Before you leave your Chair, Mr. Speaker, may I with leave make a personal explanation. Yesterday evening, when the House was in Committee, and the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) was speaking, he made reference to an offer which had previously been made by his side of the House to pair, and in the heat of the moment I said across the floor of the House, “We cannot trust you.”. I realised as soon as I had said it that it was a thing I should not have said, and I wish at once to express, while you are in the Chair, my regret for having said it, and my complete withdrawal of these words.

What about the hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire); he said the same thing?

Yesterday’s boisterousness has passed, and I think a better atmosphere now prevails for a quiet and dispassionate discussion of the points which have been raised. Before coming to the questions I have to reply to, I would like to express our deep sympathy, the deep sympathy of this House, and I may say of the whole country, with the Government of the Netherlands in the severe setback which they have suffered in the Far East. In May, 1940, Holland was unexpectedly attacked and invaded by a neighbour which she had always treated well, and with whom she was on a friendly footing, and whom she had not given the slightest reason for invasion. Holland on that occasion went under, but her empire in the Far East remained. That empire has now been attacked by another neighbouring State without any reason and without any provocation, and it has also been destroyed and gone. The world finds itself faced with one of the greatest calamities in history. A country, an empire, which has existed for hundreds of years, which has contributed greatly to the good of a large part of humanity, has been destroyed and is no longer. Those wonderful achievements of old Holland, those wonderful achievements in the Far East, too, have been destroyed, and we as a nation belonging to the same stock here in South Africa deeply feel the losses and the disasters which have struck Holland, and on behalf of this House and on behalf of the Government, and on behalf of the people, I today wish to express our deepy sympathy with Holland in the calamity which has overtaken it, and to express the wish and the hope that the time is not far off when Holland will rise again and when that empire, their empire in the Far East, will be restored unto its glory of the past, and that Holland may again be able to make its great contributions to the civilisation of mankind. I say that this is one of the greatest calamities of our day. I do not know of any greater. Holland was a colonial power on a large scale. Perhaps only the British Empire was a greater colonial power than Holland, and that colonial power has gone under. It was neutral; it was exemplary in its attitude towards its neighbours; its attitude was unassailable and irreproachable, and Holland gave no reason, no cause, for the calamity which has struck it, and we hope that the day will come—and that it is not far off— when Holland will rise again and be restored. Now, let me come back to yesterday’s debate. I do not think I need express my regret at the tone of the debate. A great deal has been said here which I do not think members on either side of the House would have said in their calm and quiet moments, but feelings were roused, members were excited, and I am sorry to say that I am afraid the effect outside will not be to the credit of this House. Still, it was a passing phase, and I hope we shall now be able to carry on with our business without introducing personalities and without giving unnecessary offence, without being offensive towards anyone, or towards a section of the population. Our task is quite difficult enough here in South Africa. With a people that are divided, a deeply divided people, we try to do our best to get over our difficulties and to do our duty as we see it. And I hope we shall do so and continue with our task without giving unnecessary offence or using offensive expressions. There was something yesterday which very greatly disappointed me, irrespective of the personal expressions that were used. I was very greatly disappointed at the attack made on our friends outside on Great Britain, and to a certain extent also on the United States of America. Now, Mr. Chairman, I think it was most reprehensible on the part of hon. members to drag other countries, friendly Governments, and even allies, into the debate, and to use them as arguments across the floor of the House to promote our own interests or our own cause in those arguments. It is most reprehensible, and I want to express the hope that when discussing and arguing about matters which we feel very deeply on, we shall not use language and not quote arguments apt to give unnecessary offence to our neighbours or to our friends outside. The argument was used here yesterday, for instance, that Great Britain always left her friends in the lurch. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) especially adopted that line of argument, and I was surprised to hear it from him. He is not an irresponsible member, but he is the Leader of his party, and he speaks here with a certain degree of responsibility. He knows that there are people outside listening to what he says. The arguments used here are followed up, and an impression is created which is not in the interest of the country. The argument is also quite unfounded and untrue. It is devoid of any reason. Great Britain has left no one in the lurch. We all know what the position was. When war broke out England was pursuing a totally different policy; it was not a policy of war, a policy of arming itself, or preparing for war years in advance—it was a policy of conciliation and world peace. Germany, on the other hand, was pursuing the very opposite policy. Germany had armed and prepared itself; it had secretly armed itself until from a military point of view it was by far the most powerful country in the world; it was able to mobilise the biggest forces for an attack. The attack came, and we know that England was quite unprepared for war. It could not stand up against those superior forces. It did its best in the circumstances in which it found itself to help where it could. It carried out every one of its promises to France. The argument employed here that such a small British force fought on the side of the French, that argument does not hold water. There was an agreement between England and France. That agreement concerned the forces with which England would help on the Continent of Europe, and that agreement was carried out strictly and to the letter. But we know what happened. A year after war had broken out between Germany and England and France, attacks were made on smaller countries, countries which had relied on their neutrality and which had looked for safety in neutrality. They were attacked, and in their hour of danger and distress they appealed to England and France to come and help them, and, unprepared though those countries were, and weak though they were, scarcely ready to defend themselves, they did their best to come to the aid of those countries. That was the case. The fall of France did not lie in the fact that she was defeated on her borders in the position in which she was, but it was due to the fact that France and England felt it incumbent upon themselves to go and assist Belgium and Holland, and they were not in a position to do so; they were too weak to do so. Far from being left in the lurch by their friends, the fact was that those countries appealed to England and France when it was too late, too late for help to be effectively given. Not only was it too late to help them, but as a result of England and France rendering the help they did render, they landed themselves in even greater difficulties. The fall of the French Army is to a large extent due, as is now historically well-known, to the fact that the French at the last moment changed their plans, and went to the Belgium borders to go and help. That caused confusion which led to the fall of the French Army, and England was also involved. There was no question of anyone being left in the lurch; but, the fact of the matter was, that, on the one hand, we had a Power, armed to the teeth, ready for the fray, to the last button; and, on the other hand, we had countries which had been pursuing a policy of conciliation, and which were not ready, and that has happened again in the last few months. An attack was made on the Dutch possessions in the East. Holland was neutral towards Japan, Holland did not declare war on Japan, but was absolutely neutral. But she had no protection in her neutrality. Japan unexpectedly attacked Holland, and the result is that we are today mourning the fall of the Dutch Empire.

Your facts are wrong.

Those are the facts.

Holland declared war on Japan.

We cannot get away from the fact that in this instance we had a country armed to the teeth, perfectly prepared; and, on the other hand, we had a small country, a Nabob’s vineyard, which had to be overpowered. Once more England went as far as it could to help, but it was not in a condition of preparedness to do so. England’s only Army in the East had to surrender to greatly superior forces at Singapore, and there were very few men to help the Dutch Empire in the East, with the result that this terrible calamity struck Holland, and that Holland had to go under, as she did go under. But nowhere in all those instances are there any facts to show that England has left its friends in the lurch. On the contrary England has done her utmost to help. England went further in the way of giving help than she perhaps had the right to do. There is no doubt that England is not responsible, has no blame, in regard to those charges which were exploited here yesterday, and which were raised repeatedly by one speaker after another. Another charge has been made, and that charge is made particularly in the newspapers namely that the Dominions have had to fight for England; that they are being used to fight England’s wars. There is as little truth—or rather, there is no truth in that charge whatsoever. There is no doubt that the greatest force in the field on the British side at the moment is the force of Great Britain herself. The Dominion troops taking part in this war are in the minority.

Give us the percentages?

The figures were quoted in this House from the speech made by the British Secretary for War, and it appears from that that 70 per cent. of the casualties in this war have so far been among the English troops and not among the Dominion troops.

Can you give us the figures from Northern Africa?

These figures refer to Northern Africa as well.

Those are the figures of the casualties, can you give us the figures in regard to the troops that are there?

The hon. member must realise that I cannot give him those figures.

But what is the percentage?

The percentage is very much the same as that of the casualties and perhaps the percentage of Dominion troops is still smaller. What happened is this: It used to be the policy of the British Broadcasting Corporation to praise the Dominion troops as much as they could, so as to advance and push on the magnificent efforts the Dominions are making—and to hold up the example of the British Dominions as far as that could be done. This is what was done. That generally created the impression that the Dominion troops only were doing all the fighting. We, who are acquainted with the hard facts, know that although the Dominion troops fought magnificently and there is no doubt that the Dominion troops fought heroically and brilliantly, the main work on every battlefield was done by the British troops.

You want to insult the Afrikaners now?

No, I am not insulting the Afrikaners.

But you make appear as though the British troops had to do the work for them.

The hon. member is talking like a fool; I am putting the case in its persepctive and what I am saying here will be confirmed by every Afrikaner up North.

But the papers were full of what the Afrikaners had been doing there.

That is true.

Then how can you say that the Britishers were in the forefront bore the brunt of the fighting (spit afgebyt).

I say that principally in the battles, with certain exceptions, where the Dominion troops fought almost alone, I say that in the majority of cases in all the battles the major part of the work was done by the British troops. There is no doubt that this impression which has been created, namely that it is only the Dominion troops which fight, and that the British troops hide behind them, is totally untrue. I am sorry, too that an attack was made here, naturally to a lesser degree, on the United States, because the United States are in the same position as Great Britain today. The United States entered the war even more unprepared for the battle than England.

Whose fault was that?

That charge can easily be answered. The facts are clear and the fact is that America takes its time. America is a country which does everything on a large scale. America is a country of peace which has not devoted itself to war; it has not been preparing for war for years and years. Now that it is in the war and now that Japan has declared war on America, it is getting ready. That takes time and America does things on a big scale, but in the end the overwhelming power of America will be tremendous and it will put and end to all these things.

Are you hiding behind America now?

No, we are not hiding behind each other; nobody who knows anything about it can say that England is hiding behind America. On the contrary, if we study what has happened in the Far East and if we look at what has happened everywhere, the circumstances go to show that Great Britain is largely carrying on the war.

Where?

The hon. member must cease interrupting now.

That does not remove the fact that America’s weight will be felt in due course, and that America’s weight will be tremendous, and that it will lead to victory. It will assure us of victory over our adversaries. I am merely saying this in order to deal with the type of argument which is being raised here and which tries to throw the blame on other countries. Let us discuss matters here with each other and use arguments about our own affairs but do not let us drag in other countries and use expressions here which may give them offence. We must discuss these matters with a certain degree or responsibility because the reports of what is said here go outside and are read far beyond the walls of this House. Now let me come to the discussion which took place here yesterday, and I want to start with the speech of the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He drew attention to the fact that matters were becoming more serious now, that matters were taking a serious turn in the Far East, and he made an appeal to me to take a more serious view of things and to look at them from a South African point of view. To me there is no other point of view but the South African point of view. My point of view is a pure South African point of view. The question put to myself, and which we on this side put to ourselves is what is in the permanent interest of South Africa? And it is from that point of view that we have decided as we have decided, and that we are acting as we are doing. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) said yesterday—and that was the charge he made against me—that I was acting like a British agent, not from a South African point of view, but from the point of view of British interests. I asked the hon. member: If I am a British agent, what, then, does he think of President Roosevelt? Is he also acting in the British interests? If America takes the same line in this war as we are taking, is it because President Roosevelt is animated by British interests? That is a ridiculous argument. We have a war here, in which Allies are fighting together on both sides, and all of them are fighting in this war from the point of view of their own interests; that is the case on the other side, and that is the case on this side, and as we are in this war we are in it because we asked ourselves, and because this House asked itself three years ago: “What is in the interests of South Africa?” and it is on that basis that we decided. Just as America, and all the other countries which are with us in this fight decided. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition put two questions to me. His first question was: What are our relations with, and what is our attitude towards our nearest neighbour —what is our attitude towards Mozambique and Madagascar? He put that question largely as the result of something said by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) a little while ago in a speech, in which he said that he regarded the position of Mozambique and Madagascar as a danger to our safety in the Union. And it was afterwards said by several hon. members opposite that it was a ballon d’essay which we on this side had sent up. It was said that quite possibly the hon. member for Kensington had been put up by me to give such a hint, and that there was something behind it, that the Government’s policy had intentions against Mozambique and Madagascar. Let me say here that I have never spoken one word with the hon. member for Kensington on this subject, and what he said he said on his own initiative and as a result of his own views about the situation outside. Mozambique is our neighbour; we are on the best possible terms with the Portuguese Government. That has been the position for years, and it is even more so today. Wherever we can be of assistance to the Portuguese Government we are. In its isolation from the European Connection in these difficult times, Mozambique sometimes has civil requirements, or it needs war material, and then they come and ask us to assist. If they are in trouble they come to us for assistance, and wherever we can we assist them. There is no question of our relations with Mozambique not being good, and I hope they will continue to be danger, and when Mozambique, and perhaps our own towns and our coasts are in danger, we shall welcome any help from our allies.

Where is the British navy?

The British navy will be there; the British navy will get more help from us than it is getting now, and on a much larger scale, and we shall make our resources available to assist that navy in its efforts. The Leader of the Opposition says that the Japanese will never come here—they will only carry on along the coast of Asia until eventually they get to the Red Sea. That is not my information. That kind of wishful thinking does not suit me. I am convinced that if the war were carried to the Indian Ocean, we could no longer consider ourselves safe, and no place in the Indian Ocean would then be safe. What will be the position of Madagascar and similar places then is something history will teach us. I do not think we need be afraid of using our country to help in a struggle in which our own safety, our own future, is at stake. I must say that I am surprised at the attitude of members of the Opposition. They are surprising me more and more, and the whole of South Africa is surprised. We had always thought that there was one thing which would mobilise South Africa and which would rouse our feelings, and that was if the yellow danger came from the East.

The old, old story.

Year in and year out, that has been stated. That feeling has always been there, and now that we have official information from Sato from the War Ministry in Tokio that they are coming to the Indian Ocean, to our borders, to our coasts, I am surprised at a portion of our people in the hour of danger, and in view of clear and expressed threats, adopting the attitude which the other side of the House is adopting. To me it is totally inexplicable.

That bogey is too old.

The people will judge.

Give them a chance.

We gave them a chance at Newcastle. The by-election took place just after Japan had come into the war.

After you had first removed the railway camps.

Why don’t you try Cape Town Castle?

The Leader of the Opposition further touched on the food question, and he asked what was the position in regard to the food supplies of our people if we were to assist the convoys and others in the way we are doing today. Other hon. members went further. One hon. member said that we were responsible today for the feeding of 1,000,000 troops up North, and the question was asked where the food was to come from if South Africa undertook to feed such masses of people? They contended that our own interests were in consequence being endangered. Let me say that we have undertaken no obligations whatsoever for the feeding of the forces up North. The British Government sees to that itself; we help wherever we can. If we have a surplus we give whatever we can, and we give it with the greatest of pleasure. If convoys can be assisted with food we do so, but we have not undertaken any obligation to look after the feeding of the forces in the Far North. That remains a British responsibility.

Are there any surpluses to supply them?

I admit that it is an important question for our country, and we already have gone so far as to appoint a Food Controller. I think that with due caution and the proper use of the means at our disposal we shall be able to get fairly far, and if we do get into trouble which may happen in certain regards, we have friends … we shall not be left in the lurch, and they will assist us as far as they can. We shall get very much more help than we could ever have got had we stood alone. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) made a speech which surprised me very much. He blamed the British Government, he blamed everybody, and those remarks coming from him surprised me very greatly. I am not going to deal with the accusations he made against me, but the hon. member knows as well as any other member that whatever we have done we have done in the interests of South Africa, we have done to safeguard the future of South Africa as far as possible. That old argument which has now had the bottom knocked out of it by the one development of the war after the other, namely, that there is safety in neutrality, has now been proved to be devoid of all force. But it still remains the hon. member’s attitude. He still adheres to the point of view that we made a mistake on the 4th September To my mind, the step which was taken on that occasion is the sheet anchor of our future security in South Africa. We have suffered hardships, we are suffering today, and we are going to suffer very much more. In the swing of the pendulum in this war, with all its fluctuations, and with an enemy as well prepared as our enemy is, we must expect to suffer a great deal more than we have done. I expect 1942 to be a year of great and deep trials to us in South Africa, and to the world in general, but I do not for one moment doubt the eventual result, when once our forces will be thoroughly mobilised, when England and America are prepared for the fight as they are now fast preparing themselves—I have no doubt whatsoever of what the end is going to be. Just as in the last war when the enemy also scored successes and was winning year after year until near the end, so very possibly things will go again. The end will see the triumph of the principles which we are fighting for, and it will justify the steps we have taken. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) touched on a few points, and he said, inter alia, that Nationalist minded people should be left in peace. His argument is that the Nationalist minded people are opposed to the Government’s war policy, that they do not want to cause any trouble, they do not want to do anything that is illegal, but that they want to be left alone. All they want, so he says, is to be allowed to continue with their farming and to look after the country’s food. I have no fault to find with that, and I wish hon. members opposite would do so. But it is certainly not done in this House. In this House a war is waged against our war policy, a war is waged against our efforts to do our duty and to do our work, a battle is being fought against us here even more violent than it could be on the battlefields of the world. If one notices what goes on here from day to day one finds that all our efforts are completely opposed—they cannot do any more than they are doing. I would say that I could accept the attitude of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. If they do not oppose us, if they do not put any obstacles in our way, but if they only want to carry on with their work and remain impartial, and keep themselves out of it, by all means let them do so, but let them also allow us to do our duty in accordance with the responsibility that rests upon us.

But surely we also have a responsibility?

It seems to me that that responsibility is to fight us and not fight the enemy outside. The attitude of hon. members opposite is to support the enemy. I do not think there is a body in the whole wide world today where one is likely to see a scene such as we see here every day and every night— where a fight is waged not against our enemies outside but against our own Government.

Then why did you declare war?

There almost was a majority here in favour of neutrality.

We have our enemies outside, and one would not find a condition such as we have here anywhere else in the world. I prefer the attitude of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad who got up here yesterday and said that all they wanted was to go on with their work. Very well, let us also carry on doing those things which we are bound to do because of the responsibility resting upon us, and let hon. members over there go on with their ploughing and sowing by which they will be helping the country, at any rate to a certain extent. The hon. member also raised the question again of the natives and the coloured people, and he asked whether I was going to stand by my undertaking that the non-Europeans would not be employed for combatant purposes. I stand by that. I see no reason to depart from the policy as laid down in this House.

But quite a number of the members of your party have departed from that point of view.

But what is the argument they use? The argument that has been employed here is that when one is engaged in a life and death struggle, and a part of the population not only wants to remain neutral, but indirectly wants to help the enemy in his fight, the time may come when our country will be in such a condition of danger that in the final instance we shall have to use the natives and the coloured people to help us in our fight. That time has not come yet. I do not think the condition has yet become such that we must make use of those means, but the argument was that that condition might develop, a condition in which coloured people and natives must also be armed and used for the fight. I cannot find fault with members of this House if they use that argument. When one finds that there is a large proportion of the white population which says: “Let Japan come and take the country, it is the fault of Smuts and his Government …

Hear, hear!

Let me say this to the hon. member, that before Japan, before the enemy, takes this country, I shall see to it that every native and every coloured man who can be armed will be armed. That is the public opinion in the country and hon. members opposite will also be converted to that view. They will see that there is no other way. If we are attacked by the yellow people we are going to use the yellow nations and the black nations, just the same as the whites, to meet that danger. That position has not yet arrived and there is no need to do it today. Our powers of resistance, our forces, constitute a complicated organisation, very much more complicated than in the last war. Today we need in our forces combatant men, but that is not all we need. One needs combatant men today, but just as much do we require men who will never fire a shot, but who are needed for other services, for looking after our mechanical transport, as motor drivers and so on, and also for all the other work that has to be done. The man who fires the rifle is only a part today, although a very important part, and we are doing our best in regard to the other services which are not directly doing any fighting, to recruit as many natives as we can get. In regard to the coloured men, farming conditions are such that we have to cut them out to a very large extent so far as the Western Province is concerned, and also largely so far as the Cape Province is concerned because farming in those areas is dependent on coloured labour, and if we want them to continue their farming activities we cannot continue recruiting in those parts of the country. That recruiting has now been almost completely stopped, but so far as the native population in the Northern parts is concerned particularly we are still recruiting as far as we can because large numbers are required, and it may take a long time still before we shall have the necessary numbers. It is not necessary to let them fight. They are being trained, they are learning all the methods of the Army, but so far we have not armed them.

And their women get £8 0s. 0d.

There are people who are still worse than coloured women. A few points have been touched upon which really do not affect war questions but about which I want to say a few words in view of the criticism which has been expressed. The hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit) suggested that so far as the coloured population was concerned we should, as in the case of the natives, have a permanent commission to look after their interests. I doubt whether the coloured people themselves would want such a body. The suggestion made by the hon. member is something entirely novel. The coloured population, as the hon. member knows, has always taken up the attitude that they want to be treated on the same basis, and so far as law and administration are concerned, want to come under the same rules as the white population. They do not want to come under the Department of Native Affairs, nor do they want to come under a separate division but they want to be treated in the same way as, and together with the European. So far our administration has been conducted on that basis, and I doubt whether the idea of a permanent commission as suggested by the hon. member will find support among the coloured people themselves. We give them as much attention as possible without creating separate machinery for them, and I doubt whether it is necessary. The hon. members for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) and Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) yesterday raised the case of Dr. Van Broekhuizen, and asked why there was a differentiation in his case in regard to his financial position and otherwise during his visit to the Union some time ago. The reply is that after the fall of Holland and Belgium, where Dr. Van Broekhuizen was our ambassador, I recalled him for consultation because there were a large number of matters I wanted to see him about. He came here, the furniture he had there was left behind, and fell into the hands of the enemy.

Did that furniture belong to the Government or to him personally?

I don’t know, but this is my point. That I wanted to put him on his visit to the Union in the same position as he was in before. While he was here he got furniture from the Government. I have been asked what has become of that furniture. That furniture was placed at his disposal. The furniture belonged to the Government for which I believe he paid rent.

But the Auditor-General says that he is not paying any more.

The furniture placed at his disposal here remains the property of the Government.

Are you sure? The Auditor-General does not say so.

Then I would suggest to the hon. member that he should put his question to the Auditor-General. My intention was to put Dr. Van Broekhuizen in a position identical to that in which he was when I recalled him. He would get the same allowances, the same support as he had when he was Ambassador over there. We had him here, and afterwards he returned to London in his old position, and subsequently he resigned. I did not want the fact that I had invited him to come back for consultation to place him financially in a worse position.

Was he consulted for three months?

He was ill for some time, and one cannot always get shipping accommodation whenever one wants it nowadays, but after he finished his work here he returned. I wanted to place him in the same position as he was in before.

May I ask if the same kind of treatment has been given in other cases where people have been temporarily recalled?

That is the only case I know of, and, for that reason, comparisons with other people do not hold water. Dr. Van Broekhuizen was recalled and he came back. As a result of the fall of the Governments of the countries where he was our accredited representative his position became different from that of other Ambassadors. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Liebenberg) put questions to me in regard to the emergency regulations which were recently issued, under which the death sentence is imposed for certain crimes in regard to sabotage, and he asked me whether the death sentence is final, and whether the Governor-General can still exercise his discretion of mercy under the ordinary law. That remains as it is. The Governor-General retains his discretion of mercy in any such case. The hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) appealed to me and asked that we should act as leniently as possible in all circumstances, and not under the abnormal conditions of the country, create any feelings which might have their reaction long after the war, and might lead to bitterness and a deterioration in the relations of the white sections of the community in South Africa. I agree with him, and that is the spirit in which the Government proposes to act. I feel that in a country like South Africa, one has to bear in mind the divergent views and the divergent outlook of various sections in the country. The Government naturally has to put an end to sabotage and similar crimes that are committed, and it is very difficult to overlook such crimes if one wants to do one’s duty to the country. We have had instances of trains full of troops, innocent people, not knowing what was going on, almost being blown up by dynamite. And in cases of that kind mercy would be akin to a crime to the country. But there are other cases which technically are difficult to distinguish from such cases, and there one may apply a great degree of mercy in one’s final judgment, and that will also be done. In regard to the amount which we pay to the League of Nations, a point has been raised by the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys), and I want to say that we are continuing to pay this because we believe that this is not the right time to make a change in that regard. The arrangement of peace after the war will perhaps be one of the most difficult, if not the most difficult, task ever entrusted to man. Why should we now break down what has been built up? Don’t let us act prematurely. We must wait and rather continue to meet our financial obligations in that respect. We are not the only country continuing to do so.

Only the Dominions and England.

All the countries belonging to the British Commonwealth of Nations pay their full contribution. I do not know whether Ireland is paying its contribution, but the others are doing so, and there are also some neutral countries which are paying their full contribution, and the machinery is kept going in that way.

There is only one neutral country which pays, Portugal.

I want hon. members to understand that the activities of the League are going on on a smaller scale. Many countries no longer exist, or their Governments no longer exist, or they are unable to make any contribution, but we are able to contribute our share, and I think we are doing the right thing in contributing as we are doing.

But surely discussions are continually going on between England and the Dominions? Why then pay this money?

The machinery has been built up and we have to keep it going. Certain salaries have to be paid; certain property has to be looked after; certain activities are going on; the economic work of the League of Nations goes on and other work as well. It is only the peace work, the security work, the political work, which is no longer done, but the other work is carried on in the United States and Canada, and in Geneva itself on a smaller scale.

Where is the seat?

That remains in Geneva, but part of the work is being done in Canada. The Labour Bureau is in America and there is a Technical and Economic Bureau also in America, but the seat, which has a small staff, remains in Geneva. I think that under those circumstances our people and this House should be prepared to continue paying these contributions. At the end of the war we shall be able to decide what we are going to do in view of possible changes in the statutes of the League of Nations, and possibly the creation of a totally different organisation. Something will have to be done. If anything has been proved by this war it is the absolute necessity of setting up an organisation which will constitute a bond between the nations. That is all we have at the moment. There is nothing else, and we should not scrap the machinery while we are not yet able to judge what future developments are going to be. I think I have now touched on all the points raised.

What about the question I put?

The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) made an insinuation which I want to deny most emphatically. He said that in 1938 I had secret information from the British Government about the course of events, information which was not available to the Prime Minister of the country. He also said that in 1939 when the war broke out I again had information at my disposal from the British Government which was not available to the Prime Minister, information which the Prime Minister of the country did not have. He said that I had secret information on which I acted. It is such a ridiculous statement that it is hardly necessary for me to deny it. But if it is necessary to deny it, if it is necessary to deny the foolish talk which an hon. member, like the hon. member for Malmesbury, is going to spread about the country, then I deny it most absolutely in the most emphatic terms. I had no relations with the British Government or with a representative of the British Government so far as this matter is concerned. The information I had about the development of these matters I had from the Prime Minister himself. All the secret documents went to him, and if from time to time there was anything important I should know, he showed these documents to me. I knew nothing about those which he did not show to me, and I had no such relations as the hon. member has spoken about.

The Prime Minister devoted a considerable part of his speech to a complaint that in this House and outside opposition, and strong opposition, is being carried on against his war policy. That was his complaint. According to him we should on the 4th September simply have folded our arms and said: “We have protested against the war, and now we have done our duty.” If there is one thing justifying our opposition and our permanent and strong opposition in this connection, it is the reply given by the Prime Minister here to certain of our questions. If we, after replies like that, were to cease opposing, we would be unfaithful to ourselves and to the country. We would be unfaithful to the people of the country. I say that the Prime Minister’s answers fully justify our opposition, and our strong opposition. To mention one thing, to begin with, there was his reply in regard to the arming of non-Europeans, the arming of natives and coloured people in this country. The Prime Minister said that the arming of these people could be justified, that conditions might arise, and that the time might come when it would be done on a large scale. That means that everybody in this country, European or nonEuropean, would have to be armed … I ask the Prime Minister, in view of the answer given by him, what has become of the attitude he adopted during the Boer War? Has he completely forgotten that? Has he now departed from it so far that he can give the kind of reply he gave, a reply which must have caused the greatest surprise in this House and in the country? Has he forgotten the communication he sent to President Kruger, from Van Rhynsdorp, in which he condemned the arming of natives and coloured people by the English in the strongest possible language, and has he forgotten that the Boer nation, even when it was in the direst distress, when they had lost the war, after they had fought for their lives, did not resort to arming the natives? I say that we were astounded to hear the Prime Minister’s statement on that point. The Prime Minister’s reply constitutes a complete justification for the attitude adopted by the Minister of Native Affairs who told the country that the natives should even today be armed. It is a justification of what the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit) has said, and of what a large number of members opposite have said. The attitude the Prime Minister adopts on this matter is in direct conflict with the attitude he always used to adopt when he still stood by the South African people. It is in direct conflict with the best traditions of the people of South Africa, that white civilisation shall be maintained here. The next reply given by the Prime Minister was in answer to the question I asked about Madagascar. All I am going to say in that connection is that the Prime Minister completely evaded my question, and the fact that he evaded it, more than anything else, strengthens the suspicion already existing in regard to that matter. What did his reply amount to? It was this: that there was no intention at present to occupy Madagascar. When an hon. member interjected and asked whether he wanted to anticipate the danger, what did the Prime Minister say? He said nothing; he kept silent when that question was put to him in an interruption. He refused to reply. He simply evaded the question. The question put to him, whether he was going to emulate that example of the Axis Powers which had been so strongly disapproved of by members opposite, namely, that for strategic reasons they had occupied countries which were neutral … that question was put. He was asked whether he was going to emulate their example, yes or no. The Prime Minister did not answer that; at any rate, he did not give an effective answer. I put another question on that point, or rather on the subject of South Africa as a base in this struggle between the nations of Europe—I asked whether South Africa would be made available as a battlefield for those nations to settle their struggle and perhaps to fight the final battle here. Of all the replies given by the Prime Minister his reply to this question was the most astounding of all. He went so far as to say that if matters developed so that the danger in the Indian Ocean increased, and the United States of America thought that they should settle that danger on African soil, he would not only be prepared to make South Africa available for that purpose; he would not only be prepared to make South Africa available for that purpose as a base and as a battlefield, but he would welcome it. He would welcome it, no matter what it cost South Africa, even if it would mean the destruction of South Africa. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he does not think that he should assume the same attitude towards this war of Great Britain’s—if he thinks we must take part in it—as he assumed in regard to his own nation’s war here in South Africa? When the Boer War had been going on for two years it became perfectly clear at the end of the second year that the war was going to be lost; it had become a guerilla—it was the Boers’ last resort. What did the Prime Minister do at that stage? He agitated and expressed his opinion at the meetings of the Boer Generals; we have his letter written to President Steyn, in which he clearly said that we could not allow South Africa to be devastated, that we could not allow our people, our women and children, to die off, and that the time had arrived for making peace with the English. That was his attitude on that occasion. That was in those days, in that war of aggression on the Boer nation, the attitude adopted by the Prime Minister. On the part of the republics it was a defensive war, and that was the attitude of the Prime Minister. [Time limit.]

I had not intended taking part in this debate again but the Prime Minister was annoyed at what I said in regard to England’s help and the help of the Navy. Hon. members opposite who make so much noise when we on this side speak should realise that when I expressed my opinion—and the Prime Minister particularly should realise it—that when I expressed my opinion I did so because I was deeply concerned over the future of South Africa. He declared war, apparently on the understanding that England would render assistance if South Africa needed assistance. We know England has also promised help to other small nations. They have had to go under because they did not get that help, and that is why I told the Prime Minister that I was afraid the confidence he has in England would prove to be just as vain as the confidence the other small Nations had in England. Now the Prime Minister says that England was not ready and that America was not ready. Why then did they declare war? Why did England declare war against Germany, if she knew she was not ready for war? Why did America declare war, knowing that she was not ready?

America was attacked.

America did not declare war, but America defied Japan by making unacceptable demands which no self respecting country could tolerate. Hon. members opposite are again interrupting me. Let me tell them that I quite understand their psychology but they do not understand me. I understand them quite well, and for that reason I don’t propose obstructing them if they want to go and help England.

But we shall stop you, if you rebel.

Empty barrels make the most noise. The Prime Minister said that we are in the same position as America was in. I differ from him. South Africa declared war and America did not declare war; that was the difference. Two and a half years ago when the Prime Minister declared war we told him what the position was going to be, and even at that stage we were deeply concerned about South Africa’s position. Now the Prime Minister, like a man in despair, comes here and tells the House that if it should become necessary, he would arm every native and every coloured man.

Are you opposed to that?

Let me say this to the Prime Minister: The Hon. the Leader of the Opposition has already told him so, but I want to repeat it and I want to emphasise it—that in the War of Independence when we as a small nation were opposed to that powerful country England, which had attacked us, he and I and all of us shot every native who had been armed by the English—every native we caught. The Prime Minister knows it. I know the Prime Minister sent protest after protest to the English authorities because they had armed the natives. Is he now going to abandon that same principle and that same ideal which he as a Boer General cherished, and is he going to follow a principle which the Boer Nation despises? Is he going to apply that principle in South Africa today? Let me tell the Prime Minister to pause and to think before doing things of that kind. I have often heard of a man being hoist with his own petard. Let me tell him that he should think twice before putting arms in the hands of natives and coloured people. The people of South Africa will resent it for generations to come. He defiantly stated here that the people of South Africa would give their answer. The people will answer. I want to remind the Prime Minister, that at the time of the great World War he repeatedly challenged his opponents and told them that the people of South Africa would give their answer. The war was hardly over when the people gave their answer. I also want to tell him that our enemy of today may perhaps be our friend of tomorrow. There would have been no yellow danger here if the Prime Minister had not gone out of his way to declare war. He and that side of the House will have to assume full responsibility for what has happened.

And we are quite prepared to do so.

Yes, they are quite prepared to wear V-signs on their chests and to draw double salaries. I say that we are prepared to face anybody. We on this side of the House are not responsible for the calamity and disaster facing this country. Hon. members over there will have to accept responsibility. God preserve South Africa from the day when a responsible man like the Prime Minister sets out to arm Kaffir, Moor and Indian. In the past he protested like I and others did against the arming of natives, because in those days he was a simple Boer General. Today he is a Field-Marshal. He resents it if I tell him that he is acting like a British Agent. The late Gen. Botha, as well as our other old Generals, always said that once an Afrikaner accepted an honary title from England he showed how far he had strayed from his own people.

Mr. Chairman, the attitude of the Opposition on this question of arming the coloured and native inhabitants of South Africa seems to be this: We won’t fight ourselves, no matter what the danger, no matter who the invader may be. We will not fight ourselves and we will take care so far as it rests with us that none of the natives or the coloured people of South (Africa will fight either. If they had said we are now prepared in this grave national emergency to come forward and do our share, but we want to keep the natives and the coloured out of it, then perhaps something might be thought of their attitude, but what will South Africa think of a section of its people who claim to be the South Africans and the super-patriots of the country, who in this very grave national emergency which the Prime Minister has spoken of, say: “We will not fight, we will not defend our own womenfolk against the Japanese invader if he comes here, and we will not even let our coloured or native people defend their womenfolk against the invader in this country.” Only yesterday in the House of Commons, Mr. Eden read an eye-witness account of what happened to the European people in Hong Kong after Japan had taken possession of it. I am going to read to this House a letter which I received from an officer serving in the South African army, who was in Shanghai when the Japanese took a portion of Shanghai some years ago. Perhaps that may bring home to my friends opposite what a Japanese invasion of this country may mean.

[Inaudible.]

What is the use of asking me silly questions like that? I am trying to bring home to my friends opposite what it may mean to them and their womenfolk, and the womenfolk of all in South Africa, if the Japanese were to come here. Now may I read this letter? It comes, as I say, from an officer now serving in the South African army—

The gentleman who signed this is well known to every member on the Opposition Benches, and I am willing to hand this letter and give his name to them. Now, sir, when we are faced with the most awful calamity that this country can possibly ever think of, the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) gets up and talks about the Boer war forty years ago, and what the Prime Minister did in the Boer war, when we were fighting unhappily, British versus Dutch, but were all Europeans together fighting in what was practically a civil war. Now, sir, when we are threatened with the possibility, I won’t say more than a possibility, of the most terrible invasion this country has ever known, people like my hon. friend the member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) stand up and conduct post-mortems on the last two and a half years. I have tried to get them to look ahead and not to look back. If I could only get them to look ahead and see what might happen, then perhaps they might at least wake up to what it may mean to South Africa if these people come here. If they do come, all of South Africa, whatever the colour and race, must unite in the country’s defence. I say it is a humiliating attitude for them to take up this afternoon: “We won’t fight, we won’t defend our country and our womenfolk, and we will not even allow in so grave an emergency the non-European sections of this country to help to defend it.” I say “Shame” on this attitude; every South African should be ashamed to stand up in this House and proclaim such a policy.

The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) who spoke just now has recently been a party to handing a report to the Government which he signed, and in which he used the following words—

I quite agree with him, but T want to put this to the hon. member who just now attacked the Prime Minister because of his words about arming the native troops. If their future is at stake as much as that of the Europeans, why have they not as much right as Europeans to take up arms to defend the country?

On a point of explanation, that part of the report dealing with the arming of natives did not have the approval of the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé) and myself. We differed from the others and the Commission agreed not to put it in the report; it was included by mistake, but I want to point out to the hon. member that I am not responsible for that paragraph.

The hon. member is making very serious charges against someone. Here is a document containing these words which I have just read and this document bears the signature of the hon. member for Vredefort and also the signature of the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé).

Did you not hear what I said? You know where I stand.

I don’t suppose you are going to resign from the Native Affairs Commission?

What I said was that the hon. member was making serious charges against someone who is responsible for the circulation of a document like this bearing the hon. member’s signature to every member of this House.

You know that that is not so.

I should like to know what steps the hon. member has taken to dissociate himself publicly from the Native Affairs Commission’s report. Has he done anything except …

I suppose he wants to resign.

Never, he gets a double salary.

I wonder if there are any other points in this report which the hon. member dissociates himself from. Of course, there is a lot of nonsense in this report which I hope he does not agree with. Does the hon. member agree with everything else? Perhaps he will tell me.

You are an expert on nonsense.

This document has been circulated. It has been broadcast with his name on it.

I have given an explanation.

At a time like the present the Native Affairs Commission exercises a responsible function. If there is a fundamental disagreement between the members of the Commission on such an important question as the arming of the African people then I am surprised that the hon. member does not only dissociate himself from the Commission but present a minority report and cease to be a member of the Commission …

I am not going to do so to please you—do you want to take my place?

Of course you are not going to resign, it would make a difference.

If there is a difference of opinion between himself and his fellow Commissioners I am surprised he does not want to cease to be a member.

Certainly not. I am not going to resign simply to please you.

Don’t worry about pleasing me, but I am surprised—or perhaps I am not surprised …

You know perfectly well what the position is.

If the hon. member Will stop shouting I will try to continue. No, I am not really surprised. As regards the statement of the Prime Minister I must say that I stand by these words — which apparently, although the hon. member signed the document, he does not agree with. I don’t stand by much in this report, but these particular words I stand by.

Yes, you and your friends would.

I must say that I welcome the Prime Minister’s words that we are going to use the full resources of our manpower against this Japanese aggression that is now threatening us.

The country will take you to task.

You will be very sorry for it.

You are a lot of Kafferboeties.

You are betraying the white race.

The Japanese are a nonEuropean people and Japan is not prejudiced against non-Europeans carrying arms.

But we are.

Before I sit down I must say this: that not only have we had attacks, the usual sort of attacks from hon. members opposite on the native and coloured people— those we hear every day—but we have also had attacks on every friend South Africa has ever had.

Do you mean the Empire?

And by implication a patting on the back of every enemy of South Africa. If half the time spent in villifying the British and the American people had been spent in expressing the strongest disapproval of the murder and rape and robbery by the Japanese in Hong Kong …

Don’t talk nonsense.

… directly against people of their own race, then hon. members would perhaps be better South Africans, yes, and better Europeans than they are.

I do not wish to interfere in the quarrel going on between various members. I only want to say this to the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell), and I hope he will listen. That the sooner they stop quoting assertions about Japanese cruelties—I do not know how much truth there is in those statements, and I do not want to deal with that aspect of the matter—the sooner they stop doing so, the better, because otherwise this side of the House will be obliged to draw attention to what happened under the supervision of the English, and with the approval of the English in the Boer War —when cruelties, even worse than those the hon. member referred to, were practised. I do not want to go into that, I only want to warn the hon. member. If they do not want us to raise those matters they had better keep quiet about alleged Japanese cruelties. Now, I should like to have the attention of the Prime Minister on another matter. He expressed sympathy with Holland with a great display of emotion, a sympathy which we all share. The Prime Minister must not take it amiss if we say that we are not convinced that he is in earnest in the sympathy he expressed here. The position is that the Prime Minister as a rule shows sympathy when it suits him to do so. If it does not suit him he does not express sympathy, but he does the very opposite. I put certain questions about Finland to the Prime Minister, but he did not reply. I am going to repeat them, and I hope he will reply. He expressed so much sympathy for the Dutch Government and the Dutch people that I want to ask the Prime Minister what the difference is between the fate which has overtaken the Dutch nation and the Dutch Government, and that which has overcome the Finnish Government? Is there any difference? I should like an answer to that question from the Prime Minister. These two nations are in an exactly identical position. The Netherlands were attacked first by Germany, and afterwards by Japan. Finland was attacked by Russia without the slightest provocation. The Prime Minister expresses his sympathy for Holland, but where Finland is concerned he declares war on a small and innocent country. Have I not got the right in view of the facts, to state that the Prime Minister only shows sympathy when it suits his book? But as soon as it does not suit his purpose he does not think of expressing sympathy. I am convinced the people of Holland will not allow themselves to be deceived by this kind of sympathy. Our people have also had a little bit of experience of this kind of thing in the past; we have a history behind us, and we know what it means to be attacked by a big nation, and to be ruthlessly deprived of our freedom and of our flag. That is why we can express our sympathy with countries such as Holland and Finland, because we can appreciate the cruelty of the fate which has overtaken them, but I want to ask again, whether there is any difference between the fate which has overtaken Finland and that which struck the Boer republics? I do not want to accuse the present British nation, but the British Government of those days carried out exactly the same tactics against the small South African republics, as Russia has pursued against Finland. Can the Prime Minister deny it? It is a historical fact which cannot be argued away. I quoted yesterday from a document by the representative of the Finnish Government in this country, from which it is clear that all Finland did was to take up arms after being forced to do so in order to defend its rights and its freedom as a small nation. Finland has done nothing more than that. In spite of that, the Prime Minister came here and asked this House of Parliament to declare war against this small and innocent nation. I hope the Prime Minister will reply to my question; I demand a reply. What induced him to declare war on Finland? He told us on a previous occasion that Finland was the enemy of our Ally, and that was why we had declared war on Finland. I ask again —if that is the reason, why we had to declare war on Finland—namely, because Finland is the Ally of our enemies—then why did not Russia declare war on Japan? I quite understand the Prime Minister does not want to answer. I believe that when in the still of night he lies in his bed he must feel ashamed of what he has done in declaring war on the Finnish people, and he does not feel that he has the right to get up here and say why he has done so. I want a reply to that question, and I shall continue to insist on a reply. The Prime Minister cannot get away from it, as he tried to do by his reply to a question from the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). We, as representatives of the people, have as much right to sit in this House as the Prime Minister has, and we are entitled to ask for a reply to a fair question. I hope he will give me an answer.

He did so because he is a British agent?

I know that, but he is not going to say it. I repeat that Finland was in an identical position to that in which the old Boer republics were in in 1899. That fact emanates clearly from the document I quoted from. Just as England in 1899 systematically tried to undermine the rights of the two republics, and to compel them to surrender their freedom, so Russia, in spite of the so-called peace which had been concluded with Finland, systematically went on to undermine the lawful Finnish Government and to force a Communistic Government on Finland. Does the Prime Minister want to deny that Russia made a demand on Germany that Germany was to allow Russia to liquidate Finland? And now I ask the Prime Minister whether Finland in those circumstances did not have the right to take up arms against Russia? Naturally, hon. members opposite, like a herd of sheep, slavishly follows everything the Prime Minister wants, and they simply approve of everything the Prime Minister proposes. With his steam roller majority behind him he got them to approve of his declaration of war. As somebody remarked—if the Prime Minister wants a Bill passed for every man to divorce his wife his slavish majority will pass it. But I want to know how the Prime Minister can defend the declaration of war against Finland? I would like the Prime Minister to deign to reply to my question. Why did he decide to ask Parliament to approve of the declaration of war against Finland?

From time to time accusations are levelled against this side of the House which one can only treat with the greatest contempt. Sir, for example, we heard that the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) said at a certain stage that he had more respect for a coloured person who goes to fight than for the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). Yesterday afternoon we heard the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit) saying that he would rather fight with coloured persons than with the fifth columnists on this side, and that he had a higher opinion of the coloured people than of us. And yesterday afternoon the Prime Minister stood up and, in a pious manner, said that he was glad that feelings had somewhat calmed down, but then he went on to say one of the most reprehensible things which has ever been said in this House, even by any Backbencher, namely, that there are people on this side of the House who are worse than coloured girls. He said that accompanied by loud “Hear, hears” from members behind him. The Prime Minister is permitted to use language like this in this House. He was not called to order. Now I want to say this: If there is any European in South Africa who uses such language, it must be a European who has a deep knowledge of the Europeans. But if he compares a European with a coloured girl, he must also have a deep knowledge of a coloured girl, and be an authority in that sphere. I am ashamed that the Prime Minister of this country, since there is such a strong feeling concerning the colour question, should utter these reprehensible words. That is language which is proper in a location and not in European company. I do want to say that when the Prime Minister said that, he himself probably felt to what extent he was lowering himself. There was a deep silence in the House, and on the gallery the ladies, who perhaps looked up to him with a certain amount of respect, blushed when the Prime Minister, the British agent, uttered those reprehensible words. Those words were not casually uttered by him, but they are the outcome of the policy which he now pursues in the interests of the Empire; they flow from the policy which the British agent has now adopted. He said here this afternoon that he would welcome the troops of other countries here, and he pretends that that would be in the interests of South Africa. In reality they want troops here for the protection of British shippinground South Africa. He said that he would welcome these people here, which means, of course, that Japan will come here, and he apparently hopes that will happen. And then a man like the hon. member for Kensington has the audacity to ask whether we do not want to protect European women. There sits the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, who has now become a British agent and who disarmed his own people, and today he says if Japan comes I shall hand over to the Hottentots and the kaffirs those weapons which I took away from the Europeans. He wants to arm the kaffirs in the country, but the hon. member for Kensington has the audacity to say that we do not want to protect our wives and daughters. He dares to say that while the British agent disarmed the Europeans and arms the natives in the interests of the British Empire. When the Prime Minister was still in the service of the Boer republics, when he was still called a Boer general—thank God he has relinquished that title and has now accepted the title of field-marshal—because the title of general no longer suited him—when he was still fighting for the republics he had the greatest contempt for the English on account of their cruelties and injustices. Now he comes here, and as the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) correctly said, he has become a British agent, and he now follows all the methods of the English by arming black people against Europeans. Now I should like to hear from the Prime Minister, since he grew up amongst the coloured people here, and since he has now disarmed us and wants to arm them, whether he now thinks that the coloured people will faithfully support him when Japan comes here? Or will they be on Japan’s side? I do not believe that he has reflected upon this matter. If the Japanese come here the coloured people will perhaps join the Japanese just as in Malaya. After years of British rule the Malayans did not want to have anything to do with the English Government, and we know what happened there. The same might happen here, and the weapons which he took away from the Europeans and which he now wants to give to the coloured people and the natives, will perhaps be used against the Europeans. That is what he lets the nation in for. Those weapons will be used to exterminate our wives and children. The Prime Minister has the blood of Jopie Fourie on his hands, and I tell him that the blood of European women will yet be on his hands before he reaches the end of his role as British agent. We are concerned about the position. We do not believe that Japan will come here, but heaven knows that if the day arrives that Japan comes here, and the coloureds and the natives are armed and they attack my wife and children—who will then deserve the bullet? Then the blood which the Prime Minister was instrumental in shedding in his capacity as British agent, will be avenged on him.

I do not want to descend to the level to which the debate has sunk, and to carry on on the same basis as the previous speaker, but I think that the country owes the Prime Minister a debt of gratitude for the statement which he has made. We have the position in South Africa at the moment that it is admitted everywhere that our country is being threatened, that the danger is approaching nearer than ever before, and I think that any European person who has the interests of South Africa at heart, and who wants South Africa to be effectively protected, would welcome the statement of the Prime Minister, namely, that if it becomes necessary everyone in this country will be called to arms and everyone will be compelled to contribute to the defence of South Africa, whether Europeans, coloured persons or natives. I am glad to hear, and I think the country will be glad to hear, that the Government does not intend to have its military policy and war preparation converted as well as dictated by the people who deliberately plan to let South Africa suffer defeat. I think that that is one of the most essential statements which has been made on behalf of the Government for a long time, that we do not propose to bother ourselves to any extent about critisism which is calculated to result in our being defeated. If I could have had my own wish, I would not have hesitated, but would have given arms to anyone who is in a position to help in the defence of the country in order to protect us against the yellow peril. What is wrong with that? Where you have an enemy which can come here in their thousands and hundreds of thousands and fall on us, can we expect the Europeans only to stand against that powerful nation, while South Africa is in a position to raise a tremendous army, consisting of coloured people as well as natives? And what is more, we know that the native is prepared to defend South Africa. There are thousands of them who say that they are man enough to take up arms and to defend South Africa if South Africa were attacked.

You do not know what you are talking about.

I think that years ago the Leader of the Opposition spoke the truth when he said that no one in the country had shown greater patriotism that the coloureds. I think that he was correct in saying that, but unfortunately he has deviated from that.

He said nothing of the kind.

It is not necessary for me to have books and stacks of newspapers in front of me when I refer to what happened in the past, because I know precisely what he said, and I am not making any mistake. The Leader of the Opposition once said that there was no section of the people who showed greater patriotism towards this country than the coloured people. What he said at that time is confirmed today by the coloured people and the natives. The natives say that when the enemy comes they will be prepared to defend South Africa. The natives in this country do not pray that Germany and Japan should win, but they say: Give us weapons in order to defend the country together with the Europeans. That is an example to many of our friends on the other side who have now officially stated that they wish that England and South Africa should lose the war.

Who said that?

If ever there was a time when the Opposition lost ground on a large scale, then it has happened during the past few months in South Africa. As the result of the attitude adopted by the Opposition, the un-Afrikaans attitude, the indifferent attitude, as a result of their praying that the enemy should win, thousands of people who had an unshakable confidence in the Opposition in the past, have said that they will no longer allow themselves to be driven into one kraal, but that they are going to think for themselves and act accordingly. The Opposition has burnt its boats. No one in this House, nor outside in the country can attach any value to their public statements. I remember their saying at the beginning of this war that if there is any real danger not one of them would fail to defend the country. Today there is a real danger, but they are not adhering to the attitude which they formerly adopted, they are now making reproaches.

Who had admitted that there is any danger?

Your leader.

Just listen again.

It seems to me that one member on the other side says a certain thing and his comrade next to him does not know what he said, and tells quite a different story. They contradict themselves and do not know what statements were made from time to time. Have we ever had a more treacherous statement in this country than the one which says that it is hoped that we will lose the war? It is said openly in this House, and then they still expect the Prime Minister to take them into his confidence and tell them what the possibilities are, and how matters stand in regard to the war, and what secrets he has. They want him to broadcast it so that Zeesen can get it and so that the Germans can use it against our troops. I think that if we in this country were a united nation and did not have an Opposition which plays into the hands of the enemy, then the Prime Minister could long ago have taken the Opposition into his confidence; but how can he take them into his confidence when they openly state that they wish us to be defeated? There was a time when it seemed as though our friends on the other side hesitated somewhat and did not know whether they should take part. We really got the impression that they were in doubt; but today it is no longer a matter of doubt. They definitely adopt the attitude that they hope that our enemies will win. Their whole attitude and public statements go to show that they wish the enemy to be victorious. What happened in this House this afternoon? Their consciences are now pricking them; they are now remembering that their wives and children will ask, “Father, you are talking the whole day long, but the danger is here now; what are you doing?”

What are you doing?

Then they will be asked what they are doing in view of the Japanese danger.

What will you tell your children you are doing?

I am prepared to go where the Government sends me, where the military authorities send me.

Along with the circus as the chief clown?

The great contribution of hon. members is still that we can pair off with them. I have no confidence in pairing off. Why are they so willing to pair off? Why do they say that we should bring our troops back from the North? We know that that will not be a sensible thing to do. I ask you whether we can leave behind our homes in the present circumstances, while sabotage is being committed in South Africa on an unheard of scale, while telegraph lines are being cut and railway lines are being blown up? Is it safe for all of us to go? There was a time when I asked myself why the military authorities did not send away all those people who could go and fight. We realise now that they saw a little further ahead, that they fully appreciated that we should remain in this country because we would not leave behind a number of loyal people, but we would have left behind people who were praying that the enemy would win. In those circumstances can one leave one’s country in the hands of these people? Could you ask the Opposition to see to it that things were safe? I can also say, as the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister did: If they had confined themselves to ploughing and remaining at home, then we would have been able to go. But did hon. members on the other side do that? No, people are incited and encouraged in every possible way to commit sabotage. They did not go to their farms in order to farm, and say, “We want to have nothing to do with you; we shall carry on with our farming.” They did not do that. If they had done that then the position in the country would have been much better today. [Time limit.]

I was asked by the other side of the House yesterday afternoon: Where would you have been if there had not been a British Fleet? I can assure the hon. member who asked me that question that if there had not been a British Fleet there would not have been a war; because the people of Great Britain have had the control of the seas for many years they thought that they were invincible, and that on the strength of that they could wage war. If they had known that it would fare with the British Fleet as is the case at present, there would simply not have been a war. The hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler) said yesterday afternoon and again this afternoon by way of an interjection that the republics did the same thing in 1899; they engaged in a war of aggression.

No, I did not say that.

The hon. member now denies it, but it is recorded in Hansard, and he cannot deny it.

Mr. Chairman, may I explain what I said? I said that in 1899 the Transvaal and the Free State declared war on England, and that it was not a war of aggression, but a defensive war, and I said that on the 4th December we declared war; we knew that Germany wanted to dominate the world, and for that reason we declared war.

I am glad to hear the hon. member say that now. He now admits that it was not a war of aggression in 1899. I am very sorry that the hon. member for Durban, Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) is not here this afternoon. He said yesterday afternoon that he accused the Opposition not only of being cowards, but he called them skunks. I merely wanted the House to look at that hon. member and to say who has the greatest resemblance to a skunk, that hon. member or members on this side of the House? I was sorry this afternoon when I heard that the Prime Minister, too, said that possibly a time would arrive when he would arm the coloureds in this country. Hon. members on the other side, the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) amongst others exclaimed “Arm them.” It seems to me that the hon. member for Krugersdorp is not always responsible for his actions.

He is never responsible.

I just want to say that there can be no greater danger for South Africa than to arm the natives and the coloured people in time of war, even though it be against an enemy such as Japan, because they would simply take sides with the yellow nation against the European population of South Africa. Recently a friend of mine received a card written by a native, in which he says: “Tell Gen. Smuts that he has lorded it over Us long enough. When the Japanese come he must clear out, because the massacre will be too great then.”

Are you glad about it?

I would not mind at all if they finish off the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet), but I do not want them to kill me and my people. I was glad to hear the Prime Minister saying today that he had put a stop to recruiting from the ranks of coloured labourers in a certain part of the Cape. Two years ago we on this side felt that the position was becoming very serious for the farmers. Thereafter the Prime Minister put a stop to recruiting of farm labourers to a certain extent; but there is something else to which I want to draw attention, and it is this: Today a coloured person may not be recruited unless he can prove that he is not or was not a farm labourer. It is left to the magistrate to decide upon that. But it is very difficult to place the onus on the magistrate. Very often the coloured people come from another district and simply say that they are not farm labourers, and then they are recruited. I can give the House the assurance that the position is particularly serious in so far as the farming community in the south-western districts is concerned. When you travel through that part today and you see the beautiful farms where the vineyards of farmers at this time of the year used to be lovely, you notice today that as a result of a shortage of labour the grass has grown higher than the vines, and the farmers’ crops are in danger of rotting. I take it that the Prime Minister thought that it was sufficient for him to say that in certain areas there would be no recruiting, but today the position is that the farmers simply cannot get labourers. The farmers experience the greatest difficulty and one finds the same difficulties in the wheat districts. The wheat districts simply cannot get sufficient labour to carry on with their work. Last year they came from Caledon and Bredasdorp and hired coloured people in Robertson at 4s. 6d. per day, and then they still provided these coloured people with three meals a day. The wine farmers cannot afford that. We would be ruined if we had to pay those wages. We want to tell the Prime Minister that if he wants to carry on with the war, if his army has to march on its stomach, and the position of the farmers becomes worse every day, we will not be able to deliver sufficient food for the country at the end of the year, let alone the army. And for that reason it is urgently necessary for the labour question to be taken into consideration by the Government so that we can provide for the food requirements of the country. The food position for the coming winter looks bleak. I am afraid that with all sorts of plagues, in addition to the shortage of labour and such things, we run the risk of starvation particularly amongst the native community, and amongst a section of our European population too. I hope the Prime Minister will investigate this matter very thoroughly, and if possible not take away a single labourer from the farms in future. I hope that he will do that in order to enable farming to be carried on, because in the present circumstances we are justified in feeling very concerned about the position.

When we take note of the present developments and we listen to the speech and the reply of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, we can only come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister is serving his notice month. Everything points to that, and South Africa is extremely grateful that the time is drawing near when he can be outspanned—and not only he; there is yet another person who is serving his notice month, and that is the Prime Minister of England. There is every indication that there is a better man in England who will take the place of a Mr. Churchill. The statement of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister is to the effect that England did not leave anyone in the lurch, and nevertheless the world knows the facts, and history will show that England encouraged Poland to resist, and left Poland in the lurch when she was in danger.

There will always be an England.

There is a great deal of talk about Holland.

But just look at England now.

That small, brave Holland offered resistance against Germany, expecting England to send forces to defend her. Where were the English forces when Holland had to struggle alone, suffer, and smother in her blood? There was not a single English soldier.

Who allowed Holland to smother?

You allowed her to smother.

What about Belgium, which offered resistance on the promise of assistance from England? When did the British troops arrive? Not until France had nearly bled to death; then for the first time we heard that the British forces had formed a line, and that they would stop the Germans. They stopped the Germans in such a way that the Belgians and the French had to hold that line, so that they could get an opportunity to “dundirk”. They had to shed their blood in order to save the British, and where have they been since that time? They take shelter and hide along the coast of England. There are approximately 5,000,000 armed British, and the rest of the Colonies have to fight for Great Britain. In that way the British contributed their share. What about Greece? What about Southern Slovia? And now again Java? Where were the British soldiers? No, there was one who was not left in the lurch, and that was Russia, the great and powerful Russia. There the English assisted. What is more, England left all her Allies in the lurch, but Jan Smuts did not leave England in the lurch. He sacrificed his all to assist and to protect England. He states—and he knows that this statement does not hold water—that the British troops had to take the hardest blows. Is that true? Can the Prime Minister, in the responsible position which he occupies, make that irresponsible statement that the British bore the brunt? I say that that is untrue. Who bore the brunt? The Indian troops, the Belgians, the French, the Hollanders, the Australians, the New Zealanders, and the sons of South Africa.

First the Poles.

They bore the brunt, but not the British troops, and history will record that the Colonial troops bore the brunt. The Prime Minister goes further and says—and this is quite amusing —that England and America were not ready. Just imagine, England and America were not ready for the war! I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the fact that England possesses the biggest fleet in the world? Did we not frequently see pictures of the powerful British Fleet, bigger than the fleet of any other Power? Does the Prime Minister want to tell me that the British Fleet was not ready for the war? Was the British Fleet unprepared? Why did it exist, if it were not ready? According to the statement of the Prime Minister, Great Britain was not ready for the war. America—what about the powerful Fleet of America? Were they not ready? If the Prime Minister had told me that at Pearl Harbour they were not awake, then I would have believed him. America was not awake; she was fast asleep. And the consequences? The heads of the American Fleet are today appearing before a military tribunal, and why? Not because they were not ready. The American Fleet lay in readiness. They are not appearing before the military tribunal because they were not prepared, but they are appearing because they were asleep.

They held dancing parties.

And that is what I can also say of Great Britain—not that she was not ready for the war, but that she, together with America, was asleep. I now want to say a few words with regard to arming the coloured people and the natives. Only the other day I was at the spot in Namaqualand where Willie Bekker was murdered by coloured people. [Time limit.]

As always happens, the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) is again off the rails when he expresses—I might almost say—the blissful hope that the period of office of our Prime Minister has nearly expired. Let me tell him and hon. members on the other side that our respected leader will remain Prime Minister as long as the Lord gives him the strength. Not before that time will we allow him to relinquish the reins. The hon. member again attacked the Government’s war policy. But I am glad to be able to say that his son is not of the same opinion, and that he is defending his country. I now want to put the pertinent question to him, whether he gave his son leave to go and fight.

On a point of explanation, Mr. Chairman, this pertinent question has been put to me by hon. members on the other side of the House on a few occasions. I just want to say here that my son was trained in the art of aviation before the war. It cost me a good deal of money, and after the war broke out he ignored his father’s will and his father’s wishes of his own accord, and he became red, not through my influence. He is still in that service today. He is the only son I have. I did not greet him for a whole year.

Shame!

He left of his own choice. He decided on his own responsibility, and he became red on his own responsibility. And may the day arrive …

The hon. member is now going too far.

May I just say that the hon. member’s son has been endowed with more wisdom than his father. It is a pity that such an able son should have such an origin. It is remarkable how the attitude of hon. members on the other side have changed since the 4th September. At that time their attitude was this: “We will defend the borders of South Africa,” but gradually, after they had seen the danger, they became more and more frightened, until they had retreated to the point where they are now asking that we should bring back the troops from the North to come and protect them.

You know that you are now talking nonsense.

You cannot deny it. The position is such today that one must assume that the Japanese are their friends. We must accept that. According to them our wives and children are good enough to fall prey to the Japanese. They can deny it, but they cannot get away from the fact that we have the fullest right to give that interpretation to that attitude. They must not hold it against us if we do not want to allow our wives and children to become the prey of these people. Hon. members on the other side also object to the possibility of the natives and coloured people being placed under arms. But I want to draw their attention to the fact that those natives and coloured people also have wives and children who are just as dear to them as our wives and children are to us. And why should we deny those natives and coloured people the right to do their duty towards their country? I am sorry that the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Wolfaard) is not here at the moment. He put up a wail here about labour. Slavery was abolished in 1834. We are prepared to do with less coloured labour on our farms; that is a part of the sacrifice which we make on behalf of South Africa in order to fight for our existence, since those people are also prepared to do their duty. We cannot revert to the position of wanting to prevent those people from doing their duty. For that reason I think that it is no more than fair that we should give them the fullest opportunity. The Opposition cannot hold it against us in view of the fact that they do not want to assist in defending the country, if we now say that we will avail ourselves of all possible opportunities if it is really necessary for the safety of South Africa. We solidly support the Prime Minister. But, as usual, hon. members on the other side are again trying to distort the Prime Minister’s words. He said that we would only make use of those forces in the last resort, while they are now trying to make out that he said that they must be used now.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. Van den Berg) got up in this House some time ago and in his usual bombastic way cast all kinds of reflections on this side of the House. I am sorry he has gone out now. He said among other things that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had strayed and had run away from certain points of view which he had held about important questions in the past. Just in order to refresh the hon. member’s memory I am going to show the House that the hon. member is guilty of the very worst kind of hypocrisy. I want to refer him to a certain speech which he made in this House on the war question about a year before war broke out. This was on an occasion when the Leader of the Opposition had asked the then Prime Minister to state frankly what the attitude of the Fusionist Government was? What the attitude would be if Great Britain should become involved in a war? The hon. member for Krugersdorp got up—in those days he was still a member of the Labour Party: he was a champion of the poor man whose interests he had to guard in this House; he is still here as a so-called Labour member and he still has to guard their interests; What did he say on that occasion? These are his words—

And then he goes on to say this—

Those are strong words which the hon. member used in this House in 1938. He said that he would certainly not go and tell the workers of this country to go forth and help if England was at war for the sake of the money gods, as he called them. He said it was not in the interest of our country. We on this side of the House accuse the Prime Minister of not considering the interests of South Africa when he declared war on the 4th September, 1939. When England saw fit to start a war because Germany had attacked Poland, the world knew that it was not in our interest to take part in that war. The Prime Minister in his heart of hearts knew that it was not in the interest of our country, and the hon. member opposite who used to be the champion of the working classes, should also have known it according to this statement of his which I have just quoted in spite of that, they are in this war and then he has the temerity to hold it up against the Leader of the Opposition and say that he had departed from his former attitude. He no longer represents the working classes, but with the aid of a double salary he receives he travels through this country with military circuses and he is acting the part of a clown—of Clown No. 1.

The hon. member must not say that.

I am not saying that he has been engaged in that capacity, but if one looks at his gestures and his attitude, one cannot come to any other conclusion. He is recruiting the working-classes as soldiers to go and fight for the world’s money gods, as he called them. That was his attitude, and that is what he is doing now, so we cannot take notice of him any more. The working-classes will settle with him one day. Now, I want to deal with certain statements made by hon. members opposite against members on this side of the House. First of all, I am thinking of the remarks of the hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire). What does an Englishman of his type imagine? Where does he get the right to tell representatives of the Boer population who are in this House to represent them to the best of their ability—what right has he got to tell representatives of the Boer nation—what right has he got to make this dirty insinuation against them, and say that they are a lot of “skunks”? Where does he get the right to call us skunks? And that, while that class of Englishman to which he belongs, has treated us in this country like skunks, has treated us with contumely and contempt, and has not given us the food that even a skunk is entitled to, and now that hon. member comes here and says that we are skunks because we are not as loyal as he is, and because we are not prepared to go and help that self-same English nation which has treated us in the way I have described. It cannot be expected of us. There are Boers on the other side of the House, too. We know that in the Second War of Independence, in the English War, there were “joiners” and traitors among the Boers who took up arms against their own people.

And who are the people doing it now?

They were employed by the English to betray their own people, and they are being used for that same purpose again. The hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler), who interrupts me, sits over there. I said that they are being used …

That hon. member on the other side who interrupted is a bastard …

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, has the hon. member the right to call another member a bastard?

Did the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) use that expression against another hon. member?

Yes, I said he was a bastard, but I did not say he was a coloured bastard.

The hon. member must withdraw.

Am I not allowed to say that a person is a bastard? I want to ask Mr. Speaker’s ruling.

No, I cannot allow it; the hon. member must withdraw.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I put a question? In this House we know that the Chair is impartial, and I want to point out to you that you allowed the hon. member opposite to call us on this side of the House “skunks”.

If the hon. member heard it he should have raised a point of order.

But surely it is the duty of the Chairman to notice that.

The hon. member for Swellendam must withdraw that expression, and he must apologise to the House.

I am not prepared to withdraw it in view of the fact that those other insinuations have been made against us.

If the hon. member does not withdraw it I shall be compelled to name him.

May I not ask for Mr. Speaker’s ruling?

I cannot allow it on that point.

But is not the hon. member for Swellendam allowed to explain what he intended?

No, the hon. member has admitted that he used that word. Will the hon. member withdraw that word and apologise?

I shall withdraw it for the sake of the requests made to me by this side of the House. I also apologise, but I still think so.

The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

I shall withdraw it unconditionally, but I have the right to think what I want to.

That is not unconditional.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, surely you cannot say that a member is not allowed to think what he wants to? I know you are in the Chair, and that you want to be impartial to hon. members. May I draw your attention to the fact now that last night an hon. member said that he withdrew unconditionally, but that he thought what he wanted to, and you allowed it?

No, the hon. member withdrew it, and the hon. member for Swellendam must also withdraw unconditionally.

I said that I withdrew unconditionally because of the requests from this side of the House, but I added that I thought what I wanted to.

I shall give the hon. member one more chance to withdraw unconditionally.

The hon. member said that he withdrew unconditionally because of the requests from this side of the House.

Order!

Am I not allowed to stand up in protection of the hon. member? Will you allow me to move, then, that Mr. Speaker’s ruling be asked for?

I cannot allow it.

May I point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that I am sitting near the hon. member for Swellendam, and I heard him say that he withdrew it unconditionally?

Will the hon. member withdraw unconditionally?

I did withdraw unconditionally, and I do so again.

I was replying to the hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire). What has now happened here is the outcome of his dirty allegations in this House. If such insinuations and allegations are made, and if an hon. member like the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe) by way of interjection says, what the Minister has also said, in a serious statement, that it may be considered necessary to arm natives and coloured people, and if the hon. member for Potchefstroom says that the Boers also armed natives—we have to expect scenes of the kind we have just had. The hon. member for Potchefstroom knows that it is not so, and the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister also knows it is not so, but what the Boers did was this: They did shoot the natives who were armed by the English wherever they got them. And what they further did was to shoot those Boer traitors who had taken up arms against their own nation —they shot them together with the natives. And now we are called skunks, and we are told that the natives are going to be armed —a thing which the Boer nation has contempt for, and which it resents. In spite of that, the Prime Minister comes here and tells us that he is prepared to arm the natives and the coloured people, notwithstanding the fact that in days gone by he and all of us, all the Boers, opposed that course of action, as we have so often shown in this House. I only want to say this to the Prime Minister. If he takes a step like that, if he considers the country to be in danger, he must not be surprised if those self-same forces of brown and black people whom he arms join the Japanese and take up arms against him and the white people. [Time limit.]

I am not going to argue the merits of arming the native population at the present time. The Prime Minister knows our views on that subject— they have been quite clear ever since the war began. I want to use this opportunity to raise another matter, a matter of general policy. I was a little surprised, as apparently the Prime Minister was also, to hear the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit) propose that a permanent Commission should be appointed for the coloured people on the lines of the Native Affairs Commission, and I was more than pleased to hear the way the Prime Minister dealt with that proposition, which encourages me to put forward my own proposition to him. I proposed last year that the time had come to abolish the Native Affairs Commission. I put that to the Minister of Native Affairs then, and I want to put that proposition to the Prime Minister himself today. I have felt for a long time that the Native Affairs Commission is now a redundant body and I felt that in a time of war, like the present, its abolition would be a justifiable economy measure. I have been encouraged in that opinion by this recent report already referred to, and it is on the strength of this report that I propose to ask the Prime Minister to consider this proposition. Let me remind the House that the Native Affairs Commission was appointed in very different days, when it was assumed that an independent body expressing the will of the African people as understood by officials or private persons who have lived in close touch with them would be of value to the Government. Since that time the Government has created various other channels for the expression of African opinion. The natives now have their direct representation in this House and in the Other Place, and we also have the Natives’ Representative Council. That representative has, I think, destroyed a good deal of the earlier justification of the Native Affairs Commission, but there are other factors which have also tended to make the Native Affairs Commission what I have called a redundant body. One is that the Government itself has decided, as another war economy, to suspend the operation of land buying which in recent years has provided the Native Affairs Commission with its primary function. Today the Government is no longer buying land, so the fulfilment of that function is no longer necessary. There are other things which I know are being handled by the members of the Native Affairs Commission. Now so far as these cannot be done by the regular staff of the department, they can still be done by individual members of the present Commission. There are one or two members of the Commission who are in a position to render valuable service in particular fields, people who have specialist knowledge of particular areas derived from long years of contact with the people in these areas and who have shown the capacity to appreciate the changes that are taking place in those areas and elsewhere in our national life. Those people could still be used by the department, but in their individual capacity and as officers for whose work the department would be responsible to this House. We have had this report of the Native Affairs Commission referred to this afternoon. It is a report signed by the members of the Native Affairs Commission but repudiated in this House by one of its members. The point which makes me feel more than anything that the Native Affairs Commission should be abolished is that the views which are expressed in public in a report like this not only run counter to the views of the elected representatives, which is not perhaps an argument that will appeal to this House, but they run counter to the expressions of policy by the Government itself, as represented by the Prime Minister. In a recent speech the Prime Minister declared his appreciation of the changed economic character of South Africa, and said in so many words that the segregation policy had failed, and that we should have to reconsider all the terms of our relationship with our native population. That, if I may be allowed to say so, without seeming to patronise or wanting to be superior, seems to me to be a correct reflection on the actual situation, an exact appreciation of the general current of our economic life. It is now quite clear that the native population is in effect part of the general economic life of the country. But the Native Affairs Commission still writes reports reminiscent of the view of the country twenty-five years ago and still expresses views which are intensely exasperating, not only to ourselves but to the African people who read these reports as carefully as we do. I do not think that it is sound that the Government should apparently be speaking with two voices at the present time. I do not think it is sound that anyone paid by the Government, or that officials of the Government should regard our native reserves as reservoirs of cheap labour, which apparently is the view held by certain members of the Native Affairs Commission. I think the Prime Minister has repudiated that principle himself and the whole position of our economic life necessitates our repudiation of that attitude. To express my feelings in this matter I think I cannot do better than quote the leader with which the “Cape Times” greeted the advent of this report. This appears in the “Cape Times” of Tuesday, the 17th February—

And in conclusion the writer writes a paragraph which I think we should consider carefully. I quote only the first part of it—

My experience of the Native Affairs Commission shows me that those remarks are fully justified. In my opinion it is quite impossible, quite useless, to appeal to the Commission to clear its head on the evidence of this and of all its recent reports, it cannot do so. And in the circumstances I think the only thing to do is to clear the Commission and start anew in this matter. In any case we know the Commission has changed its whole character in the last ten years. It has ceased to be an independent body advising the Government, and it has become a happy home for politicians who have deserved well of the Government. In the circumstances it is almost impossible for it to be an authority on the matters entrusted to it and to speak with a common voice. I do not see how it is possible to have a Native Affairs Commission which represents all the different sections, all the different parties, in this House. There are fundamental differences of opinion on native policy between the different parties in this House. In the circumstances it is almost inevitable that the sort of thing which happened here today should happen, that is, that differences of opinion between members of the Commission itself should come to light—except that I think the members might be a little more careful in their own actions. It is almost fundamental that there should be differences of opinion in a report of this kind, but I find it difficult to understand why those differences are not expressed in the report and how it is that that report is signed by all the members of the Commission. On all these grounds I want to appeal to the Government to reconsider the whole position of the Native Affairs Commission in the light of the Prime Minister’s own statement in regard to the coloured population. I hope the Prime Minister will consider my proposition and abolish the Native Affairs Commission now. I know the position of the native population is not yet on all fours with that of the coloured people, but it is steadily approaching a similar position. In all the circumstances, I hope the Prime Minister will consider my proposition and abolish the Native Affairs Commission now.

I had not intended taking part in this debate because I thought that the bitterness of the past had disappeared to a certain extent. The hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) made a remark to the effect that we on this side of the House are skunks. I only want to say that we do not associate with the skunk type of Englishman on those Benches over there. When the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, District (Mr. Hayward), comes and tells us that the Hottentots and kaffirs also have mothers and daughters, let me tell him that there are men in this House who shudder to think of what is going to happen if those coloured people and natives are armed. We know what happened in the Boer war when the Prime Minister was in command in the Cape, and when coloured people and natives were armed against him. My own brother was murdered by them. He was brained and he was maimed. If the Prime Minister talks of arming Hottentots and kaffirs he should remember what we have had to go through in the past. I don’t want to go any deeper into this point. There is another matter I wish to bring to the Prime Minister’s notice. Speaking at the Rosebank Show he said that he would see to it that the farmers were paid reasonable prices for their products. I am concerned over the under-production in this country, and I want to show the Prime Minister what is the cause of this underproduction. Take the position in regard to potatoes. The Minister of Agriculture has shown himself to be out of sympathy with the farmer; he has only fixed a maximum price which is not to the interests of the consumer, nor is it to the interest of the farmer. That has been proved by the fact that potatoes were sold on the markets in the towns for 8s. and 9s. per bag, while the consumer had to pay 25s. per bag. The consumer has been exploited by the middleman. The production of potatoes should be encouraged, because potatoes are a food which everybody eats. If the Minister had taken the step of also fixing a minimum price, even if it were only 15s. per bag, for first-grade potatoes, he would also have protected the farmer. The farmer would have known then that if he produced potatoes he would at least get a price which would perhaps pay him, and he would have produced. We want to ask the Prime Minister to give this matter his most careful attention. If he wants the farmers to produce he should not only fix a maximum price, but he should also lay down minimum prices and he should not allow this exploitation to continue. The Minister has under the Emergency Regulations, the power to put into operation the meat scheme which was drafted and which was wrecked by the Meat Control Board. That scheme would mean that the Government would have to provide cold storage accommodation or hire cold storage accommodation so as to make the necessary provisions for storage. We all know that we cannot control a perishable product like meat if we have no cold storages for storage purposes. If we have no cold storages we simply play into the hands of the man who is trying to exploit the position. It should be the Government’s duty, at a time like the present, as far as possible to cut out the middleman between the consumers and the producers, so that both may derive a benefit. Now let me say a word about wheat. The Prime Minister in order to secure an increased wheat production should see to it that the farmers get 30s. and 32s. per bag of A.1 wheat. That wheat if imported now costs 29s. per bag on an average. Why should the consumer pay an average price of 22s. per bag? Hon. members will notice that it is impossible for us to produce at that price. If A.1 wheat is 30s. per bag the lower grades will also benefit. If that is not done the farmers are going to be faced with very difficult times. Take mealies too. I understand that the Minister, under the emergency regulations, is going to provide for mealies to be sold through one channel. The plan is a very good one, but he should not forget that other farm products are also dependent on mealies. Take dairy products for instance. We have to use mealies for the feeding of our cows; we require mealies for our pigs, because otherwise we cannot send good pork to the markets. We should feed our cattle more than we are doing and if the farmer cannot get mealies for his cattle, a large proportion of our farm production will be detrimentally affected. Consequently the Prime Minister should come to the aid of the farmers under the Emergency Regulations and if necessary depart somewhat from the provisions of the Marketing Act so that he can give us the right type of schemes which will remain in force after the war is over. It is no use waiting until after the war, we should make a start today. We should put those schemes into operation now. After the war, prices will be so low that the farmers will be in a precarious position, and that is why we should now start putting things in order. When Europe is exhausted, our meat and other products will be ready to feed the hungry people of Europe. It would be a very good thing if the Prime Minister put his foot down, so far as his side of the House is concerned as well, to put an end to the slanging and the defiance which hon. members opposite are indulging in towards us. We are tired of all this sort of thing and it is not going to lead anywhere. If we on this side of the House are called skunks the Prime Minister should realise that the time has come for him to put down his foot down so far as members opposite are concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is only right in view of what has been said that I should get up and make some explanation in regard to what happened last night. You will remember, sir, that insults were hurled across the floor of the House at the section which I represent, the English speaking section, and the abuse that was directed at us compelled someone to rise and make some attempt to get them to be more moderate in their language, and to admit that we English speaking South Africans have feelings as much as they have, and strongly resent the daily insults that are thrown across the floor. In what I said, Mr. Chairman, I made the following remarks. I am quoting from Hansard, which has not been altered at all, and I think it will help to clear the air as far as members of the Opposition are concerned. What I said was this—

Order. If I had heard that expression used I should have asked the hon. member to withdraw and apologise. I think he should not repeat it now, and the hon. member should withdraw and apologise.

Mr. Chairman, I shall obey your ruling after I have explained—

Order, order!

Seeing the hon. member has now repeated the expression by means of reading his speech, he should now withdraw and apologise.

I have called upon the hon. member to withdraw and apologise. If my attention had been drawn to the expression last night I would have made him withdraw and apologise then.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot be asked to withdraw—

Order, order!

My point is—

Order. The hon. member has been repeating what he said last night. The hon. member must withdraw and apologise to the committee. I want to remind hon. members that if they do not comply with my rulings I shall have to name them.

Mr. Chairman—

Does the hon. member withdraw and apologise?

Not until I am permitted to make an explanation.

There is no explanation. If you say “skunks” that means only one thing.

I wish to make an explanation; evidently what I said was misunderstood. I said if they continue in their conduct—

Order. The hon. member must withdraw the objectionable word and apologise.

I withdraw, Mr. Chairman.

And apologise.

And apologise. If I do anything that is wrong I am quite prepared to accept responsibility for it, and I am quite prepared to apologise. The point is this, what I said to hon. members—

Order. The hon. gentleman is now going to repeat what he said previously, and I made him withdraw.

It puzzles, me, Mr. Chairman, how you can know what I am going to say. I really have not thought what I was going to say myself. However, I have made my apology and I hope hon. members will take it in the spirit that it is offered, and that in future they will realise that we on these Benches have got a little feeling, and we have probably more affection for South Africa than hon. members over there. If they would only be a little more careful in their expressions and help to bring about a better feeling in South Africa, they would be doing a real service to the country. We resent it very much indeed when we are told by hon. members that England leaves every friend in the lurch, England has been for a hundred years brutalising the world, conquering the world and doing all these outrages, and the Boer War, which happened 40 years ago, is trotted out. And all this is being instilled into the children of the coming generation. Their grandchildren will be talking about the Boer War. If this sort of thing continues, we must make some sort of stand, no matter how unpleasant it may be, because we are getting a little bit tired of this sort of thing. Now I would like to touch on a matter in connection with the Prime Minister’s vote. I want to refer to the appointment of the Food Controller, and I do not think the Minister was right in appointing the Minister of Agriculture as Food Controller. The whole work of the Control Board is to get as much as they can for the producer, and my hon. friend who has just sat down said the farmers were not getting decent prices. Mr. Chairman, the farmers have never had better prices for meat than they are getting at the present time. The hon. member said the Government should take control of the cold storages, but the whole trouble is that there is no cold storage available, there is nothing like sufficient to enable us to store the food of the country. We cannot get an inch of cold storage in Durban, and Johannesburg and other places are just as badly off. If the Government took over the cold storages, the effect might be quite different to what some people have in mind. Cold storages are simply not there, and if the Minister had appointed a committee of businessmen from the Chamber of Commerce or Industry, or some body of that nature, to bring about control of food, that would have been on the right lines. [Time limit.]

I want to try to get back to the seriousness of the position, and I want to make an attempt to deal with the reply given by the Prime Minister to this debate. It is clear from the reply that the Prime Minister’s attitude is this, that if South Africa is in, danger eventually, he will not hesitate even to arm our coloured people and our natives. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister knows my attitude about the war. He will also remember the days when he sent his minute to the old Free State and Transvaal Governments—when he sent them that minute as a Boer general, and he told us that if we continued the war he saw nothing but misery ahead. I now want to ask him whether his minute of those days should now be stigmatised as treason? Certainly not. It was not a Case of treason, because he, just as I, realised that in the long run we would have had to give in and not resist any longer. He felt, and we felt, that we should try, before everything was lost, and before the conqueror had destroyed everything, to get decent terms. That is what the Prime Minister tried to achieve on that occasion, and now that self-same man comes here and holds out the prospect of arming coloured people and natives. Today he is welcoming assistance from anywhere. In the last war we also welcomed whatever assistance we could get, and we got Japan’s help—Japan which today is our greatest danger. In the last war we had help from Japan and ever since then Japan has been developing so that today she has become our greatest danger. I also want to remind the Prime Minister of the fact that he himself after the last war piloted the Peace Treaty of Versailles through this House. He then called it unfair and unjust and unchristian, and he told us that the terms of that Treaty would give rise to a new war. He and the late Gen. Botha were the only ones who, under protest, signed the Treaty at the time on behalf of the Union of South Africa, because they felt that the Treaty might lead to another war. Am I correct? I know I am, and don’t come and tell us now that the Powers which forced that peace, that unjust peace, on Germany were not prepared for a future war. They were prepared and they should have borne in mind that the country which had been unjustly treated was likely to avail itself of any means to remove that injustice. In 1938 the Prime Minister’s policy was a policy of neutrality, but in 1939 he refused to remain neutral. What happened in the interim? In 1939 he was convinced that Britain was ready for war, which was not so in 1938. That is the real explanation, and today the Prime Minister is prepared, if the yellow danger comes any closer, even to arm the natives. Somebody wrote me a letter the other day in which he pointed out that England and our country’s Prime Minister in the previous war used the services of the yellow nations to promote their interests, and the result of that is that the yellow nation today is in such a strong position and is menacing us as white nations. When Japan was still a member of the League of Nations it took up an aggressive attitude. Japan has been at war with China for four and a half years, and during all those years Japan has been busy preparing the other yellow nations and to make them military minded so as to wine white Christianity off the face of the earth. [Time limit.]

I should like to know whether I correctly understood the Prime Minister to say that the English troops have done most of the fighting in the battles which have been fought in this war? Where have they done so? In Abyssinia, in Libya, in Greece, or where? I shall be pleased if he will give us some details about that. Now the Prime Minister has also given us an explantion of why we have to vote this money to the League of Nations. He says that the machinery has been created and it has to be maintained. That machinery was created to turn the League of Nations into a World Court to preserve the peace of the world, and to prevent war if difficulties cropped up. Now I want to ask this: When England declared war on Germany did she first of all call the League of Nations together? Did she consult the League of Nations before war was declared? Does the Prime Minister want us to believe that England consulted the League of Nations before declaring war against Germany and other countries? So far as I am aware there was no consultation. Quite possibly it did not suit England’s purpose, and it did not suit our Prime Minister’s purpose to do so. Now let me put this question to the Prime Minister: If the League of Nations is patched up again after the war, does he not think that the people of the world have had quite enough of a shock, has not their confidence been shaken quite sufficiently, and will they have any confidence in that kind of machinery? I therefore feel that I cannot vote for the £22,500 for the League of Nations. It is useless. To me it seems a hypocritical business and the League of Nations has no significance. I remember the time when Italy attacked Abyssinia; the League of Nations sat there and decided what kind of sanctions were to be applied, but when Germany attacked Poland, the League of Nations was not called together, it had been forgotten by that time. It is a farce. I thought the League of Nations would be like a High Court for the whole world, but I shall never be able to believe in such a League of Nations again. On the 4th September we heard from the Prime Minister why we had to take part in the war; he said it was a matter of honour and duty. He told us we were fighting for democracy and Christianity. The Minister of Justice was at Upington recently, and, as reported by Sapa, he gave the reasons there why we were at war. On the 10th September he addressed a meeting at Upington on the 10th September last year—and according to “Die Vaderland” of the 11th September—it was a Sapa report. He said this—

Now I want to know from the Prime Minister and from the Minister of Justice since when it has been the tradition of our Boer nation to render assistance to England? When did it become a tradition? The Minister of Justice is the son of the late President of our Free State republic, and I want to ask him whether it was his father’s tradition? No, but we have to accept that principle, and I want to ask where all this is leading South Africa in the future? Traditions are great things to any individual and to any nation. We know that the English speaking Afrikaners have traditions; those who are born in this country, too. In the last War of Independence, many of them took up arms, and there even were Dutch speaking Afrikaners who took up arms, but the Afrikaners of the Free State and of the Transvaal, and the great bulk of the Dutch speaking Afrikaners of the Cape, never had the tradition of fighting for England. Is not the Minister ashamed? Since when has he had that tradition? He was not born that way, but that is how he has degenerated. Hon. members know one may err, but one may come right again, but once a man has strayed as far as the Minister of Justice has done it means that he is hopelessly lost in the wilderness, in the dark of South Africa. I want to utter a word of warning to the Prime Minister. He made a promise that he was going to fight this war with volunteers. But at various meetings I told his own supporters in his own constituency that the time would come when Gen. Smuts would start commandeering people. They said it would not happen; they said that Jannie Smuts would not break his word, so I asked what they would do if he did break his word, and they replied that in that event they would turn against Smuts. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, if he does commandeer, should not depend even on his own supporters. There is one other small point I want to touch upon. Hon. members opposite are very fond of wearing the V sign; we do not quarrel with them about that, but when I sit in the train to have my dinner, I resent getting a menu such as I have here, with a V at every course. One often takes an appetiser before going into dinner, but those V’s on the menu sicken one. I want to ask the Prime Minister to give instructions to the Minister of Railways to put an end to this sort of thing. If I spend money on my meals, I do not want to have to look at this V sign, because so far as I am concerned the V sign in South Africa stands for persecution, oppression, for the internment of Afrikaners without trial, and for all the acts of injustice that are committeed. [Time limit.]

This afternoon we conducted a debate in this House on a level which no one can describe as being very high. The Prime Minister made a remark which surely does not often come from his lips, and which certainly does not do this House credit, namely, the remark that some people are worse than coloured girls. One would like to know what the cause is of this low level of the debate, and then it involuntarily takes us back to a debate about two years ago, a certain evening in April, when the debate was almost as low as the debate which we had here this afternoon. I cannot mention anything better than what was said by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister on that occasion as to what was the cause of the division abongst the people in this country. It was on the occasion when the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha) touched upon the question of arming the coloured people and natives, and he advanced the argument that if the Italians in Abysinnia used coloured people to wage war alongside the Italians, why should we allow our European boys to be killed by those natives in Abyssinia. And it was as a result of those arguments used which the hon. member for Frankfort used that feelings ran high here, and in that stormy atmosphere the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister then spoke as follows. I just want to quote a small extract of the Prime Minister’s speech on that occasion—

That was what the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister said in April, 1940.

That was before Japan had entered the war.

But that was not all. The Prime Minister spoke even more clearly than that in the same debate. He said—

That was what the Prime Minister said with regard to the non-use of arms by natives in the Boer War, but he said that they were never used for the purpose of fighting—

But listen now—

That was before Japan entered the war.

Hon. members on the other side now insist that that was before Japan had come into the picture. For that reason this side of the House said that we should remain neutral, because one did not know what turn the war would take, and then one might find oneself in the position in which we are today. But that is not all. That was the reply of the Prime Minister after the argument had been used by the hon. member for Frankfort in favour of arming the natives—on the strength of the fact that the Italians would also use natives. And to a great extent that is a parallel example. But on the 4th September, we entered this war; we were forced into it, and then the Prime Minister used arguments in order to make the participation in this war as acceptable as possible. I remember very well how on that evening when feelings | ran so high, we were calmed by that assurance of the Prime Minister. We were satisfied by his words that evening, and of course, we are bitterly disappointed to have got this statement this afternoon, in the form we did from the lips of the Prime Minister. But not only were we reassured by this statement; we were also reassured because we were to have used volunteers exclusively in this country, and I remember how there were people who said after the 4th September: “But if the war has to be prosecuted by volunteers only, then there cannot be very much wrong about it.” But now I put the question: Has it always been volunteers? I now want to mention a case in my own constituency. A young boy of 17 signed the …

The red oath.

No, not the red oath. He enrolled for technical training without the permission of his parents, without the knowledge of his parents. He had only just left school and was looking for employment, and he thought that was quite an innocent thing. Let me quote this sworn declaration which was made by his parents, and then you will know precisely what happened. The mother testifies as follows — [translation].

After the reply of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, to which we listened this afternoon, and in which, inter alia, he made use of altogether erroneous facts, I think that the people in the country are now more entitled than they were in the past to demand that this Government, who is not in power by the will of the people, will make room for a Government which has been chosen by the will of the people.

Where are they?

The Prime Minister told us here that Japan attacked the neutral territory of Holland in the East Indies. Now, I want to ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister whether he really thinks that he is dealing with a lot of children? Does he not know that the whole world is aware of the fact that Holland declared war on Japan, and now that that so-called Netherlands Government, which sits in London, has got what it did not bargain for, now it has to be protected by these erroneous facts which have been mentioned. But what surprises us is that anyone in the position of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister can give us facts with which he is not acquainted. He told us that Dr. Van Broekhuizen did pay rent for the use of the furniture. Did the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister not read the report of the Auditor-General, in which he said that that sum had been returned to him? We would like to see that these facts are published, because there are rumours that that furniture is no longer the property of the State. We would also like to hear whether what the Prime Minister said is true, namely, that it is still the property of the State. The Prime Minister told us this afternoon that the people had an opportunity of expressing judgment in connection with the war, and he mentioned Newcastle as an example. We did not expect that type of argument from the Prime Minister. Perhaps we expected it from other hon. members on the other side, who imitate him, but we did not expect it of him. Is he also prepared to take the result of the Riversdale by-election which will become known at the end of April as the judgment of the people? No, that type of thing will not hold water. The Prime Minister showed us today that he is no longer the same man that he was when he was still a Boer General. At that time he wanted to save his country from destruction. Today he is prepared to allow his own Fatherland to be destroyed for the sake of Great Britain, and he is prepared, as he told us to-day, to provide the thousands or perhaps millions of troops, which may be stationed here, with food. And then he calls it a surplus. Where does the surplus come from? His own Minister of Agriculture intimated the other day how critical the position was with regard to the dairy industry. How can the Prime Minister talk of a surplus? With regard to the statement which the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister made today concerning the arming of coloured people and natives in South Africa, I also want to warn him—we also travel about in the country, and we also hear what goes on amongst the coloured population of South Africa. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Lands is now engaged in such an urgent discussion with the Prime Minister, when we are dealing with his vote. We just want to warn the Prime Minister that blood is thicker than water. If that bogey, the bogey of Japan which he held out to us, comes here, then we want to warn him that if he arms those coloured people the position here will be worse than it was in Malaya. Blood is thicker than water, and those coloured races will stand together against the European population of the country.

That is a lesson to you.

The Afrikaner blood of the hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler) became very thin in that red company of his, since the days when he swam for the sake of his country, and for that reason the sharks will devour him if he again tries to swim. The Prime Minister said that he would welcome it if these people came here. We just want to tell him to bear history in mind. Wherever England went in the past, whether to Holland or Belgium or Greece or Crete, the enemy followed her, with disastrous results to those people which she used in her service. When Gen. Wavell left for the East and when he was stationed at Singapore, the Germans said: “What a future awaits Singapore!” And the course of events proved that to be true. From there Gen. Wavell went to Java, and we see now what happened there. I just want to say that we hope in heaven’s name that he will not be sent to South Africa. But we will not concern ourselves so much with the war propaganda of the Prime Minister and of those people who imitate him. We do not believe those bogeys of a Japanese danger which are held out to us. Even his own people no longer believe that story. Listen what the “Argus” said last night—

Then the paper goes on to say what possibility there is of the Japanese moving in a pincer movement in order to join the Germans. Even the Prime Minister’s own people, therefore, no longer believe in those bogeys which he holds out to us. But what we take a greater interest in is the policy followed by the Prime Minister. A short while ago he told us in the House: “Let Japan come; we are ready; we saw the possibility and we are ready.” May we ask, however, whether the Prime Minister really thinks that he is ready to resist that strong power with the small number of passenger planes which he has in South Africa and without a fleet? Is he ready if the impossible happens and Japan comes here, to resist with the home front which South Africa has today? No, that home front can be made to take to its heels with a number of empty paraffin tins, let alone cannons. He wants to know what the policy of the Prime Minister is. He very significantly gave us to understand today that the one bogey which he held out to us, namely, the British Fleet—well, that is no longer there today. The whole world is looking for the British Fleet today. The Prime Minister says that they never pinned their hopes in Russia; he personally pinned his hopes in America, and he repeated that today. But Mr. Churchill told us that they concentrated all their forces in Libya. [Time limit.]

For nearly two days there have been reproaches by that side and by this side of the House. That side is in the war; we are neutral.

No, you are against us.

I do not take any notice of underlings. I am now talking to the Prime Minister. I am talking to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister who went through thick and thin for the interests of South Africa, but who is now an Imperialist. I believe him. I am not reproaching him; I am not telling him that he is right or wrong in having plunged us into the war. I know what the Prime Minister suffered; I know what sacrifices he made for the interests of South Africa, and I, too, as a young boy made a certain contribution to those interests for which he fought, and I shall not insult him on the floor of this House. I shall not insult anyone on that side, but I at least expect that when I differ from them they will respect my point of view. And I am trying this evening briefly and simply to explain my point of view to that side. We heard the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister say that in the final resort he would use every man capable of bearing arms in this country in order to defend South Africa. From his point of view I do not blame him; when he is driven into a corner I do not blame him if he does that, because war is a cruel affair. I hear hon. members saying that Pearl Harbour was a tragedy. There is no such thing as a tragedy in war. When you wage war it is your death or the other man’s death which is at stake. He either kills me or I kill him. I am in this position today that unfortunately I had to shoot many people in South Africa. During the last war I had to have kaffirs shot at Queenstown, people who became fanatics, and we had to shoot them in cold blood. These are things which many people did not perhaps experience; and I appreciate the attitude of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. He honestly thought that he was going along with Great Britain, and he thought, whether rightly or wrongly, that the Allies would win the war. But I doubt that. I differ from him and I feel that he will respect my opinion. Now I want to tell him in what respect I differ from him. During the last world war Germany lost, but she was not conquered by arms. She was starved. I just want to say in passing what my own experience was in connection with a highly-placed officer of Germany. He said to me: “I was told at Ypres: ‘you must break through here; the English are starving here’.” They broke through and he told me that when they arrived at the first place he saw that the English had a large quantity of food and that they had many cigarettes. He said: “Then I realised that we had lost the war.” But today Germany’s position is different. Today the Allies are struggling to get hold of food. Germany has sufficient food today; Germany has sufficient arms. The whole of Europe is at her disposal. I want to say immediately that I hope that I shall never be under a German, but nor do I want to be under those Imperialists who despise me when I differ from them. When we hold a different view to that held by them, we are described as “dirty Dutch.” I differ from hon. members on the other side. Those friends on the other side may laugh but I can tell them that this war is a cruel thing for civilisation today. It is the most cruel thing which could ever have taken place in a civilised world. We have the position today that the majority of the masses are starving, due to the actions of a few, a few who are the cause of the war. Now I come to the events of today. We have seen what has happened. We know what war is. We see that Japan’s strength was under-estimated. President Roosevelt said: “Let Japan carry on; we will soon trample her underfoot.” Mr. Churchill said: “We are ready for Japan.” In time of war we must always take into account the improbable, and that is what took place here. I believe that when one makes a promise, one should keep that promise. I feel as the Prime Minister did, and I am certain that he still feels that way. In his heart he sincerely believes that his side will win this war. He says that in this war he is on the right side. But in this respect we differ from him. I feel that right is right and wrong is not right. Great Britain played a wonderful role in history. She made history, and the result is that later on she became proud and got the idea that she was always right and that nothing which she did could be wrong. Her language and culture and everything else are right and the best. Her civilisation is perfect and everything else is of minor importance. Now other Powers are also coming into prominence. We know that the Roman Empire had its day and in the end it collapsed. I now want to give the Prime Minister a picture of what might happen in this war, although it seems impossible to him and although it seems impossible to Britain. He is dealing here with a wonderful nation which lives on nothing. As they say in English, “They live on the smell of an oil rag.” They go into the forest emptyhanded and succeed in crawling out on the other side. Something which the Prime Minister said here struck me, namely, that the present war differs from the last war as day differs from night. And what strikes me now is that our officers apparently cannot adapt themselves to the new methods of waging war. I do not want to criticise much, but in my simplicity it seems to me that they are not adapting themselves. The united nations, as they call themselves, do not think as the Axis do. The Axis wage war in a manner which differs from ours. Just look what happened in Burma. There are three rivers which flow into the sea. They are almost parallel, and they offered the greatest opportunity of defence to any country. These rivers afforded lines of defence at which they could repulse the enemy. Japan comes along, without there being any railway line, without there being roads; they simply come along and cross those rivers one after another, and they reach a point fifty miles on the other side. Then I notice the British tanks arrived, and the newspapers said that now Japan would suffer a reverse. We have to take into account that Power, and how are we going to do it? In South Africa we are divided. Rightly or wrongly we are divided. There are a number of people on the other side and a number on this side who hold different views. I want the Prime Minister to take this into account, and his Government must take this into account. I hope that he will do so. I said that I would oppose any subversive movement and that I wanted to have nothing to do with it because I feel that no good purpose can be served by it, and that we can only harm our beloved South Africa. But the Prime Minister should keep in check his subordinates on the other side who reproach us. They do not realise the seriousness of the war. If you want to win this war you must keep those people under control. They are greater enemies than we on this side of the House. We have seen what might happen. Today we are perhaps your political enemies. Tomorrow we are perhaps your friends again, and for that reason I have always adopted the attitude that I do not go to extremes; I prefer to steer a middle course. Let them say that I am a coward or a handsupper. I am not going to insult other people nor my political opponents. [Time limit.]

Many of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister’s speeches will be forgotten when the one he made here today will still be remembered, and that will in the first place be because of the unbridled language he used, language which is certainly not worthy of him. One would not have expected a man of his status getting up here and using the language of the gutter in this Committee in the way he did. The second characteristic which makes the speech of the Prime Minister significant is the almost overwhelming joy which he displayed at the prospect of South Africa having to take an even greater part in the fight and of South Africa being turned into a welter of blood. He repeated in very clear words today that he would welcome it if the enemy came here to fight so that South Africa could see who were its friends, and South Africa might then be turned into a welter of blood, a battlefield, where the fight might be settled. But the third characteristic and the most important characteristic of his speech was contained in that part where he renounced his whole past by what he said about the arming of natives and coloured people. If the Smuts of 1901 could have risen here this evening, he would have pointed a finger of scorn at the Smuts of today and he would have said to him, “In your speech in the year 1942 in the Parliament of the Union of South Africa, you renounced the whole of your past and you committed a crime to the people of South Africa, a crime which you yourself in the past described as one of the gravest crimes to the people of South Africa.”

You do not know what you are talking about.

If the hon. member says I do not know what I am talking about, then I shall quote what the present Prime Minister wrote in 1901 in a report to President Kruger from Van Rynsdoorp in the Cape Province.

You don’t know the circumstances.

Circumstances do not affect a vital principle of this kind. Let me quote from this report of the Prime Minister’s, because it is of the greatest significance in view of the speech which the Prime Minister made here today. He wrote these words from Van Rynsdorp to President Kruger—

And in this year, 1942, forty years later, the self-same Rt. Hon. member gets up in this House and announces that he is so tied to Britain that he is willing now to do the very same thing which in 1901 he described as a crime to the people of South Africa. He is now willing to commit that crime. Never before in the history of South Africa have we had such an instance of a man renouncing his conscience. The Prime Minister allowed the Boer nation to undergo the humiliation of disarming it. He deprived the Boer nation of its arms, and now he turns round and says to the Boer nation: “Although I have disarmed you, I, as Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa, am going to arm the natives and the coloured people.” He himself described it as a crime to the people, and now he comes here and tells us he is going to commit that crime to his own people. Let me tell the Prime Minister tonight that the people of South Africa still believe in that principle which he proclaimed in 1901, when he still stood by his people, and now he wants to avail himself of the Japanese bogey as a smokescreen to explain why he is now prepared to arm the kaffirs and the coloured people in South Africa. He is not going to succeed. South Africa has been hearing that story for a quarter of a century now. No longer will people listen to it. The hon. member has cried “Wolf” too often. People no longer take him seriously. We cannot make people believe things if they know that we are not telling the truth. The Prime Minister quoted a statement here from the Japanese Minister in regard to Japan’s actions in the Indian Ocean. Let me read a statement of Col. Chiro in regard to what is intended; he is a man who can speak with authority in Japan. He spoke of certain economic and military bases which still have to be taken to give the conquest of Singapore its full significance. In other words, Calcutta, Ceylon, and eventually Aden, and then he comes to what he calls the right wing. That is what the Prime Minister discussed here; and where, does he say, does the right wing extend to?—

If Japan had any intentions about the southern part of the Indian Ocean he would have said so, because he does not hesitate to say what he intends doing. He clearly said that he wanted to go round the Indian Coast and round the Arabian Coast as far as Aden, in that way to effect the pincer movement which those people have in mind. We have the tripartite agreement, in which the different spheres of influence have been announced by the Axis Powers, and in that agreement it was announced that Japan’s sphere of influence would be Asia, and here we have it from this influential man that Japan wants to go around Asia as far as Aden. They want to have their economic sphere there in Asia, and they want nothing else. If anyone looks at the map of Africa he will ask himself what Japan could possibly look for in this southern corner of Africa, even if Germany and Italy would allow her to come here, after they themselves had announced that their sphere was in a different part of the world.

They are your friends, go and ask them yourself.

Assuming that this bogey of the Prime Minister’s had any significance, what has Japan to do first before it can give effect to this plan of coming here? Japan would, first of all, have to destroy the whole of the British and the whole of the American Fleet. At her back she would have to conquer New Zealand and the whole of Australia. She would have to conquer Burma and the whole of the Indian Coast, and then she would have to go along the Arabian Sea and along the Coast of Asia, conquer the Persian Gulf, as far as Aden, to carry out the pincer movement.

Are you beginning to doubt your friends?

If the hon. member’s remark had been of any significance, he would no doubt have spoken more loudly, but these stories may be believed by little children, but they are too childish for people of intelligence to accept. [Time limit.]

The Prime Minister this afternoon answered the questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition, and said that this debate had descended to a level unbecoming to this House. I am very sorry that this debate this afternoon was reduced by nobody else but the Prime Minister himself to a level unworthy of the people of South Africa. The Prime Minister wants to see the unity of the people of South Africa restored, but when he uses that kind of language and when words of that kind come from a responsible man, then all we can say is that the unity of the people of South Africa cannot ever be restored. Nobody can be blamed more for the division among the Boer nation than the Prime Minister himself, and the longer this sort of thing goes on the worse is the position in the country going to be. I have said before that the Prime Minister basest the whole of his principle, dividing the people, because that is the only way he can rule. The Prime Minister spoke sneeringly this afternoon about the Leader of the Opposition. He said, “There sits the leader of the people, and see how divided they are among themselves opposite.” I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he really imagines that the eyes of the people of South Africa are shut. No, the Boer nation is awake. They have been roused, and they will not allow this policy of divide and reign to continue, because they realise that that is the cause of much of their suffering. The apparent misunderstanding among us on this side of the House is a question of opinion, and nobody but the Prime Minister himself will help to bring us together again. I predict that after what the Prime Minister has said —he talked very big and talked very loudly— after what he has said here, after having told us that if nothing else can be done he will see to it that every adult black or brown skin in the country is armed to fight against Japan—after that it will not take long for us on this side of the House to come together again. I want to warn him that Singapore and other places fell because feelings on the colour question were so strong that when Japan came in, those people threw away their rifles and walked over to Japan’s side. Let me give him this warning: The very few members of the white race who will be left in this country will call him to account. They will riot on his grave because he will be the cause of their ruin. He told the people here today that he was prepared to arm the natives and the coloured people. It is not so much against Japan as against Germany. One often feels so seriously on these matters that it is difficult to restrain oneself and not to make the remarks which enter one’s mind. We hear remarks made by our English speaking friends opposite, and I want to tell them that we have monuments in this country calling out for vengeance; there are things which I as a good Afrikaner who has the good of my people at heart, cannot forget, and then to hear hon. members opposite call us “skunks” and things like that, makes me ask where is it all going to end? This racial feeling will be stirred up to such an extent by these expressions that we do not know where it will all end, especially if we think of the scandalous treatment the Boer nation has already had to undergo in its own country. The Boer nation has not the right to keep its rifles and ammunition, but coloured people and natives are allowed to be armed. Those things are responsible for the fact that even if the people are called up to resist a threatened danger, they will not listen to the Prime Minister because they do not trust him, and nobody but the Prime Minister himself is the cause of the kind of thing which has happened here in South Africa.

This discussion on the Prime Minister’s vote has been a remarkable one. We have heard about cowards, skunks and even English. I don’t want to deal with those matters. I want to confine myself to two remarkable statements made by the Prime Minister himself. He told us that if the Japanese set foot on African soil he would even go so far as to arm the coloured people and the natives of South Africa. That was a remarkable statement made by the Prime Minister, and we must assume that he will do so. But this is how I feel about the matter. As the Prime Minister has had such heavy knocks on this subject today, he is in a very difficult position now. I don’t want to be like Leviticus, but like the good Samaritan I want to come to him and say to him that he need not worry. He will not be given the choice because Japan will not set foot in South Africa. Let me say this to the Prime Minister, that to my mind now that Java has fallen and Bandoeng has fallen, the first thing Japan will do is to occupy India In India there are 400,000,000 people, and the Prime Minister knows what will happen. About 15 per cent. of those people stand by the Allies, all the others stand by Japan, and so far as South Africa is concerned, if Japan ever comes here—and I doubt if that will ever happen—I wonder whether the Prime Minister has ever thought what will happen if he goes so far as to arm the coloured people and the natives. If we look at our own history we know what happened. We know that the Voortrekkers had natives who were with them from babyhood onwards, but when trouble arose those self-same natives who were brought up by the Voortrekkers were the first to turn round and murder them, and we are going to have the same experience again here in South Africa. If the Prime Minister decides to arm those people in South Africa he will not be able to depend on them if Japan comes here. It struck me as a remarkable thing some time ago, when I discussed this matter with a well-known communist, that he said that if the Prime Minister thought that if Japan came here the natives would stand on our side and help South Africa “he was barking up the wrong tree.” I hope the Prime Minister will bear that in mind. Another remark which the Prime Minister made was in regard to the Imperial troops which, as has been shewn here, do their fighting in the rear lines. The Prime Minister said that although they fight in the rear lines they are the people who have to do most of the work, and he added that evidence of that could be found in the fact that 70 per cent. of the casualties were Imperial troops. My mind then went back to the far distant past and it seemed to me that the technique of war has been completely changed. Having listened to the statement made by the Prime Minister it seems to me that the Germans are putting their rifle gauges very high, and when they shoot they shoot the people in the rear lines and they don’t touch those who are right in front. We are in this war and that is why I am very anxious to learn how the war is run now, and I therefore want the Prime Minister to give me some information on this question. In the past we always had the habit of running our wars so that the people in the front lines were the first to be shot. Now it seems to me, as the Prime Minister tells us that 70 per cent. of the casualties are Imperial troops, that the technique of warfare has changed so that it now means that the people in the rear lines are shot first of all. In Poland there were only a few English aeroplanes; in France there were 300,000 British troops. But they Dunkirked. In Greece Imperial troops also fought and now we are told that 70 per cent. of the casualties were Imperial troops. I should like the Prime Minister to tell us exactly how this happened, and how it is possible for people who are in the rear lines to have been killed. The Prime Minister also told us about the British Navy. He said to us: “Look at the British Navy and all will be well.” If I read the newspapers, I notice every day that English ships are being sunk, and it seems to me that if the Prime Minister of England goes on another inspection of the British Navy he will have to go by submarine. That is the only way he can make a proper inspection. There is another matter I should like to bring to the Prime Minister’s notice. It is this: The hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler) in passing asked the Prime Minister to tell us the reasons why South Africa had declared war against Finland. So far the Prime Minister has not yet answered that question, and I do hope that before this debate is closed the Prime Minister will see a change of complying with the request of the hon. member for Brits for an answer to that question.

The policy adopted by this Government to declare war with a divided people behind it, has resulted in a number of people, citizens of the country, being in gaol today. A number of them are to be tried before a special court. I do not intend going into the merits of the case. Those people may be guilty or not, but I want to raise the question of what happens, in the first place, in the trial of a number of those people who in terms of the regulations have to appear before the special court. There was a preliminary examination of Robey Leibbrandt and a number of other Union nationals. I am not concerned with the guilt or innocence of those people, I leave that matter where it is, but at the preliminary examination before the magistrate, the Public Prosecutor made application and asked that this trial should not be held in the ordinary court but in the gaol in Pretoria.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is discussing a matter which is pending before the courts of our land.

I am not discussing the merits of the case, only the procedure.

The hon. member cannot discuss a matter which is sub judice.

On a point of order, I did not hear what took place between you and the hon. member, but at this very moment the trial is about to proceed of this man Leibbrandt.

Mr. Leibbrandt.

I was pointing out to the hon. member that he could not discuss a case which is sub judice.

The hon. member has said that he does not want to discuss the merits of the case, but he is discussing the procedure at that trial, and I submit that the rule of this House prevents any discussion of a matter which is to come, or has already come before the courts.

I pointed that out to the hon. member.

The hon. member is a lawyer, and he quite understands what the position is. If he is allowed to proceed other members will also be allowed to discuss that matter, and you will find yourself unable to draw the line between what is permissible and what is not. I do suggest that you should consider very carefully how far any matter should be discussed, especially when the matter is about to come before the courts.

I was about to ask the hon. member how far this matter is sub judice, and he was about to reply to me.

I am not going to deal with the merits of the case at all.

I want to refer the hon. member to the rule of this House, which reads as follows—

On a point of order: Has the hon. member the right to refer to this case at all?

The hon. member must give the hon. member for Winburg an opportunity of explaining the position first.

I do not particularly want to go into the merits of this case. I am speaking about the general policy of the Government in regard to the future trial of cases before special courts, and I should like an assurance from the Prime Minister that those trials will be held in public, and not in secret, so that the public may know what is going on. During the last war, too, there were a number of cases in connection with the rebellion, and they were also trial cases on charges of high treason, and those cases were tried in public. The public knew what was going on, and the Press could attend and publish reports, and if the Government should at this stage take steps to have these trials held in secret it would be a serious matter with which the public would not be at all satisfied. If there are court cases even in these troublous times, or particularly in these troublous times, the public will want an assurance that these trials are held in public, so that they may know what is going on. It is patent that serious malconditions and abuses may arise if the trials of people charged with high treason are allowed to take place behind closed gaol doors, where the public and the Press are not admitted. It would be a violation of the whole of our judicial system, it would be a violation of law and justice if the Government allowed those trials to take place behind closed doors. I am raising this because I want to have an assurance either from the Prime Minister or one of his colleagues that in cases where individuals are tried at times like the present, the trials will be held in accordance with our ordinary judicial system, so that the public can know what is going on. One can imagine, if an individual is sentenced to death or to some other heavy punishment, and nobody knows what has happened because the trial has been behind closed doors—one can imagine the uneasiness and dissatisfaction such a condition of affairs would create in the public mind. I hope the Prime Minister will give this committee, and through the committee, the public, the assurance that those trials will be held in public, and that the Press will be allowed to be present to be able to inform the public of what is going on. If the Prime Minister does not give us that assurance, it will cause serious dissatisfaction and unrest among the public. I also want to raise the question of the Government’s policy in detaining certain people in times like the present, allegedly for interrogation. This matter has been raised by me in this House before, but I again want to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister the fact that there is very serious uneasiness among the public on account of the treatment of those people. Nobody objects to the Government detaining people in times like the present, if they are guilty, or if the Government has good reasons for believing they have done something against the interests of the State, but why all this inhumanity and cruelty towards those people? Why are they to be ill-treated in this fashion? I have already quoted statements in this House from people who are detained in gaol. I have here before me a statement about a young fellow who was recently detained. He is a young man of twenty-six years of age, and he has been detained without anyone knowing the reasons for his detention. No charge has yet been made against him. He is in gaol in the dorp of Ficksburg, and he has been there seventeen days already, without any charge being lodged against him. His parents are not allowed to see him. I have a letter here from his father, and only after seventeen days was his father allowed to see him for the first time, and to bring him a change of clothes. He was arrested while working on his farm; he was dressed in a pair of khaki shorts and a shirt. In those clothes he had to sleep for seventeen days until at last his father was allowed to visit him, and take him clean clothes. According to his father’s statement, his clothes which he had never been able to take off were quite wet and very dirty; the trousers were torn, but he had tried to mend them himself. I don’t know whether this young fellow is guilty or not, but for Heaven’s sake why this ill-treatment? Why this inhuman treatment? Whom does it benefit? I am making an appeal to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Justice to stop this kind of thing. In Bloemfontein a large number of people from the Free State are detained in the gaols. I have already submitted this matter to the Minister of Justice, and he has promised to go into it. I also want to say that since I have raised this question, there has been a certain amount of improvement, but now I am told that people who are in gaol at Bloemfontein are no longer allowed to get their food brought in from outside. The churches in Blontemfontein and the charitable associations had undertaken the task of bringing those people their food in gaol. [Time limit.]

I should like to know from the Prime Minister what exactly is the Government’s policy in regard to Afrikaners in Rhodesia. We know that statements have been made from time to time about the Government’s policy, and I am very anxious to know what the latest edition of those statements is. One cannot help making a comparison between the attitude adopted by South Africa towards its citizens and that of Ireland in respect of its Irish citizens. There is no conscription in either of these two countries, but Ireland was not satisfied merely with not having conscription in its own country; when an attempt was made to introduce conscription in Ulster, in Northern Ireland, the Irish Government strongly protected, so much so that the British Government was compelled to abandon its intention of introducing conscription in Northern Ireland. The reason adduced by the Irish Government for its protest was that one-third of the population of Northern Ireland in actual fact consisted of Irishmen, and that was why they would not allow conscription to be introduced. Although in the technical sense they were not citizens of Ireland, none the less because they were tied to the Irish nation by bonds of blood, the Irish Government stepped in and stood up for their interests. Compare this with the deplorable attitude of our Government towards Afrikaners in Rhodesia. They are people born in South Africa and grown up in South Africa. They are Union citizens in the true sense of the word. They are merely domiciled in Rhodesia. Rhodesia introduces conscription and our Government does not move a finger to try and prevent our citizens in Rhodesia from being called up. They went even further. When some of those people happened to be in South Africa, and were called up by Rhodesia, this Government agreed to their arrest and to send them back to Rhodesia under escort of Rhodesian officials. There was such a case and if the Government had had its way the man would have been taken back to Rhodesia, but unfortunately the courts of this country intervened. The Government’s attitude, however, is characteristic of its disloyalty towards its own citizens. The courts of justice had to force the Government to desist from its plan to extradite the man to Rhodesia. I want to know, however, what the position is of the Afrikaners who are still in Rhodesia and who have not come back to South Africa. Until a new Emergency Regulation is passed, we know that it is safe for Afrikaners who are in Rhodesia to come here and the Government will not dare to send them to Rhodesia under escort, but what is the position of the people who are there? I want to know from the Prime Minister whether it is the Government’s policy not to concern itself with this matter. What is the Government’s policy? We listened to the Prime Minister’s speech this afternoon and I must say that we have never yet heard a more unconvincing speech from him than he made here this afternoon. One could hardly recognise the Prime Minister in his speech. His experience of many years of trying to explain and present things to the public in the best possible way did not show itself at all this afternoon. We missed the effortless flow of language which usually characterises his speeches. He hummed and hawed and had to look for words. I don’t blame him. He had a few difficult points to deal with, but what particularly struck me was the defence he tried to put up against the charge that the Britishers so far had left all their friends in the lurch. His reply was that Britain’s whole policy had been designed to bring about peace, that Britain had not been prepared for war. But does the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister realise the implications of that argument? If he is correct, does he realise that the present British Government —when it gave a blank cheque to Poland in 1938, when it gave Poland the assurance that it would assist it—knew all the time that it was not able to give such promised assistance? If the Prime Minister is correct, he has a choice of two things. He can either say that the British Government was guilty of disgraceful hypocrisy when it promised help to Poland, knowing in its heart of hearts that Britain could not give such assistance, or otherwise the Britishers left their friends in the lurch. It was guilty of one of those two things. The Prime Minister can choose which of the two he prefers for England. The Prime Minister also said that Japan had made certain declarations of war. He spoke of Japan having declared war on Holland. Does not the Prime Minister remember that before any invasion of East India took place, the Japanese made an offer to Australia and Holland that their possessions would be respected if they did not go to war against Japan? That offer was turned down by Holland. Does not the Prime Minister remember that after that had happened and Japan had declared war on the United States, Holland declared war on Japan? Just as South Africa did. But although the Prime Minister’s speech was very unconvincing there were still one or two things in it which to my mind were most important. In the Prime Minister’s speech the veil was lifted from what is really going on in his heart and in the hearts of members opposite in regard to two cardinal principles. First of all he unambiguously stated that he was prepared to make South Africa the battlefield of the nations. Not only is he prepared to do so but nothing will give him more pleasure than to see South Africa’s soil drenched by the blood of a sanguinary battlefield. That is what the Prime Minister said to us and I think the people will be glad to know that that is the Prime Minister’s attitude. Now I want to point out that if Japan ever can come to South Africa it must be at the end of a triumphant tour round almost half the world, and if they ever come here the Allies must surely be in extremis. Under similar circumstances the Prime Minister in 1902 was prepared to say “I am not going to let my whole nation bleed to death.” In those days he wanted to act in the interest of his mother country, but today he is willing to see South Africa bleed to death, not for the sake of our own mother country, but for the sake of Imperial interests. What he was not prepared to do for his own mother country he is prepared to do for the Empire today. Another important thing in the Prime Minister’s speech was his statement about the arming of natives and coloured people. May I remind the Prime Minister that there are people on his own side who regard it as one of the greatest insults to say, of any nation that it allows natives and coloured people to fight for it. Not so long ago the Leader of the Opposition made a speech at Darling in which he said, inter alia, that in the Anglo Boer War the English had employed armed natives and coloured men. What was the reaction to this remark of his? The Union of English speaking South Africans immediately reacted and sent a letter to the Leader of the Opposition asking how he dare insult the whole of the British nation in the way he had done and declaring that they had never done anything of the kind. [Time limit.]

I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that they must not repeat arguments used by previous speakers or by themselves.

I should like to continue the argument which I was developing when I sat down, namely that if the Prime Minister quotes from statements made by Japanese about Japan’s war plans he should quote them all. Let me refer for instance to the important statement by Col. Hira in which he announced that Japan aimed at Aden and he added significantly “It offers the prospect of a military connection with our European Allies.” Here he puts Japan’s objects as clearly as possible, namely to go as far as Aden and then to shake hands with its Allies in Europe. Now the Prime Minister comes here and because it suits him politically, and because it suits his arguments he wants to make us believe that the people who have announced to the world that their battleground lies far North want to come in our direction. I feel that we cannot take his remarks seriously. He has found that he can exploit the matter for his political purposes, because by exploiting the yellow danger he may perhaps be able to get some of our Afrikaans speaking people to go and fight for him. So keenly is he looking forward to that that he has expressed his joy at the prospect. If he has become such a political opportunist let him get up and tell the House so, but do not let him use the argument that Japan is coming to South Africa because the whole world knows that that is not within the sphere of Japan’s war plans at all, and if the Prime Minister wants to quote speeches by Japanese in regard to the war why then does he not quote the most important statement made by them? There is one other matter I wish to draw the Prime Minister’s attention to and it is this: He spoke a lot today about our friends; only when danger threatens South Africa, shall we find out who our friends are—that is what he said. I do not know whether we can be so sure on that point. It seems to me that this war is developing into a battle of every man for himself. Britain and America are looking after themselves and it seems to me that we shall have to stand up for ourselves too. If one studies the movements of the Navy, it definitely looks like it, and now, we have the report that the French Navy has left Dakar and is going to France. If one studies Naval movements it seems that the war is concentrating more and more in the North, and it seems that Great Britain is more and more neglecting to help her friends, and that she is making it more and more clear that her sole aim and object is to protect her Own interests, to safeguard her own coasts, and more and more to concentrate everything around her own Island. And America? The Prime Minister says that America is such a great country, that we shall get help from America. I don’t know whether, if it comes to the point, America will concern itself very much with South Africa. I think it will only look after its own interests. That has been the development of this war— everyone for himself. If that is so, then it is high time the Prime Minister looked around a little and studied South Africa’s position, and that is why I want to point to two matters. The first is that we are exhausting ourselves so far as our food is concerned, by supplying the large convoys calling here, with food. The question I want to put is whether it is not high time for South Africa to look a little more after its own food position? We have had a large stream of people coming to South Africa from all four corners of the world. It is stated that in Natal alone there are no fewer than 40,000 newcomes. Large numbers of people come from Egypt. Women, children and men too, and they are taken to Natal. They are inundating us and we have to feed them What is our own position going to be?

Are you not glad the convoys are taking our products and that we are getting better prices?

Better prices? And the wheat farmers sit here and are thirsting for better prices! And the hon. member is a representative of wheat farmers, and be knows how unpayable the prices are!

He dare even show his face in his own constituency.

I ask the Prime Minister to take notice of those two points, first of all the fact that the war has developed into a war in which every man looks after himself. If that is so, then it is high time for the Union of South Africa also to look after its own safety. We have here an influx of strangers from all four corners of the earth, and we have to feed them all, and consequently the second point we have to watch is the food position so far as our own people are concerned. Furthermore, we should consider our own productive capacity in every respect so as to make sure that we can carry on for the duration of the war in providing for our own wants. The whole theme of the Prime Minister’s speech was scandalous. What did he proclaim here? He told us how the Britishers had fought everywhere. In the newspapers we have seen how the South Africans have fought in the desert, but the Prime Minister did not have a word to say about that. He did not say a word about the achievements of our troops but he put the Britishers in the forefront as the people who had to do most of the fighting. The world knows that it was the South Africans who in the sandy desert had to do the big job, and Mr. Churchill himself told us what happened there. It was the sons of South Africa who were sacrificed there on behalf of the Empire.

They had to hold the desert to cover the retreat of the English.

It was a scandal on the part of the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister is so sure of his policy, and with these words I want to conclude, he should give the people an opportunity of expressing their views on his war policy. We have constant rumours that the Prime Minister intends not to allow an election to be held, not to give the people an opportunity of expressing themselves on the Government’s policy. Fortunately we are going to have a few by-elections where the people will have the opportunity of expressing their opinion of the Prime Minister’s policy to arm natives and coloured people.

Newcastle has already expressed its opinion about you people.

The hon. member can go and get votes of no confidence at all four by-elections.

I helped to give you a good hiding at Newcastle.

I do not know how the hon. member gave me a hiding; I have only one seat and there the S.A.P. usually gets a good hiding. But I hear rumours that the Prime Minister does not intend having an election. It would be a crime to the people of South Africa. I can quite understand that he is afraid of testing the judgment of the people over his war policy. I can quite understand that now particularly he is afraid, as he has completely departed from the promise he made on the 4th September. At that time there was no question of arming coloured people and natives. As the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Hugo) rightly said, the Prime Minister told us that coloured people and natives would not be armed. Now he comes along with a brand new policy and he refuses to give the people a chance to pass judgment on that policy.

I should like to dispose of the point with which I was dealing. I complained about the policy of the Government in connection with the ill-treatment of political prisoners. I was saying that in Bloemfontein a charitable association and the church were providing prisoners with food. During the previous war food was also provided to rebels who were thrown in gaol. During the past few weeks women and other associations provided these people with foodstuffs, but on Saturday there was a notification all of a sudden that these things must be stopped. A whole organisation was built up in order to provide these people with food. Upon enquiry it was said by the superintendent of the gaol that the order had come from Pretoria, from headquarters. I want to ask the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister why they are doing such things. These people have not been convicted. Punish them if they are guilty, but do not treat them like prisoners while they have not been convicted. What objection is there to these people getting proper food? Why this cruel ill-treatment? Can the Prime Minister give me any reason why this was suddenly stopped? Why is it being done? The Minister of Justice was one of those men who, together with us, did his best in 1914 to get better treatment of the rebels and to give them food in the gaols. These people were detained for questioning; they were not even found guilty; there is no charge against them. Why should they be treated in this manner, and above all, under the present Minister of Justice? I say that it is a disgrace. I do not know why the Government should take such drastic steps. Have they not the slightest feeling for their Afrikaners? I just want to touch upon another matter in connection with the policy of the Government, and it is this. They issued an order that the Hollanders who are in this country should be sent overseas, by force if necessary, in order to go and fight. Now I want to ask the Rt. Hon. the Minister whether he will not reconsider his declared policy in view of the fact that all the colonial possessions of Holland have now also been occupied. These Hollanders can no longer fight on Netherlands territory because nothing remains of it. Where must they fight now? Is it the policy that these Hollanders who made their homes in South Africa, must go to England or Canada to fight? This order seems to me to be one of the greatest cruelty. It is a violation of one of the first principles of international law to force these people to go and fight in another country. Their own Government no longer exists. One cannot say that there is a Netherlands Government today. All that remains of the Netherlands Government today is a shell in England, and now you want to apply a measure of the greatest cruelty to these Hollanders who are in South Africa. They are now being forced to leave behind their wives and children, and they are being sent away; with what object? Their own Government no longer exists. Their country and Colonial possessions have been occupied. I ask the Minister to change this policy. Let these people remain if they do not want to go. If they want to go of their own accord, then let them go, but the regulations say that if they refused they can be taken forcibly and handed over to a ship’s captain, who is then told where they have to be delivered. What right have you to use them as British soldiers? If there were still a Netherlands or a part of the Netherlands kingdom which needed them, then it would have been their affair, whether they wanted to go or not; in that case, one might have been able to understand this order. But that is not the position; there is no Netherlands or Netherlands kingdom under the control of a Netherlands Government. This order is tantamount to forcing these Netherlanders to go and fight as British soldiers. They can no longer fight under their own Government. You now want to force them out of the country which they have chosen as their home. What right have you to do that? The Government appropriates this right under the emergency regulations, but it is in conflict with all principles of international law. As far as I know, it has never happened that a Government has sent people from its own country and told them to go and fight for this, that, or the other nation. If they had wanted to go I would have had no objection, but it is an injustice and a cruelty against those people to force them to go and fight for another country.

I want to avail myself of this opportunity to reply to the criticism made by the hon. the Minister of Finance in his reply to the Budget debate. I can only describe that reply as one of the most unreasonable replies which I have ever heard from his lips, in so far as it relates to his criticism on what was said in connection with war expenditure by me and the hon. members for George and Fauresmith. It would not have been so unreasonable if it were not for the fact that he wanted to make the House and the country believe that we, who acted as judges on the public committee, did not say a single word in our report in connection with it. What do you find? You find that the Minister came to this House …

The hon. member must confine himself to the vote under discussion. He cannot revert to the Budget debate.

It is in connection with the war expenditure. By reason of the fact that we did not make any mention of it in our report, the hon. Minister wanted to make the country believe that our criticism concerning the war expenditure was neither justified nor fair.

Then the hon. member must confine himself to that.

What do you find? The reason why we did not make any mention of it in this report, is because this report was merely a preliminary report, and had nothing to do with it.

The hon. member must bow to my ruling.

I bow to your ruling, but am I not entitled to bring it to the notice of the Prime Minister? He tried to make the country believe that there were no irregularities in connection with the expenditure of the Department of Defence. If the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will just refer to the report, he will notice that it is not a final report; we only brought one matter requiring urgent attention to the notice of the Government so far.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the Vote “Prime Minister” which is now under discussion.

I want to confine myself to Defence. We have already gone into this matter thoroughly in the House. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister is in the peculiar position of not only being Prime Minister, but he is also the Minister of Defence and for that reason I feel that I am entitled to talk about Defence.

The hon. member will have a more suitable opportunity to submit his case when the vote “Defence” comes under discussion.

On a point of order, may I just draw your attention to the fact that you, by word of mouth of the hon. member for Sea Point (Major van Zyl), informed the whips that it was proposed to allow full discussion of Defence because the Prime Minister is both Prime Minister and Minister of Defence. You said that it would facilitate the discussion if we had the discussion concerning Defence under the Vote of Prime Minister; and the Chairman added that under the Vote Defence he would not allow repetition of defence matters already discussed under this Vote. That is a notification that you yourself made through the medium of the hon. member for Sea Point. We were asked to notify the members of that. We notified hon. members that you would allow us to discuss Defence under this vote. It seems remarkable to me that you are now practically ruling out what you previously said you would allow.

As far as I know, there was no ruling that this would be allowed, and I cannot allow the hon. member for Prieska to reply to a matter which was raised in the course of the Budget debate in connection with defence.

May we then get the Speaker’s ruling on the point?

That is not necessary.

In that case I want to move “that we get the Speaker’s ruling.”

I am sorry I cannot put that.

Then I am surely entitled to attack the Prime Minister in connection with his appointment in so far as it relates to war expenditure. The Prime Minister admitted in that capacity that the war expenditure was not of such a nature that we could criticise it, and he also took exception to the fact that the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) attacked the Secretary for Defence. Just let me point out to the Prime Minister how unsound his policy is in connection with this whole matter. It is unsound because you find that certain purchases are made for the Department of Defence, and what do you find? You find that the Defence Force pays more for certain articles in respect of which the Government of the day has a contract; they pay more for such articles than the price at which other departments can buy them. Just let me take the Department of Railways, for example. They buy certain articles for their purposes on a cheaper basis than the price paid by the Department of Defence. What is the reason for that? The reason is this. You find that the Director of War Supplies also makes purchases, and who is the Director of War Supplies? Dr. van der Byl, as you know yourself. From whom does he buy? He buys from the Chairman of Iscor, and who is the chairman of Iscor? That is Dr. van der Byl too. Does the Prime Minister think that that is a sound method of making purchases? Does he not think that the position ought to be changed? What do you find with reference to the waste of money which has been taking place? You find that even the books of the Department of Defence cannot be properly audited. If that state of affairs exists, is it not reasonable on our part to criticise it and to draw the attention of the Government to it? What right has the Minister of Finance to inform the people of South Africa and this House that we did not do our duty? The Minister of Finance knows very well that we have not yet come to a decision regarding this matter. With regard to the Minister of the Interior, I know that he does not know much; he can only intern people; but I want to tell him that these are facts. The Minister of the Interior is not a business man either and for that reason I do not blame him for what he said.

I am responsible for the “Town Guard!”

You are also responsible for the “Hadjeys” and Malays of Salt River.

The hon. member must address the chair.

It is remarkable to me that the Prime Minister is not ashamed of that type of man. [Time limit.]

I want to return to the more serious aspect of the debate. Shortly before I came to the end of my last speech, I was explaining a few things to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. I shall not repeat everything which was said on this side of the House. I would like to subscribe to the remarks of the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges). He also endeavoured to convince the House what the position really is and how we regard the matter. I am referring especially to the remarks of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that he would welcome any person to defend South Africa, and that he would give them a home. Furthermore, that he would also be prepared to arm even the coloured people and the natives of South Africa in order to defend the country. Against whom?

Against Japan.

There is the reply which I wanted to have. Now I shall give you Japan’s reply.

Against Germany then.

Now they come forward with Germany.

And Italy.

Is it not amusing to think what an old’ Free State burgher lost when he saw the white cliffs of Dover. Just to explain the state of mind with which I am dealing, let me say this. The Prime Minister is today pinning his hopes of an allied victory on communism. I am not an ally; I am neutral. I am not going to talk sneeringly of America. But what the Prime Minister is visualising is this: his hopes and Mr. Churchill’s hopes are pinned on communism. Just let me say how I regard the position, according to my knowledge of the last World War. America was in the war in order to make certain that Great Britain, which was the greatest borrower, would be able to pay her debts. America was in the war in order to get security for these loans. I say that with compliments to Mr. Roosevelt, not to America. America is in the war to make certain that those loans which she granted are secured. Eventually America herself waged war for eighteen months in order to ensure that those loans which were granted to England would be repaid. America has as her God the godly dollar. That is her God.

Her idol.

Whether it be an idol or not makes no difference to me. I have in front of me a map of the world. On a previous occasion I outlined my views in regard to the outcome of the war. The Prime Minister knows what my views are, because I discussed the matter with him personally, namely, that this country will eventually be the Flanders of the European war, and the Prime Minister holds out that prospect to us today. But who is going to attack us? The Eastern danger? On a previous occasion I spoke very briefly about the Eastern danger. If there is an Eastern danger, who invited it? We invited it, and to give a home to whom? To everyone who wants to come here in order to defend South Africa. No, South Africa’s interests do not lie there. It lies here. Why would they want to attack South Africa? Because we invited them. I just want to show that the Prime Minister has knowledge of this. He is relying today upon his communistic friends whom he wants to give recognition in the bosom of South Africa, with her native population. One of my hon. friends on this side referred to a letter which I received from a native who was in my service for years. He did not sign his name but I know his handwriting well. Listen to what he says—

Other speakers have already explained this to you and history shows it; I dealt with it in my previous speech. Whilst Japan was attacking China she was really instructing the Chinese, and training her troops so that the Chinese could also become a fighting nation and so that today they are in a position to put hundreds of thousands of trained troops into the field. Asia for the Asiatics. This map of the world shows me that. What is the next move? Africa? No. Africa is in no danger, but they are inviting it. We are inviting them to come to this southern point.

I should very much like to say something concerning a remark which was made today by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg). I do not want to let it pass without expressing our disapproval of that reprehensible attitude on the part of the hon. member. After I personally had strongly insisted upon pairing off, the hon. member said: How on earth can we expect them to go to the North when their wives and children are in danger here? That same member, however, goes about in the country and enlists recruits. If he is afraid on account of his wife and children, how dare he go to the country and try to convince other people to go to the North? I think that that is the acme of hypocrisy; but then I should just like to return to something which the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister said today, when he replied to what the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) had said, namely, when the hon. member asked him that we should be left alone. Then the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister said that he would have been quite satisfied, that he would have left us alone if we had not deliberately hindered the Government’s war effort. I do not believe that the Prime Minister has any reason to say that. On the contrary, the Minister of Agriculture can testify to the fact that there is not one platform in the country where I did not say that it was the duty of every supporter of the war to join up. On the contrary I feel that it is a disgrace when a S.A.P. does not enlist, and I personally encourage everyone to go and fight if that is his policy. I said that I take off my hat to the red tabs. Anyone who feels that he ought to fight should do so. We do not hinder the Government’s war effort in this respect. We protest against the high taxes and the unbearable burdens which are imposed upon the country. That, of course, would hinder the Government, but in so far as enlistment is concerned, we encourage every S.A.P. to go to the North. But I want to bring a very serious matter to the notice of the Minister. The recruiting officers stated in the past that they would leave the universities alone. I hope that this matter has already come to the notice of the Prime Minister. I want to know from the Prime Minister what the present policy is. It appeared in the Press this morning that Col. Werdmuller had said that they would now go to the universities in order to recruit. We notice that a large number of students have been refused permission to carry on with their studies. This afternoon, while the House was sitting, one of those students came to me. He had studied at the University of Cape Town for two years. He has now been refused admission. All the Cape Town students were admitted without any qualifications, irrespective of their capabilities. In the second place, all the applications from Rhodesia have been approved of, and even the application of a French girl has been approved of. But in the case of this plattelander there is discrimination, and he has to attain a certain percentage in his examinations before being allowed to proceed with his studies. I hope the Prime Minister will take steps in this matter, because there are very serious objections in this case. The individual who saw me this afternoon borrowed his university fees for two years, and now he is not allowed to carry on. It is true, he was told that he could try to be taken on at another university. But these are people who, in the majority of cases, cannot afford to go to other universities. I can only see indirect compulsion in this in order to get people to join the army, and nothing else. I also want to say that it seems that the Afrikaner boys are singled out to join up. Then in the third place, I want to deal with what the Prime Minister said concerning the Netherlands. He sympathised with the Netherlands. The Prime Minister said that he hoped that Holland would again rise in the future. We all hope that Holland will again rise in the future. But we must remember that more than a hundred years ago Holland was in the same difficulty, and who was then the aggressor? Then it was England. The Cape was then taken away from the Hollanders by England, and Holland lost a portion of the East Indies. But no one said to England at that time that she was committing the same aggression which Japan is now committing. Is this not merely retribution? I can also say that the mills grind slowly but surely. I should like to say what the attitude of the Netherlands is in connection with this matter. Recently the Hollanders held a meeting in Johannesburg. When they were called upon to assist in fighting, they said that they were in favour of doing something, but to tight for Holland and England was asking too much; let England first do something. That was said by the Hollanders in South Africa three months ago. And I think that after having again been left in the lurch, the strongest argument on the part of the Prime Minister will not convince them that they were not left in the lurch. If we read the newspapers today we notice that the London “Times” wrote a leading article in which it states that England did not give the necessary assistance to the Netherlands which she should have given. I hope that the Prime Minister himself read that. Then the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister further says that we on this side of the House ought not to hurt our friends, meaning, of course, that we feel convinced and that the country feels convinced that England did not do her best to help the Netherlands in the difficulty into which England forced her. But we must not hurt our friends now! What did we do on the 4th September? If the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister can tell me that Germany did us any harm in the past it would have been a different matter; Germany did not do anything to us. On the contrary she has always been our friend, but on the 4th September we did not hesitate to hurt that friend of ours. I hope that the Prime Minister saw this in the Press himself today. Now the Prime Minister says that we on this side of the House ought not to hurt our friends. That convinces us; it convinces the country and it convinces his own supporters that England did not do her best on this occasion. But what did we do on the 4th September? The Prime Minister came along and simply declared war on Germany. During the past Germany did not harm South Africa. On the contrary, she has always been our friend, and behaved herself like a friend, and why did the Prime Minister, on the 4th September, hurt that friend of ours? Before the 4th September, 1939, we entered into trade agreements with Germany; we begged Germany to enter into trade relations with us, but on the 4th September, for no reason, we declared war against her. If we take that into consideration, the Prime Minister must not now come to us and tell us that we should not hurt our friends. He must not expect us not to hurt our friends on the one side only. Then I also want to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister the fact that he told us here that those of us who sit on this side are opposing the war. That is not so—at any rate, not without reason. He made an appeal to us that we should choose the same path as that chosen by America. If only we had done that; if the Prime Minister had followed the same policy as that followed by America, we would not have been in the difficulty in which we are today. America remained neutral on the 4th September, and also thereafter. She waited until she had been attacked, and until war had been declared against her. Then she also declared war. But we went out of our way, as a small State, to declare war against one of the biggest Powers in the world. And since the Prime Minister passed the remark that a small country like Holland did not declare war against Japan, it goes to show that he apparently gave wrong information to the country and to this House. Holland declared war against Japan. We did the same in South Africa. Since we declared war against Japan as we did, how can the Prime Minister then expect of us, on this side, to take part in this war against Japan? We first declared war upon Japan, and if Japan comes here to attack us, how can the Prime Minister say that Japan is the aggressor, and that we should come and help against Japan? How on earth can the Prime Minister expect Japan to do nothing when he has declared war against her, and if Japan then attacks him, can he say that she commits an act of aggression? But that is the whole attitude of the Prime Minister; he declares war on Japan, and when Japan attacks him, he expects us to come and help. No, we warned hon. members on the other side that if they interfere with a beehive, they must expect to be stung. [Time limit.]

I want to reply to a few points that have been raised. I do not intend reviewing the whole of the debate again, nor is it my intention to answer everything that has been said. That has already been done in abundance. There are, however, a few fresh points which I wish to deal with. The first point was raised by the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) in regard to the fixing of prices of agricultural products. He pointed to certain difficulties, and he asked that prices should be fixed on different principles from what they are fixed now. As this committee knows a Controller of Prices has been appointed, and now we have also appointed a Food Controller. I think it would be better to deal with this question which is very complicated, and cannot be properly discussed at this stage, when we come to the agricultural vote on the Estimates. On the Agricultural Vote the whole question of maximum prices and minimum prices, and price fixation in general by the two Controllers can be gone into.

But tell us whether you are in favour of the principle of minimum prices?

I cannot go into that question now. A number of questions have been put to me by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart). In the first place, he asked me whether I was going to withdraw the measure in terms of which those Hollanders who do not comply with the call of their Government, are being handed over to this Government. I have not the slightest intention of withdrawing that Measure. It is a Measure which we have taken at the request of the lawful Government of Holland.

There is no Government in Holland.

The lawful Government of Holland has made a request to me to support it as an Ally in this matter, and I am giving the Dutch Government that support.

But where are those Hollanders to go?

Where the Dutch Army is being used to fight, that is where they will go. Their own lawful Government will tell them where to go. I have not the slightest intention of going back on the Measure which has been taken. I am doing it for an Ally, for the Government of an Ally, which has asked us to support it. The English Government is doing the same for the Dutch Government. The hon. member for Winburg also asked for the ordinary legal procedure to be followed, so that people detained in Pretoria or elsewhere under the new sabotage measures which we have issued, will come under the ordinary judicial procedure. No change has been made, except in two regards. The hon. member knows that the change amounts to this, that the constitution of the court has been changed, and there is also a change in regard to the abolition of the preparatory examination. In no other respect has any change been made, and the ordinary procedure will be followed.

Why is there no preparatory examination?

It has been abolished in terms of this Measure.

In the last case there was a preparatory examination.

Yes, but that does not come under this, but under the ordinary law. The ordinary procedure will be followed. We leave it to the court to decide whether cases are to be tried in public or in private, in camera.

Is it the Government’s policy to have a public trial?

It is left to the ordinary procedure. The court will decide on that point.

But it is the Crown which applies.

The Public Prosecutor applies for secret trial.

But it is the court which decides.

But what instructions have been given to public prosecutors?

Then the hon. member also spoke about the prohibition in regard to food being supplied by private persons. This happens in case of people detained for interrogation. What is happening now is that communications take place in such cases, improper communications between people outside and people who have to be interrogated, and that is why this rule is being applied.

But if they send them food then surely they do not get in touch with those people.

That is the reason. There is no question of cruelty; it is only to prevent such communications. Then the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) asked what policy was being followed in regard to Afrikaners who under present circumstances are being commandeered in Rhodesia. An agreement has been come into with Rhodesia similar to that which has been entered into with the British Government. The agreement is to this effect, that if a subject of the one or other of the two countries goes to another country to stay there permanently, if he leaves his mother country to live permanently in the other country, or if he has stayed there for more than two years, the presumption is that he has left his mother country and he is then subject to the law of the other country. Afrikaners who have left South Africa and who have gone to live in Rhodesia with the object of staving there permanently, come under the Rhodesian law and we do not take any steps so far as they are concerned. If they have been there for two years or more it is presumed that they are staying there permanently, unless they can prove the contrary. If they can prove that they are only there temporarily, and that it is their intention to return to the Union, they can resist that presumption and we shall take action.

But surely they remain Union citizens.

It is a question of the law being applied to them. It all depends on the circumstances to which I have referred. It is an arrangement entered , into with the British Government, and that same arrangement has also been in force for the last few years in regard to Rhodesia. The hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Venter), asked me a question about medical students who cannot get admission to the University of Cape Town. He mentioned the case of students who had come to see him. The position, as I am informed, is that there are a larger number of applicants than accommodation can be made for, and they restrict the number according to the examinations marks secured by the students. The students who are weak drop out and that is the rule which is being applied.

That is not true.

That is the position and I see no reason to go against that rule.

I am glad that the Minister of Justice is here. I quoted this afternoon what he had said at Upington and I thought his colleagues would convey my remarks to him. I have “Die Vaderland” of the 11th September here and I read there a report of the speech which the Minister made on the 10th September at Upington. The words he used on that occasion were these—

Now I should like to know from the responsible Minister in the Cabinet: 1… .

I want to ask the hon. member not to repeat.

I am not repeating, Mr. Chairman. We find Ministers sitting here and taking no notice of this House. Others are absent at other places and that is why I am repeating what I said this afternoon—I am saying it because the Minister is present now so that he can hear it and so that it cannot be said later on that I have been talking behind his back. I believe in saying things to people’s faces. That is why I am repeating my remarks this evening. I only want to ask the Minister this: Was it has father’s tradition—these things he said at Upington? Did his father want to help England, and when did he do so? That is my question. It has been said that we on this side of the House are putting obstacles in the way of the Government’s war effort. I do not believe the Prime Minister has better recruiters for the army than he has in us here on the Opposition Benches. We told hon. members opposite that we would pair with them if they were prepared to go and fight, because they are the people who have dragged us into this war and who have plunged us into it. Here they sit today safely in Parliament, and we want them to go and fight. That is why we said that we were willing to pair with them and give them a chance to go and fight. We recruit them but they will not go. But when they get to their constituencies they all wear the V sign and they do their fighting with V signs but not in Northern Africa. It is there that they should go and fight. I do not like the principle of the Afrikaner having to be paid to go and fight for his mother country. It is a bad principle. In the War of Independence we went out and fought without getting a penny by way of pay; we took our own horses, our own saddles, bridles and everything, and we gave up everything else, but now hon. members opposite draw double salaries, while not a shot has been fired over their heads yet. It is that kind of principle which has plunged the Afrikaner into this war. We recruit them but they are not willing to join up, and then it is said that we are placing obstacles in the way of the Government’s war effort. It is untrue. It has been proved here in Parliament that it is untrue. There are two things which are close to the hearts of the Afrikaner. The one is this, and it comes first—our church and our religion, and the second is the question of colour. The Afrikaners came here—especially the refugees from France came here—why? They ran away because of their religion. That means that religion comes first. The main principle laid down in South Africa is our religion and our church, and our feeling in regard to colour comes next. I know that I am on dangerous ground now, but a man who is afraid to break fresh ground is not worthy to be a representative of his people. After the last world war the Prime Minister came to Ventersdorp to give an account of what had happened. He said that he had travelled through Europe and to his mind Russia constituted the greatest danger to South Africa, the bolshevists of Russia, and he explained why he said so. The first reason he gave was that Russia persecuted Christianity and all churches from the one end to the other. Russia, he said, had even burnt down Christian churches. He said at Ventersdorp that we had to pray and guard against Russia and Bolshevism triumphing in the world, and he particularly said that Bolshevism should not be allowed to triumph here in South Africa. Why not here in South Africa? Because we have different colours here in South Africa. That was why it was a menace, particularly in this country. The Prime Minister is over there, and I want to ask him if what I am saying is not true. Let him get up and say that I am not speaking the truth. Today, however, we are told that Bolshevism is no longer the danger. My children and other people’s children have to go North to fight, and they have to go and fight side by side with Bolshevism who are persecuting our Christian churches throughout the world. If I have to do that it means that I am persecuting my own religion, my religion which is the greatest gift to humanity—one’s belief in Christianity. How can I do so? How can the Prime Minister come to the Afrikaner people and recruit them and ask our sons to go and fight, ask them to do a thing which means that they must go and persecute our own religion and our own church, because that is what the position will be if we go and fight side by side with the Bolsheviks. That is what we are doing. I waited a long time after Germany had invaded Russia to hear what the Prime Minister had to say. I listen to my King when he speaks over the radio and also to the Prime Minister, even if it is at midnight. Our farmers go to bed early, but if the King or the Prime Minister speaks I wait until they finish speaking. And do hon. members know what hurt me most of all—it is that the Prime Minister who was baptised in a Christian church, in a Protestant Church, has blessed the Russian Army. You know, General, you and I have passed through deep waters, through hard times. There is only one thing which will take one through those hard times and that is one’s religion. My opinion is that every person is blessed by his religion; every one has an inborn feeling of right and justice towards humanity and towards the world, and as soon as an individual renounces his religion he becomes unhappy, he goes down and he is defeated. Let me tell him that my hair stood on end in those days when they said that they were fighting for Christianity. I said “Woe to him who is hypocritical towards his church and towards his religion, twice will he be chastised.” Is not that exactly what has happened? Have not they been chastised twice over. Let us see what happened to the British Navy, let us see what happened at Dunkirk and Greece; and so things have gone on. Hard things have been said in this House in the course of this debate. I want to remind the House of what the hon. member for Riversdale said when he was here among us. He said a very true thing to the Prime Minister. He asked the Prime Minister whether he still had talks with Mr. Churchill, and when the Prime Minister replied in the affirmative he said, “Then Oom At wants to give you some advice to convey to Mr. Churchill.” He said that when the English fought in Greece they should take their ships away because if they did not the English would not fight—they would do the same thing as they did at Dunkirk. They did not take Oom At’s advice and we know what happened there.

I am sorry I have to get up again but I should like to know from the Prime Minister whether he is not prepared to answer the question which I asked about the declaration of war against Finland?

I gave the reply in writing in this House.

I am glad I have at last got that acknowledgement from the Prime Minister. He answered a question by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) by saying that we had declared war against Finland simply because Finland was at war with our Allies. Now I should like to know from the Prime Minister why Russia has not declared war against Japan?

I think you should put that question to Stalin.

I thought the Prime Minister would know what his Allies were doing. The fact is that the Prime Minister is not prepared to answer this question because he has no other reason to give for our having declared war on Finland, except that Churchill asked him to do so. That is a serious question; it is not for us as a small nation haphazardly to declare war on another small nation without our having sound reasons for doing so. I want to put this question to the Prime Minister: What would he have thought of it when he, as a Boer General, was leading the Boer Nation in the field against a powerful nation for the sake of his own freedom, if other nations without any reason had declared war against his own small nation? I want to express my deep disappointment at the fact that the Prime Minister does not deign to give the House a proper explanation of the position.

I move—

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—63:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Blackwell, L.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—40:

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, N. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van den Berg, C. J

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. van Z

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed by. Dr. Malan put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—41:

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Noes—63:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Blackwell, L.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Hirscn, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Robertson, R. B.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

On a point of order have we now voted on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Piketberg?

Yes.

I recollect that the proposal was to reduce the Prime Minister’s salary by £2,500 and not by £2,000.

It was £2,500.

The records say that the motion was—

Then the records should be amended.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Geldenhuys put, and the Committee divided:

Ayes—41:

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Noes—63:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger. V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Blackwell, L.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Vote No. 4.—“Prime Minister”, printed, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—62:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Blackwell, L.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Gilson, L. D.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Moil, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—39:

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouché, J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Haywood, J J.

Hugo, P. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Warren, C M.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. van Z.

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

Vote No. 4.—“Prime Minister”, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

On Vote No. 5.—“Defence”, £40,000,000.

I move—