool.” Why should England take the balance? The farmers of this country are entitled to a great deal more. That wool is not being exported to Great Britain. No, it is lying here at the Coast, and yet the hon. member for Kimberley District asks „To whom is that wool sold?” He does not answer us but he knows that thousands and thousands of bales are exported to Japan. Japan buys from the British Government here in South Africa and Great Britain is making a profit here in South Africa on our wool. That, is one of the ways in which the wool farmer has to help towards paying for Great Britain’s war effort. What is going to be the profit when the expense has been deducted? It has been shewn that all the telegraphic and telephone calls are being paid by the South African wool farmers and not by England who is making the profit. The man who opens the bales and pulls out the wool so that it can be examined, gets £50 per month. And that is the way in which the money of the South African wool farmer is being played about with and is being wasted. But in spite of all the Prime Minister tells us that the position of the farmer is so flourishing that he should be grateful to the Government. I just want to quote a witness to shew what the farmers’ position is. That witness is a great friend of the Government’s; he has supported the Government through thick and thin. It is Mr. Manie Wium, the Chairman of the South African Agricultural Union who last y ear at te opening of the South African Agricultural Union Congress spoke as follows—

This man is a great SAP. Well, that is what he says, and yet the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister tell us that the position of the farmer in South Africa is rosy. Mr. Manie Wium is a great supporter of the Government, and because of his position he is conversant with the actual position, and let us see what he says. Let us even call a Minister as our witness and see what he says. This is what the Minister of Agriculture said at that self same congress—

That is what the Minister of Agriculture says about farming, and in spite of that he is the man who told this House that we had to take part in the war, failing which our products would lie here and rot. It cannot be denied that the farmer has to pay a great deal more for his poles, his wire, and everything he needs. A farmer finds it practically impossible to-day to put up a fence; he can hardly afford to put up a windmill, and then the Minister tells us himself that the price at which he has to sell his products is not much higher than is was before the war. I do not want to go any further into what the Minister of Agriculture has said. We on the platteland know what the position of the farmer is. The hon. the Minister almost in despair said to one of my big mealie farmers when he heard that he had such a good crop: “I hope in Heaven’s name that is is not like that throughout the whole country because what am I going to do?” He hoped that things would go badly with the farmers because he was already proclaiming his “lê en vrot” story. It is true that there are people in this country, as the Prime Minister has said, with whom things are going very well in South Africa. They are the people who are drawing double salaries — that long list of officers one sees. In my constituency there is a brave man who did not go to the front, but he was put in charge of the camp at Andalusia. One day there was something wrong there and the Germans discussed their position and approached the authorities. What did this brave soldier, this red plaster bearer, do then? He got hold of three or four lorries, loaded them up with soldiers, and rushed the camp, and he said to the un-armed people there: “Keep your mouths shut or I shall set about you.” He immediately had his salary increased from £30 to £80 per month. And then the Minister of Finance comes along and says “The people know everything, nothing has been hidden from them.” The people are very anxious to know what has become of this £100,000 which the Auditor General is unable to find. I want to mention something which happened in my constituency. There was a quantity of dynamite to the value of £30 left over, and they were so scared that the Ossewa-Brandwag might get hold of it that they had that dynamite guarded by four guards, each of whom was paid £15 per month. That dynamite has now been guarded for six months. The Minister of Finance who is so proud of his ability to juggle with figures will be able to work out horn much that dynamite has been costing us. Why, if they were so frightened of the Ossewa-Brandwag, did they not blow up the dynamite and save the country the rest of the money? Another reason why we support the vote of no confidence is that when the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister what our war objects were he said that we were fighting for a better relationship in the North. I do not know that if one wants better relations one takes up the sword, but the real reason why we are not told what our actual war objects are in Africa is that the decision is taken in Downing Street and we only hear a little bit of what Downing Street says in this country. We are told that we are fighting for Christianity. If this is really a holy war in which we are involved I want to ask is it a new form of Christianity that one has to defend Christianity with such un-Christian, barbarous methods as Great Britain and South Africa, which is assisting Great Britain, want to apply? They say that we are going to fight Germany with the same weapons as we fought her with in 1914-1918, and after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, namely starvation. Is that Chritianity? The Prime Minister said “What about Holland?”, the holy ground of South Africa which has been violated. I am of French descent, and many of us are of French descent, and I want to refer to the scandalous attack on the French, the most scandalous in history, Great Britain’s cowardice, and now they want to support De Gaulle at Dakar. If those are the arguments in favour of our taking up arms, rather let us take up arms and stand by France and not by Great Britain. I want to mention another case for the benefit of the people who talk about Christianity. Do hon. members know what they are doing? It is hot in Cape Town, but is is hotter still in the Low Veld. Do you know what they do with the Italians? They locked up the famous Italian Doctor Mario for three weeks in a cell, they gave him solitary confinement in a cell 4 ft. by 10 ft., a hot corrugated iron cell, at a time when there was no regulation allowing them to do so, and then they tell us that they are fighting for Christianity. If they are such strong fighters for Christianity I want to know whether it was the action of a Christian nation to allow Paul Kruger who had been banished from South Africa to die in exile? Another reason why we are fighting, and that is perhaps the only war object which South Africa has, is the protection of small nations. We are fighting for the protection of Haile Selassie, and his slaves, with the object of putting him on his throne. Is it not England which has repeatedly tried through the aid of Molotov, Minister of Foreign Affairs, to put Russia up against Germany, so that she could get Russia as an Ally? Will any hon. member say that if England were to succeed in getting Russia as her Ally we would still be fighting for the preservation of Christianity? No, it would be for the preservation of Great Britain. Would they refuse Russia’s aid? No, they would accept it because they are day by day trying to put Russia up against Germany. If that were to happen and if Russia were to fight on England’s side would Russia, when the war is over, hand back the rich plunder which she has taken in Poland, and along the North Sea? Would she return it all for the protection of Christianity? No, we ask what has become of South Africa’s war object for the protection of small nations? What has become of Poland? No, hon. members over there would be the first to say “We must let Russia keep that part of Poland as compensation for the help she has given us”. I have got to know those people in the past. In the world war of 1914-1918 we had the same stories. On the 9th November, 1916, Mr. Asquith said—

And then on the 20th March it was agreed—

I say that where we were then there we are again to-day. This Government should realise that it is not here to-day as a Government chosen by the will of the people, because the people have been denied that right. The Government has come here and it has dug itself in against the rights of Afrikanerdom. Here it comes with its emergency regulations —nothing but a bulwark against the rights of Afrikanerdom. It has come with a change in the Electoral Act, also a disgrace. What about Winburg which was perhaps not as strong as the Maginot Line in spite of the high idea which the Minister of Native Affairs had of the Maginot Line? And we shall have the same results in any future by-elections. The Government must have found that its chances were very poor and that was why it did not put up candidates for Fauresmith and Smithfield. We challenge them to put up candidates there; if they do so they will see how they are going to be dealt with. They will lose their £50 deposit. We are convinced of that, and that is why they have not the courage to show the country and the world that the will of the people of South Africa is definitely opposed to the Government, and the will of the people is reflected in this vote of no confidence proposed by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a long debate, the longest which has ever been held in this House, and although towards the end remarks have been made about the spirit prevailing in this debate, I want to say at the outset that, generally speaking, I cannot complain about the tone which prevailed here. There have been exceptions, unfortunately there have been exceptions where speeches were made with more than the usual vigour and heat, but against that we have to take into consideration that we live in a most important and critical time. We live in a period when passions run very high. I must, however, say that during the time I have been a member of Parliament I have experienced other similarly critical times, I have listened to other similar debates in times of excitement, and I must admit that, generally speaking, with a few exceptions, Parliament need not be ashamed of the average tone of the debate on this particular occasion. Maybe this is due to special circumstances, namely, that this motion of no confidence in the Government is supported from this side of the House not solely by the official Opposition but also by another party which has recently been formed and that on the Government benches where the reaction to this motion of no confidence became apparent, the attitude was taken up that this side of the House did not solely consist of a gang of enemies; according to their utterances they apparently also drew a distinction between a host of enemies and a section of friends or potential friends, and thus with their right hand they proffered their friendship, leaving only their left hand free to fight against this side of the House. Perhaps these circumstances contributed to the absence in general of the sharpness which we might have expected under the circumstances. What I do feel I must complain about is that on the side of the Government benches, and more in particular on the part of the Prime Minister—who, to my regret, is not vet in his seat, for I have to deal with him especially—there was a lack of seriousness in the reply he gave to the arguments and accusations made from this side, and not only a lack of seriousness but there was, on his part, an obvious evasion of the points advanced by me on important aspects. In the reply he gave, the Prime Minister took up the attitude that he is totally unaware of the reason for and positively ignorant of the grounds upon which this motion of no confidence in him and his Government have been based. I want to point out in this connection that an innocent attitude is neither a sign of innocence nor a sign of strength, but that indifference often is the best camouflage for one’s own vulnerability. I believe that is the case here. If a duck shakes off all the water that pours down upon him, it does not mean that it is not raining, and in my opinion this metaphor is particularly applicable to the attitude taken up by the Prime Minister. I believe there has been a great deal of dodging and evasion on his part. Mostly evasion is nothing else but an indirect admission of the strength of an argument or an admission that there is something one wants to cover up and does not want to reveal. There was, for instance, my question, and I think it a very important question, in relation to the war aims. The question was, where are we going to land at the end of this war. This is a reasonable question which everybody in this country must ask, especially in view of those colossal sacrifices, both financial and otherwise, on account of the war. The Prime Minister described this as trivial, but it is most remarkable that after he called it a triviality, something which he did not expect from a responsible Leader of the Opposition, he veered round, came back to the same question and as much as admitted correct my accusation in regard to the position we shall be in under certain circumstances as far as America is concerned. The same applies in connection with another important question in relation to the North. What is, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, the result of this war going to be inasmuch as it affects our relations with the North, particularly in view of a scheme which he announced years ago, namely, that the Union should extend its borders further northwards and that it should annex territories as far as Central Africa. What was the reply he gave us? He said that we are busy discussing trade problems with the Congo territory, and that the policy of the Government is the establishment of good commercial relations between us and the various territories. It was not necessary to stress that we should keep up our friendly relations with our neighbours. We all agree with that, and everybody will support it. But the reply was an obvious evasion of an important question which had been put to him. Matters have been broached here to which neither the Prime Minister nor anybody else have replied. There is, for instance, the question, and one of the very greatest importance, How does the war affect the relations between Europeans and non-Europeans in this country. And a letter has been read out here which passed the censor and in which it was clearly shown that coloured units which have been put into military uniforms, are now receiving military training. And those uniforms do not differ in the slightest from the uniforms of the European soldiers. It is bad enough that they proceed to the North, taking for granted that they serve there as car drivers or in other posts of that kind, it is bad enough that they see there how our white soldiers fight shoulder to shoulder with the King’s African Rifles, and that coloured troops are being used in this war to be arbiters between European and European. That is bad enough. But what will the consequences thereof be in regard to the natives of South Africa. Here we have had a clear indication and an account of those units also receiving military instruction with guns. To my mind this is a very serious imputation, but no reply could be elicited thereto, although several of the Ministers spoke. This motion is being supported by the newly-formed Afrikaner Party. I am pleased about that. I think that where General Hertzog had adopted an attitude in diametrical opposition to the former policy of the Government, it would have been a monstrosity if the attitude of the Hertzog party had supported the Government Party — it would have been a monstrosity if their attitude had been a different one from that of supporting the motion of no confidence. But many more things have been dragged into this debate, as for instance the relations between the races and the differences which were supposed to exist between us arid them. I am not disposed to accept the fight on this particular point. I believe that some of them are definitely labouring under a misunderstanding but if the issue has to be decided I shall rather leave it to the electorate to do so. In spite of the caustic remarks that have come from those benches, against me personally in particular, I do not wish to reply in the same vein. But still I want to draw their attention to the following. What happened here in this House between them and the Government benches is the worst that could have happened from a tactical point of view. It must be clear to anybody that the enemies of Gen. Hertzog throughout the many years that they left him in the lurch, and when they stabbed him from behind on 4th September, and when they threw him out of the United Party — it is quite clear that they are now full of his praise and that his name was exploited in this debate by members on the Government side of this House. Why do they do it? Is it because they are such warm friends of the Afrikaner people? No, they do it as enemies who think to have discovered a marvellous opportunity, so that they, may now again divide the Afrikaner people which is undergoing a process of re-union. I say that the tactics followed are from that point of view about as bad as one can possibly make them. It will not place them in a better position with their constituents. I furthermore want to put a few questions t o them. Several of them tried to explain to us the way in which we differ from one another. I think it will be a different explanation which we shall have to give to their voters, and that is not only in how far they differ from us, perhaps on good grounds, but they will have to explain in what way they differ from members on the other side. That is the big question.

That has been done long ago.

They will have to do it, not only as regards the question of war — that is of a passing nature — but also in relation to other important questions about which the two sides of this House differ. The hon. friends of the Afrikaner Party will have to explain where they stand. Whereas the old United Party committed itself and is still to-day pledged to a certain non-European policy and a certain policy in regard to separate residential areas and mixed marriages and similar problems, which were matters of discussion between the parties, hon. members over there will have to state whether they agree with the other side of the House or whether they differ from the other side and share our point of view. Apart from a large number of other problems they shall have to give account to the people and give a reply to the people on the question whether they agree with the Government side on the republican issue or not. The members on the other side are committed, according to their programme of principles, to the maintenance of the British connection. When the members of the Afrikaner Party, when the supporters of Gen. Hertzog broke away from the United Party on 4th September, they threw that principle overboard and accepted the republic as their aim. The Government side is now violently opposed to it. When those friends sat with us they accepted the republican issue. They will have to give account of it and state what their standpoint is now. I wish to state explicitly that our programme of principles stands unchanged on that point. No alteration has taken place there. It has been drafted on the broad basis of the will of the people for the creation of a republic. It has been drawn up for ordinary normal times and this means that we have accepted as our aim to follow the same road as Ireland did in order to reach our full freedom. The King and the King’s representative have been eliminated from the Irish constitution. In other words, to all practical intents and purposes Ireland is a republic. All that is lacking is that as a republic it has not yet addressed itself as a republic in the fullest sense of the word to other foreign nations of the world for its recognition as a republic. That is the road we follow, but we cannot deny that at the same time a position in the world has been created in which great changes will take place. Every great war, such as this one and also the previous world war, result in tremendous upheavels as far as the positions of the nations or even of minorities within the nations are concerned. Changes occur in the constitutions and in the borders. We can do what we like, but that is coming. Is there so much wrong in South Africa saying under these circumstances that if it can be done in a lawful manner, that if as a result of this war we can obtain a republic here in South Africa, we shall welcome it. A republic, not for the Afrikaans-speaking section only, but we want a republic also for the English-speaking section, and we express our sincere conviction that the unity of the races in South Africa cannot be obtained in any other way and on any other basis than by the total elimination from South Africa of all foreign interests and foreign connections. Why are we not entitled to state that it is our ideal to obtain this, if possible, as a result of this world upheavel? Why should we not state that we shall welcome it if it comes in the wake of the war? This is our policy in regard to this matter. Furthermore I want to tell my friends there that they now pretend to be acting as the champions of the rights of the English-speaking. They thus start with the supposition that we are aming at the trampling underfoot of the English-speaking section in this country, and that they now have to come along as the protectors of the English section of the people. After having taken up that attitude, I think they owe it to the country and to the voters to say how many English-speaking people have already complained that if they go to a Government office and want to be attended to by an official in their own language, English, the official has not been able to speak English, or that the official was so prejudiced in regard to the English language, that they have been treated with contempt, and that the official behaved impolitely towards them? If they want to act the role of champions of the English-speaking section, they must show that this is happening to the English-speaking people. They will have to bring proof to us and the voters in the country that the English-speaking people in this country, if they want their children to be educated by means of their mother tongue— which is an inherent right of every parent and an educationally sound principle—they will have to tell us how many English-speaking people there are who are unable to have their children educated by means of their mother tongue, simply because the administrations of the country refuse to make the necessary provision. As this is the position and in view of the fact that such cases cannot be found as far as the English-speaking people are concerned, we ask our friends here, if they want to be the champions of the rights of the English-speaking— whilst the position is the reverse and the Afrikaans-speaking section has to fight for its rights—what right does the Afrikaner Party have to call itself the “Afrikaner Party”? I shall not go into this any further, although much might perhaps be said about it, but this is sufficient for the time being. The Prime Minister denied a statement which we made at the beginning, namely that this motion of no confidence is not based solely on the decision from the side of the House to introduce it, but that we sincerely believe that we give expression to the feelings of a large section of the people of this country, if not the larger section. We do not know whether it is the larger section, for the people have not been tested on this point. But then the result of the Winburg by-election was mentioned and the Prime Minister spoke about the election at Winburg in a way which gave one the impression that the party over there gained a victory—a Dunkirk victory. I kept on listening to the further remarks about Winburg during this debate, and I then heard from one of the members on the other side that we cannot claim at all that Winburg is such a great victory for our party, because there were no less than 900 supporters of Gen. Hertzog who refused to vote for the candidate of the re-United National Party. They stayed away from the polling booth and the conclusion members on the other side now apparently arrive at is that they can count these 900 as their votes. Those 900 stayed away because they had some grievance, more in particular a grievance against the candidate who contested the seat. They could not conquer that grievance. Then the Prime Minister and his followers with every possible means tried to explain that this was a duel between two persons, and the one person was Gen. Hertzog, and they tried to tell the people that that election had nothing to do with the war policy of the Government. In spite of those attempts 900 still refused to vote for the party of the Prime Minister. If this is the case, if the attempt on the part of the Prime Minister and his followers amounted to a test in order to see how much support they and their party could obtain inter alia for their war policy, then I maintain that the majority against him was not 1,400, but that one has to add those 900 and thus there were 2,300 against him. If the position is such as I have outlined here we need have no fears whatever that we are a languishing party which has to look with disquiet to having to face the electorate in the country. When the United Party went to the polls in that constituency on the previous occasion, we had a majority of 41 over them. As I have now explained and I think explained correctly, the electorate have made it known that they are against the Smuts government with a majority of 2,300. That looks a bit different. We now come to the war aims. It is most essential that we should devote some attenti on to it. The people of South Africa must know why we are at war and why we make those colossal sacrifices in connection therewith. The people of South Africa must know, when peace is concluded and when South Africa should be represented at such conclusion of peace, what the Prime Minister’s ideas are in regard to the kind of peace which has to be established in the world in general. It has been said on this side and I agree with it, that there are clear signs, plenty of indications, that if England should win the war, we shall have to be prepared for a new dictate of Versailles. More likely it will be more severe, according to the statements made here to-day, rather more severe than more lenient, or in any case more compresenhive. In connection with the Treaty of Versailles the Prime Minister—and he will forgive me the expression—has been playing a game of make-believe. He strongly protested against the oppressing stipulations of the Treaty of Versailles at that time, during the peace conference. Afterwards facts were brought to light in this House—and I think it was documentary evidence—showing that the Prime Minister there lent himself to making the Treaty of Versailles much more severe as far as its financial stipulations were concerned. That is the part he played and his excuse at that time was that he did not take part as a negotiator but that he gave advice as a lawyer. It was the advice that the cost of maintenance of the widows and orphans amongst the Allieds should also be charged to Germany. I cannot say why they needed a lawyer from South Africa for that, and a politician on top of it. They could have obtained the services of a much better lawyer. He acted as a lawyer. Now I want to say this. I do not think that the hon. the Prime Minister with the mentality displayed by him, is the proper person to build up a just and lasting peace, and only a just peace can be a lasting peace. I say, I do not think the hon. Prime Minister with his mentality is the man who, after this war, will assist to achieve a lasting peace. I do not know whether he is aware of what Woodrow Wilson and Lloyd George said in regard to the part played by him at the Peace Conference. I believe he thinks a lot of them, and I want to read the House what Woodrow Wilson and Lloyd George thought of his actions and what Woodrow Wilson thought of his attitude, and I want to read to the House the remarks made by Woodrow Wilson at the time when the peace negotiations were taking place after the World War. In the library I got hold of the diary by Woodrow Wilson. Each day he made a note of what had happened, and that diary was published by A. S. Baker. I take it Baker was his private secretary. It was published in 1939. Here we have a note made by pres. Wilson on Thursday, 24th October 1918—

In other words, if you can serve the British Empire, you are allowed to do injustices. Wilson’s remarks in this connection are—

This is the man who appears before us as one who stands for justice and righteousness, that we should take part in this war to combat injustices. Here he comes, as it is clearly set out, and this is a quotation from an official memorandum by nobody less than president Wilson, and he says that if you can serve the British Empire, if the future of the British Empire can be promoted, it is not necessary to take heed of justice. Well, if that is so, I ask whether we on this side of the House can place full confidence in the Prime Minister and can rely upon him that he will do what he can to get a just peace, a peace which being just, will be a lasting peace! That brings me to the question of our relations with America. What was the reply to the Prime Minister in so many words? It was this. At the end of the war, there will be two combinations. There will be one terrible combination—a group of nations we should not associate with. We would be contaminated by having anything to do with them. There will be another combination, including America, and America has become the leading country in that combination. Now, according to the Prime Minister we should join up with this group. Does he mean that the same relationship which exists at the present time between us and the British Commonwealth of Nations, should exist in that combination between us and America? Should we be in the same position as regards America? That is what he intimated. Is that what we are aiming at? In the British Empire unfortunately we have had plenty of experience, not only as far as England in general is concerned, but more particularly—you will forgive me if I say so—of the English speaking section in our country which is making propaganda, continuous propaganda to create a mentality amongst themselves, a mentality which they want us to share—a mentality that in the same way as the old Greeks divided up the world in two parts, viz. Greeks and barbarians, so we should learn to view the world as consisting of Britishers and foreigners. That is the mentality which has to be fostered. We must draw a line between everything British on the one hand, and everything non-British on the other hand. If that is going to be the outcome of this war, what kind of peace are we going to have in the world? You are only sowing the seed of further friction and of new wars, which will eventually drag us into another war as a member of another combination. I intend to return to the hon. the Prime Minister, but I feel that in this connection I should give an explanation in regard to what has been said by a few hon. members on the other side. Not that it is of great importance as such, but because it is an indication that they say similar things outside on the platforms and that they are using this as propaganda against the party here, and more particularly against myself. In the first place, one of the members on the other side stated that on the occasion of the recent Dingaan’s Day celebrations at Darling, I had said that in my opinion the trampling of Hitler and his soldiers would soon be heard in the streets of London, and I should have intimated that I was hoping for that day to come. It is used as propaganda against me and my party here. What are the facts? I was referring to the great truth that justice cannot be buried without the hope of a resurrection of that justice, because there is an Almighty who guarantees justice. Therefore I said that it is impossible so to bury and destroy justice—there is no hope of resurrection. In that connection I referred to the freedom enjoyed by the republics and I said that I wanted to quote somebody in that connection, and I quoted nobody less than one of the noblest English speaking people of that time to show that that was also her view, and I quoted from the speech by Olive Schreiner in which she says—I read that part to the audience—„When that day comes, and will come, when foreign troops—Russian, French or German—are upon the soil of England, when Englishmen gather to defend Richmond Hill and Hampstead Heath, as we have gathered to defend the hills and passes of our native land— when the tramp of foreign soldiers is heard in the streets of London, and the ground is wet at the Marble Arch and the Hyde Park Corner with the blood of Englishmen, when the cup she now presses to our lips is pressed to hers; and England stands where we stand to-day; then let her remember— South Africa.” She not only said this, but she continued to say that the future filled her with sorrow and that she had one deep conviction, namely that the future was not with Great Britain, but with the republics. What is wrong in that? I hope that those hon. members will no longer go about the country with what they have said here, but that they will state what I said in this House. Another matter is in connection with the hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler). He came and stated here, what I had already noticed he had said on the countryside, that I had been the one who had frustrated the interest subsidy to farmers, and that I was the one who had insisted on the maintenance of the gold standard, and that, because I was guilty of that, all the misfortunes which had happened to the farmers were actually due to me. All I can say in reply to that is this. The hon. member surely knows that there is a Prime Minister who lays down the policy, and there is a Minister of Finance who has to give a lead to the Cabinet and to the country, more particularly from the financial point of view. I do not want to shirk any responsibility of mine, but they are the persons chiefly responsible. Nevertheless, the hon. member managed for six and a half years to sit on the same benches with that Prime Minister and that Minister of Finance.

But you were my leader in the Cape Province.

What I further want to refer to is the story that I am supposed to have said, and I believe that it was in a private conversation with him, that the best thing in the interests of the farmers would be for them to go insolvent, and then everything would come right. I remember that conversation well, and I will tell you what it was. It was a conversation between us on the question that the Government of a country in our days should also take more responsibility on its shoulders in economic matters than it otherwise would have done in former days, that they should take upon themselves the protection of different sections of the population who were sinking, and should intervene more strongly than formerly. I said that formerly when a depression came the Government did not intervene, and the result was that large sections of the farming population were robbed of their farms, and they fell into poor whiteism in South Africa. But nowadays, under the new view of government, it is the function of the Government, and it is its duty, to save from that ruin the large sections of the population which have a right to make a proper living. Under the previous system people went bankrupt, and they were eliminated. They went down to be poor whites, and others acquired their farms cheaply in the depression, and subsequently became prosperous in consequence. Now I say there is another method which is being followed, and that involves the Government being faced by questions in relation to the farmers by which it has not been faced in the past. I do not say that the hon. member did not understand my argument because he has not the intelligence to understand it—I think he has the power of understanding it, but his understanding is often so fogged by prejudice that he is not able to see the point. I have never yet said to anybody that the farmers should go bankrupt. That is an absolute misrepresentation of the matter. I want, here, also to say a word on another matter as well, and that is about the Ossewa-Brandwag, because in connection with that more particularly—the relation between the Ossewa-Brandwag and our party—all kinds of statements of a gross kind have been made which give a wrong representation, but in any case it is now the stock-in-trade of hon. members and of their newspapers. The allegation will now be this: Here there is a new power which is rising in the country, and it is the Ossewa-Brandwag. That Ossewa-Brandwag now threatens completely to suppress this party, to make it unnecessary, and they will now in the end take the place of it. Perhaps it is necessary that I should give more information in connection with this matter. What I say now is this, that I have never yet concealed it personally from the Afrikanerdom, especially in the position in which it is in the country, not only is a political organisation necessary to look after its interests, but that outside of the field of politics it is also necessary to have a wide, strong national organisation. I made one speech at a Dingaan’s Day festival in connection with the unveiling of the Piet Retief monument at Port Elizabeth, and made it my principal business to point out how necessary such a national organisation was. I welcome a national organisation, and I am glad that my Port Elizabeth remarks considerably contributed to bring about a national organisation. I take responsibility for it to that extent. Is that then such an unusual thing in South Africa? Let Jewry in the Union say whether Jewry is organised. Will they deny that there is no section of the population in the country which is so well organised in its own interests and in the interests of its race and racial group as the Jews? They do not always show on the outside how well organised they are. That is true. But we know from what they indicate publicly how efficiently their organisation is done. Why may the Jews in the country be organised to such an extent and their own group organised, and why then may not Afrikanerdom be allowed to do it also? I ask my friends on the opposite side, the Minister of Commerce and Indstries, whether the English-speaking section of the population is not also organised, and has he never heard of the Sons of England? Does he not know that they are a powerful organisation which makes its influence felt in all directions, and even in the Cabinet? I was myself a Minister for nine years, and I know that the Sons of England made their influence felt very really in regard to the public service, in connection with appointments and things of that kind. Just as the Jews in the country, so we find that English-speaking group have also their own group-organisation to look after the interests of their race, and accordingly I ask why may not Afrikanerdom also have its own organisation? Is it not for Afrikanerdom, where we feel that a large section of the population is doomed to poverty and where we find that our people are being exploited in the country, that it is necessary to build up such an organisation? Does it not need it most of all? I admit that so far as the Ossewa-Brandwag is concerned it is not purely cultural, but they do not conceal what they are. They are a cultural body, but apart from that they are an organisation which looks after the economic building up of the group which belongs to it, of the Afrikaans-speaking Afrikanerdom. They want to save it economically. And now I want to tell you where that bitterness and venom against the Ossewa-Brandwag especially comes from. That bitterness and venom is not concealed, and it arises from the fact that there is a section in the country which is afraid of the Afrikaner being released from his inferiority complex and that he is going to rely on himself that he is going to save himself by his own powers. That is the cause of the venom. It is nothing more on the part of those people than considerations of a tangible example. And now they sit behind the Prime Minister and urge him on and say: Suppress the Ossewa-Brandwag. It is to protect them in their own business. One thing which the Ossewa-Brandwag and the Afrikaners say is that if the Afrikaner wants to save himself they must all stand together. Do not allow the game to continue which has been going on in South Africa all these years on the part of the enemies of the Afrikaner, and that is to retain their own sections and organisations, but to break the Afrikanerdom and to keep it divided. Do not tolerate that any longer, but stand together. The English-speaking people stand together. The Sons of England organise, the Jews organise and see to it that they organise. What offence then are the Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaner committing if they organise and stand together as well. The Prime Minister in the whole of his political career since 1902, blamed the Afrikaner and he described it as a crime because we say bring together what ought to be together. He was all those years the enemy of the re-union of Afrikanerdom. A third matter in connection with the Ossewa-Brandwag is this, that they stand for the freedom and ideals for which the Voortrekkers stood, because they wanted to link up with the Voortrekkers. You can call it politics. They are not concerned at all with the steps which have to be taken to obtain a republic, but they assume what the Voortrekkers stood for and that is the ideal of a free republic. Is that a sin? Is it a sin for the Afrikaner to say, even in a nonpolitical organization: I accept the making of the objective a republic? If so, then I ask what about the Sons of England. I carried on a hard struggle against the Prime Minister in connection with the flag dispute in South Africa, and who are the people who protested? Who are the people who stood behind him to do everything that he could to frustrate the matter? It was the Sons of England. He will not deny it. The Sons of England came in a political capacity and they sat behind him.

There is not a word of truth in it.

Read the newspapers of that time; read the Hansard report of that time, if you wish. The Sons of England are nothing else but an organisation of English-speaking people who have also stood together in connection with such political questions as the Flag Bill and the national anthem question, and entered into the political arena. If you want to ban the Ossewa-Brandwag from the public service, and from the railway service, then I say rightly that you should then also boot the Sons of England out of them, and if you ban the Ossewa-Brandwag there, and you do not also do it in the case of the Sons of England, then I say that that is another proof that you are measuring the races in South Africa with two scales. I now come to the relations of the political parties towards the Ossewa-Brandwag. It was clear that with an organisation such as the one which arose, there might easily be confusion in the minds of the people, and therefore it was necessary, as far as possible, to get the delimitation of the area clear, and to remove confusion on the one side and on the other side. That was done, and I conducted those negotiations personally. The agreement which was published reads, inter alia, in this way, and I want to read it out so that it can be included in the Hansard report to enable hon. members to be able to refer to it—

1. (a) That the main purpose and aim of the Ossewa-Brandwag is the promotion, protection and living out of the Voortrekker principles and indeals, including the religious, moral and economic uplift of our people,
2. (b) That the Ossewa-Brandwag, inter alia, also accepts the freedom ideal of the Voortrekkers, to wit, the establishment of a free independent Christian and national republic, and at the same time wants to assist in realising the deep desire of the centenary festival, to wit, the establishment and the promotion of a firm, deliberate and permanent Afrikaner national unity,
3. (c) That the Ossewa-Brandwag, as an organisation aims at and will tolerate no undermining activities, and no employment of force or of underground revolutionary activities, or of injuring friendly political parties or bodies in their activities, or of undermining them in any way.

I should not have tried to obtain any friendly relations with the Ossewa-Brandwag if the Ossewa-Brandwag had not first stated that they were not going on our area as a political matter. The political matters they were leaving to us. We are a national organisation, which does its work in its own area. But I would nevertheless not have entered into any understanding with them if they had not given me an assurance that they would discourage any underground movements, or the adoption of force. The answer to this was given in Johannesburg by the soldiers of the Prime Minister, who should have exhibited discipline, as one expects of every army. The commandant-general, which he is, has the power to maintain that discipline. His soldiers get out of hand. His soldiers start disorderly conduct against innocent citizens and other persons. But the soldiers of the Ossewa-Brandwag were collected together to a number of 30,000, and they conducted themselves in an orderly way, assaulted nobody and injured no property. That is what I want to say in connection with the Ossewa-Brandwag, and now I say again to the Prime Minister: You leave the Ossewa-Brandwag alone. If you interfere with the Ossewa-Brandwag, then you are encroaching upon an Afrikaner institution, and then Afrikanerdom will settle accounts about it at its own time and in its own way, when the time comes. I now come to my last point, and it is this. There seemed to be something in the words of the Prime Minister which was extremely suspicious to my mind. He allowed a clear light to fall on himself in his reply, and on the state of mind which we found him in, and as to what he had to expect, more particularly after the emergency regulations which he has again announced. He is apparently rejecting his solemn undertaking which he gave in the Senate and to which I have referred. I want this, not only in the Hansard of the Senate, I would like to have it in the Hansard of this House, so that we can the better be able to judge of the action of the Prime Minister. I am reading out here what he said. It refers to the midday pause and the measures which he undertook to take. It is out of his speech which he made in the Senate on the 14th September last. That is what he said—

And then there was a question by Senator Fourie—

And the reply was—

He was taken at his word. There was a prominent senator with an amendment in his pocket, and when this solemn undertaking came from the Prime Minister he tore up that amendment. It was Senator C. A. van Niekerk, formerly the President of the Senate, and he said this—

So they trusted to him. And what happened afterwards? Those attacks did not diminish. They were made time after time against innocent white ladies as well who were attacked and insulted in the streets by the rag, tag and bobtail of Cape Town. And that was the solemn promise that he gave. The Prime Minister has not moved a finger to fulfil his promise. Why not? He has already exhibited weakness. He shielded behind the Church Council, and not only the Church Council, but he is afraid of the section of the population of which he is the mouthpiece, and which he represents, and to whom he is indebted for his power, the anti-national international elements in the country; and he is in other hands, as appears from what he said. He was not going to meddle in the matter. It was stupid and there were things which he wanted to announce were provoked by the Afrikaners, and which were being exploited by them for political purpose. That was his view of the matter. He was weak in connection with the matter; he was like wax in the hands of the public—a dry leaf which is driven forward by a wind in a storm. He has no power, and now hon. members can see why he also has no power in regard to his own soldiers. I am not going to speak about the emergency regulations. There has been enough said about them. I only want to say that here you have a case where there has been a gross encroachment, not only on the public rights of the South African people, but also on their private lives. A man may not even now say to his wife when they read news in the paper: “Things look bad for England, to my mind; they will not win the war. And if there is a knight of truth present, then he is reported and he can be sent to an internment camp. That is a gross encroachment on the private rights of individuals. The second thing that I want to say is this—there is no protection for one section of the population, and especially that which is not in agreement with the Government. The soldiers let him be as provocative as he wishes towards an Afrikaner whom he does not know, but whom he meets accidently at the station. If that man who is provoked loses his temper and gives the soldier a slap, then he has to go to gaol. There is no alternative. There is no protection for the section of the people which is attacked and which is insulted. But I come now to an interjection by the Minister of Agriculture. I think he said: “That is what they do in Germany.”

Yes.

The impression which I and others have got is that the emergency regulations are not required. They boast of the fact that things are going so well in England. England’s enemies are being driven further and further to the North. But now they come and what they are doing in the emergency regulations is nothing but a copy of Germany and of England. It is the kind of thing which we get there under quite different circumstances. Now you may no longer listen in to the wireless. They poke fun at Germany who would not allow their people to hear the truth, and now they did not want the people to hear both sides of the case. It is nothing but an apeing of England, in the first instance, and also of Germany. I cannot better describe the emergency regulations than by saying that it is the qualification of the judicial procedure of Tchaka. I want to remind the Prime Minister of the fact that now under the emergency regulations he will give a much wider playing-ground to the contemptible spies who introduce themselves into private houses as friends, and all the time they are knights of truth. The Minister is going to give himself far more latitude to get innocent people into trouble, and to avenge himself on personal enemies and competitors. We already have a tyranny in the country. Those emergency regulations are going to create a much worse tyranny. I want to say what the public think of the emergency regulations. Not only that it is apeing others, but the public do not take them seriously. They simply laugh and say they are Hitler games, and I say that I think the big majority of the public will not take much notice of them. I would just like to say this to the Prime Minister. He must beware of one thing. Do not drive the public, or a large section of the public, to desperation. You came and compelled them, had them compelled directly and indirectly, and allowed them to join up with the army against their convictions. There are many who have been discharged because they would not accept the red tabs. I have just received a letter. You went further. You offered the red tabs to the protectors of law and order, the police. Some of them would not wear it voluntariy on their shoulders; some took it voluntarily, but others who were more loyal to their principles would not do so. In Johannesburg and Cape Town you put up the people as targets for the mob to pelt and beat. You even interfered with the means of existence of young boys and girls in the public service. You had old people brought back and put them into the public service again, and you keep young boys and girls out of it. I say you are engaged in driving the people to despair. Be careful about making the people desperate. Then you will create a state of affairs such as exists in Ireland, where oppession led to underground activities, a condition of affairs which became intolerable, and we are going to create a state of affairs here which will result in civil war. I now just want to deal with a last point in connection with the Minister of Finance. He moved an amendment, and the amendment which he is now moving asks not only for confidence in the Government policy, so far as foreign parts are concerned in connection with the war, but also the interior. I wonder what my hon. friends there who sit on the other side of the House — the Dominionites and the Labour Party and those who represent the natives — think of that. They sit on the Government benches to support the Government in its war effort, but they are being asked by this amendment to approve of the whole policy of the United Party, internal and external. That is swallowing up. I would like to see what they are doing and what the voters will say about them in connection with this. But I want in addition to say in connection with the amendment, that now so far as the interior is concerned, we learn that 20,000 Italian prisoners of war will be coming to this country, and that they will be used to make our roads and mountain passes. I do not know whether the report in the Cape Times is correct, but so it is there stated. Does the Minister know what it means? He pushes the poor Afrikaners to one side by the hundred. They are pushed out of work by the war effort of the Government. They are prevented from getting work because they will not put the red tabs on their shoulders. They are prevented from getting work, and here Italian prisoners of war are being taken and they take the work which is still available in the country out of the hands of our own people.

What of the 100,000 men who have gone?

There is unemployment in the country. You are constantly coming across it.

You will not find 100 Afrikaners in the whole of the country who are still working on the roads.

It is said that many men have left. The result of that is that much other work is standing still in the country. Owing to their having left, works come to a standstill which also provided work for others. So the Government curtails much work. Then I still want to say something about a point in which the Minister of Finance apparently takes great interest, and that is the new order. He will forgive me if I say that he wanted to make all kinds of political evasions in connection with the matter. But in any case he challenged me and asked me to say now how I stood with regard to the new order. To that he added in effect that if I did not state my attitude, then I would for ever be banished into the political wilderness, and handed over to oblivion. There is therefore something terrible at stake. Although the Minister of Finance has now put the matter in that way, although he asked me to say now whether I was in favour of democracy or of the totalitarian system, and inasmuch as so much depends on that, I just want to say that I have noticed that in connection with the democratic system he himself has considerable doubts. He said quite frankly here that we must not think that he was very much taken up with the democratic system as it existed. He said that it was full of flaws. Therefore, it seems to me that doubts also arise in his mind. He still clings to it, but there are flaws, and I presume that flaws have to be put right. But then he completely omitted to say how the flaws were to be rectified. In that respect he apparently has no policy. I further want to point out to him that his own colleague, the Prime Minister, before the war started, said on platform after platform in the country that the parliamentary system was now obsolete.

No.

Yes, since the war broke out he omitted to do so, because they were in any case fighting for democracy now, but we remember well that he said that the world was now moving in a different direction. Time and again we heard from his mouth that he stated that democracy was obsolete. But since the war broke out he has become a thorough democrat. Let me express a few thoughts about this. The first is that we in South Africa, in no case, however much we may incline to democracy, are a democratic country in the democratic sense of the word. We may be a white democracy, but the large majority of the population of our country, for good reasons which satisfy us—except the Minister of Finance—that is to say, the non-European population, are excluded from the government of the country and from the franchise. We can now raise and praise democracy up to the skies, but we are not a democratic country. The Minister of Finance did his best to change it, and it nearly cost him his seat in the Cabinet. The second thing I want to say is this, that we are not a democratic country for other reasons. There are few countries in the world where the financial powers govern to such an extent as in South Africa. We have large mineral wealth, and the mineral wealth is mostly concentrated in one place, and those who govern the gold mining industry are together, and consult each other, and exercise pressure on the Government. That is the reason why the money powers govern here more than in any other countries. Moreover, the press belongs to the financial powers, and is to a great extent controlled in our country by them more than in other countries. The press represents public opinion, and has the power to form public opinion, and to make propaganda day after day, not in the interests of South Africa, but on behalf of foreign interests. That is why we have in South Africa the phenomenon that not the settled section of the population, the permanent section rules the country, but the anti-national element governs, because we are not really a democracy. If the people, the permanent population of the country, were to govern, and we really were to have a democracy, then we would not have had that result. In spite of what the Prime Minister has said from time to time, the country is more linked up with capitalism than what is actually admitted. The moneyed powers govern. To that must be added that the population of the country is, owing to its poverty, becoming more and more dependent on the Government. By steps which the Government take, and by assistance which is more particularly granted to the farmers, a continually increasing section of the population becomes more and more dependent on the Government, and the Government on its side can, during election time, intimidate people. If you, for instance, think about settlement schemes, then we know how intimidation is being exercised. A man can be put off a settlement scheme because he does not support the Government. He is told: “If you do not support the Government—and during the present time if you do not sign the red oath—you do not get land, because you are opposed to the Government.” Where does democracy come in there? It is nothing else than putting the power in a different place than into the hands of the people, and the system works demoralisingly in that way. The system was beginning to demoralise the people of South Africa particularly during recent years, by making them more and more dependent, and demoralising them. That is practically the state of affairs we have to deal with. Let me say something else. The capitalistic system in the world, whatever the result of the war may be, is doomed. The World War made a great change in Europe in this respect. The capitalistic system absolutely collapsed in Eastern Europe after the last war. To a great extent it collapsed in Central Europe and Southern Europe in a different way. What was left was Western Europe, and there it continued to exist because the last war was won by Western Europe, and the system had a better chance of continuing to exist there. But in consequence of the present war, and the exhaustion of England, which is the chief representative of the capitalistic system in Western Europe, it is also doomed there. France has already adopted a different system, and England will be financially absolutely exhausted after the war. She is so now, as she herself announced. She has to go for assistance to America. You are going to have the capitalistic system eliminated. That will be the effect, because the section of the people who make the retention of the capitalistic system possible, cannot keep it going any longer— that is the possessing middle class. They are being eliminated. You must bear that in mind in Western Europe also, and then you will get either the totalitarian system in the form of Bolshevism or you will get it in the farm of Fascism, one of the two. It will be a miracle if anything different to that happens. It is not the war which brought it about, but economic factors which were the deciding factor, and which were put into motion by the war. Now I say that we must bear the position in mind. We shall get the reaction in South Africa, and what I want to say in addition is this: South Africa will look the position in the face when it comes, in her own way—not the German system or the English system, or whatever overseas system it may be—but South Africa will have to look the thing squarely in the face, in a typically South African way, and solve our problems in a South African way. The first thing that we have to get is national unity. National unity will never be got in any other way, so far as the races are concerned, than by the elimination of foreign interests, and that has always been the apple of discord between us, that is, before you get a republic in South Africa. Therefore our objective is a republic, and so far as the character of that republic is concerned, I can say this, that if we want to obtain our object on the basis of national unity, we shall have to eliminate not only the British connection, we shall also have to eliminate British Imperialism in the country. Imperialism is disloyalty to South Africa. British Imperialism is treason to the interests of South Africa. Accordingly it must be eliminated. What must in addition be eliminated in the country is the exploitation conditions. You must give every section of the people what they need to make a proper living, and put no one in the position to exploit another section of the people. We must put a stop to these conditions which are an eternal reproach to South Africa, when you can say we are a rich and flourishing country, and on the other hand you have the poorest population in the world. These are things which you must do, and I can tell the Minister of Finance that we are giving full consideration to how those things should be done, and he must not think when that day comes that we shall be unprepared.

Question put: That all the words after “House”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—59.

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits. G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fagan, H. A.

Fullard, G. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S W.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, O.

Quinlan, S. C.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein. J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Theron, P.

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

Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Noes—78.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare. W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll. A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz. L. A. B.

Rood. K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van d. Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Question accordingly negatived and the words omitted.

Mr. SPEAKER then put the substitution of the words proposed by the Minister of Finance,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—76.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell. R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland. L.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz. D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van d. Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Noes—59.

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman. P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fagan. H. A.

Fullard, G. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux. S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, O.

Quinlan, S. C.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman. B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein. J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Theron, P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

V. d. Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Words proposed to be substituted accordingly agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and the House divided:

Ayes—76.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp. W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van d. Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P J.

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

Noes—58.

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fagan, H. A.

Fullard, G. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, O.

Quinlan, S. C.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Theron, P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

V. d. Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Motion, as amended, according agreed to, viz.: