When the motion was last under discussion in the House, we had an amendment from the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. du Plessis). One can only say that one is less surprised at the amendment than at the spirit and the tone of the speech of the hon. member. We live in a period of fermentation, and in every sphere today direction is being pointed by individual groups or parties. The one wants to go left and the other right. With us in South Africa the central direction, the national idea, is being interpreted by the Herenigde Nationalist Party both in the political and the economic spheres. The party has already declared its political standpoint clearly. It wants to be free from all the bonds that bind it to what is foreign. It does not want South Africa, in a servile form, to look to other countries and their governments to find out there how it must govern itself. It wants no Imperialism in South Africa, it does not want to be a postion. We want a government system of our own, not the liberal capitalist democracy of America or England, but also not the regimented totalitarianism of certain countries in Europe. We want a system that conforms to our own national requirements and our own national character, and for that reason we have formulated a system that is anchored in our own national life and in our national past. We want a new South Africa, but one that rests on the shoulders of our own past. That South Africa must be new in the sense that it is young and has the daring and courage of youth to grapple with problems, and to solve these effectively. It must also be new in the sense that it does not want to be a label or imitation of other countries. As regards our standpoint relating to the political aspect of the new South Africa, we have already put our standpoint clearly through the Leader of the Opposition last year with the introduction of the republican motion, and now we also want to declare the economic character of the new South Africa. It is the Nationalist Party that has long since pleaded for social reform measures here in this House, and where the Government is acting gingerly and injudiciously in connection with any measure for the welfare of our country, we on this side of the House consider it necessary at this stage to submit positive and comprehensive proposals to the House and the country. Thence the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition. We want to say, first, that we on this side of the House, and the country outside, are tired at always receiving alms and patch measures, and therefore we come to plead for a radical reconstruction of our whole social and economic system in South Africa. We recommend certain principles and plans as to how this reconstruction must take place. In that connection, there are a few principles on which I want to say a few words this afternoon, having reference to our agricultural industry. This is the oldest industry in South Africa, and it is an extremely important and permanent factor in our national life, and as such the foundation on which we must build up our national life. But it is also one of the most important props in our economic structure, and, that being so, we feel that the basis of our social and economic life renders it imperative that every power be marshalled in South Africa to promote and establish a happy, independent and prosperous agricultural community. We suggest certain measures to promote and reinforce that community. In the first place, we want to see created a division of rural sociology, either in the Department of Agriculture or in the Department of Social Welfare. It should be the special concern of that division to promote the social and psychological welfare of our farming community. We view the agricultural industry not merely as a means of financial income, but as a way of life. The agricultural community is a stabilised factor in our national life. It is conservative in outlook, has a powerful and healthy family life, adheres to its practices, morals, and customs, takes its pleasure and recreation more purely than any other vocation, has a sober outlook on affairs, and honours its traditions and language and religion and nation. It forms the basis of our national existence. We feel, therefore, that if we want to build up a sound nation in South Africa, then we must insure that we have a sound farming community. Then we want to ensure that unnecessary handicaps and obstacles are removed, we ask also that the agricultural resources be properly opened for use and developed—we want to see as many people as possible placed on the land under good settlement laws, people with a personal love for agriculture, and people who will be suitable settlers. For the strengthening and consolidation of the agricultural industry, we want to make certain proposals. In the first place, we feel that everything should be done to teach our farmers in South Africa that they must look upon their calling as a trusteeship. It is grantetd to the farmer to hold in custody a heritage and to use that to the advantage of the present generation, but also to pass it on inviolate and improved to posterity. Therefore we feel that the State on its side, together with the individual farmer, should adopt comprehensive plans and measures for the reinforcement and insurance of the industry by the combating and prevention, for instance, of soil erosion, soil piracy, and overstocking; water-sheds must be protected and water conservation must receive the closest attention. It should be State policy that water in South Africa should be conserved in all possible ways. Existing irrigation schemes should be assisted; where irrigators have not enough water the supply of water should be augmented. More facilities should be granted individual irrigators to obtain easier loans for the promotion of irrigation in general. As regards boreholes, jackal-proof and other fencing, we say that exceptionally generous assistance should be extended to farmers, particularly in those areas of the country that are perpetually afflicted by great droughts or stock diseases, and we ask in particular that assistance be given those people to enable them to improve and strengthen their farms where they themselves have not the means at their disposal of doing so. The eradication of noxious weeds and the combating of stock diseases must be tackled in a planned way. Then we also feel that more should be done about afforestation, by the State or individually, and that attention should be paid to forest cultivation at watersheds and thus to strengthen the waterresources of South Africa. I have mentioned these things as consolidating measures that must be taken in connection with agriculture by the State in co-operation with the individual, and the best way in which this can be done is to make the novice realise that he must control his industry according to the principle of trusteeship. But we also ask sound scientific guidance for our farmers and constructive investigation and research on the part of the State in order to help our farmers to realise the kernel of existing agricultural problems and to bridge the difficulties with which they have to contend. Therefore we recommend more field officers and agricultural experts. And where we do this we do not want these people, as has been the case generally in the past, to try and give guidance and advice from the platform, nor do we want them to give advice only at agricultural meetings and societies, but we want them to go to the farms and personally give advice at their visits to farms. In that way the guidance they can give will have so much the more meaning. We recommend further that as far as practicable there should be proper agro-economic zoning of the Union in order to develop a balanced agricultural industry. Therefore there must be the correct combination for the different zones to ensure thereby a scientific and balanced division of our agricultural undertakings. We feel in this connection that when such a zone has been demarcated the farmer must adjust himself to what experience and investigations have found to be best for such a zone, and if the farmer does not want to adapt himself then he cannot expect to get the facilities in such a zone as those that will be obtainable in another zone which is considered to be particularly suited to that particular branch of the industry. We thus want such zoning from the side of the State, and it will be of the greatest value. But we also want the financial position of the farmer to become sound. It avails nothing if a farmer adopts consolidation measures to improve his industry, it avails nothing to give him all the scientific guidance, if he is not financially able to develop his industry in the best way. In the first place, therefore, we propose that the farm mortgage problem be tackled. Over-capitalisation of the industry must be remedied and stopped, and we propose that it should be done by a sound farm mortgage redemption scheme. This scheme must have the support of the Government. The difficulties both as regards economic production and retention of the farming community on the farms, is principally due to over-capitalisation. For that reason we want to see the problem tackled at the source, and we say that steps must be taken to remove that impediment. But then we go further. We say that a thorough agricultural survey must be undertaken without delay and a sound system of soil conservation must be formulated, based on the production capacity of the land. When we have such a sound system of soil conservation, we want it to be adopted as a policy that the land shall not be burdened with bonds above a certain level of valuation. When we have done this, and have thereby restricted the farmer’s credit in certain measure, in that he may not have a farm bond heavier than determined, then we say that other credit facilities, long-term as well as short-term, should be effectively and usefully made available to the farmer at reasonable interest, and that the Land Bank must be developed so that by means of the issue of Land Bank debt certificates it can develop as the chief source of agricultural credit in South Africa. Further, if there is a person who no longer has credit because he has taken up bonds to the limit, and has perhaps already been provided with a shortterm loan by the Land Bank so that his credit is exhausted, and if such a farmer has abnormal losses as a result of natural circumstances and is no longer able to proceed with his farming, then we say that in such a case adequate assistance provision should be made. If farmers as a result of circumstances over which they have no control cannot continue their farming they must again be assisted. Further we say that in the case of insolvency a fixed value should be exempted from confiscation. This may be a radical principle, but the hon. Prime Minister will remember that when the Insolvency Law was introduced a few years ago I tried to incorporate the principle by way of an amendment. He was not prepared to accept it, but it is generally felt that if a farmer becomes bankrupt he should not be sold out completely but should be in a position to take up his industry again. We have this in other industries, as in the engineering industry and other vocations, that persons cannot be completely sold out. The material or instruments they require for the prosecution of their vocation cannot be confiscated. Therefore we ask for the agricultural industry that when an agriculturist goes bankrupt he should be left the opportunity to begin again, at any rate as a squatter or a tenant. We go further and say that the State must hold itself responsible for the control of labour facilities, and it must be the duty of the State to provide the farmer with sufficient labour. As regards crops, steps should be taken regarding crop insurance. All too often we find in our country that as a result of natural circumstances over which they have no control individuals suffer damage that could otherwise have been prevented. Therefore we propose crop insurance, and that this be brought about through the medium of the State. It must be a co-operative undertaking to which the farmers will contribute under the existing system of a levy on the first purchaser of a product, and the State must contribute on the £ for £ basis. Many difficulties in the agricultural industry will be removed in this way. Then I want to come to another point, and that is that we want to see agriculture and stock-breeding more supplementary to each other in South Africa. The adaptation of growths to the stock-breeding industry should receive special attention, and practical steps should be taken so that the two industries, agriculture and stock-breeding, shall be complementary the one to the other. Steps should be taken in South Africa to bring about that agriculture and stock-breeding, which need each other for their mutual success, link up better and are more complementary to each other. Therefore we ask improved agricultural production methods and feeding methods and better veld control, and that the Government shall extend’ its co-operation and create better facilities for the storage of fodder supplies by the provision of silos, and particularly through the introduction of fodder banks in South Africa. We feel that fodder banks should be developed in South Africa, and if this is done many difficulties with which our farmers have to contend will disappear. So far I have confined myself more to the production side of agriculture. I have suggested certain things that are necessary for advantageous production and for the improvement of the position in general, but the farmer’s problem is not only one of production but also of marketing, and therefore we want to say in connection with marketing that we stand for a policy of eliminating all price fluctuations and speculations in connection with agricultural products in South Africa. We want a policy providing controlled marketing in toto, and a system of grading of agricultural products, and price fixation for both the producer and the consumer. Therefore we also recommend that co-operative organisations be encouraged and that there shall be State control over municipal markets. We desire State control in order to get orderly marketing in South Africa to the advantage of producer and consumer. Then we say that the internal consumption of agricultural products must be intensively and consistently promoted through expert and effective publicity and better distribution methods. In this connection we want the farming community in South Africa to realise that it is necessary for their own welfare and progress that there should be a good inland market. Our farmers should realise that they are dependent on a good inland market. We want to see the inland markets developed by enhancing the purchasing power of inland consumers and by a higher standard of life for them. As regards the export of agricultural products, we say that all artificial and uneconomic export must be stopped. We want export only for products for which there is a remunerative market overseas, but we do not want South Africa’s products to be exported and dumped abroad, and thereby placing English producers and producers of other countries in a position to compete with us in our own country with our own products. Nor do we want to see the consumer in South Africa put at a disadvantage, as happened recently, e.g., when certain surplus products in our harbours had to be thrown overboard. We want to develop the export market for products for which we cannot otherwise find a good market.

What are you going to do if there is a great surplus of mealies?

We shall utilise such a surplus as far as possible in South Africa by the establishment of factories. It has already been repeatedly suggested that we should convert our surplus mealies into oil, and there is no reason why this should not be done, but if there are further surpluses then there must be grain elevators or storage spaces to carry the surpluses over to the following year. We want to combat uneconomic export in all possible ways, and we want surpluses to be used to the advantage of the country, and not to dislocate or harm the inland markets as happens today. In order to promote and expand our market we urge a healthy system of publicity and the establishment of better trade relations with the exterior, also where other countries want to take our products only on the basis of barter agreements. Before the war we saw how certain countries confined themselves to the use of barter agreements, and if after the war the same principle, is applied by certain countries, then we say on our side that we are willing to find markets for our farmers in the exterior also in that way. Our policy is not to trade and do business with only one country, but with all countries desirous of trading with us and of selling their goods to us. For a sound marketing system internally and externally we require adequate storage space, and that requirement must be seen to in the first place. The big mistake made hitherto is that all the storage space has been centralised at the ports, and even there it was quite inadequate. The cold storages, for instance, were all at the ports, and these facilities must be extended over the whole country so that there can be no repetition of what, for instance, happened during the past week in respect of fresh vegetables. We have seen how during the last few weeks the market has been dislocated and how vegetables have rotted. We want to preclude this through a sound system of marketing and storage. Then we feel that we must give perpetual attention to placing landless persons on the land by means of a sound settlement policy. We want to help suitable persons, or persons who have practical experience of farming, to obtain land where possible. We therefore propose that the State should make available sufficient land for settlement, inter alia, by means of the alienation of great land possession and land companies. Furthermore we propose that settlement shall take place only on a sound economic basis so that we shall not have a repetition of a situation where settlers must perpetually sit on the doorstep of the Government for help. For that reason we say that settlers should be placed on a sound basis, and we also plead that adequate guidance shall be given settlers. We also plead that settlers be protected against conscienceless traders and speculators. There have been too many cases in the past where a certain class of trader has exploited and ruined people placed on State settlements. Co-operative undertakings under State supervision could bring a great improvement, particularly where there is centralised settlement. We have learnt that co-operative undertakings have not only economic value but also moral value, and we are out to cultivate a healthy trade and business morality among our people. That can be achieved through a healthy system of co-operation. I have tried to mention a few things that we would like to have in connection with our agricultural industry. I have indicated what steps are necessary in our opinion to place the agricultural industry on a sound economic basis, and I hope that the people outside will pay attention to our proposals and see to it that they bring a Government into power that realises the significance of the agricultural industry to the people and that will ensure that the industry shall enjoy the necessary protection and support so that it may remain what it has always been—the power station of our people.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t propose following the hon. member in the debate which he has raised on the argricultural question, and the glowing picture which he has painted of the agricultural future of this country. I think the hon. member will agree with me that he has wandered very far from the original motion. The hon. member will see that in practically all that he has said he has made very little reference to the issues which were raised by his leader in the original motion. And, sir, that is one of the difficulties that I have in dealing with this motion of the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan). The motion does not raise any specific issues, but a whole range of subjects, it is in fact nothing less than a party programme. I think it is his party programme, I think it is an election manifesto. The hon. member has been followed by the other section here, sitting on the opposite benches, whose leader raised points of view not in any specific motion, but by tabling their entire programme from beginning to end of course, with the background that this Parliament will have to be abolished, all parties except their own to be abolished, and you will have to create a new Jerusalem in an atmosphere of Nazi socialism. That is the difficulty that one has in dealing with this motion, this all-embracing motion, raising a programme for the party at the next General Election.

I said you have got no programme.

And the amendment of the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. du Plessis) raised the same large scope; in fact an entire programme for his party at the next election. I say this is very embarrassing, it is also significant, because one asks oneself why this departure from the procedure which has been followed by the hon. member for Piketberg in other years. At the beginning of the session he has always directly challenged the policy of the Government. He does not do it this time.

Fortunately there is no policy to be challenged in this case.

I think he is getting nervous, I think he has found out that the policy which he has always raised in this House at the beginning of the Session will not do any more. That cock won’t fight, and he knows it, he knows now that we are approaching what he thinks is a blitz election, and that his programme, the policy which he has always followed hitherto in his motion will not serve the purpose of his party at all, and he comes forward now with an entirely new situation from that which he has followed in the past, and been significantly silent upon. He paints us a new picture—

You have not been reading your papers the last few years.

He paints us a picture partly taken from the Atlantic Charter, partly from the programmes of various other parties in this country, and from speeches which he hopes will serve as a sort of propaganda and manifesto for his party at the next election. It seems to me that is really what has happened. He is confessing now the bankruptcy of the policy for which his party has stood, and on which they have challenged this Government year after year, a clear confession of bankruptcy. That policy will not pay any longer, and they must get another horse to run on this occasion.

Surely you can do better than that.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is really worth while following the hon. member. He himself did not elaborate his own scheme, he made some vague general statements and raised some vague general issues, but when it came to details, practical details to carry out that policy, he said no, he was not going into details, and I do not see why I should follow him in the details of his scheme. I leave it to him and to his friends to argue out on the platform these points which he has raised, and to elaborate the picture which he has drawn here. I have never heard the hon. member speaking with more embarrassment, with more indecision, with more fumbling than he has done in this motion, and I do not think it necessary to follow him. I do not think that this is the occasion when we should go into these party polemics, of which the country, and this House is heartily sick. We want to know what is the policy of parties in regard to economic and social reform in this country, and the only substantive point which the hon. member has really raised here which is debatable and which can be adopted by us is this question of a central-economic council. Well, sir, I don’t know whether the hon. member has been asleep, but we have been dealing with this subject for some years now. This party has been busy in a practical way with these questions of social and economic conditions of the country for some years, and I think the best thing I can do today is to give the House, in very brief outline, what we have been doing, not to open a new heaven and a new earth, not to hold out promises and hopes that may never be fulfilled, but to take some actual steps towards improved conditions in times of very great difficulty, in times when we had to carry the whole burden of the war. We have done our best to deal with this problem of internal security at a time when we were busy with the problem of war production on a scale such as this country has never faced before. With all that in mind, we have had regard to the condition of the people and the reforms that will have to be carried out in this country in order to bridge our passage from the present to the time that is coming. Let me tell the House briefly some of the steps we have already taken, the reforms we have already tried to carry out in the last three or four years. In the first place we dealt with the question of an economic bank by establishing the Industrial Development Corporation. In that we established a body which would have the necessary finance to stimulate industrial development, and to supply what was really lacking in our economic system. In order that we might have the full picture before us, we appointed the Industrial and Agricultural Requirements Commission as far back as January, 1940, and they made a report on the fundamentals of an economic policy in October, 1941. That was a most valuable report. I do not think that any blue book, any report has ever been rendered in this country which touches more important issues, which gives more light and leading on the economic policy of South Africa, than the report of that commission. They surveyed the whole field, they dealt with all the fundamental points of view, and principles that we have to keen before us in dealing with our development in the future, and finally they recommended, among other things, the establishment of what they call an economic advisory planning council to guide our development in the future. Well, this planning council was appointed by the Government not exactly in the same form in which it was recommended by the commission. For instance, the commission recommended that there should be a judge to preside over this body. The Government did not think that was necessary, they did not see what useful purpose would be served by having a judicial authority in charge of this commission. The constitution of the commission was somewhat changed, it was enlarged, and it set to work, it has been busy and it has finally reported, and the report has been laid on the Table of the House a few days ago. In this report a number of specific suggestions were made, and among them a number of points of very great importance are raised. There is for instance, the question of re-employment after the war. The commission thought they should deal with this matter of re-employment after the war, and a careful and comprehensive survey of the whole situation that will arise immediately after the war has been made. They made a number of recommendations, and then they went into other questions that await our attention after the war. Let me just deal with a couple of these suggestions. The first was that we should deal with the re-employment of our troops that will be returning after the war. The Planning Council recommended that in view of the very large problems that would face us, in view of the large numbers of men who would return from the war with no prospect of certain employment, the Government should take certain steps. Those steps, sir, are being taken, and I may tell the House in a few words that steps are being taken by us. In the first place, an instruction has been given to our National Supplies Council under Dr. Van der Byl, to have a careful survey made immediately of what steps would be necessary after the war to switch over from war industries to peaceful industries. A vast machinery of production has been created for war purposes, that machinery will come to an end, will cease to function in many respects after the war, and it ought to be possible to plan the switch-over from war production such as is going on at the present, to peaceful civil production which will follow. That instruction has been given, that survey is now being made by Dr. Van der Byl and his organisation, and whatever can be done to plan the change-over, the transformation from war to peace industry, and to see that our energy does not disappear, is not dissipated at the end of the war, but is devoted to civil production thereafter; all these steps are already being surveyed and will in due course be taken. That is one large step which has been taken which will ensure that after the war the machinery for production which is now functioning for war purposes, shall continue with such transformations as are necessary to function for peaceful production. Then another step we are taking is this. Instruction has been given to all Government departments to work out now in as full detail as possible a programme of development which they had ahead of them. Each department has ideas of expansion in future, and it ought to be possible by carefully elaborating those plans, and working out the details, to secure that at the end of the war there will be a great programme of activity ready to be set in motion, capable of absorbing the maximum amount of labour that will be looking for employment.

Very little has been done so far by your Government. The Government has had three years on it.

The Planning Council recommended that these steps be taken, not only by the Government departments but by the provincial authorities, and the municipal authorities to work out a programme within a reasonable time. The result will be that with this preliminary work we shall be able, when the war comes to an end, to know exactly where we stand, and the measure of employment that we shall be able to give to our men. I am fairly hopeful that what with the wise forethought and planning which is now being taken, we shall be able to give a large measure of employment to our men when the war comes to an end. I think the Planning Council has probably exaggerated the number of unemployed with whom we shall be faced after the war, and when I look at the figures which they give here, I do not think we need fear such numbers of unemployed. For instance, in regard to Europeans, they estimate that there will be after the war 80,000 males and 30,000 females unemployed. Certainly in regard to the females, I think a very large proportion will be naturally absorbed into civil life in very many ways which I need not go into. Then in regard to the males, I doubt whether the total number who will claim employment from the Government, will be as large as 80,000. The number of natives unemployed given here is 90,000, and I think that that also is probably an overestimate, I think that with the natural expansion which is taking place, and the increased demand for labour in the country, it will probably be found that this number, and also the number for coloured and Indians—20,000—is exaggerated.

How do you know that?

Whatever can be done by the Government to prepare for the switch-over, to prepare for employment in peace time of the men and women who are now engaged in the war, I think is being done. There are a number of other recommendations of the Council which require a good deal of consideration by the Government; they are important recommendations which require a good deal of thought. But there is one recommendation which we think ought to be carried out, and we are taking the necessary steps. I refer to social security. They recommend that we should take steps as early as possible to deal with questions of social security, which are coming to the fore all over the world. It is one of the major issues today in the whole world situation, and in South Africa it also stares us in the face. A number of schemes have been laid before the Government by various agencies, the subject is very much to the fore here in the country, and rightly so, and it is a subject which above all requires careful exploration in all its aspects, and so that no time should be lost we are appointing a body which will investigate this question. Such a body has now been appointed in the Planning Council, our whole development will take place under this planning Council.

Who is on it; will you tell us?

The reference to this committee of investigation is as follows—

Whatever security we can give will depend on the capacity of this country, the productive capacity of this country. You cannot give more security than is created by the work of the people themselves, and therefore in framing any system of social security you have to bear in mind the productive capacity of the country, and any means that may increase that capacity, so that as the production of the country increases the social security of the people can also be increased. You have to bear that in mind as a cardinal principle. We must also bear in mind provisions which may safeguard the principles of initiative and of responsibility among the people. You do not want people to simply live on the mercy of the Government; nothing could be worse for this country than to have anything approaching even a dole system, or any system which takes from the people a sense of independence, of self-respect, of responsibility and of initiative, which are basic principles in the progress of any country and any society. The committee, in making their recommendations to the Planning Council, will have to take due regard to these fundamental considerations. The committee consists of Dr. H. J. van Eck, who will be chairman, Prof. H. B. Burrows, Dr. P. Allan, the head of the Medical Survey; Mr. G. A. C. Kuschke, of the Social Welfare Department; Mai. D. A. Pirie, Mr. W. J. G. Mears; Senator J. D. F. Briggs with Dr. F. J. Biljon as secretary. This is a committee which will work out in detail the scheme for social security, it will take into consideration the schemes which have been submitted already by the public and on other occasions, and they will frame some plan which can be perhaps bettered by the Planning Council, because they will give their report to the Planning Council, whose final scheme will be considered by the people and Parliament of this country. I think, sir, that for the improvement of conditions in this country, a great deal more will have to be done even than any measure of social security. There is no doubt that social security in the sense it is ordinarily understood, is only part of the problem in front of us. If we want to have due regard for social welfare, if we want to plan a society in this country which is really going to move forward to be a happy prosperous community, we shall want not only social security in the ordinary and limited sense, but we shall have to raise the whole level of society, we shall have to look after public health, which seems to me co be probably the basic problem of all, all classes, all colours. The whole question of public health to my mind, is one of the gravest issues of this country. Social security is only one aspect of a planned scheme of social welfare, and it is not only a question of public health but of housing. Our housing conditions leave much to be desired, and although a good deal has already been done, and although much money has already been spent on housing, a good deal more will have to be done, and many more special steps will have to be taken to secure for our people an adequate system of housing. I believe we have already in recent years allocated or spent as much as £18,000,000 for housing, a great deal of money has already been spent, and much more will have to be spent, and I think probably principles will have to be changed, in order that housing conditions may be placed on a wholesome basis in this country.

Now I am sure we are getting an election.

Then there is the question of nutrition, the feeding of the people, which is again something apart from social security in the narrower sense. There is no doubt that in the light which we now have on feeding problems, on the whole question of nutrition, much more will have to be done in future in making proper provision for the health and feeding of our people than we have done hitherto. In all three respects steps have already been taken which will have to be developed in future. We have already a nutrition council working, which is continuing research and elaborating the steps which should be taken for the proper feeding of the people. We have a Housing Board, and that will have to be tightened up, and the work accelerated. A Commission on Public Health has just been appointed, presided over by a very able hon. member of this House, which I think will guide this House and the country generally in regard to this question of a wise health policy for this country in the future. Steps have been taken in all these respects, but we cannot say that what has been done is in any sense adequate, and it may be that much more will have to be done. A careful exploration is now taking place, and we shall be able, afterwards, to consider these questions in the light of that careful investigation. With proper knowledge of all the schemes, Parliament and the Government will be able to take action in the light of full knowledge of all the aspects of these various problems. Sir, I think that is the proper way to set about this whole question of social and economic difficulties. We have this Planning Council now, which will be the directing agency of this great move on the part of our people towards a better future. It is quite impossible for us in this House, oppressed as we are with political issues which take up all our time, it is quite impossible for us to enquire into these difficult economic and financial questions. There should be, side by side with Parliament, an expert council to guide our work, and I look upon this Planning Council as something fundamental something of far-reaching importance which, if it prove fruitful will give us a solution of many of the problems which face democracy today. This Planning Council which we have started has asked for statutory status; that was the recommendation of the council itself, but we felt that the time is not ripe for that yet. The Planning Council is in the experimental stage, it has a chance in a great crisis in this country, to make good, it can guide our footsteps over difficult ground which we shall have to cover in the next few years, and I can quite understand that if the Planning Council does its work properly and produces to us schemes which are well thought out, the Council may become a very important link in the whole system of democracy as it will work in this country. It will be an adjunct to Parliament, an expert social and economic adjunct to Parliament, and be able to provide us with the advice and guidance which we want in these respects. That is our plan. The Planning Council has made recommendations which we are carrying out, and I think, sir, that without promising a new heaven and a new earth to our people, we can at any rate give them this assurance, that we have taken the necessary steps, we have adopted the necessary means, to move forward on wise, sound and well thought out lines, towards a better social and economic state of affairs in the future. I don’t want to make promises which may not be carried out. The hon. gentleman over there has painted a picture of agriculture, which neither I nor he will see carried out in our day.

Why not?

Well, has it been done in all the years that you were in power? That is the trouble, Mr. Speaker, to make promises which cannot be carried out within a reasonable time, and to make people feel that there is some insincerity and dishonesty about politics. Don’t let us proceed on those lines. Let us take the course which has been adopted by the Government in this case, a careful planning and working out on sound lines of enquiry, the steps that will have to be taken in the future.

It is abundantly clear that the Prime Minister should rather confine himself to matters in regard to which he feels more at home, such as for instance paying tributes to Comrade Stalin or the defence of his policy to arm natives and coloured people. When we are dealing with a serious subject such as this one he should rather leave it to the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) to answer. The Prime Minister’s whole reply was nothing but a series of vague and insignificant remarks. He spoke a lot about planning, but he was not able to show us what his Government had done so far except to appoint Commissions. That is all they have done so far. They appoint Commissions and afterwards matters have to right themselves on their own. The Prime Minister started off by asking why we had not proposed another vote of no confidence, seeing that we had proposed such votes regularly in former Sessions, but I remember only too well that when a motion of that kind was last introduced by the Opposition, this self same Prime Minister and his friends behind him said: “Here you are again with a vote of no confidence, cannot you come along with something else?” Well, today we have put forward something else. We are the Opposition and we are not in power. We are not in a position today to do those things which we want to do, and we cannot carry out the plans which we have in mind. We come here, as an Opposition with our alternative policy, with our policy for the future, but the Prime Minister gets up and says, “Why did you not rather introduce a vote of no confidence?” He said that he was not going to follow the Leader of the Opposition in his polemics. But immediately afterwards, and especially towards the end of his speech, he very definitely did follow the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister devoted a great deal of time to the question of medical services, particularly to the housing question. These are two of the matters in respect of which there are no platitudes in the motion of the Leader of the Opposition, but these are two matters in connection with which a very definite policy is laid down. It is perfectly clear that the Prime Minister has not taken the trouble to study this very serious and very important motion. And if he has not read it and not studied it how can he have the temerity to reply to it? He has held forth at length on national health and on housing. Here we have it in this motion that we urge—

The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister said that he did not want to follow along the lines set by the Leader of the Opposition, yet he did so right throughout his speech. In regard to these two points, the policy which the Prime Minister is now proclaiming is one which has been taken over from this side of the House. Let us also take the Planning Council which the Prime Minister has had such a lot to say about. What is that Planning Council but the Central Economic Council which this side of the House has been advocating for a number of years. Would there ever have been anything like that if the idea had not comes from this side of the House? It is an imitation and a very poor imitation of our policy. The Prime Minister says that he is not following along the lines of the Leader of the Opposition. He has done so but he has achieved nothing. The Prime Minister spoke about industries. The Industrial Corporation which he referred to—what is that but the idea of an Industrial Bank which this side of the House has been urging for time after time during the past few years? Would there ever have been an Industrial Corporation if we had not put forward the idea of an Industrial Bank? And the same applies to other matters. If there is one thing which we as an Opposition have been pleading for in the last few years it is a Mortgage Bond Redemption Scheme, and last year the Minister of Finance got up here and announced that he was going to introduce a redemption scheme. It was not on the same lines as our scheme, and it was not as good as ours. So they are busy taking over our economic policy, and they are busy imitating our economic policy, and yet the Prime Minister comes here and tells us that he is not going to follow the Leader of the Opposition in his polemics! Let us go back for a moment to the history of the Nationalist Party. The industrial policy which we are pursuing in South Africa today—the fact that South Africa is full of industries today—is not that due to the Nationalist Party? Would an Industrial Corporation ever have been established if the industrial policy had not been laid down by the Nationalist Party? Take this question of settlements. Was it not the Nationalist Party which came forward with the one-tenth system which made it also possible for the poor to get possession of Crown lands? We showed the way which they are trying to follow, but they are following it in a very poor fashion. All we got today from the Prime Minister in regard to this matter was very vague and very unsatisfactory. With a wave of his hand he referred to the Atlantic Charter and all the rest of it. But did the Prime Minister in his speech tell us anything concrete? Nothing. “Instructions have been issued”. That is what we heard right throughout his speech. Instructions have been issued to enquire into this and to enquire into that, but can the Prime Minister point to anything concrete that his Government has done during the past three years? All they have been thinking of has been the war. There is money for the war but for nothing else, and as long as this Government remains in power we shall never get any further. The Prime Minister tells us that we don’t read the newspapers, but I am afraid that he does not read them. Hasn’t he read what his own papers say? If he has read them he must have seen that even among his own supporters today there is serious dissatisfaction at the Government’s neglect of these very important problems. The Prime Minister said that he did not think much of the motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. This motion aims at a complete change in our social and economic system; it more specifically aims at the removal of the evils which, under the British liberal system, the laissez faire system, have found a footing in South Africa. In our country, too, we find as a result of that system, great wealth and great poverty alongside of each other. The motion which we have introduced contemplates not only the removal of those evils, but it also contemplates a better employment of our national resources. It contemplates eventual economic independence for our country, and it further contemplates the raising of the general standard of living of the people as a whole. That, broadly, is the object of the motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. We want to bring about a general change, a general revolution in the economic structure of our country, with its many sections and its many branches, and I particularly wish to direct my attention today to one branch, namely, that of Commerce and Industry, and when I say industry I am referring more particularly to what we know as secondary industries. I don’t want to quote any figures because figures can be quoted to prove all kinds of things, and I don’t think it is necessary for me to quote figures for the purpose of this debate. I only want to mention the general principles which we stand for in regard to our future industrial policy. We have progressed very far since the days of 1924. In those days the principle was upheld that South Africa should only produce, should only provide the agricultural and the raw materials, while England should manufacture, and we must buy from England. But thanks to the policy of the Nationalist Party of those days, and thanks particularly to the policy of the late Mr. Willie Beyers, who was Minister of Commerce and Industries in those days, a new policy was introduced in South Africa. The days when we only concerned ourselves with production have passed. There is no need for me to go into details on the question of the benefits of an industrial policy. There are very few people who really take an interest in our country who are not fully aware of those benefits. Such benefits as the creation of markets for primary products, the creation of employment facilities for the inhabitants of the country, the improvement of our trade balance on account of our not having to import certain commodities, and naturally also the building up of our own export trade, especially in the areas to the north of the Union—those benefits are obvious. This motion introduced by this side of the House primarily contemplates further expansion of our industries. It contemplates that that expansion, when it takes place, also in regard to existing industry, will take place on certain conditions and under certain circumstances. Those conditions and those circumstances have to apply not only to industries of the future but also to industries which are already in existence, and in the fourth place the motion contemplates the removal of those evils which in the past few years have made their way into our industrial system. In regard to the first two points which I mentioned, the attitude of this side of the House is that the establishment of new industries must be encouraged. That is axiomatic, and I need not elaborate that point. We further say that if new industries are established they have to be on an economic basis, they have to be on a sound economic basis. Hon. members will now ask me what we mean by a sound economic basis. My answer is that where a new industry is established the question must be asked whether such an industry has a right to exist, and if it is of such a nature that it can continue to exist. The further question arises whether the necessary raw materials are available for that industry, and whether sufficient quantities of that raw material are available in this country, whether there is a demand for the particular product, and whether there are not already sufficient industries of that particular kind in the country. And then, of course, there is the question of sound finance. But I want to add to that that while such tests must be applied, those tests must not be made too severe, they must not be so severe that they will have a restraining effect on the development of industries, because we must always take into consideration the factor of assistance by the State, assistance by the State which is already being given in the shape of tariff protection. The principle of State encouragement and State support for industries has already been adopted, and the most important type of assistance by the State in South Africa so far has always been by means of tariff protection and also by means of dumping tariffs. That type of assistance by the State will continue in future, and it is possible that in South Africa, too, we shall perhaps have to provide for a further type of State aid in the same way as in certain other countries, by way of import licences. Wherever State encouragement is given in the form of a protective tariff it must be done under certain, conditions, and it must be done not only in regard to future industries, but those conditions must also apply to industries already existing in the country. Secondly, those industries must be subject to the condition that certain evils which have already made their way into our industrial life are to be done away with. The principle of tariff protection is axiomatic to my mind. It was agreed, however, in the past, that tariff protection should be afforded under certain conditions, although those conditions were not always carried out in practice. For instance, it was always understood that the State must give protection as long as an industry requires protection, but it also became axiomatic in regard to so-called infant industries that they always remained infant industries, and that they never grew up. It is essential, however, to impose certain restrictions on the granting of State aid by means of protective tariffs, and special care must be taken that the cost of living of the population is not raised unduly as a result. In the third place such State aid by means of protection must not have the effect of industrialists being enriched at the expense of the consumer and of the producer of the raw materials. I have not got the time at this junction to go into the details of this scheme, I am only putting forward these doctrines. I now come to another point and that is that we on this side of the House divide our industries into two classes; first the key industries, and secondly those industries which for convenient’s sake I shall call ordinary industry. Key industries I would define as being industries of special national importance, industries of importance to the country as a whole; and secondly, industries which are of particular importance to the primary producer because they are large consumers of agricultural products. Such industries, which are of such great importance to the State and to the people as a whole, and also to the producers of primary products, will be declared to be key industries by the State; but that is not all. What we do contemplae is that the type of industry such as Iscor will be established by the State. In Iscor we have an instance of a key industry. If the State itself does not establish such an industry it must at any rate have the controlling share in/or control of the industry. There is for instance the manufacture of arms and ammunition. That is the type of industry which, as a result of the war, may possibly expand in South Africa. If there is one industry which should be under State control it is an arms and ammunition industry. Then there is the textile industry. There we have an industry which is of the greatest importance to one of the large interests in this country, namely our wool-farming industry. Efforts have been made to start a textile industry in South Africa but not with any great degree of success, except in regard to the manufacture of blankets, but certainly not so far as woollen materials are concerned. We feel that textiles are of such importance to the wool farmers that the industry very definitely is one which can be classified as a key industry. That is all I want to say about the key industries. Now I come to the second class, namely the ordinary industries. The policy of this side of the House is that as regards ordinary industries they must be left to provide initiative, but that the liberalistic principle of laissez faire must be removed, and that in its place we must have a certain degree of State control. Such State control will be in the interest of the consumer as well as of the producer and also in the interest of the industry itself. Hon. members may possibly ask me what we mean by State control, what our intentions are. The intention in the first place is to ensure that industries are established on a sound economic basis. That is to ensure that in South Africa there shall not arise what I might call a new industrial capitalism and that no exorbitant profits will be allowed in industry, profits made at the expense of the consumers and also at the expense of the producers of raw materials. State control is also essential for the proper protection of the investors and the shareholders. State control is necessary to combat the possibility of there arising in South Africa, as has happened in other countries, of cartels, monopolies, holding companies, and all the rest of it. It is very difficult to exterminate monopolies—that I realise—but we feel that we shall be able to curtail it by means of State control. Now the question arises how State control is to be secured and what form it is to assume. It will assume two forms, the first will be by giving special powers to the State. In the past few years we have seen what can be done by way of regulations and perhaps that is something which we have learnt from those regulations. There is an old saying, “It is an ill wind which blows nobody any good.” Possibly we have learnt something from this, and it is possible that we may realise that in future greater powers should be given to the State, to enable the State to interfere in special circumstances, but what is of more importance is this: we contemplate a system of State control by means of licences—that is to say, that all industries in future must be licensed, and that applies not only to industrial undertakings of the future but also to existing industries. By means of such a system of licensing the State obtains effective control. Licensing so far has not been effective because the licences have been merely intended as a form of securing revenue. A licence once granted is hardly ever withdrawn and it is very rarely not renewed. What we contemplate is an expansion of the licensing system. There must be a licence for every industrial undertaking in the country, but also with this condition attached, that such a licence can be withdrawn by the State at any time. Apart from these factors which I have mentioned—and I have not got the time to go into details—there are certain other matters for which the system of licensing can also be used. One of those is a matter which will have to receive attention, and that is the question to what extent we are going to allow foreign concerns to have branches here in South Africa. The principle of branches of foreign concerns is a sound one. We have derived great benefits from it so far, but in spite of the position which prevailed in the past we contemplate the laying down of a condition that if a foreign company establishes a branch here in South Africa that branch is to be regarded as a South African enterprise and it must be under the control of Union citizens only. In that way we shall remove the possibility of foreign control. Then there is a second and very important point in connection with which we shall probably be very severely criticised, and it is this, that in the issuing of licences in respect of industrial undertakings the two principal races in this country will be taken into account; and the policy which has been adopted and proclaimed by this side of the House is that preference will be given to applicants belonging to the two main races in this country, that is, to the Afrikaans speaking and English speaking races of this country. We have already laid down the principle on this side of the House by means of motions and by legislation which we have introduced, that the Jewish race is regarded as a foreign an unassimilable race. We now declare that in the granting of licences in future, and also in regard to existing industries, that fact will be taken into account. Our policy is that the State in future will grant licences on the percentage or quota basis, that is to say, in accordance with the numerical strength of the Jewish race of this country. The principle is a new one, but it is a principle which is in the interest of the two principal races of South Africa. The time has come for drastic action to be taken for the sake of both the English speaking and Afrikaans speaking sections of the community. Then there is another matter too which can be regulated by means of the licensing system, and that is the question of the geographical distribution of industries, that is to say, to ensure that industries will not be concentrated too much in a few centres, and especially to ensure that the platteland will get its legitimate share of those industries, particularly with a view to the consumption of agricultural products. Now I come to the question of what in future is going to be the position of the employee in our industries in regard to wages, working hours and so forth. This is a matter which was discussed by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) when he made his contribution to this debate. I may say briefly that our policy is to have wages and working hours controlled by the State, but we also propose the introduction of a new principle, and that is that in regard to key industries—those industries which are declared by the State to be key industries, or which are established by the State, or in which the State has a controlling share and exercises control—in those industries the principle of profit sharing will be introduced, also so far as the workers are concerned. I know that this is a radical new principle which possibly will come as a shock to many people in South Africa; yet it is a principle which has been applied for many years, only it has been applied in a different form. At Iscor we have the bonus system, and in America it has for many years been the policy of large companies to give their employees a share in the profits by issuing shares to those employees. That is done regularly. Those shares are either presented to them at the end of the year or the workers in particular industries are given the opportunity of buying shares at a very low price. The idea of this scheme is that of co-ownership, and that idea has already been adopted. We now propose that in regard to key industries that principle shall also be adopted, and that it shall be adopted on a certain scale—the details of which can be worked out—there will be a division of profits and the worker will be paid his legitimate share of the profits so that he may feel he also has a share in the industry. We hope that once this principle has been introduced into the key industries it will gradually extend to the ordinary private industries in the country. Another principle which we stand for is that of granting aid to new and small undertakings. It is true that we have the Industrial Corporation in existence today, but that Industrial Corporation is only part of the policy which this side of the House has advocated, namely the establishment of an Industrial Bank. We also stand for aid to new and small enterprises. A small enterprise which has already been established, or an existing enterprise which wants to expand but requires capital, could be assisted in this way. The Industrial Corporation unfortunately is only intended, or is mainly intended, for large industry.

No, that is not so.

Well, that was the original idea. We want to assist the small industries, and we say that the small industrialist must be assisted by means of an Industrial Bank, or by the extension of the functions of the existing Industrial Corporation. A further principle we stand for is that of segregation. That, too, is a principle which this side of the House has advocated for years, namely that in our industries there is to be proper segregation between European and nonEuropean. It is quite possible that the principle of segregation will also be extended in another direction. I have only enumerated general principles today in regard to our industrial policy. We believe that if these principles are adopted the establishment and development of industries will take place on a sound basis, not in the interest of the industrialist himself, but also in the interest of the consumer, in the interest of the man who supplies the raw materials, and also in the interest of the man working in the industry. Now I come to the second point, and that is the question of marketing. If one has an industry which is producing, the products of that industry have to be sold; thus we have the local market, but the foreign market has also to be provided for. In regard to local trade, I do not propose saying very much. There, too, however, stricter control will be exercised by means of licences. I am not speaking of the type of licences which we have had in the past. Those licences only constituted a source of revenue; I am referring to licences which are issued but which for some good reason or another can again be withdrawn. By means of licences care will have to be taken against the possibility of overtrading. Overtrading is an evil which we find today in our retail trade in South Africa, and steps will have to be taken against that sort of thing in future. Then there is the evil of agreements entered into between retail traders and wholesale traders, with a view to cutting out competition. This sort of thing is achieved by means of differential prices and by refusing supplies. It is an evil which will have to be done away with, and it can be done by special powers being given to the State and also by the withdrawal of licences. But at the same time action will have to be taken in the retail trade and also in the wholesale trade, exactly as in industry, to ensure that the English and Afrikaans sections of the population, the two principal races of this country, will obtain a legitimate share. In trade and commerce too a quota system will have to be brought into being, to ensure protection being given to the Afrikaans and English section of the population against the ever increasing hold which the Jews have on trade. And not only in trade and commerce but also in the professions and other vocations in the country it is necessary that some such steps should be taken. The Jewish population constitutes from 5 to 6 per cent. of the total population and they already have from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. of those vocations and professions in their hands. Consequently, in trade and in vocations and professions the quota system will have to be introduced. We therefore say that we give notice that it will be our policy in future to take action in that direction. I now come to the question of our foreign trade. There is no country in the world which is able to supply all its own needs, nor is there any country which is able to consume the whole of its own production. That is why we have import and export—that is to say, foreign trade. Here again, I can only attempt to set out our policy in broad lines. The days of free trade have long since past. Even England, the last stronghold of free trade has been forced to relinquish it. And today, throughout the whole world, there are high tariff walls, importation is prohibited, and there are all kinds of regulations, with the result that it has become necessary to regulate foreign trade and to control it by means of trade agreements. In the past, so far as our foreign trade was concerned, we used to divide it practically into two separate sections. We had our trade with England and the British Empire, and we had our trade with the rest of the world. Number one, that is to say our trade with the British Empire, was regulated by what is known as the system of preferential rates, and as regards number two, that was usually regulated, sometimes in a very injudicious manner, by means of agreements. I am not going to go into any details on the question of preferential rates to Great Britain, except to say that the policy of this side of the House is that British preference, that is the preference to England and the Dominions, will be abolished. Our policy is to place England on an equal footing with other countries in the world. I want to add this, that in regard to the policy of preferential rates of the past we have found that that policy has benefited England very much more than South Africa. But we also had the other extraordinary fact, that when it suited England’s purpose she did not hesitate to give preference to the Argentine at the expense of South Africa in regard to the buying of meat. The South African producers were turned down. We say that the preferential rates policy will be done away with, and that there will be no distinction between the Empire and other countries—that is to say if there is still an Empire and if Joe Stalin and Franklin Roosevelt have not inherited the British Empire. Our trade relations with foreign States, including England, will be regulated by means of trade agreements, and those trade agreements will be entered into, taking into consideration the principle of quid pro quo and of existing trade balances. In other words, we shall adopt the attitude, which is also adopted in other countries, but which we have not observed in the past, namely that we are going to buy from those who buy from us, and secondly, that we are going to take the trade balance into account; and on those lines we are going to enter into trade agreements. I admit that we cannot lay down any fixed rules in this regard, and that there may be circumstances when that rule will not answer, but generally speaking that will be the basis of our foreign trade policy. It will mean that England will have the same opportunity of competing for trade agreements or tariff concessions as any other country; and if England continues to be a good buyer of our products, as she used to be in the past, well, to the extent that England buys from us England will get concessions from South Africa. We had this position in the past, that France bought six times more from South Africa that South Africa bought from France; yet so far as concessions were concerned France was still in a disadvantageous position. There will be no favouritism. In regard to what I have said, that when trade agreements are entered into, we shall take the principle of quid pro quo, and of the existing trade balances into account…. [Time limit.]

Sir, I have been in this House five years, but I have never outgrown what I think is a natural and right feeling of awe for it. It comes upon me very strongly this afternoon, when I am called upon to make a plea which requires much more eloquence than I shall ever possess. Moreover, owing to a little indisposition, I have come here straight from bed, and I propose to scramble back into that bed when this effort is over. I mention that because it will probably make my speech even more dud than usual, and I do not want hon. members to condemn the prisoner at the bar, because I myself, as defending counsel, am a little bit extra cock-eyed. I want to move the following further amendment to the one which stands in the name of the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan)—

In doing this, sir, I would point out that most of the proposals contained in the original motion represent steps towards a socialist state. The Prime Minister seemed to me rather to ridicule that original motion as an election manifesto. Well, it may be that; it is a very good one as far as it goes, and I wish to prove that by a quotation from it—

Mr. Speaker, my amendment merely carries that to the logical conclusion, and I have every confidence in asking the hon. Leader of the Opposition to withdraw his motion and support my amendment. In one respect, sir, and one only, it is a good thing that my Party has inspanned me to move this amendment.

Where is your party?

I happen to be a cautious sort of a cove who does not take very much for granted. Therefore, though Presidents and Prime Ministers and goodness-knows-who have of late gone around prophesying of an impending social Paradise, I have not yet indented for my personal equipment of wings and harp! Rome was not built in a day, nor will a vicious social system be replaced by a virtuous one in a week, or a month, or a year. Nobody is going to fluke a lucky law or two, and thereby at once transform South Africa (or any other country) from darkness to light. I have no particular respect for teachers or preachers or politicians who expatiate on the delights of heaven without showing us the way to get there. A good portion of my time will therefore be devoted to the means which I consider most important of all to the end we have in view’, that of a happy, healthy and secure community. It may be that I shall have to keep the House, or a few long-suffering members of it, for the best part of forty minutes, and if that is so, I think I had better give them a smile at this stage, if they can smile, by reading them an extract from that well-known work, Sir Thomas More’s “Utopia”. To make a serious reference to it in an Assembly such as ours, is, I believe, accepted as a joke indeed! Well, sir, here it is. And I hope everybody enjoys it:

The Utopians were, of course, quaint people, and held all things in common, and maintained that such a plan was the only one that truly deserved the name of a commonwealth—

Mr. Speaker, that is better English and better sense than is sometimes heard in this House. For more than 400 years it has been the fashion for Governments, whether claiming to be Democratic or otherwise, to sneer at this book and its doctrine. You will remember, sir, what the weaker minded brethren will undoubtedly have forgotten, that in 1523 its author was appointed Speaker of the English House of Commons. A long, long time ago; and from that date to this, Governments have wanted, or said they wanted, these very same blessings for their peoples. They have known, presumably, of a better and more practicable way. But it did not work. We have heard a good deal this afternoon about what is to be done and what may be done. One of the things that has been done is that we have been led straight into war, the bloodiest war of all history. But perhaps I had better leave the plan proposed 400 years ago, and go on to quote some literature which is more practical, more sensible, or at least more up-to-date. I will give you, Mr. Speaker, an extract dealing with one or two very modern profit-making institutions, models de luxe. It is taken from the “Cape Times” of January 21st, 1943, and it deals with our own Auditor-General’s report for the past year. This is the modern literature on present-day profit-making:

That is an aspect of the profit-making system to which, Mr. Speaker, we are still subject. It is one way, though probably not the best way, of participating in the war effort. I do not approve of it. I do not think these methods are as good as those outlined by old-fashioned Sir Thomas More. My seconder will probably go into some detail as to the injustice and follies of competitive profit-making. All I need do is to touch upon its main tenet and its broadest and most obvious consequences. The creed of private profit-making is a very sordid one. It is merely to buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest. Apart from filling the pockets of its votaries, it has the immediate result of low wages for workers and primary producers, including farmers, and high prices to consumers—the general public. It has the contingent consequence, too, Sir, of starvation for hundreds and thousands of our people. Another resulting condition is bad housing, because hundreds and thousands of people cannot afford to pay the high rental that is charged for decent dwellings. Sickness and disease constitute a third result of profit-making, involving suffering for the people, loss of labour and production, and the cost of hospitalisation. A fourth consequence is a great deal of unnecessary crime, which has a degrading effect on the criminals themselves, once more cuts out manpower, and puts us to the equally unnecessary expense of maintaining prisons and the like. The effects, within a given nation, can be summed up in a sentence. To permit the seizing of too much wealth by a few spells want for the people as a whole. Externally, internationally, this profitmaking business is equally bad. It causes war. I do not believe there is an intelligent person in the world who doubts that profitmaking is predominantly the cause of war. All persons of sound mind are aware that behind the rigmarole of explanations, behind all the official propaganda reasons that are given, and behind that much-advertised one that war is the result of an ideological conflict, being caused by the clashing of two absolutely antipathetic ideas—behind that nonsense, for nonsense it is, is the plain and primary fact that money can be made out of war, just as the making of money led up to it. We are not immersed in war because of any irreconcilable antipathy between two ideas, but because too many people in all nations had one and the same idea—to make profit at the expense of the others. Is there no cure for it at all; is there no way out? It is as well to speak bluntly, alike to Socialists and non-Socialists. I do not think there is any magic way, or any cheap or easy way. I think to remedy things that are very bad, and to get things that you need, assuming that you wish to remain honest (or to become honest), you must pay either in coin or labour. If we want a better world and better conditions for our people, we shall have to pay for it, and paying is not Very pleasant. What did it cost the German nation to produce that very mighty and very efficient army that it is operating today? It cost them 20 years or more of deprivation, of self-denial and education too, although of education in a wrong way. What did it cost the Russian people to produce their army, that army so magnificent in valour, skill, endurance, and self-sacrifice? What did it cost the Russian people to transform their peasants into engineers, designers of aeroplanes, and uncomparable builders of great guns and ships? It cost them what Mr. Churchill has called “blood and sweat and tears” for well over 20 years. What it cost Russia was just this, the giving up of the profit-making system; a Joss of money, to gain a soul. And if, Mr. Speaker, we truly want a better South Africa, we also have to pay for it. We have to go more or less the Russian way, not the way of blood-baths, but the way of renunciation. Listen to President Roosevelt, speaking to the International Labour Conference in 1941: “There must be no place after the war, in all the world, for special privileges for either individuals or nations.” The Russian Government has carried that out already for close on a quarter of a century. Under their jurisdiction there are literally hundreds of nations, and many of them twenty years ago had an alphabet, let alone writing or books, but the policy carried out by the Russian Government over this long period has guaranteed to every human being equal opportunity. They have guaranteed to every human being his fair share of food, of clothing and of shelter; they have guaranteed him education, they have guaranteed him the chance to grow in body, mind and spirit to the greatest degree that he has in him. I would ask this, is South Africa prepared to do the same thing for the humbler sections of our country, as Russia has done for hers? Are we prepared to give these things, this fulfilment of body and of mind, not only to the poorest European people, but also to the Coloured people and to the Native people, all of them, and to the Indians? It may be that many of our people are already prepared to do that, but there are also some who are not so prepared, and the only way out of our dilemma that I can see is the way of a very greatly improved education. We have heard this afternoon a good deal about planning, but the planning seemed to me to have to do mostly with machinery and industrial products. But education is primarily concerned with people, not things. When the people are right, the distribution of wealth will be right, and not until then. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that what we need if we really are planning a better world, is a better system of education, one that will attach less importance to the intellect, and very much more to the heart and to character. Why is it humanity in the mass cannot see that this enriching of unscrupulous people by profit, at the cost of crushing down their neighbours, is wrong? How is it that people cannot see, in the mass, that this is a mean and cruel and unnecessary thing today? Why, Mr. Speaker, does not humanity realise that the best things of life, things like friendship and the respect of others, cannot be bought by money at all? Money has, after all, only a limited value. Why is it that so many people go on heaping up possessions which they cannot possibly use? It is, in a word, because we are afraid of one another. And why are we afraid of one another? It is because of the very maladroit way in which we have been educated; we have been brought up to be afraid of each other, and we need not be. Even when I went to Sunday School, because I had a memory and could therefore say the Collect a little bit better than somebody else, they gave me a prize, a prayer-book. The next year they gave me a Bible. At day-school it was much the same. I got all the prizes that were going, “How Frank began to Climb”, “Eric, or Little by Little”, and so on. So it went on through every residential school and college I attended. The authorities deliberately made my fellowworkers and my friends into my competitors. They turned them, in a true sense, into my opponents, and perhaps in effect into my enemies. Why was there this competition, giving prizes here and withholding them there? Why did that have to be brought into education at all? It is a case of “like father, like son”; it is because national education had its birth in the factory, and the factory mark is on it still. If I may have permission, Mr. Speaker, I want to give five minutes to the history of education. In 1802 the first Education Act was passed in Britain. It was to reduce the daily working hours of orphan children to twelve hours, after which they were to be taught reading, writing and arithmetic, and church attendance was to be compulsory on the Sunday. The Bill was introduced by Sir Robert Peel, the Prime Minister. He made a curious speech; he said that he himself employed very nearly 1,000 orphan children in his mills, and on his infrequent visits he was very shocked by the pool’ physical health and stunted growth that they displayed. So the Bill was brought in. It became law, but it was a dead letter until 1833. Southey, the man who wrote “The Life of Nelson”, said about this mixture of factories and child labour and education—this orphan-training scheme:

And so in England, in 1833, they brought in that second Education Act, which paid the schoolmaster, if he was lucky, £40 a year to make him “passing rich”, and the Act carried a vote of £20,000 for education, which worked out at less than a farthing per head of the population! I submit that that showed the Government attitude to education for the people then, and it is not so very different today. I say, Mr. Speaker, that that attitude of Authority towards public education is still persisting, a sort of way of throwing a bone to a dog, and it won’t do. If you want better people you must teach them better, there is no short cut anywhere. If the people were right they would do right, but they have no chance to be right. We are not much better now in the way we treat the teachers. If you compare the earnings of a dentist with that of the principal of a school, you will see what I mean. I have nothing against dentists, most of whom, I am sure, are charming and capable men. But a dentist, if normally competent and popular, would be surprised if he did not earn £100 a month, whereas he would be surprised as a teacher if he got £50. If we give £100 a month to people who draw material teeth, what ought we to pay to people who provide teeth for the mastication of intellectual food? Have we not got the cart before the horse in a number of instances, and notably in allowing such poor payment to a teacher and in failing to understand how great his vocation is. This failure is the index to our misunderstanding of the whole position. In any nation, it is the children who matter most. The children are the future; and the children are in the hands of the teacher. If we did give to our children a true sense of values, most of the other improvements that we want would follow naturally. Was it not Plato who said in his “Republic” that the probability was that the direction given by education would determine the course of all that followed? “Train up a child in the way he should go; and when he is old he will not depart from it.” Can it be done, can we from these benches or any other benches, give any constructive idea as to how the children of the future shall be prepared for a better and happier life? Have we any suggestions to make to free our grandchildren from the oppression and obsession entailed by this profit-making fetish and the rest? We can do it, by treating Education as what it really is, the matter of most importance in the life of the State, making it adequate and free, and available to absolutely all. Let me hastily set forward, in broadest outline, five steps which will help citizens of the future to live happily, without the doubtful delights of financial profit-making. First of all, Nursery Schools must be set up, in sufficient numbers to do their job properly. In some districts we shall need almost so many Nursery Schools as there are “pubs.” What a child experiences in his very early years has a great effect upon his physique, and his morals, and in some respects on his mentality. It becomes then a public duty to see that the environment of our tiny children, from two to five years old, shall be the best that can be given. During the time, the intermediate time, in which we pass from very bad social conditions to what we hope will be good, the homes will still be small, and dark, and sometimes even dirty, because soap has to be paid for. We must take away the children from such surroundings. The effect of doing so and of putting them into garden schools, or buildings that are light, large and airy need not, I think, be argued. We want to give these children into the hands of expert teachers who have been specially trained and who are specially fond of them, and their main instruction should be, not from books but by games, to live socially, that is to be happy without harming and hampering others. Then we need a change in our primary schools, a change along co-operative lines. Once more, prizes are not in the least required. The prefect system in public schools shows that the way of service rather than reward is much the better way. What we want in the primary schools is that each shall help the other, that the weak shall be led and helped by the stronger; and that can easily be if we provide that there is a place in the secondary schools for each of them. Every child will then be a teacher, the teacher will not be harrassed, and no more children will “creep unwillingly to school.” The primary school must be provided for all. I am thinking of a disgraceful thing which appeared in the Press recently about there being insufficient accommodation for 6,000 Coloured children in schools in the Cape Town district alone. That is absolutely wrong and it must be altered; and just as the Coloured children are entitled to schooling, so are the Native children, each and every one. There is one other little change that one might make, and that is to give our Government Department more power over primary education. The Provinces might well still spend the money and decide and draw up the curricula, but I think there should be a National Board of Education, with a very strong body of Inspectors who would go, in our mode of education, through all the schools, taking the new discoveries, the new methods with them, and unifying by their visits education throughout the whole of the Union. These men should be cultured, they should be gentlemen, they should be people who care greatly for children. They should be of a different type from the Inspector of Schools who said to a gracious little friend of mine, “You cannot be a teacher and a lady at the same time.”

Do you say that an Inspector said that?

Yes, sir, an Inspector said that within the last twelve months.

I hope he was not serious.

Serious or not, it is exactly what should not be said; and the woman teacher, who is a teacher and a lady at the same time, is exactly what we require. Thank God, many of them live up to that. The teachers are better than we know, and they deserve more consideration and respect than we have ever given them. Then there should be a secondary education for all children from the gase from 11 and 12 up to 16. At this stage the chief emphasis should be laid on character. Of that I am absolutely sure. They could have their cultural studies—but they should be taught above all that what matters is what you are—that it matters more what you are than what you have. And where food is required for the children food must be found for them, and where clothing is required we must find that; they must all have a full chance, and not just a few. Public schools, such as Bishops and Michaelhouse, we should take over—we should support them all provided they open their doors to national students. Then, from 16 to 18 years, those who are going into learned professions such as teaching, medicine, or law should be in a secondary school attached as a wing to the university, where they can have the advantage of a worth-while library. Of the learned professions I put teaching first of all, because I seriously suggest that the moulding of souls is a bigger job than even the mending of bodies, and I believe that we are in the hands of the teachers to an enormous extent for any true advance which is to be made towards a better and happier community. One of the criticisms of socialistically minded educationists is that we are always overlooking the fact that there are stupid people in the world, and that not every one is adapted to higher education. Since I came to this place I have never doubted that. At 16 years of age, or even earlier, many children are restless to take part in the world’s work. We can let them, but we should at the same time endorse the recommendation of the Spens Report of 1938 and allow these youths between 16 and 18 not more than 22 hours per week of work at a machine or elsewhere, the other 22 hours being spent at the technical or secondary school. What they should be learning at this stage is full citizenship, the duties as well as the rights thereof. Lastly universities and adult residential courses should be open and free to all who wish to make use of them, and have the natural ability to do so; but this is so obvious that I won’t waste the time of the House by arguing it. I say the universities and adult colleges must be open and free. Why? Why all this talk about education, anyway? One of the reasons why I have talked so much about it is that on my table before me I have a couple of manuscript plays, which, as a change from most modern compositions, are interesting, funny and clever without being unpleasant in any way. The author is a housewife in Durban, who was denied the opportunity of university education. I am wondering how far she could have enriched South African literature had a fair chance come her way.

Don’t say that.

I have just two points to make. The Leader of the Opposition has urged in his motion very drastic steps towards socialism. I merely want to urge as an immediate step that the opportunities for education should be improved and extended and made available to each and every one without regard to sex, race, or colour, or creed, and I say that there would be no great objection to that anywhere. I say that if this is done it will give great relief to all parents throughout the Union; and I say the expenditure will be remunerative in the highest possible degree. There is one further reference I must make—a very serious one indeed. We live in curious times. Not only in our country, but in all countries, leading statesmen are running about talking freely of Christianity as the basis of our society. Is it? Or do we wish it to be? If we honestly desire a Christian country, we shall have to make Christians. Where can we do this better than in our schools? Are we prepared to use our schools to that end? That is a question which calls for an answer. I hope the reply will be in the affirmative. On the other hand, that large fortunes are being made out of war-profits we know; we know at the same time that we are paying the merest pittance to our fighting-men. Can that be reconciled with Christianity? What are we going to do about that? To vote for this amendment would be doing at least something,

I second. My colleague dealt only with the first part of the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. I agree with him insofar as the first part is concerned, but taking the motion as a whole I am not quite sure whether I should congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on his superb political conceit or whether I should sympathise with him for his obvious floundering in the sea of economics to which we in this House know he is very unaccustomed. He has endeavoured to make the best of all worlds. He goes to the extreme left with the Communists. He goes to the left with the Socialists, he remains in the middle with the Liberals, and he goes to the extreme right with the Nazis and I am not sure that he is not going to the dogs with the Malanites.

You should know, you have been there for a long time.

However, there is one thing in the motion on which I feel I must congratulate him and his party and that is that at long last they have realised that the politics of South Africa can only be sound politics when they are divided on economic lines. I am trusting that despite the fact, as the Prime Minister says, that this long winded resolution in itself is an election manifesto—I am trusting that despite the fact that it is an election manifesto, it is at least sincere, and that from this Session onwards we shall be able to argue with his political party on economic lines, and that the days of racialism are finished.

But you are the biggest racialist of all.

If I could feel sure that in this instance the resolution really means what it says, even the extreme right portions of it, I would feel that South African politics have taken a new turn, and that we were going forward to a new state of affairs. That, however, remains to be seen. There are still a number of members on his side who make no pretence of concentrating on economics and who still beat the racial drum, and the debate on another motion tended me to the belief that this thing put forward as an election manifesto does not in fact represent the true feelings of the Nationalist Party. I am, however, more than disappointed with the reply of the Prime Minister to the Motion before the House. I had expected a great deal more from the Prime Minister, and in the large number of speeches which I have heard the Prime Minister make in this House on economic questions, I have never found him as unconvincing, as I found him in his reply to this motion.

What do you say to that?

What he said did not convince me, and I want, without personal implications to the Prime Minister, to quote from that very report which he produced in this House this afternoon as an earnest of something the Government were doing,—I am referring to the first report of the Social and Economic Planning Council—because if ever a report indicted a Government from an economic point of view this report does. This report shows that in the three and a half years we have been at war, three and a half years during which we have been consistently promised by the Prime Minister and his Liberal colleague, the Minister of Finance, and various other members of the Cabinet, a New Order, this report shows clearly something which I have said year after year myself that the Government has in effect as far as any new system of society is concerned, as far as any reconstruction in this country after the war is concerned, has done nothing.

What does your colleague, the Minister of Labour, have to say to that?

I am talking to the Government.

Well, he is part of of the Government.

Yes, he has a share of the responsibility to the extent of one-thirteenth.

And he knows that your bark is worse than your bite.

My hon. friend may know what he is talking about, but let me just remind him that he belongs to a Party which had the reins of government for many years, and all they managed to do was to raise a number of poor whites from 200,000 to 400,000.

Yes, and you are forgetting that your own colleague was Minister of Labour at that time.

My hon. friend has had a full forty minutes to say what he wanted to say; I hope he will let me make my speech—I want to make my own speech in my own way, and I am sure I can do it better than he can. Now, I was referring to this report of the Social and Economic Planning Council. The Prime Minister doubted certain of the figures given by that Council in regard to the position after the war. It seems clear to me that we are going to get nowhere—we find Committees are appointed ad lib. The Prime Minister himself said that we have not got the time ourselves to attend to all these things—I don’t know where he got that story from, but he said that we in Parliament have not got the time to do these things ourselves for which all these Committees and Commissions are being appointed, yet he is prepared to doubt the figures of the Economic Planning Council after they had considered the whole matter very carefully. I think that if they erred in the figures which they gave us they erred in that they did not view the position as seriously as it should be viewed, and that their figures are on the low side, and let me say this—I am afraid that we are going to be faced after the war with an unemployment problem of greater magnitude than even the re-employment efforts of the Committe which has been set up will be able to cope with. The report says that this re-employment problem is of such magnitude that private enterprise cannot cope with it. I shall come back to that later. And the report also says this:

And then the Council goes on to say—and I want hon. members to take particular notice of this:

So out of 80,000 odd European men, 30,000 European women and not less than 120,000 non-Europeans, the schemes so far elaborated in blue prints will not provide work for more than 15,000, and that is after three and a half years of war, when we know what is likely to face us after this war. That is after three and a half years of promises, after three and a half years of advice, after three and a half years of hard fighting by that gallant army of ours in the North. And then the report goes on—

Of course, we know that that is so. We hear the Minister of Finance introduce his Budget every year. We know that the whole world is in that stage, and it will remain in that stage until the people of the various countries decide to take matters into their own hands.

And that is not a war-time problem. No large housing scheme is even contemplated, and yet this country has had the worst slums of any country in the world for the last fifty years, and time and again we have ourselves in this House before the war pointed out that these horrible slums existed, and the Government continued to put the responsibility on the municipalities. There are from 50,000 to 60,000 people in Johannesburg waiting to be housed. In Durban the housing conditions of the non-Europeans are a disgrace to any civilised community, and so, wherever you go and you see that with all this planning, with all this talk, and with all these promises of a new world, nothing has been done, nothing but drift and vague generalities:

We have been advocating that from the Labour Party benches ever since I have been here, and apparently no consideration has been given to it, not even since we have entered the war, when there was an awakening of public conscience. The report reads—

The Economic Council apparently got tired of writing them down. Yes, all these examples can be continued ad lib. Why is it that after three and a half years of war the Government has made no preparation for a new economic order, why has re-construction been pushed into the background, and why has it only been talked of on public platforms. The reason is contained in the amendment of my hon. friend because it is a direct result of the profit-making system. And let me tell the Leader of the Opposition—who has now returned to his seat—to listen to my words of wisdom—let me tell him that he is also trying to square the circle, he is also looking for a new economic order, he is also trying to abolish poverty within the orbit of the capitalistic system, he is also trying to give us social security, but at the same time he is trying to keep the profitmaking system in force. It just cannot be done. The profit-making system cannot be reconciled with the needs and the wants of the majority. It has been said by Dr. Van Eck in that excellent report of his, to which the Prime Minister referred, and by other people too, that one of the most necessary things in this country is to increase production. That makes me smile and it makes me very angry too.

Why smile and be angry at the same time.

Cannot I smile if I want to?

Yes, but don’t be angry.

It makes me smile at the stupidity of people, and it makes me angry because I know that things can be otherwise because we in this House have been spending hours and hours in discussions as to the best way to get rid of agricultural surpluses. We have exported millions of lbs. of butter at a time when people here were suffering from malnutrition. We have exported 50 per cent. of our sugar crop at a time when people in this country did not have sufficient sugar for their requirements. We have exported fruit from the Cape Province; we have exported the finest fruit when the people of South Africa did not have sufficient fruit. We have exported fruit for years. There was a time when we subsidised the Italian Army, when they were fighting Haille Selassie. Yes, we have done all these things. I defy any member in this House to say otherwise; our experience of the profitmaking system is that the more you produce, the poorer you become. And it is not so only in this country; it is one of the most classic pieces of stupidity that we have been experiencing since the end of the last war, and so we are told that all we have to do is to produce more, and then we shall have this happy Valhalla after the war. Well, we know that that state of affairs will not come about. We had instances of this before the war. We have often got up here and pleaded with the Minister of Finance, but we also know that people told him that for a miserable paltry 8 per cent. return on their money industrialists were not willing to develop secondary industries here. They wanted more, they wanted 10 per cent., 12 per cent. or 25 per cent. In other words, if we have to produce more in this country, unless the Government does something about the profit-making system, we have to raise the level of profits in secondary industries. We have had the ghastly story told when we had to have mercury here that because of the profit-making system the production of mercury in South Africa could not be undertaken. The Minister of Mines—who has just come in—never dreamt of nationalising the mercury mining industry. I am surprised at him—I am surprised in a man who is as interested in the war as he is not seeing the necessity of taking a step like that.

Don’t talk nonsense.

I am surprised that he did not step in and nationalise such an essential industry.

Why don’t you nationalise the tripe industry?

And make you the controller. In our present system production is only embarked upon when a profit can be made from it. In other words, only if a profit can be made out of the needs of the people will those needs be supplied. If there is food which the people need, if there is clothing which the people need, or housing or anything which the people need, that will only be produced if there is a sufficient return on the money invested by people. In other words, the people of the country may be in great need of certain things. There may be a crying demand for these things, but if there is not sufficient profit attaching to it, these things will not be produced. So to talk about production in this country means in effect that you are talking about providing more avenues of profit, and about a higher rate of profit for the people who have money to invest. And that is the kind of new order which bn the one side the Leader of the Opposition is trying to introduce, and which on the other side the Government is trying to perpetuate. Now, we say that if you are going to be really in earnest, if you are going to be really sincere about this reconstruction after the war, you have to make up your mind about doing away with the profit-making system. This particular report says so itself. Earlier on it says this—

That is the considered opinion of the economic Planning Council, that any effort to provide employment for those large numbers of men and women who will need and demand employment after the war, cannot be coped with under the competitive system, under the profit-making system, unless special steps are taken. And so the Government will be faced, if they are to avoid something in the nature of a very serious position in South Africa, with bringing in Governmental assistance in order to help smoothing over that time. But that is no final solution. We know that after the last war in Europe in certain countries, there was a great boom, and then those countries sank into the deepest of deep depressions. And the same thing will happen here. How the Government expects to handle a reconstruction period after the war when they allow the banks to remain in private hands is something I don’t know, because it was the banks with their policy of deflation after the last war which plunged Great Britain and the whole world into a deep depression. The banks are afraid of inflation as they call it, and the banks unfortunately have effected my honourable and most orthodox friend, the Minister of Finance. The Commission goes on to say—

And that is the considered view of the Economic Planning Council, and they finish up that paragraph with this remark—

Now I have no delusions. I know perfectly well that I am not the least likely to be able to impress many members of this House about the essential rightness of Socialism. I know perfectly well that this is a House which in the main represents vested interests. Vested interests are represented on this side of the House, and vested interests are represented on the other side of the House. On this side of the House you have the mining representatives of the mining industries, you have the representatives of big finance, you have of late years a growing number of individuals who represent the vested interests of secondary industries; on the other side of the House you have South Africa’s Tories, the representatives of the rich landlords. Most of them, as a matter of fact, are rich landlords themselves. I believe that the day of representation of vested interests is very nearly coming to its close, if I know the temper of the people of South Africa today and particularly the temper of the soldier who has done his fighting in the North. When he returns from the North that soldier will be determined that vested interests are not going to stand in the way of national reconstruction. He will see to it that he gets a square deal. He is not going to be palmed off by high-falutin’ clauses drafted by eminent professors at Stellenbosch, and neither is he going to be palmed off by these Committees which have been appointed almost ad lib. by the Government. We have not got time for all these investigations. It is no new thing to us to know that there will be unemployment after this war, and we have here in our hands the solution. I am not going to suggest that if we go to bed tonight we shall rise in the morning and have a socialist system, but I do say that the Government does not need an economic planning committee to tell it that it is time they take over the banking interest in the country. They do not need an economic planning committee to tell them that we should issue our own currency and use our credit for our own purpose. They do not need an economic planning committee to tell them that. My hon. friend the Minister of Labour has been telling them that in this House for the past thirty years.

They would not believe him.

No, they believed him, but the power of vested interests is so strong that it prevents the country from taking-over the banking interest. I remember very well that at the instigation of the Labour Party we insisted on forming this very fine steel industry which has played such an important part in this war, and the vested interests would not buy up the shares. Since the Government has bought these shares attempts have been made by vested interests to put these shares on the market. I remember that on one occasion they wanted to put these shares on the market, and it was only through strenuous opposition in the House that we managed to retain the shares. So they have known the truth of my hon. friend’s contention but they have not been prepared to adopt his suggestion. There is no future for the world under a profitmaking system. Unfortunately time does not allow me to show you how this war itself resulted from the profit-making system. I cannot show you how the various countries have to export goods in order to make profit. They come into spheres of interests where they clash with one another, and economic warfare of that description inevitably finishes up with warfare of the real kind. The capitalistic system itself is responsible for it. But one of the greatest burdens of the profit-making system is this question of interest itself. In South Africa today we have a national debt somewhere in the region of £400,000,000. I believe there are mortgages on farms to the extent of something like £150,000,000.

£100,000,000.

There are mortgages on farms somewhere in the region of £100,000,000. There is a municipal debt of £150,000,000. Then there is all the debt owing to the bank; there are all the overdrafts; and I am satisfied that if we could really get down to the figures, we would find that in the Union of South Africa out of every £ of production 10s. goes to the payment of interest. My hon. friends can dispute this if they like. You take the national figure of income and you take the municipal debt and you take mortgages on houses, and you take the interest paid on vested capital, the interest paid on all kinds of loans, and I make bold to say that 10s. out of every £ which is earned goes towards the payment of interest. I remember that in 1929, out of every £ of revenue earned by the South African Railways, 5s. went towards the payment of interest. That stands recorded in the annual report of the Railways. Five shillings out of every £ towards payment of interest! This burden gradually mounts, and it means that the people who receive the interest are living on the backs of the people who produce. They do not work for it. They say: “Oh, the money does the work for us”, but I have never yet seen a sovereign on a table doing anything. I am quite sure that a million sovereigns could not build a house or till a piece of ground, but that money demands its toll and the people who have invested the money are living on the backs of the people who have earned it. I have never seen a house made of paper money with the name “Reserve Bank of South Africa” or “Bank of England” on it. You give me the bricks and the materials and the skilled labour, and we can build houses. I do not care what the economists say. I am not interested in economists. They have been wrong so often in the past that I am satisfied that their stuff, particularly the orthodox stuff of the Minister of Finance, is not worth a great deal. I say that South Africa can produce sufficient food to feed every individual in this country. I am satisfied that we have the ground in this country to produce sufficient food for everyone. I am satisfied that we have the climate to produce sufficient food for our requirements. I am satisfied that we can produce sufficient food so that none of us suffers from malnutrition. I am satisfied that we have the raw materials and the skilled labour to see that everyone is properly housed, and I am satisfied that we have the skilled labour and the raw materials in normal times to see that everybody is properly clothed in the Union of South Africa. It is no use telling us that we are a poor country. We are only a poor country in that the effort and the energies available in the country are not allowed to get their scope. As a matter of fact, the economic Planning Council admits that. They say that when the war is over we will have 200,000 men, women and non-Europeans for whom we cannot provide employment. That is what they say on the one hand. On the other hand they say that we must increase the production of the country in order to get social security. Now how can you increase the production of the country if you are going to have 200,000 people out of work? And that is the whole point. The profitmaking system does not permit of your using your labour force to increase production in the country, unless there is a profit at the end. I propose to abolish the profit-making system gradually.

All the profits have already been pinched.

“Pinched” is a very poor English word, and it is a word which is not even used in capitalistic circles. They do not even say “steal.” They just say “expropriated.” You read in reports that so much has been expropriated from various funds, and then there is a happy vote of thanks to the chairman. But I suggest that as far as possible post-war reconstruction should be in the hands of the Government. As far as possible the profit-making incentive should be taken completely out of it. I feel myself that a gigantic housing scheme, embarked upon by the Government—because I have always contended that housing is a national responsibility—I feel that a gigantic housing scheme embarked upon by the Government in which no profit was allowed to be made, in other words the stuff is not given out to contractors to let them make 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. or 10 per cent. as the case may be—I feel that a program like that may solve the problems in the country. Apart from the providing of housing it would absorb people not only in the building industry, but also in subsidiary industries as well. I feel that the Industrial Development Corporation should be used, not on the lines of supplying capital to private enterprise, not on the lines of under-writing shares for clever individuals who come along with a scheme, but the capital should be provided to people who will develop State schemes. (Laughter). My hon. friend laughs; he has boasted for years that he runs his farm at a loss. My hon. friend is a member who makes special pleas for his own private pocket. I say that there is no necessity to make any profit as far as the State is concerned, and it seems to me that the investigations of the Industrial Corporation should be on the lines that the question of profit is going to be eliminated, and in that way we may get some development in South Africa. We will never get development in this country while we rely on private profit. My hon. friend on the other side has a clause in his amendment which refers to land which is lying idle in the country. I would like to ask my hon. friends on the other side why they do not suggest that land should not be nationalised as well as the mines. In many instances—and such is an instance of buying land and locking it up for higher prices later,—in such instances they deliberately set out to retard the highest production in the country. If there is no market they will not produce.

If there is no market why do you expect them to produce?

My hon. friend says, and from his point of view quite rightly, why should they produce if there is no market. Someone must produce and if they do not want to produce, then the State must step in and produce itself. If people in the country are starving it is the duty of the State itself to step in and to produce. I can say, as Bernard Shaw said, that the whole trouble with the capitalist system is that the people just have not got enough money to spend, and if you give the people the money to spend you will get a higher rate of production. I have not much more time at my disposal, but I think that I have more or less touched on everything I wanted to deal with. In conclusion I would like to end on this note. I do not like always to attack the sincerity of the people who uphold the capitalistic system. I realise that they have been brought up to believe that this capitalistic system is essentially right; they have been brought up to believe that the profit-making system is justified. I know that many God-fearing men who go to Church regularly every Sunday, have not the slightest compunction in taking 50 per cent. from the poor man. I know that many Godfearing men are prepared to exploit cheap labour as long as they can make a reasonable profit, but I feel that we are entering on a new era. The Minister of Finance told us once that so far we had no picture of the kind of world we are going to have after the war. He said that he was not prepared to enter into any scheme until the pattern begins to show itself. But that pattern has begun to show itself; we can expect that after this war we are going to be faced more than ever with an unemployment problem, and we are going to be faced more than ever with a demand from people, more than they have ever demanded, not for what has been termed social security, but for what I term economic security. That is the kind of thing the people demand. They demand the right to work at a decent wage. I am satisfied that all this can be done. Human ingenuity has proved itself, particularly in this war, on many occasions. We find in this war that the more we produce and blow into the air, the higher the standard of living. There is a lesson in that which shows that if you do not worry about the golden sovereigns but just say: “There is the workshop, there is the material; produce,” then you will get a higher standard of living.

The only subject which the Prime Minister discussed here today was the Planning Board. But unfortunately a Planning Board takes such a long time. We on this side of the House have always said that the Prime Minister’s Planning Board was only a smoke-screen, that we would get nothing out of it. Although I do not want to attack the members of the Planning Board—because there are certain members on the Planning Board who are capable—we nevertheless feel that absolutely no guidance is given in the agricultural sphere. Nor did the Prime Minister mention a single word about the policy of the Planning Board. And then we come to our hon. friend on the other side who indicated certain directions, and he was correct where he thanked the Leader of the Opposition for good points contained in our motion. He and his Party have unfortunately again been swallowed by the capitalistic system. He admits that his Minister of Labour is powerless because he finds himself in the Government benches today amongst capitalists. He submitted nothing of a practical nature to us. Let me say this, we on this side of the House have been engaged, for the past two years, in drawing up a proper scheme. Our leader instructed us to divide ourselves into groups so that we could draw up a proper scheme in the meantime, and where some of our friends said this morning, when the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) spoke: “Where do you get hold of that wording,” I can tell hon. members that for the past two years the best brain in the country has been used in order to draw up this scheme. The Prime Minister completely forgot that there was such a thing as the Atlantic Charter. He continues to adhere to the old system. Then he asks what we accomplished when we were in power, and I admit that under the old system, patch-work was done. Under the old system one could not get away from patch-work. Now we want to provide something of a practical nature which has a purpose. In the past we had nothing but patch-work in the agricultural sphere, a patch on an old pair of trousers, until eventually the trousers were reduced to rags. We now want to provide something which is effective, something which is practical, something which is constructive. Our system, as we have built it up, is not an election cry, but the Prime Minister is trying to put up smoke-screens before the election takes place. Our scheme has been worked out on a practical basis. The Prime Minister told us that we could not prove what we said, and we say that every small item which is contained in the motion, is something on which we can build; every one of us who has dealt with his own particular subject has laid a scheme before the House on which we can build. When the Labourites forgot that there were poor people in the country who were starving, the Re-United Nationalist Party did its duty; when the Labourites failed to look after the economic interests of the people, we did something, and when those people return to their Fatherland, they will be entitled to a decent living. We propose something here which will be in the interests of everyone. But what is the old capitalistic system? The capitalistic system is this: “Declare war, and allow the man to be shot, or let him starve or become impoverished; let him go to war, and when he returns he will be a poor-white.” We want to make that man a shareholder in his State. We want to go back to what Bismarck said, namely, that the poor man will not always be satisfied with a torn shirt and an empty stomach. The people who return after this war will not be satisfied with a torn shirt and an empty stomach. They have a right to exist. The State is responsible for the welfare of its subjects, and the State must see to it that where the subject wants employment, employment will be provided to that subject. We realise that we cannot have laziness in the country. We feel that if a man wants employment, the Government must see to it that he obtains work, and that is the policy which our Planning Board adopted. When the Prime Minister spoke, this thought entered my mind: Fear, fear, fear for the future. We have now seen to it that there will be something for the future to which our men can return. There are certain points in the motion which I want to enlarge on in connection with the land settlement policy of the Re-United Nationalist Party, and particularly its policy with regard to national health. We feel that not enough is done in the platteland in the sphere of national health. We feel that without a healthy working-class, no proper work can be accomplished. We feel that the working man, the coloured person and the Native, should receive proper treatment for any disease which he may contract. At the moment there is a sort of half-hearted arrangement under which one can receive treatment for certain infectious diseases, but everything is half-baked. We propose to have a proper clinic in every ward or area, where every working man can receive proper treatment when he requires it. We feel that there should be proper housingfacilities on the farms. We feel that if we want to retain the productivity of the land, we must have healthy workers. Under our system we propose to have better health services. Then we go further and say that if we want the farmer to produce, the State must see to it that it has a trusteeship over the farmer. The farmer must have certain obligations towards the State; he must not take everything out of the soil; he must not exhaust his soil. The Government on the other hand must see to it that the farmer is able to exist. Then we have another big evil in South Africa, namely, soil erosion. We feel that the State should contribute its part in this respect. We feel that soil erosion is a national responsibility. We feel that 25 per cent. of our best soil has already been washed away into the sea, and we feel that the State should contribute its share in the future. The farmer, together with the State, must see to it that that fertile soil which is now being washed away will be safeguarded for the future. That is one of the points which I want to discuss. You may ask how are we going to do all this? How are we going to solve these difficulties? There is one way in which we can do it and that is to build more store rooms and cold storages and to have agro-economic division of areas. I do not mean that the farmers must be forbidden to cultivate produce, but that facilities should be created in specified territories for such products as can be produced to the greatest advantage. In order to promote economic production, it is necessary, in the first place, to have sufficient store rooms and cold storage facilities, and this must be under the control of the Government. With regard to the financial aspect of farming, the farmers in other countries, as e.g. in Australia, have been met to a greater extent than in our country. Originally they had the 99-year lease system there which was later changed into the perpetual lease system. They introduced the so-called “Channel Mortgages”, under which the farmers could get long-or short-term loans under the most favourable conditions. We also feel that a change should be brought about and that there should be an improvement with regard to credit facilities for the farmer, and the necessary facilities must be given to settlers under Sections 10 and 11 to enable them to conduct their industry properly. With regard to the value of the land, a thorough survey is required, and that must take place without delay. In order to get a sound system of agriculture, it is necessary to base land values on fertility and production. There must be a re-valuation of land on a scientific basis. With regard to labour, we all know to what extent the farmers suffer as a result of shortage of labourers.

The hon. member must remember that notice has been given of a motion in that connection, and he must not anticipate it.

Then I shall leave that. Then I come to the next point, the insurance of crops. There are certain channels today through which one can insure to a certain extent, but we feel that the State should undertake the insurance of crops. The organisations which exist today do not possess sufficient capital and when a farmer has worked hard for five months and the wheat is ready, and hail or rust or something else then destroys it, there should be an insurance scheme so that the farmer will not be ruined, but will still get something for his crop. In that direction a great deal of improvement is required. There is another point to which I want to refer in passing, and that is that the two Departments of Agriculture, field husbandry and animal husbandry, should co-ordinate. They belong together—the feeding and breeding of animals. We have never had a sound policy in our country; we have never had a far-sighted policy with regard to the breeding of cattle. In the agricultural schools, e.g., one finds an expert who wants to build up a specified type of sheep. He remains there for three years, and then he is transferred. A new man comes along and he has different ideas; he wants to build up another type of sheep. Consequently he breaks down everything which the first man built. In the past, thousands and tens of thousands of pounds have been spent on stock-breeding. The individual farmer does try to build up certain types, but frequently he does not possess the necessary capital and knowledge. We must—to use an English expression—have a long-range policy, under which the whole problem of heredity in connection with cattle can be thoroughly tested, and investigated. I would also like to point cut that there is no link between the agricultural schools and the universities. In other countries, as e.g. in Australia, there is liaison between the agricultural colleges and the universities. In our country one can go from the High School to the University, but if you take a practical course for two years in an agricultural college, you receive no recognition in respect of that course from the University Board. There must be liaison between the agricultural schools and the university system, and I hope that this will take place in the future. Then I come to weeds and cattle diseases. Here is something which does not receive sufficient attention at all. We noticed in Australia that weeds increased to such an extent in certain parts that the land was almost worth nothing. We have followed a very weak policy in the past, and we are still doing so today. There are certain parts in Australia where “boetebossie” (Xanthium spinosum) was so prevalent that they could no longer shear the sheep by hand, but only by means of a machine. I hope that we will not have that position in South Africa in the future. There is no doubt that in so far as weeds are concerned, we shall have to take much more drastic steps than today. In the next place, I come to controlled marketing. If there is anything which is in a real state of confusion, then it is our marketing. If one wants proper marketing, it is necessary to have more store rooms, which should be under the control of the Government. The meat farmers must have their own cold storage facilities, and more facilities must be created for the grain farmers by the State. If one leaves the store rooms and cold storages in the hands of the middle-men, who in the past have always drained the producer and the consumer, then there is no hope of getting a proper marketing system. Another question which is raised here is the importance of co-operative societies. By means of co-operative societies, the farmers get more control on the Boards. We feel that the composition of our Boards is wrong. We are in favour of the principle of establishing Boards, but we feel that their composition is entirely wrong. There are a handful of people in the middle, who do everything to ruin marketing and to smother the co-operative societies. We saw that an effort was made to smother or bring into disrepute the Mealie Control Board. The principle of establishing Boards is a good one, but the composition is wrong. I feel that there should be a Producers’ Board and a Consumers’ Board, and if the co-operative societies are used to create a Producers’ Board, then there could be a consumers’ organisation on the other hand. These two can be co-ordinated, and in this way the terrifically high prices which have to be paid by the consumers in the retail trade could be eliminated. They will no longer have to pay 2s. and 2s. 6d. for meat, and the gap between the price the producer receives and the price the consumer is called upon to pay will become very much smaller and both sections will be able to make a better living than they can today. There is another point in regard to which I feel strongly, and that is that the markets must be taken out of the hands of the municipalities. They should fall under the Union Government. We will never have an effective marketing system if they fall under the four different Provincial Boards. The Union Government should have marketing and also cold storages under its control. I also agree that our inland market is our best market, but in that respect too, more store rooms and cold storage facilities are required and we must greatly improve our system of distribution in general. It is the system of distribution particularly which is defective and which hampers proper marketing. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) spoke of food which we export. To a certain extent I agree with him. The inland market is the best market, and our own people must first be provided with proper food. Thereafter we can consider foreign markets. The inland market must come first. We then come to forestries, and there I feel that we should cultivate many more forests. Today our forests have been practically cut away, and we use many trees to provide for our own needs. There are large areas where trees could be cultivated. Finally, we come to irrigation, a big problem. Any water which falls on the platteland should be preserved and kept on the platteland. In the past we introduced quite a number of schemes with insufficient water supplies. Through false pretences, settlers came forward—also out of other countries—bought farms, and then they found that there was not nearly enough water for the land. The existing schemes should be provided with sufficient water.

I want to point out to the hon. member that in connection with this matter also, notice has been given of a motion.

I shall leave that. The country will take note of what we propose in the sphere of agriculture. Practical people, people who are qualified, and important economists, drew up this scheme, people who know what the conditions are and who look into the future. The platteland is being neglected by the Government today and the capitalistic interests in the big cities. We hope that this motion will be accepted. If the Government does not accept it, the platteland will reckon with them.

I move—

I second.

I move—

This Bill is introduced as a result of representations which have been made to me by the Vice Chancellor of the University of South Africa, viz. Professor Postma and other representatives of that University. What gave rise to that was the demise, nearly a year ago, of the Duke of Connaught who was Chancellor of the University of South Africa. He was formerly Chancellor of the University of the Cape of Good Hope and, as such, he became Chancellor of the University of South Africa 25 years ago. He died last year at a very advanced age. The Chancellor of the University of South Africa, under the existing law, holds that position for life. He is elected by the convocation of the University. That also applies to the other Universities. All five Universities have their own laws in regard to the provision for the choice of a Chancellor. The election is effected by the convocation. It is a body which consists of the graduates of the university concerned. Especially in the case of a university such as the University of South Africa, which is a Federal body consisting of five colleges, the convocation is a body of persons who are widely scattered and it is difficult to get them together. For quite a few years the University of South Africa found it impossible to convene a lawful meeting of its convocation. The result is that at the moment the convocation has no lawfully appointed official and after the death of the Duke of Connaught occurred it was impossible to give effect to the provisions of the law and the statute in order to choose a successor. As a result thereof the University was without a Chancellor for nearly a year. By reason thereof Professor Postma and others made representations to me to amend the law so that that difficulty could be removed. I said I was prepared to do that and asked them to go into the matter and make recommendations. The position, so far as it concerned several universities, was studied by them and by my Department and eventually the proposals which are contained in Clause 1 of the Bill were laid before me in the form of a recommendation. There are really only two points in this proposal. In the first place it is proposed that the Chancellor of the University of South Africa shall be elected by the council of the university and not by the convocation. On this point there is a great diversity of opinion amongst the universities of other countries. The Chancellor is elected either by the council or by the convocation or by an intermediate body which is called the “Court.” That is done in certain cases. In the case of the University of South Africa it was our opinion that the council was a very broad body and for that reason it would, therefore, be an appropriate body to choose the Chancellor. The second proposal is that the Chancellor in future will not serve for life but for a period of ten years. So far as that is concerned there is also great diversity of opinion in the various universities. Some choose a Chancellor for life, others for three years, some for five years. I am of the opinion that the proposal in this case to choose a Chancellor for ten years, is a reasonable and sound one. That is the proposal which is made in Clause 1. In case it is accepted it will be necessary to amend the Statute of the University and to lay down the procedure in conformity with this Bill and I hope that it can still be effected in this session so that the universities can proceed to the election of a Chancellor which, up to the present, they were not empowered to do. The other clauses of the Bill are of minor importance. Clause 2 repeats the existing statutory provision in a less ambiguous manner; Clauses 3 and 4 concern purely domestic interests and I do not think that any objection will be raised against those provisions.

We on this side have no objection to this measure, but I should like to ask the Minister whether all the University Colleges, all the bodies, have been consulted in connection with this Bill, or has only Prof. Postma been asked for his opinion? Who acts for them? Are they all aware of the facts?

Prof. Postma is Vice-Chancellor and Chairman of the Council on which all the different bodies are represented. They all know about it and they all agree to it.

We are glad to hear that, and I think it is a good provision that a Chancellor should not necessarily be elected for life. There may be numerous circumstances which make it undesirable for a person to remain a Chancellor. May I just mention that I hope there will be an end to the practice of electing foreign Chancellors for some of our Universities?

Today there is none left of them.

I am glad to hear that. That means we have progressed. There is, however, another point I wish to touch upon and that is in connection with the recent happenings at the Bloemfontein University College. It concerns the University Laws.

But not this Bill.

The University College of the Free State is one of the constituting bodies of the University of South Africa.

You can discuss that under the Vote “Education.”

But after all we are at the moment busy with the University of South Africa and that falls under the Bill which is being amended.

It comes under its own law and different Colleges come under their own laws and also under the Higher Education Act.

Under the Higher Education Act which also governs the University of South Africa. That is what I wish to discuss. The Bloemfontein College is one of the constituting Colleges. I just want to point out that the Senate of the College has the right to nominate two members of the College Council …

I do not think that question can be discussed here.

Then I will raise that point later, but unfortunately we may neither discuss it on the Vote “Education,” or at least we are not allowed to advocate legislation there.

You can mention it.

May I just ask the Minister whether the provision that a Chancellor can be dismissed for some reason or other considered sufficient by the Governor-General, has not been worded too vaguely?

It has been worded vaguely, but it will be further defined in the statutes.

I would like to ask why this Clause is given retrospective effect. What is the reason for making such a provision?

The University, in good faith, nominated an executive committee which took steps. Recently a doubt was expressed whether the University actually has the power to appoint such a Committee, and in order to remove this doubt this clause has been added and given retrospective effect.

The motion before the House is surely one of far reaching importance and one of the most dangerous motions that have come before the House since the outbreak of the war, or rather since our declaration of participation in the war. Now, I have been struck by the fact that in previous discussions that have taken place here on the additional estimates, the Hon. Prime Minister adopted a particularly modest attitude with regard to himself in so far as the declaration of war was concerned. We have before us now this strong motion and the Prime Minister in all modesty places himself in the background as regards the promise made on the 4th September, 1939, which was contained in the amendment he at the time proposed to the Prime Minister of the day (Gen. Hertzog). Now I am not sure whether we can attribute it to genuine modesty on the part of the Prime Minister that he was not really responsible for the resolution, but that it was a resolution of Parliament, purely a resolution of Parliament. He himself was in the background. First of all I would say that it was a shock to us, those of us who on the 4th September were still members of the United Party to learn that the chief organiser of the Party, Mr. Louis Esselen, had, eight days previously, given certain newspapers the assurance that if Gen. Hertzog and his followers did not on the 4th September vote outright in favour of the war, or if they wished to adopt a neutral attitude, there would be a majority of 14 to subscribe to the policy of a declaration of war. That is something of which the Prime Minister certainly must have known, or should have known of, before he proposed his amendment on the 4th September. The modesty of His Honour seems to me to be nothing but a smoke screen. The Prime Minister knows that we on this side of the House, and more so possibly the hon. members sitting behind him on the opposite side of the House, are aware of the fact that he (the Prime Minister) is the spirit, the soul and the body of the Party opposite, and it will therefore not hold water to come here with such a modest attitude and say that the declaration of war was a Resolution of Parliament, and that he is not responsible for it. I quote what the Hon. Prime Minister said on 4th September (Hansard, Volume 36, col. 30):

Who is “I”? The Hon. Prime Minister must admit that if on the 4th September he did not take the lead, no one would have taken the lead to declare war. His entire party and all the groups supporting him, looked to him for guidance. But I would further test the modesty of the Prime Minister by what he stated at Standerton in his own constituency, when he for the first time raised the point of sending troops overseas. There he said: “I am going to fetch the Second Division in Italy” and subsequently he stated: “I am going to ask Parliament to alter my amendment of the 4th September.” Again “I am going to fetch them.” Thus I cannot in this case call the Prime Minister’s modesty anything else but an attempt at throwing up a smoke screen, in order to ward off the point of the attack we are making. As regards the opening speech by the Prime Minister in connection with this motion, he inter alia expressed the view that he would easily find the necessary men to send forces overseas. The Prime Minister gave us to understand that the troops who are up North especially are very keen to go further and continue to fight, in any theatre of war whatsoever. But I should like to put the other side of the case here. We had no less a person than Dr. van Eck, who stated that the speed of recruiting, the reason why they were so successful and so soon were able to raise a large army, is to be found in the lack of employment in our country. The question of employment is still very acute. For that reason it was easy to secure the manpower. We know, therefore, and we wish to repeat emphatically that we know that there are many men, a large proportion of the army, who simply are in uniform from sheer need, on account of economic pressure. Pressure has been exerted on them, or let me say they were subject to pressure and afterwards had to resort to the army. It is not the rich in the country, nor those who are growing fat and become fatter still from the presently prevailing conditions, who are at the front or are found in the army. They are the people who shout “War,” while they are filling their own pockets. Those are not the people whom the Prime Minister will get to proceed still further overseas with his war effort. The people he will get are the people who are in the position that if they do not go further, and are discharged, will face unemployment. Those are the people the Prime Minister will get. In the second place, it will also not be those who share the sentiments to which the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens (Mr. Long) referred on the 4th September. According to Hansard, col. 44, he said:

But I believe, and I seriously believe, that the great and overwhelming majority of the army of the Prime Minister will not consist of the people who today are sensible of the blood ties with the country of their origin, but that they will be the South African boys who have no such sentiments, but who see no other expedient. They will be the people whom the Prime Minister will get, as he expressed it, to deal the death-blow in Europe to Germany and Italy. It will again be the poor people who, through need, will be persuaded to say: Oh well, we have been spared thus far, thank God; we will just have to risk our lives further rather than to have to search for employment and suffer want together with our families. I should like to appeal to the Prime Minister. He must realise what a terrible thought it is to compel people, through necessity, to sacrifice their lives for a cause with regard to which they have not the slightest sentiment. But I would go further, and ask the Prime Minister whether he has estimated the ’cost of the motion. That, after all, is the first thing to be done when a soldier and a national leader drags his people into a war. Has he tried to calculate the cost of the new undertaking? We have a case we may consider, the invasion at Dieppe. There the Allies tried to establish a bridge-head on the European coast. We read in the newspapers of how Canadians, Americans and also a small number of Free French participated in the venture. We know the undertaking cost a large number of lives, that a large number of the men who went over returned badly wounded and the rest were drowned in the sea or had been killed. That was a very costly undertaking. As the Minister himself has emphasised, the South African forces thus far have fought bravely at the places where some of the heaviest fighting has taken place. We saw in the papers that the South Africans had a huge share in the battle up North, that they were brave, and we know that in future they will also be brave, but we are afraid they will again be used in the very front line. One does not use one’s bravest men in the rearguard, but in the vanguard. We are afraid that our men, on account of their bravery, will again be used in the front line and that it is going to cost us a large number of valuable lives. We wish to know whether it will be worth while going to fetch the 11,187 Europeans of the Second Division in Italy, and whether the cost will not be too high. How many thousands of lives is it going to cost to fetch them? Has the Prime Minister estimated the cost yet? This motion of the Prime Minister’s is particularly vague. We are simply being asked to approve the sending of troops overseas. The Prime Minister has stated that they will not be sent far, but to theatres of war that are near. He probably means just over the Mediterranean in Southern Europe. We recall the controversy we had in the House at the time, about what are the borders of the Union, and how far our troops may be sent in Africa. At first it was said that they could go as far as the Equator, thereafter reference was made to the Highlands of Kenya, subsequently they were sent to Abyssinia; still later to Egypt and now the borders have already been shifted to Tunisia. Will we not land in Russia eventually, or might we not be asked to defend even India with our troops for the British Empire? How far will we go under this motion of the Prime Minister? The news also does not justify the Prime Minister’s motion. The news reads that the Russians are administering the death-blow to the Germans, and up North the Allies also are clearing the last remaining piece of Africa still in the hands of the Axis. The news is much better. Now I fail to see why it is necessary at this stage to decide that our forces, who are but a mere handful in comparison with the large forces at the disposal of England and America, why our small handful of troops shall still be used to complete the job in Europe. The South African forces cleared Abyssinia, and helped to clear North Africa, and it is being said that the job has now nearly been completed. They have done their duty many times over. Their job has been completed. At the outset Africa was considered to be the territory we had to take responsibility for. It has almost been cleared. Our troops have done their share. At the beginning they were but poorly armed and yet they resisted the Axis forces until England was fully armed and prepared, and until America also was ready for the thing. Is the Hon. Prime Minister not too ambitious in his motion? Is it necessary for him to want to share in the little glory still to be achieved? There are Americans and the British who also want to gain a little glory. The Americans wish to try out their new weapons and the British say they were caught napping, but are now ready, and prepared for it. Why should we deprive the people of the opportunity of gaining a little glory too? I think the Prime Minister is a little too ambitious. But in his speech last Thursday the Prime Minister stated that it would be wise to restrict the Government. I would just ask whether any restrictions are imposed in this motion, is there a limit beyond which we shall not go? The only thing the Prime Minister has said, is that our troops will not be sent far away. But for the rest no restrictions have been imposed. I agree that it will be wise to restrict the Government, but where is the restriction in this motion? It will be possible to use the troops in any theatre of war. The Prime Minister gives us no guarantee, there is no limit. Will they be used only in South Africa? We cannot accept such a vague motion. We on this side have on every possible occasion tried to limit the Government, but we have not succeeded. We have warned the Government that it is dragging the country deeper and deeper into misery and trouble. As recently as last year, the Afrikaner Party introduced a motion expressing strong disapproval of the fact that the Government continues to declare new wars without consulting the people or Parliament. The motion further expressed disapproval of the Government’s action in undertaking, together with 26 other nations, not to conclude a separate peace. We have constantly tried to nail down the Government, but the Government has not paid attention to it. We have also constantly tried to restrict the Government in its war expenditure, and we have said that we cannot continue spending money on such a large scale to finance the war, but that also has fallen on deaf ears, for I see we are already appropriating £96,000,000 in one year to the War Effort. We cannot afford it. The Government is too ambitious, as I have already said. It wants to compete with other great countries and show that we also can spend £100,000,000 on the war effort. As we have repeatedly pointed out, the Government is emptying our coffers and competing with other nations in respect of war expenditure. But I want to return to the speech of the Prime Minister and his promise not to send our troops far. How are we to understand it? How are we to understand it, when he says in his speech—

On the one hand the Hon. Prime Minister asks us to limit the Government, but at the same time, on the other hand, he throws up a smoke screen and refers to the wonderful patriotism prevailing in our country, and says we should sacrifice to the last man and the last shilling. I would ask whether the Prime Minister has calculated the cost? We are only a small European population of 2,000,000. Can our country bear the burden of sending troops overseas in this manner? If the Prime Minister really wants himself restricted in his Government, he could ask the people the following question: “Are you in favour of us waging war outside the borders of South Africa, of us sending troops beyond the borders of Africa, after Africa has been cleared of the enemy, yes or no? That would be a limitation and a proof that the Government at least tries to obtain a mandate from the people; it would at least be proof that the Government takes account of the feelings of the people who have to bear the cost of the war, not only in money, but also in blood. It would afford the Government an opportunity to test the feelings of the people in a cheap manner. We have heard of a blitz election the Government proposes to hold, but he could put this question to the people even while Parliament is still in Session. It would be done very easily. At every magistrate’s office voting by the district could take place. It need not necessarily be according to constituencies. The voting could take place on the one question only: “Are the people in favour of sending our children overseas, yes or no?” It is an easy matter.

Are you scared of the election?

I do not think I am as scared as the hon. Member to hold an election, for he might lose his double salary, and not I. It is a fair question to ask and also the right question to ask for a Government that professes to fight for democracy. Under the democratic system the nation is constantly consulted, not so? Take Canada for instance. There Mackenzie King submitted the question to the people. He did not try to cloud the issue by bringing in all kinds of subsidiary matters and by holding a blitz election, but he put the question straightforward to the people: He did not cloud it by saying: “What would be the consequences should the Opposition come into power; what will then become of the war effort?” Ask the people the honest question, whether they are in favour of breaking the promise of 4th September and of sending our children overseas. If the Government fails to do so, it shows that it really is afraid of testing the people on this great issue. That is the great issue before us today, and I suggest an easy way of testing public opinion. The motion now before the House is dangerous, and it seems to me the Prime Minister is now really going to do what he said in Durban, namely that it might be necessary to fight to the last man and the last shilling. That is a dangerous attitude for the Government. I think that even the Government should now pay some attention to its own home, and should ask itself what is going to happen tomorrow or the day after, and what the consequences of such a step is going to be. Of a Government that professes to be fighting for democracy, we cannot expect less than that it should show respect for the feelings of the people, and that it will accept my suggestion.

It is pathetic to listen to the speeches of the other side of the House. I should like to make a few remarks in connection with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy). I want to remind him of the fact that when he was busy moving his motion, one of the staunchest and ablest supporters resigned from the Afrikaner Party and joined this side. We should like to know from them the reason therefor. Why did he resign? They have not got a policy which they can follow. They make divergent statements. Even in connection with this motion, when it was discussed in their caucus, there was nearly a split in the party as a result of the differences of opinion. They simply have not got a policy. That has always been their difficulty, the lack of a policy. Some of their supporters have come over to us.

You also crossed over.

I am still where I have always been.

You were Nationalist formerly.

The question arises as to what right they have to introduce a motion of this nature? Their political leader, Mr. Havenga, stated that Parliament on 4th September, had the fullest right to adopt the resolution which it did. That was the statement of the Leader of the Party. Later, at Senekal, he made another statement—again lack of policy and divergent statements. They differ in opinion, there is no unity. The hon. member for Heilbron stated here this afternoon that the majority of the people who voluntarily enlist do it because of the lack of work. It is the greatest shame to give such an interpretation of the matter. I say what my Leader stated that they are honourable men, men on whom you can depend. But the hon. member comes along and says that they are forced by hunger to enlist.

That is true.

It is a shame to say that of the noble Defence Force of South Africa. I say that there is not a person in South Africa who cannot get work if he wants to work.

In the army!

Bring them to me and I will give them work, except the small number of sabotage friends of the other side. There is plenty of work in our country for those who want to work.

What about De Beers? What about Hottentots-Holland?

I am coming to that, the hon. member must not be in too great a hurry. But I do not blame them because they object to the sending of troops overseas. The people will go voluntarily in order to finish off an honourable job which they started, viz., to destroy Nazi Germany, to destroy the menace to the whole of civilisation, to frustrate the aims at world domination. I, from my side, go further than the Prime Minister, and where he says that our troops may perhaps be used nearby there I say that if it is necessary they can be used even into Berlin in order to trample down Nazism. But I do not blame them for raising objections. If South Africa and the other Dominions withdraw, then Germany will win the war, and that is what they want. They have said it time and time again. The Leader of the Opposition has said it time and time again, at Ventersdorp, at Porterville ….

Not at Ventersdorp. He was not there.

No, I am speaking of a previous occasion before he had the doctor’s certificate, and he stated it at Paarl. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) stated that he was in favour of it that Germany must win. The hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler), when he deputised as speaker in the place of the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) at Elsie’s River, stated that we must hope and trust in a German victory. I cannot, therefore, blame them if they place obstacles in the road to victory, if they want to prevent our troops from going further than Africa. Africa has now been cleared. Hon. members on the other side now feel safe. They are now perfectly satisfied. I now come to the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) who spoke in the bombastic manner that we are accustomed to from him. He attempted to make excuses for the bush carts, and he stated that what he did in connection with the bush carts was done on advice from England. I want to ask him the question if a statesman, such as he is, now thinks that South Africa must allow herself to be dictated to by England, whether we and the other Dominions must now, so far as the war is concerned, act according to the advice of people overseas who are not in the least acquainted with our circumstances here? We know how the hon. member neglected the Defence Force, and in what state it was in when the war broke out. He wanted to exonerate himself for his responsibility in regard to the position. But I want to give him this assurance that he will remain known, not only in South Africa, but in the whole world, as “Pirow of Bush Cart fame.” There are 40,000,000 English people, but he chooses the remark of one English woman with the name Liddel Hart. It is appropriate that he chose the remark of someone with that name, because that name suits the members on his side of the House very well. The attitude which they have adopted is that of “Littlehart”, and they will be remembered in that light until the bitter end. But for what I blame the hon. member for Gezina is that while he spoke in this bombastic manner, and told us what Liddel Hart had to say and while he told us which people’s advice in England he accepted, he did not, at the same time, tell us what advice he accepted from the Dictators in Europe when he was there in 1938, and according to his own statement he then became a convert of the Nazi doctrine. That he has not yet told us. He referred here to breach of faith and he also went further and spoke about treason. It is time that he tells us what the advice was that he accepted from the Nazis in Europe when he became a convert after his talks with Hitler, Franco and Mussolini, and when he came back here afterwards he told us that, to him, it was the most acceptable form of government. We should also like him to tell us why, notwithstanding that, he remained a Minister of the Crown in South Africa for twelve months afterwards. When he does that then we will be able to decide what treason and breach of faith in South Africa is. Those are questions on which we should like to have replies. I now come to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. He also spoke of breach of faith and he specially did it in connection with the arming of coloureds and natives. The question now arises with us whether the Leader of the Opposition raised objection when our army in the North was faced by approximately 300,000 armed natives which Italy had on the borders in order to make an attack on the southern portion of Africa. No, he uttered no word of protest against that. Those armed natives were used at that time to fight against our South African sons and the Leader of the Opposition did not raise objection to it because they were the people who had to fight for a German victory in order that Hitler could give them a republic.

That is a bogey.

No, that is not a bogey. There are no bogeys on this side. The biggest bogeys of South Africa are the members on the other side. Perhaps we cannot blame them that they did not raise objections when Italy utilised her armed natives against our sons, because those natives were their Allies from whom they expected a victory in order that South Africa could get a republic. If they are still so sure of a German victory, as the hon. member for Gezina stated here on Thursday, why have they now again established a Republican front in order to be able to send a deputation overseas to ask for a republic for South Africa when peace is declared? I should like to put a question in this connection to the Prime Minister, who will be attending those discussions on behalf of South Africa, whether those nations who are victorious are going to allow that the friends in South Africa of their enemy, the people who take advice from Zeesen and who listen to the assurances from Zeesen, if they are going to permit that those people will take part in the peace negotiations on behalf of South Africa? It will be the first time in the history of the world that the enemy of the victorious Powers will be allowed to participate in the peace negotiations.

They only want to get a free trip.

The hon. member on the other side spoke about the contest in Hottentots Holland. Let me say this to him, that when I arrived in Hottentots Holland he said to me, “We will show Carinus; it will be your Dunkirk.”

Be careful now; I said you will score a Dunkirk victory here.

I then told him that he would find out in Hottentots Holland what the position was at Dunkirk. Let me just explain to the members who spoke about the election in Hottentots Holland. On paper, the Hottentots Holland seat was as good as lost to the United Party. At the previous election Senator Faure was elected. He was a very popular man and it was stated that he would not have been elected if he had not received Nationalist votes. He had a majority of 1,200. With 1,700 men away at the front we, nevertheless, gained a victory by 1,100 votes. And now I should like to ask the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Liebenberg) whether those are reasons why we should be afraid of a general election.

But you forget that the number of coloured voters increased from 1,200 to 1,900.

I should like to say this to my hon. friend from Heilbron that I hope there is an election. I hope that we will be able to persuade the Prime Minister to have an election and then I should like to give him the assurance that all those benches occupied by the Afrikaner Party will be draped in mourning. Not one of them will come back. They cannot mention one constituency to me where they will gain a victory. I can give the hon. member the assurance that the by-elections were fought on the war policy and as far as 1 am concerned, we shall, when a general election comes, bring the same question before the public and we will ask the public to decide thereon. We know what the result will be. I should also like to say this to the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition stated here that the Prime Minister at that time did not propose that war would be declared and that it was a breach of faith on his part because, later, he declared war and waged war. I want to say this to him that if that was the case then I, and all the other members on this side of the House, were under a misapprehension. What is more, if we had taken it up in that way that the amendment of the Prime Minister did not mean a direct declaration of war against Nazi Germany, then we would not have voted for his amendment. But we would have introduced another motion which would well have meant that. We felt that the barbaric Hitler with his supporters, and they are not only in Europe, but also his supporters here in South Africa, must be destroyed. That is why we voted for that motion. That was the clear conception on this side. It was our intention to give Nazi Germany the death blow. With that purpose in view we established an Army and our sons joined up with that Army, not because they were actually starving, but because they were hon. men who felt that the honour of South Africa rested on them. We said they had to go to safeguard South Africa and now we say again let them go further, even though it be into Berlin.

And what are those troops who have returned to Johannesburg from the North now saying about the Prime Minister?

It seems to me as if there is something which is getting under the skin of members on the other side, something which is troubling them. It seems as though they are ashamed that they are being protected by that noble army and that they are not doing anything. I should, therefore, like to propose that the Prime Minister should levy a special war tax on them in order that they can contribute something towards the protection which they enjoy. That is not more than right. They also ought to contribute something and do their share to show that they appreciate what their position is here in South Africa and that they appreciate the protection which they receive today. Whether or not the Prime Minister consulted this side of the House; whether or not he consulted the people—that consultation will take place and the decision of the people will follow to back him up. I should also like to say this, that this motion which the Prime Minister has moved will be accepted with the greatest acclamation that any motion has ever been accepted in South Africa.

I wish to give my wholehearted support to the motion which was brought forward by the right hon. the Prime Minister to enable South African troops to serve outside the continent of Africa. I have not heard a single logical argument put forward by the Opposition.

You cannot even speak Afrikaans.

I have spoken to members of the Opposition outside this House, and I have not heard a single logical argument for opposing this motion. I speak as an ex-serviceman myself, as one who served in the last war, who had experience in East Africa and Palestine, and who also had a sample of the Egyptian desert, and I feel that I am qualified to say something in respect of this motion which is now before the House. I think that one of the chief causes for the lack of enthusiasm in recruiting in South Africa, since the successful close of the Abyssinian campaign, is the fact that the only prospect that our soldiers had before them, was to serve in the desert sands of Libya. I think it is enough to discourage any man from joining the forces. Those who have had experience know that it is a very uninviting part of the world. Apart from the bombing, the bullets and the booby-traps which are set for our troops, there is the dreadful heat, the devastating sandstorms, the swarms of persistent flies, and the lack of washing water. I know that for weeks on end our troops in the recent campaign had to go without washing water. They barely had enough to drink. What I am about to say, I do not want to be misunderstood. I do not want any of our facetious friends to say that I am trying to suggest an army of sight-seers or world tourists. Our soldiers join up as a matter of duty, and they consider it is an honour to fight for their country. But if a-soldiering they must go, let us make the task as pleasant as possible for them. Why should not the soldier improve his geographical knowledge of the world? In support of this contention, I would like to draw the attention of the House to posters which I have seen in Great Britain. These were pre-war posters, to the following effect: “Join the army and see the world.” That was an inducement held out to men to join the army, and although I do not consider it an appropriate poster at the present time while the war is on, nevertheless that is one thing the soldier can look forward to, to see something of the world. I am quite certain if this motion is passed and our would-be recruits know that they have an opportunity of serving in other parts of the world, it would be a great incentive to recruitment. Another matter which encourages me to support this motion, is the fact that the war has gone far further than in the earlier stages. It has become a veritable world war. I suppose there is hardly a country that is not affected in one way or another, and I think that South Africa should take its part and realise that it is a world war, and that our soldiers should be prepared to serve anywhere where they can be of the greatest use.

To the Empire.

I would like to see our soldiers fighting side by side with Australians in the defence of their country. I would like to see our soldiers fighting side by side with the British and American troops in the prosecution of the war, and I would even go so far as to say that I would like to see them fighting side by side with the Russians and Chinese in repelling the invader. What would we in South Africa say if the Australians said that they were going to fight only within their own borders, and not go outside, and what would we think of American troops if they were to say that they would fight on the American continent and no further? I am quite sure that we would criticise these countries and say that they are acting in a very selfish manner. Now, I would like to say a word in regard to the Orange Flash. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has told us it is being retained. I think he is wise in deciding on that course, because I am told by officers who have returned with the First Division, that there have been more fights in Libya by reason of this orange flash than for any other reason. South African soldiers have had scorn poured upon them because the reason for the orange flash has been misunderstood. They have been told that they are only fighting for their own country and in their own country, and that they are not prepared to go outside.

Who says that?

I am telling you what officers of the First Division have told me.

The hon. member must address the Chair.

I am sorry. I think it is wise to continue the orange flash, and to let the world know that our soldiers do not only fight for their own country, and on their own soil, but in any country where they can be of service.

Service to the Empire.

The day may come when South Africa may be threatened. As things are going now, I do not think it is likely to happen in this war, but in some future war South Africa may be threatened, and then we would be only too pleased to invite people from other parts of the world to assist us. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and I certainly support the idea envisaged in the motion. A further point is this: When the war is over the allied nations will probably have to do some policing in different parts of the world, and I have no doubt that South Africa will have to do its share, and we do not want South African soldiers bearing the orange flash to be pointed at and to be told that they were only prepared to fight within their own borders and not go elsewhere. I think that is another point we should consider with regard to the motion. Now, if I may, I would like to say a few words with regard to the First Division. They have put up a very good fight, they have done credit to themselves and their country, and I think they deserve well of the country. I have spoken to several since their return from up North, and I can assure the right hon. the Prime Minister that they have come back as a contented body of men. When their leave expires, no doubt they will have to go into further training, and I do want to make a special plea to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister that nothing will be done to convert a contented body of men into a disgruntled body of men, and I can assure the Prime Minister that they do not want to be treated as a lot of new recruits. They are veterans of war, and they should be treated as veterans, and not be made to go through all the irksome duties which raw recruits have to go through. I think that their officers and N.C.O.’s should keep in contact with them, and they should not have strangers put over them, to put them through their new paces. I think, also, that they should have a very thorough medical examination when they return to duty from their leave. I do not suppose any of them would be inclined to admit that he is suffering from war weariness, but I can assure the Prime Minister that many of them are suffering from war weariness, and I feel that they should be medically examined and treated sympathetically. They should not be considered as potential malingerers. And then there is one more request I would like to make to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, and that is one we are all very sympathetic towards, namely, the retention of the traditional regiments of South Africa. These men are all proud of their regiments.

I am afraid the hon. member is travelling outside the scope of the motion.

Then I shall have to refer to that on another occasion. The Right Hon. the Prime Minister has promised that these traditional regiments will be retained, but in conclusion I just want to say this, that the Prime Minister has, since the commencement of this war, kept the ship of state on a straight course and on an even keel and I do not think we can do better than support the motion he has brought before the House.

I am sorry that the hon. member for North East Rand (Mr. Heyns) is not in his place. I should have liked to have him here, because I feel that we cannot allow the bitter personal attacks which he made to pass without comment. I just want to refer to one. He made personal attacks on the hon. member for Mossel Bay ( (Dr. Van Nierop), on the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow), on the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Liebenberg), on the whole Afrikaner Party, and then he also attacked the Leader of the Opposition. I listened attentively to his speech to see whether he would go into the merits of the case and to see whether he would advance any reasons why our troops should be sent outside Africa, and I must say he did not advance a single reason. What he did do was to pass this remark in regard to Hottentots-Holland, that that would have decided whether or not South Africa supports the war policy of the Prime Minister. Well, the whole House and the country know that that election was won with the aid of 1,900 coloured people. The majority of the United Party was 1,100, and the whole country knows that there are 1,900 coloureds on that voter’s roll. But I shall come back to this later to show that that is precisely one of the dangers with which we are confronted, and that that is one of the reasons why we should now withdraw from this war. I shall not make personal attacks, but I do want to put this question: Is the other side of the House serious in discussing this motion of the Prime Minister? Some time ago, the Prime Minister issued an order in regard to those who are in Parliament, and who, at the same time, hold appointments in the army. He stated this—

I cannot see that that has anything to do with this debate.

I quote this in order to show, or to be able to put the question, whether members on the other side, in supporting in this House the motion in connection with the sending of troops overseas, are taking it seriously, and I should like to put the question whether they are going to support it personally. An English newspaper in Cape Town makes the following statement in regard to this order which was issued by the Prime Minister—

In this connection I must take off my hat to the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Egeland), when he said that he would leave Parliament rather than leave the army. But he is the only one out of a whole crowd on the other side. The other personal attacks which we made by the hon. member, I ignore with the contempt which they deserve, and I return to the motion. On the 4th September, when this House discussed the war question, there was, without the slightest doubt, an enormous difference of opinion as to whether we should really send troops to the North, whether or not this should be confined to the borders of South Africa, and whether we would even go further and send troops overseas. In this connection my thoughts involuntarily go back to what appeared at that time in big capital letters in the main organ of the Government in Cape Town—

At that time there was a dispute in regard to this, and they tried to squash the former Nationalist Party, because the Nationalist Party had stated that our sons would have to participate in the war of another country, and would have to fight overseas. This newspaper goes on to say—

It is the main organ of the Government which publishes this in heavy type, and the newspaper goes on to ask—

And then they give their reason for calling it a lie—

The newspaper then goes on to draw this conclusion—

The question was where the boundaries of South Africa were. At the time the “red oath” was introduced, the Prime Minister made a personal statement to us, and I should like to draw the attention of hon. members on the other side to it.

In other words, we must go as far as possible in the direction of the Equator in order to defend our country. If we go further, then it stands to reason that that would not be in accordance with the proposal which the Prime Minister made at that time. That statement appeared in the newspapers in heavy print, intimating that no person would be sent overseas. I personally proclaimed it at that time, giving the assurance from the Government side—to which side I belonged at that time—that this would not be done, and neither the Prime Minister nor any of his colleagues ever told me personally or the organiser of the United Party, that we were publishing anything which was not correct. People were brought under the impression that our troops would not go overseas. We told our voters this, and we branded it as a lie when the Purified Nationalist Party stated anything to the contrary. To me personally this motion is particularly amazing, because on the 31st January, 1941, I put the following questions to the Prime Minister, in his capacity as Minister of Defence—

1. (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to a recent statement made by the Minister of Native Affairs that there is a probabiity that Union Forces might be sent overseas; and,
2. (2) Whether the Government intends sending forces overseas after the enemy has been expelled from Northern Africa. If so, for what reasons does he intend departing from the terms of the resoution adopted by the House on the 4th September, 1939, confining the activities of Union forces to South Africa.

What was the reply—

1. (1) No.
2. (2) Until the enemy has been expelled from North Africa it is idle to speculate on future policy.

He says “until the enemy has been expelled from North Africa.” The Prime Minister says that it would be premature to discuss the sending of troops elsewhere before that happens. We might have been able to understand this motion coming before us after the troops of the Axis had been driven out of North Africa, but now I cannot understand the Prime Minister. Outside the Prime Minister said that he was going to fetch our prisoners of war from Italy. In this House he did not say that, but he now wants us to send troops overseas to participate further in the war, and one of his strongest reasons was that if we did not do so, we would invoke the hatred of countries like Holland, England and other countries. His argument amounts to that. In other words, if there is any country which does not participate in the war, that country deserves our hatred. If they’ were to hate us because we do not participate in the war, then, according to the Prime Minister, we must today hate those countries which do not participate in the war. Well, I have before me a statement by Harrt H. Taylor, which appeared in the “Cape Argus” in October, 1941, in which he says that Portugal is doing a tremendous trade in three important items which she exports, namely, iron, whale oil and cork. Portugal has a tremendous export, because this country trades not only with Germany but also with England. Four days after that statement, the High Commissioner for Portugal in South Africa came to the Union and was received by the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister said this:

But the Field-Marshal went further, and in this country he went on to say—

Portugal is not participating in the war. According to the statement of Mr. Taylor, Portugal trades with Germany. The Prime Minister welcomes the Ambassador of Portugal here, and speaks of the wonderful bonds of friendship which exist between Portugal and the Union, and also between England and Portugal. But Portugal did not enter the war on the side of England. On the contrary, Portugal is helping the enemy. The Prime Minister, nevertheless, has the greatest regard for them, and openly states that he loves them. In that case, how can I accept as a fact that the Prime Minister is right when he says that if we had not entered the war, we would have invoked the hatred of these countries.

Is Portugal a member of the Commonwealth?

Is Holland?

But to go into the merits. I want to ask what advantage we can derive from participation in a war in Europe. Let us briefly test what we have got so far in three and a half years of participation. I hope the Prime Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I can see we have got nothing, no territorial gains, unless the Prime Minister wants a slice of Africa, perhaps Abyssinia, at the Peace Conference. Two years ago Sir Henry Grey gave a lecture at Kimberley, and he stated that he knew Haile Selassie well, personally, but that it would be highly detrimental to Abyssinia if he were restored to his throne. Will we get Abyssinia? Or what advantage is there for our country?

Are you in favour of aggression.

What have we got so far? As far as I can see we have only got disadvantages. In the first place, we have spent directly and indirectly £250,000,000 on the war. We have lost that. Then we lost in killed, wounded and prisoners of war, 20,000, which represents 1 per cent. of the population. That is what we have got so far, without any advantage for our country. For the rest, we got an enormous amount of bitterness throughout the country.

Not in the country, only amongst yourselves.

But let me bring a further point to the notice of the Prime Minister, namely, the arming of coloureds. Our country has many problems, but one of the biggest is the colour problem, and this problem has become much more acute since the war. I just want to mention the fact that thousands of coloured voters were placed on the roll. There are constituencies with thousands of coloured …

I think the hon. member is now going somewhat beyond the scope of the motion.

I would like to point out what the consequences are of our participation in the war, in order to show that the consequences will be even more serious if we send troops overseas. I shall, however, confine myself to the reasons why we should not send troops overseas. Without any doubt, our country cannot afford it. Up till now we have spent £96,000,000 on the war this year, and everything points to the fact that in respect of the current year we shall have to vote at least £110,000,000 or £120,000,000 towards the war. Day by day more recruits are taken on, the army becomes bigger, and expenditure increases. I am sorry that the Minister of Finance is not here, because I should like to quote something from a speech which he recently made in Durban. He stated that if we spend too much, if the expenditure soars too high, we may find that it is impossible to improve conditions when the war is over. The Minister tried to silence the taxpayers who were beginning to grumble. He said that the nation must be taxed in order to get hold of money, because otherwise the position will become untenable. In my view, it is one of the most important points, that if we send our troops overseas, the war debt will become so enormous, that the Minister of Finance will be correct in his statement that we shall then be able to do nothing in the direction of improving conditions after the war. The policy of the Government and the policy of this side is that better conditions must exist after the war. That is what we are fighting for. We advocate social security. But if the Prime Minister starts sending troops overseas, I agree with the Minister of Finance that there will be great danger that after the war we shall be able to accomplish nothing. But there is a second reason why I hope that the Prime Minister will abandon the decision to send troops overseas, and that is that in this country we have only 2,000,000 Europeans as against 8,000,000 natives. I would like the Prime Minister to tell us whether they really need our men in Europe. Russia recently made a statement to America and England that it was not necessary to send men to Russia, because they had enough, but that they should send only war material. We notice in the newspapers every day that America has millions of people which she cannot transport overseas to fight. And America, with its big European population, can afford to lose some of her citizens, but we in South Africa cannot afford to do it. Whether we are S.A.P.’s or Nationalists, we must all agree that we cannot afford to lose any of our European people, to sacrifice them on the battlefields of Europe. I think that England herself has a small number of troops on the battlefields today. I also believe that England today has enough troops, and that she does not require our troops, as long as we deliver food, etc.

When the House adjourned I was giving reasons why, in my opinion, we should not send troops overseas. My first point was that I felt that South Africa could not afford to do so. We have a State debt of more than £400,000,000 already. In the second place, I pointed out that South Africa, with its small European population of 2,000,000 has already sacrificed 20,000 men. In the third place, I argued that the fighting countries have more than enough men to use. And now I come to the fourth point, and in this connection I see a great danger, that is in connection with the arming of coloureds and natives. The Prime Minister did not state so clearly, but I take.it that he is also going to send nonEuropean troops overseas. I do not believe that he can only send Europeans. In the past hon. members on the other side argued that where coloured troops were used in the North, it was done in circumstances where coloured troops were used against us. I do not believe that that will be the position in Europe, and I should like to know whether the Prime Minister intends sending coloured troops overseas. If that does happen, the coloured people will come into close contact with Europeans overseas. What respect will such soldiers have for the European people when they return? The position is extremely critical. I heard just now that some of the coloured troops who returned yesterday, stated that they had only come back from the North for a little while in order to sign on to go to Europe. When they return from Europe, there will be more danger of the colour bar between white and black being broken down. The danger has already increased to a great extent owing to the Prime Minister’s attitude in this war, and owing to the use of coloured troops in the North, but the danger will become much greater if such troops are used in Europe. I want to ask whether the Prime Miniser does not realise that this state of affairs may become much more serious. There is another question which I want to put to the Prime Minister, and that is how many divorces have been decreed in the past year as in consequence of sending troops to the North, and how many marriages have been contracted because of the war? An enormous amount of harm is done to the social life of South Africa, and that danger will double if troops are sent overseas. Does the Prime Minister think that South Africa, with its small population, and with its racial problems, can allow this step? Does he not feel that it may lead to the ruination of our country and nation? For that reason I ask the Prime Minister to abandon his decision. This country cannot afford it. The Minister of Finance said in his speech at Durban that we in South Africa, in comparison with the taxes paid by countries in Europe, are paying just as much if not more than the other countries. He said that relatively our taxes had increased to the same extent as in other countries. If that is so, then I want to draw attention to the statement on the part of the Minister, with which I agree, that if our debt is increased until it reaches too high a level, it may become impossible for us to create improved conditions after the war. I should like to know from the Minister of Finance, if he really expressed that opinion, whether he does not think that by sending troops overseas the possibility of creating improved conditions will be even further jeopardised. Our taxes have become unbearable. There is one thing for which I want to thank the Prime Minister, and that is that he abandoned the plan to introduce the blue oath. The difference which has been made in the past between the orange flash men and the others, has caused a tremendous amount of harm, and it was one of the strongest methods which the Government used in indirectly compelling people to enlist. I am afraid that if another oath is introduced, the same means of indirect compulsion will again be applied. I shall be glad, therefore, if the Prime Minister will adhere to his decision that no blue oath will be introduced.

He has already said that.

I want to make a plea to the Minister to abandon his decision to send troops overseas. It will have serious consequences, also in so far as the farming community in South Africa is concerned. What is the position today? No convoys come this way, with the result that thousands and thousands of bags of potatoes are lying and rotting on the markets, and if we send troops to Europe, the position will become even worse, and an even smaller quantity of potatoes will be consumed in the country, and even more produce will lie and rot, as the Government expected would happen if we did not participate in the war. We have sacrificed enough in South Africa, we have lost enough lives, enough pain and suffering has been caused, and the Prime Minister may help, in name, to restore the independence of Holland and Belgium by sending troops to Europe—it will only be a drop in the ocean and unnecessary—but in any event he will not be able to give back to a mother the light in her eyes if her precious son is killed; he will not be able to remove the wrinkles from the face of the mother when her son is no longer there; and that will happen on a large scale if we send troops overseas. We sacrificed much in the North, and if an invasion of Europe must take place, the sacrifices called for will be very great. For that reason I make a plea to the Prime Minister to abandon this plan. We have the native and coloured problem; we are faced with the communistic danger, and it must be clear to the Prime Minister that in the interests of South Africa he must abandon this plan.

I listened with attention to the speeches of hon. members on the other side, and it is remarkable to hear all the futile arguments they bring forward. One after the other they put up popinjays and shoot at them and then they say that they have scored a hit. The hon. member who has just sat down for instance spoke of Portugal, how flourishing that country is, how friendly its relations with Germany are, and how on the other side Portugal and the Union of South Africa are on friendly terms, and he quoted this as an example of the reason why we should have remained neutral. I want to ask the hon. member whether he thinks that Portugal can be viewed in the same light as the Union. Was Portugal a member of the Commonwealth of Nations?

Were we under any obligation to take part in this war?

Did Portugal have an agreement or agreements with the British Commonwealth such as the Union had? We entered into the Simonstown agreement; but the hon. members over there forget all about it here in the House and also outside in the rural areas when they address meetings. They find it very convenient to forget about it. The Leader of the Opposition, before the war broke out, repeatedly told us that we cannot remain neutral and at the same time honour the Simonstown agreement. But what did he do on the 4th September? He and his Party sat here as quiet as can be and voted for the motion of Gen. Hertzog. He did not remember at that moment that he himself had said on a previous occasion that we could not remain neutral and at the same time honour the Simonstown Agreement. I shall come to this point later on again, but I just wanted to show the kind of popinjays members on the other side erect here in the House. Then there is another matter. Whenever those members have an opportunity to address meetings in the platteland, they forget all about the motion for which they voted on the 4th September. They only remember the first part of it, which has been quoted here by the Leader of the Opposition, viz. that we should continue as if no war is being waged. But they never explain to the people that there also was another part of the motion of Gen. Hertzog, namely that whilst we were to continue as if no war was being waged, there was nevertheless the Simonstown agreement which we had undertaken to carry out, and that we would fulfil our obligations as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. They never remember that. I make a point of attending their meetings in the rural districts in order to hear what they have to tell. I believe in democracy and I believe that we should take notice of what the Opposition says. I listened to what the Leader of the Opposition told the people there, for I want to be acquainted with his point of view. I make a point of attending their meetings, but this matter they have never yet explained to the people. They conceal that part of the motion and they do not tell the people what are those obligations which we were to honour. They say that they voted for the motion that we should remain neutral, but they do not say anything about meeting our obligations as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. One of the members on the other side even stated that they did not vote for such a motion. When we investigate the matter, they say that I should tell the people about it. No, this kind of popinjay cannot remain standing. The people are gradually finding out that the motion they put forward on the 4th September, was not a neutrality motion, it was a mock-neutrality motion. I have here before me the Minutes of the Imperial Conference of 1926, and for the information of the Leader of the Opposition as well as the Leader of the Afrikaner Party—for when they appear in the platteland, they know nothing about it—I want to read this out to the House. Here we have the resolution arrived at at that Conference, and both Gen. Hertzog and Mr. Klasie Havenga voted in favour of it. On page 36 we read—

That is what they voted for on 4th September. They voted for a motion to keep us neutral, but at the same time for a motion that we should meet the obligations which we have taken upon us as a member of the British Commonwealth. They never told the people what those obligations were, and surely there must be some obligations, for otherwise there would have been no mention of obligations in that motion. No, the hon. members on the other side intended to divide the people of South Africa on the 4th September. They wanted to do it on that memorable day which will be known as one one of the most important days in the history of our country. For their own party political ends they now assert that the people of South Africa have been divided. But they have not succeeded in it. The people stand more united behind the Prime Minister than ever before and the longer these difficulties exist; the more united will the people back him up. We can notice it by what is happening on the other side. After the 4th September we had a very strong Opposition with a strong man in the person of Gen. Hertzog as its Leader. If they had a good case, if they had a just case, then I ask them: Why did the disruption take place which we have witnessed; then I ask them at this moment: Why are the members on the other side busy coming over one after the other to the United Party? My friend there may laugh. This is not only happening here in Parliament, but throughout the whole of South Africa members are coming over to the United Party.

No, they come over to our side.

I now want to come to the motion before this Parliament. In one regard I agree with the members on the other side, namely that this is one of the most important motions which has ever been before Parliament. It is important, very important, in particular for the Afrikaans speaking section of the population. It is an important proposal for me, being a grandson of the Voortrekkers. But I want to be honest with myself, with my people and with posterity, and I therefore want to lay my hand on my heart and ask: What should be done in the interest of our country and its people. When I delve into the history of our country, I recognise the guidance of a higher hand in the history of my people, and when I accept that, then I declare, together with the Prime Minister and together with the late General Botha, that there is only one way to make a great people of my people, and that is to acquiesce in this decision and to march together with the other members of the Commonwealth in order to build a great nation here under the protection we enjoy. That was the policy of Gen. Botha; that is the policy of the present Prime Minister. All of you know that I did not always follow them. I used to be a Nationalist, but never on racial lines.

You were a racialist.

The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) cannot remain quiet for his conscience is pricking him. The members on the other side may disagree with the attitude of the Prime Minister, but they have to admit one thing, and their supporters throughout the country admit it, namely, that the Prime Minister has never yet deviated from the policy which he laid down 37 years ago. I openly admit that at one time I used to differ from the Prime Minister.

Why?

I stood for the sovereign independence of my own people.

And do we have that now?

We fought very hard to get it, but in the end we got it. I shall not worry about the cheap interjections from the other side. The policy of the Prime Minister was that we could not secede and form a republic, that we had to accept the peace conditions of Vereeniging and that as an honourable people we had to keep our word and had to march together with the British Commonwealth of Nations. Under that protection we in South Africa can become a great and free nation. In the Nationalist Party we stood for sovereign independence, and we maintain that we now possess that sovereign independence.

And what did the Prime Minister stand for?

We fought that battle and we gained the victory as is proved by the Balfour declaration of 1926. But before that time our sons fought in France and Flanders, and what did Gen. Hertzog say when he had to unveil the memorial at Delville Wood? He said there: These people who fell here, at whose grave we stand, fought for the honour and freedom of South Africa. That is history; that is history which today again appeals to us to accept this motion and not to allow cheap political considerations to carry any weight with us when the interests of our people are at stake and when thousands of our sons will go voluntarily to give their blood for the freedom and honour of the country. This is not the time or the occasion to be frivolous. The then Prime Minister, the late Gen. Hertzog, went to the Imperial Conference and he there obtained the Balfour declaration and the Statute of Westminster. But had it not been for the blood of the Afrikaners who fell at Delville Wood and had it not been for the attitude of the Prime Minister during that war, I doubt very much whether we would ever have obtained our sovereign independence. In those days I was grateful, for I had fought 3½ years for a republic and I always held the view that the republican issue was a bone of contention amongst our people. I was glad that we obtained our sovereign independence there. I now come to the Leader of the Opposition. I notice that he is not here. I should also be glad if the supporters of the New Order would ask their Leader to come in. I should like to put a question to both those leaders. I knew that the Leader of the Opposition would flee, for he knew what was coming to him. At Burghersdorp I put a question to him to which he could not reply. He knew that that question was going to be put again, and so he ran away.

But put the question.

I say that I was glad that that bone of contention had been removed out of our midst, for what did the Leader of the Opposition have to say about it? Here are his words. I shall read it out—

That was taken from Die Burger, and that is what the Leader of the Opposition said in 1927.

The hon. member is now straying too far from the subject under discussion.

I submit to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I want to point out to you that these matters refer to the resolution which is now before Parliament, for my friends on the other side are opposed to the sending of troops oversea and these matters have a bearing on that question. They are in favour of a republic and a separate peace, and for that reason I think that this quotation refers to the debate. I shall, however, submit to your ruling.

The hon. member may refer to these matters, but he cannot discuss them at length.

I shall then read one more quotation.

Is that from a pamphlet?

Yes, from a pamphlet which has been copied from Die Burger. In Grahamstown the Leader of the Opposition gave the following reply—

These are the words of the Leader of the Opposition who now accuses the Prime Minister of a breach of faith. Hon. members on the other side heard it. He said that we could not accept the Prime Minister’s word. I now want to ask: Is this a breach of faith; does it appear as if we could accept his words? No, that does not appear to be the case. But I want to come back to what the Leader of the Opposition has said now. The other day the Leader of the Opposition quoted a part of the late Gen. Hertzog’s motion of the 4th September, but he did not read the whole motion. I had a suspicion that he felt ashamed to read the second part of it. In the rural areas he never refers to it. I had the privilege, I think it must have been during August or September last year, to attend a large meeting at Burghersdorp which was addressed by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. (Gen. Kemp). The hon. member for Wolmaransstad scoffed about the fall of Tobruk; he derided the Prime Minister and asked: where is Jannie Smuts going to get 7,000 volunteers to join up now? He furthermore said—

And now they have not even come to Parliament with such a proposal. No, over there the hon. member for Wolmaransstad is sitting and I ask him this afternoon: Are you not ashamed when you think of all those deriding remarks? But there were Afrikaners who did not take fright at the reverse of Tobruk. They joined up in order to safeguard the honour of South Africa in the North. Thereafter I had the privilege of listening for three hours to the Leader of the Opposition. He first attacked the Prime Minister and when he finished that subject he attacked the Ossewa-Brandwag. After three hours I was able to put a few questions to him. I do not attend the meetings of those friends to insult them. We get too excited at meetings and then we insult each other. I go to their meetings and give them all respect which is due to them. I challenge any of them to tell me where during the past 3½ years of the war I have insulted any of them at a meeting. I asked the Leader of the Opposition: Tell this meeting and explain to them what the Simonstown Agreement is, and what would have had to be done to carry out that Simonstown Agreement when we had been neutral. His reply was that in this regard he had slightly disagreed with Gen. Hertzog. We know that the Leader of the Opposition differed from the late Gen. Hertzog before war broke out, for prior to the outbreak of war he said that we could not remain neutral if we had to carry out the conditions of the Simonstown Agreement. He then said that on Sunday night, 3rd September, he had been at Groote Schuur and that he told Gen. Hertzog there that he differed from him in regard to Simonstown. And then he said: I call upon the hon. member for Wolmaransstad as my witness; we discussed matters and we decided that we would not be compelled under that agreement to defend Simonstown. I would have very much liked the Leader af the Opposition and the Leader of the New Order to have been present this afternoon. At that time the Leader of the New Order also held a portfolio, and I would have liked to ask them: Is it true that such a decision was come to? But I was surprised. Of course, my second question was: Doctor, can you tell me why you did not tell the people on the 4th September what is your present interpretation of the Simonstown Agreement? I am still waiting for an answer and I wanted him to reply to it this afternoon, but he ran away.

You must not say that.

All right, I shall withdraw it. But the Leader of the Opposition was here when I started speaking, and he knew quite well that I would ask him that question. This afternoon I say that I hope it is not true and that he only said so to get out of a tight corner, for if it were true, it would be an insult to the history of South Africa. What happened on that day? Here on the floor of the House a motion was proposed that South Africa be neutral, but that the Simonstown agreement be carried out. We know the way in which we always understood the Simonstown Agreement and how we understood that motion. But three and a half years later that is withdrawn by the Leader of the Opposition, for he declares that they had already come to a decision beforehand that it would not be necessary for us to defend Simonstown. I repeat that if that should be true, it is a blot on the history of South Africa. We have a Dutch speaking section of the population in this country which honours its agreements. I, as a Freestater, honoured the agreement with the Transvaal in 1899, and therefore we saved the honour of South Africa. Those are the events which today entitle those hon. members to stand up here and to speak as Afrikaners and not to be ashamed of it. If we had not kept our word, what kind of Afrikaans people would we have had today? I sincerely hope that that statement is not true and that the Leader of the Opposition only said so to get himself out of a difficult position. I am in favour of this motion although I know that it will cost the lives of South Africans. But we have for ages been fighting for freedom and we are not going to yield up that freedom or have it trampled upon by anybody in the world. We appreciate that freedom, and those friends will agree with me, that the history of the last three and a half years have convinced us and the world that the policy adopted by the Prime Minister was the correct one to adopt. They put up popinjays here for the sake of cheap political propaganda, but the people will know how to deal with them. Today we are happy here in the southern corner of Africa. I noticed that when Japan began attacking, many members on that side became nervous and wanted peace. That danger has now gone or has receded. The Afrikaner stood his man. Those red-tab men, whose children they did not want to baptise and whom they did not want to receive in their homes, went to the North. It is being said here that those people went for economic reasons. I want to tell them that thousands of farmers who had large farms, left their farms to go and fight for 3s. 6d. per day. They are now talking of nationalism. I maintain that the true nationlism was shown by the red-tab men who went out to fight for South Africa. Those red tabs are a mark of honour, not only in South Africa, but right through the world. I now want to put this question to those hon. members: If we stood back now, seeing that the enemy has practically disappeared out of Africa—and I believe it will now not be long before he is completely driven out of Africa—would it be in conformity with our history and our traditions to say now that we are not going on? No, I think it would be a glaring injustice towards South Africa. When this war broke out, the friends on the other side said that this was a war of Poland, and what had we to do with Poland. I have told them so often that it was a world conflagration which started there, and that conflagration would also affect us here; we could not expect that the fire of that conflagration would leave South Africa unscorched if we took up the position they wanted us to take up. The war is not over yet. The decisive battle has still to be fought on the battlefields of Europe and I refuse my country to withdraw like a coward and to say that it is not going to take part in the decisive battle. I shall vote in favour of this motion and I believe that there will be thousands of our sons who will respond to the call of this motion. I remember what a young man replied when he was told that he would now have to go and fight in Italy. He replied: We Afrikaners are sports, we play the game, not half way, but until the finish. Our Afrikaner sons are sportsmen, and just as they have not played half way on the rugby grounds and on the cricket field, they will not do it on the battlefield either. Our sons will go and I only hope that the Prime Minister will be spared long enough to sit at the table of the peace conference when the time arrives, and that he will have the right to look after our interests on behalf of the people of South Africa.

The hon. member who has just spoken, has, to my mind, made one of the most astonishing speeches I have ever listened to in this House. If ever I have seen anyone with a disturbed conscience, I am sure it is the case with that hon. member, a conscience that is castigating him, and hence the irresponsible behaviour of which he has made himself guilty. But I leave it there. I should like to return to this question. All kinds of misrepresentations are given of the motive inspiring the late Gen. Hertzog, the former Prime Minister, when he brought up the motion, and with your indulgence I should just like to read the introductory remarks in his speech to the House, in order to remove all misunderstanding. After introducing his motion, he said—

Those are words which in fact reflected the feelings of this country and the feelings of this nation. Those were farsighted words; had those words been heeded, we would not at present have been in this precarious state as small South Africa with ferment in the country among all sections; a position in which one sees the dislocation of one’s entire social structure in this country. But I come closer to the motion before this House. Not one of the Members of this House, who in 1938 sat on the side of the United Party in 1938, dares to deny that the whole country and the whole nation, at the time of that election campaign, was given the impression that the policy as set out, was the policy for which the United Party would stand. The present Prime Minister himself gave the country that impression.

[Inaudible].

There is another member whose conscience is worrying him But I do not wish to be brought off’ the track by senseless interjections. The Prime Minister has helped to create that impression in the country, and the people of South Africa in 1938 gave a mandate to that United Party Government which did not include the sacrifices the Prime Minister today is imposing on South Africa. There is no getting away from it. It is as clear as daylight. Participation in the war was the burning question of that election. The former Prime Minister and all his Cabinet Ministers who at the time ascended platforms, assured the country that that would not be the case, and that this country would only be called upon to make real sacrifices in the event of its freedom definitely being threatened. And now I venture to suggest that South Africa would never have come under the European cross fire. Not a single shot has yet been fired over an inch of South African soil. Nobody can stampede us with this danger or that. The facts speak for themselves. Thus on 4th September, 1939, the Prime Minister by his action, acted in contravention of the terms of the mandate received from the people. To this very minute, the Prime Minister has not given one iota of proof that he has had a Mandate, of whatever nature, from the people to take South Africa along this road, and at the present day that is still the issue. Morally the Prime Minister therefore is still completely bound by that Mandate given to him by the people in 1938. For that reason he cannot here shrug his shoulders and withdraw from that moral obligation towards the country and the people. He should remember that this country is not dealing with a homogeneous population such as Australia and New Zealand. He knows that here he is dealing with a nation heterogeneously constsituted, and no one who has the interests of this country at heart dares to ignore that fact. No one is more strongly convinced and aware of that relationship than the Prime Minister himself. Nobody was more aware of that than the Prime Minister when that European crisis arose as a result of the Czechoslovakian question on the Continent in September 1938. We know that the present Prime Minister strongly supported the late Gen. Hertzog in his attitude. Was it not proof that he then realised the nature of the mandate and what the interests and desire of the nation were? But in the second instance we have this further proof that he was aware of it. The terms of his motion on the 4th September, wherein he undertook that South Africa would not send troops overseas, is further proof of it. All of us are acquanted with the September motion, and it has been repeated here that had it not been for the promise then held out, South Africa would not have been prepared to go in that direction; at least not this House, because on the 4th September we would most certainly have gone in a different direction had it not been for that promise. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Liebenberg) this morning referred to the statesmanlike action of a man like Mackenzie King. He knew his people, and in spite of the fact that the election had been concluded, he consulted his people before he brought up a motion to send the sons of Canada overseas. Where does our Prime Minister stay? He has referred to the resolution adopted by this House. I think there is sufficient proof that the responsibility has been on his shoulders to this moment. The hon. member for Heilbron has emphasised it in this House, and only a few days ago the Prime Minister stated: “I have prohibited members of this House from participating in the war and going to the front.” He has accepted full responsibility for that, and it is unfair to throw the responsibility for it on the shoulders of the House. Hon. members here enthusiastically asked …

[Inaudible],

I hope the hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler) will see to it that his son’s name appears first on the list of volunteers. I hope the Hon. Prime Minister will see to it that the names of his sons appear at the top of that list.

They are there.

I do not say these things because I am unsympathetic, I do not say it out of callousness, but I say it because South Africa can ill-afford it, whoever’s son it might be, to lose one, because we have here a small population of two million people. Whether they are sons of hon. members on this side of the House, or whether they are sons of hon. members opposite, South Africa cannot and may not lose them, and we cannot deny the fact that South Africa has already suffered enormous damage as a result of its participation in this war. It has been suggested that we had no choice. But I would ask this: If Portugal and Ireland and Sweden could contrive to stay out the war in their national interest, how much more could not South Africa have done so? But the reasons given on the part of the Prime Minister for this motion which has been introduced, is to me further proof that he did not act according to conviction, and that he is simply being swept along stupefied by the war hysteria of Great Britain and that he really cannot think of the interests of South Africa. He has given us a review of victories that have been achieved up North. We appreciate that, but is that sufficient motivation to send our sons further? We on this side of the House have always taken off our hats to our soldiers at the front.

Not always.

And we take off our hats to the men who have had the conviction to go there, but I am sorry to say this: In our souls we despise the man who is all for the war and then sits quietly at home, who expects the son of his nearest neighbour to go and calmly remains sitting here and coining money. I say that is a part unworthy of many of our citizens in this country, and we despise those who take up that attitude. I would go further. I have frequently listened to the arguments of the Prime Minister in this House with reference to matters and often I have listened with admiration to the clear and lucid manner in which he adduces reasons for and supports with arguments his case, but he will forgive me when I say that I have never seen him make a poorer show than when he introduced this motion. It is a long time since last he has been so unconvincing in pleading a motion, to me further proof that in his heart of hearts he must feel that he is doing South Africa an injustice, both as regards the greater interests of the country and the individual son who is being called upon to make the sacrifice. I would further just point out that the Prime Minister thus far been saying that the onus for the war decision must be shifted on to the shoulders of this House. He will do so as in the first instance, but he should remember that constitutionally he is the person who has to shoulder the full responsibility. The country will call him to account. South Africa simply cannot afford it. We know this motion will be adopted. We know that this motion will receive support from those who are still obsessed with a British sentiment, and who consider South Africa to be merely a useful handle for the promotion of British interests. They will vote for this motion because they are in ecstacy about the war policy. But where their own families are concerned, they will see to it that they do not make a single sacrifice, but they will compel others to make sacrifices. They should remember, there is a large section of the people who have only one South Africa, there is a large section of the people who know only one fatherland to whom they feel loyal, and that is South Africa, and they should take into account the feelings of that section of the population. There are thousands of men in the country who were in the Public Service, who have been victimised because they would not comply with the wishes of high officials or officers. There are numerous cases in this country of young men who have been compelled by merchants in the country to take their discharge unless they enlisted. There are intimate friends of mine who have been compelled to join up. Then we come here with the pious statement ….

Nonsense.

…. that we are going to ask only volunteers. No, the question arises with one: Will circumstances ever arise, in view of what has happened during the past three years, in which South Africa will be able to say: Well now, here is a war in which Great Britain is involved: South Africa need not participate in it. If at the outbreak of this war it was necessary to drag South Africa into it, circumstances will never arise in this country under which the Prime Minister will have the heart to keep South Africa out of the war. The Minister of Finance recently stated, in Johannesburg, that the hon. leader of the Opposition is the best asset the Government has. I would go further, and say that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet is the greatest asset Great Britain ever has had or will have, because the interests of South Africa leaves them stone cold. It leaves them quite cold whether this country, with its small population and its meagre income, can afford to sacrifice every man and every shilling that is asked for the sake of Great Britain. That glory, that glorification which is theirs, blinds them to the real interests of South Africa. I do not want to keep the House long, but I should just like to point out that that policy of the late Gen. Hertzog, which I have just illustrated here in connection with the quotation I read to the House would have made of South Africa a hundred times happier country, had his advice been followed. I say we shall still pick the bitter fruits of this policy. The Prime Minister recently stated at Standerton that such talk leaves him cold, that it leaves him stone cold. We can understand that, and we had already been convinced that it left him cold a long time before he deemed it necessary to say so. He should remember that he is a person getting on in years. I say that with all due respect. The fruits we shall reap according to what we are today sowing, will be such that he will no longer be there to deal with it. It will be a different South Africa that will have to cope with it. I say this with all due respect, that the Prime Minister should please for a moment take into review what the interests of South Africa are as opposed to what is purely in the interest of Great Britain. This motion came as a shock to the whole country. This motion came as a shock to the man wearing the red tab. I am sure there are thousands of them who feel they have already made the greatest sacrifice. Will there not be an end to the sacrifices demanded of South Africa? There are parents in the country who are worried about the sacrifice demanded now by the Prime Minister. The tide is rapidly turning against him, in spite of what is being said. It is no use hiding your head like an ostrich in the bush from a danger. Oh, no! That large meeting of soldiers recently held in Johannesburg, is striking proof to me of what we may expect in the future. A picture has been painted here of what the red tab man may expect when he returns after the war, but has he also been told that the Union of South Africa has only a limited carrying capacity? Are not expectations being kindled in the souls of those people that will be of such a nature that they will be bitterly disappointed when eventually they experience the disillusionment that South Africa is unable to create that heaven on earth for them? We are opposed to this motion, and we have to tell the Hon. Prime Minister that we do not trust his policy because undeniably he has broken a solemn promise here.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition, in moving this amendment, seems to me to have divorced himself from the realities of the position. He has forgotten that historically the Cape has always been involved in every European war for the past 100 or 200 years, and sir, in dealing with Madagascar, he seems to have forgoteen also, that modern warfare as waged by Herr Hitler, is a stark business in which no quarter is given and in which there are no rules. I venture to say that the Prime Minister would have forfeited the confidence of this country if at a time when the British Prime Minister was praying that no intelligent Press anticipation would disclose a hint of his intentions, he had called Parliament together to get the consent of this House to a course that was obviously becoming more and more necessary for the protection of South Africa, and for which he already had the mandate of this House. It is a significant thing to some of us that out of the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, one phrase emerged which strangely enough will find an echo in the home of every fighting South African and that is that “the Prime Minister made the sort of speech we expected of him.” Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did make the sort of speech we expected of him, and speaking for myself and those whom I represent, I have no doubt whatever what the response of this country will be, whether from white, black or any other colour. It seems to me quite clear that quite apart from the war aspect of this amendment, there is behind the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and behind the amendment a clear indication of what is the real plan of the Opposition in relation to any appeal which may be made to this country in the future. It is with extreme regret that one feels convinced that one of the principal planks on his platform is going to be the black manifesto scare, with its hand-maiden, anti-Semitism. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) is the usual protagonist of anti-Semitism, he is the man who tries to fan the flames which have lit up the Ghetto and lead to the Pogrom in the past. I have listened to his speeches on many occasions, and I do not dispute his ability, but I do say that up to this day I have never heard him make a constructive speech in this House, or one which would help to solve any of our real problems. I say that those who support a black manifesto scare have a very grave responsibility, especially in a time like this. In the first place, I want to make this point, that no country could survive, still less can any party survive, that builds on such a foundation. I would remind the House that the old Nationalist Party went to the country on such a manifesto, and I ask, in all seriousness, where are they today Sir, there is a very grave responsibility on these people. When these speeches from the Opposition benches are reported at second, third and fourth hand in the country districts, we must realise that those who hear them are not always able to distinguish whether what is said comes from one part of this House or another; they only know that they are expressions of opinion from those who are regarded as responsible people in relation to the non-Europeans.

[Inaudible],

Perhaps my hon. friend is one of them. I say that these people who deliberately go to the country on a black manifesto scare are playing, and playing very dangerously with fire. You cannot expect millions of people to sit down day after day, month after month and year after year, continually being told by such men as my hon. friend here, that they are a danger to South Africa, and that the Europeans cannot arm them because of the danger of them attacking the white population, without some reaction.

I want to remind hon. members that this question can be fully discussed on the motion of the hon. member for Beaufort West. I cannot allow a full discussion on that matter now.

I appreciate that, Sir, but may I point out that there is a motion of no confidence before the House, and that members of the Opposition in dealing with the amendment specifically referred to the danger from the non-Europeans.

It may be in the amendment, but the hon. member must confine himself to the motion. I cannot allow a full discussion on that question now.

Well, Sir, I can only say that I do feel that such a course of conduct is a danger to the country. With regard to the question of arming the nonEuropean people, I say that the time has come when we can and must take that step. I am glad to learn that in Madagascar the non-Europeans were, as a matter of fact, armed, and I sincerely hope that the Prime Minister, at the right time, will go further and that he will arm and train to arms the non-European people who, on the battlefield and elsewhere, have shown themselves worthy of our trust. I am quite sure that if this question were to be put to the members of the First Division, who have returned to this country from the seat of war, they would support this suggestion. There are non-Europeans walking in Cape Town today, and wearing honourably the much coveted flash of the First Division. Those men, Mr. Speaker, I submit are good citizens of this country, because in time of stress they have come forward and helped this country. I know that they are told that the weapons they are armed with—assegais—are their traditional weapon. But, Mr. Speaker, they are not deceived by specious arguments of that kind. It might with equal justice be said that because the allied forces fought at Crecy and Agincourt with bows and arrows, that those are the traditional weapons of the British Army, and they should be armed with them. I suggest to the Prime Minister that at the right time, and I hope it will not be too for distant, he will arm and train these men fully and will brigade them as combatants with a Springbok division. My hon. friends are playing with fire when they are continually telling these people that they are disloyal and a danger; you cannot go on crying “wolf” for ever. I understand the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) spoke this morning about this great danger. I make this suggestion to him that has been made elsewhere, that if he is afraid of what is going to happen, he should follow his natural inclination and remain neutral. Finally, I challenge my hon. friends to give one concrete example, a single case in this country, which shows any widespread subversive activities on the part of the nonEuropean people. I assert without fear of contradiction that all the troubles which we have had with the non-European people in the last twelve months are due to two causes. The one is the economic aspect, because no section of the public has been more hard hit by the war than the nonEuropean people, and the other is the provocative language used by people who seem to have no sense of responsibility.

You should go to Pretoria.

I have been to Pretoria several times.

That is where the people are who lack responsibility.

I make this final appeal, that we in this House and in this country should not spurn the loyalty and the offers of aid of the non-European people. Now is the time, I submit, to show them that we have confidence in them.

Do you want them to go overseas too.

Confidence begets confidence. We are at the cross roads. We are in danger of being at the parting of the ways, and I sincerely appeal to the Prime Minister in connection with this matter not to let this great opportunity go by. Today and for many years to come we can make sure of the loyalty of the non-Europeans—if only the Prime Minister will treat them with confidence and prove to them that in spite of the jibes which hon. members on the other side of the House make, we have confidence in them.

The hon. member who has just sat down has asked if there are any signs in the country of subterranean activity among the natives. I refer him to the Prime Minister’s reply to the Council of the English Churches, who came to him and put precisely the same demand that he is putting this afternoon. Then the Prime Minister had answered that there is a communist movement among coloureds and natives, and that he cannot at the moment discuss that matter with them. I can also refer the hon. member to farmers’ associations in Natal, which had gathered at Pietermaritzburg and had been very anxious and perturbed about the subterranean activity.

The hon. member may not go further into the matter. He can discuss it later.

It has been brought in against us this afternoon that we did not know about what we were voting on the 4th September, 1939, and the hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler) refrained from reading the motion on which we voted. We did not at that time, as he tries to convey, vote for a motion for seceding from England. The motion of the Prime Minister (Gen. Hertzog) read as follows:

Here the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) called out: “Shame! It is treason.” The motion went further—

Our motion was a motion of neutrality as regards the war. We realise that there were certain obligations. No, the difference between us and the other side of the House was perfectly clear. What did the Prime Minister of the day (Gen. Hertzog) say—

That was the standpoint we took up, that the Nationalist Party embraced and that the Nationalist section of our people took in—that we must not go into the war, that the interests of South Africa are not concerned in the war. I am sorry that the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) is not here. He has said that the Leader of the Opposition was now for the first time, after three and a half years of war, taking up the standpoint that what the Prime Minister of those days proposed was a state of non-belligerency. He had never heard of this in the three and a half years. Well, in every debate conducted here in those years, that promise of the Prime Minister of that time was taken as a basis for debate, and it was a promise that we would not go further than our own boundaries of South Africa. That was the declaration that was made, and I want to refer the hon. member for Kensington further to what a member of the Hertzog Cabinet, who had to decide for or against a declaration of war, said. I want to quote what he said after he had listened to the Prime Minister. You will remember that they came together and there was a conflict between the viewpoint of the Prime Minister of the day (Gen. Hertzog) and that of the present Prime Minister. Gen. Hertzog said that we must remain neutral, but the present Prime Minister said we could not remain neutral because there are certain obligations that we have assumed and we must go and fight. Because he made that declaration here in the House, the Minister of Native Affairs at the time (Mr. Fagan) interpreted his declaration as follows:

That is what has happened. There are members on the other side, the hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler) is one of them, who were caught in this way. Gradually, and step by step, they were dragged along by the Prime Minister, and it was not long before we heard the Prime Minister say that a war means that one must accept unlimited responsibility, and gradually he brought them from limited responsibility to unlimited responsibility. There is not one of them, of those who were caught by this wheedling, who, if he is honest today, can vote for the motion of the Prime Minister. We are not the only Dominion that has been misled in this way. The French-Canadians in Canada were misled in the same way. They did not want to participate in the war. There they said they could participate in the war but only if they remained in Canada for the protection of Canada. On that condition a big proportion of the French in Canada were caught. There were Ministers in the new cabinet who said that they would not take part in the war outside Canada, and the leader of the French, Mr. du Plessis, who was the Prime Minister of Quebec, was against participation in the war. It was Mackenzie King’s proposal that there would only be limited responsibility, and that persuaded the French-Canadians to agree to the declaration of war, but the limited responsibility passed over into unlimited responsibility. The French-Canadian leaders were placed before a fait accompli and had subsequently to vote even for conscription, even for service overseas. The leaders of the French-Canadians who were against participation in the war outside Canada, were gradually prevailed upon to accept unlimited responsibility and they went deeper and deeper into the war. Precisely the same thing is happening here. But it is not only the Prime Minister who is behind this. He has to listen to his master in No. 10 Downing Street, and he said: “A cry came for help.” Cries for help came repeatedly, and every time the Prime Minister and his followers had to go further and further. Every time they had to go further, and they could not go back. Today it has gone so far that he wants to break an undertaking he gave this House. He is supposed to have come for a new mandate. I ask members on the other side, particularly the Afrikaansspeaking members who accepted limited responsibility, if it is not now time for them to call a halt. There are numbers of their people, Afrikaans-speaking as well as English-speaking, who realise that we have already done enough, and that more cannot be expected of us. The Prime Minister says again that he is only going to fight with volunteers. We know that story of volunteers. We on this side know also the situation in the country, and what is going on. We also get letters from people, from so-called volunteers who have been compelled to join up. Let me tell the Prime Minister this: I was in Johannesburg when he appealed to the people to avenge Tobruk. What happened? In numbers of industries men were dismissed from employment, or threatened with dismissal, because they did not want to join up. Their employers came and said: “If you do not join up there is no work for you.” Is there a single hon. member on the other side who will deny that this method was applied?

Yes!

The hon. member says “yes.” Unfortunately one can pay little heed to him. He has so little faith in himself that he sent an S.O.S. to London for help to fight the Republicians here. There are numbers of people who join up against their will, and if a census were taken today in the army it would be found that there is a large number of people who feel that the new obligation that must now be assumed will again be used to exercise pressure on them to go further.

What percentage?

A donkey will believe that.

The whole country believes it. The letters we receive testify to it. The employers threaten people with dismissal.

Give us the names of firms. I challenge you.

Quite possibly his own firm is involved. The Leader of the Opposition has expressed his dissatisfaction in his motion that coloured troops are armed. One of the worst things I have experienced happened when I sat in this House on Friday and when the Prime Minister in reply to a question said that coloured troops are not armed and do not work with cannon. Why the denial, when these things are actually happening? It did my heart good, however, to read the letters that the Prime Minister wrote in the days when he was still the Boer General Jan Smuts; the letters he wrote to Kruger about the arming of coloured troops here in the Cape. With what contempt he referred in those days to the English policy. How he protested against it and how he said that the troops who receive arms were becoming more and more insolent and how assaults were being committed on women in the areas where the troops were. Then he was still a Boer General. Then he disapproved of the policy. Today that same man is busy arming such troops. What is to become of the whites if the 8,000,000 natives among us are armed? If they are going to arm the natives, men and women? The hon. member for the Transkei (Mr. Hemming), if he continues to make this demand and it is carried out, will probably be the first to have to escape from the Transkei. Probably he has another home, in England, to escape to, but we as a Boer nation will have to remain here. The Prime Minister has said that if we go into the war, and we win it in the end we shall be in the right company. What is the right company? I would like hon. members there to listen. The right company will be the Communists of Russia.

Not Hitler?

Russia is today engaged in a great unfolding of power and, if they succeed in crushing Germany, the Communists will trek across France and England and the whole Western Europe will be crushed.

You were evidently listening to Goebbels last night.

I did not listen to him, but my own common sense guides me. If they win and the peace conference takes place, Russia will consolidate her whole position in Europe. Then what will become of England? England will have no ships and no strength left to fight the mighty Russia. The day will come, even if it is in 10 or 20 years, that hon. members on the other side will join the forces that are today fighting against Communism. Can we allow, dare we allow, Communism to take root here? The Minister of Finance is one who realises what the position is, and if Communism takes root here among the coloureds and natives, what will become of white civilisation? And now I want to ask hon. members on the other side, who are so perturbed about the rights of coloureds and natives and who are the allies of Communism, why they have hiterto consistenly refused to extend equal rights to coloureds and natives and Indians in Natal and the Free State. If they are serious, why do they not come forward with the proposal to give equal political rights to the natives and coloureds and Indians in Natal and in the Transvaal? They dare not, because then they will never see this House again. We have an earnest motion before this House. There are people who must go and fight overseas. They will be placed under an obligation, and while hon. members on the other side sit quietly and safely in this House, those people will have to shed their blood in Europe. There are hon. members on the other side who are going to vote for this motion, but who have tried hard to get their sons out of the army because the son must go and farm. There are members on the other side who have succeeded in getting their sons out of the army and those sons are sitting on the farms today, but they themselves come here and are able to stretch their conscience so far as to vote for a motion that will send the sons of other people overseas.

The last speaker (Mr. J. H. Conradie) was very insistent in all he said; yet when he was challenged by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) to give the name of one firm who had victimised any of their employees he failed to do so.

I shall give you the names of a dozen privately.

I cannot see any use in your giving me the names privately when you cannot give them publicly.

Will you give the House your experience in Germiston?

Oh, yes, I shall.

Will you tell them how you were treated?

Oh, yes, but I was never victimised to the extent suggested by the hon. member who has just sat down.

You were not only victimised, you were threatened.

The Leader of the Opposition moved an amendment to a proposition put to the House by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has suggested that people who want to go and fight outside the continent of Africa should be allowed to do so. The hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) replied to that—he first of all quibbled about whether or not we had been plunged into war on the 4th September. And then he went on and made allegations in regard to the arming of non-Europeans—something which was false—because he was challenged to prove it and he couldn’t. His third point was a deduction from his second statement—but his second statement was false. And in the very last part of his amendment, in the tail of his amendment, he says that there should be a cessation of hostilities, but he only said so in the amendment; he never said a word about it in the House, as to why we should now stop the war. Now, that is a very unusual feature in this Session, because in all other Sessions we have had the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition’s opinion about the war at the stage and at the date when he made his speech. Perhaps if he would like to review the war position he may still be allowed to do so. On the 4th September, 1939, the hon. member had a motion in favour of what he calls neutrality. The motion as it stood was for neutrality. Yet last Session we had the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) interjecting that on the 4th September that was a vote for Hitler. No matter what it might have looked like on paper, it was a question of what happened in the House, The Leader of the Opposition was on very safe ground. He said we should not go into the war because it was not in the interest of South Africa to do so. He said this country had no interest in the war, it was a foreign war. But the Leader of the Opposition did not stick to that attitude. He saw victory after victory of the Germans, and he saw those little countries overwhelmed, and he saw the Germans as the victors in the end. And then it was that Germany became the saviour of South Africa, and then it was that Hitler would bring to this country that lily-white republic with his blood-stained hands.

That is why he licked the Nazi’s boots.

Yes, and then it was that the Leader of the Opposition said: “If the Germans come here—resist them—it would be suicide to do so.” He changed from a man who stood for neutrality—his attitude was that what he described America’s attitude to be. His attitude was one of nonbelligerency. But whereas America said at that time: “I shall give England all the assistance I can save military help,” his attitude was: “I shall give Germany all the assistance I can save military help.” But with this difference—America was not at war with Germany, but in his case South Africa was at war with Germany. That was the attitude of himself and his Party to this war. It was at that time when things were blackest, that he chose sides. But what has happened now? The hon. member is no longer sure of the success of Germany; as a matter of fact there does not appear to be one hon. member on that side of the House who is now sure of the success of Germany. Poor Germany, it has not a friend in the House: no wonder that Zeesen now cries out “From such friends, oh Lord, deliver us.”

[Inaudible.]

Oh, there is one, the member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop). Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of what should have been the decision on the 4th September, but whether that decision was right. Everything that has happened since has proved that it was a right decision.

You did not think so on the 4th September.

I did not think so on the 4th September, but unlike the hon. member who will not see, I saw the trend of events, I did not shut my eyes to what was happening. When things were darkest, before Tobruk, and when my friends opposite were getting the braaibout ready for Germany, I put myself right with the people and the country. Hon. members on that side of the House had the opportunity to do the same thing if they had the courage. But it is a pity that hon. members have gone too far. There are two sections on that side of the House, that is to say they sit on different sides, the one with Germany led by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, who is now endeavouring to scuttle back to his original statement on the 4th September that we had no interest in this war.

Did you also scuttle back?

No, I marched bravely forward with the freedom-loving nations of the world.

How did you come to occupy that seat, where did you scuttle to?

I followed my convictions throughout and I was never opportunistic. It was only because the Leader of the Opposition misread the portents and the signs as a military strategist, perhaps because of his lack of military experience, that he declared himself in to the extent that he did with Germany, and now it makes is very difficult both for himself and his party to get back to that stage when we would have no interest in this war. He cannot get back to that position because the country will not allow him to forget the attitude that he adopted, the attitude of opportunism when he prepared to take a republic from the hands of Hitler. What sort of republic, we wonder, would it have been? Now they come and say we were never threatened, never in danger, and yet the hon. Leader of the Opposition said if the Germans came it would be suicide to resist them. Never threatened, never endangered, it was just a question of handing over. The hon. Prime Minister was told to stop the war because it had been lost. Why must he stop the war now, what is the reason? They now say that we have no interest in the war because Germany cannot win. Now, Mr. Speaker, not only has Parliament justified that step in the dark which was taken on September 4th, but what the Opposition fear most is that they have been proved to be wrong. They persist in being wrong, because they will not see what is good for them. The attitude adopted by the Prime Minister and carried out since the 4th September is going to be justified to the full, and the only satisfaction the Opposition will get out of it is this. They know they have already lost the election, and already are making excuses. The only satisfaction they will get out of an election is that they will eliminate half of their blood brethren from coming back to the House. It is quite clear that the country is behind the Prime Minister, and it is quite clear also that our friends on the opposite side of the House are going in for that second barren stretch of five years of the 25 years in the desert predicted by the late Gen. Hertzog. Mr. Speaker they cannot win the election, and why? Because thousands who voted for the Nationalist Party in 1938, with the greatest of glee will vote against them today because these same Nationalists have answered the call that the Prime Minister made to them. They have left their plough, Mr. Speaker, and their pen, and they have gone forward, and in going forward they have made new contacts, and they have realised that this man Smuts whom they have always been taught to think of as half an Englishman, that his policy was right. They know that a small country like South Africa can never stand without strong friends, and that when she was in danger, as she was in danger—that is even acknowledged by members on that side of the House—she has found strong friends. It has taken many many years to justify the Prime Minister’s policy, but this war has justified it, and the proof of the pudding will be in the next election. I might have walked the barren paths of isolationism, but I saw that the party opposite, unless it gets a brand new set of principles and perhaps a new leader—I don’t know that is a matter for them—will always remain in the wilderness because young South Africa has realised that there is something greater in this country than just pure racial prejudice, and that all that remains for the Opposition is to try to maintain the rights of each individual section. They will not follow the barren paths suggested by the Opposition. Time is against our friends on the other side, time and progress. They are opposed to our people going to fight outside the Continent, but they give no reason. These same people said that people who joined up are of three categories, one those who joined up for adventure; the second because convinced of the rightness of the cause; and the third because of economic reasons.

That is what you said too.

The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) is the man who always has the most to say about economic reasons, and that perhaps is the worst insult to his own people. Are they the type of people who leave hearth and home and go into danger for a few pieces of silver?

You must not talk about silver.

There will not be any discrimination between those who take the oath now, and those who do not take the oath. It has been suggested by the amendment that we cannot afford to send troops out of this country because we need them on account of this black menace that looms up on the horizon. Hon. members all know that no more than two divisions have been out of this country, that not more than a tenth of the troops have been out of this country. So that is a baseless fear. Ninetenths of the army will still remain here to protect our friends from the black danger. That is the only plank, apparently, they are to have in the next election. A black manifesto worked once in this country; it is not going to work again. The Opposition will have to prove this danger. I say that the Opposition, prior to the war, relied on racial prejudice, setting one section of the population against another, and now finding that that will not pay and that they cannot win on that, they are now taking up this last plank of prejudice between black and white. That is surely, Mr. Speaker, the policy of a bankrupt party; there is no possible hope of that plea succeeding.

The hon. member must not continue with that argument. It has already been ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker. The hon. member will have an opportunity of discussing that question on the motion of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw).

I think I have said as much as need be said on that particular subject. I would commend to the House this fact, that hon. members on the other side who have proclaimed that they have not been consulted by the Prime Minister in this matter of sending troops to Madagascar, and not been consulted until now in regard to sending troops outside the Continent, have produced a senseless sort of argument. If their attitude is correct it would have been necessary for the Prime Minister to come to this House and get the refusal of the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan)—because he would not give his permission—before sending troops to Madagascar and tell the whole world what the intention was. This last step is a consequent step on the part of the Prime Minister in order to allow South Africa to participate in the final stage of this war. The Prime Minister would have no choice in the matter, there is such a feeling in the country that we must still actively participate in the war, that his hands would have been forced even if he were unwilling.

The hon. member who has just sat down gave an exhibition here as one can expect only from a person who has done what he did, turned a somersault. During his speech our thoughts went back not only to the vote he brought out in this House against the declaration of war, but also to how he went about the country and cried out dramatically: “We no longer ask for peace; we demand peace.” The hon. member now speaks of freedom and freedom-loving countries. Does he forget how he mounted the platform and, to prove what a peace-loving and freedom-loving country England is, mentioned how they had murdered and down-trodden the Irish.

I never spoke about the Irish.

You did so at Standerton.

What the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) has just said there, is an absolute lie.

Mr. Speaker, may the hon. member behave himself like that in the House?

The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Very well, I withdraw it.

The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) assures me that the hon. member for Germiston, North (Mr. Quinlan), told at Standerton how England had treated the Irish, and he had added that his forebears were Irish.

I deny it.

And now he comes here and speaks about peace-loving nations! He tells us further that the trend of events had shown him that he was wrong on 4th September. What was that trend of events? Was it that his property was damaged and that the Jews and the English boycotted him; did that persuade him to run away and turn a somersault? We all know what the history of the hon. member was, and what he had to go through as a result of his attitude on 4th September. He could not endure it; he threw in the towel and ran away, and I hope that those Jews and English now again support him very well.

There you are wrong.

He also spoke here about the wilderness. He was too frightened to remain in the wilderness. He saw that it did not pay him, and he returned to the fleshpots of Egypt. I think if he plunges his hand a little more deeply into the fleshpot he will find another thirty pieces of silver there. I was not here in the House when the war declaration was discussed in 1939. I was not a member of the House.

Perhaps you were in Hollywood.

That hon. member so often refers to Hollywood that I must tell him something more about it. We once sought a character there which we could not find in the whole of Hollywood, and now that I have seen that hon. member’s face I am convinced that he would have suited the role splendidly. They were looking for someone to act the role of the village idiot. I say I was not here in this House when the war declaration was discussed, and perhaps I may say a word in defence of the Prime Minister, even though I reject his standpoint decisively and in toto. It is often said that in his action he has misled the country. I must admit, however, that I never at any time had any doubt on how the Prime Minister would act in the event of war. Knowing him as I have known him for three years, I knew also that if England became involved in war South Africa would also be in that war, whether it is in the interests of South Africa or not. I do not think that we had any hesitation in our minds about what the Prime Minister’s policy would be.

He has always expressed it clearly.

He has always said straight out that if England is involved in a war, South Africa would also be in it, just as in 1914.

But what have the members on the other side said?

That was in any case my standpoint. We as Nationalists, the so-called purified Nationalists, have since 1933 repeatedly said in this House and in the country outside that this should be the Prime Minister’s policy. We had no doubts. When I was a member, I and other hon. members said to the then Prime Minister (Gen. Hertzog): Do you not hear what your Minister of Justice says; do you not realise that he is going to drag our country into war if England declares war? Well, he actually did so, and in that connection I was not the least bit surprised. While I was on a Free State farm that Sunday of 3 September, 1939, and heard over the radio that England had declared war against Germany, I knew that we would be involved in that war. I immediately said to my friends: Tomorrow night Gen. Hertzog will no longer be Prime Minister of South Africa, but indeed Gen. Smuts because I knew what he would do. But what surprises me is that the Prime Minister comes here today with the attitude he now adopts in the light of the attitude he adopted on 4th September, for we have to do now with a situation in the world against which he himself had warned. What was his attitude in 1918 and 1919, at the time of the Peace Negotiations, when he warned the leaders of the world against the thing that has now happened? He had said to Pres. Wilson and Lloyd George that they were doing a thing that was cruel and unjust. He had told them that they were beginning a new war. He had said to them: This peace is only the beginning of a new war. I also want to quote here what he prophesied to the British Imperial Delegation who went to see him about his attitude. He had prophesied something, and on this occasion his prophecy was correct. Inter alia he said to them—

Was it Hitler who said that?

No, it is the present Prime Minister who said so. He said there that war from the side of Germany would come and it would be no use calling it unprovoked aggression. That day did come. He had prophesied correctly. It is one of the occasions on which he was right, but when that day came, he himself, who had said that it would be no use calling it unprovoked aggression, stood up here and called it unnecessary aggression.

But the conditions of the peace were not carried out.

The Prime Minister himself had said that it was impossible to carry out some of those conditions. The Prime Minister has prophesied all these things, but yet introduced that motion here in this House on 4th September. Well, I expected it, he is an Imperialist, and I knew that he would do as England does. He has never hidden it. But on 4th September, he introduced his motion, and in that motion there was a proviso, viz. that we would not send troops overseas as in the last war. Now I put this question to the Prime Minister, a question that has not yet been answered, and I really hope that he will answer it on this occasion. Why was there a proviso in the motion of 4 September; why was it necessary; was it his serious intention; was he honestly of opinion that we must not send military forces overseas? If so, why not? If he believed that it was in the interests of South Africa to defeat Germany, why did we not have to send military forces overseas, and why then that stupid proviso? Did he not expect that a time would come when the enemy would be driven out of Africa and our soldiers would go overseas; and if he expected this, why then the proviso? I was not here in this House, and I would like to know what the reasons were for this proviso, and why it should have been incorporated in the motion. Because, if he intended to conduct the war to the end, then it was senseless to make that proviso. I do not believe that the Prime Minister did not expect that a day would come when our soldiers would be called upon to fight overseas. For that reason it was an absolute mystery to me why the proviso was there. The only reason one can find—and I will be glad to learn whether there is another reason—is that it was done to obtain the votes of a number of members who would otherwise not have voted for the motion. That is the logical explanation, and the only reason one can find for the proviso. The Prime Minister knew that there was a feeling among members in the House and in the country against his motion, and he wanted to get their votes. If that was so, then that proviso was nothing but hypnotism and deceit, I can find no other viewpoint as to why the proviso was placed there—it was incorporated in the motion to persuade members to vote for it. Now I come to the argument of members on the other side as to why this motion of the Prime Minister must go through. They told us that we can show no reason why the motion should not be adopted. But the onus of proof is not on us. The onus of proof rests upon members on the other side as to why it was necessary to depart from the motion of 4th September, so that troops may be sent overseas. The onus of proof rests upon the Prime Minister and his party. I listened attentively to the Prime Minister’s speech, and apart from everything he has said, I tried to find a reason why it was necessary to introduce this motion. I could find no reason. He told us something about the trend of the war; he mocked us a little because we thought this or that; but he gave us no reason why this motion should now have been introduced in contrast with the proviso adopted on 4th September. Perhaps he did give one reason. He said inter alia—

That is the only reason he gave: that we cannot now tell our troops that they must not go home. In other words, this motion is being introduced because there is such a strong urge on the part of the soldiers to go overseas. Now let us see what the troops themselves think about this matter. Is there any proof today that there is a strong general desire to go overseas among the men who have fought in the North? We declare on the contrary that such a desire does not exist with them. A fair number of letters are directed to us on this subject, and I want to read out to the House something that has come from soldiers who have fought in the North, to show what their feeling is. I say at the outset that I cannot guarantee the feelings of these people but that is what has been written to us. I have here a letter derived from a number of men who have fought in East Africa, in Abbysinia, in Eritrea, in Egypt and in Lybia. They begin thus—

Then there are other complaints which I need not mention. He goes further and says—

I shall not read everything he writes. He goes on and says—

I find it necessary to read this to the House. I have no means of testing to what extent it is true that this is the opinion of 90 per cent., but we know that this feeling is very strong. With what right does the Prime Minister say that the reason why we made this new proposal is because “it will be a crime to say that South Africa is clear; go home, boys; they would resent it and want to go further.” This is the answer of the troops: “Once bitten, twice shy.”

Will you lay that on the Table?

In Johannesburg a meeting of soldiers was held. I do not identify myself with that meeting because I see that it was addressed by two barristers who incite the soldiers against the Government.

Who are they?

It is Adv. Fischer and Adv. Boshoff. I say I disapprove strongly of their attitude, and I wonder why they themselves do not go and fight.

They are only following the example of hon. members on the other side.

The most terrible things were said there. What was said at this meeting shows that they are strongly tending in a Communistic direction. One sees soldiers openly attacking the Government and the Prime Minister, and revealing a tremendously hostile attitude towards the Government. I mention this merely as an example of what is going on. I do not say for a moment that I approve of it, because I strongly disapprove of it. But now the Prime Minister comes here and says that we cannot say to our sons “Go home”. They want to go on. If he tells the House that that is the feeling of the majority of the soldiers, then he must pardon us if we say that we do not believe him; it is easy, for hon. members on the other side to say: “We are going right into Berlin”. These members and the men in Johannesburg who incite the soldiers will never go to Berlin. Many of the members on the other side will get the D.S.O. after the war, but it will stand for “Double Salary Order”. There will even be some of them who will get the V.C.—“The Virginia Creeper; I cling to thee”. I must say that it disgusts me when I see the reply of the Minister of Finance showing what amounts are being paid out in the form of double salaries to members in this House, and then we get big talk from them. I would be ashamed, if I were inclined to fight in the war, to sit here and draw a double salary and do nothing. I would have said to the Prime Minister: “Here I am; I shall do my duty without payment”.

They have all offered their services to the Government.

Yes, but not without payment. I speak of the men who have to give recruiting speeches in the country, and for that they get a double salary. I say that if they had possessed any loyalty, if they had any regard for the cause, then they would have gone to the Prime Minister and said: “Here I am; I offer my services free”; or otherwise they would have resigned their seats, as has been done in Rhodesia and other places. An hon. member on the other side even today said that a special tax should be placed on members on this side of the House. He has said that we do not want to go and fight, that we want to have nothing to do with the war, and that therefore we must be specially taxed. We must thus be specially taxed so that they maybe paid double salaries. It is a scandalous thing that is happening here. Now the Prime Minister comes with this motion and again makes a promise as in 1939. This time it is a promise about no conscription. We have said before, and I say it again, does the Prime Minister—I ask it in all seriousnessthink we can attach any value to that promise? He not only breaks his previous promise here today, but he has broken it in the interim without a motion. He admits this where he says: “I stretched a point.” He says honestly that he had gone too far. But now we hear from hon. members on the other side that Madagascar is a part of the Union and all that kind of deceitful arguments. The Prime Minister was almost honest on the point, and he said: “I stretched a point.” But where he said that, how can he expect us to take him seriously in the country? No, we can expect anything. One of the things that strikes and disgusts one most in this war is the hypocrisy from start to end, of a man here who is drawing a double salary—the whole war is being conducted by hypocrisy. Just think of what is being said in England. It must disgust anyone where heads of the English Church describe Stalin as the Ambassador of the Almighty. Now I want to read out something to show in what danger we stand in this war. I want to show what dangers stand before our door, the danger that Russia can overwhelm Europe and that with our help. I want to read out what a leading person wrote about the danger of Russia. I will mention his name later. He writes as follows—

These words were written by Winston Churchill. You will find it in his book “Great Contemporaries” on page 55. Churchill wrote it a few years ago and today the Archbishop says that Stalin is an Ambassador of the Almighty. Here is a serious matter. We on this side of the House have always fought Stalin and his Communism. If one reads what Churchill wrote, one shudders at what happened in Russia before the war. Churchill writes: “In Russia liberty is unknown,” and here we are told that we are fighting for liberty.

What would he say about Germany?

It does not matter what he says about Germany. Germany is not his friend but his enemy. After writing these things, Churchill dashes off to Russia and sits in an embrace with Stalin. I say this is hypocrisy of the coarsest nature. We shall yet regret these things. I think of Japan. In 1921 I was in Washington in the United States and, as the representative of a South African newspaper I attended the Disarmament Conference. Recently I have again perused the articles I wrote for that newspaper and I find that I mentioned in every article that the difficulty in the way of disarmament was the English-Japanese agreement. America could not swallow that agreement, and that was the reason why the conferences ended in failure. Then England chose the Japanese above the United States, and today England will have nothing to do with Japan. My point is this: That for that hypocrisy our sons and daughters must sacrifice their lives.

Our sons!

We are not prepared to send our sons and daughters overseas to enable this Russia, as pictured by Winston Churchill, to triumph, so that these things may happen in South Africa, so that these things against which Churchill warned us shall happen in our country. Because as surely as the sun shines in the heavens this doctrine, “where liberty is unknown” will spread throughout the world if Russia obtains dominance. It is spreading in South Africa today, and that we do not want. This flirting with Bolshevism is going to cost us dear. We are contesting this motion. We have warned against this war in bygone days. My own leader and others have repeatedly warned against this war that has come. Now our warnings have become realities. We warn again today that this flirting that is taking place with this arch-murderer Stalin, with this savage and his savage policy, his godless crushing of everything that is sacred to us—we warn that if this motion is adopted it will cast off bitter fruits which succeeding generations will come will repent.

We have just had a most wonderful temperamental outburst from the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart)—it was 90 per cent. temper and 10 per cent. mental—particularly mental when he referred to these double salaries which some hon. members here, according to him, are drawing. That seems to be worrying the hon. member very much.

Apparently it does not worry you.

Has the hon. member not finished speaking yet—he has been on his feet for half an hour and he cannot still keep quiet. Let me explain something about these so-called double salaries.

It will take a lot of explaining.

Yes, it’s no use explaining to some people. Those members of Parliament who are serving today—who want to serve their country in the best way they can—have had to give up their businesses; they have had to give up everything in order to do something for their country. Therefore the incomes they were getting in their civilian lives have all gone to the wall. Surely they are entitled to get their pay in their capacity as soldiers? But I want to lay another charge at the door of the hon. member for Winburg and it is this.—I say that the hon. member for Winburg is constantly getting double pay from the Government.

How much is he getting?

If the hon. member will listen I shall tell him. Let me just say this, the soldier member of Parliament who is serving his country and who has to serve wherever he is told to serve, when Parliament is sitting does not get any military pay—he is on leave without pay. But when the hon. member for Winburg goes and does Government business, even while Parliament is sitting, he gets paid for the job he is doing, and whenever he does a job in court he gets paid—and he is also paid by Parliament. Talk about double pay! Now, if there is a man who should not get up in this House and accuse anyone of drawing double salary it is the hon. member for Winburg. And then the hon. member had the temerity to get up here and quote from some letters in which he alleged that soldiers had stated that they were being stabbed in the back by the United Party. If anyone on that side of the House makes a remark like that, that we are stabbing soldiers in the back, surely he must be forgetting what he himself is doing. Who is stabbing the soldier in the back? Surely the soldiers realise that it is the Nationalist Party, the people on the other side of the House, who are stabbing them in the back all the time, day and night, and I was really surprised that the hon. member had the temerity to read out that letter and make remarks about stabbing anyone in the back. And in one passage which he read out there was some statement that a soldier had said that they would fight for those who fight for them. Well, well! I only hope that hon. members opposite don’t think the soldiers are fighting for them. I still have to hear of their fighting for the soldiers. So far they have done nothing in the way of fighting for the soldiers—in fact they have done their very best to belittle the soldiers—they have jeered at them, and they are the people who have tried to stab in the back the men fighting for their country. I have got up to support the motion proposed by the Prime Minister, and I am very pleased that this motion has ben brought forward because we must remember that actually it was Parliament which limited where a man should serve. When the Prime Minister in his wisdom on the 4th September, 1939, introduced that motion he laid it down that service could only be done by South African troops in Africa itself. There were thousands and thousands of men at the time who only could sign on for service in Africa who would willingly have signed at that time for service anywhere in the world. In this amendment they were not allowed to serve outside Africa. We know, of course, what the Prime Minister’s reason was. It was because he felt that all available man-power within South Africa was required for the defence of Africa. How true and far-sighted has his wisdom been. That is over three years ago, and these men have fought a colossal battle up North to eject the enemy, and we have needed every man and every woman for that matter in South Africa to enable us to do that. In two or three months’ time I consider there will be no more fighting on the African continent. But I want hon. members not to forget that it was not the South African soldiers alone who performed the great job that was performed up North. They were helped by American troops, by British troops, by Polish troops, by the Free French and other Dominion troops. And now hon. members opposite want us to stop sending troops out of the country. They do not want us to help these other countries, the men from these other countries who have come here to help us. I am surprised. I have travelled a lot in this country; I have travelled a lot all over the world, and I was always very proud when outside this country I was asked where I came from. I was always very proud to say that I came from South Africa.

I hope you never said you were a South African.

I notice the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) interrupting. We all know that he should keep his ears wide open and his mouth shut. We all know that the distance between some people’s ears is only a block, but still I wish him to keep his ears open. It would be a good thing if the hon. member would confine himself to dentistry and broody hens. There was a nice little story from Somerset West about broody hens. Let the hon. member take my advice and stick to dentistry in the daytime and broody hens at night. He would be of very much more use to the country. He certainly is of no use now—except to interrupt here. During the last war no restrictions were introduced, because to begin with we only had South-West Africa to deal with. Directly after the South-West campaign was finished our troops were allowed to volunteer for service overseas, and also for East Africa. Well, our troops were sent there, they did their job and they were paid by the Government. But in this war the Prime Minister saw that South Africa was actually threatened — that this continent was threatened, and therefore he did not allow our troops to go out. I was dealing with that point when the hon. member interrupted me. Those other countries whose men have helped us to liberate our African continent—those other countries are overrun today. These men have helped us, and surely it is our duty to return the compliment and go and help them. Some hon. members opposite are casting doubt on the willingness of our men to take the new oath. Let me tell them that they will take it in their thousands. Probably every man who is serving in this war will go. And those unfortunates who are kept in this country not through choice of their own, will also want to go. We have been told that nine-tenths of the South African army are still in this country. Well, it is not their fault. They were quite prepared to serve up North—they were just not allowed to go. And let me tell hon. members opposite that a little bit of soldiering would do them a lot of good. One thing hon. members there do not understand and that is that the first thing a soldier has to do is to obey orders, and if he is told to stay here he jolly well has to stay. So the arguments of hon. members over there, that only certain people have gone, does not hold water. I want to mention to this House what was said by the late Gen. Dan Pienaar only some two or three months ago. When he was asked a question as to what should happen to the South African Forces when the Northern campaign was over, his reply was this: “We are in this war boots and all. I have had the experience of fighting Huns for eight years, and the only way to fight the Germans is to kill the Huns, and if there are no Huns in Africa we have to go and find them.” Those were the words of the most distinguished General this country has produced in this war. What a tragedy that a man like that was lost to this country through an accident. It was a tragedy which we all deplored. It is no use our blinding ourselves and saying that the Germans are beaten and that the danger is over. South Africa is in danger until such time, until Germany has been absolutely and thoroughly defeated. The wars of today are not like the wars of 20 and 40 years ago. Today bombers can fly 1,500 miles with a load of bombs or paratroops and can drop their load and return. I say that our forces must be where the enemy is. If the enemy is in Europe then our defence line must be in Europe too and we must be there tot assist these other countries, and I go a little further. I feel that the Defence Act is altogether wrong in this one respect—we should be able to send our men to wherever our defence lines are, and our defence lines are where the enemy are. Our permanent forces, and our police force are our first lines of defence—those forces are there to serve South Africa. Why should they only serve in South Africa itself? Surely our first lines of defence should be where the enemy is, and if it is in the interest of South Africa our permanent force should go right up to the enemy lines. Talking of that I know that a certain major who was in the permanent force, the air force, some little time before war was declared, was sent overseas to undergo a special course. He returned a few months before war was declared, he was a highly-skilled man, but he refused to fight as soon as war was declared, he would not leave South Africa. That man today is not in uniform, but he is still in the civil service. I say thank goodness he is not in uniform, and I sincerely hope he will never be given the opportunity again to disgrace the uniform and play the traitor to his country. A highly specialised man like that would have been of great value to us, and today he is doing office work. If we had had the oath that I suggest, then the men would go where they were told to go. They would not have an opportunity of doing what this man did.

It would not happen in Germany.

No, as my hon. friend says, it certainly would not. I will not be a party to besmirching the good name of South Africa in allowing the finger of scorn to be pointed at us, and for it to be said “Half way through the war you threw your hand in on the trivial excuse that you were limited to serving in Africa.” The other countries in the world will not take that as an excuse. I still want to have the pleasure and pride of saying I am a South African, to have the fine traditions of South Africans behind me, and to have people look up and say “It is a fine country you come from.” That trust is in our hands at the present time, and it is a trust that we have to guard. Gentlemen on the other side are trying to smash that, and it is our duty to protect it. It beats me why members on the other side are so inconsistent it really beats me because I feel that Tokio and Zeesen must be very hard pressed at times to explain the inconsistencies of their active supporters here in South Africa. I want to read from the “Rand Daily Mail” of October 31st, 1940, the report of a congress at which Dr. D. F. Malan spoke. He said—

That is the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) at that congress in 1940. I have another cutting here. The hon. member for Piketberg then assumed the role of the Pied Piper of Hamelin, and all the satellites started to follow him. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) just a few days afterwards spoke at the Nationalist Congress, and he said—

The lead was given to him by the Pled Piper, and the hon. member for Fordsburg followed. I am very sorry for the hon. member for Fordsburg, because these words of his have been printed, they will live for the rest of his life, we all know he has committed political suicide with these very words; that is what they amount to. We are surprised that he followed the lead of the hon. member for Piketberg. We heard the Minister of Finance being accused of having his feet in the air. I think the hon. member for Fordsburg must have his head in the air.

I think the hon. member had better come back to the motion.

He is up a gum tree.

I bow to your ruling, Sir. I should like to read another cutting, and quote words of the hon. member for Piketberg. This is a complete somersault now. I know the hon. member is very used to these political somersaults, he has had so much practice, and has had to do them so many times, that he is an expert. Now what did he say in Pretoria? He said: “The Afrikaner who pins his hopes upon a German victory is an untrustworthy coward.” Is that what the hon. member for Fordsburg is? He has been called that by his leader.

Order. I am afraid the hon. member is rather irrelevant.

As usual.

I am only quoting what is reported here. I would not call the hon. member for Fordsburg that. Untrustworthiness as far as his political convictions are concerned, yes, but not what his leader called him. I don’t know why hon. gentlemen on the other side call me to order. The hon. member for Piketberg is in a very difficult position, because he is being “whiteanted” on every side. I expect, Sir, you will rule me out of order if I pursue that.

The hon. member should confine himself to the motion before the House.

May I refer to a passage which the hon. member for Piketberg said in his speech. He was very profuse in telling the Prime Minister that Ireland had retained her neutrality. Surely the hon. member does not want a back-bencher like myself to tell him why Ireland is still neutral. Surely he must know that Ireland is very close to Britain which safeguards that neutrality. Holland was neutral, Belgium was neutral, Jugoslavia was neutral, Greece was neutral; there was no Britain alongside them to safeguard their neutrality, and they were just overrun. [Interruptions.] If hon. gentlemen over there won’t listen to horse sense and reason, I can’t make them.

A hoarse voice.

The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé) when he spoke, wanted us to withdraw because the war is no concern of ours. He said he was not pro-or anti-Britain, nor pro-German. That was another inconsistency that Zeesen and Tokio have to explain away. I remember the hon. gentleman saying in this House that he would rather serve under Hitler than under a tyrant like the Prime Minister. I hope I have been able to show hon. members on that side why I say they are inconsistent. On Thursday we had the swan-song of the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow). He indulged, in the first place, in cheap and petty remarks at the expense of the Prime Minister. I am sorry he disclaimed the invention of the bush cart. Realising that this was his swan-song, we did want to remember him by something, and now even that is gone; we cannot remember him as the bush cart Feuhrer. I remember in 1935 or 1936 he tried some bush carts down in Tzaneen. He said when he spoke on Thursday that the bush cart was an exact duplicate of the cart which is delivered to India by the British Government.

No, he did not say that. He said the bush cart was planned from that.

The cart that goes to India was a double-shafted cart; the one adopted by the hon. member for Gezina is a single-shafted cart, so that bullocks could be inspanned. It has a long shaft …

Order; I am afraid the hon. member has strayed from the motion.

Then we had a speech this morning from the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Liebenberg), and I was surprised to hear his attack on the Prime Minister. He said that all the men were in uniform because they were starving. Does he think that all our soldiers are paupers? Then it was said Britain was only fighting with her Dominion soldiers. Mr. Speaker, I have been in uniform for just on three years now, and I am very happy to be able to contradict the hon. gentleman. What right has he to say a thing like that? If he had mixed with the men who had been up North he would know what a very small portion the South Africans are in the army there, and what a very small portion of other Dominion troops. The vast majority of the troops serving up there are British troops. And the report that our boys bring back about the fighting capacity of those troops confirms what Gen. Pienaar said about them. He said that he had with him in the Eighth Army the finest troops in the world. “Thank God I was on their side and not on the other side, because these troops could not be stopped by anybody.” I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Heilbron say that all the men joined up purely to be able to get food. I have one more cutting to read, and that is from the “Rand Daily Mail” of June 25th, 1942:

I say so still.

Another soothsayer, or is he a crystal gazer. How he would like to undo those words. But he cannot do that. Hansard is there and the Press is there. Every word is reported. I am very happy that the Prime Minister has brought this motion forward because it is merely taking the place of the original motion moved in 1939. I am very happy to support it.

The hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) who has just sat down, has a guilty conscience. He has tried to tell us why he is sitting here and drawing a double salary. If a person is actually in the war out of patriotism, then he must be prepared to sacrifice and not to add an extra £1,121 to his income. If he should go to the North he would no longer earn £700 as a member of Parliament, and still less be able to gather an additional £1,121 in time of war. This hon. member and other members there hide behind the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is supposed to be keeping them out of the North; and the Prime Minister in turn hides behind members on the other side when he does not keep his word to this House. On 4 September the Prime Minister proposed in this House that the Government must not send military forces overseas as in the last war. Now the Prime Minister comes and tells us that it is a decision of Parliament, and that because it is a decision of Parliament, he as the man responsible for the proposal has no responsibility in connection with the decision. I do not believe that the Prime Minister can acquit himself in this manner. But the hon. member who has just sat down tells us how far-sighted the Prime Minister was on 4 September, 1939. If he were so far-sighted why then did he submit this decision to the House on 4th September? We can come to no other conclusion that he wanted to mislead the people outside. I do not want to take up the time of the House, but I cannot refrain to protest where South Africa must again bring sacrifices in the interests of the British Empire, and where South Africa must bring further sacrifices of the flower of our people on the altar of British Imperialism. It is being said that those people will go voluntarily. After all the experience we have gained during the past 3i years, how people have been threatened with dismissal from service if they do not join up, we have sufficient proof why we should not lightly accept this argument that is being used. There will be many who will not go voluntarily. The Prime Minister asks in his motion that Parliament should give him the right to send troops overseas. Why does he want the right? Why did he not indicate that it will be in the interests of South Africa that we should send troops overseas? He did not raise a single argument to show that the despatch of troops overseas would be in the interests of South Africa. He tells us that the Allies are going to win. If that is so, then it is a further argument against the despatch of troops overseas. If he feels so convinced that the Allies are going to win, will the small group of South Africans then be a deciding factor? The big difference between this side and the other side is that the other say that because England is in the war we must also be in the war. The Prime Minister has declared war on all the countries on which England has declared war. Russia has committed the same thing as Germany—she invaded Poland, but we did not declare war against Russia. Why not? Because England did not declare war on Russia. But England has declared war on the little Finland and consequently we had to do the same. Now I ask you what cause Finland gave us for declaring war on Finland. What danger is Finland to South Africa? I shall be glad if the Prime Minister would tell us why we declared war on Finland and what danger that country was to South Africa. We on the this side say that our standpoint is not based on who is going to win or lose this war, our standpoint is based on the principal of South Africa first, and that it is not in our interest to participate in the war. We feel that we have not the obligation towards England, nor to any other country in the world, to go into the war on their behalf. There is talk about the Japanese danger and the German danger. But have we not invoked those dangers? Have we not declared war against Germany and Japan? Why should Germany and Japan go out of their way tot attack the Union, which is 6,000 miles removed from the actual theatre of war? The argument that there is danger for us is being used to push South Africa into the war in the interests of the British Empire. If the Allies win the war then Russia wins, and if Russia wins then we must accept that Germany will no longer be a power of particular importance. Then the only bulwark between Communism and England, and also between Communism and the Union, will have fallen away. Is that in the interests of South Africa? Is it then in our interests at this stage to send our troops overseas? Where we have to do with such a great non-European element in our country, is it in the interest of South Africa to send our troops overseas? Whether Communism is good or bad for other countries is a matter about which I am not going to express myself, but one thing is certain and that is that if Communism is a danger to any country then it is indeed a danger for South Africa. For that reason, instead of marshalling all our resources in connection with the war, we ought to be preparing at this stage for the conditions that will arise after the war. We are a small nation, but we have already spent £233,000,000 on the war, and have already sacrificed 20,000 men. Where is it going to end? We are busy creating an economic situation that will become untenable. I have asked the Minister of Finance if he realises how old people, with restricted capital and a small source of income, are suffering? The rate of interest has decreased, and their incomes are small. Cost of living is going up, and now these people in their old age find that they cannot provide for their own support. I want to ask the Minister if he is going to do something for those people, as for instance State Officials in receipt of pensions. Is he considering paying those people a higher allowance?

The hon. member is wandering from the subject under discussion.

I simply want to point out that the longer we participate in the war, and if we send troops overseas, the more difficult it is going to become for people with restricted incomes. Instead of using our industries, our factories etc. for the manufacture of machinery and baling wire and other necessary things in the interest of our country, we are busy sacrificing everything for the war, busy devoting everything we manufacture to the war, instead of providing in the requirements of the country. I want to ask hon. members on the other side, particularly the members of the Labour Party, of whom one is fortunately present—they are not much interested in this matter because they are all well provided for—whether they do not think that we have done enough in the war and that the time has now come when the Government should give attention to our own people, so that these people shall not be unemployed after the war? In spite of what the Prime Minister and his colleagues are trying to make the people believe, we know what the position is going to be after the war and how unemployment is staring us in the face. But the Prime Minister is spending money on the war in proportion to its length, and is even trying to create the impression that the more we spend on the war the better it goes with our country.

The hon. member is now entering a sphere that has reference to another motion that is already before the House.

I merely want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am speaking about members of the Labour Party who make it appear as if they are the people who are really concerned about the worker, and I think that where we are now going to send further troops overseas we should hear from them whether that would be in the interests of the worker, and whether they do not think that the time has come for them—not for us, because we were opposed to the war from the beginning—to say that the sacrifices South Africa has brought are more than South Africa can bear, and whether they do not expect that in this war there will be a repetition of what we had after the last war—but on greater scale—when the workers on the Witwatersrand and elsewhere will again be shot down by the Prime Minister.

That is an old worn-out thing.

It may be worn-out, but those people are dead. It may be worn-out, but we know that it will happen again and on a greater scale.

That is again a false prophecy. Just like those we have had in the past from the other side.

Yes, the members on the other side do not want to listen to this argument because they know that this is what is actually going to happen. But they will find that the Prime Minister will not again have such an easy task as he had after the last war. These troops who are returning from the North and who have taken part in the war, will expect the Prime Minister and the Government to implement the promises they have made. And we know that they cannot keep those promises. They are not in a position to do so, and therefore we warn every member on the other side that they are busy creating a situation in South Africa after the war that can end in nothing but a bloodbath.

In giving my wholehearted support to this motion, I am expressing my own views, the views of those whom I represent here, and the views of the community in that part of the country where I come from. Hon. members know that in that part we have played a very important role in the development of South Africa. The view of the people who have played this important role is that we must support this resolution, and I gladly do so. The Prime Minister in his remarks on September 4th, 1939, said this: “We shall have to look after our own interests in this country; we shall have to look after South Africa and our vital interests in Africa, and that probably will engage all the resources and all the efforts of which we are capable.” And it has proved so! We have looked very carefully after the interests of South Africa. It was said at the time in the House that it was dangerous owing to various complications to send our men over the borders of South Africa, but we realised that in the interest of South Africa and for the sake of the safety of South Africa we should take part in the fighting up North. We know that our men have done wonderfully well. They have been praised highly by the highest military authorities in the field, and during the last few days our men have played an important part in clearing the harbour of Tripoli, so that we can get our war requisites and our munition into the port. It has been said in this House that the Prime Minister in his speech in 1939 undertook that he would not send troops outside South Africa. Conditions have changed very materially since that time.

What about Madagascar?

Yes, our men have been sent to Madagascar, but when I went to school I was always told that Madagascar was an integral part of the continent of Africa, and I am sure the Prime Minister looked upon Madagascar as part of Africa.

You should have changed your school, old chap.

If the hon. member had lived in my constituency or in the eastern part of the country, he would realise why we sent our soldiers there. We have been told for years about the Yellow Peril. Australia has suffered from the Yellow Peril and South Africa was threatened, very definitely, some time ago. That was why our soldiers were sent to Madagascar. That is why our soldiers went there, and let me tell the hon. member that they have done excellent work. Without exception the men who have returned from the North—the men that I have been in contact with, and I have been in contact with many of them—say that they want to see this war through. They are anxious to see the Axis power broken and destroyed. They have put their hand to the plough and they are not going to leave the plough until the end of the furrow. We are pleased and proud that our men have played such a noble part in the Mediterranean. I have discussed matters with boys who have taken part in the evacuation of Greece and those boys are anxious now to take their part in the liberation of Greece. We have a tremendous task before us; we want to see the countries which have been overrun rehabilitated. I realise our task is a big one, and I realise it even more when I listen to the German radio where they tell us that Germany has 7,000,000 men working in war industry. The least we can do is to support this motion of the Prime Minister’s and allow our men to take the new oath. That these men will take the oath we do not doubt. Some of our men are very jealous of the Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians because they have been sent all over the world. Our men want to go too. The Prime Minister the other day intimated that he would not send our men to the far-flung East. Well, sir, they are prepared to go there, and I am sure that not only we in this House but the majority of the right-thinking people of South Africa are behind the Prime Minister in this proposition. We have heard a lot about the question of a republic.

I don’t think we need discuss a republic in this debate.

Very well, sir, then I shall conclude by again expressing my gratification at the noble part which our men have played up North. We are proud of them. We are proud of the praise which has been bestowed upon them by the highest authorities in the field. They have done their duty well and nobly, and if we were to turn down this motion of the Prime Minister and not allow our men to carry on, we would disappoint South Africa, we would be faithless to the trust which South Africa has placed in us. We want our men to take their part and help to destroy the evil that is besetting this world, and we want them to carry on until peace and freedom have once more been restored in this world.

The hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) has again repeated here what we have so often heard, that the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) sang his swansong here last Friday. He must be progressing while singing because he has reached the position where members on the other side show him special respect when he rises by acclaiming him with an enthusiastic “Heil.” The Minister of Native Affairs was among those who showed him that respect.

No, I was not here.

That by the way. I identify myself with everything that has been said on this side in appealing to the Prime Minister—or in protesting against the continuation of the war on behalf of South Africa—to realise that the time has arrived to call “halt.” We are at the point of plunging top-speed to a destination which we do not know where it will land our people. I do not want to repeat the proofs provided by members on this side, with Hansard in their hands, on how the Prime Minister on 4th September, 1939, made a solemn promise that he would go no further than to act defensively in South Africa. I will leave it at that, but I want to ask members on the other side and the people outside to think of the speech made by the Prime Minister a few months after the declaration of war, viz. at Bloemfontein. I think it was on the occasion of the first big congress held by the party on the other side after the declaration of war—the first congress of the United Party after the outbreak of war. There the Prime Minister in effect used these words. I speak under correction, but I am fairly certain that this is more or less what he said: “We have been told that if we participate in the war then this or that would happen. But what do you see of the war? We see nothing but welfare and progress; prices are highter, the farmers smile; things are going well.” The impression that was created on 4th September was that we were going to participate in the war only because of certain bonds unknown to me; but that we would conduct a total war with the last man and all our possessions, was outside the question. For that reason we rise here today and appeal to the Prime Minister not to allow himself even at this hour to be persuaded by people who become braver in proportion to the amount of double salaries they draw to proceed along the road he has taken. While it brings riches to some the great bulk of the people will be brought nothing but misery and yet more misery. We have not at our disposal unlimited manpower or unlimited money and other things. We should be extremely careful and the Prime Minister should say: We have gone so far; I have had my way, and now it can stop. The Prime Minister was afraid that South Africa would be involved as an attacking point in the war. He explained to us last week how satisfied he is with the progress of the war, and that he is convinced that we have been saved from all danger. Let him be satisfied with that. The Prime Minister has the experience, and he ought to know that it is the last straw that breaks the camel’s back. Let us now withdraw ourselves from the dangerous road we have been following. We have taken wonderful turns in the last four years. You will recall how we in this House at first praised Finland. We can repeat the Prime Minister’s words and how he spoke of “that noble little nation.” We can quote the British Prime Minister’s words when be described Russia as the beast, the Anti-Christ. We sent aeroplanes to Finland in order to fight that Russian beast. What is now the position? While Finland was still busy fighting that same beast we declared war on Finland, and shortly afterwards we became the ally of the beast. Well, I am sorely afraid.

We know that, but tell us of what you are afraid.

I am afraid that we will reach the juncture, now that we have left Finland in the lurch and have become the ally of Russia, that we are going to send troops to help the beast, and that our troops will come in contact with the ideas and thoughts of Russia, and bring back those ideas and thoughts to South Africa. If hon. members will only realise what the domination of Stalin will mean to this country then they will not be frivolous, and then they will not ask of what we are afraid. The world has never before been so menaced as it is now by a possible victory of Russia over the world. I want Us to keep our people out of contact with those elements. Generally our population here in South Africa consists of two elements—the Europeans and the nonEuropeans. The European section, who will perhaps not adapt themselves to those views and doctrines of Communism and Bolshevism preached by Russia, are in a small minority. Can hon. members on the other side visualise, if Russia wins and we are dominated by Russia, what will happen in this country? I say if that happens then it is all up with European civilisation in South Africa, and when I say this I speak not only of the Boer population. Many members on the other side do not care what becomes of the Afrikaner people. They always think that they have another home to go to, but they must remember that by that time their other home may also be in the same trap. No, I do not want to deliver a long speech. I merely want to say this. I protest with all the power at my command and I appeal to the Prime Minister to depart from this step that he is asking the House to take. We realise that numbers of the men who are now coming back from the North will think twice before they go back to fight. I want to give you the assurance that numbers of people have told me that they took the red oath because they have served for perhaps 20 years in the Defence Force. They were officials with long experience; their pensions and future are dependent on the Defence Force and they have no other way out. Hon. members on the other side must not think that they can tell us that there are no men in the army or in the North who did not go voluntarily. If that were the case, we would not have been so opposed to it. One man went with the considerations I have mentioned, another again had other considerations. Perhaps one out of ten went to fight voluntarily in the North. The others were compelled thereto in one way or another.

But they fought well.

I will say that those men fought very well. But it is not right to misuse South Africans and make them fight where they do not want to fight simply because they are compelled by circumstances to go and fight—virtually compelled thereto.

If a person does not want to fight he does not fight well.

That is an insult to the South Africans. If a man dons uniform and he is on active service then he fights, because he will not be so cowardly as to allow himself to be shot without fighting. He will fight like a man. It would be very weak if it were otherwise. I want to ask the Prime Minister: Spare South Africa against the further evils of this participation in the war, against the evils that this war will bring us. Where, according to the Prime Minister, we are no longer in danger let us make an end of this war so far as our country is concerned, and let us do right to all sections of the population. Let the Prime Minister be grateful for what the troops have done; let him be satisfied with the honour they have achieved for him and his policy, and let him say: “I am prepared to leave it at that; so long as South Africa is not again threatened, I will have no further part in the war, and I shall not send our troops elsewhere.” By doing so the Prime Minister will bring himself great fame, not only with the people who have differed from him in the beginning, but also by his own people. Permit me to say this to the Prime Minister. Numbers of people have come to me and said: “When on 4 September you voted against the war we blamed you. Our sons have joined up and have taken the red oath. Now some of them are disabled, others are sitting in camps or we do not know where they are. They have said to me: Now we realise you have thought further than we have thought when you voted against the war.” Let the Prime Minister remember that.

It seems as if the hon. members opposite are more concerned about us on this side not being up North than about this motion. It is something that has been so often thrashed out in the House that we are quite tired of it already.

The fact does remain, however, that you are drawing double salaries and do not go out to fight.

How many members on this side still are of military age to go North?

You yourself.

No, I am 51, and it seems the hon. member does not know what the age of soldiers going up North is.

It seems as if you are glad.

Yes, I knew the hon. member would say that, that I am glad. What I am glad about is that my two sons-in-law are there and have given up everything in order to go. But we should not be personal. This is such an outworn thing already that the people no longer pay any attention to it. Let us come to the principle, whether we are in favour of or opposed to this war; was the resolution adopted by this House on 4th September, 1939, right or not? That is the question before us, and all the other subsidiary things of a personal nature raised in the debate, do not become the dignity of this Chamber. I should like to confine myself to a few points which appertain more to the economic side of our interests than otherwise. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) and also the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) has discovered something new. Russia represents the great danger in their eyes. Russia now is the enormously powerful nation which, since it is now involved in the war, is going to dominate the world some day. They say we are going to win the war with Russia as our ally, and then Russia is not going to stop there, but it is going to dominate the world. Well, and if the war were lost, and Hitler gained the victory, would he not also have dominated the world, and would he also not have constituted a threat to us?

He at least does not belong to an anti-christian nation.

Let me tell the hon. member that we know the history of both those countries. We on this side say that we do not want the doctrines of Russia here nor do we want the doctrines of Germany here, and for that reason we are in the war. We did not go and select Russia as an ally. The Opposition knows how Russia came into the war. Also how Finland turned against us. If we are in the war because we sincerely believe that it is in the interests of our country, then we should do all in our power to see to it that we gain the victory. Germany was at war with us, and if Germany has been so mad as to attack a mighty nation such as Russia, deliberately and in breach of an agreement, should we now say that just because that attack has flung Russia to our side, we should now lay down our arms and surrender, because we do not want Russia to gain the victory?

But you begged them on your knees to come in.

That makes no difference. The fact remains that we wish to win the war, and just because we are winning the war with the aid of Russia, should we now that Russia has become our ally, sit still and say that we now prefer Germany to win?

But I say you begged Russia to come in.

And I am prepared to beg more countries to come in and to help us achieve the victory. I shall beg any country to come to our assistance, in order that we may be triumphant. But while the hon. member interrupts me—and I am sure that hon. member also wants us to win—let me deal with this point at once. We are fighting in this war today, and the Prime Minister is constantly being accused of breaking the undertaking given by him to this House on the 4th September. On the 4th September we dealt with a declaration of war against Germany and the Prime Minister simply said to the country: It is in the interests of South Africa that we should take sides with England. At that time actually only three countries were involved in the war, viz. England, France and Germany. But subsequently the war expanded. Italy entered and subsequently also Japan. When Italy entered into the war, we did not declare war against them, but they declared war on us.

No, that is not true.

Yes, Italy declared war on us.

You are talking nonsense.

Not one of the countries that declared war against Britain mentioned the names of the Dominions. The foreign powers simply refer to Britain and the British Empire, and they do not recognise the Dominions separately.

That is not so.

It definitely is so. We here in South Africa know what the constitutional position is, but the other Powers simply declare war against the British Empire, and that includes the Dominions. That is what Germany did, Italy did the same, and Japan did so. Not one of them mentioned the names of the Dominions. No member can tell me that they did not contemplate all the Dominions in their declaration of war. I return to the Prime Minister’s motion and his promises. He spoke on the 4th September when there was only a declaration of war with regard to Germany. After that the war developed and Italy came in. We remember the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) at the time saying that even if Italy were to attack the Union with Native troops, he would not fight, and he would advise the people to sit still, because the Prime Minister had gone to war. Do hon. members opposite agree? Are you also going to say that even if Italy were to come down here with Native troops we should not defend our country because the Prime Minister had gone to war? Such a cowardly and deplorable way of doing your duty to your nation I have never seen before. Then it is said that the Prime Minister went back on his word. The Prime Minister did not introduce the original motion on the 4th September. He moved an amendment, and now it is said that the expedition to Madagascar was a breach of that amendment. I do not wish to repeat the arguments in that connection. It was the result of the strategical position after Italy and Japan had entered the war and anyone will admit, and the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Brits) will admit, that if we intend attacking a place we cannot hold a public meeting to say what we intend doing. The Prime Minister was compelled to attack Madagascar on account of the developments in the situation, and the troops that went there were free to refuse to go. They were not compelled to go. They were, however, prepared to go and glad to go. What is the good now of accusing the Prime Minister of breaking his word? He now comes to Parliament and tells us why he did it, and he desires our approval. This House is going to approve of what he did, and the country will approve of what he did, and will furthermore tell the Prime Minister that he has the right to take such further steps as he deems expedient to ensure victory. In the circumstances, arising from the development of the war, it is not the wrong thing, but the proper thing, to send troops to participate in the war wherever the enemy may be found. We are going to look for the enemy wherever he is to be found in order to defeat him. That is our policy. We are going to do so with volunteers, and wherever we find the enemy we shall defeat him. That is the reason why this war is on and no military man will convince me that we could have afforded keeping aloof in South Africa and saying that we do not want to have anything further to do with the war. Supposing we had been a great and mighty nation here in South Africa, having a strong ally overseas. It would in that case certainly have been most unwise to sit quiet until that ally had been beaten before moving one finger to come to its aid. Surely there is no sense in such a policy. We have to adopt the principle that if our assistance can contribute to the defeat of the enemy, we have to render assistance where our allies require it. Today the Opposition is against the war policy. Allow me to dwell for a moment upon the declaration of war. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen) unfortunately is not here at the moment, but I should have liked to refer him to the speech made by the Prime Minister when Italy attacked Abyssinia. I do not want to hold up the time of the House by reading it out. At that time the Prime Minister laid down the policy that since Italy had attacked Abyssinia we should apply sanctions against Italy together with the League of Nations. Italy said: If you do it, we shall consider it to be an act of war, and if we go to war it will mean a world war. It was laid down as a matter of policy that the countries which applied sanctions, would be regarded by Italy as enemy countries.

That has nothing to do with this matter.

Italy said that it would regard the application of sanctions as an act of war. But what did the Prime Minister say at the time? When the Opposition members attacked him and said that the application of sanctions might lead to war and that the Prime Minister was only applying sanctions because the League of Nations wanted it, the Prime Minister replied: No, apart from the fact that we are a member of the League of Nations, South Africa never during the past 50 years was in greater danger as it will be when we allow Italy to attack Abyssinia. We then adopted the policy of sanctions. The Prime Minister at that time declared that if the attitude of this country would be the cause of war, it would be in the interests of South Africa to take itself a part in such a war. Supposing Italy had declared war on South Africa, should we have kept quiet and have done nothing? Here we have the case that Italy did declare war on us and attacked us with native troops and the Opposition wants us to sit with our hands folded. On the 4th September the whole matter was fully discussed here. The hon. member on the other side adopted a course which they reckoned would have a different result, but it did not.

Who was the first to declare war?

We heard it said that we should cancel the Simonstown Agreement because it would drag us into war. The hon. Leader of the Opposition was of opinion that that agreement should be cancelled The Prime Minister, Gen. Hertzog, then told the Leader of the Opposition that he was not such a coward as to run away from his obligations; that if war should come he would stand his man. Hon. members on the other side now come along and cite Ireland as an example, and they ask why Ireland could remain neutral. I want to tell hon. members that before the war Ireland cancelled the agreements it had entered into with England by means of compensation payments. Do the members on the other side expect that we should wait until the very moment when war breaks out and then disregard our obligations?

It was not our intention to disregard our obligations.

The hon. member now says that we did not intend to disregard our obligations. I shall not go into that matter again. Today we are a member of the Commonwealth and as such we have certain obligations. We have an obligation in regard to Simonstown. This party voted for certain things because we said that we would now settle our differences; we are now a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. The point I should like to make is the following. I said at the time and I repeat it, that if we should decide, not considering the position we are in as a member of the Commonwealth of Nations and our moral obligations, that we would remain neutral, nobody could have blamed England and America for interpreting such attitude as one of hostility. Hon. members on the other side can say what they like, but having in view the feeling which prevails in the ranks of the Opposition, nobody could have blamed England and America if they had regarded a decision on our part to remain reutral as an act of war and occupied the country. I can give hon. members on the other side the assurance that if we win this war, then South Africa will remain just as free as it is to-day, but is there any member on the other side who can give the people the assurance that that would have been the case if we had remained neutral and Germany had won the war? America and England would have been perfectly justified to interpret our neutrality as an act of war. I say that not one of them can give that assurance to the people. The attitude which they took up on the 4th September, and subsequently, is a hostile attitude. The hon. member for Winburg says we are not going to send our troops oversea because to-day we cannot wish that Russia must win the war.

That is correct.

Very well, if you remain neutral and Russia wins the war will you then sit here and expect nothing to happen. Could you prevent it?

No, then we will fight.

The hon. member speaks about us. He must first realise that in the eyes of the big nations we are of no consequence. The hon. members on the other side preach isolation. They must remember that in the business world a policy of isolation is a stupid thing of the past. They speak here about social security. I wonder where they will get the money from for those things which they hold out to the people if they follow a policy of isolation and neutrality. If we apply this policy of isolation, expounded by the other side, if we had remained neutral here with the feeling as it prevails on the other side, I feel convinced that England and America would have been correct in interpreting that as hostile neutrality.

Why don’t they do that in the case of Ireland.

Ireland’s position was quite different. And I want to add that the position of Ireland will be a tragic position after this war, and it is already that now.

You are a bad prophet.

The security which Ireland enjoys today she has simply to thank for the protection which is given to her by England. It is through the generosity of England that her position is safe. In the absence of a fleet she could not have protected herself and she owes her security solely to the generosity of England and America. It will be a tragic day for South Africa if we find ourselves in the position that we must exist on the generosity of another nation and we do not want to contribute our share thereto. I say: take part in the war and fight for your own economic salvation. The Prime Minister the other day stated something which is very true. Hon. members on the other side spoke and criticised that we were in the company of the terrible Russians, but Russia is not the only company which England and we are in. There is America and many other countries such as Holland, Belgium and others who are all friends of England and who are all our friends. Why do they just mention Russia. I want to inform hon. members on the other side that the less they go about opposing the war, the better it will be for them at the following election and this specially applies to those members who represent the farming community. What will they do if England was to say: now we will not buy anything further from you? They will find that their markets will disappear. The farmers will vote for our policy. They will do it. Why? There are members sitting on the other side who say that they represent the farmers. Can they tell me what will happen to the farmers’ wool and other products if England and America do not buy it.

We can ask you what will England do without wool?

The hon. member knows-very well that the wool is not bought by England because she requires it; she only buys it because we are in good company of good friends. They can say what they like but the public will not believe those things any longer. The Leader of the Opposition now wants to make peace. I want to ask him how is he going to make peace? Is he perhaps going to do it over the wireless? Assume that he comes into power, what will he do if England and America say: Now we are going to annex you, South Africa.

But they are fighting for peace.

If the Leader of the Opposition openly states in this country that they want a Republic and that they will only get the Republic if Germany is victorious, what do they expect? How must America and England re-act to that? It must surely mean that the Opposition wants Germany to win the war. Under the circumstances they cannot blame America and England if they regard South Africa as hostile and take possession of the country. They talk about isolation, what have they got to defend themselves with? I now come back to the 4th September. Assume that we had declared ourselves neutral. What equipment did we have?

Bush carts.

It does not help to say to me that we would have built up an effective defence. Where would we have got the necessary war material from?

We have always manufactured the equipment in South Africa ourselves.

The hon. member now says that we have always manufactured the equipment in South Africa, but why? We could only do that because we moved in good company. Everything which we have we have to thank England and America for. I challenge the hon. member to point out one factory which existed here before the war which could have manufactured war necessities without the assistance of England and America. I know what I am talking about. The factories are only manufacturing war material because it has been made possible for them by the assistance which England and America has given us. If the hon. member comes to Vereeniging or to any other factory in the country, I will show him the books in the factories and convince him that there was a lack of certain raw material and machinery and that we, on our own, would not have been in a position to establish those factories. Do hon. members want to tell me that if we had not taken part in this war that it would have been possible for us to guarantee this social security, which they speak about to our people. We will only be able to do so because we are in the company of America and England, because we have good friends. Now you have neutrality here which is looked upon by other nations as a hostile neutrality; you have no armaments, and from day to day you are at the mercy of those other nations. Suppose the other nations had declared: I am not going to buy your gold now, I am not going to buy your wool, unless I absolutely need it. Undoubtedly there would have been a state of famine in the country. (Laughter.) The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) is laughing now. I want to ask him how long the country would keep going if the gold mines were to be closed down? Honourable members opposite hate England today. I should like to tell them this that if you want to build up this country, you will not be able to do so on a basis of hate and enmity. Is there a member opposite who can give me the assurance that we would have been able to sell our wool, gold and other products, had we not taken part in the war?

Nonsense.

The hon. member may say “nonsense” but …

We have heard those bogeys before.

It is not a bogey, it is a fact. Then there is another point I want to discuss, viz. the use of native troops. I am prepared to support the Prime Minister in so far as he wants to use native troops, as he is using them now, to assist our troops in the non-fighting lines and by so doing save our troops for the fighting line. We are doing it and we are quite entitled to do so. Why? Had it not been for the attitude assumed by the Opposition, it would perhaps not have been necessary for us to do so. But I say that I shall be willing to use every non-European and every native in this country 100 per cent. rather than lose the war, and no member on the opposite side will persuade me that I am wrong. They, themselves, will do so. But they want to tell me that we should not use natives. Should we then do nothing if Italy uses natives? Would they do nothing in this country if Italy were to attack us with native troops as they wanted to do?

I do not believe in that.

The hon. member should not come and tell me that. He is also one of the members who will not fight, who wants to remain here and make money while the soldiers up North are defending the safety of the country for him. No, I should like to help …

You want to help and you are sitting here.

The hon. member talks nonsense. During the last war Germany used native troops against us, and Italy is now using native troops. I say that if we were to resort to the use of native soldiers, I would not raise an objection to it.

You will pick the bitter fruits of that.

They are doing so already.

The hon. member talks of bitter fruits, but he never considers the bitter fruits we shall pick if we were to lose the war. What will they say should Japan come here? The hon. member laughs now. He may laugh because we have good friends who will protect us and will prevent that. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has introduced a comprehensive motion, and all kinds of benefits are being held out to the people. But can the people trust him in the guidance he is giving the people? If I were to rise and read out to him the type of lead he gave the people in the past in the various respects—and at present he is not following one of those leads—it would take half an hour. Now he preaches isolation. He wants the South African to hate the native, he must hate the Asiatic, he must hate the Jew, and he must hate the Englishman. He must hate everything. If ever there was a person who has been inconsistent, then it is the Leader of the Opposition. I should like to tell the Opposition once again that they cannot build up a country on hatred and enmity. The Leader of the Opposition has already been so inconsistent that the country will not accept him as one who can give a lead. He has never yet acted consistently in any matter. One day he leads in a particular direction, and the next he makes a right about turn.

Is that why today you are a United Party member whereas before you were a Nationalist?

I am still as much a party man as I have always been. I have not deviated from a single principle. In those days we co-operated with the English; we co-operated with the Jews; we co-operated with all sections of the country. Today they hate all sections.

Why were you a follower of Gen. Hertzog at first and now a follower of Gen. Smuts?

Order! Order!

We followed the United Party. I challenge the hon. member to tell me where I deviated in the least from that principle. We follow the road which the former Prime Minister had followed before he lost his way. I have never deviated in the least from it. On the 4th September there was a confusion which even today I cannot understand.

You were misled by the motion.

I notice that the hon. member for Hoopstad has now returned. He attacked the Prime Minister for not having obtained the people’s approval for the war. But the hon. member knows that it was the late Gen. Hertzog who as Prime Minister brought the motion before the House. He could have submitted it to the people, but he preferred to bring the motion before the House for decision, and the House decided. The House passed a Resolution on a motion which had been introduced by the then Prime Minister. It is the then Prime Minister who submitted this matter to the House for its decision, and preferred not to go to the people by way of an election. They cannot therefore blame the Prime Minister today and say that he is responsible for the fact that this matter was not submitted to the people. Suppose the people approve of the war policy at the next election, what will hon. members on the other side say then? Now that there is an election, they come along with arguments that are positively not logical. I say that the then Prime Minister should have gone to the people, had he been of opinion that it was a matter which could not be decided by the House. I am sure the people will approve of the war policy at the next election.

Will we have the freedom during this election to talk about the war?

As far as that is concerned, I might tell the hon. member that if it were in any other country, he would never have been permitted to challege the war policy and to act the way he does inside and outside Parliament. Hon. members opposite may jump about as much as they like, but I would tell them this: They have burnt their boats. Among themselves they are divided, torn asunder, and now they come forward with an attempt to make peace. I think the farming community in the country has seen through them. They are constantly talking about the unity of the South African people, but never in the history of the South African nation have they been more divided among themselves than now, and they are the cause of that. They are divided into four different sections—and who knows how many sub-divisions—and they still want to give a lead to the country.

Not as much divided as your Party.

You are now a Dominionite and a South African Party member.

It is immaterial to me what those hon. members call me. We are carrying on our policy. I am sure that the people will, at the ensuing election, clearly indicate that the policy of the government meets with their approval.

You are a future Prime Minister.

I am not seeking a position. I should like to tell the hon. member for Vredefort that I am not looking for a position, and I should not accept a position from the Government if I were in his shoes. He is making himself cheap by saying that I am on this side for any particular reason, for a position.

You are more expensive.

I think I have now had them fairly well under fire; I shall now resume my seat.

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. K. Rood), who has just sat down, challenged us to prove where the party on the other side had in any way departed from the policy that I and others here followed, together with the hon. member for Vereeniging. Many instances can be recalled. I will perhaps wander from the point, but we remember for instance the appointment of the late Mr. Fourie as a Senator representing the interests of the Natives. What happened?

The hon. member cannot discuss that question now.

I think the House fully understands what I mean. I am sorry that I may not go into it. But I must accuse one of the front-benchers of the Government Party of a misrepresentation of facts. He accused the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) that he had on a certain occasion declared that if Italy and Germany should cross our frontiers with Native troops he would still refuse to do anything. What he actually said was that in case Italy and Germany should cross our borders it would really amount to suicide to resist and to throw our small nation into battle against them.

Do you agree with that?

If they should cross our frontiers we would not be able to defend our country and then it would be better to try to sign a reasonable peace treaty. The hon. member also said that Italy declared war against the whole British Commonwealth. I do not agree with the hon. member. I remember that the Prime Minister declared war against Italy. And did Italy declare war against Ireland, which is also a part of the Commonwealth? But I can well understand that the hon. member is not acquainted with the facts. He need not leave the country and it does not worry him against whom war is declared. Furthermore he created the impression that especially the farmers will vote for the Government at the next election because of the high prices they are getting during the war. We on this side are not prepared to sacrifice our sons and daughters for the British Empire because of the high prices we are getting for our products. Then we often hear of the magnanimity of America and England, but here a front-bencher of the Government gets up and says that if we withdrew from the war America and England would overpower us. Is that freedom? That is nothing but the brutal force of great nations which do not care. Well, hon. members on the other side can outvote us, but the people know what is going on. We may have a minority here in the House of Assembly but the day will come when the people outside will grow tired of the unnecessary sacrifices we are making. And the Prime Minister will perhaps not gain such a big victory in the next election as he expects. The people outside are beginning to get dissatisfied with many things, for instance with his breach of promise. On the 4th of September 1939, it was promised that no troops would be sent overseas. Now they must be sent. Now I want to ask the Prime Minister if it is not a fact that in the war of 1914-1918 the Imperial Government paid for the Union troops that were sent overseas. The Prime Minister has already told me on a former occasion that it was the Imperial Government. Is the Imperial Government going to pay again? Let him at least try to rehabilitate himself to a certain extent by making England and America pay for the troops. The hon. member for Germiston, North (Mr. Quinlan) said that it would not have any use to consult the Opposition in connection with the sending of troops to Madagascar, because the Opposition would have refused in any case. Certainly, but why does he come now to ask for our approval to send troops overseas. Of course he knows that we are going to refuse. Why did the Prime Minister not again carry on without consulting Parliament. Then there was a challenge by the hon. member for Germiston, North to mention any case of victimisation. I well remember that when he sat on our side his wife was at home with a small baby and only because he was on our side, they troubled her a lot. They smashed his garden gate and his wife was terribly upset. I think of another hon. member, of the hon. member for Johannesburg West (Mr. Lindhorst) whose wife was also molested while he was here to attend the Session. She received telephone calls and was threatened that certain things would be done if her husband did not vote differently. Is that not victimisation? I believe that the hon. member has a brother who is Gauleiter in Germany and that was enough to make his life uncomfortable in all possible ways. The hon. Prime Minister said that “he stretched a point” in connection with Madagascar. That is a habit of the Prime Minister. I remember how he stretched the boundaries of South-West in the war of 1914-T8. Now he again stretches our boundaries as far as Europe. The hon. member for Vereeniging now says he is 51 and too old to fight. Well I must take my hat off to the Prime Minister who is 72 years old and who still flies across the whole world. Why then can a young man of 51 not do service?

In 1939 he also said that he was 51. He is not getting older.

That is what we find oh that side. They are drawing double salaries. If they should sign on as ordinary soldiers, as privates, I would have respect for them. In this connection I want to congratulate the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter). I think he signed on as a private or as a corporal and was afterwards promoted. I understand that he is now busy instructing natives and coloureds to work with the guns. In any case he started his military career as a corporal or as a private but the other hon. members want to start at the top as colonels and majors. I can have no respect for them.