I move—

Mr. Speaker, in moving the adoption of this report, I should like to say that I regret that it has been found necessary to come back to the House for a further extension of time, but I can give the House the assurance that progress is very definitely being made, and I do not think it will be necessary to come back again for any more time. I am not without hope that we shall be able to report before the time I am now asking for, expires. The House set the committee a very difficult task indeed, when it asked it to report on the very complicated question of soldiers’ pay and allowances within the time limit they originally set, and for that reason I hope the House will now grant a further extension.

I would like to have the privilege of the half hour to speak on this vote, and I want immediately to move the following amendment—

With that I want to indicate that the time has come for the Prime Minister to apply for an old age pension, and further I would like to impress upon him that we have to do here with a total war. Before continuing with the discussion of other matters, I would like to put something to the Prime Minister in connection with a matter with which he in the first instance is concerned. But I want to add that a certain formality has yet first to be fulfilled, and I do not expect him to give a definite answer at this stage. It is the question that as a result of a hearing by a special court the death sentence as such has been pronounced on an accused. I just want to make use of this opportunity to ask the Prime Minister that he, when those formalities have been complied with, and when the time comes, will give advice to the Governor General, in the same spirit as he did on a previous occasion, namely in the cases of Visser and Van Blerk. Where I make this request to the Prime Minister …

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is the hon. gentleman in order in raising this matter? He is referring to certain court proceedings which took place yesterday in Pretoria. I have read the newspaper report, and at the close of these proceedings certain points were reserved for consideration by the Court of Appeal. In these circumstances I would submit that the matter is still sub judice and cannot now be discussed in this House.

The position is that anything that is sub judice cannot be discussed in this House if it might prejudice the case. I understand from the hon. member that he is merely asking a question, and does not intend discussing the matter.

I understand that perfectly, but after putting the question, the hon. gentleman went on to refer to the circumstances of the case.

The hon. member must confine himself to asking the question.

To make it easier for the House, for you, Mr. Chairman, and for the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell), I just want to say that I will base my remarks on the verdict and what happened afterwards in connection with Visser and Van Blerk. I ask the Prime Minister, if similar cases arise in the future, whether he will act in accordance with the principle and motif as in that case? If such cases arise in the future—I do not want to minimise the seriousness of the offence, I do not want to minimise the guilt on which the court has passed judgment—then I would like to say that the Prime Minister, when he is called upon to give advice to the Governor General, to take into consideration the particular circumstances that exist in South Africa today. There is in the first place the background of history. South Africa is not in the same position as countries like New Zealand, Australia or even Canada. We have here a country with a mixed population, a country where for a hundred years and more, a bitter internal struggle has been waged. It is a country where a very great section of the population has the ideal of greater freedom, and with whom that ideal is very much alive, that it wants full freedom and independence in the severing of constitutional bonds with countries overseas. That background we certainly cannot overlook in a time like this. What is more, we were brought into this war in special circumstances which have brought to the fore that whole background of which I have spoken. Not only this, but the Prime Minister knows, and he knows it just as well and better than anyone else, that in South Africa war was declared against the will and without the prior approval of the people. That is the background that exists, and it would be criminal if that background were not taken into account. What I want to refer to further is this, that here in South Africa we must look to the future if we want to show statesmanship. If blood is spilt, then we make the future difficult. Blood is a means of binding us together, this we know. Nations of the same blood and race quite naturally stand together. But blood that is spilt does not bind together, but it creates a gulf, a deep gulf which in the history of a people like ours might be unbridgeable. You have had the case of Ireland. In the previous war there also occurred cases there such as have occurred here. There was sabotage on a large scale. There was negotiation with the enemy. Drastic action was taken and shooting was resorted to. Nothing did more than this to create a gulf between Ireland and Britain, and it left its indelible tracks not only on the time that has passed, not only since that time, but on the whole future. I just want to ask the Prime Minister that when he is called upon to give advice, he will take into consideration these facts and especially our future for South Africa. I refer to another point, and this is in connection with the coming election, if it comes. Right at the beginning of the Session I asked the Prime Minister a question in connection with this matter, whether he could give any information in connection with the question of whether there would be an election, or whether the life of Parliament would be prolonged. And if there was to be an election, when, and if he could give us information about his plans in connection with the provincial elections, would they take place simultaneously with the Parliamentary elections, or would we as usual have separate elections? As regards the last question, it is a matter of topical interest because it affects not only the question of the convenience of holding the elections for Parliament and the Provincial Councils on the same day, especially in the case where the provincial constituencies and the Parliamentary constituencies are the same as is the case in the Free State and Natal, but it also affects the question of candidates, because it is often the case that the best man to nominate for Parliament is a member of the Provincial Council. If such a person is defeated in the Parliamentary election, then he stands for the Provincial Council, or someone else is considered for the election to the Provincial Council. If we are now going to have both elections on the same day, then this becomes impossible. We will have a number of good persons, persons suitable for the Provincial Council, eliminated in this manner, because they can no longer, if they are defeated in the Parliamentary election submit themselves for election for the Provincial Council. The matter is therefore of topical interest. I think that when we asked this question, the Prime Minister, at the beginning of the Session, gave a very unsatisfactory answer. His answer was just the same as if he had given no answer at all, because he gave no information to the House and the country. An election is an opportunity whereby the government of the country, according to the Constitution, makes an appeal to the people. The people are called upon on such an occasion to decide their own fate. But if the people are called upon to perform such an important function, then it is necessary that you should take the people into your confidence and give them sufficient time to prepare themselves to make that decision. The Session has already progressed far. We are now already enquiring when the Session will end, and we have not yet had any indication from the Prime Minister in connection with this matter. In the meantime the country has been worked up into a state of excitement. Why? Not because we on this side have brought up this question, but it has been brought up by the Government side. There have been statements by members of the Cabinet. Some said that an election must be held this year, and others said again that it should not be held. They brought the country into a state of excitement and created conditions of uncertainty and the Prime Minister has not yet seen fit to take the people into his confidence and give them any indication, notwithstanding the fact that this feeling of uncertainty has been created in the country. Canada and Australia acted differently. Canada had an election and early notice was given about when it would take place. In Australia this also happened. An election was to be held and the country knew long beforehand when it would be held. I do not know whether this was also the case with New Zealand, but here in South Africa the people must be kept guessing about the intentions of the Government. All I can say is that the people have the right to know and to have sufficient time to prepare themselves to give their judgment. It is necessary that, while candidates have to be nominated, that the candidates should know when the election is going to take place. It is necessary for members of this House to know what the plans of the Government in the future are. If we regard matters as they are now, then it appears that the Government does not regard the holding of an election from the point of view of national interest. It has nothing to do with the interest of the people to express themselves on the matter; to him it is simply a matter of when is it the best time for the Government and his party interests to hold an election. The people in the meantime can be kept in the dark, because it is probably better for the Government to come down on the people unexpectedly. I hope that the Prime Minister will make use of this opportunity to make a more satisfactory and more definite statement on the matter. The Vote of Prime Minister is also the Vote of the Prime Minister as Minister of External Affairs. In connection with External Affairs I think it is necessary at this stage to say a few things which I think are necessary to say. We are in a time of war. This war naturally affects the external position not only today while the war is in progress, but also external relations when the war is over one day. We have on previous occasions sufficiently expressed our point of view in this House in connection with the war. This Session we have done so again. I will not go into that now again. But I want to ask the Prime Minister if the time has not come when we should hear more from him about this attitude in connection with the peace. I do not now want to assume that we will have a victory by the Axis Powers. I leave it there. I know that predictions are made. I think that the trend of affairs shows that the whole position is very uncertain. But I want to take the assumption of the Prime Minister. Let us assume that his prediction is correct, that Britain, America, Russia, and their allies will be victorious in the war. For the sake of argument I want to take that assumption, and if it is correct, what is the Prime Minister’s attitude in connection with the peace? What is it for which he is actually striving? What will be the conditions, as he sees them, when the Allies have won the war? That is a question that is being asked everywhere in the world. That is a question that we have a right to ask here in South Africa, where we have been drawn into the war. The Prime Minister in all probability will answer: There is the Atlantic Charter, the Atlantic Charter indicates what the conditions will be after the war in so far as external or international relations are concerned. He will probably again refer the House to this. I want to say in connection with this that I have never read a document, which, as far as the contents are concerned, contains practically nothing more than a series of generalities, as the Atlantic Charter. It is a declaration to which everyone who wishes can give his own interpretation, and this is also actually being done. If we compare the Atlantic Charter with the authoritative document of the previous war, namely, the Fourteen Points of President Wilson, then we will see that the Fourteen Points of President Wilson although they include almost everything we have in the Atlantic Charter, were nevertheless much more concrete. You could not interpret it any way you liked. It was definite and concrete. We know the history of those Fourteen Points. Nothing became of them, and if nothing became of such a concrete doctrine which was to have brought about the end of the war, what is going to happen to the Atlantic Charter, which contains nothing but vague generalities? The indications are already there that it is going to go the same way, because various interpretations are already being given to the Atlantic Charter, various, interpretations which are given to it by the United States, more especially by Mr. Wendell Willkie, that the question of freedom is interpreted by him that the Atlantic Charter means that all freedom will be given to freedom-loving and freedom-seeking nations. India especially is mentioned. With that the British Empire, as it exists today, came into the picture, and it was pointed out in the United States that the British Empire could not continue to exist in the future as it had in the past, because then you would again practically have the situation that freedom-loving nations who are striving for freedom, are restricted. Strong reaction came from Britain, namely, from Mr. Churchill, who said that India was a matter for Britain, and Britain alone. Then we come to the question of obtaining raw materials, which undoubtedly greatly contributed to the creating of the conditions which brought about this war. It is also raised in the Atlantic Charter, and what does it mean? If you give more freedom to the nations of the world to get what they require, for their own industrial development in any part of the world, if that is so, then you will put an end to what undoubtedly lies at the root of the breaking of the peace of the world, namely, that you have on the one side the “have’s” and on the other side the “have not’s”, that there is a boycott against some countries of the world—that some are included, and others are excluded, that there is discrimination. What now is the answer which has again been given by the British Prime Minister? He said that the British Empire means the British Empire, and it will remain the British Empire, and what it has, it will hold. Do you see now where matters are going? We are simply to get again what we have had before. Therefore I think that the question is justified to ask the Minister to make it clear to the country what his attitude is in connection with these matters. It has been emphasised by no one less than the Vice-President of the United States, Mr. Henry Wallace, who a few days ago expressed himself on this matter. He attaches so little value to the Atlantic Charter as a guarantee for better international world conditions after the war, so little value does he attach to the twenty years’ agreement of co-operation between Britain and Russia, that he says that unless a different and better guarantee is given, that is, between the Western democracies and Russia, then one thing is certain, that World War Number Two will no sooner be over, or we will be on the road to World War Number Three. I would like to ask the Prime Minister a few questions in connection with what I have said here in order to find out his point of view. The first is this. What must and will be the spirit that must inspire that peace? There are those who say that that peace, when it comes after the victory of the Allies, must go further than the Treaty of Versailles went in the suppression and the bringing about of a condition of powerlessness of Britain and America’s opponents. A worse state of affairs must be brought about than that brought about by the Treaty of Versailles. Those voices are heard, not from irresponsible persons, but they are heard from responsible persons on the side of the Allies and practically nothing is said against it. All I can say is this, that this World War Number Two came about not from World War Number One, but from the peace that was made after World War Number One. The Treaty of Versailles was a treaty of robbery and suppression.

Have you studied it?

I do not know where that braying comes from. It so happens that for this I can rely on the Prime Minister himself. In spite of his collaboration at that time to bring about the Treaty of Versailles, I can call him to witness for this doctrine. [Time limit.]

I want at the start to ask permission to make use of a half-hour. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) touched on one point of great importance, but in my opinion he passed over the most important point, and I want to deal with that point in the form of certain questions which I want to put to the hon. Prime Minister. I want to begin by putting to him the question which I asked him at the end of the previous Session and which I raised again during this Session in the course of the debate. It was a short time ago, but up to now I have received no answer from the Prime Minister. The question relates to the mission of Mr. John Martin to England and America. We know absolutely nothing more than has already appeared in the newspapers, and we want information from the Prime Minister, the more so because publication was given in England to certain opinions on the mission of Mr. John Martin which were not cabled over to South Africa. The questions then are the following: For what purpose was Mr. Martin sent to England and America; what was the result of his mission; what were the costs connected with his mission? In that connection I come to the big point that I want to present, and that is our financial commitments which we shall undoubtedly have to fulfil in respect of America. I ask again as clearly as I can what the position is. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) only touched on the Atlantic Charter. There are three more very important agreements or laws with which we are concerned, such as, for example, the Lease and Lend Act. In this morning’s papers I see that the Lease and Lend Act has again been prolonged for a further year. Under the Lease and Lend Act we are now being helped by America with all kinds of goods, not only with war material, but also with goods needed for daily use. They cost money. We do indeed also deliver something, like manganese and other things, to America, but what is the relationship between us and America under the Lease and Lend Act? Then there is another agreement which we also concluded and that in writing, without the Prime Minister ever having notified this House and the people of it, and that is the agreement of 26 nations which was signed on January 1, 1942. We know that it was also signed by us, because it was published in the newspapers that Mr. Close, our representative in America, signed the agreement together with Mr. Churchill and others. How far does the agreement bind us? And how far are we bound by still another commitment, namely, the mutual aid agreement between America and England, which was concluded on February 23, 1942? I understand, but I do not know, that the help which we are getting today from America falls under this mutual aid agreement between England and America and that it goes to us via England. In other words, it would bind us not only to America, but also to England. Those are the conclusions to which every thinking person must come, and I think that it is of the greatest significance and that we ought to know what the position is. Last night there appeared in the “Cape Argus” an important article which was taken over from the “London Times” and which suggests that there should be not only an Atlantic Charter, but also an African Charter, and such an African Charter would have to replace the Congo Basin agreement and the Peace Treaty of St. Germain of 1919. What is going on in connection with this matter? There is apparently something brewing about which we can only guess, but do not know about. We want to know and ought to know, and the Prime Minister ought to give us full information, because my fear, and the fear of a large section of the people is that we are continually being bound more and more to America in the economic as well as the political sphere and that we will soon be so closely tied to America that we will no longer be able to move—in other words, that the independence of South Africa will disappear as a result of agreements and commitments which have been concluded, also with regard to us. It is of the greatest importance to our country to know. If we are sold—I do not say that it is so—the people must know it. In that connection there is something else which affects us in Southern Africa, a matter about which we ought also to have clarity, and that is the relationship of the Europeans towards the natives. I just want to give a reminder that in January, 1942, the Prime Minister made a speech in the City Hall here in Cape Town, in which he indicated that the segregation policy of South Africa was practically at an end. That was officially confirmed by his colleague, the Minister of Finance. Now the Minister of Native Affairs comes and declares: “No, we stand by the segregation policy.” What is the truth? Where does the Government stand? Where do we stand with regard to this matter. It is an extremely important matter, and it brings me at once to another subject, and that is the relationship between South Africa and other countries in Southern Africa. The native problem is now greatly bound up with that. It is probably known to the Prime Minister that a short while ago important documents appeared in that connection in America, in which it is expressly stated that England—they apparently received their information there—is opposed to a Union of South Africa and Southern Rhodesia, unless it is expressly decided that the segregation policy of the Union of South Africa will not be applicable in Southern Rhodesia. That is a very important statement, and we ought to know more about it. The statement appears in the report of the American Commission which consisted of 40 learned people. With regard to our obligations to America, I have only the data that appeared in the official journal of the Department of Commerce and Industries, in which it is said, in the first place, that in six months we imported £9,500,000 worth of goods from America, apart from war material, and that it is expected that in this year we shall obtain £50,000,000 worth of goods from America. We know—it cannot be otherwise—that we are thereby being bound to America. How are we being bound? Are we already provisionally bound? What will it all lead to? It is a very serious matter. I do not say it in a spirit of antagonism, but we want to know how far we are bound. I hope that the Prime Minister can give us a reassuring statement. As a result of the war circumstances, as a result of the participation in the war, we are spending millions and millions on the war, and now we find that goods and war material to the value of millions are being supplied to us, which must undoubtedly influence the relationship between us and America. It will bind us in the future, not only to England, but also to America; and we fear that we are already bound fast. For that reason we ask the Prime Minister for a clear statement, because South Africa may suffer enormous damage and lose her economic independence through such obligations as we are contracting. We expect a full and clear statement from the Prime Minister.

I just want to pvt a few more questions to the Prime Minister in addition to what I have already said. I have asked the Prime Minister what the spirit will be in which the peace that lies ahead will be concluded, in view of certain statements that have already been made by leading persons. We want to know what the attitude of the Prime Minister is. Will it be a repetition of the Treaty of Versailles, or even worse, as some want it to be, or have the Allies, and has the Prime Minister learnt a lesson by what followed after the Treaty of Versailles? The second question I want to ask is also in connection with statements by British statesmen, by two prominent British statesmen. I believe that both were in the cabinet. One is still in it, and one was in the cabinet. The one statement was made by Sir Stafford Cripps, at that time leader of the House of Commons in Britain, namely that at the end of the war Russia on the Continent of Europe would be the leading, the most influential country. We know Sir Stafford Cripps’ point of view and if he is not a Communist, then he stands very close to Communism, and a statement from him in the position, in which he was, speaks volumes. We must attach great importance to it. The other statement was made by the British Foreign Minister, who today is also leader of the House of Commons in Britain, namely Anthony Eden. He, in a very solemn manner, speaking with the authority he has, said in the British House of Commons recently that when the war was over, there would be four countries that would determine the new order for the world, and the four countries were Britain, America, Russia and China. This in future would be the “Big Four”. In the previous world war we also had the big four, which then consisted of Britain, America, France and Italy. Now the place of France and Italy who have been eliminated, will be taken by Russia and China. What this implies is this, that the deciding of the future of the world will be in the hands of four great powers. We will in other words have a repetition, on an even worse scale, than after the last war, of the exercising of all power by four great countries. After the previous world war the League of Nations was created, and certain expectations were mentioned in the world in connection with the League of Nations, but the League of Nations became nothing but a tool in the hands of certain powers who were among the “have’s” to the exclusion of the “have not’s”. As regards the expectation that the League of Nations would be able to stabilise the world peace, deep disappointment followed. Are we now going to have in a worse measure a repetition what we have already had? I see that the Prime Minister still clings to the League of Nations that was. I see here on the budget that he is asking for £3,000 more for the League of Nations than the year before. I thought that what we had last year, and the year before, was the funeral expenses of the League of Nations. But we can surely not vote funeral expenses for the League of Nations every year, and I think the hon. the Prime Minister owes us an explanation as to why this amount is on the budget, and he should also tell us what other countries are still members of the League of Nations. We cannot throw our money away like this. In the third place I want to ask the Prime Minister to tell us what his attitude is towards the statement which Russia has made officially in regard to Poland. This war was declared by us, according to the judgment of the Prime Minister, in connection with Germany’s actions towards Poland. What did Germany want from Poland? Danzig and the Corridor. The Corridor and Danzig are German. They belonged to Germany, and were taken away from Germany, against her will and under protest from the Prime Minister of South Africa, even. (Field-Marshal Smuts). Therefore we made war, because Germany wanted this back again. Russia came and grabbed about half of Poland. Our Prime Minister was against Danzig being given to Poland and America protested stronglly. Now Russia comes and says that when the war is over, then she will hold what he has, and the part of Poland which she has occupied she will also keep, and this notwithstanding the Atlantic Charter. I ask what becomes of the rights of small nations in view of these actions? What becomes of the aim for which we are waging war? We again want an authoritative statement in this connection from the Prime Minister. Poland and Danzig and the Corridor were the cause of our declaring war. What does the Prime Minister say now in this connection? In conclusion I just want to put one more question, and that is: What does the Prime Minister think of the Communist danger. I have the right to ask this because we have raised the question by motion and otherwise time and again. We tried to get an authoritative statement from the Prime Minister, but in vain. He is as silent about it as the grave. We have the right to know because on a previous occasion when a deputation went to see him, he admitted that unrest was being caused in the country by Communist agitation. We have the right under this Vote to get from him an authoritative statement. Only last week there were two voices in connection with this matter, one in America and the other in Russia, where the ambassador of America in a striking way confirmed what we have said in connection with this matter in a previous debate. Mr. Wallace said that if no better guarantees were forthcoming against what would probably be the action of Russia after the war, then we are standing before World War Number Three. His colleague, ambassador Standley in Moscow, confirmed this further and said: it is quite clear that Russia wants to create the impression that the war is being waged by her, that she in the first place is prosecuting the war, and that if victory is won, it will be her victory and that America and Britain are not doing their duty. In other words, if the end of the war comes, and the result is as the Prime Minister wants it, then Russia wins the war, and these two ambassadors point out that in view of the course of the war it is probable that Russia will continue with her old policy, and that she will again want to conquer the world—perhaps not by weapons—but by starting a revolution through the whole world, a worldwide revolution. We would like the Minister to state clearly what his attitude is.

Ever since the Government decided to participate in the war, it has made it clear that as far as the soldiers are concerned, it is its policy to see that no soldier on his return from the war or on discharge will find himself in the same or in a similar position as soldiers found themselves in after the last war, and I think the House will agree that if we follow all the various steps taken by the Government to give effect to this policy, we must admit that substantial progress has been made. We have, for instance, our Civil Re-employment Board, which seeks to find employment for all soldiers under a guarantee that no soldier will be discharged from the army until a job has been found for him. We have also established a Re-adjustment Board which will deal with all cases which cannot be adjusted in the ordinary way—which will deal with the cases of men who perhaps through some illness or injury cannot go back into their ordinary civilian posts and have to be specially trained to take up some other occupation. Then we have our pensions scheme which is administered by the Department of Defence. We have also announcements made by the Government to the effect that land will be provided for soldiers to settle on on their return from the war, and also that soldiers will be assisted in obtaining houses for themselves. The point I want to arise is that I feel the time has come when all these various Government activities on behalf of ex-servicemen should be co-ordinated under one department, if possible, with one Minister. The Moth Organisation, an organisation of ex-servicemen, has suggested, so I understand, to the Minister of Finance that a Minister of Pensions should be appointed. While I think it might be desirable that that should be done, I go further and I say that all the activities in regard to soldiers should be co-ordinated in one department with one Minister. If that were done it would mean that instead of our soldiers on discharge having to go from one place to another, being chased from pillar to post, they would know that they had one department to go to. I believe it would be a step in the right direction, because if there is one thing which makes soldiers feel discouraged, it is that their wants and needs are being neglected by some official putting them on to some one else. No one seems to want to accept responsibility. The hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) in his speech on the Budget, referred to some of the difficulties facing discharged soldiers at our sub-dispersal depots. I feel that many of these things could be avoided if all these difficulties and all these matters were handled by one department. The argument may be used that soldiers have voluntary organisations of their own which are quite capable of looking after their interests. Well, we have had a number of such organisations in existence for many years—we have had the B.E.S.L., a body recognised by the Government, we have the Moths, and now we have another organisation coming into the field, known as the Springbok Legion. There you have three bodies representing the interests of serving soldiers and ex-servicemen. The experience in the past has been that these organisations are held together by voluntary subscriptions, and that, much as they would like to assist returned soldiers, they are often not in a financial position to do so. They are able perhaps to employ a paid secretary, usually a retired man, who has a pension, and who therefore can accept a small wage, but it does not necessarily follow that that man is the best man for the job, or the most sympathetic man for the job, and what the organisations feel is that, in addition to having some department to look after their interests, there should be established in every area what is known as a soldiers’ friend, perhaps some individual nominated by the Soldiers’ Organisations, and subsidised by the Government, an individual who would be the man responsible in the area to see that all matters affecting returned soldiers were referred to the proper quarters, so that if any matter or any question affecting the soldier or his dependant arose, they would know whom to go to, and they would also know that they would receive the most sympathetic assistance, and be advised what course to follow.

You have your liaison committees doing that now.

Oh, yes; they are doing that at the present time, and they are doing so with great success, and they certainly deserve a word of very high praise for their efforts, but I am thinking not so much of the present, but I am thinking of what the position is going to be after the war. We don’t want our soldiers to be forgotten—we want their interests to be looked after in years to come, and now is the time for us to set things in motion. We could do this now and satisfy our serving men that we are approaching this whole question in the right way—and if a Government department were established with the primary aim and object of looking after all matters affecting soldiers and their dependants—a department entirely separate from all other departments, separate from the Department of Defence, and if, in addition to that, there could be a standing body recognised by the Government and appointed by the ex-servicemen’s organisations, I feel that many of the grievances would disappear, and the soldiers would feel even more assured than they are today that the Government was giving effect to the promises made that the soldiers would be given a square deal, and that their interests would be looked after by the Government both during this war and after the war.

I want to know from the hon. Prime Minister what his policy and the policy of the Government is in connection with the increasing influx of non-Europeans into European areas. There is practically an organised influx of nonEuropeans into European areas. It has come to my notice that in Paarl, for example, a society exists under the name of the “Coloured Beneficial Society”, and the society buys up a property in a European area, often at a high value, and once they possess that property, a non-European is put into it, and the value of properties in the neighbourhood rapidly falls. In this way the non-Europeans are systematically moving into areas which are regarded as European areas. I may mention an instance in Wellington, in my constituency. That society in Paarl bought a property diagonally opposite the one parsonage of the Nederduits Hervormde Kerk and adjacent to the other parsonage, and with the greatest difficulty and with the sacrifice of a few hundred pounds the congregation succeeded in getting that property back from the non-Europeans again. What is the policy of the Government? What is happening on our beaches? I assume that the Prime Minister does not know what is going on, but there is, for example, Blaauwberg beach, near Cape Town, which was always a European beach, and now an Asiatic has come there and obtained possession of two properties. And I think this is a matter in which not only the Afrikaans-speaking people take a great interest, but there are many English-speaking people who are also worried about this development. What is the policy of the Government with a view to what is going on? And what is the policy of the present Government in respect of separate residential areas for Europeans and non-Europeans? We want a statement of the Government’s policy on this point. I also want to refer to what happens in the buses between Cape Town and the suburbs. The Prime Minister probably does not make use of them, but the position is really serious. You find time and again that a European lady is seated in the bus, then a non-European man comes and sits next to her, or if a European man is seated, a coloured woman comes and sits next to him. It is nothing exceptional; it happens often in the buses. I do not know what the feeling of the Prime Minister is, but this is in conflict with our feelings. There are countless Europeans who are compelled to ride in the buses to go to their work. What is the Government going to do in that connection? Then there is still another matter, and that is that Europeans and non-Europeans have to record their votes at the same polling booth. In the by-election in Hottentots-Holland I was present at the polling booth at Bellville, South. There was a great rush towards the evening of Europeans and non-Europeans, and they stood pressed against one another in a row for more than 30 yards. European women had to stand next to coloured people, and often the coloured man stood with a pipe in his mouth and blew the smoke in the face of the woman. I do not know whether members opposite are pleased about that, but we Afrikaans-speaking people and many English-speaking people, too, are not pleased about it. I earnestly want to ask the Prime Minister to ensure that it will not happen in future. That night, at three minutes to eight, the crowd of Europeans and non-Europeans were simply crammed into the hall, and the door was locked behind them, and they could then record their votes. It is an extremely serious matter. We cannot allow racial feeling to be blunted in that way. But if those things happen day after day, and European and non-European are treated equally, then the feeling will be blunted among the Europeans. If that happens, the blame will lie at the door of the Prime Minister and his party. I want to make an earnest appeal to the Prime Minister. If he investigates these things, he will find that the facts that I have given are right. Will the Prime Minister not state that legislation will be introduced to bring about a change in the situation? We cannot allow the situation to continue. We are committing a crime against posterity.

I also want to make a few remarks in connection with certain matters which were raised by the Leader of the Opposition, but before I do so, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he will furnish information to this House in relation to a statement which he made on the occasion of a visit made to him by a deputation of English churchman. According to the report which appeared in the Press, a deputation of persons who represented the English churches called upon the Prime Minister some weeks ago, to see him in connection with matters affecting the native population, and the Prime Minister in his reply to the deputation said, according to the Press report—

Here we have what I consider a very serious statement on the part of the Prime Minister on a very serious matter, and it appears from the statement that the Prime Minister is worried about the matter about which he expressed himself there. It is a matter about which not only the Prime Minister is badly worried, but about which the Prime Minister’s followers are also badly worried. I note that so faithful a supporter of the Prime Minister as the newspaper “Eastern Province Herald” last week also expressed itself as seriously worried about the danger of Communism, and if I have to judge from the speech of the Minister of Lands last night, he is also worried to a certain extent about the matter. I feel thus that in view of the statement which the Prime Minister made, we may expect him to make a statement in this House with regard to this important question. I understand that it was a written answer that the Prime Minister gave the deputation, and he said: “He said so with full knowledge of the facts.” I think we have the right to ask the Prime Minister to give us the facts. On what does he base his perturbation? The Prime Minister is not unaware of the fact that in recent months especially there has been a tremendous increase in connection with Communist propaganda, especially among the native population. The Prime Minister is aware that throughout the country today meetings are held regularly at which inciting speeches are made. The propaganda is directed especially at the native population, and the Prime Minister’s statement proves that he knows about it. The Prime Minister also knows that the propaganda is not only directed at the native population, but also that it is especially concentrated on the Prime Minister’s soldiers, the army. About that he ought to be particularly worried. They are engaged in reaping benefit from the condition of dissatisfaction which reigns in the country, and which they are trying to exploit. That condition arises from the policy which has been followed by the Prime Minister and his Government, but the dissatisfaction is exceptionally great, and they go further, and they themselves create a condition of dissatisfaction where the dissatisfaction has not yet taken shape. In connection with those utterances of the Prime Minister to the deputation of the churches, I want just to mention an advertisement which appeared last week in the Communist paper—

And then in large letters—

The name of the speaker is well known in this House. This is something that the Prime Minister can lightly ignore. Where we have drawn a definite colour line in South Africa, especially in the social sphere, we find that they now have the impertinence to say in their advertisements of dances: “No colour line.” It is a terrible situation. It is not an ordinary meeting that is advertised here, but a monthly dance which is held by a Communist society. With regard to the propaganda that is going on among the Prime Minister’s own soldiers, the Minister of Lands expressed himself on that. I assume that the Prime Minister, who is also Minister of Defence, is acquainted with what is going on. There is the fact, the unmistakable fact, that propaganda of the most dangerous sort is being conducted, which is specially directed not only at non-Europeans but also at soldiers. There is the Springbok Legion. The founding was perhaps originally quite innocent, but it seems now that the Springbok Legion has fallen into the hands of the Communist Party, and when meetings of the Springbok Legion are held, you find that they are mainly addressed by well-known Communist leaders. I feel that in view of the statement of the Prime Minister to the deputation, we may expect a clear statement in connection with this matter.

I also want to bring a few small matters to the attention of the Prime Minister. Let me at once mention a case about which I want to say something. In my constituency three minor children disappeared from their parents’ homes. They joined the army. In spite of the fact, that I did everything to assist the parents to get the children back, I am still where I began. The parents all received the same answer from the office of the Minister of Defence, just four lines to mothers: “General Smuts asks me to acknowledge receipt of your letter, which Mr. P. J. Bosman, M.P., handed in to this office, and to tell you that your request for the discharge of your son has been handed over to the Adjutant-General to be dealt with.”

When the proceedings were suspended, I was engaged in bringing this matter to the notice of the Hon. Prime Minister. The reason why I am doing it in such a way under these circumstances is that it is the last attempt I am making to see if I cannot obtain the release of those three boys. I said they were three boys. Here I now have letters from two of them which I received just now. The third letter is lying in the office of the Prime Minister. I will also hand these two letters over to him later. What is so sad in these cases is that those minor children went away from their parents’ home, and they enlisted in the Defence Force. As soon as the parents found it out, they did everything in their power to try to get the children back. Mr. Van Niekerk, one of the parents, writes to me that they did not even answer his letters. In connection with another boy, they write that they regret that the parents’ request cannot be approved. They refer him in that connection to the emergency regulations, and they say that it is impossible for them to do anything in the matter. Apart from the regulations and everything, let us now take the matter as it is. The children who left their parents’ homes arrived there, and said they wanted to get to the war. Without its being asked how old they were, where they came from, they were accepted. Now the question arises: Where are the children of the greatest value, there at the war, or at their parents’ homes? In the meantime one boy’s father died. He is the oldest son, and he must now take his father’s place. All possible efforts were made to get that child back, and here we now have the answer that it is not possible. Mr. Van Niekerk, to whom I referred, is an aged man. He has only the one son. The question again is: Where is that boy of the most value, at the war, or on his parents’ farm? I really think that if the Prime Minister wishes, he can let that boy go back. I want to ask him to go into this matter. This is the last attempt I am making to beg in this way that those three boys should return to their parents. The question actually occurs to me in connection with the war: Is it necessary now? What does the Prime Minister think … is the sacrifice which he has already paid to enable South Africa to contribute her share to the war not great enough? I think that if we think about the matter, and the Prime Minister thinks in that direction, he will have to admit that he has contributed his share, and that the sacrifices already made for this war are great enough; and before the Prime Minister takes the further step of sending boys overseas again, I think he must first see how things go. There are things that are of more value than money, and the Prime Minister has the power to spare these lives.

It might be well and it might perhaps tend to shorten the debate if I were to say a few words at this stage in reply to the questions which have been put to me. May I say to the hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Bosman), that I shall be glad if he will give me the letters he has referred to. I have no knowledge of the matter he raised and I do not really from what he said appreciate his difficulty. The correspodence refers to the emergency regulations, but he has not said what the particular emergency regulation is and what its effect is on the subject he has raised. I shall be glad if the hon. member will give me the letters so that I may go into the matter and see what is wrong. I should like to assist the hon. member. Now, let me come to the speeches which were made this morning by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and by other hon. members. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) commenced by referring to the Leibbrandt case, and he asked me and the Government in advising His Excellency the Governor General to take into account all the circumstances of the case, the history, the background and everything that led to this whole matter. There is hardly any need for me to say that that will be done, not only in view of the background, the happenings and the times we are passing through, but also because of the case itself which is an extremely involved and highly important one. I do not want to go into the subject now, nor has the hon. member asked me to do so. The matter is still sub judice. I can only give the House and the country the assurance that we regard this affair as one of the most serious that has occurred in our criminal history for many years, and that it will have our most serious attention in every respect, and that all factors will be duly taken into account. Then the hon. member referred to the forthcoming elections, and he asked me to give more information than I have been able to do so far. I agree with the hon. member. This is not a subject on which the country should be kept unnecessarily in the dark. The question of a General Election, if it is to be held, is one affecting the public itself. It is a question in which everybody is interested, and it would not be right on a subject of that nature, to adopt an attitude resulting in the public being kept unnecessarily in the dark. I quite agree, and if up to the present I have not been able to give more information it has simply been because the whole situation has been vague and uncertain, in all the circumstances. Now let me say this. The position is as follows: The House knows what I have already said about the duration of the Session, the House knows that we intend if possible to finish the Session towards Easter, and if we should intend introducing legislation to prolong the life of Parliament—which would require legislation—then I doubt very much that it would be possible to finish the Session by Easter. The hon. member can deduce from that that in all probability no such legislation will be introduced, and in all probability Parliament will expire in terms of the Constitution at the end of the ordinary period.

Then what is the difficulty about coming to a decision?

In all probability that is the position, and I can only tell the House that that is the position which hon. members must accept as being the most probable. Circumstances may arise which nobody can anticipate but in the absence of unforeseen circumstances—which may arise and which may force the Government to call Parliament together to extend the life of this Parliament—there will be no extension of the life of Parliament, but a General Election will take place in the ordinary course and within the period of the life of Parliament in terms of the Constitution. I think that answers the question, so far as we are able to decide under the uncertain world conditions of today that is what we have decided and the House may take it that that is the position. Now, the hon. member asked me when the elections would take place. The date of elections depends on circumstances which are well known to all in this House who are thoroughly familiar with the whole situation. The elections have to be fitted in with the new delimitation. The Voters’ Rolls have to be framed in accordance with the delimitation, and the necessary documents have to be printed. The Voters’ Rolls have to be printed. So far as we can see, and so far as my information goes in regard to the whole position, the elections cannot be held before next July or August. It would be impossible to make the necessary preparations for the elections before that time, and that is my reply to the question as to when the elections will be held. It now appears that in all probability it will be July or August when the elections will be held.

How about the Provincial Councils?

I understand that it is practically impossible in the two smaller Provinces where the constituencies for the House of Parliament and for the Provincial Council do not coincide to hold the elections on the same day. In the two big Provinces it is possible to do so. Whatever we decide upon will naturally depend on what the Administrators have to say because their decision is final on this matter, but it is the Government’s wish, if it is possible, and if the Administrators of the two big Provinces are willing, to let the elections, both for the House of Assembly and for the two larger Provinces, be held on the same day. It will depend on the Administrators, but we hope it will be possible to hold the elections on the same day in the two larger Provinces, and in that way to avoid difficulties which otherwise would arise.

Will the House have an opportunity of expressing itself on that question?

That is the position. The House, of course, can express itself on any matter, but the hon. member is asking me for information, and I am giving him that information. It is possible in the two big Provinces, where it will depend on the two Administrators, but it is the Government’s hope and expectation, that it will be possible to have the elections on the same day. The hon. member then went on to ask me what my attitude or what the Government’s attitude is towards “the peace” if we win the war. Well, I think that is a step in advance, because so far we have heard nothing from the other side except “if we lose”. Today apparently there is another possibility to be seriously considered—what is going to happen if we win, and I think that is a step in advance. Naturally on the basis on which the hon. member now finds himself, I want to regard the practical possibility, and I want to discuss the matter from that point of view. I have not very often expressed my views on the question of the peace to come, not only because of the uncertainty and the vagueness of the whole position. Nobody can see very far into the future today. Even if we win the war, which we hope to do, it is difficult to see what the world at the end of the war will look like—at the end of this, the greatest war in history, and it is difficult to anticipate what kind of peace one will be able to shape on the conditions which will then prevail. For that reason, with all this uncertainty ahead of us, I have been rather hesitant about making any statements, as many irresponsible people have done, and have been able to do in their positions of irresponsibility, but in my responsible position as the Prime Minister of this country, I surely cannot be expected to make statements of that nature. Some weight is attached to what I may say on this subject. People will say: “One of the Prime Ministers in the British Commonwealth of Nations is expressing his views; one of the people who may bring some influence to bear on the conditions of peace to be concluded, if we win, is expressing himself, and it behoves me therefore to be guarded in any statements which I may make, lest afterwards those statements should prove incorrect, and thus lead to the oft heard complaint of false promises and broken pledges.

I notice that you are uncertain now; you are making progress.

It is dangerous to speak about these matters in advance and we must be careful in what we say. The people who really can speak with authority, the people who will in all probability have the decisive voice in the peace to be concluded are not premature with their statements about the future, no matter whether it be Roosevelt or Churchill. They are fairly reticent in their statements about the future peace, and when the great masters of the situation remain silent and do not speak, it is becoming to us to be very guarded in our statements on the situation. There is one point which the hon. member made with which I do not agree and that is when he remarked that this war was the result of what had happened at Versailles. I deny it most emphatically. Nobody expressed himself more strongly against the peace of Versailles than I did, but nobody feels more deeply than I do that this war is not the aftermath of Versailles; I contend that the conditions created by Versailles had completely vanished before this war broke out. This war broke out not because of an injustice done at Versailles, not in order to right some wrong of the past, but this war broke out for one reason ….

Why do you hesitate so much?

I want to express myself correctly. This war broke out because of the spirit of domination displayed by Germany; it was that which culminated in all that has occurred. If we behold the conditions in the world today, the conditions in Europe, in all those small countries which have gone, then we are bound to recognise that this war has nothing to do with Versailles. There was no motive, there was no cause given in the Treaty of Versailles which might be taken as the reason for the destruction of those small independent countries in Europe. We can make no greater mistake, we cannot commit any greater act of foolishness than to talk of Versailles now as the cause of this war. This war is something different altogether. One has to explain what happened in Europe, in the past three or four years—the destruction of the one independent free country after another—these things have nothing to do with Versailles. One has to explain away all these things before arriving at such a conclusion.

But you admit that Versailles was an injustice?

I myself condemned Versailles. I know that; but I say that Versailles was not the cause of this war. This war was the outcome of other conditions—it is the rising of the new policy of domination, of the ambition to create a world domination among the Herrenvolk. That is the cause of this war.

You predicted in connection with Versailles that there was going to be another war.

Let me give an instance to show that the spirit of Versailles has had nothing to do with this war. Take our own case. Is there any country in the world which treated the German population better after the last war than South Africa did? Take South-West Africa. We took over that country. We left the German civilian population there undisturbed. They were not deprived of their property; they were left there completely unmolested. They were treated in a way exemplary in the world’s history. Their language was maintained….

We gave them the franchise.

Yes, everything possible was done for them. The Union Government went out of its way to treat those people in an exemplary manner, and what was our reward? What was the reward which we got from those people? No, we cannot blame Versailles for this war; just as little as our disappointment over South-West Africa and especially over the attitude of the Germans of South-West Africa has had anything to do with this war, just so little has this war anything to do with the Treaty of Versailles. This is something new, a new force has been let loose in the world, a force which has acted destructively, and that force was the rise of National Socialism under Hitler’s rule. I do not agree at all with the hon. member that one can connect Versailles with what has happened. That is one mistake and now another blunder is being perpetrated and that is the attempt which is being made, artificially to stir up feelings against Russia in this country—I don’t know whether the same thing is going on in other countries too.

There is no need to do it artificially.

I cannot conceive of anything more dangerous in our own interest than to stir up a feeling of that kind, the effects of which one cannot foretell in the history of the future. The hon. member referred to the speech of Mr. Wallace, the Vice-President of the United States. What did he say in that speech? He said that unless a good spirit was built up between Russia, the British Commonwealth of Nations and the United States, unless a healthy spirit of co-operation was created between those three, we were unquestionably marching forward to world war No. 3. And here in this country in a most irresponsible manner a spirit of hostility is being preached in advance against Russia. The hon. member referred to what Mr. Wallace had said. He has the speech before him. That speech does act as a warning to him. No, he and his friends pursue their course along that most dangerous road, a road not only dangerous to the whole world but dangerous also to us here in South Africa. He says that Russia in the enemy, he says that Russia is out for world revolution.

But do you want to deny it?

There we have it again—Russia is the enemy. Russia is out for world revolution!

But that’s the very thing Henry Wallace says.

No, he does not say that. He warns against it … [Interjections.]

Hon. member’s opposite may laugh but it is our duty to think of South Africa’s interests. Nothing is more dangerous to us and to the world now when Russia is bearing the greatest burden of the war, when Russia is making the greatest contribution to victory—victory for ourselves and our allies,—nothing is more dangerous than to hold forth against Russia and to start a campaign against Russia. Nothing is more dangerous to us and I can do no more than raise my voice in warning against the movement which has been started and which to my mind is opposed to the interests of South Africa and to the peace of the world. And hon. members opposite do not even halt there in their irresponsibility. This same spirit is being created in regard to America. It seems to me that a spirit is being stirred up to say that America is also a menace to us. The hon. member for Pretoria, District (Mr. Oost) adopts an attitude which is completely uncalled for. He wants to know what the relationship is between ourselves and America. He wants to know what our future is going to be, and what is going to become of our independence if things continue as they are doing now. It is clear to me that the hon. member for Pretoria, District, when speaking on behalf of his Party is issuing a warning just as strongly against America and is holding forth against America just as violently as my hon. friends opposite on the Opposition benches are holding forth against Russia. I ask myself whether in the dangerous times we are passing through it is wise to adopt an attitude like that. Is it wise to adopt an attitude which instead of creating friendship and good feeling is bound to lead to suspicion on the part of those powerful states which we may perhaps have to pay for very dearly afterwards. Take the position of America. I feel that America’s generosity in regard to this war is greater than I can express in words. President Roosevelt with his people behind him has adopted this attitude. They say that the war debts which were incurred in the last war and which like a millstone hung round the necks of the world were one of the causes for the distress of the nations and that in that sense they were perhaps the cause of the condition in which the world finds itself today. President Roosevelt said: “Let us take steps in this war to prevent there being any war debts. Let us prevent a condition under which after the war other countries will have to keep on paying debts to their Allies in victory, for generations to come.” That is the attitude adopted by President Roosevelt, and that attitude has been approved of by the Congress of the United States. The whole policy of the United States is aimed at that, and that is why America is making all these sacrifices in this war—it is in order to prevent there being another period of tremendous war debts between Allies after the war. That is what is contemplated by the policy and the agreements to which the hon. member has referred. And now he wants to know the significance of all these agreements, he wants to know their real object, and what our commitments are. Let me say at once—we are not tied to the lease-lend agreements, we have no lease-lend agreement with the United States. Great Britain has such an agreement, and New Zealand and Australia have such agreements. Negotiations are to take place between us and the United States of America to see what our attitude is going to be. No agreement has been entered into yet.

Do we have to pay for what we are buying?

Are you sure of what you are saying?

The hon. member can take it that my information is correct. Negotiations about the lease-lend agreement are still to take place. It is the intention of the American Government to send a delegate here to negotiate about the terms of an agreement.

Evidence has been given on that subject before a Committee of this House.

I believe that my information is correct. The Australian and New Zealand agreements do not apply to us, but a different agreement will have to be made so far as this country is concerned, if it can be done, and this is what is happening in the meantime. The British Government is getting the necessary war supplies from America, and we in turn get those war supplies from the British Government. We are not acting under the lease-lend agreements, but we are getting our supplies from the British Government, which is operating under a lease-lend agreement. In the meantime nothing is being paid for.

Do we pay nothing at all?

In the meantime we do not pay.

Whom is it debited to?

It is not debited. The whole object of the American Government is to prevent debits and to see that by give and take and by Mutual Aid among the Allies there will be no necessity to set up any accounts.

Do we give anything to the British Government?

No, the English Government gets it for nothing from the United States, and we get it for nothing from the English Government. The Mutual Aid Agreement, to which the hon. member referred, is an agreement between the United States and Great Britain, in which we do not share. The hon. member also spoke about Mr. John Martin’s mission. The sending of Mr. John Martin to America is one of the happiest steps the Government has ever taken in our own interests. For some considerable time we had been faced with difficulties and disappointments in securing our requirements from America, both for military and civilian purposes. We had a Commission in America which was engaged in the task of securing the necessary supplies, but that Commission had to contend with serious difficulties. It consisted of subordinate officials who could not hold their own against those powerful bodies and powerful foreign Commissions which were engaged on similar work in America. It was suggested to us by the American Government itself that we should send over a strong representative who could hold his own in looking after our interests. It was because of those difficulties which had arisen in regard to the supply of our requirements that we sent Mr. John Martin, and he has been of the greatest service to us, and if we did overcome many of our difficulties in regard to our supplies from America during the last six months, it was due to a large extent to Mr. John Martin. The country cannot be too grateful to him for the services he has rendered us in that respect and for the new channels which he has opened up. Mr. Andrews who was our representative on the League of Nations in Geneva went with him to Washington and has taken over the work since Mr. Martin’s departure. Things are now going fairly well. Our difficulty is not so much the obtaining of the necessary material for military and civilian purposes. Our difficulty is more with regard to shipping, and everything possible is being done in order to remove the obstacles. So far as Mr. John Martin’s work is concerned, it has been of the greatest value. He refused to accept any pay from the State and he is not getting any pay. He was given his ticket to America and back and that is all he has received from the State. He placed his services free of charge at the disposal of the country, and that is a further cause for gratitude.

Was it a wise thing to send him in view of his position in the mining industry?

That was an additional reason for sending him. One of the greatest difficulties with America was in regard to securing the necessary materials for the mines. The House will realise the difficulty we would have landed in if we had been unable to obtain the necessary materials for the mining industry, and if the industry had been knocked out because of that. It was of the utmost importance to this country that that industry should be able to carry on, and in that respect Mr. John Martin could be of special assistance to us. The mining industry is one of the country’s cornerstones, and we had to look after it. That is all I want to say about America. And now I want to come back to the position as it was represented by the hon. member for Piquetberg. He put certain questions to me. I cannot say anything about the peace, but I can say a few words as to what should be the spirit of the peace which we are striving for. To me it is clear that if we win the war and we get peace again, the first step we shall have to take will be the total disarmament of the powers which have plunged the world into this twar, and not only must they be disarmed but they must be kept disarmed, failing which we shall see a repetition of this tragedy within a generation. It is impossible to allow such a condition to arise again, and there must be disarmament. Steps have to be taken to ensure that such disarmament is carried out properly. The question of disarmament has nothing to do with the economic life of the nations which we are fighting at the moment. On that question there is no doubt that a great deal more than the Treaty of Versailles will be required to ensure that so far as the economic needs of those countries are concerned, so far as the raw materials of the world and other materials necessary for their economic life are concerned; they will get their fair share of what the world is able to produce. There can be no question of the restoration of the world if the large portion of the world represented by hostile countries has to remain in distress, and in a condition of bankruptcy from which the peoples of those countries will not be able to free themselves. It will be necessary so far as economic life and raw materials are concerned to assist them in every way possible so as to get them on their feet again. That has nothing to do with the military questions and with the war. But disarmament has to take place, as I have said, but that has nothing to do with the economic life and with the securing of raw materials by those countries. In that respect I feel they must be dealt with in all fairness and justice. The hon. member may argue that the Atlantic Charter is vague and indefinite. Let me tell him that on those points the Atlantic Charter is not vague. On both points, disarmament and the necessary provisions for the economic life of hostile nations, it is clearly laid down in the Atlantic Charter that unless these essentials are given effect to, in a forceful manner, there cannot be peace, and there will be constant preparation for a future war. That, however, will not be enough. It will be absolutely essential in days to come to provide for an organisation, to build up an organisation’ which will guard the peace of the world. The hon. member asked why we are still supporting the League of Nations. The Government is supporting the League of Nations, and on the Estimates before us we are again asked for the necessary money to be voted because we consider it would be a great mistake at this stage to break down that which has been built up. There is no doubt that the League of Nations has built up something.

It has collapsed.

No, a great deal of the work is being carried on, and is just as necessary today as ever before. The economic and labour activities of the League of Nations are being carried on as before, and that is what the money is being voted for. What has collapsed is the political activity of the League.

But surely that was the main work.

No, that is where the hon. member is mistaken. The International Labour Office which used to be a subordinate part of the League of Nations—as the hon. member should know—the International Labour Office which originally was in a subordinate position has become an important part of the activities of the League of Nations. It has more and more come into the forefront in the activities of the League of Nations, and in that respect the League is carrying on, and truly, it is more essential to the world today than in the past, and in days to come it will even be more essential still. There is no reason, therefore, why we should not continue the League of Nations, but there is no doubt that the League of Nations as a political organisation for the preservation of peace is no longer of any use. We have learnt our lesson, and we shall have to build up a world organisation which will have to be stronger and more forceful.

Then you admit that the League of Nations has not answered its purpose?

The League of Nations suffered from weaknesses which have brought about its downfall. I need not go into details. Because of its system of unanimity and other difficulties which I need not mention, it has turned out to be unworkable in times of crisis, such as those we have passed through. An organisation will have to be built up on a new basis. That will come; I have no doubt of it. If it is not done, the world will drift into a condition of constant wars, generation after generation, and an association of nations will have to come into being which will act as a bulwark against those Powers which are always out to exploit and to prey on other countries, and to dominate those other countries. Now, I want to say a few words on the subject of Communism, about which the hon. member has had so much to say. I should like hon. members to look at this matter from two points of view. When we talk of Communism, we must not talk about Russia. If there is Communism in our country, it is something which has sprung up here, something which has developed here; it is due to conditions existing in our own country. Do not let us connect our local Communism with Russian Communism. If we connect it with Russian Communism we are quite wrong. [Laughter.] Yes, there we are, hon. members want to raise a bogey here. We have a certain amount of Communism in this country, and I am going to say a few words about that, but that Communism is immediately debited against Russia, and then we are told that Russia is out for a revolution. We are told that Russia is behind the movement in this country—but there is not the slightest evidence of such being the case, not the slightest! We have for a long time been keeping our eyes on Communism in this country, and there is not the slightest evidence that the Communism which exists in this country has anything to do with the system in Russia.

Have you ever read the book “Out of the Night”?

I hear a voice out of the night—let the hon. member remain in his night of ignorance. We must keep these two things entirely apart. First of all there is the question of Russia—a dangerous question to meddle with, unless we have some definite basis to go on. Hon. members can take it from me, on the information which we as a Government have, that there is no such connection between the movement from outside from Russia, with Communism in South Africa, and that there is no ground for the assertion that Communism in South Africa is fostered by Russia. But there can be no doubt that there is a certain amount of Communism in South Africa.

Where does it come from, surely it does not come from our own country?

We have conditions in South Africa which, even if there had never been Communism in Russia, would have created an unsatisfactory condition of affairs, and dissatisfaction in our own country. We know that. Let us first of all clean our own doorstep. We have conditions in our own country which cause that sort of thing. If we have poor whiteism in South Africa, do not let us blame Russia for it. If we have unhealthy conditions in this country among the poor whites, among the coloured people and among the natives, conditions which lead to such results, do not let us blame other countries for it. Let us clean our own doorstep, clean our own backyard.

Who is responsible for that?

I know the hon. member is not responsible; he of course, is a hundred per cent. pure. We in South Africa are responsible for it. The conditions which have arisen here will require all our efforts if we want to remedy them, and if we do not remedy them, we shall have to pay a very high price for them. Don’t let us talk about Russia, let us talk about South Africa; let us put things right in this country, and that is what we are going to do. We are not going to hide behind Russia and hold Russia responsible for conditions in South Africa for which we ourselves are responsible. There is Communism in this country and I have explained the conditions to the members of the deputation of the churches who interviewed me on the subject. I told them there were Communists in this country and that we are keeping a watchful eye on them. That deputation from certain churches waited on me to see whether they could not induce me to take immediate steps to recognise trade unions for the native population on the same basis as white trade unions were recognised; I pointed out to them that we had information at our disposal which indicated that the native trade unions were getting more and more under Communistic influence. If we don’t handle this question carefully, we shall run the risk of the native population of this country getting linked up with the movement which may lead to serious conditions in this country. The matter is one which we should handle very carefully, and I pointed out to the deputation that we were very carefully watching the situation. These conditions are not such that we cannot change them, but we do not want to encourage a movement such as Communism among the natives under the guise of steps which theoretically look very fine, but which in practice may have very far-reaching results. I told the deputation that we were enquiring into the whole position to see what would be the best way out of the difficulty. We realise that the native labourers must be assisted but when it comes to applying the system which for long has been applied to skilled white workers—to apply it on an equal basis to the natives—that is a horse of a different colour, and the Government is now considering the whole matter with a view to finding some solution. Let us keep our eyes wide open. Do not let us create new perils along our course. Do not let us imagine all sorts of phantoms; let us face the whole position soberly and with our eyes open.

We are permitted to see only the phantom which you see.

The hon. member sees a phantom—and it is one which he wants to use for his election purposes. The black peril and the Russian Revolution! That is the sort of thing they want to dish up to the people. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) is nursing that infant, and he is trying to make it big and strong, but I am convinced that if we deal sensibly with this matter and do our duty to the people, to all sections of the people, we shall be able to get at the root of the evil, and we shall be able to find a solution without dragging Russia into it, with all the difficulties attached to it. I believe that I have now dealt with all the important points, except the one raised by the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit). He wants us to create an organisation to look after the soldiers after the war. That is a question which we shall have to consider very seriously, perhaps, at a later stage. So far we have had liaison committees everywhere which have had to watch the situation, and which know the soldier, his family, local conditions—they are committees which have done excellent work. I do not know whether these liaison committees will continue their labours, or whether we shall have to establish an organisation such as the hon. member proposes. I do not know whether it will be necessary to have a special Ministry set up because we are dealing here with a passing phase, but we may perhaps have to have a sub-department to look after our soldiers. The hon. the Minister of Native Affairs is the chairman now of a Board dealing with this matter. He is doing excellent work in co-operation with the committees. Quite possibly we shall have to go further. We shall do what has to be done, and we shall do our duty on this matter. Nothing is too good for those soldiers who have taken their lives into their hands to fight for the freedom of this country. If any steps are to be taken, the Government is willing to take them. It is in that spirit that I accept the hon. member’s comments, and if it is found necessary to give effect to his suggestions, it will be done. In the meantime, we are working with the existing organisation, the committee of the Minister of Native Affairs, and the Liaison Committee.

It was more than clear to the committee with what measure of hesitation the Prime Minister spoke of what might possibly happen if the war was won by the Allies. The reasons for that are obvious. He realises, as probably no one else in this committee realises, that it is purely academic wishful thinking, and not something on which he can or need express himself now at this stage. For that reason his whole argument was another little piece of naive war propaganda, such as we hear from time to time from those benches. Except on one point. And with regard to that, I can give him the assurance that this part of the House is very grateful to him for it. That was the part in which he said that he disapproved of the propaganda which is now being put in progress against Russia. The whole attitude of the Prime Minister, everything that he has said in the past on this point and that he has now said again very clearly, shows us where we are heading. Russia, the Ally of England in this war, has nothing to do with the disturbances in our country; has nothing to do with international Communism! It is clear for everyone who wants to use his intelligence that we will be driven closer and closer in our relations with Russia, and it will later come to having an arm about the neck, which will have the blackest consequences for South Africa. For the Prime Minister to come and tell this committee in all seriousness that there is nothing to connect South African Communism with Russia—well, if it had not been the Prime Minister who said it, I would have said that it was the greatest rubbish to which we had ever listened. Let him look up his own records. In my time we took photographs of every letter that went to Russia, and everyone that came from Russia. Packets and packets of those letters are lying in his files, and among them are letters from Russian leaders which have to do with Communist organisation among the kaffirs. They are letters from influential persons in Russia to persons who have influence in that direction in South Africa. Letters in connection with Bunting are all lying in his department. I can only say this: If, since my time, they have not continued with that particular detective work, it is one of the greatest crimes which has yet been committed by the Prime Minister against the country. I do not believe it. I am convinced, whether the Prime Minister wants to know it or not, that all that proof is lying there and is available to him. Everyone whom he will allow to do so will be able to see it. The Prime Minister regretted that we said that the Communism of Russia is connected with Communism in our own country. He regretted that we took up a forceful attitude. I want to give him the assurance that this attitude which he took up today will bring the Afrikaners together. I thank him for the opportunity, when there is a General Election coming, and I want to give him the assurance that at and during that election that statement of his will bring the Afrikaners together on the basis of this Communist danger, and unless we are prevented by military measures and by force, we shall leave no stone unturned and leave nothing undone to enlighten the public about this plague of the twentieth century—Bolshevism. I thank the Prime Minister for the fact that he has today given this Committee the basis for an Afrikaans national unity. We shall make use of it. In the Committee stage one does not have long to speak, and I want to say a few words about the matter which was touched on by the Leader of the Opposition, namely, the verdict in the high treason case. I do not want to express myself on the case. I have hardly read the sentence yet. But this will perhaps be the last chance in this Session for one of us to be able to draw the attention of the Government to factors which they might not perhaps take into account in normal circumstances. I want to add to what the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) said, that we had a case of high treason before. At least one case, that of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), and now I see this danger that if this case is not properly represented to His Excellency, we may perhaps have this position that an influential person is not condemned, because it would have far-reaching political influences, and that person who is not in that position, may perhaps be treated differently. We must ensure that that impression is not created. Shortly before Gen. Hertzog’s death he wrote a letter which will yet become an historical document, and in that letter he ended with these words—

Mr. Chairman, I had the idea that the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) had made his swan song in this House the other day, when he finished up with that celebrated peroration of his, but apparently that was not sufficient for Dr. Goebbels. The hon. member was not ordered out of the House, as he obviously expected to be, and so once again the Nazi propaganda became unstuck. So, he is back again, quite obviously in an endeavour to hold out the olive branch to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition is proud of himself, or whether he is trying to grasp this olive branch, because I suggest to him that very probably there will be a nettle in it somewhere. However, that is not particularly interesting to us. But we are amused, because this is about the fourth time within the last 3½ years that we have been confronted with what is alleged to be a united Afrikanerdom. Afrikanerdom was united in the first instance because South Africa, exercising its functions of independence, decided to go to war. That united Afrikanerdom did not last very long, there were too many aspirant leaders, too many individuals who thought they ought to be the next Prime Minister, and there was one individual who had apparently been guaranteed that he would be the Fuehrer of South Africa when Germany won the war, as she was expected to do. However, that also became unstuck, and now apparently Afrikanerdom is not going to be united on any such high principle as remaining neutral, they are not going to be united on any such high principle as objecting to British Imperialism, but they are now going to unite because of the threat of Russia. Mr. Chairman, if it were not so tragic in so far as the people of this country are concerned, it would be really laughable. The hon. member for Gezina knows probably better than any member of this House that all this bogey story of Russia is so much boloney. The hon. member for Gezina himself has been in Russia—why they ever let him out I do not know—that was in the days before the purge, and before Russia had discovered the danger of the Fifth Column. Then the hon. member for Gezina has also been in Germany, and we remember well that it was after the hon. member visited Germany that his outlook, in so far as the Union of South Africa is concerned, suddenly changed. We also know that the hon. member was afraid to go to France, he practically insulted the French people by not going to that capital. Whether he was afraid of the Communists on that particular occasion I do not know, but he is not likely to make our flesh creep. We, in this House, Mr. Chairman, know the hon. member; I have had ten years of the hon. member, and we know him by this time. He was at one time the darling of the English-speaking Press, and even of the Press in England, but in the last description I read of him he is differently described. The hon. member has pointed out the danger this country is in from Communism, and I want to throw my mind back to the occasion when we had an Imperial Press Conference in South Africa, when at the close of what I can only describe as a very brilliant speech, the hon. member himself pointed out that the Cape had been the historic road from the West to the East, and he finished up by saying that perhaps in a year or two—this was one of the few prophecies which ever came true—it might be the gateway from from East to West. For political purposes the hon. member for Gezina is now prepared to blind his eyes to a danger which he himself pointed out years ago, the danger to South Africa from the East. We have had many important discussions in this particular House, we have discussed the war from almost every angle, except the angle which I consider is the angle which is most dangerous to the Union, and that is the danger from the East. To hear the hon. member for Gezina talk, or indeed the Leader of the Opposition, we should never dream that we are at war with Japan. All you hear from them is the European situation, all you hear is that we ought to make peace with Nazi Germany. Even in the amendment moved on the budget, the Leader of the Opposition concentrated himself on this one subject of making peace with Nazi Germany. Quite obviously Japan is a far greater danger to the Union, because of our geographical position, just as she is a greater danger to Australia and the United States of America than Nazi Germany itself. I am astonished, and I am sure the country will be astonished with me, to find that at this stage the hon. member for Gezina is far more interested in concentrating himself on an entirely nebulous danger from Russia, in so far as Communism is concerned, than he is upon a real danger which still exists, from Japan. We know, Mr. Chairman, that South Africa only a few months ago was in actual danger of attack from Japan. There was not any danger of attack from Russia. She was in danger of attack from Japan. We know that at one time it was felt that the South African coasts could be attacked by a battle cruiser from Japan. We know that ships have been sunk round our coasts; yet we never hear these individuals talk anything about that.

Don’t talk about shipping.

Because we happen to be allied to Russia we are supposed to be in danger. That is so much bunkum. Communism is a creed which is daily gaining more attention right through the civilised world. An experiment which extends over a geographical space comprising one-sixth of the world’s surface has forced itself on the human conscience. We have to consider Russia if we are intelligent individuals, and if we are not ostriches, continually putting our heads into the sand. We have to pay attention to Russia. Probably there is no country in the world about which so much has been written in the last fifteen years as about Russia. There is no country which has engaged more attention than Russia. Every man of note has visited Russia and we have had the two sides to the question in numerous publications. Some people go to Russia and tell us that they consider Russia as the new heaven on earth; others visit Russia and tell us a different story. But it so happens that Communism is the greatest social experiment the world has ever seen, an experiment embracing 140,000,000 people, embracing one-sixth of the total space of our globe and if the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow), or the Leader of the Opposition can suggest that such an experiment which has caused so much interest in every part of the world should leave South Africa entirely unmoved, then he is just talking nonsense. But that is not the fault of Russia. One admits that in the early days of the Russian creed, they were out to embark on a world revolution, but that was in the early days. It was precisely because of a difference on that policy that Trotsky and Stalin became such bitter enemies, because Stalin himself decided that Russia had sufficient to do within the borders of Russia, that Trotsky was subsequently booted out of Russia, and that many heads rolled in the dust. Stalin went even further than the hon. member for Gezina is prepared to do, because Stalin said that Communism as far as Russia is concerned, is not something for export, and the people who considered it something for export were eliminated in Russia, to the tune of many hundreds, and so today if Communists are endeavouring to foment a revolution, they are doing so against the express desire and wish of Stalin and of the Russian Government.

Who told you that.

I am telling you.

It is not true.

I am one of those fellows who get private letters from Russia; I know what I am talking about.

I will give it to you just now.

My hon. friend has been regaling the House for so long with information that is completely out of date. The position in Russia today is that Stalin has completely eliminated the Trotskyites, and the Trotskyites were the people who were in favour of fomenting world revolution. Stalin feels that there is enough work in Russia to occupy him for many years. There is a very great deal of evidence to show in the Union of South Africa that some of the finest intellects in the country, including many of the younger Afrikaner intelligentsia—there is a great deal of evidence to show that many of the younger intelligentsia of the Afrikaners who have just left the universities, are believers in Communism. They express their opinion because of their study of the matter. I presume that you are entitled to express your views on Communism if you have studied the matter. I am saying that many of the younger Afrikaner intelligentsia whom hon. members on the opposite side are supposed to represent, are today at least intellectual Communists, and they are not intellectual Communists because they have been getting any gold from Russia, but because they believe in Communism, because they have read about the success of the Russian experiment, and because their study of social conditions in South Africa has led them to believe that Communism is the solution.

In connection with the Prime Minister’s reply to the discussion so far I want to point out one small matter. With great gusto he made the point that this war had nothing to do with the Treaty of Versailles. He has apparently quite forgotten about the Polish Corridor, about Danzig, and what he said about it at that time. I would like to refer the Prime Minister to a speech which he made quite recently to the British Parliament in London. There he said inter alia, and I quote from his speech in “Life”, the same paper in which he later wrote an article—

That is what the Prime Minister said only a few months ago before the British Parliament, and now he comes and tells us with great gusto that this war has nothing to do with the last war or with the Treaty of Versailles! What the Prime Minister has said there is a definite answer to the contention that this war has nothing to do with the Treaty of Versailles. The Prime Minister has said that it was dangerous to create a feeling against Russia and in the same breath he said that Communism had nothing to do with Russia. Why is it then dangerous? Where does the danger lie? He says that it is dangerous to create a feeling against Russia. Thereby he can only mean that if Russia wins the war South Africa will have to reap the fruits, South Africa will have to bear the consequences of the spreading of Communism in South Africa. That is what he meant. And then we get the continual laudation of Russia. Let me quote to the Prime Minister and his friends on the other side what a well-known writer, sir Charles Petrie, has said, and I will read it in English—

The Prime Minister should be very careful before he makes such contentions. And then he comes and tells us like a stranger in modern Jerusalem that Communism has nothing to do with Russia and he is followed by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) who also comes with the old story which I now want to kill once and for all, namely that a change has come about in the Russian attitude as a result of the difference which occurred between Trotsky and Stalin. The hon. Prime Minister knows very well that Communism was born in Russia. The Comintern was established in Russia, and only two weeks ago Mr. Andrews, leader of the Communists in South Africa’ declared that the South African Communist Party was a part of the Comintern. The hon. member for Umbilo is very fond of saying that I put forward old facts. Let me put forward something modern. If he goes across the road to the Public Library and turns up the “London Times” of 15th February 1938, just a year before the war. This is surely modern enough. It should be remembered that the difficulties between Trotsky and Stalin occurred in 1928. This is what the “London Times” which is always very careful with its messages said—

I hope that we have now heard the last of that story that there has been a change of policy in Russia. But I still want to refer to a particular article in the “London Times” from their representative in Russia on May 3, 1938, dealing with the Comintern. Everyone who knows anything about the “Times” will agree with me that the “London Times” is a particularly reliable newspaper, and when it publishes a special article on the other side of the page opposite the leading article, then that special article is regarded as being of particular interest. After dealing with the history of the Comintern, the article says—

Let me point out to the hon. member over there and also to the Prime Minister that at the 1935 World Congress of the Comintern resolutions were passed, a definite resolution for the propagating of Communism throughout the world. The hon. member for Umbilo ought to know this if he, as he says, makes a study of Communism, and if he is one of the intelligentsia. The article says—

is what happened. There was no difference of principle. The difference between Trotsky and Stalin was a difference of tactics, of methods and the eventual goal remained precisely the same. And then the article says further—

During the last ten days we seem to have been listening to no one else but the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) holding a document in one hand and quoting endless passages about Communism. One can only conclude that the hon. member has no opinions of his own. However, I want to refer to another matter of local interest, a matter of considerable importance to the farming community. Up to six months ago the Agricultural Department in this country was a very happy Department. It was a Department which had the confidence of the farmers of the country, and it was administered by one who, when he was appointed, was welcomed as a very happy choice by the Prime Minister. But changes come over all things. We realise that agriculture is a full-time job. There is probably no Portfolio in the Government which needs the hard work and concentrated effort which agriculture demands. It is more than a full-time job and in the history of the past, no man has carried that burden for a very long time without becoming thoroughly tired. Due to the exigencies of the war—we admit that the war must take precedence in everything—it has been necessary to appoint a Food Controller, and a choice of that Food Controller has fallen on the Minister of Agriculture. It is raising an absolutely impossible situation. Agriculture cannot share with Food Control the activities of one man. The Agricultural Department has been transformed entirely into a Food Control Department and as a result Sir, the vital interests of agriculture are suffering, and they are suffering severely. If you go to that Department today, you find the various Departmental heads engaged in Food Control. You will find all the subheads are the chairmen of the various committees engrossed in the work of Food Control to the exclusion of everything else. It is bad enough in itself, but it is having the most unfortunate repercussions. Where the agricultural interests in this country were thoroughly satisfied with their leader and the department he controlled, there is a great deal of resentment, a growing feeling of resentment, because they feel that their interests are being put second to the interests of consumers and various other interests which are not at all allied to agriculture. It follows very often that the activities of Control Boards, the good work which Contiol Boards have been doing, have been overridden in favour of the commercial aspect. I suggest this very strongly to the Prime Minister, and I hope he will forgive me for intruding in a matter of this kind. The regulation of price of agricultural products added to the burden of agriculture, is surely enough for any one man. It seems to me that the direction of agriculture should lie with the Minister of Agriculture, but the distribution of food products the fixing of the retail price, the controlling of that article right from the time he received it from the producer until it is on the breakfast table, is outside the province of agriculture. It seems to me that there is a matter that should be dealt with by Commerce. Let us see the Minister of Agriculture go back to his own Department and carry the burden of administration which is quite big enough for any one man to carry, and leave all those details, which again are quite enough to occupy one man’s time—distribution and so on—to the Department where it should belong, and let us at any rate relieve the Minister of Agriculture of that amount of responsibility, and his Department of that amount of work, which will enable bona fide agricultural development to go on in the same way as it did before this additional burden was thrown on the Minister. Let someone else carry that burden and leave the Minister free to attend to what most people in this country consider to be his proper duty.

I put a few questions to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister this morning on the non-European problem, and in my modest opinion they were worth a reply from the Prime Minister. I particularly pointed out to him that the non-Europeans make a point of going to live in European districts, with the result that the value of properties in the European districts depreciates as a consequence of their living there. This has called for strong protests from the European inhabitants of those districts. The Prime Minister apparently does not consider it to be of sufficient importance for him to give it his attention, but the public outside have a very different opinion about the matter. I have a petition from Uitenhage here, and the accompanying letter says this—

This petition is signed by several hundred people, and the signatories are not only Afrikaans-speaking, but also English-speaking. I again want to ask the Prime Minister whether he and his Government have any policy in this connection? Is it their intention to allow this penetration of Asiatics and non-Europeans to go on in European districts? I also asked the Minister whether he intended doing anything about Europeans and non-Europeans having to travel together in buses, particularly in the suburbs, and I also asked him whether he would take steps to prevent nonEuropeans and Europeans having to record their votes at the same polling booths. The Prime Minister has not even deigned to answer that question. I believe I put my questions clearly and courteously, and, if he treats this matter with contempt, very well. Then the public will know what to expect from the present Government and its party. Why does the Minister remain silent on a matter of this kind? For no other reason but that he is afraid to give offence to the coloured people before the elections. We have been told by the Prime Minister that we are going to have a General Election in all probability, and, that being so, the electorate is entitled to know what the present Government’s policy is. Are we simply going to allow matters to develop? I think we are entitled to a statement from the Prime Minister.

I feel that the Prime Minister put his finger on the right spot today. I have never yet heard a speech from him in reply to a debate in which he gave such a comprehensive and correct survey of the situation as he did today. I am referring to what he said about the Communistic propaganda and his statement that it is not connected with Russia. I thoroughly agree with him in every respect. We in this country are all to prone, whenever any disturbance occurs, based sometimes on an injustice which has been perpetrated, sometimes the result of the action of some employer or other, or sometimes the outcome of certain agitations in the country which have nothing to do with Communism, to say that Communism is at the back of it all. I say that we are far too disposed in this country, whenever such disturbance or trouble occurs, to connect such an event with Communism. I don’t share that view. I have always adopted the same attitude as the Prime Minister adopted here today, and I therefore want to congratulate him because never before in this House has he given a more telling reply to a question. Let us remove the causes for the conditions which we have in this country, because if we fail to do so, and if we allow Europeans, coloureds and natives to live under those conditions, we must realise that we are preparing fertile soil for Communism, and all that is wanted then is for a little grain of seed to drop into this fertile soil, and it will grow tremendously. But to say when developments should be attributed to our own actions, when an outburst takes place, that all this is due to Communistic propaganda which is subsidised from abroad and propogated from abroad—that is the sort of thing which all the speeches made in this House have not yet been able to establish. We cannot ascribe to Communism all the disturbances which have taken place in South Africa, here in Cape Town for instance, disturbances which may perhaps be attributable to some cheap agitator who has dreamt about Communism, or disturbances which are the outcome of undesirable industrial conditions. Such disturbances are either the result of the actions of agitators, or they are attributable to bad industrial conditions. It seems to me that members opposite, and even some members on this side are afraid of Communism among the natives. I also know the natives in this country and I contend that if Communism should take a hold among the natives, South Africa is the last country in the world where Communism is ever likely to grow, and I say so because of the national characteristics of the natives. Some hon. members have expressed the view that communal ownership is inherent in the native. It is not so. However poor the native may be he is proud of private ownership, he is proud of having something which is his own—of something which has nothing to do with anybody else. I have found that from experience, and whenever European agitators have been active among the natives to spread Communism among them, it has always been the native himself who has been the first to say to them: “You lie”. It is the native himself who has been the first to adopt that attitude. No. hon. members opposite are trying to scare us with Communism among the natives. The native is not communistically minded; he loves private ownership. I am not talking of the coloured people now, because so far as the Transvaal and the Free State are concerned I do not know the coloured people. I am speaking of the natives. The man who is afraid of Communism among the natives does not know, and does not understand the native. I am quite convinced that the Prime Minister understands the position. I used to think at one time: “I wonder whether the Prime Minister realises the conditions in regard to these disturbances, the friction and things of that kind prevailing in this country”, and I am glad therefore that he has spoken in the way he did today. He said that there are conditions in this country which must be changed. He also said that we could change those conditions. It is those things which make the soil fertile for trouble, and if we remove those conditions there will be no need for fear. But if we continue to make the soil fertile, if we fail to uplift our poor, we are simply making the soil fertile for Communism, and then the day may come when the grain of seed will drop in the soil which has been rendered fertile by ourselves, and Communism may then grow. The people who talk to the natives about Communism and equality of white and black — they proclaim things to the natives which they cannot understand. It is said that the native will take to Communism because of his hatred of the whites. The essential conception of Communism is that there shall be no hatred of any other race. No, hatred of another race is the first requisite of Fascism, and consequently also the first requisite of black Fascism, and that is what my hon. friend has to guard against. They must beware lest that kind of thing is propagated among the natives and the Europeans, which may aggravate the friction between the two. I know that there are members opposite who are careful, and on this side as well. They are disposed sometimes to be unfair. I am sorry the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) is not in his seat. If the natives were to get hold of his speech, and if the natives are told that that speech is typical of the conception of the Europeans towards the natives, then it will mean that we are rendering the soil fertile on a large scale for the development of a dangerous position as between white and black. If such speeches are made in this House and if those speeches are taken out of Hansard and shown to the natives, — speeches which will create hatred, — what right have we then to say that it is Russia which is propagating agitation among the natives? It is this Parliament then which is making the soil fertile for the seed of hatred and dissension and friction between whites and natives. I am in entire agreement with the views expressed by the Prime Minister and I therefore hope that the policy enunciated by the Prime Minister here today will be actively carried out. The Prime Minister said that the Government would see to it that such conditions as prevailed in this country, conditions which should not be allowed to prevail, would be rectified, and I say that that is a practical manner of counteracting this kind of agitation. I hope the Government will have the united co-operation of this House when measures of this nature are taken. I hope that all political parties will stand together in undertaking this kind of social uplift work, so that we shall be able to spread it throughout the country, and the country will be able to justify what we are doing, and in such a manner that the Government will be able to say to white South Africa: “We have acquitted ourselves of our trusteeship in such a manner that the production of the country has been allocated throughout South Africa in a reasonable and just manner. I can see no other way out of the difficulty. After all the difficulties we have passed through we do not want to occupy ourselves with academic and unpractical problems, and lay down a policy which every one of us knows in his heart of hearts no sensible person will accept. Irrespective of all Party feelings it is our duty to see to it that malconditions in this country are remedied. We know that the late Mr. Tielman Roos was asked once what grievance he had against the Government. His reply was that his grievance against the Government was that the Government would not move, that it would not carry on with its task. He was thereupon asked whether he did not know the old maxim of “hasten slowly”. His reply was that so far the Government was concerned its motto was “hasten slowly backward”, The Government has now devised certain plans. If it continues to act reasonably fast along the lines of policy which the Prime Minister placed before us today, it will make it practically impossible for any agitator to get. Communism, Fascism or Nazism to take a hold here. It will make it impossible. Where is there a country in the world in which such propaganda cannot develop? We have a country like New Zealand where the agitator can talk as much as he likes, he will get no support because the Government has stepped in and has taken such action as to cut away the fertile ground for the seed of the agitator. The Government there has improved conditions to such an extent that if anyone starts proclaiming that the people are being oppressed and that this or that is wrong, then the people can all say to him: “You are talking about it but we fail to see it.” [Time limit.]

I hope the Prime Minister is flattered by the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) has proclaimed that at long last the Prime Minister has got so far that he is able to see matters in the light for which the Labour Party has been striving all these years. The Prime Minister has now at last made a statement which the hon. member for Krugersdorp looks upon as the most far-reaching statement he has ever heard. It is significant that the party of four opposite has eventually converted the Prime Minister to their point of view. I hope he feels flattered. I now want to deal with the statement made by the Prime Minister, that there was not the slightest evidence that the Communistic activities in South Africa were connected with Communistic activities in Russia. I hope the Prime Minister, after having listened to the authoritative quotations of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) will not come here with statements of that kind again, because declarations of that kind certainly do not do justice to a man of his intelligence. He knows as well as we do that there is the closest connection between the Communistic activities in South Africa and those going on in any other country. If he really believes that the Communism of Russia does not constitute any danger to us in South Africa, then I would like him to tell this House why until recently he has consistently refused to grant Russia diplomatic and consular representation in the Union. On what grounds did he as Prime Minister refuse to admit diplomatic and consular representatives in South Africa, until recently, when the alliance between Russia and England compelled him to do so? With such hard and incontrovertible facts before us, it does not behove the Prime Minister to get up and make such a statement. If I were to describe the Prime Minister’s words as I should do, I am afraid I might be offending the Rt. Hon. gentleman. It is not to his credit to make a statement like that. The Prime Minister made a declaration here this afternoon on which I want to congratulate him. He said that it was a fact, for which the Government would be blamed, that we had a condition which could be described as one of poor whiteism in this country. We on this side have proclaimed for years this fact, we have stated that the Government, to a large degree, is the cause of there being so many poor whites in South Africa, but the Government and its supporters have consistently denied that contention. They even deny that there are poor whites in South Africa, but now that the Prime Minister is forced to realise that Communistic activities are becoming dangerous in South Africa, not merely because we have a large native population here, but because we have large numbers of poor whites in South Africa, now at last his eyes have been opened, and I want to congratulate him on the fact that he as Prime Minister, as the Leader of the party over there, has admitted that they are responsible for poor whiteism, because he realises that if the necessary steps are not taken to put an end to that condition of affairs, it may produce the most enormous dangers in the future. The Prime Minister went further and declared that according to his information, the trade unions in South Africa were largely under the influence of the Communists, and that for that reason he could not comply with the request to the Government to give recognition to the native trade unions in terms of the Act. He stated that there was a danger that they would come under the influence of the Communists. In other words, in one breath he denied the existence of any Communistic danger, and in the next breath he admitted the existence of that danger, and he told the delegation from the churches that he could not recognise the native trade unions because they would be under the influence of Communists. In view of that admission of the Prime Minister’s, I want to ask this question: What does he think of the statement made by the Minister of Justice a few days ago, a statement still fresh in the memory of this House, that there is not the slightest evidence of’ there being any Communistic activities in this country? The Minister of Justice called it a phantom; he said that there was no evidence of Communistic activities in South Africa. As against that the Prime Minister said that he could not approve of the establishment of native trade unions in South Africa because the trade unions were under the influence of Communism. Here we have two responsible Ministers, one of them the Prime Minister, and the other the Minister of Justice, contradicting each other on this matter, and that within a very short space of time. That being the case it shows us that there is a most undesirable condition of affairs in this country. Now let me come to another matter. I want to support the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) in his emphatic protest against the fact that the Prime Minister did not see fit to reply to the request that he—the Prime Minister—should announce the Government’s policy in regard to that particular aspect of the colour question in South Africa, namely the lack of segregation on public vehicles. Something happened at Paarl recently which came as a shock to the white population. At Hugenot the officials of the Minister of Railways when the building of the station was finished, quite rightly put up the necessary segregation notices. An agitation was started and eventually the Minister of Railways interfered, with the result that there is no separation at Hugenot between Europeans and non-Europeans. And what was the excuse put up by the Minister of Railways? He said that it was not incumbent upon him to introduce segregation; it was a matter for the Government if it wanted to have segregation on public vehicles, and in areas and places on our railway stations where there usually was segregation. This, therefore, is not a subject which we can raise on the Vote of the Minister of Railways. He says it is a matter for the Government as a whole. In other words, the Vote where this matter has to be raised, is the Prime Minister’s Vote. The hon. member for Malmesbury has got up now and has raised this question and has asked the Prime Minister to state what his policy is, but the Prime Minister does not deign to reply. We hope that we may get an explicit statement from the Prime Minister in regard to his policy on this matter. We have read in the papers that in Cape Town at a meeting of non-Europeans he announced that the segregation policy in South Africa had been a failure. We want to know whether that means that even the small modicum of segregation which we have today will also have to disappear. It was quite bad enough in the past, especially here in the South, and in the Western Province, where our people who could not afford to travel first-class had to travel second-class along with natives and coloured people.

The reply given by the Prime Minister has made it perfectly clear that so far as Communism in South Africa is concerned, the poverty among certain sections of the population may easily create a breeding place for Communism, or for any movement of that kind. I admit at once that what has been suggested here will be of great assistance in remedying the position. Co-operation and education will contribute greatly towards the solution of those difficulties, but the unfortunate part of the position today is this, that as it is the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population which is suffering particularly as a result of those conditions of poverty they are the people who are stirred up. There is no community in the world which is so susceptible to politics as the Afrikaner. To my mind they are doing a great injustice to those people by acting in the way they are doing because these people all too often take part in politics and neglect their work. They do not do what they should do. Instead of building up they break down what has already been built up. The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) and the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) find it practically impossible to get up in this House without making some attack on the coloured section of the community.

I hope you like sitting next to a coloured woman in a public vehicle.

If we were to treat that section of the community with a little more tolerance, if we tried to do something for them, we should get on much better in this country than we do by always attacking them and trying to keep them down. The hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) with a great show spoke here today about photos which had been taken of letters which had come from Russia to South Africa, photographs which he had kept in his office. I should like to know from him what he has done about this matter?

He has done a lot, and he even had a law passed here.

I should like to know what he has done. If there really was any danger, as shown in those letters, then we could have expected him to have taken the House into his confidence so far as those letters are concerned. Now, the hon. member comes here and places only half a case before the House. We should like to know what happened in Germany when he was there and what the nature of his negotiations with Goering and other Nazi leaders was. We should like to hear something about that, rather than have these sly digs from him. An attack has been made here on the Treaty of Versailles. The Prime Minister has explained the position. The Treaty of Versailles is not the cause of the second world war. What happened there? We know that the Allies treated Germany better than Germany treated them. Germany had to pay about £1,600,000,000 war compensation, but as against that she got £2,000,000,000 from the Allies to improve her position. And what did she do? While England was disarmed under Baldwin and Ramsay MacDonald to such an extent that England was practically defenceless, Germany realised its opportunity immediately after the Treaty had been entered into to start arming and to make herself so powerful that she felt she could stand up to Russia, and as soon as she entered into a Treaty with Russia, she immediately caused the second world war to break out. The Vice-president of America said the other day that if we want to preserve the peace of the world we shall have to take more account of Russia after this war. I hope the Prime Minister will do everything in his power to see to it, when the peace treaty is being negotiated, that it will not become possible again for Germany to get into such a powerful position that a third world war will become necessary. Apparently there is a difference of opinion as to what Mr. Wallace, the Vice-president of America really did say, and I should therefore like to quote the report of his speech—

I hope that this opinion which has been expressed on behalf of the United States will be shared by England and by South Africa and also by the other countries which are at war with Germany today.

I want to add a few words to the doctrines which have already been pronounced in regard to the Prime Minister’s answer. At this stage I want to put this question. We have our own Communism in South Africa and the hon. member who has just sat down has tried to explain that if we are more tolerant and if we do not oppress the coloured people and the natives they will be better disposed towards us. The Prime Minister says that we have Communism in this country and I want to say a few words about the Communism which we have here. Where did that Communism come from? It has emanated from British Imperialism, that British Imperalism which I have always contested. From the days of yore we have always had equality here in the Cape Province. Even in the days of Dr. Philip it was felt that there should be equality and that Afrikanerdom should not recognise any difference in colour. Since those days segregation has been maintained and that is the basis of the conception of Calvinism. Calvinism has come to the rescue of the coloured people and of the natives; it has rescued them from barbarism. But for Calvinism barbarism would have continued. It was Calvinism which brought civilisation here and maintained it, not Liberalism. And what is this war all about? The war is supposed to be fought for the reformation of the world. No world can be reformed on any basis except that laid down by Him who disposes over our lives and our lot, also over the lot of the nations. And now we want to put up another power—we want to have a say even higher than He has. The Prime Minister told us that the Treaty of Versailles was not the cause of the present war. He piloted the Treaty of Versailles through this House. How can he say a thing like that? In those days the “Cape Times” and “Die Burger” were our Hansard and hon. members will find in those papers that the small and trivial opposition of those days attacked the Treaty so that the Prime Minister himself said: “I must admit that it is an injustice, a cruel and un-Christian peace.” He went further and he said that the peace treaty was going to be the cause of a subsequent war. Today he comes here and says that these things have nothing to do with each other. Sometimes one can hardly understand the Prime Minister. I do not want to repeat what other members have said about the future. The Prime Minister has represented the position as though there is going to be a heaven on earth, so long as we just see to it that everybody will have bread and butter. That apparently is his ideal. Apart from the question whether they will succeed in that I want to ask if that is all. Is bread and butter everything? That is where Bolshevism started. That is what led to the destruction of Tzarism. Those people only had a little bread and butter. So far as our own country is concerned we had to accept a peace in 1902, but Afrikaner sentiment could not be destroyed. That is why we have continued to exist. I do believe that we must play our part in the peace negotiations but we must play our part as South Africa. What is the position in our country today? Communism is spreading in all directions, and the Prime Minister has disarmed our own people. He has taken away our arms, the only security we had to protect ourselves from the Communist danger. The Prime Minister should remember when the next peace is concluded that Germany was not the only cause of the war, but all the Empire builders who want to build up their Empire on power and violence. Also the British Empire which among others has conquered us, and today Russia is the Ally of the British Empire. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, District (Mr. Hayward) asked what evidence there was to prove that Communistic influences are at work in this country. We cannot sufficiently emphasise the seriousness of the position. English-speaking as well as Afrikaansspeaking people are worried about the position. We are making South Africa fertile field for the spread of Communism by impoverishing the people. We are supplying mealies to a British Colony, Basutoland, while our own people have no food. It is high time the Government paid a little attention to our own people, and did less in the way of sacrificing everything for the sake of others.

I should like to say a word or two to the Prime Minister, before I am caught by the time limit again, on this question of Russia. If I remember correctly about twelve months ago a statement was made that South Africa and Russia proposed to exchange consular representatives. Russia has kept to that side of the agreement, and we, have in South Africa today a consular representative from the Soviet Union, and it does seem to me that the time has arrived when South Africa, even as a matter of courtesy, should reciprocate by sending some kind of a consular representative to Russia. But I feel it is not only a matter of courtesy—whatever our friends opposite may say, Russia is our Ally today; whatever they may think Russia has contributed in no small way to their safety and our safety. Whatever they may say the Russian army has made all the difference between the possibility of losing the war and the certainty of our winning it, and let me tell hon. members over there that Russia in the years after the war will wield a very considerable amount of influence in the world. The Prime Minister himself has spoken on several occasions about the possibility of finding new markets for South Africa’s products. I am not very much enamoured of this urge of exporting our products, but if new markets have to be found I am sure that Russia itself offers a vast field for-exploration in that respect, and it does seem to me to savour of an act of cowardice on the part of the Government that so far a consular representative to Russia has not been appointed. I know that such an appointment might be used by our friends of the Opposition for propaganda purposes, but we need not be afraid of that.

That would not concern me in the least.

No, I don’t think it would. But I do feel that as something which would benefit South Africa very much, the suggested promise which was made twelve months ago should be implemented. I must agree with the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) that the technique of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) seems to me to be to read long extracts from various obscure authors and to accept what they say as the last word on the matter.

Is the “London Times” obscure?

And is Petrie obscure and Stalin?

That quotation from Petrie was obviously written in a sarcastic vein. To pin anything fundamental on that is simply ridiculous. Now, as to the “London Times”—I am surprised that the hon. member for Beaufort West at this late stage of his political career should come here to quote the “London Times”. I was always under the impression that the “London Times” was anathema to the hon. member, and should be looked upon as the latest, and the most profound propagandist of British Imperialism, but the hon. member refers to what was written in 1938—and in those days the “London Times” was definitely anti-Russian—it was the mouthpiece of the Clivedon set, of which Mr. Chamberlain was the Leader … and that set was very definitely friendly to the Nazis.

I quoted from “Pravda”.

I am dealing with the article from the “London Times” which the hon. member referred to. It was an article written at a time when the paper adopted a very definite pro-Nazi Government. We know that before the war there was an influential section in Great Britain which was definitely pro-Nazi and antiRussian, and it is one of the tragedies of pre-war international politics that such a thing existed, and I would say that had the hand of friendship been held out to Russia many years previously, it may be that this war could have been averted, but we now see the stupidity of the major European countries in their anti-Russian policy, and let us hope that that stupidity will not be continued in the years after peace. Russia is the greatest single Power for peace in this world. She will come out of this war strengthened, and she will come out of this war certainly as a first class Power, and I am sure that her influence will be thrown into the scale on the balance of peace.

What about my first quotation?

The hon. member’s first quotation from “Pravda” contained nothing new, nothing which is contrary to my statement. Stalin, according to that, said that Socialism in Russia was not final. That is quite obvious. It cannot be final in one country—it must be international. The essence of Socialism is international. The essence of the Socialistic system is that all the countries in the world shall be Socialistic, and the difficulty encountered by Russia is this fact, that she is endeavouring to build up a Socialistic, economic system in a capitalistic world. As a matter of fact, even the Vice-President of America (Mr. Wallace) drew attention to that when he said: “We shall have to discover whether it is possible for Marxism to live side by side with some form of capitalism.” I don’t think it is possible to any extent, but Stalin did not say that it was the policy of the existing Soviet Government to make other countries Socialistic.

Oh, yes.

Oh, no; the reference to the Red Army is obviously a reference to the fact that Stalin was prepared to build up an army to maintain Socialism in the only country in which it existed, and my hon. friend is not going to prove anything by these obscure quotations here and there. The fact of the matter is that to anyone who has followed the history of Russia, of international politics in the pre-war era, it is plain that when the break came between Stalin and Trotsky it came on that question of spreading Socialism throughout the world, and the Trotskyites were consistently eliminated because they would not accept the Stalin policy, which was a policy of looking after Russia and not bothering about what was going on in other parts of the world. As a matter of fact, at one time in South Africa there were two or three Communists expelled from the Communist Party because they would not accept the Stalin policy. Here, fortunately, we have no process of elimination. I am surprised to find that while on the one hand the hon. member for Beaufort West considers that Russia has spread Communism—on the other hand, the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. R. A. T. van der Merwe) says that British Imperialism has spread Communism. The essence is that you cannot have revolution in any country unless revolutionary conditions exist. And what are revolutionary conditions? They are those suggested by the Prime Minister. If in this country we have large masses of the people living in poverty and degradation, then you have conditions under which a revolution can be embarked upon, and the greatest safety valve against a Communist revolution is to see that these conditions do not exist. I have no fear myself about a Communist revolution in the Union. [Time limit.]

The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in his reply this afternoon accused the hon. member for Pretoria, District (Mr. Oost) and our Party on this side of the House of trying to make a new enemy, namely America. The Prime Minister accused the official Opposition of trying to turn Russia into an enemy and he accused the Afrikaner Party of trying to turn America into an enemy. And the indictment which he has lodged against us is that in that way we are trying to stir up the people against the Government. I feel that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister got a totally wrong impression of the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria, District and of what the hon. member wants, and I contend that the charge made by the Prime Minister is totally uncalled for. The hon. member for Pretoria, District only asked for information to which the House and the public are entitled — the hon. member only wanted to know to what extent the Government was linking us to England by means of the Lease Lend Act. We were anxious to have received a reply from the Prime Minister to that question, but all we are able to deduce from the Prime Minister’s answer is that we have no direct agreement with America but that we are through England, carrying on trade with America and according to the official organ of the Department of Commerce and Industry we have in the course of six months received goods to a value of £9,500,000 from America, and the prospect is held out that this year we shall be getting goods to the value of £50,000,000 from America. I want to say at once to the Prime Minister that as a party we are still in exactly the same position as we were on the 4th September, 1939. We are at peace with all nations in the world, but we decline to be used by any other nation to take the chestnuts out of the fire, and we are afraid that we shall be linked up with England and that eventually we shall be inspanned in the same wagon as England is being inspanned today, and that together with England we shall after the war have to sing to the tune set by America. We are taking note of what America is doing, according to the newspapers. That is where we have to get our news from, but we would like the Prime Minister to tell us exactly what is going on. Even before America officially entered the war it rented certain bases from England in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. America rented those bases in order to reinforce them. It was further agreed between England and America that large quantities of raw materials and war equipment would be lent to England. But on the 2nd March a report appeared in the papers, a report from Washington, that is was proposed that the bases in the Western Hemisphere, which Great Britain had let to the United States should be permanently transferred to the United States. A Bill to that effect has been introduced in the American Senate by a democratic senator namely the representative of Maryland. Now, we want to know what our position is: We understand that our country is directly concerned in agreements which have been entered into and we also know that America supplies us with certain goods and that we owe America money. What is our account going to be, and how are we going to settle it? We are afraid that eventually, when the final account is rendered, we shall find ourselves in this position, that practically the same thing will happen as is indicated in the official journal of the Department of Commerce and Industries on page 104 which says this—

The question which we want to ask is to what extent this Lease Lend business is eventually going to link us up so that when the final settlement is made and America presents its account we may perhaps, tied to England, get America as the master of Simonstown, and we may again be involved in a possible war which Wallace predicts if certain things should happen. We should like to have some clarity in regard to the position, and we ask the Prime Minister to give us the information. If he can put our minds at rest by the information which he can give, then we shall not have the opportunity of stirring up the people, but if the Prime Minister wants to create a feeling of distrust among the community, then all he has to do is to hold back from the people information which the people should have. And that is what the Government is doing today. At the beginning of the Session we put some questions in this connection. I asked the Minister of Finance whether we had an agreement. The Minister replied “No”. The Prime Minister confirmed this today and said that there was no agreement. We want to know how without any agreement we can be dealing in millions—the official organ holds out the prospect that within the next few months we may perhaps be getting £50,000,000 worth of goods from America. That is the point in connection with which we want some information, and I further want to say that we cannot be satisfied with the Prime Minister’s reply. We want the Prime Minister to be frank with us. We want him to tell us what the position is. If we feel that the position is sound we shall have no case to submit to the public, and we shall not be able to create any feeling of distrust. There is just one Other point. There has been a lot of talk about poor whites, coloured people and natives, who will eventually go over to Communism as a result of the conditions under which they have to live, owing to the miserable poverty stricken position in which they find themselves. I put a question the other day to the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) when I asked him: “Do you not realise what you are doing? You are afraid that the natives and others will come under Communistic influence because they are forced to live below the bread line, but all the while you are gaily voting millions of money for another country’s war, while at the same time you have not got the money to supply food and clothes and housing for your own people.” That is the position. They are impoverishing our country — they are creating miserable conditions, and then they are scared of Communism which may arise in consequence of those miserable conditions. That is why we are unable to support the Government. I am surprised at hon. members who represent the natives being able to take up the attitude they do, and being able to support the war. The hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) the other day complained that because of a lack of medicines, and because of undernourishment, 65 per cent. of the native children in the Transkei died before they reached the age of two years. Meanwhile they are gaily voting hundreds of millions of pounds to carry on the war, while the money should be used to supply those commodities for the less privileged sections of the community in this country.

The Rt. Hon. the Prime Miniser pointed out this afternoon that We had a fertile soil for Communism in South Africa as a result of existing conditions. I thereupon asked him what was the cause of those conditions and the Primp Minister tried to brush away my question and tried to cast the responsibility for this condition of affairs from him. As the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Liebenberg) said just now the Prime Minister knows quite well that the poverty and misery which we have in South Africa dates back to the Anglo-Boer War, a war which was waged here in the interest of British capitalism and Imperialism. He also knows quite well that the previous war, the war of 1914 to 1918 in which we took part caused great misery and poverty in this country, and he also knows quite well that the present war, on which hundreds of millions of pounds is being spent, is not in our interest and will lead to poverty and misery. And that is why we are so strongly opposed to our participation in a foreign war, because we know what the aftermath will be; we know that there will be a great depression, misery and poverty, which in turn will create a fertile soil for Communism. And then we hold them responsible for that, and that is why this side of the House has insisted on South Africa getting out of the war. If we had kept out of the war South Africa could have been a prosperous country, and the problem of poor whiteism could have been solved. It was South Africa’s duty not to have made war on an enemy which was not hostile to us. It was our duty to have made war on poor whiteism in South Africa. The Prime Minister is responsible for the fact that we are not waging war to improve those conditions in South Africa. He is the man who is responsible for our participation in a foreign war. I did not get up so much for the purpose of speaking on this subject, but I got up to put a question to the Prime Minister, arising out of the statement which he made here this afternoon, namely that a General Election would probably be held in July or August. We now know that there is going to be a General Election. As the Prime has told us that there is going to be an Election it is essential that the country should have a reply in regard to a statement made by one of his Ministers who today is no longer a Minister, namely Col. Reitz who now represents us in London. When he was Deputy-Prime Minister he made a very far-reaching statement in connection with the Election. He said that when the Election was held and if it should so happen that the Opposition should get a majority the Government would not resign, and it would not hand over the reins to the elected Government of the country. That statement of the Deputy-Prime Minister caused considerable dismay throughout this country and among the public outside, and it is essential that we should have clarity on this point, and that the Prime Minister should tell us what his attitude will be. There are other Ministers who did not associate themselves with that statement of the Deputy-Prime Minister’s. The Prime Minister, himself, however, has not done so, and the Prime Minister owes it to the country to say whether he associates himself with that unconstitutional attitude of the Deputy-Prime Minister. We read in the Press this morning about a man who was sentenced to death for high treason. It was held that he refused to respect the legal authority of the country and that he had acted unconstitutionally. Here the Deputy-Prime Minister declared himself prepared to commit an illegal and unconstitutional act, and to be disobedient to authority in the country. If ever there was a man occupying a responsible post in this country and who abused his position, and who in the most serious manner was guilty of unconstitutional action, it was the Deputy-Prime Minister. Is his removal to London perhaps the result of this statement of his? We should like to know what the Prime Minister has to say about it. It is essential that we should hear what the attitude of the Prime Minister is. If he does not associate himself with what his Deputy-Prime Minister said then he owes a statement to the country. If het does not effectively reply to this question then the Prime Minister must be held responsible for any illegal action in the country. Then the country will know that there no longer is any authority. It is no use them holding an election because it is clear that the people’s judgment will not be respected. This matter is of very far-reaching importance and I hope therefore that the Prime Minister will regard the matter as being so serious that he will give us a reply, and tell us what his attitude is. I further want to point this out—the Prime Minister has appointed a National Supply Board. Is that Board functioning at the moment, and what is the Board doing to improve the position in South Africa in regard to the prevailing scarcity of certain commodities? We know that there are certain stocks in the country which we are unable to obtain, and which are required in this country, especially so far as the producers are concerned. We should like to know what is being done to improve that position? The Prime Minister perhaps does not know it but there are certain necessary requirements which are not coming into the country but which cannot be obtained. Mowing machines and harrows are among them. I should like to know whether the National Supply Board is devising plans to meet our requirements? I also want to know what the National Supply Board is doing to induce people in this country who have stocks at their disposal and who are not placing those stocks on the market, to place those stocks on the market? I am informed that certain dealers for instance have quantities of fertilisers which they keep locked up for the purpose of selling it later on at large profits. I want to ask what the National Supply Board is doing to prevent such hoarding. There are other necessary supplies which I am told are in the possession of certain dealers who are not parting with them, but who are holding them in the expectation of higher prices, so that they may make larger profits. I have had personal experience of having sent to a shop to buy some spades. The owner was not prepared to sell the spades he had in stock because he knew that if he kept these articles a little longer they would be more expensive and he would be able to sell them at a higher price. I should like to know what steps the National Supply Board is taking to prevent such hoarding of stocks and to meet the shortage of supplies owing to nothing coming in because of lack of shipping.

In his reply to the debate, the Prime Minister declared that so far as Communism was concerned, there was no danger. He said that the Government was keeping its eye on any possible danger. If I see what is happening on the platteland, then it appears to me that the Prime Minister does not know what is going on. Natives come from Johannesburg with an orchestra and travel from place to place. They make music and natives come from long distances to listen to them. At the end of the concert Communistic propaganda is made. Anyone familiar with the sentiments of the natives knows that there is fertile soil among the natives for the Communistic seed, and the same thing applies to certain sections of the coloured people, and it even applies to certain Europeans of the poorer classes. Knowing these facts, and, although the Prime Minister himself knows this, we find that the Prime Minister is one of those who not only encourages Communism, but recommends it. The Prime Minister made a statement in the Cape Town City Hall, in which he said that segregation has been a failure. At a meeting of coloured people he went further and he said this—

The Prime Minister by this irresponsible statement of his gave the coloured people and the natives to understand that this population of 10,000,000 people were on a footing of equality. I say that that sort of thing encourages Communism, and I hope that the Prime Minister in admitting that this danger does exist will in future be more guarded in his statements about equality. There is another matter on which I want to say a few words, and that is about the soldiers of the 1st Division who are on leave. One of those soldiers told me that they had been given a fixed period of leave. Having been in the field for a couple of years, the money standing to their credit in their pay book had been paid out to them. They now have to return to their camps. This particular man is stationed at Sonderwater. They have now been made this offer, that if they are prepared to take the new oath, they will be entitled to a further advance of £25 and another twenty-eight days’ leave. If that is the Prime Minister’s method of increasing his army, then I can only describe it as a very poor way of doing things. The Prime Minister has made this statement about the 1st Division. He told us that nothing was too good for those people. If nothing is too good for them, why does he tell them now that they will get another £25 and twenty-eight days’ leave, provided they take the new oath? Why does not the Prime Minister simply tell them this: “You people have been fighting for a long time, you can get another twenty-eight days and draw £25.” That would be fairer, but to use this method to strengthen his army is most reprehensible.

Arising out of what the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) has said in regard to the changes which have taken place in the Cabinet I should like to say a few words. What I am going to say here is not intended as a personal attack on Ministers. The Prime Minister said that there was Communism in South Africa but that it was due to conditions prevailing here. I feel that it is the Prime Minister particularly who is responsible. We have to hold him responsible to a certain extent for the malconditions prevailing here. We feel that South Africa of late has not been very fortunate so far as the appointment of Cabinet Ministers is concerned. I don’t want to say that they are not able or fit for some post or other, but they are not fit for the posts to which they are appointed. The Prime Minister should consider whether those people are personally competent to fill the posts to which they are appointed, and whether they are familiar with the conditions which they will have to control in the Department with which they will have to deal. In the third place I feel that the Prime Minister appoints people who are old, people who have not got the necessary energy to put things through and to solve this difficult question. We have already criticised the Minister of Agriculture—not him personally, because he is a charming and very nice man, but we feel that he is not the right man in the right place to put farming in South Africa on its proper foundation. Things have already gone wrong under his administration. And now the Prime Minister has appointed someone from outside to occupy the important Portfolio of Commerce and Industry. I should like the Prime Minister to give us a reason why he appointed a person from outside, a man who is not conversant with conditions in South Africa, and who is not familiar with our requirements. We must take it that “Die Suiderstem” speaks on behalf of the Government because “Die Suiderstem” is the chief official organ representing the Government’s views. “Die Suiderstem” now comes along with reasons to tell us why the Prime Minister went outside to appoint someone and did not take someone from his own ranks, from sitting behind him. We should like to know whether the Prime Minister agrees with what the principal organ of his own Party has to say on the matter? We have a man for instance like the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Mushet) who is fully conversant with commerce and industry in this country, and we thought that he would have been selected when Col. Reitz went to London. We have the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood); we feel that these people would have been better. The Minister of Lands has just come in. “Die Suiderstem” practically belongs to him and we wonder whether the Prime Minister agreed with what that paper said.

Are you quite sure that what you are going to quote appears in “Die Suiderstem”.

Yes, I am going to quote from “Die Suiderstem” and the hon. the Minister knows that if I say that I am quoting from “Die Suiderstem” then I am quoting from that paper. “Die Suiderstem” is his official organ; he is the Chairman of that paper, and on the 23rd December, 1942, “Die Suiderstem” contained this leading article. This was shortly after Mr. Stuttaford had resigned as Minister, and the paper on that occasion said this—[Translation]

That is a leading article in the paper of the Minister of Lands. It says that if the large proportion of the members of the Cabinet do not resign the public themselves will take up the matter. And then the paper goes on—

Now listen to what the paper says—

Imagine! That is a statement in the Government’s principal organ. It says that of all those members opposite not one has the ability to he appointed to the Cabinet — what confidence can there be in such a Government then? And listen to what the paper further said—

And that is the paper of the Minister of Lands which carried out his instructions, and it says this—

Is it not a terrible thing that people like that should have to rule this country? And then the paper goes on—

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr, Liebenberg) has touched on a few points and the Prime Minister has given us a bit of an answer but we have cause to be dissatisfied with the way he replied to our remarks. The Prime Minister said that there was no agreement between this country and America. Thereafer he gave the House some further information and he told us that we obtained all our goods form England and England got supplies from America: but surely, an agreement must have been arrived at and the Prime Minister should have informed us. The position is as follows — an agreement was entered into — unless all the newspapers lie and all the books dealing with this matter tell an untruth. On the 1st January, 1942, an international agreement was signed. It has always been a definite rule and a very essential rule in this Parliament that when our Government makes a treaty with any other country, that treaty is laid on the Table of the House. In my experience, and I believe also in the experience of the Prime Minister, that is a definite rule, because Parliament has the right to know what is being done in that regard. Parliament has to know what our relationship is towards other countries. An agreement was entered into not merely with one country but with no fewer than twenty-five countries. They are linked up with us and we with them. The agreement, according to the newspapers, is that we shall do our utmost and that we shall make available all our resources for the purpose of prosecuting the war. It further states that we shall not make peace and not even enter into an armistice without the approval of the other twenty-five. This is a most important agreement, probably the most important agreement ever concluded in the history of the Union of South Africa. Now, where are the documents relating to this agreement? Why has not the Prime Minister notified the House? That agreement was entered into on the 1st January, 1942, and up to the present we have had no official notification. We have to sense what is going on. These are matters of the greatest importance to this country, to the public and to Parliament. Has the Prime Minister now become such a dictator that Parliament means nothing to him? We know he has the power to rule by regulations and decrees, but he cannot cut out Parliament altogether.

But he did tell us that no agreement was made.

I can prove by documents that on the 1st January, 1942, an agreement was entered into on our behalf and signed by Mr. Close in America. I have seen the facsimile of that agreement and his name comes after Mr. Churchill’s. The two follow each other. Why is it that the Prime Minister does not inform us of the position? Are we to go along like a lot of sheep? Surely that is not how the representatives of the people should be treated? The public are fobbed off in this way and it is perfectly clear that if we go on like this we shall do irreparable harm to our democratic system. We are told that we are fighting for democracy. We are spending tens of millions of pounds, and our men are shedding their blood for the sake of democracy. Millions of people are giving their lives for the sake of democracy, yet the very first principle of democracy is being violated by the attitude adopted by the Prime Minister. I am putting the position very crudely and I am using hard words because it is necessary to do so, as I feel dissatisfied and insulted by the remarks the Prime Minister made when, instead of admitting his guilt, he declared that the Afrikaner Party was making trouble and sowing distrust among the public. He says that we are making a new enemy now. No, what we stand for is that we as a Parliament shall maintain the rights entrusted to us by the people of this country, and we are going to force the Minister to uphold those rights. The Prime Minister knows better than I do what is going on in the Southern part of Africa. I have lodged a protest against our future being jeopardised by the Government at a time when our sons are giving their lives up North for the sake of our development and for the sake of our trade and commerce in days to come. When there were great opportunities for developing our trade with the Congo, for instance, we allowed our chance to slip past, and we have allowed America to step in. America now has an air line with the Congo and a shipping line to the Congo. We are now trying to get in, but they tell us: “That’s all very well, but we have already entered into commercial relations with America and we no longer need you.” I have already referred to the fact that America has appointed a committee of forty experts to draft a report about the Southern part of Africa, and that committee in its report says this—

American penetration in the Southern part of Africa has increased tremendously. That being so, am I not entitled to urge: “Help us by giving us inforation and tell us what the position is”. And now the Prime Minister says that there is no agreement between ourselves and America. We are going to insist until we know what the position is. We don’t ask out of sheer curiosity. The public want to know and they are entitled to know what is going on.

But the Prime Minister has told you that there is no agreement.

Let the Prime Minister give me that assurance.

He has given it.

No, no, he has not. The hon. member misunderstands the position. I asked the Prime Minister whether there was an agreement with America about “lease and lend”. The Prime Minister thereupon said “no” and he went on to tell us what I had heard long ago, namely that all our dealings were through England. But I was speaking about the agreement entered into between twenty-six countries which had been signed on the 1st January, 1942. What disgusts one is that the rights of Parliament are being violated in this way.

The hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Bosman) put up a plea on behalf of the parents whose minor children have gone on active service, and the Prime Minister told him that he would like to see the letters and that he would go thoroughly into the matter. I must say that the Prime Minister’s reply was a very reassuring one, and the whole House has appreciated it, and I would also appreciate it if unfortunately I had not known of a case which occurred in my own constituency. I have no reason to assume that the Prime Minister as the head of the Department of Defence and as the head of the Government is not aware of this matter. In my constituency, too, there has been a case where the parents were anxious to get their minor child who had joined up out of the army. The parents’ request was turned down, after which the parents went to court. Are we to assume now that the Prime Minister is not aware of the fact that the Government lost that case, that the case was decided in the High Court against the Government? And is the Prime Minister not aware of the fact that after the case had been decided against the Government this young fellow who was a minor was not yet released? No, instead of releasing him an appeal was noted. The young fellow was kept in the army and an appeal was noted, so we cannot go into the matter any further now because the case is sub judice. It is very difficult to attach any value to the promise of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to the hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Bosman) if one knows that such things are going on, and that although the parents of a minor have won a case against the Government, the Government has gone to appeal. I want to express the hope that the finding of the Appellate Division will be such that if minor children have joined the army, they will be given their discharge if their parents object. Now let me say a word to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, District (Mr. Hayward). He attacked the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) this afternoon, and he said that the hon. member hardly ever got up without having a lot to say about the coloured people, and he went on to say that if this side of the House, and he mentioned the hon. member for Malmesbury, showed a better feeling towards the coloured people, the position would be very much better than it is today. I want to ask the hon. member why the impression should be created that we are opposed to the coloured community? Why must the Nationalist Party be stigmatised as anti-coloured, seeing that that is not the case? History can prove that it is the Afrikaans-speaking population of the country in particular which is not only well disposed to the non-European population, but also willing at all times not only to render temporal assistance to the coloured community but also spiritual assistance. No, if the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, District does not know it—but he does know it—then I want to repeat that we are not anticoloured, but we are opposed to bastardisation in this country; and it is that ideal, which our ancestors in this country stood for, which we want to build up, and it is that ideal which compels us to take up this attitude. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) spoke of the position at Huguenot Station. At the beginning of this Session I put a question to the Minister of Railways, when I told him that a certain lady teacher who wanted to travel to Kimberley found that she had been booked in the same compartment with a non-European. I then asked the Minister: “Tell us whether this happened accidentally; that sort of thing may happen, but if it is not just an accident then we want to know what the Government’s policy is?” After that I received some enquiries from the Head of the Department and I told him that I was not really interested in the matter if the whole affair had been merely an accident. Now, I again want to ask the Prime Minister what the Government’s policy is in this respect, what the Government’s policy is on the subject of Europeans and non-Europeans having to travel together on the railways in the same compartment over long distances and short distances? Court cases have been decided in favour of the non-European community against the Government on this point. Is the Government going to take action, or is it simply going to allow matters to go on and is it going to allow the position to develop as it pleases. It is our duty as the descendants of our ancestors to prevent bastardisation increasing any more than it has done so far, and that is why we want to know from the Government what its policy is going to be in future in regard to this matter. We also have this fact, that free passes are being granted to native lay preachers, allowing them to travel second class. Is the Government going to allow that? Is the system which used to be in force in the past to be ignored in this way? We have the right to demand an answer from the Government; we have the right in the interest of white South Africa to demand a statement from the Government and to know what its policy is.

I do not think that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister can accuse these benches of discourtesy towards him. We put the matter from this side of the House on its merits, and we did not expect that he would cast the undeserved reflection on us that we are busy seeking enemies for South Africa. We broached this question during the discussion on the general Budget, namely, in how far we are committed by this lease-lend system which is in operation today. I broached it here in my Budget speech, for instance, and I expected we would then receive a reply to it. After the matter was very ably represented here by the hon. member for Pretoria, District (Mr. Oost) the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister interpreted it to the effect that by raising the matter here we are seeking to make an enemy of America. Let me tell him that this is as far from our minds as the East is from the West. But an international matter is at stake here that will affect South Africa’s life arteries if we do not know everything about it. We would not be worth our salt as members of Parliament if we simply sit still and do not ascertain in how far we are committed under this system. We are in complete ignorance as regards that lease-lend system. We do not know if South Africa has undertaken commitments to make available certain of our bases under that system, just as Great Britain has done. We do not know if tomorrow or the next day a law will appear to the effect that America has decided to take into permanent occupation some base or another in South Africa. I have already mentioned it here. I think the Prime Minister owes the country and the people an unambiguous statement regarding that lease-lend system. It seems that we are simply giving America carte blanche as regards conditions. The matter is put very clearly in this article published by one of the officials in this periodical of the Department of Commerce and Industry, that the conditions are still to be laid down. There are no specific conditions; and in the same article it is mentioned that in the event of an American warship entering our harbours in a damaged condition, this country and its people will be responsible for the repairs. The example is given in the same article that if a military ship or a military convoy touches at our ports, South Africa will be called upon under that system to supply the requirements for equipment, even as regards clothing for the soldiers. These are definitely matters about which the country and the House need more enlightenment. If we follow the figures given here, then it appears that the commitments in respect of Great Britain have already risen since 31st May, 1941, to 1st December, 1941, from 118,000,000,000 dollars to 447,000,000,000 dollars, and that South Africa already stands committed to a sum of 9,000,000,000 dollars over a period of six months. What is more, it is envisaged that the President of America will be empowered to make available shortly a sum of up to 11,000,000,000 dollars. Those are colossal sums for a small country such as South Africa, and we are concerned about the position. We do not make this enquiry, we do not request this information from the Prime Minister, from an attitude of hostility, but we desire this information because we are concerned about the safety of South Africa under the international circumstances in which we live. We are concerned that our domestic affairs will be so compromised after this war that we shall emerge from the game committed head and heel. I asked the Prime Minister in my speech whether South Africa is treated under this lease-lend system merely as an integral part of Great Britain. According to the reply he gave this afternoon, we must come to the conclusion that we have not concluded separate terms with America, and that we are treated purely as an integral part of Great Britain. I would like to know further to what extent our factories in this country are at the disposal of the United States, to what extent armament is produced here for the benefit of the United States of America. What are the benefits that we as an independent country derive from that lease-lend system? These are questions in respect of which we would very much like to get an unambiguous reply from the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, and I would just like to conclude by saying to him: We are not putting these questions to embarrass him or from an attitude of hostility; no, we put these questions because we feel deeply concerned about the direction in which we are going.

Perhaps I had better reply at once to the question of the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen). The hon. member is afraid that as a result of the lease-lend system which we are taking part in, through Great Britain, not under an agreement of our own, but through Great Britain, we may perhaps get into further complications with America and we may perhaps afterwards find ourselves landed in a similar situation as England which had to give up certain bases to America. Just let me say this: the letting of certain bases to America took place before the days of lease-lend. That was the first attempt made by President Roosevelt, even before America got into the war, it was the first thing he tried to assist the Allies and Great Britain. He saw no other way out except to rent certain islands for strategic purposes in the West Indies in return for the fifty destroyers placed at England’s disposal. This is an arrangement which was made before the war and it caused a great deal of comment and a certain amount of feeling. Afterwards President Roosevelt, who really wanted to assist without causing unnecessary feeling, hit on the idea that there was a better method. He felt very seriously that the war debt should not be accumulated again in the way they had experienced in the previous war, and he thereupon devised a scheme which they called lease-lend. That is to say: no debt would again be incurred to hang like a millstone round the necks of the nations; but that those Allies which were in a position to render assistance, Allies in the position that America was in, would render assistance without pay. That is how lease-lend came into being; the idea was that America out of its great resources would give without any account being kept of what she gave, or without any payment taking place. Lease-lend was introduced in substitution of the old custom under which America asked for bases in exchange for destroyers. That is the answer to the hon. member’s question, and also to the question put by the hon. member for Pretoria, District (Mr. Oost).

What about the agreement?

I am answering these points one by one. That is the answer to that question. It has never been suggested that we should give up any bases for the lease-lend assistance which we are indirectly getting through Great Britain from America. Naturally, the assistance we are getting is tremendous. If we had to pay cash for the aeroplanes and the other war material which we are getting from America, it would cost us very large amounts of money. We are getting these things for nothing now as matters are today. The only thing America has asked of us so far is this, that when American troops or ships are passing our coasts and our harbours and we are able to assist those ships by means of supplies, stores, or by way of repairs, we must do so. We have been asked for a certain amount of quid pro quo for the huge concessions and assistance we are getting from America. And that is what we are doing—if American ships pass our coasts or if troops pass here and call here requiring provisions, then we supply these things without asking for any pay. That is the way in which in practice we are carrying out lease-lend. As I have already said, we have not yet entered into any definite agreement with America. England, New Zealand and Australia have already done so; we have not yet done so. The American Government proposes sending out a negotiator here to discuss the matter with us and to ascertain what we can reasonably be asked to supply in return for the great help we are getting. That is the whole history of lease-lend, as I am telling the House now. The hon. member for Pretoria, District raised the other question and asked why the statement of the 1st January …

The agreement.

Yes, in actual fact it is a declaration by twenty-six nations—the hon. member asked why it had not been laid on the Table of the House. My Department informs me that it is not customary to lay a declaration, even a signed declaration such as this on the Table of the House. It has been published in the Government Gazette but according to my information it is not customary to lay it on the Table of the House. It has been published in the Government Gazette and that is the way it has been made public. The declaration contains two undertakings. The one is this—

In that declaration we undertake to use all our resources in the conflict which is now being waged against the Axis Powers. The second undertaking reads as follows—

On both these points the House has expressed itself repeatedly during the war. The proposal for a separate peace has been turned down. I think we have turned it down twice. We are going to carry on until the end of the war, and we are using all our resources to take part in the war. There is nothing new in that. This matter has been before the House by way of individual motions. What happened after that is that we had the formal declaration which was signed in America on the 2nd January, 1942, by the twenty-six nations, afterwards by twenty-eight nations. My Department informs me that it is not customary to lay such documents on the Table of the House. These matters are published in the Government Gazette, which has been done. That is all I want to say on that point. Now, while I am on my feet, may I be allowed to deal with a few other points? The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) resented the fact that through a pure oversight—which I regret—I did not answer his question this afternoon. I touched on a number of other questions of high politics, and unfortunately I overlooked the question he had raised. It has now also been raised by the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Hugo), and I want to deal with it. It is a question which concerns the Government’s policy so far as the coloured people are concerned, it deals with the subject of special treatment—of treating the coloured people differently from others, of giving them separate areas to live in, and so on. Now, this is the Government’s policy, namely, that the principle of separate residential areas is the only sound one, and so far as the Government is able to carry that out, that is the policy which is being carried out. The millions of pounds which we are now voting from time to time, which we are providing for the improvement of housing conditions in all our towns and villages, are being provided bearing in mind the principle that in every case proper provision must be made for the various sections of the population, so that in days to come there shall not be any intermixing so far as the different sections of the population are concerned. That is the policy which has been laid down. The difficulty which has arisen in the past is this: we have conditions, particularly in the Cape Province, which have prevailed here for many years, under which the coloured people in the villages are to a very large extent living contiguous to, and mixed up with, the Europeans.

And are things to remain like that?

No, but this is one of the most difficult questions we have to contend with. It is a question for which a solution may probably be found by an improvement of our housing conditions, by an extension of housing schemes. It is one of the most difficult questions to tackle. These conditions have existed for generations in the towns. So far as the future is concerned, our policy is a pure one.

What are you going to do in regard to non-Europeans who are now living in the villages in European districts?

So far as the coloured population is concerned, no provision has been made for that.

Do you not propose making any provision?

No provision has been made. The only policy which the Government now has is to establish separate residential areas by making provision for the future. We have not laid down an policy in regard to such conditions of affairs where these people are already to a certain extent living together — where they are mixed up in the same areas. The hon. member also put a question about the buses. Surely that is a local matter. Why should the Government lay down a policy where the question is entirely a local affair?

Surely the Government is the highest authority in the country.

Yes, that is so but the Government is not called upon to solve all the troubles in the country, when they come under local control.

But surely the relationship between black and white is a national affair.

Yes, but this is a question which time will have to solve.

What about the trains?

The difficulty existing on the trains today is such that it cannot be solved. The House knows that we are taking every possible step, even to curtailing traffic on the trains, owing to there not being sufficient accommodation for all the traffic, and at the present stage it is quite impossible to apply a measure of segregation such as proposed by the hon. member.

Are there going to be separate polling booths for Europeans and non-Europeans at the next Election?

I do not know what provision has been made in that regard. Those are questions which can be discussed with my colleague, the Minister of the Interior. I do not know whether there are separate polling booths.

It is an important question.

Yes, it is an important question but it is very difficult in time of war, when there is a shortage of practically everything, to try and bring about a social revolution. There are many things which can be done in normal circumstances, but which cannot be done today because of shortage of staff, shortage of building material and all kinds of other factors. It is quite impracticable to do these things today. Now I wish to say a few words regarding the remarks of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) about Col. Reitz. The hon. member was not fair in what he said.

But he did say it.

The next day Col. Reitz stated publicly that the statement he had made represented his personal opinion and that it had nothing to do with the Government’s policy. Within a week, or at the utmost within two weeks, I was asked at one of my meetings what my attitude was. I do not know whether it was reported, but the question was put to me whether that was the Government’s policy and I did say that it was not the Government’s policy. Before that, however, Mr. Reitz had already said that it was a personal expression of opinion, which did not in any way bind the Government. The Government was not bound by it.

Is that the reason why he was sent to London?

There were better reasons.

Good gracious? Has he done more harm?

Do you repudiate his statement.

I disapproved of it, and I said that it was not the Government’s policy. I must be bereft of my senses ….

Then he is bereft of his senses.

No, is is one of the best men in the world. Hon. members opposite perhaps do not know him as well as I do, but he is one of the best.

But you agree that he is bereft of his senses?

If the hon. member had one-tenth of his sense he could be grateful.

Then I would not be here.

An hon. member has asked what the position is in respect of a National Supply Board, and whether any steps will be taken to try and secure the materials where there is a shortage of material for agricultural and other requirements. That is the very thing for which this Board has been created, and it will be done. Where there is a shortage of anything, efforts will be made to try and secure the necessary goods, and enquiries will also be made into the question whether any goods are being hoarded.

That does happen.

Any cases that are notified are enquired into and the Controllers step in if such things occur. Of course, the public has to assist in matters of this kind. The Supply Board has its branches throughout the whole country, there are numerous agencies which scrutinise everything, but unless complaints are made to notify the proper authorities that an individual is holding back, or is hoarding certain quantities of goods, it is difficult to take action. I hope the public will assist us. We can only take action if we get information. But I want to say that we cannot allow certain people to get higher prices and to make larger profits by hoarding goods at a time when the country is experiencing more and more shortages in its requirements. For that reason we have passed the War Emergency Measures and we shall certainy take action when we have the information at our disposal.

As regards the least-lend business, we have now obtained a statement from the Prime Minister that shows that a very unsatisfactory position prevails, and from which it appears that many unbusinesslike methods are being pursued. The Prime Minister admits that no accounts are being kept.

Records are kept in certain measure, but not accounts.

In any case it comes down to this, that American troops who come round this way get all the provisions and equipment they require, but there are no direct arrangements with America.

Not yet.

We have not a lease, but a sub-lease.

It still has to be arranged.

I want to express the hope that a proper arrangement will be made as soon as possible in connection with the matter. It seems that everything at the moment is on an extremely loose footing.

We are negotiating in connection with that.

We have had a very interesting admission from the Prime Minister in connection with lease-lend, viz. that America gave this help to England even before America was in the war. It makes me think back on discussions that we have had here since the beginning of the war, more especially since America came into the war, and on the speeches of the Prime Minister in which he indicated that America could not do otherwise, that America was obliged to go into the war. We pointed out that America was looking for trouble, and got it. Now the Prime Minister tells us that America, even before she came into the war, took up a non-neutral attitude. The Prime Minister has now admitted that the League of Nations was a hopeless failure, but he says that the League of Nations is now doing other work. There is for instance the International Labour Office, and other economic work is being done; but the hon. Prime Minister will admit that the League of Nations was not established with the object of undertaking these subsidiary activities. It was established for one purpose, viz. to maintain peace between the nations of the world. That was the main object. The other matters were perhaps mentioned.

In the Covenant.

Possibly, but the main object was the Wilson idea for an international body to safeguard the peace of the world. In this respect the League of Nations was a hopeless failure, and the Prime Minister as much as admitted it today. The other work that is done by the International Labour Office may be of importance, but as regards the economic work, this cannot be described otherwise than the collecting of statistics. The League of Nations did not answer its original purpose, and the Leader of the Opposition has rightly said that the League of Nations has collapsed. The office is not even in Geneva now, and the economic and social work is being done in Canada and elsewhere. But now the Prime Minister said something else this afternoon that gives me more reason for proposing to delete the amount for the League of Nations; the Prime Minister envisaged a new League of Nations, and it was very clear from his words that what he now has in mind is the French idea about a League of Nations, with an international army. For the Prime Minister indicated, if I understood him correctly, that the new League of Nations should now have the might to maintain peace. If that is the idea which the Prime Minister has about the future League of Nations, and if he wants us to participate in an international body that must maintain an international police service over Europe, then the sooner we get out of it the better. We spend about £25,000 on the League of Nations every year, and the Hon. Prime Minister knows that only a few other countries are still paying.

We are one of the few.

I then want to ask just from a business point of view, apart from other matters, whether it is good business for us to go on paying for a body that no longer answers its purpose, and in connection with which other countries have ceased their contributions. May I point in passing to what the Irish Government has done? In the periodical of the Empire Parliamentary Association an intimation was published, I think last year, that the Irish Parliament had decided to make what is called a token payment of £5. If the Prime Minister is so anxious that we should maintain our association with the League of Nations, then he can do as Ireland does and make a token payment. Why must we pay £25,000 every year? I think it is a wise policy that is being followed by Ireland, but in view of the failure of the League of Nations we take up the standpoint that we do not even want to make a token payment, and I therefore want to move—

Before I sit down I want to revert to the other matter which I mentioned. The Prime Minister said in his reply that Communist activities exist in South Africa, but his reply was by no means satisfactory, and some of his own followers will be deeply disappointed at the reply. It is not enough for the Prime Minister to say that the Government is watching the position. What we need, no matter whether it is something that angers Russia or not, or whether there is a link between the Russian Communists and the local Communist Party or not, is that a stop must be put to the propaganda. He cannot again follow the policy of letting things develop, as he did in the past. The Prime Minister knows what the consequences were of letting things develop. We warn the Prime Minister. Things are developing faster than the Prime Minister realises. I want to say this to him: He was not in the House when I employed a certain quotation the other day. He says that there is no connection between the Communists in Russia, between the Soviet Government and the Communist Party here. I do not agree with him, and it surprises me that he really thinks this is so. The other day I quoted something from the “London Times” of 3rd March, 1938, that is to say, a year before the war. Under the section “Parliamentary Reports”, the “London Times” published the following report—

I would also like to bring a few matters to the special attention of the Prime Minister. It is necessary, because injustices are being perpetrated and unnecessarily harsh action is being taken. The first case I want to mention is the case of a young man who was smuggled into the army, I do not know in what way. I have here a letter from the parents, and it appears from this that the boy was a railway worker. He was sent to Durban, and from there he was to have gone to Alexandria on a patrol. When the parents heard for the first time that he was in the army, they got a letter from Alexandria. When the father wrote that his son must be sent back, the reply was that the boy was not born on 26th January, 1925, but on 26th January, 1924. It appears that the boy added a year to his age in order to experience that adventure. I can tell the hon. Prime Minister that I have here a pleading letter from his father, who writes that his son must be sent back immediately. Now it seems to me that the Department of Defence does not adhere fully to the promise of the Prime Minister to ensure that where boys join the army purely for adventure, against the will and wish of their parents, that there the Department should be of assistance in sending such boys back.

The difficulty is that the boys do not want to come back.

In this case, if the Prime Minister wants to be helpful, I think the boy would very much like to come back. It appears from the letter of the father, who is a very reliable person, that the boy thought that he was only going to Alexandria with a patrol to do certain patrol work there, and that he would then be sent back immediately to South Africa to be taken back into the railway service. That is the position, and I would like the Minister to give instructions for an enquiry into the case. I can give the name and the address. The second case is one of a man who has been in the army a long time. He is one of my constituents who joined up just after the outbreak of war. He is a single man and he has been in the army for more than three years. He has remained here in South Africa all the time, and now he says that in those three years he has gone through all the possible regimental training, while his farm became almost completely neglected. He had nobody there except a lady living on a neighbouring farm who out of friendship went to look now and again and held a little supervision. Now the man is asking for farmer’s leave. He says that he will always be prepared to respond if the Prime Minister needs him, but he would like to have leave to look after his farm.

What became of the well-disposed lady?

These are my constituents. She lives on a neighbouring farm and now and then looks after the farming a little. He would like to get farmer’s leave.

Let me have the particulars.

I handed in the particulars some time ago to the Department, but I got no reply. It seems to me that the request has not been acceded to, and I would like the Prime Minister to give instruction that the matter be sympathetically considered. I am glad that the Minister of Agriculture is here, because I want to ask the Prime Minister is he does not think that the time has arrived that we in South Africa should apply an agricultural policy that will prevent the deterioration of our land. We are busy ruining our land. I gave an exposition of the position during the budget debate. I am convinced that we have to do here with a serious condition. We are committing soil piracy in our country. Perhaps the Prime Minister is very busy and does not realise how the soil is being exhausted by this piracy. In the mealie areas we exhaust the land year after year, and before long we shall not be able to produce at all. We impoverish the soil in such a way that before many years have elapsed, the small farmers on the smaller farms will no longer be able to make a livelihood.

Have you a plan?

I have a plan, but not a formulated plan. I want to suggest that the Prime Minister should create a farming council consisting of leading farmers; no politics must come into it, and that farming council must advise the Government regarding a policy for the conservation of our agricultural land in the future. There are a number of practical farmers here in this House and they will be prepared to extend assistance, all the assistance the Minister will require. We do not want politics in it, but our land is becoming impoverished and we must do something.

In reply to a question from the hon. member for Oudsthoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) in connection with statements made by Mr. Reitz when he was acting Prime Minister, the Prime Minister said that a person who makes such statements—it boils down to that—must be bereft of his senses. The Prime Minister did not put it precisely like that, but he said that anyone who agreed with it must be bereft of his senses.

Surely I am not bereft of my senses.

Precisely, and therefore you do not agree with Mr. Reitz. I want to say that the Prime Minister is very much inclined to make other people say what he himself does not like to say. A kite is sent up to see how the wind blows, and if the wind blows in the wrong direction then such a person is repudiated, and then it is said that the person who made such a statement must be bereft of his senses. I remember the great commotion a year or 18 months ago when the same Mr. Reitz, Minister of Native Affairs at the time, made a speech in which he said that it would be desirable to arm the natives.

All the natives.

Yes, but at that time no natives whatever were armed, and then the Minister sent up the kite. When he saw that the wind did not blow strongly on the subject, he made a commencement with the arming of natives. For that reason, although we have never attached any value to anything that was said by Mr. Reitz, we have always had it at the back of our minds that the Prime Minister used him to say that sort of thing as a kite, to see how the wind blows and how far he can go. I have said that we have never attached any value to what Mr. Reitz has said. We remember how he even sent out a circular in which he proposed that the natives must have direct representation on Town Councils in our cities and towns. We have further seen what a brilliant Minister of Native Affairs that Mr. Reitz was. The attendance and devotion with which he worked, the astounding energy he displays in the execution of his duties, the statesmanship of his proposals in connection with native affairs. He proposed, for instance, as I have said, that the natives must get representation on the Town Councils. With a glimpse into the future he said that if the Government lost the election the Government would not hand over authority to a legally elected majority of Parliament. We have taken all these things into consideration, and we realise that he had to be taken out of the Cabinet to receive a more important post. He had hardly arrived in London, or he began talking there. It is one of the faults of Mr. Reitz that he cannot hold his tongue. Sapa even sent out a special report, so much value did they attach to it. That wisdom had to be cabled over to South Africa, as if we did not have enough of the wisdom of Mr. Reitz while he was a Minister in South Africa. No, the winged words of Mr. Reitz had to be cabled over to South Africa in a special Sapa report. What did he say there? The recently appointed High Commissioner in London granted an interview to Press representatives of the United Nations in South Africa House, and he said that in view of the fact that the political position of the Union had now been placed on an even keel and internal complications were no longer to be feared, he could leave South Africa and come to London. Otherwise it would have been impossible for him to leave the Prime Minister in the lurch, but he followed his old custom and never spoke of the Prime Minister but about “us, I and the Prime Minister”. Mr. Reitz’s view was that if any danger had threatened South Africa, it would have been impossible for him to leave the country, but that now he had fixed up everything in South Africa he could go to London. Then he considered it necessary, and this is the worst of all, to enlighten the people overseas a little about the history of South Africa. With his political background, he was, of course, the man to give an impartial picture of the history of South Africa, and then he also dealt with the Great Trek. He said that thousands of farmers left their own farms and trekked into the unknown, and that this exodus was known as the Great Trek. He said that he knew his fellow-countrymen very well, and he felt that the cause of the Great Trek was not so much hate against British authority, but a disapproval of any authority. It is a bit too bad of a former Minister that he should go to England and mutilate the Afrikaner’s history and libel the Voortrekkers. It is not necessary for me to deal with the causes of the Great Trek. It is not necessary for me to adduce arguments to refute that libelling of the Voortrekkers, that they trekked because they would not submit to any authority. Is it not known to every school child in South Africa, even to most of the members on the other side, that one of the first things that the Voortrekker parties did was to adopt immediate measures to maintain law and order. Is it not a fact that the Boer republics which they established immediately created institutions that determined the relations between individual persons and of individuals towards the community, and the individual’s responsibility towards the authority of the country? These people trekked for reasons known to us, and they immediately took steps to maintain law and order, and they did so in a manner that was known all over the world. How can we now be compared with a lot of Wild West cowboys or persons of that type. That is the sort of person we have sent to London to represent South Africa there. Those people overseas do not know him as we know him, and is it to be wondered at therefore that we are dissatisfied that such a person should represent us there. He made a failure of the office which he occupied here, and then he was sent to London to besmirch the name of South Africa. The report on this interview goes further—

The further history was probably told in the same picturesque language as the first part which I mentioned. All I can say is, that it must have been a very picturesque history that he narrated. [Time limit.]

In Australia the Prime Minister has declared what the policy in future is going to be with regard to wool. Here we have not yet advanced any post-war policy. Menzies first tried to do his best for the wool-growers in Australia. He explained the position, and pleaded hard for a livelihood for the farmers of Australia. In our country absolutely nothing has been mentioned about this by anyone on the Government side. Now Scully has again