I should like to avail myself of the opportunity to speak for half an hour, and I wish to start off by moving the following amendment—

I am doing this because we want to avail ourselves of this opportunity to discuss questions of policy, more particularly in regard to the Prime Minister’s attitude, and to protest by this amendment which I have proposed to his policy. I wish to come back to a matter which was discussed on the second reading, and which overshadows all matters and all our discussions, and that is the question of the war. We are doing this because the Prime Minister is not only, as Minister of Defence, but also as Prime Minister, responsible for the policy of the Cabinet as a whole. He is more responsible, he is the most responsible person for the war. He is responsible for the war, he is responsible for its continuation. Everything is due to him primarily. It is not only the policy of his Cabinet, but it is his policy in the first instance. I feel that I am justified in raising this matter, because, since the second reading debate, and since this matter was raised, important further developments have occurred in the war condition. If, during the second reading debate, we considered matters had developed to such an extent that our further participation in the war constituted a positive danger and an ever-increasing danger to South Africa, then we have far greater reason today to make such a statement and to express ourselves in those terms. Since last week important developments have taken place in the Far East. The report has just been published that Java, which was regarded in the Far East and in the Pacific Ocean as the Allies’ last fortress of defence against Japan, has surrendered, and at the same time the report has been published that Rangoon which is a strategic point of the greatest importance, has also capitulated, and that as a result not only has Burma been lost, but that the road is also open to Japan or that the road is practically open for Japan’s forces to go to India, or at any rate that Japan is now close enough to India to enable it to exercise an extremely important influence on the position in that country. I hope the Prime Minister will now be more willing to listen to what this side of the House has to say than he was on the last occasion, and I hope he will not try to get out of it, as he did last time, by making a few cheap remarks about military experts on the other side of the House, and that he will not, if an interruption comes from the hon. member for Beaufort West, (Mr. Louw) try and put the whole thing off by remarking “There we again have that expert on American affairs.” Or that he will not again resort, as he did in his last speech, to stirring up a war psychosis on his side of the House, or to stirring up British and Imperialistic sentiments. I hope he will treat the House more seriously than he did on that occasion. I do not in this instance, in what I have to say, so much want to criticise the Prime Minister as to invite him to make a statement to this House and to the country. After the contemptuous attitude which the Prime Minister adopted to this side of the House on a matter of such importance I have very little hope of getting a satisfactory statement from him. That, however, does not take away the fact that it is my duty to make an attempt to obtain such a statement from him. On the last occasion he was so contemptuous in bis attitude that he said: “How can I make a statement such as is usually done in other countries when we have the kind of opposition we have here.” I can assure the Prime Minister that if he will look at matters from a South African point of view, if he, so far as this war is concerned, will consider matters from a sound point of view, bearing in mind the interests of South Africa, and not overseas and Imperial interests, this side of the House will always be ready to listen to him. I want to put two important questions to the Prime Minister and I hope we shall get a statement and a reasonable statement from him in regard to those matters. My first question is this: What is the Prime Minister’s attitude towards the neutral and nonbelligerent territories situated close to South Africa which some people want to be drawn into the war? In the first place I want to point out that it has become necessary to ask this question because one of the front Benchers on the Government side, the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) has pertinently put this question: “How about Madagascar and how about Mozambique”? And what he wanted to say there was that as he thought those two territories, were of vital importance to the defence of South Africa we should make an attempt to take possession of them. I believe that clearly was what he had in mind. It is well known, because it has been published over and over again that the United States of America officially, take a particular interest in this question of Madagascar, if not also in the Portuguese Territories. There have even been negotiations between the Government of the United States and the Vichy Government in regard to their territories outside Europe in respect of which the American Government wanted certain assurances, and if those assurances were not satisfactory, it is evident that they threatened taking certain steps. I notice that this question is also receiving attention in this country, I have here a report which appeared in last night’s “Cape Argus” which I want to quote a few sentences from to show that this question is definitely being considered and that statements are being made about it, and it is necessary, if such statements are being made, that the Government should also make a statement. This is a report from London and it reads as follows—

Then follows a report from the diplomatic correspondent of “The Times,” who is a greater authority, and this is what he says—

As this statement not only says what South Africa intends doing, but also what it has done in anticipation, I think it is definitely necessary that we should have an explanation and a statement from the Prime Minister on this whole matter. I ask this because those two territories are not in the war; the Portuguese territory is a neutral territory and Madagascar is a non-belligerent, and our Government asserts that it is still on a friendly footing with the Vichy Government. That being so, and as an attempt may possibly be made, or as is stated here, is already being made, at least so far as Madagascar is concerned—we don’t know what is going to happen with the other territories— and as the matter is so greatly complicated, the people of this country feel uneasy about it. I want to remind the Prime Minister that a large proportion of the people of this country have a certain psychology which he should take in account and which he did not do on a previous occasion, so that there was bloodshed—and that psychology means this—that the people of this country do not want to commit any acts of aggression, they do not want to make any attacks, they do not want to take territory away from other countries. And because that mentality and that psychology exist I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he is taking that into account or whether he is going to continue in the same light-hearted manner to commit acts of aggression against territories with which we are not concerned, or which want to keep out of war—that is what it amounts to—and whether the intention is to drag them into the war and to occupy them. I am also asking this because it is a matter which affects the whole of the basis on which the Government declared war. The basis of our declaration of war was that we were not going to commit aggression against any other country, even if it were considered necessary for strategic reasons. We were not going to occupy other places and other countries with whom we were not at war. The accusation at that time was exclusively against Germany, against the Axis Powers, that they were the ones who were threatening the freedom of small nations, and occupied the territory of nations whom they did not agree with. That is the whole basis on which war was declared against this alleged threat, and it was said at the time that England and her Allies would never commit a sin like that. The basis has already been departed from by the occupation of Iceland. The United States of America took possession of Iceland because they considered it necessary to do so for strategic reasons. It was done in the case of Timor which belongs to Portugal, despite violent protests by the Portuguese Government. Their territory was occupied. The question now is this, are we going to emulate this bad example with all the consequences which I have mentioned? And a further question is this: If England has done so in regard to Timor, and America has done so in regard to Iceland, may not they perhaps do the same thing tomorrow and the day after to Ireland, because everybody must realise the advantage it will give England in this war if she is able to dominate Southern Ireland. It has often been said that it would greatly benefit England if she could do so. And not only that, but they can use the argument, just as they are using it now in regard to Madagascar, that if they do not take Ireland they can expect Germany to do so tomorrow or the day after. It is for that reason that I consider it necessary to put these questions to the Prime Minister. Now I also want a statement from the Prime Minister in regard to my second question, and that is whether he is going to make South Africa available as a base for war purposes for the Allies, in the event of their considering it to be in their interest to obtain such a base, or because the country as a whole has to be used as a base for war purposes, or for other reasons which I shall indicate? I am asking this question, and I am not doing so without reason. If South Africa is used as a base in this war; in other words, if South Africa is going to become the battlefield for the war between the countries of Europe, it means that we shall eventually land very far from where we started on the 4th September. On that occasion the Prime Minister gave us an assurance that, although we were going to declare war, we were only going to attend to the defence of the country. We were told that it would practically amount to this, that our participation in a European war would be more of a gesture than anything else. We were going to protect South Africa, and for all practical purposes we would be at war formally more than actually. Now, if eventually thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of soldiers are to come to South Africa, not only from England, but also from America, to settle here, I say that we shall be very far away from where we started. I am asking this question not because I personally think that this country is going to be turned into a base of war operations through there being any danger of Japan attacking us. The indication that that is going to happen is a very weak one. We have proof of the fact that the Government itself does not really believe in it, because it allows its troops to remain in Libya. If South Africa were in any danger then the Government, if it had any feeling for South Africa, would recall the troops to protect our own country. The Government is not doing so. But as far as we can see, the course of the war is such that the point of gravity which so far has been in the islands of the Pacific Ocean is now being shifted in Asia more to the Western side. There is Burma and India, where England is sitting on a volcano, and where the Japanese are able to exercise a strong influence on the population—the war is moving in that direction. But the indications go beyond that, and we see reports in the Press which go to show that in all probability there is going to be a pincer movement, and that the eventual decision will come in the Near East, and that Germany and Italy on their part will make an effort to shake hands with their Allies in the Far East somewhere near the Persian Gulf, and that Japan, for that reason, will move its bases on the Asiatic Coast closer to them. In other words, the war is moving far to the north of us, and it is not aimed at South Africa. Nor need we draw attention to the fact that it must clearly be bad tactics on Japan’s part to have long lines of communication of from 3,000 to 4,000 miles to South Africa. The advantage which Japan has so far had over the Allies is that its lines of communication have been short, while its adversaries have had long lines of communication to protect, which were easy to break. Why, in those circumstances, Japan should place itself in the detrimental position in which its adversaries are today, is difficult to see. I am putting this question, and I say at the same time that I do not believe there is any idea of Japan attacking South Africa, and, in any case, of occupying South Africa, and I add this reason to what I said before. Japan is an Asiatic Power. Japan is looking for living space in the Near and in the Far East, in Asia. I want to add that Germany and Italy are Japan’s Allies; and they, again, are looking for living space in Africa. Both had colonies in Africa, and both again want to have colonies in Africa, and it is self-evident that they will come to an agreement that their one Ally—Japan —has to look for expansion in Asia, while they will look for expansion in Africa. I just want to say this, that this is not the first time in a World War that a European Power has entered into an alliance with Japan. In the last World War it was England and France which had Japan as their Ally, and let me tell hon. members that the protection which Africa at that time had against Japan was that the interests of Japan’s Ally, England, were vested in Africa, and it did not like to see Japan come and settle in Africa, because that would have complicated the position. That alliance was South Africa’s security, and now there is an alliance between Germany and Italy, on the one hand, and Japan, on the other hand; and, insofar as South Africa is concerned, exactly the same position again prevails. Their interests and the living space they are looking for are in Africa and it is self-evident that their interests demand that Japan shall not come as a Power from the Far East and obtain a footing in Africa. I therefore say that I do not believe that Japan wants to come to South Africa in this war and wants to dominate South Africa. I also want to put this question because it is clear that the Allies in their struggle, as I have described it, are looking for bases from which they will be able to operate. Madagascar has been mentioned and Portuguese territory has also been mentioned. The question now is how far Madagascar and the Portuguese territories are being thought of and how far our own South Africa is being thought of as an essential base for the Allies, I have all the more right for saying so because Mr. Churchill long ago held out the prospect of such a thing being done. He said that if England was overpowered, the British fleet would go to the Dominions and the war would be carried on from there. The Dominions would then become the battlefields between England and her enemies. The Prime Minister of South Africa on behalf of South Africa, agreed with that. He accepted that to be the position. That still is his attitude and we are therefore entitled to say that we want to know whether in those circumstances we are going to be the battlefield of the struggle between the nations of Europe. I am also asking this because we know what the significance is of such a world battle between nations, and the misery it leaves in its wake. We have seen the misery it has brought to Holland and Belgium; we have seen what it has meant to Greece. Greece was regarded as an Allied base in the war against Jugoslavia. We saw yesterday what it means in regard to Java. [Time limit.]

I do not wish to take up as drastic an attitude as the Leader of the Opposition and delete the whole of the Prime Minister’s salary, because I think if there is one man who has deserved it it is the Prime Minister, but I wish to avail myself of the opportunity to speak for half an hour, and to discuss the position in which South Africa finds itself. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, the Prime Minister, whose vote we are now discussing, is the axis around which everything turns, and the Prime Minister is responsible for the condition in which South Africa finds itself. We have been busy now for two years and six months waging war, and I think that as the war has progressed so we have been able more or less to draw our conclusions as to what the right policy would have been for South Africa to have followed. I believe that if the Prime Minister, leaving out party politics, were to stand still and consider the matter and review the whole situation in regard to the development of the war up to the present, he would have to admit that the war so far has proceeded along lines very contrary to what he had expected on the 4th September, 1939. It is an unquestionable fact that the Prime Minister, when he declared war on the 4th September, the day after England had declared war, had unlimited confidence in his Ally, England. What is the position today? It is perfectly clear that so far South Africa has had to act practically on its own on whatever battlefield is has been. Abyssinia has been conquered almost exclusively by our troops, and now they have to lie about in Libya and round about Egypt, and our people have been placed under the command of foreign officers. It is our troops which have to pull the chestnuts out of the fire. All England’s Allies to whom England has promised help have so far the one after the other gone to the war without England having given them the slightest aid. Let us first of all take France. France was England’s principal ally, and when France was overpowered by the Germans what did we find? Today there is very definitely a hostile feeling between England and France, but I go further. There is very definitely a hostile feeling today between the South African Government and the Vichy Government. What have those poor people done to incur the wrath of South Africa? But it was not only France which was left in the lurch by England; it was not only Holland and Belgium. Let us look at the Far East and see what the position is there. Mr. Churchill, President Roosevelt and our own Prime Minister have continually held up only one picture to the world, and it was a picture telling the world that we were going to win the war, that we shall win the war. Very well, let us see whether what they have promised is coming true. Let me tell my hon. friends opposite that the war is not going to be won by boasting and by big talk, the war is not going to be won by “hears, hears.” There is a great deal more at stake than that, and I want to give my hon. friends the assurance that I am just as much concerned about the future as they are, because we can see that South Africa’s future is at stake. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister said the other day that he would rather have a bankrupt South Africa than that we should be slaves of Germany.

Surely you also want that, don’t you?

Let me tell the hon. member that the fact that the Germans happen to be our enemies today does not mean that they cannot be our friends tomorrow. We had that position after the last great war. In the last war our friends opposite, or their friends, burnt down the houses of Germans who were perfectly quiet and they did not have a good word to say about the Germans, but after the war was over they were friends again. Our enemy of today is our friend of tomorrow. Don’t make any mistake about that. I hold no brief for the Germans, and I don’t want to plead their cause, but I am worried about the future of my country and my people. England promised help everywhere. Did England give that help? Take the Far East. Eight or ten davs ago the Prime Minister in the City Hall here tried to encourage the people with an excess of optimism, and he said everything was all right—he tried to make people believe that everything in the garden was lovely, and he said we were going to win the war. I ask the Prime Minister, and here I want to emphasise what the Leader of the Opposition said, that if the Prime Minister wants to be so optimistic he should at least take steps to consolidate the forces of the people of South Africa in South Africa and he should at least take the people of South Africa into his confidence. He has not done so. The only thing we can do is to get our news out of the papers.

What temerity.

I want to tell the Minister that his temerity is to sit in the Cabinet I am more concerned with the future of the country than the Minister is. I have no other country but South Africa. The Minister can perhaps still run away to England, but I cannot. What is the position today? What developments have taken place in the Far East? Take this morning’s reports—and that is all we can go by if the Government does not supply us with information. The Government treats us with the greatest contempt—with the greatest contempt shown to any of the belligerent countries in the world.

You are the allies of our enemies.

What do we see in this morning s reports? Japanese forces which operated against the enemy’s main forces in the neighbourhood of Sourabaya and Bandoeng have compelled the hostile armies consisting of 93,000 Hollands and 5,000 Australian, British and American troops at 3 o’clock this afternoon, local time, to surrender unconditionally. This surrender has taken place within nine days after landing of the Japanese forces on the 1st March Poor Holland! When that small country was overpowered by the Germans hon. members opposite showed their dismay, and I felt with them that it was unfair to overpower such a small country, but I realised that Holland was situated between the belligerent countries, and although I disapproved of it, I, as a military man, realised why the Germans attacked Holland. These poor Hollanders in East India depended on the assistance which they had been promised. Our Government in South Africa even proceeded to notify the Hollanders in this country, naturalised and otherwise, that they had to go. What has become of the assistance promised by powerful England and powerful America? Let us admit at once that that handful of Hollanders on these East Indian islands covered themselves with glory on account of the powerful resistance put up by them, although they were in a great minority, against Japan. We are told that England and America are the two strongest countries in the world. Where were they, those so-called allies of the small nations? Holland had already been overpowered, but it still had its possessions in the Far East which had to be defended. One would have expected that those two strong nations would have sacrificed themselves on the altar to assist their brave small ally, but what did we find? Altogether England, America and Australia had 5,000 men there, and what does the Governor of Java, who had to fly to Australia, say? I have the newspaper report here—

They are men.

Yes, but where was England and America? That is my grievance; that handful of men fought bravely, but they were left in the lurch by their strong allies. Let me read further what is stated in that report—

In other words, Dr. Van Mook, the Governor of Java, gave people to understand that the Allies were to have sent reinforcements, but we find that the handful of Hollanders, according to their own statements were faced by an overwhelming Japanese Army—they were as one to fifteen, without any antiaircraft guns. Where were those two powers? Are you not ashamed? I am ashamed that my Government has surrendered so unconditionally to the British Government, the Government which today is leaving those other countries in the lurch. Let me tell the Prime Minister, and I say it without the slightest feeling of bitterness and with a full sense of my responsibility, but with a feeling of patriotism which every Afrikaner should have, that we are concerned over the future. The Prime Minister has plunged the country into war; he has defied the Germans and now again he has challenged the Japanese, and I am afraid that when the danger comes—which I cannot yet see today,—I am afraid that when the danger threatens us South Africa will have to suffer the same fate as Singapore and Java, and we shall not get any help. Why not? Let me give hon. members the reasons why not. Hon. members opposite are getting impatient because I am speaking in the way I am doing.

What have you done so far?

There are hon. members sitting over there and I ask them what they have done to see the war through. They cannot reproach me, let them reproach themselves. They sit here and try to win the war with “hears, hears” and by wearing V signs on their chests.

And by drawing double salaries.

I don’t want to pose as a prophet and I don’t want to prophesy, but the war has been going on for two and a half years and I am only stating facts. Has any evidence whatsoever been produced so far to show that the Allies can possibly win this war?

It seems to please you.

See the foolish interruptions one gets from those heroes. When I criticise the Government’s policy in the interest of South Africa such motives are ascribed to me. We have stood for the policy of neutrality and I still stand for it today.

We know that.

I have much more ground for saying today that we on the 4th September, 1939, took up the right attitude, and I have very much more ground for saying that the attitude adopted by the Prime Minister in his declaration of war was wrong, but now hon. members sit over there and expect us to help them. They reproach us and they say “Why don’t you come and help us?” We were told in 1939 that we could not remain neutral because Simonstown was the fly in the ointment. Let me ask my friend, the Minister of Justice, who is somewhat of an expert on that argument, and also let me ask other members, if it was impossible for us to remain neutral because of Simonstown how is it then that that small country Ireland, half of which is at war, could have remained neutral? If they could have remained neutral why not South Africa”? Let me go further. The Prime Minister said the other day again that it was a case of honour and duty. We are a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and because of that it is a matter of honour and duty with us, so we are told, to go to war if England is at war.

That is what Gen. Hertzog said.

Let me ask the hon. member something. The British Commonwealth comprises six or seven different peoples. We have undertaken certain obligations, the one to the other, but it has been clearly laid down that the status of each one shall be equal to that of the other; the one shall not be subordinate to the other. England declared war on the 3rd September and on the 4th September our Prime Minister also declared war, as a matter of honour and duty. Assuming England had not declared war, but assuming Australia had declared war on the 3rd September, would the Prime Minister also have said in that case that South Africa was compelled to take part in the war? Would he in that case also have regarded it as a matter of honour and duty? I am quite convinced that the Prime Minister would not have said that we must declare war? What then becomes of this motto: Honour and duty?” Just as the Minister of Agriculture declared on the 4th September that if we did not take part in the war our products would lie and rot, because we had to get ships from England to carry our products. Where are those ships today? How is it that England does not supply us with what we need? Surely we are a special Ally of England’s. Why does not England supply us? No, we have to supply England; they cannot supply us. The Prime Minister a few days ago said to the Leader of the Opposition: Just one battle will bring about the end of the war. I agree with him, but now I want to ask him where that battle is to take place, because the Japanese and the Germans are looking for the English and the Americans, and they are disappearing. Where is the battle to take place? The one possession in the Far East after the other has been conquered, and the English and American Navies are conspicuous by their absence. Let me tell the Prime Minister that there is a different way of winning the war, and it is high time we thought of it. At the beginning of the war they told us that they were going to blockade Germany, and that within six months Hitler would be on his knees because he would have internal difficulties.

Who said that?

The Prime Minister only said it the other day; he said the pot was boiling in Europe.

He did not say there would be difficulties within six months.

I must say that I have not seen any reports in the papers yet about their having arrested people in Germany, and having thrown them in gaol because they are opposed to the war. Nor have I heard anything about a cry of hunger coming from Germany. I am stating facts, because we should honestly face the position. The blockade is a double-edged sword. Who can deny it, who dare deny it? And we admit it with sorrow and anxiety that the U boat campaign in the Atlantic Ocean is raging worse than many of us care to think. American and English ships are being sunk, the one after the other. The First Lord of the Admiralty in England has admitted that they have been suffering very much heavier losses of late than ever before. I want to say this to the Prime Minister: Do not be too sure that the blockade can force the Germans to surrender. The Germans today have the whole of Europe at their disposal. All the countries they have conquered are producing and making armaments for the Germans. Do not let us shut our eyes to the facts. If we are to believe the newspaper reports, the boot is rather on the other foot, and the Axis Powers are actually blockading England. I want to tell hon. members that if a man is on the battlefield he will do everything in his power to promote this cause, so long as he knows that all is well with his wife and his children, but as soon as he feels that his wife and children are starving one cannot expect him to give all his energy to the cause he is fighting for. I have expressed these views because I feel it is not yet too late. The war may perhaps still take a turn.

Are you pleading for surrender?

The hon. Minister sits in a Cabinet which he should not be in, and I am not going to answer him, but I am going to remind the Prime Minister that he said: “We do not look at the account; we only look to the end of the war”, and now I want to ask him whether we are to understand from that that he is going to follow the same policy which the Russians have followed and which the Hollanders have followed, and which has been followed in Malaya, namely, to destroy all our industries before we surrender? Am I to understand from the Prime Minister that that is going to be his policy if we find ourselves in danger. Let him tell us so that we may know where we stand with him. During the days of Gen. Hertzog’s regime particularly everything possible was done to develop the country industrially at the expense of the taxpayers, and we achieved a lot. Now I want to ask the Prime Minister whether it is going to be his policy, when he sees that danger threatens us, to destroy everything, to destroy all our industries? Is that his policy? If so, I say, “God help South Africa”. We are being taxed for the war, whether we want it or not. There is hardly any source of revenue left which is not taxed, and we are only at the beginning. The difficult times are still ahead. As the war progresses so the pressure of taxation will increase. I hope the Hon. the Prime Minister will realise that aspect of the matter, and will not only look at the picture he wants to paint for us in his optimism. I have often felt inclined to believe that when Gen. Hertzog said that the Prime Minister was nothing but a British agent, that when difficulties cropped up in England he lost sight of South Africa’s interests for the sake of England’s interest, he spoke the truth.

I want to refer this afternoon to a class of people who, in the face of adversity, are by no means handsuppers, people who up to now have shown they are intensely loyal to South Africa and are prepared to make sacrifices in the interests of their country. I refer to the coloured people of the Union with whom I am more proud to be associated as their representative than with some hon. members on that side of the House. In 1934, when the Minister of the Interior announced in this House that he thought the time had come when the Government should pay more attention to the interests of the Cape coloured people, he announced that he intended appointing a Commission to ascertain the facts in regard to the economic, political and social development of the coloured people. Well, sir, after three years the Coloured Commission’s Fact Finding Report was first published. It revealed that we have in South Africa, in the betterment of the conditions of our coloured people, one of the biggest problems that has ever faced this country. I do not intend in the short time at my disposal to say very much in that connection beyond perhaps drawing the attention of the House, that is to say, of members who came into this House since 1937, to that report, and I want to appeal to them to read it at the first possible opportunity, and so give themselves an opportunity of getting a better understanding of the difficulties under which our coloured people have had to live. In this war I claim that the coloured people have shown through their response to the call to serve their country, and their courage in the field, that notwithstanding the facts revealed in that report, they are more than ever entitled to receive consideration and support from this Government. I am therefore going to appeal to the Prime Minister to consider the appointment of a full-time Coloured People’s Commission on similar lines to the Native Affairs Commission, a Commission, sir, which will enable the coloured people to go to a responsible body from time to time before which they can place their views, difficulties and various problems; a body to which the Government can look for advice and assistance; and a body which will be looked upon generally as representing the interests of the coloured people of South Africa. I feel, sir, that the setting up of such a body would give the coloured people the feeling that their interests are being looked after by this Government, and that the report of the Commission I have referred to is not merely being pigeon-holed. I do not want to deny that much has been done since the report was published, particularly in the way of improvement in housing conditions for the coloured, but the great majority of the findings of that Commission have never been given effect to, and unless there is continued prompting on the part of a body such as I envisage, and on the part of members of this House, who have sufficient public spirit to put their case before Parliament, I am afraid that the coloured people in the years to come will go on very much as they have done in the past. I think, to take one example only, that in regard to coloured education, there should be a great improvement. For years and years the coloured people have requested the Government through the Provincial Council to bring about compulsory education for all coloured children between the ages of seven and fourteen, and yet, sir, I find this year on looking at the Estimates, the amount allotted to the Provinces by the central Government has actually been cut. Obviously, therefore, nothing has been done in that direction this year, and nothing has been said as to what the future policy in regard to compulsory coloured education may be. There are, as I remarked, a few bright spots shining through the general darkness which surrounds this problem. We find the Minister of Railways is gradually becoming more conversant with the difficulties of those non-Europeans whom he employs, and is at last striving to raise their standard of living by giving better wages, but even he has not gone far enough, and I am one of those that claim that the Government in employing its non-European servants, should set a standard of wages for the whole country. I also want to appeal once again to the Minister of Lands, whom I see is also here this afternoon, and to ask him that when these coloured soldiers return …

We are discussing the Prime Minister’s vote now. If the hon. member wants to discuss land settlement, he must wait for that vote.

I would draw your attention to the fact, sir, that a land settlement scheme for coloured people is considered to be a desirable thing in the Committee’s report. I have in mind our coloured soldiers when they come back from the front. They will make excellent farmers and many should be settled on the land. For these reasons I would like the Prime Minister to seriously consider the appointment of a permanent independent full-time body with representatives of both European and coloured people serving upon it, so as to give the Government advice on and bringing to its notice from time to time the various problems and difficulties which we desire to have solved in the interests of our coloured people.

I was just coming to the end of my remarks. The last question I put to the Prime Minister was whether he was going to make South Africa available as a base for English or American troops in the struggle they are conducting against their adversaries. I remind hon. members of the fact that if the Prime Minister were to do that it would be entirely in accordance with Mr. Churchill’s statement when he said that if England lost the war in Europe itself she would continue to the bitter end from the Dominions, and the Prime Minister of South Africa associated himself with that view on that occasion. I then put this question to him because we know from dire experience what it means to turn one’s country into the battlefield of other nations, to allow them to fight their battles on one’s own territory, and I put the question whether the Prime Minister was going to allow that. That was the experience which certain other countries have had, especially a country like Greece, which was regarded as a base. That was Holland’s experience, and Holland has now had a similar experience in connection with its Indian possessions, particularly in Java. Quite enough has been said about what has happened in Europe. I only want to say this, that in the case of France there had been violent battles before England dunkirked. In the case of Greece they also dunkirked after heavy fighting. In Java’s case they apparently also dunkirked before any battle was fought. And I am asking in view of the experience of other countries, which became battlefields in the struggle between the adversaries, what South Africa is to expect in this respect if it becomes the battlefield of European countries. I also put this to the Prime Minister, because I want to emphasise it: If he makes South Africa available as a base for the fighting of this battle, and if we not only have not got our South African forces here, but we may perhaps have hundreds of thousands of American and English soldiers here, the result may be that the dangers to which we are exposed today may be infinitely aggravated. The danger to which we are exposed by participation in the war and the danger of our continued participation in the war is rendered so much greater if we are turned into such a base. Our danger from all those other nations becomes all the greater, because if we are an important base they will try to destroy it. It increases the danger from outside. If a danger from Japan ever arises then that danger will come to us because it is attracted to our coasts in this manner. One attracts danger in this way, and that is why it is essential that we should have an assurance from the Government. My final point is this: Has the Prime Minister taken this into account at all? If South Africa is made a base in this struggle, what is the position going to be so far as the food of this country is concerned, so far as the means of livelihood of the people are concerned? We have large numbers of foreigners within our borders today, fugitives from foreign countries. Convoys are continually arriving in our harbours. As a result of those convoys which have called here, and the strangers who have landed on our shores, an extremely difficult and dangerous situation has already arisen in this country in regard to the means of livelihood of the people; not only is it very difficult and almost impossible to obtain the necessary commodities which have to be imported from abroad, but there is a shortage of mealies and wheat in the country, apart altogether from the danger of drought. The Prime Minister himself has said that there is a shortage of meat. He has told us that he was going to create machinery to ration meat, butter, cheese and things of that kind for the people. That is the position of the country today, and if the country is to be turned into a base for the conduct of the war that position is going to be aggravated tremendously, and the public are going to be exposed to dangers caused by a shortage of necessaries of life, and starvation, and if the position should develop so far that South Africa became the battlefield of the nations of Europe it is going to be infinitely more difficult to import commodities from abroad to provide South Africa with what it requires from overseas. I therefore say again that it has become absolutely essential for the people of the country to know more about this matter, and that is why we are asking the Prime Minister to make a statement.

I want to say at once to the Prime Minister that while we on this side of the House are availing ourselves of the opportunity to criticise his vote on the Estimates, I am not doing so in a personal sense, or from a feeling of personal enmity; I personally have a certain feeling of gratitude towards him, because of the sympathy he showed me last year in the great difficulty I had to contend with. I greatly appreciate that, but I want to say this to the Prime Minister: That so far as politics are concerned, the difference between him and this side of the House is as wide as the Heavens. The difference between his outlook and our outlook is Heavenwide. His outlook is through Imperial glasses, and our outlook, from this side of the House, is purely from a national point of view; it is an outlook from the point of view of the people of South Africa, and from the point of view of the interests of the people of South Africa; that is where we differ greatly from the Prime Minister, so he must not blame us on this side of the House if we criticise the Government’s policy. We still stand today by the policy which we have always stood by since the beginning of the war on the 4th September, 1939, and I hope to come back to that a little later. In the first place, I want to say this to the Prime Minister: He remarked last week that this war was going to be won by the Allies, and he added that as a military man he was convinced that Hitler was digging his grave in Russia, just as Napoleon had done in 1812. He forgets what Napoleon’s history was. In Napoleon’s case Gen. Winter was up against him as early as the 19th October, when he had to retire. Gen. Winter then started. Gen. Winter is already retiring now, and within a few weeks Gen. Summer will take Gen. Winter’s place. So in regard to this calculation of his the Prime Minister is quite wrong. The Prime Minister has also forgotten that Napoleon had practically no lines of communication, and was unable to get any reinforcements, practically speaking, which certainly is not the position in this particular instance. As the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said, the position of the Allies, instead of improving, has become definitely worse, and we on this side of the House take up this attitude— why should we continue with this war when the interests of our people are not served by it? Why should we continue while we still have the opportunity of getting out of this misery? Why should we be plunged into further misery? Why should we not proceed to make peace? I want to point out that it has been said that we shall be protected, and that we depend upon the forces of America and England to protect us. Since the beginning of this war, however —a war which has been going on for two and a half years now—every nation which has depended on England’s protection has gone to the wall. Hon. members cannot mention one nation which has depended on England’s protection which has not gone under. The one after the other has been conquered and sacrificed, and if we remain in this war any longer South Africa’s fate will also be that we shall be defeated. As I have said before, we decline to allow ourselves to be sacrificed on the Imperial Altar; we decline to go under in England’s morass of misery. The Prime Minister in addressing this House, said that he was speaking from a military point of view, because he had had experience as a Boer general. I am also speaking from my experience as a Boer general. We continued that war until the bitter end. At the bitter end we lost; we did not win, and we are still suffering today from that bitter end; we are still trying to regain South Africa’s independence, and to remove the difficulties which have been heaped upon us; we are trying to get away from those difficulties and to release ourselves from them. I therefore want to ask the Prime Minister this—while there is still time, let him remove this country from its present difficult position, and let him start negotiating for peace. If he does so, he will achieve national unity in South Africa, and we shall then prepare to protect ourselves if we are attacked. This war is a war of aggression, and one cannot expect our people to take part in a war of aggression; we refuse to do so, and, as we are engaged in a war of aggression today, I want to remind the Prime Minister of what he said on a previous occasion, and particularly of what Gen. Hertzog said. He spoke on the 4th September, 1939, and on the 4th September, 1940, exactly a year after, he again expressed himself on that point. Let me remind the Prime Minister of what Gen. Hertzog said—

I am quoting these words in order to show that we are still in exactly the same position as we were on the 4th September. When we discussed the Republican motion here I repeated it and I shewed clearly what the position was, and I want to ask the Prime Minister not to proceed to that step. If he is not willing to make peace: if he wants to carry on a war, let him allow the Afrikaner people to stay at home. Let us try as far as possible to look after the food of the people. I am not speaking about the food of the Defence Force because in all propability there will be so many of them coming from other countries that we shall not be able to feed them. I say he must leave us alone so that we may look after the feeding of our own people. I also want to put this question to the Prime Minister: He gave us an assurance last year that the coloured people and the natives would not be used to fight as armed soldiers but that they would only be employed as guards and on other work. Recently, however, I noticed that the Prime Minister had addressed a meeting where he made this statement, which seemed peculiar to me. He said that up North young men were doing their duty, and he went on—

I want to ask the Prime Minister, whether, after the Voortrekkers have kept South Africa a white country for the past hundred and fifty years and more, he is now busy by one stroke of the pen trying to destroy that position, and bring about equality in its place? Is he now engaged on reversing the statement which he made last year, that Native troops would not constitute part of our fighting forces but that they would only be used as guards to look after cattle, to do transport work, or carry ammunition? And is he now going to use them as fighting units up North? I hope the Prime Minister will stand by his word and that he will not use native troops and coloured troops, because if that is done the position after the war will be terrible. We already see what is happening; we find that the coloured men, because they wear uniforms exactly like those worn by the white troops, and that the natives, because they wear uniforms like those of the white troops, no longer has respect for the white man. Their respect for the white man has totally disappeared, and they consider they are just as good as the white man in South Africa.

The Leader of the Opposition put certain questions to the Prime Minister. I do not want to reply to those questions; I only want to say what my impression is of his speech. He asked whether we were going to allow South Africa to become a base for American and English troops. I am surprised at such a question at a time when this country is in danger. Hon. members opposite have told us that even if South Africa is in danger they will not fight, because we have entered this war together with England, and now with America. If England and America want to send troops here to help us to defend ourselves the Leader of the Opposition also protests against that. I really fail to understand him. They themselves have not got the courage to fight. When Italy declared war the Leader of the Transvaal, Mr. J. G. Strydom, stated that it was no use our taking up arms against Italy because Italy was too strong for us. In other words, we had to surrender. That is what the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) said. I have never heard him deny it. Our sons have turned that danger away from us. Abyssinia is no longer in the hands of Italy. All the Italians still there are prisoners of war. Those people whom hon. members were so scared of are no longer there. Now, they are afraid of Germany and Japan, and they want to tell the people that we must not allow a base to be established here for English and American troops, because it will only attract the enemy. Is that the kind of talk responsible men should indulge in? Is that the kind of talk for men who want to lead the people? I believe that the people will take note of this statement. Those are the brave men who talk so much about Afrikanerdom! They are afraid. Not only are they afraid to take up arms, but for the sake of party politics they say that English and American troops must not come here to defend our country. No wonder the New Order is running away. No, I welcome anyone who comes to help me to defend the country, and who wants to fight side by side with me to turn away the Nazi danger and the danger from the East. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) made a reference to the way the Boers fought. He said that we had declared war. I want to remind him of the fact that in 1899 we were in an exactly similar position. We also declared war, and if this is a war of aggression, then that was also a war of aggression, but we knew that we had to defend ourselves. On the 4th September we were in an identical position as we were in in 1899. We knew that there was a danger threatening us; our freedom was threatened by violence, and we were not so cowardly as to say that the Powers against us were too great, and that we were not going to defend our country. On the 4th September, 1939, we declared war in an exactly similar way as we did in 1899, when the Boer republic declared war against Britain. The hon. member says that on that occasion we continued fighting, and that we lost the war. He wants us to believe that we can stop this war because we lost on that occasion. We kept on fighting for three years with a handful of people, and the hon. member kept on fighting with us on our side. Now, let me tell him that in spite of our persistence, we did not achieve victory; we were none the less able to conclude an honourable peace, and to save the honour of the Afrikaner nation. Because of that we do not constitute an inferior section in this country today, and it is because of that that members opposite who call themselves Afrikaners can look any other nation in the face. That is the position, and I say that our position today is identical to that of 1899. The hon. member now says we must make peace. I know that there were hands-uppers in the Boer War who said that England was too strong, and that England had to make peace … I am surprised to hear it from the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, a man who in those days fought to the bitter end. No, I do not think the people of South Africa agree with him. I know the people of South Africa, and I know the platteland, and I say that the overwhelming majority of the people on the platteland do not want to see Hitler or Japan victorious. That is what they feel, and hon. members opposite feel exactly the same. Even the Ossewa-Brandwag and the New Order, at any rate, many of their members, feel that they do not want a German victory; nor do they want a Japanese victory. Naturally there are people among them, such as the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) and the hon. member for Wodehouse (Mr. S. Bekker), who make no secret of the fact that they would welcome a German victory, but the majority of them, and the majority of their supporters on the platteland, do not want to see a victory by Germany and Japan. I therefore believe that they will welcome it if American and English troops are sent here to help us in the defence of our country.

It is perfectly clear that the hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler) was not here the other day when the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) made his speech, because otherwise he would not have accused us of being afraid. If ever there was a cry for help it was made in that speech by the hon. member’s own Front Bencher, the member for Kensington. I want to associate myself for a moment with what the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) said in regard to the position in Java during the last few days. He quoted from a statement by the Governor-General of the Dutch East Indies, but I want to add a little to that. I want to add a few words which appeared in the English papers—

From that, and also from statements which the hon. member for Vredefort has quoted, one thing is perfectly clear, and it is that the Hollanders in the Dutch East Indies were left in the lurch by the Britishers in the same way as the Belgians and the French were left in the lurch. But I want to deal more particularly now with another matter, and that is the relationship of the Union of South Africa with France, especially arising out of what was said by the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. I shall not be able to say all I want to say in the ten minutes now at my disposal, but I hope to be able to dilate on it later on. As a result of the Prime Minister’s war policy we have not only made new enemies, and many enemies, for South Africa, but in consequence of certain things which have taken place, especially in the past year, complications have undoubtedly arisen in the relationship of the Union towards its friends, towards nations with whom we have been on a friendly footing, towards nations which are not involved in the war. Our relationship has been made worse, not only with our friends, but also with our neighbours, and I refer particularly to France and Portugal. Last year I had the opportunity of discussing the whole question of our relationship with France, and I discussed it in the first place arising from the fact that our Ambassador in France (Mr. Bain-Marais) is in London. I put the question to the Prime Minister how he could reconcile that with the fact that we were maintaining a so-called friendly relationship with France, and I asked him how we could maintain such a friendly relationship and at the same time place our Ambassador in London and not in the present capital of the French Government, Vichy. I also touched on another matter last year in regard to our relationship with France, namely, the confiscation of the French ship Ville de Majunga. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister when we discussed the matter relied on the “Jus angarie” but after we had gone further into the matter he practically admitted that I was right. I shall revert later on to the attachment of French ships. The Prime Minister, during previous sessions, when I raised the question of the relationship between the Union and France, gave us to understand that it was South Africa’s intention to adopt a friendly attitude towards France, but when I put the question to him why, if that was the case, our Ambassador was not in Vichy, in the same way as other countries had their ambassadors in Vichy, he shrugged his shoulders and said: “Well, there are reasons for it.” To a further question I put in regard to those reasons I got no reply. Since raising this matter during the last session there have been several further developments. In the first place a further ten French ships have been attacked here in South African waters. Those ships have been detained here and the crews and also the passengers have been landed here in South Africa. On the 23rd January I put a question to the Prime Minister, and from the reply given to me it appears that no fewer than 1,114 officers and men and 3,564 passengers have been landed here. A number of those have been sent back, and on the date mentioned there were still 379 officers and men and 2,093 passengers in the Union waiting for an opportunity to proceed to French or Vichy colonies?

I intend discussing that matter in further detail at a later stage. But since the last session a further development has taken place, and it is this, that delegates have arrived in South Africa, not from the French Government, but from the rebel organisation, from De Gaulle; Col. Petchkoff, the military representative of Gen. De Gaulle, has arrived here, and another person as well, Monsieur VacherCorbierre, who has been appointed as special representative of De Gaulle. Regarded from the point of international law and from the point of view of our so-called friendly relationship with France. I say this is an extremely serious matter, and I should like to know from the Prime Minister what his position is in regard to those special representatives of Gen. De Gaulle. We have this position, that we are maintaining a so-called friendly relationship with France and France’s ambassador, Monsieur De Simonin, is in South Africa, but our ambassador is not in Vichy but sits in London. What he is doing there I don’t know. We are maintaining a so-called friendly relationship with France, but at the same time, apparently with the Government’s approval, representatives are allowed to come here from an organisation looked upon by the official French Government as a rebel organisation under Gen. De Gaulle. I want to know whether the fact that Gen. De Gaulle’s representative has arrived here in South Africa is an indication of the Union Government’s real and actual relationship with France. What is the position in regard to the other matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition, namely, the fresh developments which have now taken place in regard to Madagascar. The hon. member for Kensington raised the question of Madagascar when he made a speech here the other day. After he had spoken I availed myself of the opportunity to say that I did not believe that he had merely expressed his own personal opinion, and I further expressed the view that when he made his speech he was sending up a balloon d’essay on behalf of the Government to find out the way the wind was blowing. A balloon d’essay is usually sent up when one is getting the wind in front, and on that occasion the wind was very strong in the front. The hon. member for Kensington discussed the whole question at length, and not only that, but before and since his speech there have been repeated articles in the English papers of South Africa all going in the same direction. I ask what the significance of those articles is? In my modest opinion they have only one meaning, namely that they are intended as a preparation for the aggression which is going to be committed in connection with Madagascar. We have already as a result had a reaction, because one cannot do such things without repercussions. A feeling of uneasiness has been created, and as a result the Governor of Madagascar has been obliged to make a statement in which, in view of the statements made here in South Africa, he said that they would resist such aggression at all costs. I want to associate myself with what was said by the Leader of the Opposition, and I say, in view not only of our present so-called friendly relations with France, but also in view of the statement of the hon. member for Kensington, and the newspaper propaganda, that the Prime Minister should today tell this House and the country what the position is in regard to this matter.

It is difficult to believe that the Opposition are really serious in the kind of statements they are making. I am inclined to think that if we had Gilbert and Sullivan here today, and if they were trying to write a new political work on the lines of the “Mikado” they would find it somewhat difficult to decide whether to make the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) or the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy), or the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) the Pooh Bah of the piece. I have been in this House for many years, and I am astonished at the attitude taken up by members, particularly like the hon. member for Piketberg, because over a period of years my memory seems to serve me correctly when it tells me that if there is one thing the hon. member has made the most outstanding speech on—the most impassioned speeches on—it is this question of colour, and yet we find him today in a state of what I would call intensified cowardliness, we find him advocating a policy on behalf of the Nationalist Party, whereby a European Government are required to go cap in hand to a coloured Government and ask them to make peace—not to demand them to make peace, but to ask them kindly to make peace, because the hon. member for Piketberg is quite convinced that Japan will win the war, that Britain, America, Russia, and the Allied countries are going to lose the war, and, if I understand him, his attitude is that, that being so, and Japan, particularly in the East, is going to win the war—and that is also the attitude of the hon. member for Vredefort—the European people of this country represented by the Government, must run cap in hand to the Government of the East and ask them please to make peace. Perhaps the solution is to be found in the hon. member’s wish for the Japanese to come here and fix the O.B.—that is one explanation, but that is hardly likely, and we must assume that they have now reached that depth of cowardliness and fear that they are quite prepared to do these things. Well, I am not surprised. Now, I suddenly find the hon. member for Beaufort West disliking rebels. I always thought he was so fond of rebels—so long as they did the fighting for him. Of course, he has never done any rebelling himself, except with his tongue. But this sudden dislike he has taken to rebels is strange to me. Now, what kind of peace does the hon. member for Piketberg think South Africa can make with Japan today? It could not possibly be peace; it could only be capitulation. All this country and other countries could do today would be to ask Japan for terms, and Japan would do the same thing as our own Major-General did in the North, when he said that he was dictating the terms. And so the thing is unthinkable. So I can only think that they are talking like this because they once more want to delude their unfortunate followers in the country. Instead of putting the case before these people and making them realise that South Africa is in danger, such as she has never been in before, and that it is necessary for every man, woman, and child to pull their weight, to get South Africa, in common with her Allies, out of the danger, the hon. member for Beaufort West is concerned with international law. At this stage of the greatest war in history, he is concerned with international law, when a few months ago he had the spectacle of Japan attacking Pearl Harbour in the Pacific when her envoys were sitting in peaceful consultation with the President of America … he wants to talk about international law, and the wants to tell me that the Government of Madagascar has made a statement that he will resist any attack on Madagascar. How many other people have made that statement? Did resistance do any good? The hon. member says that Great Britain let down the East Indies. The hon. member forgets that Holland remained neutral, just as he wants South Africa to remain neutral. He forgets that Holland was just trampled on, and that Germany, Italy, or Japan did not care two hoots for international law. The sooner we all realise that international law does not count when you are dealing with gangsters of the German Japanese type the better it will be for the world. I would have no hesitation in taking Madagascar tomorrow because I believe Madagascar is a danger to the Union, and I believe that eventually something will have to be done about Madagascar.

What about Mozambique?

The hon. member for Beaufort West is a much travelled man. At one time he had pretentions to being something like a Diplomat …

He did not get very far.

No, he never got further than having pretensions, but still the hon. member must know what is the position with reference to France, and if he thinks carefully he will probably realise that France got into the position she is in and had to capitulate because she had too many individuals in her politics of the same kidney as hon. members opposite. That was why France was forced into that position. She had individuals who were not concerned with her welfare, with her future, but who were only concerned with their own individual advancement—she had individuals who only wanted to look after themselves, who were prepared to make peace and parley, and eventually to capitulate. And what has France got for making peace? Does the hon. member suggest that France got a good deal? Does he know that there are still 1,500,000 prisoners held in Germany? Does he know the treatment meted out to occupied France and to unoccupied France as well? And then he wants to suggest that it is possible to make peace with Japan! Does he know that South Africa occupies today geopraphically possibly the most important strategic point in the world? And even if Japan had good intentions she could not reasonably make peace with South Africa unless taking complete occupation of all the parts of South Africa in her own interests, and in the interests of the Axis powers—she would have to occupy all our ports—Cape Town, Durban, and probably also the gold bearing area of the Rand. If the hon. member would only think for a moment he would get rid of his narrow isolationist outlook which has been poisoning his whole outlook for years. If hon. members over there would look at the war situation they would get away from their cowardly attitude, they would not make these cowardly suggestions they are making here today. But apart altogether from that aspect, it is complete and utter nonsense. The scene has shifted slightly. In the first instance we used to get it here session after session that we must make peace with Germany and Italy. It was suggested at the outbreak of war that Hitler was not bound by a policy of world domination. Whatever case they might have been able to make for Hitler and Mussolini there is no case to be made for Japan. Japan has shewn clearly that she was prepared to make war on a nation which at that time was trying to establish and to maintain relations with her—she was prepared to make war on a nation which, with the utmost tolerance for two years had been exploring every avenue of peace. She was prepared to declare war on that nation while negotiations were still in progress.

Not declare war, make war.

[Time limit.]

There is a special matter which I want to discuss with the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, and it is in connection with something raised when the Minister of Finance submitted the Additional Estimates, namely, our contribution to the League of Nations. During the course of the past 20 years, our contributions have amounted to more or less £500,000, and the time has arrived for us to discontinue these contributions. My reasons, briefly, are these: If the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister takes note of the number of States and countries which formerly belonged to the League of Nations, he will see that no less than 50 countries and small States belonged to the League of Nations, and that the contributions which they paid from time to time amounted to the sum of £1,719,148 in 1939; in 1940, £1,203,243; and, according to the latest return, the amount was reduced in 1941 to £616,179. Therefore the amount which has been paid in from time to time has been reduced to a little over £500,000. That must be attributed to the fact that a great number of the larger countries, and also smaller countries which contributed, are no longer contributing, and at the moment it is only Great Britain, with its Dominions and a few other smaller countries, such as Portugal, which still contribute to the League of Nations. The Prime Minister must therefore, agree that the purpose for which the League of Nations was established at that time, no longer exists. May I point out to the Prime Minister in this connection that the League of Nations no longer meets in Geneva, where the original seat of the League of Nations was? The League of Nations met there in order to discuss matters of international importance, but latterly the only work of any importance which was still dene, was in connection with labour questions. And what do you find? That these labour questions are not discussed in Geneva, but in Montreaux. You will, therefore, see that the purpose for which the League of Nations was established at that time no longer exists. It is for that reason that South Africa should no longer bear this burden, and should no longer pay this contribution of £22,500. That burden ought no longer to be imposed on the taxpayers of this country. The expenses which we have in connection with the League of Nations, although that body no longer answers its purpose, have increased from 1.6 to 3.1; in other words, South Africa is now paying 50 per cent. more, although the League of Nations no longer answers its purpose, and South Africa can attain nothing by it. If that is the case, members will agree that the time has arrived that we should no longer pay this amount, and I think that hon. members on the other side, too, will agree with me. The object of the Leaogue of Nations which was to bring about co-operation between the various countries, no longer exists. At the moment it is only England and its Dominions which pay the contribution, apart from one or two smaller countries, and they do not ever meet for the purpose of discussion. They have discussions in another manner. For that reason I say that the £22,500 should be cancelled. The taxpayers of South Africa can no longer afford it. We are paying sufficient taxes, and the Minister of Finance has again imposed further burdens on the people, and I hope that the Prime Minister and his Government will come to the conclusion that it is no use continuing with the payment of this money. I think that this money is being paid unnecessarily, and that it is no longer in the interests of South Africa to continue the payments, because the League of Nations no longer answers the purpose for which it was created. We ought, in any case, to discontinue payments for the present. If, after the war, it is decided to carry on with the League of Nations, or something of that nature, then that question can be decided upon after the war, but at the moment it is an unnecessary and unbearable burden which is being imposed on the taxpayers. For that reason I move—

When my time expired I was dealing with this question of the intention to conquer the world, and I was pointing out to my hon. friends on the other side that however much of a case they may have made out at one time for Hitler and Mussolini, there was no possible case to be made out now, because here we had a country which was actually in the middle of negotiations with one of the most peaceful nations in the world, and without any declaration of war she made a savage and unfortunately successful attack on the United States chief naval base. So my hon. friends cannot argue that in the case of the yellow man there was no possible idea of dominating the world. It is quite obvious from the actions of Japan that she never had any intention of keeping the peace, she never had any intention of coming to an amicable agreement with the United States or anyone else, but on the contrary, she had for many years gradually prepared her plans for a sudden onslaught at the right moment. And we see now in the success with which many of her operations are attended, that she has been preparing and practising and laying her plans, and it is quite obvious that for many years now Japan, in concert with Hitler, and to a lesser extent with Mussolini, has had a carefully laid out plan for an attempt to dominate the world. I remember when the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) in his palmy days, when he was the darling of the English speaking Press, and before he got into this present parlous situation, in which there is scarcely anyone to “reflect back his blushes and give sigh for sigh.” The hon. member for Gezina at a Press conference said that Cape Town has been the gate from the West to the East, and one day it might be the gate from the East to the West, and I assume that the hon. member, on that occasion, was afraid that at some time or other the East might want to go to the West, and I gathered at that time that if that ever happened he would be on the side of the West. Now, however, I find him on the side of the yellow man. He and his friends want to make peace, they want to crawl on their bellies to the Japanese and say: “Look, the Allies are losing the war; for God’s sake make peace with us and save us.” And that in spite of his Ossewa-Brandwag storm troopers.

Who won the last war?

What do you know about it, that is a long time ago. What about the Battle of Waterloo? My hon. friend surely has got more sense than to make this kind of interjection that school children make in the back yard.

You were caught out.

What I am trying to show you is the situation at the moment. The fact of the present situation is that Japan is in the war, and she is in the war as an aggressor, and she is gaining strength as an aggressor, and the only reply to Japan’s aggression which you get from the hon. members on the other side of the House is “Let us crawl on our bellies and make peace with them.” What kind of a peace would that be?

What about all the yellow men over there that are drawing double salaries?

We know that hon. members over there have never refused a double salary when the Government has been kind enough to hand it out. I don’t remember any of them handing anything back; the hon. member must not talk as childishly as that. The country knows what kind of heroes they have got sitting on the front bench over there. They say you must keep the coloured man and the native down in this country, but you must crawl on your tummy and make peace with the Japanese. The same people wanted to make peace with the yellow man in order to make them buy their wool.

Their money is as good as anyone else’s.

That is the position today. Now how are they going to make peace? I suggested in my previous remarks that a peace with Japan would be impossible unless Japan were allowed to occupy the country. [Interruptions.] We can all sling at once, but we cannot all speak at once, and I wish you would keep quiet. Let us take the other possibility. Supposing we just pulled out of the war, without making any kind of arrangement with Japan, supposing we were to say to our other Allies in the Commonwealth and to America and Russia: “We are finished with this war, and we are just going to sit down.” Do you think that would suit us any better? Do you think we would be any better off? We would immediately be cut off from all economic activity; we would be starved out, and ready and ripe for a Japanese invasion. My hon. friend from Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) laughs. It seems to him to be something so far away. On the other hand, hon. members over there say the Allies must lose the war and Japan must win. They cannot have it both ways. If there is no danger from Japan you must agree that the Allies are in a fair way to win the war; but, if on the other hand, you want to argue that Japan is going to win, or has a chance to win, which I don’t think she has, you must admit that South Africa is in danger. The most that hon. members over there can do to assist the Union when she is in danger from Japanese aggression is to make these cowardly suggestions of making peace. The best way to assist South Africa in averting the danger from Japanese aggression, is by bending all your energies to assist South Africa to defend herself. I am very doubtful that many hon. members over there are likely to do that. A great many of them had an opportunity during the Boer War to fight for the republics which they are now so fond of talking about, but very few of them utilised that opportunity. So they are only running true to form, to their past history, when we find them here, I might almost say as yellow as the yellow men that we are engaged in fighting against today, putting their hands up at the slightest sign of danger, and being prepared to make peace. Hon. members on that side accuse us of fighting the Empire war. I could deal with that very effectively if I had more time, but let me ask this question. If South Africa is fighting the Empire war, do hon. members suggest that Russia and the United States of America are fighting the Empire war, the Dutch East Indies, or Jugosavia or the Free French? Do they suggest that the South American countries, who signed that Convention the other day, are also engaged in fighting the British Empire war? The thing is ridiculous. South Africa is in this war to fight for South Africa; she is fighting her own war, unfortunately, for the retention of a system which will bring this kind of individual into a House like this; that is the pity of it, fighting to retain a House such as this, which contains people prepared to get up and make a cowardly peace and go behind their country’s back in the hour of danger. The hon. member for Gezina, on the other hand, finds out that we are fighting a war for the Communists. At one moment we are fighting a war for the Empire, Gen. Smuts is said to be fighting a war for the Empire, and the hon. member for Gezina suddenly finds we are fighting a war for the extension of Communism. I suppose if the Afrikaner Party want a new battle cry they will suddenly find out we are fighting a war to make the world safe for Chicago gangsters.

Let me just say this briefly to the hon. member who talked so much rubbish on the other side. He says that France’s position was due to “people of the kidney of Opposition members”; let me tell him that it was people of his kidney who were responsible for it. Leon Blum and people like him were responsible for France’s condition. The hon. member had a great deal to say about capitulation. I want to tell him that the less he says about capitulation, having regard to all the capitulation that has recently taken place, the better it will be To carry on now with the speech which I was making when my ten minutes expired. I hope that we shall get a clear statement from the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister today in regard to the question of our relationship to France, and especially in connection with this question of the threat to Madagascar. I also want to ask the Prime Minister—I do not know whether it is true, but if it is not true he can deny it—whether there are warships of Gen. de Gaulle’s in Durban at this moment. These are the rumours which are circulating. If it is untrue, the Prime Minister can deny it, but we should like to have a reply from him in this connection. What is the reason for this peculiar attitude on the part of our Government and on the part of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister towards the present French Government? I take it that this is more a case of simple, servile imitation of the attitude of the British Government than anything else. There the attitude is adopted that the attitude of enmity towards the Government of Vichy is due to the fact that France surrendered to Germany at that time. But anyone who has studied the history of the war up to the present—and more things will appear in the future, just as it appeared in the case of Leopold of Belgium—know that that is not the position at all. Leopold of Belgium was also called a traitor. The English newspapers everywhere called him a traitor and they have all had to eat their words. They discovered that he was not a traitor. In the same way Marshal Petain was also called a traitor. They will have to swallow their words in this case too. What actually happened is this: According to the speech of Gen. Weygand at Dakar, there were 90 French divisions and only ten English divisions on the Western front. Out of those ten divisions only four were in the fighting line. And that was months after the war had been in progress. They left France in the lurch, just as they have left other countries in the lurch. England likes to fight its wars on other people’s soil. She expects them to fight for her, and when they are threatened, she leaves them in the lurch, as she has now left Holland in the lurch in the East. The game which the Union Government is playing is a double game; it is a dual game. On the one hand it wants to retain bonds of friendship with France, and on the other hand it adopts a hostile attitude towards the French Government and agents of De Gaulle are allowed in South Africa. I hope the Prime Minister will make a clear statement on this point. There is another matter which I want to touch upon, and here I specially want to address my words to the Minister in the form of a request. This is a matter which I have discussed with him personally in the past, and it is in connection with those French who, as a result of the seizure of French ships, find themselves in South Africa today. Those people are not here by their own choice; they want to return to France. There are some of them who have been here for eight or nine months, and there are others who have been here for four or five months. Their position is extremely difficult. They have no money. There are no schooling facilities for their children. It is true, a temporary arrangement has now been made for the provision of money, but their position remains extremely difficult. And since I have already discussed the matter with the Minister personally, I again want to make an appeal to him on behalf of those people. A large section of our people also have French blood in their veins, and are descended from those people. I want to make an appeal to the Minister to do everything in his power in order to enable these people to get away. It is said that there is no shipping accommodation. My information, however, is that there was shipping accommodation. My information is also that there will again be a ship next Saturday. I hope that every possible effort will be made to enable these people to get away. Furthermore, my information is this: On the one hand it is said that there is no shipping accommodation; on the other hand it is stated that because certain measures were taken against the English who were in France, the French in South Africa are being detained as a measure of vengeance in respect of persons who were detained in France. I do not know whether that is the case, but I hope that South Africa has not descended to the level that, because England had certain troubles with France, we, who are an independent country, should punish these people in our country on account of England’s troubles. I spoke of our friendly relations with France being jeopardised. When the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) spoke of France he also spoke of Mozambique. I want to say something in this connection now, and I hope that I shall not again be called an expert in a sarcastic way. When I talk of countries where I resided for years it is said in a sneeringmanner that I am an expert. But I do know how the Portuguese feel about the position. Now again our friendly relations with Portugal are being jeopardised. We should be very careful; the Portuguese are our neighbours. In this connection, too, I hope that we shall get a very clear statement from the Prime Minister. Reference has been made to Timor today. I received a report from Lisbon of the speech of Dr. Salazar. I received that direct from the Information Bureau in Lisbon. Let me say that the speech is quite different from that appearing in the Press. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) complained that the Hawaiian Islands were attacked whilst discussions were taking place between Cordell Hull and the Japanese Ambassador. But Dr. Salazar stated that while he was engaged in discussing the question of Timor with the British Ambassador, a report was received that the British troops had already entered Timor. That differs widely from what appeared in the Press. In connection with the motion moved by the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) I just want to add this. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) wants to dress the Labour Party in his garb. He wants to make out that it was the labourites who played such a mean role in France. The hon. member knows very well that it was the Fascists who committed treason in France and not the labourites.

You do not know what you are talking about.

It is no use the hon. member saying that I do not know what I am talking about. The fact remains that it was the Fascists who betrayed France. Now he wants to dress the Labour Party in that garb. I think he will admit that the Fascist garb fits his party much better than it does the Labour Party. The hon. member also spoke of Marshal Petain. But I want to ask him, was it not his leader who last year held up Petain as the symbol of treason? His leader pointed to the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister and said: “There sits the Petain of South Africa.’’ Now the hon. member is contradicting his own leader. He says that the English Press had to swallow their words, but he forgets that his own leader referred to a speech of the Prime Minister and said: “There sits the Petain of South Africa.”

You are talking nonsense, my friend.

Does the hon. member deny that his own leader said that? We can look at Hansard, and then we shall see that the Leader of the Opposition did say it. Two or three times he said “There sits the Petain of South Africa.” So much for Petain. The speakers on the Opposition side are today making use of this debate to do nothing else, in speech after speech, but to reproach the British Army. They practically want to tell the world that the British Army, the English Army especially, is doing nothing in battle.

Up to the present time they have only left the other armies in the lurch.

The same reproaches which they are levelling at the English Army today they repeatedly level at this side of the House. The hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) did so again this afternoon. Now I just want to show you how hon. members op the Opposition contradict themselves and their arguments. A few days ago the Leader of the Opposition said: If South Africa is in danger, then in heaven’s name bring all the soldiers back from the North. At the beginning of the war they did not want us to send our soldiers to the North; but they nevertheless insist that hon. members on this side should go and fight. We are continually being reproached that we do not go and fight.

But you are not soldiers.

That is untrue.

The memories of hon. members on the other side are so warped that they cannot remember what they said. I sit here and study their speeches, and then I find that time and again they contradict their own arguments. From the beginning they have said that we should not send anyone out of South Africa, but time and again they told us: Why do you not go and fight? Before our forces took part in the war, they said: Where are you fighting? And later on, when our forces fought, and very creditably, they said: Bring those people back. So you can go into the position point after point and you will find that there is not a single point where they were consistent. The Leader of the Opposition again put questions to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon. He is now really becoming worried. He wants to know now whether the American and the British troops cannot come to Cape Town in order to offer some resistance. A few days ago he suggested that the troops should return from the North. Now they discover that there is greater danger and they are asking that the American troops should come and help. Now I put this question to the Opposition: What have you yourselves done in this war? The highest offer which we have so far had from any members of the Opposition is this: I will pair off. But we have had no other evidence that members of the Opposition are prepared to do anything.

What have you done?

Drawn money.

What have you done except to draw money?

No, they talk a great deal but not one of them is prepared to do anything.

Tell us about the extra £600.

I want to ask hon. members to cease these interjections.

Hon. members on the other side continually speak of double salaries. Their consciences are pricking them because, as the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) said just now, when one of their advocates has to conduct a case for the Government, one does not find him returning the money which he received from the Government. Not one of them has ever done the Government the slightest service free of charge. As I have said, there is absolutely no substance in their arguments. They contradict themselves at every point. This afternoon they come forward again with their one and only reproach. When this war broke out they regarded themselves as being so safe that nothing in the world could touch them, and now they are all worried; they are worried to the depths of their souls about our future. And now everyone with a grain of sense is asking whether the suggestions of hon. members of the Opposition can be taken as being sincere if they, knowing that the southern point of Africa is today regarded as the most strategical point, expect us to say to Japan: We will allow you to anchor your ships here; we will give you our coasts; we will give you food whilst you are here; we will accord you terms of neutrality. Are hon. members serious in making the suggestion that we should say to Japan: We want to make peace; we want to throw open our coasts, and in addition to that we will feed you here? The Leader of the Opposition spoke of taunting the enemy, but I want to tell him that the enemy which we have today does not wait to be taunted. Everything which comes in its way is trampled upon. He does not wait until you invite him. I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition this: How can you throw out a more attractive invitation to Japan than by saying: We will hand over European South Africa to you and you can do just as you like with the millions of natives and the few million Europeans in the country. Has the Leader of the Opposition ever stopped to think what that suggestion of his means? If Japan were to set foot in South Africa and were to get a foothold in South Africa, would Japan treat them better, or would she treat the natives better? Whom would she treat better? But hon. members on the other side refuse to think. Sometimes I feel sorry for them. Their brain is so warped; they simply do not want to realise that they are welcoming this enemy. I say that all the support on the part of the Opposition is tantamount to nothing else than this: In adopting the attitude which they do, they are welcoming Japan. And then I want to ask them, what has happened to that so-called principle of theirs of South Africa for Europeans? What has happened to that? The Opposition now discovers that since the outbreak of the war they have been adopting an attitude which they cannot reconcile. They realise that they have made a mistake, and instead of being honest and saying: We have erred, but we thought that it was in the best interests of South Africa; instead of doing that they persist in the foolish policy which they adopted, and they try today to justify that policy by arguments which have no substance.

And then you woke up.

They try to justify it with all sorts of arguments which cancel one another out. What more can the Opposition do today, if they really think that the country is in danger, than to say: We will forget all political parties, and for the first time in our lives we are going to be loyal to South Africa. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) who has just sat down reminds me of a question which was put to me by a friend, namely, what the difference was between the British Army and a Ford motor. My reply was that I did not know; he then said: The Ford car made history by advancing and the British Army made history by retreating, retreating as at Dunkirk, Greece, Crete and Singapore, and as is now the position again. I think that the hon. member for Krugersdorp is making history. He was also there, but he made himself scarce; then he retreated until he was here again. Does it justify his Parliamentary salary and the £600 which he has already drawn in one year as captain? In another year it will amount to £1,200. What has he done more than I have? If he deserves it, then I deserve it too, because we both sit here. He is making history by retreating just like the British Army. Furthermore I want to take strong exception to what the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit) said here. He regaled the House with a slight exhibition of worship of the coloured people. He enjoyed making that degrading remark when he said that he would rather sit with coloureds than with some of the members on this side. Can a thing like that be expected of a European? Would he agree to his daughter sitting at table with coloureds? If he does not agree to it, then he has made himself guilty of shameless hypocrisy, especially since he is aware of the sentiment of the Afrikaner towards the coloured person. Members on the other side complain that the Japanese stabbed the Americans in the back. When they were sleeping peacefully at night the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour, and destroyed the great and powerful American fleet. They could not find words to belch forth concerning this cunning and mean act on the part of the Japanese. I want to remind them that they did not want to learn the lesson which we have brought to their notice. Do not associate with coloured people. We do not forget how England and America associated with coloured people, and taught them all those things. And what is the result? Japan, which was formerly a powerless small country, is now severely punishing and destroying her tutors. I was surprised when I saw that not only Pearl Harbour but also the Philippines were attacked. I asked where the powerful American fleet was. From there to Hong Kong. I thought that now Japan would bump its head, and what was the result? That little Hottentot of the Far East turned Hong Kong upside down, and went further, and threatened Singapore. I said, “Upon my soul, here this little Hottentot will bump his head.” But they placed the fortifications so as to fire to the front, and this little Hottentot crawled in from the back and defeated the British, and captured more than 60,000 troops, and conquered that powerful key to the East, and thereafter all the islands, one after another. And eventually it came to Java. What did the British radio say then? They said that the Japanese fleet had been scattered and that very soon the British would capture the few which had landed there. But the next day we learnt that Japan had got a foothold, and eventually she occupied Java, and now they are busy with New Guinea. I then said, “My word, that little Hottentot is cheeky.” All this, I say, is a threat, and when we make accusations, then we point to the Prime Minister. This side of the House adopted an honourable attitude on the 4th September, 1939, and we asked the Prime Minister to save South Africa. Strategically South Africa is far removed from any country. We said, arm South Africa; spend millions on our own armaments. No one would have had the least objection if the Minister had spent £280,000,000 in order to build fortifications and to manufacture arms, and to make South Africa ready for the battle. No one would have protested against that. What has been done with those millions which were spent in Abyssinia and now again in Libya? What did South Africa receive in return for those millions which were wasted in Abyssinia? What did we get from the Libyan desert? There, thousands of our boys are choking in their blood, where they died a lonely death. That is what we got for this £280,000,000. I know that the Prime Minister will be extremely grateful if they want to give him the Libyan desert. We do not want it. Our boys, ammunition and arms were destroyed there, and what did we get in return for all the money that was spent there? We want South Africa, and no other country. We have a beautiful country here, and what would it have meant to us if the Prime Minister had looked further ahead and rather spent this money in order to fortify our own country and armed it, so that when the challenge to South Africa came, if anyone had threatened our neutrality we could have stood up defiantly to defend our neutrality against anyone who wanted to challenge it. We could have done that if we had used all that money in order to arm our own country. That was not done, and we are today in a powerless position. Now members on the other side are beginning to wail. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) shed crocodile tears. That should have come earlier. There is a dark future ahead of him, and if there is one matter which we want to put to hon. members on the other side, then it is that they should ask the Prime Minister, as soon as he tires and despairs, to submit his resignation, and then this side of the House will take steps and make peace, and make an end to this confusion and suicide. [Time limit].

In connection with the questions which the hon. Leader of the Opposition put here to the Prime Minister, namely, what his policy was going to be with regard to the establishment of South Africa as a base for the Allies, I just want to return for a moment to the food position. Not so long ago we got a scientific exposition of the food position in South Africa. We have a popution of 10,000,000 people, and we have only sufficient food here to feed satisfactorily a very small portion of the community. We can provide milk in sufficient quantities for 3,200,000 people; cheese for 1,200,000; butter for 3,500,000, and so on. All the products which we have, excepting fruit and sugar, are not sufficient for food for our own population if we want to feed everyone properly. In the light of this, we now find that the Government is still providing some of our food to foreign Powers. We can see clearly what the Government’s policy is. The Government wants to carry out what Mr. Churchill said in England, namely, that he was going to prosecute the war from the Colonies, and it is clear that the Government is prepared to make South Africa the battlefield, and that we shall have to feed those people. But we need not even go so far in the future. What is our position today? We know that in the Near East there is an army of nearly 1,000,000 men. By whom are those troops fed principally today? Is it not by South Africa? Where do all the troops which arrive here in convoys get their food today? They only receive sufficient food in England to bring them as far as this country. Here the ships are then loaded to capacity in order further to provide them, and also to provide them at the place to which they go. I ask here whether it is right that we should neglect the interests of our own people, which we ought to have at heart, and that we should do such things? Have we the right to give this food to citizens of another country, and to feed them in the war zones to which they go, without taking into account what the result will be as far as our own people are concerned? The result will be that the Government is going to ration food in this country which we have regarded as a country of plenty. He is engaged in going so far with regard to the producer and is keeping down the price of products. I want to warn the Prime Minister that if he continues with this policy, he will reach the stage where the producer in South Africa will strike, and what is then going to become not only of the Government’s war effort, but of the millions of people who are dependent upon us in the East? But I would now like to deal with another point. I notice on page 110 of the Prime Minister’s vote that the Auditor-General draws our attention to the visit of our representative in The Hague and in Brussels. That is called an official visit. In respect of this visit £114 5s. 9d. was paid out to him in respect of hotel expenses and subsistence allowance. The charges in connection with the Government garages and other taxis which were available to him amounts to £167 13s. 7d. Then he also receives a representative’s allowance. I would like to know from the Prime Minister whether anything of that kind has ever been done in the past when anyone returns to South Africa from overseas, that such an allowance was given to him. This sum amounts to £361. Altogether it amounts to £643 18s. 6d. What is more, this gentleman is so important that a house was furnished for him in Pretoria at a cost of £746 15s. 3d. In respect of that he paid a monthly rental of £4 13s. 6d., but on the authority of the Treasury, it was later repaid to him. We would like to know from the hon. the Prime Minister what became of this furniture, and we would very much like the Prime Minister to give us a reply in this connection. We further see that this gentleman is such an important personage that during August and September and October taxis had to wait for him, and in respect of the waiting time £28 1s. 6d., £25 4s., and £17 4s. respectively was paid for the various months.

Where did they wait?

That is another question. We do not know. But they had to wait, and in respect of that, the taxpayer has to pay this colossal sum. This visit to South Africa costs us £1,389 6s. 9d. If the visits and the holidays of our representatives overseas cost so much, then it would be much better if in future we do not get visits from those people, and that they remained at their posts instead. We also notice in the report of the Auditor-General that there was a certain amount of expense to the country in connection with the visits of other people. A few people in the office of the High Commissioner in London became frightened and they had to return. It cost the State more than £1,500 to bring them here. I ask whether it is in the interests of South Africa that so much money was spent in such a reckless way. One of the Prime Minister’s supporters told us that we on this side did not prove that one single pound had been wasted. In this case a few thousand pounds were wasted on one vote. We notice that this money was paid out in some cases, and the Auditor-General says that he cannot get any reply as to how those expenses were incurred and repaid. On page 520 he gives certain items and he tells us that when his report was drawn up he had not yet received a reply to his questions in connection with that expenditure. I would like the Prime Minister, who gave us the assurance the other day that everything was in order in his departments, to reply to these few questions which I have put to him, so that we can see whether everything is really in order in his department.

After we listened to the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) worshipping the Japanese, it is very easy to understand why hon. members on the other side want to make peace.

We do not associate with coloured people.

It is very strange to me that that hon. member should make such remarks. It ill befits him since we know that he earned the greater part of bis money by teaching the coloureds as missionary. But that is what one can expect in the life of that type of man. We understand the hon. member speaking in that way. The hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit) prefers to fight with coloureds rather than to sit with members on the other side, and that is to be understood because members on the other side want to hand over South Africa to the enemy while the coloured people want to defend South Africa. The Opposition accused us on this side of wanting to reconsider and to change the decision of the 4th September. They have never been wider off the mark than now. I want to give them the assurance with the greatest emphasis, that there is not one member on this side who regrets that decision. On the contrary, we are more than ever convinced up to this point that we did the right thing and that South Africa did the right thing in taking that decision. We have put our shoulders to the wheel and we shall not turn back. We are also prepared to live up to that motto, that he who lives by the sword will fall by the sword. We are prepared to do that week after week, when we look at the Opposition, we have a barometer of the trend of the war. When they think that all is well with the Allies they are downcast. When they think that the Allies are having a hard time, as at present, then their spirits are high then they run riot. It is strange to me that hon. members and the Leader of the Opposition stated in this House that Japan is only seeking living room in the East, and for that reason he is prepared even to let the Netherlands possession fall a prey to Japan. In the reading room the other day I heard how one member of the Opposition after the other spoke with satisfaction at the fact that Java had fallen. I would just like to refer to one matter, and that is something to which I referred in a previous speech of mine, and by way of questions. We have a European population in this country of 2,500,000, a coloured population of approximately 800,000, and a native population of approximately 8,000,000. We have the position today that approximately 500,000 of the European population, represented by members on the other side, do not want to do anything with a view to discharging their duty towards South Africa in this war. They are not prepared to fight. On the contrary, they do everything in their power to torpedo the war effort. Now I say, since to a certain extent it was a question of sentiment and prejudice that the nonEuropean in this country should not take part in our battles, the position today is of such a nature that the same principle no longer applies, and I shall tell you why. Today we have the yellow man against the European, and the yellow man against the yellow man, and in Abyssinia the natives were used against us. During the last war Germany used the Askaris. Our young men had to fight against Abyssinian soldiers who fought on the side of Italy, and for that reason, a large section of the European population in South Africa is not prepared to do its duty, and since we are being threatened to-day, we have every right to make use of that section of the population which is prepared to do its duty, and I refer especially to the coloured population. They are prepared to do their duty in battle in a fighting capacity, and for that reason I say that we on this side—if the Prime Minister thinks fit to use these people in a fighting capacity—and that section of the people which wholeheartedly supports him, solidly stand behind him in taking such a step. When we look at the past we know that the old Transvaal Republic made provision for military service for the natives and the coloured people. In the Free State we have the Barolong race, which received territory as compensation because they assisted the Voortrekkers against the Basutos. For that reason I strongly want to urge that if the Prime Minister regards it as being in the interests of the country, and that it is necessary to make use of the nonEuropeans in a fighting capacity, then he must do so, and we shall support him.

There is one question which I am very anxious to put to the Prime Minister and I hope he will take the trouble to answer it. The question is this: What induced the Government to declare war against Finland? I am putting this question again today because it is a question which the Prime Minister cannot simply turn aside. On a previous occasion the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) put a similar question on the Order Paper in order to get information from the Prime Minister, and what was the Prime Minister’s answer? He merely gave a general reply that South Africa had declared war against Finland because Finland was at war with our Allies. Those are more or less literally the words he used. It was certainly not an effective reply, because if it was an effective reply I want to ask the Prime Minister this: Why did not Russia declare war against Japan? The Prime Minister will admit that Japan without the slightest question of doubt is at war today with Russia’s Allies, namely, with Great Britain and America, and as this is so I want to ask the Prime Minister why Russia does not declare war against Japan. No, the fact that the Prime Minister has a very weak case is proved by this, that he did not come forward again with the usual arguments in favour of our participation in the war. As a rule they tell us that we are taking part in the war because we are fighting for the rights of small nations, because we are fighting for Christianity, because we are fighting for civilisation, and because we are fighting against aggression. I feel that the Prime Minister cannot use those arguments in support of his declaration of war against Finland, because he knows that it would have been ridiculous for him to have done so. Why do I say that? I have before me a document which was issued by the ConsulGeneral for Finland on the 4th July, 1941. The Prime Minister has probably also seen that document and in that document it is stated why Finland had declared war against Russia. It therefore appears from this document that Finland is fighting for the very same things that the Prime Minister pretends we are fighting for. They fight against aggression. I want to quote a few sentences from this document. In the first place the Finnish agent says this—

The document goes on to say that the following cable was subsequently received—

In other words, it therefore appears from this statement of the Finnish representative that Finland is doing nothing except to fight against aggression. We are supposed to be fighting in the second place for freedom, the freedom of small nations. What does the Finnish representative say about that? He says—

In spite of this, we have declared war against the Finnish nation. In the third place we often hear that we are fighting against Imperialism, German Imperialism, Fascist Imperialism. What appears further from the statement of the Finnish ConsulGeneral? It appears Finland is fighting against Russian Imperialism. This is what he says—

The Finnish Consul therefore felt obliged to make such a statement because he had to show that Finland was fighting against Russian Imperialism. We so often hear it contended that we are fighting for democracy. That was one of the cries which was raised on the 4th September, 1939, and afterwards, as one of the reasons why South Africa should take part in the war. Is the Prime Minister going to deny today that Finland is a democratic State, or at any rate that it is democratic in its main outlook? What do we find in this same document in that regard? He says here—

In other words, we who are supposed to be fighting for democracy, have declared war on Finland, which is a democratic country. What, therefore, is the real reason why we declared war on Finland? We have declared war simply because Great Britain considered it necessary to declare war on Finland, after Russia had brought pressure to bear on Great Britain to do so. England for a long time refused to declare war, but it eventually proceeded to do so because Russian pressure became too strong. We thereupon also declared war. This is clear evidence, therefore, of the fact that the Prime Minister of our country and his Government do nothing, and are not prepared to do anything but what Churchill prescribes. It is said that we are an independent and free country. But the Prime Minister’s attitude certainly does not prove it. At any rate, in view of the fact which I have mentioned, it is clear that the Prime Minister with his declaration of war against England has cast the greatest dishonour on this country that any Prime Minister has ever done.

After having listened to what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, District (Mr. Hayward), said about coloured people, I still feel deeply insulted as a result of the insult which the hon. member for Cape, Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit) cast at us on this side of the House, when he said that he preferred associating with coloured people rather than with some of us. I have a photograph here which was taken on the occasion of a dinner party of the Cape Corps in celebration of the birthday of Square Hill—the dinner party was held in’ the banqueting hall here in Cape Town. This was a dinner given by the coloured people, and here we find the hon. member for Cape Flats sitting among the coloured people, and he feels quite at home there. That is why he prefers to associate with coloured people rather than with members of this side of the House. We shall record his insult, and I certainly believe that many hon. members on the other side of the House do not share his views, because if they did they would be renouncing their own past. Japan is now threatening Australia; she has invaded New Guinea, and hon. members may say what they like; but, judging from the past, Japan is also going to conquer New Guinea, and Australia is being threatened. Hence Australia’s cry for help. Australia is calling on America for help; Australia is calling on that great and powerful America which boasts of the fact that it is going to raise 40,000,000 soldiers, that it is going to launch a war ship every hour. Where is America’s greatness today when it does not come to Australia’s help? Hon. members must not blame us if we say that we do not believe in America’s greatness, which no doubt has started a great offensive with its mouth, but has done nothing beyond that. I am afraid Australia is going to share Java’s fate, and the fate of other countries. The people of the Netherlands Indies also sent their cry for help to that great country, America, but nothing was done. America is only boasting of the great offensive it is going to start some day, but that is all.

Will the hon. member tell me what that has to do with this Vote?

The Prime Minister has plunged South Africa into war, and we are discussing his vote. We have been plunged into war against the will of the people, and it is still the Prime Minister’s policy to continue the war. We want to criticise that policy.

The hon. member is discussing America’s policy.

It is an ally of ours which in conjunction with Prime Minister is making war. I want to urge that the Prime Minister must break the alliance with America because South Africa is in the same precarious position as Australia is in. Then we shall have to depend on America’s help just as Australia is depending on America’s help, because it is clear that Australia no longer expects any help from Great Britain. I want to draw attention to the fact that Australia is not asking for help from Great Britain because there is no help to be got there. Where is Great Britain’s navy? It is at the bottom of the sea. We heard the last of it at Singapore. Australia is not asking Great Britain for help, but is begging America to send help, and the time is coming when our Prime Minister will no longer be asking England for help, but America. Australia has already recalled its troops, and it is high time our Prime Minister recalled our troops. It is high time because the Indian Ocean is threatened, and if the Prime Minister does not bring back our troops and their equipment quickly they will remain where they are, isolated from their mother country, because they cannot come back over land, and the sea is becoming more and more unsafe. I appeal to the Prime Minister to recall our sons while the sea is still open. If the Prime Minister waits it might be too late. There is dissatisfaction in Australia, and if America does not help, Australia is going to conclude a separate peace with Japan and Germany. Australia is on the point of doing so. If Australia, an English colony, makes peace with the Axis powers and we are threatened, will the Prime Minister also make peace then? Or is he even worse than an Englishman? The English colony is possibly going to make peace, because it does not want to see its country destroyed. Is the Prime Minister going to be worse than an Englishman, and is he not going to make peace? I am making an appeal to the Prime Minister’s goodwill. We do not want to see our beautiful country devastated. It is high time for him to put right what he has done wrong, otherwise it will be too late. Or if he does not see his way to undertake this great and noble work of making a separate peace, and of saving our country from devastation, let him “hands up” and give way. This side of the House is willing to undertake that great work on behalf of the country, and we have the man to do it. We have a leader, a leader we are proud of, a man who can stand up against any other leader in the world. He can stand up to a Churchill, to a Yankee Roosevelt; he can stand up to Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. South Africa has a great statesman who can do this noble work, and if the Prime Minister is too old or too discouraged, or if he is too deeply involved with the British Empire, let him hands up and give this side of the House the opportunity to do this noble work on behalf of South Africa, and conclude a separate peace, and thereby save the mothers and children from starvation, misery, devastation and death.

The hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen), in ringing tones held up a picture showing the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit) surrounded by a group of coloured fighting men. Well, I have also here a picture showing one of the hon. member’s colleagues, the late member for Stellenbosch (Mr. de Villiers), not with fighting men, but sitting on the shoulders of coloured men, and being carried up the steps of Parliament, following his election.

That is not having dinner with them.

There is an old saying that a man who goes to court should go with clean hands. Let me suggest to the hon. member for Namaqualand before he takes up any attitude of criticism, shall I say of another hon. member of the House for standing with coloured men who are doing their bit in defence of this land, he should be quite clear that his friends and those with whom he associates do not take up exactly the same attitude as far as the coloured man is concerned when it suits them. Let me say this once and for all. I have not spoken on this question before, but if my hon. friends will not protect themselves when South Africa is threatened, well, we shall have to get the coloureds and natives to protect them. We don’t want to see those gentlemen who sit in comfort on those benches come to any harm when South Africa is invaded, but if they will not defend themselves, if they will not take up arms in defence of their own country, then I think it is our duty to do our best to defend them, even if we have to use coloured men and natives.

Why don’t you do it? Why don’t you people do it?

Do what?

Why don’t those people who draw double salaries fight?

The hon. member knows that men are necessary on the home front. That is just as necessary as the fighting front.

And much safer.

You don’t seem to be interested in either the fighting front or the home front, except to obstruct Government in the defence of South Africa. Has anybody more right than the natives to defend this land, which is their land just as much as it is the land of the hon. members over there? Their ancestors were here before the advent of the white man. I, for one, would be perfectly willing to fight with these men, or lead them, if necessary, and I hope that everyman who has any real love for his fatherland will have the chance to stand up and defend the country.

The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), who always wants to lecture us, is one of those types of Englishmen who puts the whole world up in harness against England. He is the type of Englishman who only talks, but when it comes to action he runs away. There is something else, and the hon. member can get up and deny it if it is not correct. He has attacked the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen), a man who has two sons fighting at the front, and he stigmatises the hon. member as a coward but meanwhile he himself was busy getting his own son out of the army. And what is his excuse? He is supposed to have such a large farm that his son has to come back to look after that.

Shame!

For that type of Englishman we have nothing but contempt. They want to hide behind the blood of the young fellows of this side of the House, but they themselves are not prepared to take up arms. Do hon. members know what came to my notice today? That an Englishman by the name of Pocock lent somebody £27 to have his child educated and the other day he went to the man and said that he had to pay back this £27, and that if he did not do so he, Pocock, demanded that all his children should join up. It is not the hon. member for Pretoria, Central (Mr. Pocock), but this man Pocock makes a demand of a man who has borrowed £27 from him that he and his sons and daughters shall join up. The man then came to me and asked me to lend him £27. I asked him what Pocock did, and his reply was that Pocock was a business man, so I asked him where Pocock’s son was, and the reply was that he ran a dairy. That man was unable to pay the £27, so he and his whole family were forced to go and fight. That is the type of mentality one gets among members opposite, and that is why they Dunkirked, and that is why we have nothing but the deepest contempt for every one of them on that side. There is the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, South (Mr. Hirsch). He always has a sneer on his face when the Leader of the Opposition speaks, and he treats the Leader of the Opposition with the greatest contempt, but the hon. member sits here and does nothing. He is one of those who persecute the Afrikaners at Port Elizabeth. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Col. Wares) is also one of those who persecute the Afrikaners. They are now engaged in driving the Afrikaners, who are being dismissed from the factories, into the army, yet a man like the hon. member for Griqualand East tries to get his son out of army. That is why we treat him with the greatest contempt. Do not let them come here and tell us that we are not doing our duty. If the country really gets into trouble we shall be prepared like one man to stand up for the defence of the country. But hon. members opposite run away; they talk about hands uppers. That is an antiquated idea. It is no longer a case of “hands up” but of “run away.” They are the “run awayers.” If ever there was a nation unable to face another nation it is the English nation. There they sit in England with an army of 4,500,000, and everybody has to come and help them. America also has to go and help them, but in Java they left the poor Hollanders in the lurch, and there were only 5,000 English, American and Australian soldiers there, but the Americans are sent to Northern Ireland to help England against some possible invasion in the future. The English are struck down by fear. They sit on their island and they concentrate all their strength on their island and all the money has to be used to protect England from some possible invasion in the future. We treat the English nation with contempt; they are no longer the English nation that we knew in the past.

What about the English casualty lists?

We also have contempt for that hon. member because he has never yet shown any respect for the feelings of this side of the House. He always insults us, and he is always calling us names, and bestowing nicknames on us. The hon. member is the centre of the Sons of England. We have contempt for them. We are sons of South Africa. Let me say very clearly that if hon. members opposite want to say anything and want to attack us they should first of all prove that their own sheets are clean, otherwise don’t let them come here to make allegations against us while they themselves are engaged in keeping their own flesh and blood out of danger.

Hon. members opposite, especially the hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Gilson) accused us of not doing our duty, and then they go further and say that they want to arm the coloured people and the natives so that they can go and fight. The hon. member for Griqualand East says that we should fight side by side with the coloured people, but he sees to it that he stops here. Those hon. members on the 4th September voted for war, but not one of them has done his duty in the matter and shown that they were inspired by patriotism to South Africa on the 4th September. On the contrary we have found that the whole of the Labour Party, for instance, have improved their financial position since the 4th September, but in spite of that they always have a lot to say and they cast reflections at this side of the House. That is the kind of patriotism we get from that side, but I want to warn those hon. members who have appealed to the Prime Minister to arm coloured people and natives. They are afraid of Japan coming here; I don’t believe it, but that is what they say. The Prime Minister has disarmed the Afrikaner people and he will have to think twice before he arms the non-Europeans of this country. I am not so sure what the results will be if Japan sets foot in this country and if the non-Europeans are armed. Let me tell the hon. member that if any white people are murdered by non-Europeans their blood will be on the heads of members opposite who talk so frivolously about arming the non-Europeans while the Afrikaner people are disarmed. What is more, an appeal is made to us to co-operate. What right have hon. members opposite to expect us to help them to fight? What right have they to ask us to do so after they have been disarmed by the Prime Minister because he does not trust them with a rifle? What right have they to come and say that we must take up arms for the defence of the country? Let hon. members opposite think this over a bit before accusing us of being cowards. As a matter of fact one gets a much larger percentage of Afrikaans speaking people than English speaking in the army today in spite of the fact that we are divided on the war question. I want to ask hon. members over there to keep their eyes open here in Cape Town, and to watch those very young English speaking Afrikaners who are loafing about the streets and then to see what the position is in the Government offices. Afrikaans speaking people are forced to join up, but no pressure is brought to bear on the English speaking people. The Minister of Justice during the Budget debate assured us that the Imperial Government did not poke its nose into the business of this country, but let me put this question to the Prime Minister: Was he not from 1933 until the 4th September, 1939, the confidante of the Imperial Government in the Hertzog Cabinet? Will he deny that he had information from the Imperial Government which the then Prime Minister (Gen. Hertzog) did not have? Will he deny that in the second half of 1938 he had information at his disposal on the question whether England would go to war or not? Information which the then Prime Minister did not have? I go further and I want to put a question to the Prime Minister, whether in August, 1939 he did not have at his disposal information which Gen. Hertzog did not have. Will he deny that it was his doing that Parliament was called together at the beginning of September? Did he not urge Gen. Hertzog to call Parliament together, ostensibly for the purpose of lengthening the life of the Senate. But in actual fact because he knew that at the beginning of September war was going to break out between England and Germany. I want him to tell us whether what I have said is true or not.

After the speeches made by this side of the House I think the Prime Minister will have to realise that his policy has not only been disastrous to South Africa but that it is also a policy which threatens to bring South Africa to ruin.

When the House adjourned this afternoon I was addressing the House. I do not want to return to what was said this afternoon by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Egeland). When the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) showed a portrait this afternoon of the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit) having dinner with coloured people at the same table, the hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Gilson) rose and showed us a photograph of a man being carried by coloureds. Our objection is not that somebody is being carried by coloured people. If the coloured people work for us, we do not place them on the same level as Europeans, and if one is carried by coloured people, it is not that you are on the same footing with them, but it is an indication that they respect you. But to have dinner with coloured people at the same table is a horse of a very different colour. If you do that, you place him on the same footing as the European. That is what we object to, and for that reason we do not take it amiss if the hon. member informs us that he takes more notice of coloured people than of hon. members on this side of the House. We do not take it amiss, because we do not sit down at the same table with coloured people. Now I want to return to the war policy of the Government. We on this side of the House find it impossible to support the Government’s war policy in any way whatsoever. Not only do we find it impossible because it is an unnecessary war, but we find it impossible because to our mind the interests of South Africa are directly opposed to those of Great Britain. It goes without saying that if we believed that the interests of Great Britain and the interests of South Africa are identical, it would be wrong not to support the war policy. But in our view the war is directly against the interests of South Africa. The other evening I said in this House that I would like to see Great Britain lose the war and South Africa win the war. Then that was held up by hon. members on the other side as a very extraordinary statement to make. The hon. the Minister of the Interior could not understand how I could say that I desired Great Britain to lose the war and South Africa to win the war. We on this side of the House hold that it is in the best interests of South Africa that we should become a free and independent republic. We hold that the welfare of South Africa demands that we should get an independent republic at the earliest possible date. Under the British Commonwealth of Nations, to which we belong, and under the British Imperialistic Government which we share, it is impossible for many English-speaking people to become Afrikaners, and to break these ties with Great Britain. The sooner this tie is cut, the easier it will be for those people to become Afrikaners. They cannot become Greek or Chinese in this country. All they can become is Afrikaners. Personally, I am convinced that we will get our republic sooner if England loses the war than we would under the prevailing conditions, and for that reason I desire Great Britain to lose the war, and then I believe South Africa will gain, because the republic will be nearer that it would have been under other circumstances.

Why don’t you go and help the enemy?

I want to emphasise our objections to the Prime Minister’s war policy. We believe that with his policy he is doing an injustice to the Boer nation, the Afrikaner nation. We believe that he does not really want to build up an Afrikaner nation, but he wants us to remain part and parcel of the British Empire, a small section of the English people. Your flag is the symbol of your nationhood. The flag represents something which you cannot express in ordinary language. The flag represents your national feeling. I have asked the hon. the Prime Minister—and I mention this as showing that he is not anxious to build up an Afrikaans South Africa—I ask him why the Union flag which is flying on the Government buildings opposite the street here the whole year round, is taken off and placed in a corner where it cannot be seen, as soon as Parliament commences, and why the Union Jac is then put in its place?

That has been practised for years. I have nothing to do with that.

The hon. the Prime Minister says that it has been the practice for years, but then it is the Prime Minister’s duty to alter that practice. I have given him the opportunity by raising this matter for two years in succession.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member who made that interruption cannot understand what I say because he is a Jingo and his father was a Jingo.

I think the Committee has now had enough of these personalities now.

I have to abide by your ruling, but the hon. member who made that interjection also makes personal remarks. I want to return to the flag question. The hon. the Prime Minister says that it has been the practice for years and that he has nothing to do with the matter. He is the Prime Minister, and I put this question to the Prime Minister, and that was the reply I received. He said: The Union Flag is taken away from the Government building and the Union Jack is hoisted in its place to show that the Prime Minister is in that building or in a room there. The Union Jack therefore is hoisted over a part of the building where the Prime Minister is, to show that he is present. For that reason the Union Flag is taken down and the Union Jack put in its place. Everybody will realise that that reply could not have been given in earnest.

That was the old practice. It was the practice of your leader, and I have not changed it.

Then I want to ask the Prime Minister for the sake of the flag we love, for the sake of our nationhood, to re-establish that flag in its position of honour. If the Prime Minister can give the assurance now …

That practice was laid down by your leader, and I follow that practice. [Time limit.]

I must say a word or two on this matter to reply to the extraordinary attack made on me by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie). He took great exception to me, and said that I sat in my seat and smiled.

You sneered.

And that I smiled when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking. I readily concede to him that I should have wept because much of the stuff which the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) said was enough to make angels weep, but not being an angel I smiled, and let me assure the hon. member that I shall continue to smile. And the more the hon. member and his friends suggest that we should crawl on our knees to ask the enemy for peace the more we shall smile, and even if Japan comes here we shall still smile, and we shall hang on with everything we have got, and that applies to everyone on this side of the House.

You will run away.

And if my young and vitriolic friend over there (Mr. J. H. Conradie) would smile sometimes he would not be so full of bile, and he would not appear to be such a yellow young gentleman as he appears to be at present Now, there is one other point. He waxed very eloquent when he spoke of the so-called insult which had been hurled at the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col Booysen), and he told us about the hon. member for Namaqualand having two sons fighting with the forces up North. I say, Thank God for people like the hon. member for Namaqualand’s two sons. It is people like that who are upholding the honour of South Africa in the field.

They are setting an example to you.

You have forced many others to go there.

But let me assure the hon. member that apparently he does not realise that all these cheap sneers and jibes which he and his friends cast, are cast at their own flesh and blood who are doing their job …

Our flesh and blood, not yours; yours do not fight.

Don’t hon. members realise what they are doing? And if any of those members dare go to these people up North and say to them: “We are prepared to crawl on our hands and knees and ask for peace”—I can see what would be the end of those hon. members if they dared say such a thing. And then they get up and cast sneers and aspersions at us who, at any rate, are doing a job of some sort, and are trying to help in our war effort.

What sort of a job —you are paid for it.

It may not be very glorious—it may not be very brave, but still it is very useful.

Useful to yourselves.

At any rate, they are helping the Union’s war effort.

You get paid for it.

I worked for fourteen months without pay, and let me also say this to the hon. member for Gordonia, who asked why I was not fighting. Let me let him into a little secret. If I live to my next birthday I shall be sixty years of age, and the military authorities do not think that a man of sixty is such an asset in the field.

Are you not glad?

Oh, no; I shall be prepared to go if they will let me go. Everyone on this side of the House is prepared to do something, and the great majority of us are doing something.

You don’t even know how to handle a rifle.

Don’t let the hon. member make a mistake—we are all doing something, or trying to do something, although it may not be very heroic.

But, then, you are no hero.

But there is one thing we have the right to demand, and it is this—that if you are not prepared to help, at any rate, we have the right to demand that you do not continue to try and interfere with the efforts of those who have the good of South Africa at heart.

But your own good first of all.

We have just been listening to a very interesting speech by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, South (Mr. Hirsch). I do not think that anybody ever expected that hon. member to go and fight. We know that his age does not permit him to fight, but we can differentiate between him and other members on that side of the House when he says that all are prepared to do their bit. The hon. member at least is prepared to do something for his country without being paid for it. As far as the other hon. members are concerned, as long as they are paid well for their services and as long as they can remain in a safe position, far away from danger, they are prepared to render service. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, South, has said that we must be thankful that there are people like the sons of the hon. member for Namaqualand ((Lt.-Col. Booysen), who are prepared to go to the front. But our objection to hon. members on the other side, and other people in general, is that they are all key men, not only the members on the other side, but thousands and thousands outside who cannot stop talking about the war, but who remain at home whilst people on this side of the House and their sons are sent to the front to fight the war for them. I notice that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, South, and the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit), and the hon. member for Carolina (Mr. Fourie) sit and smile. If I look at them, I ask myself, if I were to talk about sacrifices which we should make for what I consider just, whether then I would remain behind in the House as hon. members do. Possibly the hon. members for Cape Flats and Carolina will also get up now and inform us that they will be 70 at their next birthday, but it seems to me that they would be suitable recruits which the hon. the Prime Minister would gladly have in his army. I know there is one hon. member on the other side who did his best to be taken on. We remember how, just before the war, to use his own words, he practically went on his knees and begged the Prime Minister for a commission.

I did not say that I wanted a commission.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) went on his knees, and when they did not want to give him a commission which was high enough to his liking, he was not prepared to fight.

That is untrue. I asked to be allowed to go up North.

The hon. member wanted to join up, but when the Prime Minister told him we could use him as a recruiting captain, the hon. member said that he was not prepared to do his bit for less than the rank of brigadier-general. There are 150 members in this House. Some 80 members, or even 86, are on the other side. They always remind us of their numbers. Those 86 members are doing their utmost all day long to get people to go to the front, but not one of them—you cannot tell me that they are all too old—is prepared to risk his life and to get near the enemy.

That is a mean and malicious statement to make.

The hon. member for Kensington hails from Australia. The other day I read in the newspaper that Australian members of Parliament had been wounded and killed in the war. But possibly because our country is so safe, the hon. member stays here and not in Australia. I also know of English parliamentarians who go to the front and sacrifice their lives.

Even in Rhodesia.

And in days gone by, members of the Volksraad of the old Transvaal republic and the Free State republic also went to the front. I want to say to hon. members on the other side that if we felt about the war as they do, we would not sit here in Parliament. The members on the other side want two things. They want to have the right to get people to fight for them, they are all prepared to do something, but their contribution must be paid for, and it must be done in safety. I want to return to a matter raised by the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) in connection with the visit of Dr. Van Broekhuizen to South Africa some time ago. He paid this visit to South Africa whilst he was our Minister Plenipotentiary at the Hague. [Time limit].

I just want to refer to a remark made by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie). He followed the usual method which some of these gentlemen employ, and he started to tell what he thought was a discreditable story against a gentleman by the same name as myself—trying to insinuate …

He said it was not the member for Pretoria Central.

You are not a money lender are you?

Yes, he said that when he was challenged.

Oh, no, he said that when he saw the look on your face.

The whole thing is this, that the story was told with the idea of trying to besmirch a member of this House.

Nonsense!

On a point of explanation: I talked of a certain Pocock and I did not think of the hon. member for Pretoria Central. I did say that it was not the member of that name.

He does not understand Afrikaans.

That explanation does not make it any better. He used the name of a member of this House.

You seem very touchy.

I am not a bit touchy.

Why don’t you go and fight yourself.

We also have a member by the name of Conradie on this side of the House. We do not hold it against him that there happens to be another member of the same name. It is unfortunate but one does not hold it against him. Now, I want to deal with one or two other remarks made here. I first want to deal with the remark made by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) who held forth and said that Great Britain had forsaken every Ally and had left others to bear the brunt of the war, and to have all the casualties.

Perfectly true.

Was it not a fact that right from the beginning of this war Great Britain made every effort to get those other countries to co-operate with her? Did not Great Britain try to be allowed to cooperate with those other countries before they were overrun?

Always too late.

When they asked for assistance it was too late. It was too late because they had already been overrun. Those countries had already been overrun and it was too late to send troops, but I want to deal with that. Hon. members know that that foul statement has been made that Great Britain had left others to fight for her.

Of course it is true, what about Batavia?

And that Great Britain had left others to be killed and suffer—that statement has been shewn to be absolutely false by the British Minister of War who gave the figures. I want to refer to it again in order to silence that foul statement.

What about Java?

I shall deal with Java. This is what Capt. Margesson said. He was Secretary of State for war—

And yet hon. members say that Great Britain has left other countries to fight for her. The hon. member also referred to the question of Sea Power, and he said what was Britain doing in the way of ships …

Yes, tell us.

Have you not seen every month and every week ships passing here full of troops going up East.

One never hears of them.

I should like to ask the hon. member what clothes he would Le wearing if it was not for the British Navy.

Where is the British Navy now?

Every bit of cloth, every bit of clothing, is brought here under the protection of the British Navy.

Not very useful.

Mr. Chairman, all the ships that have been going round here, every single ship has been convoyed by the British Navy, and the hon. member asks what is being done, what is the protection that the Navy Gives? Only two months ago a raider was sunk not many miles from Cape Town, and if it had not been for the protection afforded by the British Navy, that ship would have been able to do a great deal of damage. Every single convoy that comes here is protected by ships of the Royal Navy, and the fact is that today hon. members opposite talk as they do and decry everything that Great Britain is doing, and the Allies are doing, and that is due to the fact that they have the protection of the British Navy. Make no mistake about that. The British Navy has undertaken the greatest task that any navy in the world has ever undertaken, and the fact that they are convoying ships all over the world from America and all parts of the world, shows the gigantic nature of the task that they have to perform. In face of all this, the hon. member asks: “What is the Navy doing?” If any member of this House ought to know about the lack of defence and the lack of equipment that South Africa experienced at the outbreak of the war, it should be that hon. member, who was a member of the Defence Council for many years. If anybody has to bear the responsibility for the things that happened in this country, for the lack of equipment that existed in this country, he is the man; and now he gibes at members on this side about earning double salaries, because they are doing war work, and the hon. member says: “What have they done for years past to earn double salaries?” I have never heard members on this side throw that gibe at hon. members opposite when they have earned double salaries. I notice that the hon. member, before he was re-appointed, was very careful on this subject as to the strictures that he made, and it was only when he knew he had been appointed that he uttered these gibes.

In reply to the hon. member who has just spoken, I would say we are not the only people who have been asking, where is the British Navy? The hon. member, if he reads his newspapers, if he keeps in touch with what is going on, not only in South Africa but overseas, he will find that his own people are asking what has happened to the British Navy. Mr. Churchill was obliged to call a special session of Parliament to answer the criticisms, not the criticisms in South Africa, but the criticisms in Great Britain from people who wanted to know where the British Navy was, and they wanted to know where the British Navy was when the two battleships Gneisenau and Scharnhorst passed through the Straits of Dover. Now we are told that the British Navy is there to supply us with clothes. The British Navy is there not to supply us with clothes, but to protect British trade. The hon. member, who is in commerce himself, knows that Britain has to export in order to obtain the necessary credits for the raw materials she wants and for war materials. The hon. member knows that. Great Britain has to maintain her exports overseas in order to continue this war. The hon. member as a commercial man knows that when a suit of clothes comes out here to South Africa it comes out as part of the British export to help to pay British war expenses. In regard to this other matter, we on our side of the House have raised the question—I know it is not very pleasant, I know it is not pleasant hearing, but hon. members on that side have got to listen to it—we on this side have raised the question today and on other occasions as to the fact that Great Britain has left some of her allies in the lurch, and we have repeated that charge here today.

It is untrue.

It happened in the case of Belgium and it happened in the case of France. I mentioned this afternoon in my speech that at the time of the fall of France there were 90 French divisions—that was the statement made also by Gen. Weygand— there were 90 French divisions in the line and there were only ten British divisions, and out of these there were only four in the fighting line, the others were at the back. That, Mr. Chairman, was after the war had been going on for several months, after Britain had had plenty of opportunity of sending all the necessary men over to France. The men were not there, and the result was that when France fell, France and the leaders of France were charged with being traitors in the same way as King Leopold of Belgium was charged with being a traitor, and afterwards, Mr. Chairman, they had to eat their own words, as they will have to withdraw their charges with regard to Marshal Petain and Admiral Darlan and others. They will have to withdraw those charges. May I suggest to the hon. member and other hon. members that they go over to the library, the copy is unfortunately not in the Parliamentary Library, but let them go over to the library and look at the current issue of the “Contemporary Review.” I took a few notes from it. Will they take the trouble to go over to the Public Library and read a very informative and well-written article in that review? My hon. friends will admit that that is not a cheap type of magazine, it is a very well known British publication, and I want them to read that article as regards the position in France and read the criticisms there made against those uninformed people who have been in the habit lately of criticising France. May I read to the hon. member what I read this afternoon in regard to the position of the Dutch East Indies? The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) read a statement made by the Governor-General of the Dutch East Indies, van Mook. I have another statement here which appeared in the “Cape Argus,” and this is what he said—

There you have the statement of the Governor-General of the Dutch East Indies, where Gen. Wavell was the Allied Commander-in-Chief: the statement of the Governor-General was that after the fall of Malaya the emphasis was immediately shifted to British Burma and the Dutch East Indies were left defenceless. Every single statement that has been published in the papers during the past few days, statements appearing in very well-known British papers, all refer to the fact that the Dutch East Indies were left alone, and were not given the necessary assistance. And what do we hear now? Not only do they ask where is the British Navy, but they are also asking where is the American Navy? That is the sort of thing they are getting now, and the Americans will be getting it one of these days. Even the Hon. Prime Minister the other day admitted that what they had hoped for had happened namely, America’s entry into the war. Mr. Churchill admitted in his speech two or three Sundays ago that what he had prayed for and hoped for was that the Americans would come in. One hon. member over there asked me on what grounds I said the Americans had come in as the result of British propaganda. I give him the reply of Mr. Winston Churchill, when he said that they had worked and prayed for American entry into the war. He said: “That is what we asked for, prayed for, and worked for.” Now, Mr. Chairman, America is in the war, and people are asking where is the American Navy, because the American Navy did not turn up in time. All through history England has always wanted to fight on somebody else’s ground, and with somebody else’s troops, and we are having a repetition of that in this war. We have it in the Dutch East Indies, and their own commentators in London are continually referring to the fact that the Dutch East Indies were left alone. Right from the beginning of this war it has been the Dutch submarines and air force that have been doing all the work There has been plenty of time for the British Navy and the American Navy to be there to help the Dutch Navy, but the Dutch Navy had to do all the work; in this recent fight between Bali and Java the work was all done by the Dutch ships and Dutch submarines and the Dutch air force. We have been told about the figures in Libya, that is what the hon. member for Pretoria. Central (Mr. Pocock) quoted to us. He quoted to us what Capt. Margesson had said about the British troops in Libya, but Mr. Chairman, they are not up there to defend South Africa; they are there to defend British interests in North Africa, and to defend Egypt, and naturally we would expect a large preponderance of British troops there; but they are there to defend British interests. All throughout history other people have had to fight British wars, and now we have history repeating itself. Now, in regard to this other matter, may I refer to the reply which I received from the hon. Minister of Defence. This matter of hon. members on the other side of the House drawing military pay. One hon. member over there this afternoon charged us with being cowards and yellow. I mean the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside), and the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg). They charged us with not going to fight. Mr. Chairman, the yellowness is not on this side, but on the other side of the House. I put a question to the the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister as to how much money had been paid up to date in respect of military pay and allowances to senators, members of Parliament, and provincial councillors who are not on active service, and, Mr. Chairman, the amount was £17,036, paid out to members on that side of the House, including senators and provincial councillors, who are drawing that large sum of money, and who are sitting here and not trying to do their job. When the Bill was before Parliament we had an amendment, in which we asked that the money should only be paid to those men who actually went on active service. A suggestion was even made on this side that we would be prepared, if necessary, to pair off with these men who would be willing to go. But they were not prepared to pair off; they were prepared to draw £17,000 odd while not going to the front. [Time limit].

I have listened to this discussion and as I did so my mind went back five or six years to a similar discussion that took place on the Prime Minister’s vote when Gen. Hertzog was Prime Minister, and the same gentleman who started the ball rolling this evening started the ball rolling then, with an attack on the British Navy and a criticism of the action of the Prime Minister in allowing the Admiral from Simonstown to take part in the openingceremony of Parliament. Gen. Hertzog listened with growing disdain and impatience to the same kind gang that has been talking tonight.

Gang! Withdraw.

It is not a yellow gang.

Withdraw.

Are we allowed to have this Botany Bay language here, Mr. Chairman?

There was so much noise that I could not hear what was being said. Will the hon. member repeat what he said.

Mr. Chairman, did you hear the hon. gentleman say “Are we allowed to have this Botany Bay language here?”

What did the hon. member say?

What I said, Mr. Chairman, was that I listened to the same gang attacking the Prime Minister on that occasion; the same gang that is attacking the present Prime Minister to-night. If you tell me that that is unparliamentary I will withdraw.

I don’t think it is proper to use those terms in the House.

Then I will withdraw and say the same crowd.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think you will probably find that there is a ruling already that the word “gang” with reference to members of Parliament is unparliamentary, and in a case like that I suggest that you request the hon. member to withdraw what he said and apologise to the House. If nothing is done about this, then there are more than one gang in this House and some of these gangs may be called yellow, and I would not like any gang in this House to be called a yellow gang.

The hon. member has withdrawn. Do I understand the hon. member to withdraw?

Oh yes, sir. I substituted the word “crowd.” In principle, sir, since the apology has been demanded, you may, if you think fit, ask the hon. gentleman who raised the point of order, to withdraw the use of the words “Botany Bay.”

Why run down your own town?

I have already told the hon. member that he should not use such expressions.

I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman, in the circumstances I will withdraw the words “Botany Bay” and the implication which is attached to them and merely use it as a geographical term. [Interruptions.]

I really must ask hon. members to stop these interruptions. It is impossible for me to follow the debate.

I hope this will not be taken off my ten minutes. I was saying that my mind went back to that evening when the crowd opposite, the same crowd were attacking the then Prime Minister for allowing the Admiral at Simonstown to take part in the opening ceremony of Parliament. After listening to them with growing disdain and impatience the Prime Minister rose from his seat and said this—

I must again ask hon. members to cease these interruptions. It is quite impossible to follow the debate. If hon. members will not take heed of what I said then I shall have to make an example of one or two of them.

The Prime Minister said—

I would like to recall those words to his representative tonight. (Mr. Conroy) and I would like to tell him that nothing is more calculated to arouse angry feeling in this House, nothing more calculated to wound than the two speeches made by the hon. member for Vredefort, one when I made that misdirected appeal for co-operation, and the other this evening when he allowed his mouth to almost dribble in gloating over the misfortunes of that same navy. Let me say a word about this charge made by hon. members opposite that Great Britain is seeking to fight this war with other soldiers than her own. Sir, when France was stricken in May, 1940, did Great Britain “hands-up?”

She ran away.

Or did she say “if we come down to the last British soldier we will continue to fight this war?” Great Britain was left alone in the world, Russia was not in, the United States was not in and every friend in the world had disappeared. But Great Britain said we would go on fighting, and I am proud, sir, to stand here tonight and proclaim myself of British blood, and I have to listen to small men like the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) who gets up and attempts to besmirch members on this side of the House and charge them with cowardice, because we have not gone North. That speech of mine he has twisted and misquoted. What I said was that I had almost gone down on my knees to the Prime Minister to allow me to go North. I said nothing about a commission. If the hon. gentleman would even now do me the fairness to look at Hansard, he would see that those were the words I used, and when I used those words I spoke for every member on this side of the House. Does it lie in his mouth to blame us because we have not gone into the active field like members of Parliament in Australia, in New Zealand and Great Britain? Wherein lies the fault, wherein lies the blame. We carried a resolution to go into this war by a majority of 13, and for two-and-a-half-years we have fought an implacable enemy in this House and in this country. How dare the hon. member in that sneering manner of his, accuse hon. members on this side of cowardice and with feathering our nests? As one who was in Parliament in the last war and spent the whole of that period on active service, and would do the same again in this war if I were allowed, I speak in the name of hon. members on this side. When I went to Australia and New Zealand, I asked the people there this question: “Do your members of Parliament volunteer for active service, and do they continue to draw their parliamentary salary and their military pay?” The answer was yes, because these men have left their civil occupations. Not a single member of the Australian Commonwealth Parliament is serving out of Australia today, and I have in my papers, sir, and can give the information to the Prime Minister if he wishes, the details of the pay and allowances drawn by these people. New Zealand has a different record, at least four members of the New Zealand Parliament have been called on active service. The difference is this, sir. New Zealand is a united country, they are a united people, New Zealand is not cursed with an Opposition such as this country is cursed with. How dare hon. members opposite stand up and accuse their fellow citizens of cowardice? South Africans have never been cowards, either British or Dutch. Have South Africans ever earned a reputation in any part of the world for cowardice? Does the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Genl. Kemp) think his fellow South Africans are cowards? He knows better than that. I say, sir, that it is an ill bird that fouls its own nest, and it is a bad South African who stands up in this Parliament, well knowing the facts, and tries to creates the impression outside this House that his fellow South Africans, members of Parliament, no matter what their political opinions may be, are a lot of scroungers, a lot of carpet knights, a lot of chocolate soldiers, who will draw military pay and do no fighting.

This whole dispute this evening arose because members on the other side started it this afternoon by challenging members on this side of the House and asking why we were not fighting. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) started it. He told this side of the House that we were yellow, and hon. members on the other side must not blame us if we hit back, because it is they who are going to suffer. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) this evening displayed his real colours, differing altogether from that of a few weeks ago when he stood up here and said to this side in beautiful language, in an inviting tone: “Come into my parlour”, as the spider said to the fly. A few weeks ago he begged us to come and help them. He was even prepared to open the internment camps and to release all those supposed crooks and criminals which they placed there, if only they would fight for the other side. How typically British! I say that the hon. member showed his true colours this evening. A few weeks ago he tried softsoaping; he tried soft talk, and he was disappointed. This evening he comes forward with venom and bitterness. That hon. member has no time for the Afrikaner. His heart is filled with hatred and bitterness towards the Afrikaans-speaking people. All these years he has had no time for the Afrikaans-speaking person, and now he showed it. He tried softsoaping at first, and when that did not help he showed what he really wants. No, we shall not accept that hon. member’s invitation to do what he wants of us. We are not going to walk over to help him. I shall point out to him to whom he should make an appeal for help in this war. I am not speaking of the older men on the other side. We respect them. But there is one with a dress shirt and tails, the Minister without Portfolio. He is young enough to go and fight, and why does he not go? He is a trained officer, and he was even honourable staff officer of the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow). Then too there is the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) who is fit and healthy; the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) who time and again threatens to shoot rebels. He is not weak or sickly. Then there is the hon. member for Carolina (Mr. Fourie). He is not a grandfather who cannot fight. There is the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) who has so much to say.

Where were you in 1914?

Yes, there we have it now. He has such a lot to say about the British Empire; why does he not go and help now?

Where were you in 1914 when I did my duty?

Yes, then the hon. member chased rebels. When he has to shoot his own people then you find him there. But he is too scared to go and fight against the Germans. That is what we get from members on the other side. When there are rebels to be shot amongst their own people they do it with the greatest pleasure, but they do not want’ to go and fight against other countries. There is the hon. member for Germiston (South) (Mr. J. G. N. Strauss), the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip), the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Egeland).

Where were you when we were faced by the rebels?

I was in gaol. There is the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Klopper), the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty) and others. They are still fit and strong and some of them are younger than I am. They do not go and fight. It was said here this evening that the English troops had done so much. I again want to quote from a London newspaper, namely, the Sunday Express, which throws light on this matter. This paper says—

Where are the “hear, hear’s” now now? The Dominion forces do not like to be behind the lines, and Great Britain must therefore provide the forces behind the lines. A little while ago we saw a letter in the newspapers written by a soldier who was visiting Cape Town, and he wrote as follows—

Let them say “hear, hear” now, because that applies to everyone of them on that side. That is what a soldier thinks of Cape Town. Cape Town is not an Afrikaans-speaking city. The majority of the population consists of English, and Jews, and it is a soldier who makes that remark. The hon. member for Kensington comes here and says “How dare they!” How dare he and his friends get up on that side and reproach us, while they are sitting there with double salaries? How dare he England is in danger. Why do they not do what the Rhodesian members of Parliament did, who said: We resign our seats and go and fight. Why do they not do what the members of Parliament of New Zealand did? Then we would have admired the example set by them, and then they can start talking to us. But not until such time as they themselves have set a good example and have gone to fight, must they come and preach to us. We know England’s history; we know the English language, the English traditions. We know of the great things done by England in the past, and also the misdeeds committed by her and the cruelties committed by her. Just ask the right hon. the Prime Minister to quote here and there from his own letters in which he described the cruel deeds of the English during the Boer war, in which he said that one shudders and trembles at the cruelties of a so-called civilised nation. We know how they used armed kaffirs against our Boers. Many people say that if it were not for the traitors and the kaffirs the English would never have conquered the republics. In that case, too, they used other nations to do the dirtiest work, and where have the English actually fought in this war—I say that with all respect? The hon. member said that they had said in France that they would continue fighting, but in the end they ran away. They said: “He who fight and runs away lives to fight another day.” Did they fight in Holland, in Belgium, in Greece, in Crete or in Java? Where did they fight? Tell me. Where did they fight and come out with honour?

If there is one thing by which we, as members of Parliament, make ourselves ridiculous it is the one side asking the other side why they don’t go and fight. Nobody on this side of the House expects hon. members on the other side to go and fight, but as we are at war we expect hon. members on the other side not to do what they are doing now, namely to undermine the Government’s war effort in every possible way. I want to point out that if Japan should win the war Japan will not differentiate between members on the other side and members on this side, and consequently, if they follow the policy of undermining the Government’s war effort, even to the extent of taking no notice of the fact that if we lose the war and Japan comes here we will all be in the same difficulty, what are we to think of them? Is their policy to sit still and advise the people to sit still, if a nation like Japan were to attack us and invades our country? If that is their policy then I want to know what is happening to the self respect of the Afrikaner people. I want to ask the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart), or any other member on that side, whether it is their policy to advise the Afrikaner nation to sit still and do nothing if Japan invades South Africa? Is it their policy to say “Well, the Government has forced us into this war so we advise you to sit still.” Is that their policy? I put that question pertinently because the people of South Africa want to know what lead the Opposition is going to give? We have members of the New Order here, like the hon. member for Wodehouse (Mr. S. Bekker). Is that the kind of advice he is going to give the people? We have the Afrikaner Party over there. Are they going to say, if Japan comes in, “The Prime Minister has brought us into this war and we are to do nothing?” I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he is going to advise the people to sit still if Japan attacks us? Is he going to say that we must not defend South Africa? I don’t care what hon. members say about us, but the people of South Africa want to know what their policy is, and I therefore want to put this pertinent question. We sit here and we slang each other, but those hon. members don’t tell us what lead they are going to give. I don’t say it is going to happen, but if it should so happen that Japan comes here then the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) must not come and ask us what the British Navy is doing. The alternative question he has to put is: “If the British Navy cannot stop Japan, what are we to do then?” And what advice is he going to give to the people?

The British Navy did not protect the Dutch Indies.

The point is that the people of South Africa want to know what the attitude of the Opposition is. Are they going to advise the people to sit still and do nothing while Japan occupies this country? What do hon. members opposite propose? Do they think that if Japan takes this country we shall be just as free as we are today?

Who has brought us into all these troubles?

The people want to know whether hon. members contend that if we lose the war we are going to have the same freedom as we have today, under Japan. Will members of the New Order give us the assurance that the South African nation will be a freer nation and will enjoy greater benefits than they do today? Now they keep quiet, and then the hon. member for Beaufort West comes here and talks of the £17,000 which have been paid to members of Parliament, provincial council members and senators in one year for military services which they have rendered! The question is whether they are giving value, whether we are getting value for that money.

They have given very little blood for it.

If the position in this country had been such that we had been more united, more members on this side of the House would have gone forward to fight. My name has also been mentioned. I don’t like being personal, because if there is one thing I hate is all these personalities in this House, but speaking generally I want to say that there is not a single member on this side who has not placed his services entirely at the disposal of the Prime Minister. There is not one of us who has not taken the oath, and if the Prime Minister, as General Officer Commanding in Chief of our military forces, gives the order that we have to stay here then his order has to be obeyed by every soldier. But if he gives any other orders we also carry them out. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Genl. Kemp), whom we respect as an old soldier, realises that one has to obey one’s orders, and that we cannot take our orders from the Opposition, but only from the Commander in Chief in this country. But the hon. member for Wolmaransstad would not say the type of thing which the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) says. The hon. member for Winburg tries to create the impression that we are too cowardly, and that we do not want to go on active service. Let him ask the hon. member for Wolmaransstad whose instructions we have to take, and whether we must not take our instructions from the Commander-in-Chief? It ill becomes those hon. members to blame us. As we have from the very start told the people of South Africa, the borders of the Union are not at the Limpopo. We abide by what the military experts prescribe as the best way to defeat the enemy, and they say that the best way of defeating the enemy is to do so before he gets to our borders. I want to ask the hon. member for Wolmaransstad whether that did not happen in the Boer War too? Did the Boers wait until war was declared on them? Who declared war? The Republican Government of the Free State and Transvaal did, and not the English. Why? Because the Boers realised that they were menaced; they knew that the English were moving to our borders, and they jumped in and anticipated the English, and they went and fought deep into Natal. Now we are accused of cowardice because we have decided for the protection of our country to attack the enemy at the place which we consider to be the best place. Why should the hon. member for Winburg try to make us look ridiculous when we abide by the orders of our Commander-in-Chief? There is only one thing I want to say and it is this, that the people of South Africa will certainly not sit still if Japan invades our country. The people have woken up and they realise what the position is. They expect the Opposition to give a lead, but they want to defend their country, and I am convinced that the people will do their duty. Hon. members over there have not given a lead yet as to what they would do in the event of Japan invading the Union. Nor have they given an interpretation of what our boundaries are. When are they going to say that we must defend ourselves against Japan? How far are the Japanese to be allowed to come before they are to be regarded as aggressors within our boundaries? The Leader of the Re-United Party in the Transvaal, (Mr. J. G. Strydom) stated clearly in this House that even if the Italians were to invade this country with native troops he would not help to defend the country, because, so he said, this Government had started the war. Is that to be the policy of hon. members opposite in the event of Japan attacking us? Let them get up. They are too ashamed to say what their policy is. If their policy is to defend the country if Japan or any other nation attacks us, then it is no use our doing so if we are not trained. Let them start immediately with the training of our citizens so that they may be able to fight in the way they should.

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) has apparently been hit, he is wounded. Now he tries to defend himself by making a screen attack against this side of the House by using the old old bogey which the other side of the House has been using for the past twenty years, the bogey of the yellow peril. I can assure the hon. member that the people no longer believe in that bogey. It has been used too often. We are not going to allow the hon. member for Vereeniging, who apparently gets his propaganda from the Government’s Information Service, to stampede us. But the hon. member says that there is really a misunderstanding and that hon. members opposite are anxious to go and fight, the whole lot of them. Some of them are so anxious to go and fight that they are on the point of resigning their seats, because the trouble is that so long as they remain members of Parliament the Prime Minister refuses to give them an order to go and fight. The hon. member says that they are willing to go anywhere the Prime Minister sends them, but the trouble is that they know the Prime Minister will protect them. I don’t want to go any further into that, I only want to say that hon. members opposite have sown the wind this evening, and if they reap the whirlwind they must not cry about it. I can imagine the scene that we shall have to behold in days to come when some of the hon. members opposite are old men, just as I shall be, and when the children come to them and ask those members opposite “Tell me, Granddad, and what did you do in the war?” And then they will say: “My boy, go and fetch my bank deposit book.” I want to revert to another question, and that is the visit which was paid to South Africa by Dr. Van Broekhuizen when he was still our Ambassador in The Hague. I am not going into the question of why he had to visit South Africa. I assume he had to do so in the ordinary course of his activities, but what I want to know is why there is such a difference between the treatment Dr. Van Broekhuizen received when he came to South Africa as compared with the treatment received by other people in the same position when they visited South Africa from time to time from overseas?

Chargés d’Affaires.

The hon. member knows well how to charge, and it would be a fine thing if he were allowed to charge, but I want to know why there is this differentiation in treatment between Dr. Van Broekhuizen and others who occupied similar positions and who had to come to South Africa from time to time. Dr. Van Broekhuizen was paid his hotel and other expenses to which the Auditor-General refers, and one does not want to object to that, but he also received what is called a “Representation Allowance,” amounting to £361, during the time he was here, or about £120 per month. This “representation allowance” is an allowance paid to Ministers overseas and only when they are overseas. The object of this payment is to pay them for certain duties which they have to fulfil in regard to the entertainment of people when they are at their post, and it is quite right that they should be paid those allowance, and that they should be compensated for the entertainment expenses they have to incur while doing their duty overseas. But why did Dr. Van Broekhuizen get £361 as an entertainment allowance while he was in South Africa? This has never happened before. The point has been raised by the Auditor-General and I should like to have a reply. I don’t want to criticise what one might perhaps regard as nothing but a waste of money. For instance, the spending of £70 by Dr. Van Broekhuizen only on keeping motors waiting for him. It is a personal matter for the individual whether he wants to waste the country’s money in that way, but the Prime Minister is very definitely responsible for the representation allowance. Then I want to ask the Prime Minister something else. If a Minister comes to South Africa from overseas his hotel expenses are paid, but in Dr. Van Broekhuizen’s case not only was an amount of £114 in hotel expenses paid, but in addition, a house was placed at his disposal, free of rent. That house was not furnished, and for the three months that he was to stay here in South Africa no less than £750 was paid for furniture to furnish that house. I do not know whether they are true, but all kinds of rumours are in circulation, and that is why I put the question. What has become of that furniture? I ask that question because there are rumours in circulation that the furniture is no longer the property of the State and that the State has not received any compensation for it. If the rumours are untrue, it is no more than right that the position should be made public. At any rate the Auditor-General would have to deal with the matter in his second report next year and we should like to know what has become of the furniture? There is one further point I want to raise. The Government, after negotiations with Russia, has now agreed to certain communistic consulates being opened in South Africa. I should like to know from the Prime Minister in which towns those consulates are going to be. In the past Russian Consuls were not allowed in South Africa because the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Justice particularly, know the great trouble there used to be when Russians came to South Africa from time to time to make communistic propaganda here. The Minister knows of the trouble we had, every time a ship came with people from that part of Europe, and what special precautions the police had to take in finding out whether there were communistic agents on those ships. We did not allow Russian Consulates here simply because we knew that those consulates, just as they were in other parts of the world, would be used as breeding places for communism. The Russians have not changed. They still want to propagate communism throughout South Africa, and I want to know from the Prime Minister what steps he is going to take to safeguard the country against the propagation of communism in South Africa by Russian Consulates? How is he going to guard against the danger of South Africa being infected by the communistic sores? The Prime Minister has now obeyed His Master’s Voice, and he has allowed Consulates to be opened here, but surely we have the right in any case to know what steps are being taken to protect us against communistic infection? South Africa has the right to know how we are going to be protected against the propagation of communism seeing that the Prime Minister in the past did not allow Russian Consulates to be opened in South Africa.

Things have been said here tonight …

Be careful now.

By some of my hon. friends opposite which will leave a sting for many years to come in the hearts of their fellow South Africans …

What about the stings we have had?

Particularly the insinuation, the cruel and foul insinuation, that British troops, and above all the British Navy, have failed to come to the help of their Allies, have left their friends in the lurch and have allowed others to do the fighting for them.

Hear, hear!

Certain extracts from the papers have been read out in relation to the fall of Java—certain statements made by the Acting Governor of Java. Anyone taking those statements without their historical setting would come to the conclusion that Britain had basely retired to a funk hole leaving her Allies unhelped and unprotected.

That is so.

What has happened during the last three months since Japan came into the war? The first place to fall was a British Colony, Hong Kong. It was not sufficiently protected, and the Japanese overran that place in less than three weeks. The next place to fall was another British Colony, Malaya. The whole of Malaya was overrun, and then came the crowning tragedy of all, the capture within less than a week of Singapore. That sounds as if Great Britain was able to help herself, and left her Allies in the lurch. And now what is happening to Burma? Surely no one regrets, no one can possibly regret, the tragedy of Java more than British South Africans or British people throughout the world, but this evil and foul insinuation by hon. members who can never see anything good in anything that bears the name “British,”—although they have to live in this country with a population, very nearly half of which is British,—this foul insinuation will be remembered when other things have been forgotten. We know that the lamentable truth is this, that Britain, preparing to fight elsewhere, not sure whether Japan would come in or not, was woefully unprepared in the Far East. Hon. members have attacked the British Navy. They have forgotten that Britain out of her sorely overtaxed resources sent two of her greatest ships to the East before Japan came into the war, and by one of the most awful tragedies in this war those two great and beautiful ships were successfully attacked by Japanese aircraft. I am not going into the question whether they were handled as they should have been, whether the fight was rightly or wrongly conducted, but I am pointing out that two capital ships out of sixteen in the British Navy were sent to the East and were destroyed. Hon. members have sneered at America. Have they forgotten the death blow —no, I won’t call it the death blow—the deadly blow which was struck at the American Fleet in Pearl Harbour by an act of treachery almost unparalleled in the history of the world? And then these gentlemen get up, who have never been on a battleship, and they glibly talk about the British leaving their friends in the lurch. Britain, sorely stricken, who has been fighting without friends and Allies, one of the most heroic fights ever known in the history of the world —she has been fighting for the last two and a half years, and persons of the kidney of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) who does not know the front end of a rifle from the back, who has never worn a uniform in his life, who has never faced an enemy in battle, he is the person chosen to stand up and talk about these things. There are a few other—very few other—members opposite who have worn uniform, who have fought, who have risked their lives for what they believed to be right. Not one of those have stood up, but the spokesmen chosen are members like the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) and the hon. member for Winburg who had the unparalleled effrontery to read out a list of members of this House to say to them, “You and you and you, why don’t you go and fight?” when he well knows and every member on this side knows, that the decision of one man, the Prime Minister of this country and the leader of his party—

Nonsense.

— has forbidden any member of this side of the House to go so long as we have to carry on the internal fight that we have been waging in this country.

An easy excuse.

I say again it is not only cruel but it is malicious to a degree to keep on harping on this particular point.

Why don’t you call us yellow men?

Of course, two wrongs don’t make a right. I am not aware of any single member on this side who has ever stood up and mentioned a person on the benches opposite by name and accused him of cowardice. What we have said is that the policy, the attitude on the Opposition benches has been cowardly. If any hon. member on this side has picked out any member on the opposite side and suggested that that hon. member was a coward, then I would be the first, Mr. Chairman, to ask you to compel such a remark to be withdrawn. What we have said and what we think, is this,—we say that the attitude of the Opposition tonight is cowardly and unpatriotic; we don’t say that the men sitting on the Opposition benches are cowards. Let me recall that before the war ever started the official Opposition in this House were “hands-upping” to Germany about SouthWest Africa. When the member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) and Gen. Hertzog were sending their police to South-West Africa the Opposition said “rather surrender South-West Africa, rather give it back to Germany.” And remember, after the war started the official Opposition, led by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) said “Let us ‘hands-up’ to Italy, we cannot defend this country if Italy comes here, and what is the use of trying?” Where, Mr. Chairman, is Italy in Africa today? Today the same hon. gentleman will “hands-up” to Japan, and they must not be surprised, therefore, if public opinion outside this House and public opinion inside stigmatises such an attitude as cowardly and unpatriotic; and no amount of personal abuse, no amount of reading out of names will alter that fact. The cold facts in regard to members on this side are that at least half, if not all of them, irrespective of their age and physical qualifications, would have been only too glad to go North with our army. I did it in the last war, I was a member of Parliament, and I am about the only member on this side, except the Prime Minister, who was in this House in the last war, and I would have gone in this war had I been allowed to go. But word came to us from the Prime Minister “I cannot afford to allow one of you to go.” I saw the Prime Minister myself, and said “I know East Africa well, I could do good service, do allow me to go.” His answer was “My boy, if I allow you to go, how can I refuse to allow other members to go as well?” These facts are known to the Opposition, I have mentioned them before; how then can they bring Parliament into discredit, bring their own fellow South Africans into discredit, by making accusations of that sort?

I had really thought, after the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) had spoken, that we had reached the end of the war debate, but since the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) has now again started it, I want to add a few words, namely this. The hon. member for Kensington says that he would have liked to go to the war. He says that in 1914 he did go, but now the position is so impossible that he cannot be spared by this House, because look at the strength of the Opposition on the other side. I am very glad to have that evidence from the lips of the hon. member for Kensington. We have made progress since 1914, and I am almost certain this evening that this will be the last time that we shall have a fight in this House about a war. In 1914 the hon. member could leave the country for a number of years. Then there was no Opposition to speak of. Then the war was also forced upon the nation: then, too, the country took part in the protection of small nations. In 1942 you have the position already, or rather in 1939, that we have made a great deal of progress; we are now keeping our hon. friends on the other side in their seats. They can no longer go and fight, simply because the Afrikaner nation has awakened. I want to say this to the hon. member for Kensington, there are many people on the side of the Government who will not take part during the next war in any foreign war. The unpleasant debate which we have had here this evening is the fruit of the 4th September. On that date those friends on the other side should have taken into account the sentiment of this section, but they did not do so. Today they and the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) ask us: “What will you say now that Japan has come in?” I thought the other day that this question had been answered satisfactorily when I said that if there were any danger from Japan, that it was the sacred duty of the Government to bring back our children and also our war material from the North. My hon. friend repeatedly put the question whether we would also fight. But did they put that question to us when they declared war? On the 8th December war was declared against five countries. We then declared war against five countries. There were five declarations of war in one day. Did they then ask us what we would do? Did they then ask whether we approved of these declarations of war? No; but tonight they ask us whether we will also fight. They are practically telling us this evening: We set the grass alight; will you help to extinguish it? We say that we will help to extinguish the fire within our own borders, but we shall see to it that those friends on the other side go first. I do not think that they can expect us to go and beat out the fire before all of them do so in the first instance. That continual challenge of “what are you going to do?” as much as to say that this side of the House has not been willing to defend its fatherland …

Not up to the present, at any rate.

That hon. friend who made the interjection defended his country in 1914 by chasing his own blood. For the rest he ate oranges. I say that it is unpleasant that we should have this position in the country where the sentiment of one section of the people was not taken into account, and where the sentiment of the other section of the people was thrust down their throats. Where that happens the Opposition will become stronger and stronger. That is psychology. That is the psychology of the Afrikaner. Now I should like to draw the attention of the right hon. the Prime Minister to a matter which I have at heart, and that is Proclamation No. 29 of 1942. That is the proclamation which was promulgated on the 3rd February of this year in connection with the constitution of the court under the emergency regulations, in order to make provision for the trial of serious cases of sabotage by special courts of law. And the first thing which I want to bring to the notice of the right hon. the Prime Minister is the fact that as far as we have seen, only one court has been constituted up to the present and many people are in prison; whether the Prime Minister does not think that the regulations can be amended in such a way that special powers can be given to district magistrates to give those people a preparatory trial at least, which is not the case at present. The second question I want to ask is this: Where the proclamation provides for certain crimes, such as crimes in which explosive material is used, the proclamation says that the court must sentence such a person to death. I should like to hear from the Prime Minister whether that is a final judgment and whether the power still remains with the Governor-General-inCouncil to review such sentences. I believe that that is probably the case. I do not believe that the Government has taken away the power of the Governor-General-in-Council in this connection. And, lastly, in connection with that, I want to make a humble appeal to the Prime Minister this evening. I want to beg and pray of him that before the position really reaches the worst stage, according to the lights of the Christian civilisation, before blood is drawn, that the Government should be very careful before it leaves a heritage of bloodshed in this country. We resign ourselves to the decision of the court.

[Inaudible].

We would not resign ourselves to the decision of the court if that hon. friend were one of the judges. But we know that the people who sit on the bench are worthy people, and that when they find people guilty, as they will probably do in certain cases, we shall be content; but we would like the Government to bear in mind that there is a national feeling, and that feeling is never more deeply shocked than when blood has first been shed. I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister, and I pray of him this evening that the Government should exercise its prerogative with the greatest mercy.

The hon. member who has just sat down has always been, in my opinion, a quiet, clear-thinking member of this House, but tonight he starts off with gibes and sarcastic remarks about members on this side of the House and accuses us of not paying respect to the sentiments of members on that side. What sentiments do you expect to be respected when you yourself start off your appeal with sarcastic remarks. I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) attacking the Prime Minister on the question of the Flag Bill. He reminded me very much of my first lessons in zoology when we had to dissect a cockroach, an insect which shows nerve but no brain. The cheap gibes we have had from the hon. member for Mossel Bay and Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) and the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) show that the Opposition have lost all perspective, and all appreciation of what is happening in the world. The attacks on the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) and these cheap gibes about Australia we have heard in this House ad nauseam, and it is about time the hon. member for Humansdorp should know that that kind of insult flung across the floor of the House is not wanted in an Assembly of this nature. The cheap retort about hon. members on this side being cowards we have heard time and again. The hon. member for Humansdorp mentioned two sons of a gentlemen in the Opposition who are at the front, but I think if a census were taken of the sons of members of Parliament who have gone on active service on both sides of the House, I have no doubt which side would show the greater percentage. We have got a war on, and our Prime Minister, the Cabinet and members on this side of the House are going to see it through. We have got a war on, we have enemies to fight, including the Opposition, and I think it shows a very pool’ spirit when such things are happening in the world to-day, in the East and in Europe, for members of the Opposition to try and hinder the war effort by their cheap remarks.

I am sorry that the House is repeatedly returning to the unpleasant debate which we have had here. It seems to me as though we really have a conscience which is pricking us very much, and that we are therefore repeatedly returning to this subject. But if it is necessary we on this side can keep on hitting and hitting harder in connection with this matter, because it seems that hon. members on the other side are on the defensive, and we the aggressors this evening; because we have concrete cases, the other side can only defend and not attack. I am speaking especially of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell). It is a pity that he is not here. He again returned to this notwithstanding the fact that we tried to divert the debate, and he spoke of “we, the British in South Africa.” There he shows his true colours. And that is the very reason why we have been fighting all these years. I just want to ask the House on the other side this. I had the privilege of returning from the platteland this afternoon. I spoke to supporters of the Government and they all felt that the Dominion troops had been left in the lurch by the English. You can go to any S.A.P. on the platteland, and he will tell you that. I saw prominent S.A.P.’s who spoke to me, and they feel that it is an indisputable fact that the Dominion troops have been left in the lurch. That is a fact which we cannot argue away. It is a matter of impossibility. It is a fact this evening that the Dominion troops—in other words, Australia, South Africa and all those other places—are firmly convinced that they are being left in the lurch. I made a point of seeing people who had returned from the North.

What are you doing with them?

I asked them what the conditions were. The Prime Minister and everyone who is acquainted with that matter knows this, unless those people are all liars. They told me that they have no time for the R.A.F. because the R.A.F. have left them in the lurch. It is a well-known fact that in the country to-day there are Government supporters who are of that opinion; but just look at your own newspapers; here you have the Friend which publishes in its headlines “Reinforcements that never arrived in Java.” During the last few days the newspapers have been full of it. They state here that it was the duty of England and America to help them—

The newspaper only says “likely.”

The correspondent telegraphs as follows—

Yes, “likely” but not definite.

Yes, if there is any chance of getting out of it we are only too eager to do so. The fact remains that an agreement was entered into as a result of which they expected to get assistance. There were people who fought longer than they should have fought, because they felt that assistance might arrive at any moment, assistance which never came. But just listen what the correspondent says. He says that they could have worked things differently if—

I think that that part of the world has lost confidence in them, and I think the whole world has lost confidence in the fighting quality of England which she had in the past, but which she no longer has. There are forces which now come from America to Northern Ireland and England, where there is no fighting. A few days ago Sir Stafford Cripps said “England plays the game of the onlooker.”

“At present.”

My hon. friend says “at present,” but we have been engaged in war for the past 2½ years. When is that “at present” going to come to an end? We are sheltering behind the blood of others to-day, and the sooner the other side of the House realises that the better. A few days ago a leading English newspaper in Cape Town wrote—

I want to ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, will he give us the assurance that it is not the case that large naval forces will come to South Africa in order to attack the enemy from here? If that is so, and if this further report which also appears in the Friend, is correct where is the yellow peril then? The report reads as follows—

It further speaks of a “momentous trip”—

That is coming. If that terrific naval force of America is now on the way to Australia, and this other report is correct “that most probably large naval forces operating from the coasts of South Africa”—if that is so, then I ask again, where is that great danger of a Japanese threat which we will have one of these days?

Behind whose blood are you sheltering now?

When we ask hon. members on the other side where the British Fleet is, then we are continually told of the powerful English Fleet. Now it would seem that if the yellow peril comes here it would mean that the whole American and English fleets must have been defeated. Will they admit that? If it is so that those two naval forces are to be defeated, before we are in danger, is it not foolish of us to speak of a yellow peril? Here the statement is made that these great forces will now deliver a blow and that Japan will be exterminated. I now want to deal with another matter and it is this: Every hon. member who gets up on the other side of the House shields behind the Prime Minister. I hope that the Prime Minister heard that. They all say the Prime Minister told them that they could not go to the North. Now I want to ask the right hon. the Prime Minister pointedly: He made a special appeal in the country for recruits, and we on this side of the House said that we were prepared to pair off with hon. members on the other side. Wherein lies the danger for him? The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) stood up here and said: “There is some danger with a small majority of 13.” It is true that that is an unlucky number for them—No. 13—but we were prepared to pair off with them.

You could not be trusted.

Shame, shame!

Shame, shame!

It is the second time that that hon. member has shown his true colours, and I think that if ever he has earned the contempt of this House, then it is now. We can no longer have any respect for him. I think he is a disgrace even to the country of his origin.

Shame, shame!

On a point of order, I want to know whether the hon. member is in order. He says the hon. member for Kensington is a disgrace to the country of his origin.

The hon. member may proceed.

I hope that when the hon. member for Kensington goes to bed tonight he will realise how far he has gone to hurt this section of the Afrikaners to the depth of their souls; and the contempt which he deserves we shall mete out to him in the future. I personally, at any rate, had a high opinion of the hon. member, as he himself knows, but after this statement of his this evening, I think that we look down upon him with contempt. I think even the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will do so after that statement of his. We pair off every day; why does the hon. member take our word here? He personally has already asked me to pair off. I think that he has gone much too far this evening. But let me now return to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. [Time limit.]

I listened attentively to the hon, member who has just sat down. He again made the offer that he would pair off with any member on this side of the House who is desirous of going to the North in order to fight. That is surely a very one-sided agreement, and I shall make a better offer. We take all those who want to go and fight on this side of the House, and all those on the other side who want to go and fight. I am prepared, and the other members on this side are prepared to go and fight, man for man, together with hon. members on the other side who want to go and fight. Every member on the other side who wants to go and fight—well, we will also go. For every member on the other side who has the courage to go and fight, on whatever side he may be, one of us on this side will also go and fight. If anyone of them can get leave from the Mikado tomorrow to go and fight on his side, then one of us on this side will also go and fight for our side. If one of the members on other side want to go to Rommel in the North, then we will pair off with him in such a way that we on this side will go and fight in the North. That looks more like fifty-fifty. Do not expect us on this side to go and fight while members on the other side remain here. Come along, let us all go and fight. Let the members on the other side be men, and let them accept this offer. They can go and fight for their side and we shall fight for our side. You must not sit here and intimate that we are afraid to fight and that we are not men. Let them accept this offer of mine. If members on the other side can get leave from the Mikado or from Admiral Tojo to go and fight for Japan, let them be men enough to go—or else to Rommel—and let them cease making such one-sided proposals. Surely everyone is prepared to give his blood for his opinion. But instead of doing that, they sit here and issue challenges, and make accusations of cowardice and lack of courage. Those members on the other side speak of danger, but they want to live here on the riches of the country while the lives of other people are endangered in fighting for them. They must cease doing that, and let us now see, with this offer that I have made, what courage there is on the other side of the House. The Leader of the Opposition said that we had already lost everything. There is one thing which we on this side have not lost, and which we will never lose, and that is courage. Therein lies difference between this side and that side of the House. We do not lose courage. In the Boer War we did not lose courage, and in this war too we are not losing courage.

You will lose your trousers.

The womenfolk chased the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) out of Mossel Bay. He will never again return to Mossel Bay. He fled in front of a skirt, and now he talks of losing one’s trousers. He will continue fleeing. No, we are told that we are contemptuous towards the Opposition. What reason has the other side given this side of the House for treating them in a different way? Members on the other side know that we are talking here amongst each other, so that the people in the country can hear what is going on in the country: Is is not a fact that what is said in this House is being twisted every day by newspapers of hon. members on the other side? It is complained that radio talks are given, but how can the truth reach the supporters of members on the other side if we do not publish it to them in that manner? Their newspapers do not give the opinions of the House, and whatever those members may tell us in Parliament, I am convinced that there is not one Afrikaner outside this House who would not support the Government if there were to be a Japanese attack on our country. It is only those hon. members on the other side who will not do so. Those so-called leaders of the people—I use the word so-called because it is only a name—will do nothing, but every Afrikaans speaking Afrikaner outside this House will take up arms and fight if Japan comes here.

But the Government have taken away our weapons.

From those people whom we cannot trust; and they will not get their weapons back. Every man who is prepared to take the oath and to do his duty towards the country will get his weapons back, but he must take the oath. The person who is not prepared to take the oath is not worthy of bearing arms. If a man is prepared to fight, the Government will give him a weapon, and he can stand by his country. Do not let us, because there are personal differences, or because we have this or the other grievance, neglect to do our duty and fight for our country. That is not the example which the Afrikaner gave us. The Afrikaner is prepared to fight for his country and his people. Do not let us, because there are foolish leaders in the country, do this, that or the other, which we will regret later on. No, there is a bigger principle than party political differences. If the Opposition thinks today that they can rely upon the people backing them up when they come forward with these false pretexts, then they are lost, and they will never again get the support of the country.

The demonstration which we have had to witness in this House, is a demonstration to us of the dignity of democracy in the country! I leave it at that. I am not going to follow the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe) in his wonderful line of reasoning. I would like to associate myself with the plea,—the serious plea which has been made here for a very long time—of the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Leibenberg). I rise only to talk on that subject, because I feel that we are living in an age which is perhaps the most dangerous which we can experience. There was a time, on the occasion of the commandeering of rifles, when feelings ran very high in our country, and I stood up in this House and I made a very urgent—and I may say a very humble—appeal. At that time he took heed, and the problem was duly solved. At the same time I said these words to the Prime Minister, that I would vouch for those people who were to be imprisoned and that I would do everything in my power to see to it that peace and order was maintained in South Africa. I have never forgotten those words, and I want to repeat them this evening in support of what the hon. member for Heilbron said. But I also want to make a further appeal to the Prime Minister, because this will perhaps be the last occasion during this Parliamentary session that we shall have the opportunity to talk direct to the Prime Minister in regard to these very important matters. During the past few months things have happened in this country which have had shocking results. Sabotage has been committed—I admit that. In certain cases wires have been cut, and such things have been done. But there was also a large-scale internment of people who come from the best families in the country, and in this connection I want to address my plea to the Prime Minister and to ask him to see to it that he keeps under control that section of his followers which threatens to run amok and to bolt like a horse with the bit between its teeth. The Prime Minister knows that we are divided into two camps, that we are opposed to this war, and that he cannot expect assistance from us to see his war through. But I offer him assistance in maintaining peace and order with the little that I can contribute to bring that about, and I do so in all sincerity. But I make an appeal to the Prime Minister not to arrest Afrikaners in our best families on a large scale, and to place them in internment camps. I personally made representations to the Prime Minister in connection with one of our most able Afrikaners who has been interned. I believe that there must be a misunderstanding. The Prime Minister promised to look into the matter and I know that he will do so. Let us remain reasonable and be human as possible with regard to the differences and the feelings which prevail in South Africa with regard to the opinions held by both sides with the greatest sincerity, and actively try to respect each other as far as our feelings are concerned, and to such an extent that in the time which lies ahead of us we will not reach the stage where we will want to cut each other’s throats in this country. A great man does not allow himself to be frightened or threatened. I may not threaten members on the other side, but they may not threaten me either, even though there are more of them on that side than there are on this side. If we want to carry on in this manner, we could go on struggling here until Afrikaner blood flows in South Africa. We do not want to do that. That would be a calamity, and for that reason I say these few earnest words here this evening. I hope that the Prime Minister will succeed in guiding this country at this time in such a manner that we, as Afrikaners, will be enabled, when there is again peace in the world, to live together in this country.

The hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) who has just sat down has made a heartrending appeal to us. If he is prepared to put into effect the things he is appealing for we might listen to him, but we are accustomed to get heartrending appeals from hon. members opposite, and then they themselves do the very opposite to what they ask for. The Opposition raised a hare here this afternoon and now that the night is coming they are getting scared and they are appealing to us to get away from the attack and to get back to the Auditor-General’s report. We have not finished with them yet—we are going to follow up their arguments. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) at the beginning of this session, when the first motion was before Parliament, declared solemnly—as he put it—“with a sacred realisation of all the seriousness of his position”—that the Prime Minister could not expect him to assist in his war effort, but that the Prime Minister could rest at ease that he would not do anything to place any obstacles in his way. And let him, realising the position in which I stand, say this: that the hon. member for Vredefort today is one of the biggest saboteurs in this war; and now I come to the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) who spoke with great dignity.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member allowed to describe another hon. member of this House as a saboteur? The hon. member said that the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) is the biggest saboteur in the country. Is he entitled to say that?

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I said that I regarded the hon. member for Vredefort today as one of the biggest saboteurs of the Governments war effort. I withdraw it but I still think it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member withdraws it conditionally. Is he allowed to do so? He says that he withdraws it but he still believes it.

The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it unconditionally, but what is my opinion is my opinion, and I still think it. I come back to the hon. member for Namaqualand. His neighbour next to him told us that the hon. member for Namaqualand has two sons up North, and he thereupon accused the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) of trying to get his son out of the Army. Now I challenge the hon. member for Namaqualand to say whether he gave his consent to his sons to go up North. I contend that he opposed their going tooth and nail and that he wanted to prevent them from going, but that they went in spite of him.

The fact is that they are there.

The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) tried to make some very cheap remarks in regard to myself. I can only say that when an appeal was made to me I did not go to Hollywood but I took up arms for the sake of my country.

To shoot your own people.

That remark is still cheaper. It does not matter what my duty is. If I am instructed to do a thing I do it as a loyal citizen. Now let me come to the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) who was just as cheap, and who was certainly unworthy of the position which he occupies in his Party. I only want to tell him that I have never yet had to crawl back and to resign as a General of the O.B. as he had to do in order to try and save his honour as a member of the Party to which he belongs.

You know that you are telling an untruth now.

I shall give the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) a chance to reply to it. The members of the Opposition are getting up here, one after the other, and are begging the Prime Minister to bring back the soldiers from up North. Why are they doing so? We have heard them tell us for the last two-and-a-half years that they are prepared to give their last drop of blood for the defence of our boundaries, but now that they hear that Japan has taken Borneo, Singapore and Java, they appeal to the Prime Minister to bring back our troops from the North because they are getting scared— they are too cowardly to fight, but they want arms. The appeal they are making will be of no avail. We have learned not to expect anything from them; we know that we cannot expect them to support the Government to defend the country, and we know that the Government is bearing that in mind. We can leave them alone and they may as well leave us alone. We shall do our duty to the country in order to protect our freedom.

It is very amusing to notice the low level this debate has reached on this problem which is of such importance to the people of South Africa—it is amusing to behold the low level the debate has descended to. We started this debate from this side of the House, and we called for a discussion from the other side, but it was remarkable how soon there was a reaction only to small matters, and how they immediately reacted if their pockets were touched. The debate started today with a motion which was placed before this House. That motion came from the Leader of the Opposition, a motion with which we on this side of the House are in agreement, that an end should be put to the position which this country has been placed in by the Prime Minister. What do we find? In 1938 when the crisis was expected, when an outburst in Europe was expected, the Prime Minister felt that our country should remain neutral, but in 1939 at the psychological moment he let his former leader (Gen. Hertzog) in the lurch. He supported Gen. Hertzog on the neutrality question in 1938, but in 1939 he failed him at the psychological moment and he dragged South Africa into the war. That is what this debate, started by this side of the House, is about. Oh, the pettiness and the unfairness of the Government supporters, for which nobody less than the Prime Minister has to be held responsible! What have we beheld from the other side of the House? To listen to hon. members opposite was as good as a bioscope. To see one representative after the other get up on the other side of the House and give a show which made us realise the depth to which this debate has sunk.

Speak of your own party.

There we again have evidence of the intelligence of members opposite. And that while we are in this serious position in which the whole world finds itself today. The few thoughts which I wish to express in the short time at my disposal are these: Dear Prime Minister, Gen. Smuts, you have brought us into this trouble, you took part in the negotiations at Vereeniging on the 31st May, 1902. What caused you to take part in those negotiations? We passed through the war, we fought for the preservation of our independence, and for the existence of our republics. You realised the hopelessness of the position when you were here, not far from Cape Town, when there was a rebellion in the Cape to support you in the ideal which you stood for.

What about the Transvaal?

I wish those cowardly sweeps, if I may call them that, would keep their mouths shut when I am dealing with serious matters like these.

That is cheap.

What induced the Prime Minister, and why did he decide to negotiate when our Free State General felt differently about the matter? We fought, but we had the whole of the British Empire, England, with natives, Moors and Indians against us, and the Prime Minister felt that it had gone too far, and that it would mean the destruction of a nation. He realised that it would be suicide to go any further. That is why he stepped in and obtained the terms which we got. Now we come here and are following his example. It is clear to everybody who is not blinded by the idea that England is inconquerable, that we must follow that policy. We know what has happened in the past. We know our history. We know that the battles that have been fought in the world, but from the very start we, as an Opposition, have stood united, and we have said: “Keep us out of it.” In 1938 there was a similar threat of an outburst in Europe. It has been stated in this House that in 1938 the former Prime Minister had a document in his pocket signed by the present Prime Minister, that if there should be an outburst South Africa would remain neutral.

You are now talking about the rinderpest.

I get upset when I address the Chair and the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, and everything I say is perfectly true, and nothing I say can be denied, that we should have such little mongrels barking here. What happened in 1939, when we got to this stage? The Prime Minister refused to go further because of the document which he had signed, that South Africa’s policy would be to remain neutral if the world outburst should eventuate. Why did he renounce that document? I then ask: Has the Prime Minister lost the vision that the South African nation has a destiny? Have you lost your belief in the future of your people, when you yourself are used to make history, because I believe in a Divine Providence for our people? [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, we have to sit in this House day after day and see the Opposition taking up an attitude of hostility to Great Britain and to the war effort. It is very remarkable that we should have a section of the South African community that will not stir a finger to give a helping hand. With reference to what has been said about the British Navy, about the Royal Navy running away from different situations during this war, one would think hon. members had never heard that during the last war there was something like seven navies in the world allied with the forces in conflict with Germany, and the Royal Navy today, Mr. Speaker, is doing the work of seven navies. Yet we have hon. members on the Opposition side continually saying that the British Navy should now be in every part of the world. The majority of them know nothing about warfare and they don’t want to know anything about it, or they would not be sitting where they are to-night. I am only sorry, Mr. Speaker, that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, even at this juncture, does not allow his men to leave arid go North and do a spot of fighting. I saw the Prime Minister a few days after my return from England on the eve of the outbreak of war and asked him to release me to enable me to play my part. He absolutely refused to do so. I told him I was going to resign my seat, and then he could not hold me; but the Prime Minister then said, “If you resign your seat it will not help; I would prevent you leaving the country.” I say to-night the Prime Minister is making a mistake; he should allow these men to go. There is quite a considerable number of them; and then let us see if the Opposition will really carry out their promise and pair with the men who go to fight. The challenge has been thrown out and can be accepted at once. I think, however, Mr. Speaker, we shall require something in addition to the word of hon. members, which I am afraid cannot be taken. They have said to-night that the British, through propaganda, brought America into the war. But America remained neutral as long as she possibly could, and so did all these other countries. All the terrible tragedies that we know of today were caused through other countries attempting to maintain their neutrality. There would not have been half the suffering in the world today had it not been for practically the whole of Europe attempting to maintain neutrality.

They should have been fighting for Britain.

Why bring Great Britain into it? We are fighting for South Africa. Not a single man from the Dominions and not a single man outside Great Britain has been made to take any part in this war; they have gone voluntarily, all our men up North have gone voluntarily, and what must they think about members of the Opposition when they hear of this debate, when they hear that the Opposition is prepared to go crawling to Japan and say, “Please come and help us to get rid of this Government, and give us anything at all that will help us to get rid of the British connection.” In what way does the British connection come into it? We are a free country; Britain gets nothing out of South Africa.

Doesn’t she?

She gets nothing but what she pays for, and they are just about sick and tired of you people over there. When you talk about Afrikanderdom, that you are always preaching about, do you realise that the English speaking section in South Africa have got feelings as well as you? It is very seldom in South Africa that you hear a Britisher say anything prejudicial to the Afrikaner. You have been accused to-night of being cowards by someone on this side, or rather of adopting a cowardly attitude, and I say if you continue in the way that you have been doing for some considerable time, a person will not only be quite justified in calling you a lot of cowards, but a lot of skunks as well. Mr. Speaker, if there is any section in this country which has made sacrifices it is the English speaking section, and that has been to some extent due to the attitude adopted by the present Government in the matter of bilingualism. The English speaking section is being penalised. Hundreds and hundreds of South Africans have been penalised by the application of the bilingual policy. The hon. member for Mossel Bay has been complaining on behalf of the Afrikaners, but I think the British section have got a complaint in that regard. We would like to see the Union Jack in every village in South Africa, but we are not always shouting about these things. The flag that is used in South Africa now was brought into being by the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) and we have not complained up to now about the Union Jack, but it is just about time we did complain, and insisted on some of the rights that have been filched away from the English speaking section. I had no intention of getting up to take part in this particular debate, but I am just wondering what the country will be thinking tomorrow when they read the speeches, and I hope the time is arriving when the Prime Minister should seriously consider introducing martial law in this country. Is the Prime Minister going to wait until the sort of thing that has happened in other parts of the world happens here? We have a nice collection of fifth columnists here who are only too happy to assist the Japanese if they ever get here, which is very possible. They imagine that if the Japanese do arrive in South Africa they will help the Opposition and by helping them they will be doing something detrimental to Britain. That is the only thing that worries them, how can they stab Britain in the back, and how can they hurt the feelings of the British section? That is all they live for. If the Japanese reach South Africa and the Royal Navy is unable to keep them out of the country, these people will be running alongside them.

A few allegations have been made which I consider it the duty of the whole House to rectify and to put in the right perspective. The one allegation was made by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell), and the other by the apology who has just sat down, the hon. member for Durban, Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire), who said that they on that side of the House could not trust us on this side. I want to appeal to hon. members of this House not to allow any more pairs unless hon. members on that side first of all apologise. I know there are numerous hon. members opposite who will not associate themselves with allegations of that kind, and I hope they will urge the hon. member for Kensington and the hon. member for Greyville to withdraw their mean allegations.

It is typically British.

There is another point on which I wish to have some clarity, namely, this, that I would like to see the stigma cast on the Prime Minister by nobody less than the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe) to be removed, when he used these words: “Everyone of the individuals whose arms were taken away is a man who cannot be trusted.” The Prime Minister took away the arms of the whole of the people of South Africa, and I hope he will not allow such idiosyncracies to be proclaimed by his side of the House. Now, I come to the Prime Minister with a matter on which I want to make an appeal to him. We appealed to him before, and he listened to us, and it greatly contributed in calming the feelings at a time when they were running very high. I am referring to the time when our people were prosecuted because they had failed to hand in their rifles, and the Prime Minister listened to us, and his listening to us had a very good effect in calming the feelings of people outside. Now the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Liebenberg) has again made an appeal to the Prime Minister. We know what the effects are of the irresponsible actions of subordinate Ministers, and how much bitterness is created by their actions among the public, a bitterness which, like a cancer, gnaws at the soul of the people, and creates bad feelings among the two sections of the population which are divided about the war. The Prime Minister cannot conceive of the bitterness that exists among our people on account of the fact that young Afrikaners, honourable men, are put into cells without a charge even having been made against them. They are detained for weeks and months, and then they are told that there is no charge against them, and they are released. It is that sort of thing which causes feelings to run high. I also want to associate myself with the appeal made by the Leader of the Afrikaner Party to the Prime Minister. I think it is high time the Prime Minister gave us some clarity as to the reason why war broke out on 4th September, 1939. All the reasons he has given us so far for the outbreak of war have fallen away one by one. I do not believe that the one cry that we are fighting for Christianity any longer holds good with the public. We did not believe it at the time, because we knew what the war was about. Let me say this: We want to know from the Prime Minister what the war is all about. I believe that this was is being waged over the balance of power of the great European countries—a matter which has nothing to do with South Africa. That is what we feel about the war, and we felt on the 4th September that we were not prepared to pay the price which would have to be paid in order to decide on the balance of power between nations thousands of miles away from here. This mad war was then declared, and as a result we have got this division among the people which goes to the roots of our very national life. On the 4th September we warned against the consequences, and we said that unless the people of South Africa knew clearly that it was fighting for something affecting our country we would get the consequences we are faced with today. The Prime Minister fails to give us any information; he does not take the people into his confidence, and now let me say this to the Prime Minister, that if this struggle is a struggle over the balance of power in Europe, then we must come to the conclusion, because of the reports in the papers—and we get no other information from the Prime Minister—that it will be impossible for Great Britain to restore its prestige. As we find from the newspaper report, not only from hostile sources, but also from papers which are not hostile to England, Great Britain has time after time left its Allies in the lurch. Apart from that it is a fact that Britain so far has always looked upon itself as one of the members of the family of the Continent of Europe, and since the developments that have taken place, and since Great Britain has become Russia’s Ally, greater disquiet has arisen in Europe because of the danger of Europe being left to the mercy of Russia if the Allies should win the war. It is the Prime Minister’s duty to try and restore Great Britain’s prestige, if it cherishes the hope of England ever again being able to maintain the balance of power on the Continent of Europe. Unless the Prime Minister takes the people into his confidence and states for what object our sons are being sacrificed, and our possessions are being sacrificed, unless he states clearly what the position is, he cannot expect us to take any notice of the spectres which members on the other side of the House have been placing before us. We sit here and listen to arguments from the other side, and one of the always repeated arguments of the past has been this so-called danger of German domination which has become nothing but a bogey. Today we hear nothing about that. They have suddenly discovered a new bogey, the yellow danger which is threatening us. Japan, which is threatening us. It is a new bogey, but I would like to advise hon. members to read the leading article in “The Argus”, where they will see that Japan’s clear aim and object is the Continent of Asia, but, of course, it suits hon. members opposite to come and talk here about the yellow danger, and to hang up that type of spectre to scare the people of South Africa.

We on this side of the House are surprised to hear the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Bezuidenhout) complain of the fact that the country has been disarmed. If there is one section which should be grateful to the Prime Minister for having disarmed the country it is the Opposition, because if the Prime Minister had not had the prescience to do so they would have been fighting among themselves and they would have wiped each other out. Clearly the hon. member did not listen either to the speeches of his Leader (Mr. Conroy), because he admitted that South Africa’s interests were very definitely at stake today. The hon. member says we have no concern with the war, but his Leader admitted, and this is the first time we have had this admission from that side, that South Africa’s interests are very definitely at stake. More than three years ago Gen. Hertzog, in March 1939, declared that the war which threatened to burst loose would, if it burst loose; affect practically the whole world. South Africa just as much as other countries. We always believe and we still believe more than ever before that what Gen. Hertzog said then was right, and that a war which threatened to break out at that time, and which has since broken out, would be a world war which would affect the whole world. Today the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) admits that the interests of our country are at stake. How can we, if our interests are affected, remain neutral? If we are not interested in the war we might perhaps be indifferent towards it, not caring really who was going to win, but when our interests are at stake I fail to see how we could have remained neutral. “Die Burger” the other day said that if Germany won the war annexation by Germany was possible and probable, and if we are to stand under Germany, no matter in what form, the freedom of the ordinary citizen in such a State will mean as little as the freedom of the ordinary member of the Ossewa-Brandwag in the Ossewa-Brandwag. That is what “Die Burger” said. Now, let us come to the New Order. I understand that the attitude of the New Order is that if England wins we lose nothing, but if Germany wins there may perhaps be one chance out of ten of our getting a form of self government. And in view of that one chance out of ten they are now playing up to Germany. The Leader of the Opposition said that everything would be put right if only we withdrew from the war. I merely want to ask the hon. member whether he approves of the attack which Japan has made on the Dutch Colonies in East India. What has the Hollanders done to deserve it? He silently justified Japan because he said that Japan was looking for living space.