I move—

The object of this Bill can be stated in a few words. It is to remove the disability and the loss of status suffered by women on marriage under our Common Law. The Bill has been framed in such a manner that it does not abolish community of property— that remains, but it abolishes the marital power as defined in the Bill, which is the power of the husband over the property and earnings of the wife. Now, what is the evil which the Bill is designed to remedy? When a woman marries under our law, she at once loses her status, she becomes a minor, subject to the control of the husband, whatever her age and experience may be, and no matter how young and inexperienced the husband may be, she is relegated to the same position as a child. When her daughters reach the age of twenty-one, they are entitled to take their place in the community as citizens with full rights of citizens, they are entitled to earn money, open savings bank accounts and they are entitled to acquire property, but she, no matter what her age or experience, always continues to be in exactly the same position as a minor child in the eyes of the law. Our law is a relic of a very old system, but even the old Roman Law, from which the Roman Dutch Law is derived, recognised that a woman became a major in the eyes of the law, but under the Roman Dutch Law some of which is a heritage from the Germanic system, the woman never acquired the full status of a citizen when she was married. There is an article by Dr. Hahlo who is the Professor of Law at the University of the Witwatersrand, which was published in the Tydskrif vir Hedendaagse Romein Hollands Reg in 1943, a translation of which appeared in the “Rand Daily Mail” from which I quote where Dr. Hahlo says this—

Well, the law advanced a little since then and subsequently the consent of the girl was a necessary element in the marriage, but by the Thirteenth Century the position of the woman—of the unmarried woman— had approximated more to the position of a man, and it was only the married woman who lost her status and became by marriage a minor, and subject to the marital power of the husband. That position is still embodied in our law which relegates to the woman the status of a minor. Well, this position has not been without attempt on the part of members of this House to have it remedied. As far back as 1934 the hon. member for Von Brandis introduced legislation in the House in the following terms. He asked the Government to—

The motion was agreed to but nothing happened. Again, in 1937, Mrs. Reitz who represented Parktown in this House, introduced a similar motion, coached in somewhat wider terms. That also was agreed to by the Government, and a Commission was appointed but in consequence of the war that Commission has never functioned —and it probably will never function, and even if it does it may go on indefinitely, like the Dog Racing Commission, before it gives an answer. Now, the point is that that was seven years ago. Time flies—we don’t realise how it flies—and last year I moved a resolution asking the Government to consider the advisability of introducing legislation at the earliest possible date to remove all disabilities and inequalities suffered by married women under the Common Law of South Africa. There was not a single dissentient voice raised. Unfortunately the time allocated to the discussion was very limited, and the guillotine interfered with the decision of the House, but at any rate there was unanimity of the opinion that the time had come for something to be done, and in consequence of that I have now introduced this Bill which I hope will mark a further step forward in the emancipation of the women of South Africa. It has been said that this Bill does not go far enough. The most definite request in that respect has been by the “Cape Times” which says that the Bill should have been framed on the basis of abolishing Community of Property in South Africa altogether but I do not believe that a Bill of that nature would be acceptable to this House, and I have therefore framed the Bill on the basis of recognising community of property as it exists in this country, and at the same time preserving to woman the right which she has as a citizen of the country. I have taken the trouble to look at the statistics in connection with marriages in community of property, and I find that between 1934 and 1938 the percentage of marriages in community of property varied from 71.8 to 69 per cent. In peace time the tendency was for such marriages gradually to decrease —very gradually, but last year in answer to a question by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) figures were given showing what the percentage, what the proportion of marriages was, in 1941, and there the figures, in 1941, were—51,952 marriages in community of property as against 6,409 out of community, giving a percentage of about 90 in community. So that the percentage since the war started has increased by just over 20 per cent. Now, that is a serious state of affairs. It does not show that marriage in community of property has become more popular, but it does show that owing to war conditions marriages in community have increased, because young people, young women, become affianced to soldiers, and rather than draw up a contract—which costs money-—they spend the money on a honeymoon—as a matter of fact one might even describe this Bill as a post-war plan for the protection of wives. But the point of these figures is this, that they show that if in peace time something like 70 per cent. of the people marry in community, that the idea of community of property is rooted in the minds of the people of this country, and I do not think that any Bill which sought to remove it would be received with acclamation; but it should be emphasised at once that it is only in cases where the husband’s powers fail, or the marriage turns out unhappily under circumstances which do not warrant a judicial separation or a divorce, that the powers in the Bill are given to enable the woman to exercise her rights without the consent of the husband in regard to earning money for herself and so on. It is only in those circumstances that it will become necessary for her to exercise these rights. The great majority of the 70 per cent. of marriages in community in this country are happy or satisfactory marriages, and in cases of that nature no difficulty arises. It is in the minority of cases that the status of the woman and her power to contract freely becomes of great importance, and it is of such importance that it creates the greatest hardships and injustices if denied to her. All women’s organisations which I have consulted are in favour of this Bill as hon. members no doubt know. The position of women, of course, during the last generation, has undergone a tremendous change. It is only in this particular respect that their status has not been recognised. Today they are members of Parliament, members of Provincial Councils, members of Town Councils, they are members of governing bodies of all sorts of public institutions—they are advocates, they are attorneys, they are architects—in fact, everything is open to them, but the one calling which is peculiarly theirs—marriage—when they embark upon that they are at once relegated to an inferior status in the eyes of the law. That state of affairs should at once be remedied. The absurdity of the law is illustrated, for example, by the position of my hon. friend the member for Jeppes. She is able to conduct cases for clients in any court of the land right up to the Court of Appeal. But if she is sued or seeks to defend the simplest action in her own personal right she has to obtain the consent of her husband. That is an absolute absurdity. I assume, of course, that the hon. member is married in community of property or is subject to the marital power of her husband. I have a letter here from a lady who is a doctor, I believe of Economics. She simply describes herself as Dr. So-and-So. Any hon. member who wishes to see the letter can see it. And she says this: Let me say first of all that she has established a nursery school which has been very successful and she explains the very great disabilities she suffers from. She says this—

These cases illustrate the absuridy of the law but it is not only the absurdity of the law which I wish to emphasise. It lays the way open for cruelty on the part of unscrupulous husbands, or a husband who is a good for nothing or a “rotter.” Recently a case in Pretoria came to my notice where a couple who were married in community of property, and had two children, had a certain amount of trouble. The husband had been sent to a labour colony by the magistrate. He was sent there for some years and the woman in his absence opened a cafe. She did quite well, and she bought a little cottage, she furnished it on the hire purchase system after which the husband immediately took steps to instruct an agent to sell the cafe business and the cottage. Well, the woman at once went to the lawyers, and an advocate was briefed. He enquired into the position and found that unless there was a matrimonial dispute involved, unless she had sued her husband for judicial separation or divorce, the court had no jurisdiction and could not interfere with the rights of the husband, and the husband was entirely within his power in directing that the property acquired by the wife should be sold. There are many other instances of that nature. Every attorney will tell you of cases where a wife has gone out to earn money and the husband has claimed that the earnings should be paid over to him or has appropriated the earnings, or has had the contract cancelled. And that arises from this position, that the wife being in the position of a minor, is not entitled to be paid by any creditor. The husband has to be paid, and if the wife is paid the husband can still sue the creditor unless it can be shown that the wife has paid the money over to him, or that he has benefited from the payment. And if the husband becomes of unsound mind or otherwise unfit to give his consent and the woman wants to carry on a business so as to make a living for the family she is not entitled to do so unless she goes to court, and has her husband declared of unsound mind and has herself appointed curator of his goods with all the expense and publicity of such a course. That is a condition of affairs which places a woman in a very difficult position. The husband may be of unsound mind, but she may hesitate very much indeed before deciding to go to court and publish to the whole world that the father of her children is a person of this kind; and therefore that shows how necessary it is that the law should be amended. This Bill will obviate all those difficulties if it is passed by the House. There is one other point in connection with the Bill, and that is this, that well-to-do people in the main get married under ante-nuptial contract out of community of property, but the poorer people do not. They cannot afford the expense, and they get married in community of property. So that the less well-to-do type of woman is penalised and placed in a much inferior position to the woman who is able to afford the expense of an ante-nuptial contract, and so get married out of community of property. The provisions which are embodied in this Bill are not unknown in other parts of the world, in Switzerland, for example, which is supposed to have a very reasonable law of marriage, and reasonable rules regulating the relationship between husband and wife. The position there is marriages are in community of property, but the wife may sue and be sued in her own name in respect of property belonging to both spouses, and she is entitled to the sole control and the exclusive personal use of her own capital, and the income which accrues to her from following a separate trade or practising a profession, and the earnings derived from her work or trade. That is quite different from our law. The Bill is couched in terms which I think it is unnecessary for me to explain in any particular detail, because it will undoubtedly go to a Select Committee, and I suppose it will be modified. But I want to draw particular attention to Section 3, which enables the wife to acquire assets by her own endeavours after the marriage. Then Mr. Speaker, there is a provision that she is entitled to act after the marriage in exactly the same way as an unmarried woman. She may enter into a contract for her services, she may earn money, she may open a banking account, she may deal with her own money, and she may acquire assets in the same way as an unmarried woman. There is also provision in the Bill, in Section 9, which probably requires some explanation. A married woman may not be surety, she may not bind herself as surety for anybody else. Those benefits are saved for her; it is inadvisable that that provision of the Roman Law should be removed. Finally, while the Bill abolishes marital power, it is only abolished for the purpose of the Bill, and under Clause 10, “Marital Power” is defined as the power of the husband to control, alienate or encumber his wife’s property whether held separately or otherwise, including deposits, savings, stocks or shares, standing or registered in her married name, or to appear for her or assist, her to appear in any legal proceedings instituted by or against her or in connection with contracts relating to her personal services, or separate property. Of course, the property brought into the community is registered in his name. The provision is only intended to regulate the property that they may have acquired after the marriage, and therefore it is necessary to define marital power for the purpose of the Bill. The Bill is fairly described in an article in the Cape Times, in which these words occur—

As I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, this matter was discussed in 1937, and in the course of the discussion the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, who was at that time Minister of Justice, dealt with this very point in these words—

This Bill of mine conforms entirely to the conditions to which the Right Hon. the Prime Minister at that time referred. The Minister referred to the necessity for an amendment in the near future, and as I have already pointed out, seven years have elapsed since then and the condition has been aggravated especially by the war. This Parliament is one from which much is expected, and I think there is no doubt that the public is commencing to regard this Parliament as revolutionary—not in any bad sense, but in the best sense of the word, in that it is anxious to do that which is right and proper for the people of this country at any cost. And I think one of the first things we should do is to see that the status of our womenfolk, especially of our married women, conforms to that which is recognised as just not only by ourselves, but in other parts of the civilised world. I therefore move the second reading.

Before considering the desirability or otherwise of this Bill, it is essential for us to take stock of the existing state of affairs. We are indebted to the hon. member for Pretoria City (Mr. Davis) for the manner in which he introduced this Bill, the investigation he made and research work he has done. He explained the historical background and it is not necessary for us to go into these matters any further, but may I be permitted to make a few supplementary remarks in support of this Bill? The Roman Dutch Law which today serves as the basis for the Common Law of South Africa has been in force for centuries. The people who compiled that law, men like Voet and Grotius, who lived hundreds of years ago, lived in a community which was entirely different from the modern community of today. I am convinced that if by a miracle they could for a moment be brought back to this world to see present day conditions, if Voet were able to study present day conditions, he would be the first to admit that what was regarded as Common Law in his day is certainly not applicable to our modern community. In the past we had the Feudal Laws. They themselves did not do any work; they had others to work for them. It would have been regarded as a degradation to their refined ladies with their elegant ways, to have to earn their own living. In those days it was perhaps necessary to protect them and preserve their activities exclusively for the family circle, and to make it possible for them to devote as much time as they could to the refined arts of life, but conditions have changed. Even in their clothing, in the form of hoopskirts, they were protected, but today we have to cope with a different condition of affairs. The modern woman in our community is recognised as being man’s equal in every respect. The State gives her the opportunity of being trained in the various professions and occupations. There is no vocation or profession, there is practically no activity in the community, which is closed to woman today. Woman has proved, particularly during the war, that there are very few activities in which she cannot do what man can do. In all respects therefore she is man’s equal, and whether we are prepared to admit this fact in our legislation or not, in our communal life we have to recognise that we do not find a single modern woman today who admits to any sense of inferiority to man.

How do you know that?

The hon. member perhaps asks that question because I am not married. The man who thinks that he can find a wife who will be useful to him and who will listen to him and be obedient and servile is deluding himself. That being the position in our community, that the woman is man’s equal in every respect, the question arises, why do not we recognise that fact in our legislation? Why do we continue to tolerate the injustice of these antiquated and obsolete provisions in our Common Law?

Why don’t you get married?

It reminds me of the man who was accused of having assaulted his wife. When the judge asked him whether he was guilty or not guilty he replied: “Not guilty”. The judge thereupon asked him: “Did you not assault your wife?” and he said “Definitely not”. “But,” asked the judge, “did you not have words with her?”, and the man replied: “My Lord, to be honest, I did have words, but she never gave me the opportunity of using those words”. Let us frankly admit that that condition of inferiority no longer exists in our community, and then let us see whether our laws have kept pace with the changed conditions. It is quite correct for the Law to be conservative. It is quite correct to lay it down that the law must not anticipate any changes, but where those changes have come about quite a considerable time ago it is right that our Common Law should adjust itself to the changed circumstances. The mover of this Bill has described the anomaly in woman’s position. It is an anomaly and an injustice that an unmarried woman, when she reaches the age of twenty-one years has full control and management of her property; she can do as she pleases with it, but assuming she marries when she is thirty or forty years of age or if she is a widow and gets married again, she immediately loses her status in law to manage her own property. She may perhays have had this status for twenty or thirty years, but now, because she enters into matrimony she loses her legal status. By marrying she assumes greater responsibility, the responsibility of carrying out her greatest mission in life of producing children, but in spite of the greater responsibility and higher status in the eyes of the law she becomes a minor. It is high time that this anomaly, and this injustice in our existing law is done away with. The present situation is satisfactory so far as those who are happily married are concerned. A marriage in community of property with marital rights connected with it is very good if everything goes well, but if the marriage is not a happy marriage and things go wrong, the marital rights of the man constitute an injustice. The man has the power of controlling and managing the joint estate. If he fails to do so we feel that the woman should be left a way out of the difficulty. The mover of this Bill has quoted a few cases such as the case of the man who becomes mentally defective, of the case of the man who is a waster. In such an instance the woman suffers. In order to bring about a change she has to take recourse to the law, and once she has to call in the aid of the law in order to protect her property rights it means the end of her married happiness. The man mismanages the control of the joint estate and if the woman has to take recourse to the law it means that her married happiness is over. She may feel that she has a very good husband. Possibly he has no business acumen, he has no conception of the value of money. Perhaps he is an expert: He may be a scientific man, but is unable to handle money—for the rest he is quite a good man. The woman does not want to lose that man, he is good to her and her children, but because he has failed in properly administering the financial affairs of the joint estate the woman suffers and she is quite powerless. The assets are wasted and the woman is unable to do anything. In cases of that kind we want to have better protection for the woman. I do not want to go into details in regard to the Bill itself; I understand there is a possibility of it being referred to a Select Committee, just as was done in regard to the Bill dealing with the guardianship of children. Such a Select Committee can scrutinise the finer details of the provisions of the Bill, and can go into the complications of the various clauses. But if I may be allowed to make a suggestion it is that clause 2 of this Bill should be deleted, and the measure should apply to all marriages. It may be said that clause 3 gives the wife the right to set up a separate estate, and to earn money for herself. That is so; we give the wife the right to set up a separate estate and to have a separate property of her own, but no corresponding right is being given to the husband. So far as he is concerned the community of property still exists. In practice, however, no injustice is done by that because it is only in those cases where a wife is compelled to make a living and that is in those cases where the man has made a mess of the joint estate — it is only there that that position arises. If the marriage is a happy one and everything flourishes and there is enough money to maintain the wife and to educate the children properly there will be no desire on the part of the wife to go and earn her own living, but where the man has failed in the management and control of the joint estate, and the wife feels compelled to take steps, in that case protection for the wife is essential. So this position can only arise in cases where the man has failed to look after the joint estate. We feel that the time has arrived when we should rectify the present position and put an end to the injustice which our law inflicts upon the wife. A further point is his: hon. members may say that the wife is allowed to carry on trade publicly, that she is allowed to trade, but even there all sorts of difficulties are involved. We have the case for instance of a wife who undoubtedly did carry on business, so much so that she was generally known as the “uncle” of the business. An action arose and the question was raised whether she had been trading publicly. The magistrate decided against her; she appealed to the Provincial Division of the Supreme Court and there she also lost her case, but she received leave to appeal to the Appellate in Bloemfontein, and there the verdict was given in her favour. It took three courts to determine whether she had publicly carried on a trade or business. We find that the present legal provisions are inadequate and we can see how necessary it is for us to interfere and bring about amendments. I therefore feel that I am fully justified in supporting this Bill.

I should like to congratulate my hon. friend the member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) very heartily indeed for bringing in this measure, a measure which I think should have come on the statute book before. I must also congratulate the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) for his lucid explanation of marriage conditions, and so forth. It is very agreeable to think that it comes from the lips of a Benedict, and I only hope before long—it will be the case of coming events casting their shadows before— that we shall have to contribute to a wedding present for the hon. member for Ermelo. But I would also like to remind the hon. member for Pretoria (City) of something that happened some years ago, when the women’s question began to become rather prominent. In those days women were not allowed to sit in city councils in the Cape Province, at all events, and again and again Sir John Graham, who then took a great interest in municipal matters, and I, did all we possibly could to eliminate the word “male” from personal declarations that were required from anybody aspiring to become a municipal councillor. Although we tried again and again we were the only two who moved in this matter, and we were unsuccessful until a measure was brought in and the Provincial Council amended the law accordingly, so that women were allowed to take their seats on municipal councils. But I hope the ladies will not treat the hon. member for Pretoria (City) in the same way as I was treated, because the very first occasion that women wished to acquire municipal honours, it was I who was opposed. Fortunately I managed to be successful at the election, and so in spite of what I might call this rather unsporting attitude, having regard to those particular rights, they did not manage to unseat me. In spite of all that, I still adhere to the point that I think they should be given their full rights. But I am hoping that the Minister of Finance will also give us married men more rights than we have at present, and perhaps if these ladies get their full rights over property in the future, their income tax and ours in the case of married men, will not be pooled, and we will not be compelled in future to pay income tax on our wives’ incomes as well as our own. But we get no rebate from the State, and in some cases no rebate from the wives either. But perhaps these matters will be readjusted and this Bill will take effect, and I hope that before long women will be thoroughly satisfied, even if they have not been in a better position before.

This Bill affects the fundamental and age-old principles of our Common Law. I do not think it would be advisable to express any opinion at the present stage. It is a matter that should go to Select Committee, so that the effects of the Bill can be thoroughly investigated. I move—

I wish to second the amendment. I think it is essential that a far-reaching measure of this kind should be properly enquired into. There are some highly contentious points in this Bill which we on this side of the House cannot possibly agree to. I therefore support the proposal that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee which will then be able thoroughly to go into the merits of the case.

I have a great deal of pleasure in supporting this Bill, which has been introduced by the hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis). To say that the Bill is long overdue would be hopelessly to understate the position. As a matter of fact, merely in this day and in this age to take up solemnly in this House the question as to whether married women should have control over their own homes, gives one an almost ghostly sense, because it is as if one had turned back the pages of history and were back in the England of 1880, when this matter was finally dealt with once and for all by the Married Women’s Property Act of 1881. That was 63 years ago; and here we are in South Africa, after a period in which the rate of world thought and progress has been speeded up tremendously, still debating that old question. Well, sir, you will agree I am sure, that it is an absurd and anomalous position that South Africa should lag more than half a century behind conservative England. It was not always so. It was not always so in South Africa. In the medieval ages there was a time when the laws of Holland were so progressive and liberal that they were in the van of the laws of all Europe. The laws that Van Riebeeck brought to this country in 1652 were the acme of liberalism at that time. While in England then the women were mere chattels in respect of their person and their property, in Holland and in South Africa women did have a status, and did have control of their own persons and their own earnings. There was, in other words, in the South Africa of 1652—what never existed in England at that time and did not exist for two or three centuries—a way for the women of South Africa out of the disabilities imposed on them by the common law, simply by way of ante-nuptial contract, which did reserve to them their power and control over their own earnings. But now the position is that we are as far behind in this country today as we used to be in the van of progress, and the reason is, let me reiterate once more what I said in relation to another Bill because of the lack of revision of our Roman Dutch Law. Yet I would like to remind the House that as long ago as 1910, the date of Union, this matter was under review, and a Bill was actually drafted, which would modify the Roman Dutch Law, in relation to the status of married women. That Bill was never proceeded with. No one knows precisely why. That was in 1910, at the time of Union, and ever since then the women’s organisations have been pressing for some such Bill. They then concentrated on getting the suffrage for women, hoping that that might provide a doorway through which they would get their position reviewed. Women’s suffrage was granted in 1930. It is now 1944, but still no Government Bill has been introduced which would set the matter at rest once and for all, and it has been left to a private member to introduce a Bill of this kind. As the years go on, the need for a change in the status of women under Roman Dutch Law becomes more pressing. Each year the social and economic conditions of the country demand more and more that married women should at least be put on a footing of equality with unmarried women. It is ludicrous that through the mere fact of marriage the married woman immediately becomes incapacitated from controlling her own affairs. As the Chief Justice said in a learned judgment, the position under our land is quite alright for those women who are better informed or who have property, because their parents will see to it that they get married by ante-nuptial contract, but since as the hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) pointed out, the vast bulk of the women of this country do not marry by ante-nuptial contract, either because it is too expensive—or they do not know their rights and they do not know the difference between ante-nuptial contract and marriage in community of property; it means the majority still marry in community. And it seems to me that it is high time for this House to put an end to a state of affairs like this. There is a new world arising around us every day. The greatest war for the freedom of the world in history is being waged around us, but as for the married women of South Africa; they still live under a condition where they have no freedom and no status. The pay of the married woman who joins the army is not hers if her husband chooses to take it. It could be paid to her husband if he demands it, because that is the law. The married woman who works on coastal batteries, in the artillery, who is trained to work in the defence of her country, still has to have her husband’s assistance to put her signature to a document. It would be farcical if it were not so painful. Married women have been patient —far too patient—so far., I cannot believe that with the ever increasing number of women who go out into industry, who go out forced by economic circumstances to earn their own living—I cannot believe that with these numbers of women ever increasing, this House will continue to allow these women to suffer the disabilities which have been described by the mover of this Bill. I cannot believe that the men of this House are less broadminded now than the men of England in 1881. There the matter was settled once and for all. I hope that this House and the Select Committee to which the Bill will be referred will decide here once and for all to report back to this House that the conditions as they are today are intolerable for married women and must be ended and that they will report back, and this House will pass a Bill which will finally settle that question of the status of married women. The Bill, let me repeat, or due. It is time that the women here had equal status which everywhere else in the civilised world has been given them long ago, and I do not believe that this House will deny it to them.

One expected that the Minister would take the course which he has taken, namely to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, before the second reading, in view of what happened to the other Bill last week. It is quite logical that this Bill should be dealt with in the same way because then it will be thoroughly gone into, and it will not be confined to deal only with the principles which have been affirmed in the second reading. I think the criticism which I have seen against this Bill is that it does not go far enough. The hon. member has explained why he did not go further, and I think he was right in the attitude he took up, but that is the criticism made against this Bill, that it does not go far enough and does not put man and wife on a footing of perfect equality in regard to property. I think the women of this country, although they will accept this Bill as another instalment of justice, would have liked to have seen the Bill go a little further. I notice that one of the circulars sent round to us asking us to support the Bill—one from the National Women of South Africa says: “We are of opinion that in a marriage in community of property the signatures of both the husband and the wife should be necessary in matters affecting the joint estate”. The Bill does not deal with that. It only deals with property acquired by the woman herself. The Bill also takes away that other anomalous position, that a woman cannot enter into a contract. She is in many cases in a much more important position than the husband is—yet she cannot enter into a contract. The war has shown that there is no position even in the army organisation, where the woman cannot do her share—where she is not equally efficient if not more efficient than a man—and in many cases she has taken the place of men who had previously been in charge of important sections of the organisation. And yet such a woman in South Africa cannot sign the simplest document unless she gets her husband’s assistance. She cannot open a savings bank account to protect her own savings without her husband’s consent. Married women are often humiliated as a result of the present provisions of the law under which she has to go to her husband to get his signature for everything. The husband is regarded as the dictator of his household.

What is the position in your church?

The rights of women are fully protected. Marriage takes place according to contract, and the rights of woman and husband are dependent on the civil law.

But a woman in your church is not allowed to sit next to her husband.

That is because we think they are nearer Heaven, but even then there are congregations where they sit together; in the Reform congregations they sit together. In the orthodox congregations they do not. But that is not out of disrespect for the women. We want to keep them away from the maddening affairs of the world as far as possible. Besides, the old-fashioned Hebrews were under the impression that if man had a woman next to him his mind would be distracted from his worship; he would think more of the lady by his side than of his worship. But in other respects the marriages which take place in the Synagogue take place under the old form of contract, and they have to follow the civil law. The ceremony in Synagogues has nothing to do with the rights of the wife. The form which is used is a thousand years old, and does not affect a woman’s right of property. Now, there seems to be some difference of opinion with regard to the actual number of those who marry in community of property and those who marry out of community of property. I was glad the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) gave the figures. Those figures show that the overwhelming number of marriages are in community of property. Now, on the Succession Duty Committee of which I was a member in 1932, this point was very deeply gone into and there again the figures given of marriages in and out of community were more or less in the same proportion as they are now. The figures were given by Mrs. Solly. The figures were given for 1927 when there were 11,000 odd in community, and 4,201 by ante-nuptial contract; in 1928 the figures were, 12,068 in community and 4,280 out of community; in 1929, 12,709 in community and 4,280 out of community. Well, the figures seem to have kept up the same proportion up to date. Now there are other anomalies in this Bill which I hope will be attended to in Select Committee. One thing which we were able to put right in regard to intestacy was this. Terrible cases occurred where a husband forgot to make a will in cases where the parties were married out of community, and the wife got nothing. But there is still room for improvement in regard to the law of testacy. There is still too much freedom given to the husband to leave nothing at all to his wife—to disinherit his wife without rhyme or reason, and as the law stands that cannot be improved. We know of such cases where, owing to some whim of the husband, the wife has been left out entirely. That is another matter which we shall have to tackle. I am very glad to support this further instalment of justice to women, and I hope when the two Bills emerge from the Select Committee we shall at any rate have been able to put certain anomalies right as we have been able to do in the past.

I have got up to say only a few words on this Bill. I want to say that I fully agree with the hon. member in his remarks regarding equal rights for wives, control over her own property and control over her own earnings. In that respect I thoroughly agree with the hon. member. At the same time I want to say that to my mind there are two important aspects in this Bill which should not be lost sight of. With the first aspect I quite agree, but the hon. member now wants us to look at ourselves in a spoon—and one knows that if one looks at one’s reflection in a spoon one sees oneself upside down. I do not know whether I am doing an injustice to the hon. member but I fail to understand his logic. He has quoted certain facts here and he has told us that the great majority of the women in this country marry in community of property according to the old traditions of the country. But in spite of the fact that the overwhelming majority do marry in community of property, he expects the House to agree with him when he asks the House to agree that in future all those marriages should be contracted under antenuptial contract. That logic on the hon. member’s part I fail to understand. I don’t want to distort the hon. member’s Bill or put it in a wrong light, but that is what he said here. He said that the overwhelming majority married in community of property. In spite of that, however, he expects us to look at our reflection in a spoon. The hon. member can attack that tradition as much as he likes but I feel that it is a tradition which is very deeply rooted in this country. Hon. members must not try to drag in the other important aspect under the banner of “equal rights for women.” Before this measure goes any further I thought it necessary for me to explain my position on this point.

I rise chiefly because the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) has already risen. I agree with his doctrine, where it is sound, but disagree with his heresy. As a marriage officer for 21 years I have been very definitely in favour of marriage under antenuptial contract conditions as compared with marriage in community of property. It has always seemed to me to give the girl a much better chance of happiness, and of maintaining (from her point of view) good order and discipline. If a man is going to behave decently in the state of marriage he loses nothing under an ante-nuptial contract, because loyalty will in normal cases be met with loyalty; but if he should happen to behave indecently, then the woman salvages something in the way of personal security from the marital wreck. I have always held these opinions, and up to now I have always thought that no extra law was required, or that no more than small changes in the regulations were required. Additional safeguards must help in many instances, for it has frequently been the case that when people came along to get married they were not prepared to listen to my words of wisdom, when I explained what were the advantages of marriage by ante-nuptial contract over that in community of property. They just could not be bothered. And what I have thought was that there should be a rule requiring these young people who are entering the state of matrimony, lightheartedly if not unadvisedly, to apply to a magistrate and have this matter of law thoroughly explained, gratis; and that before a marriage officer could conduct the ceremony, a certificate should be produced showing that a magistrate has made quite clear to them the legal position. I think magistrates should do this work, for when we advise the parties to go to a lawyer they often think it is only a matter of the attorney getting an extra fee. There has been this difficulty up to now in persuading people to follow what I have always believed to be the best course. And there are other difficulties in the way of getting an ante-nuptial contract executed. It is very expensive. It costs a matter of £7 or £8 at present. Of course, we know the cost of living has increased, and weddings are no exception to the rule. Formerly, the expense was negligible. Hon. members will recollect the concluding lines of the old music hall chorus: “She cost me seven and sixpence: I wish I’d bought a dog!” Well, those days have passed, at least so far as the 7s. 6d. is concerned. But I want to say this in regard to those antenuptial contracts. The attorney who draws up the documents gets very little for his labour, but the Treasury gets far too much. I do not think the State should try and make money out of a couple wanting to get married. We know that as a consequence of these heavy stamp duties nine out of every ten young people are not able to afford an ante-nuptial contract. That is why by far the largest percentage of the people are married in community of property. If the State gave citizens the opportunity of paying for their ante-nuptial contracts over a period of twelve months it might change things very much. Now, let me say this: I differ from the hon. member for Krugersdrop and I am in favour of this Bill one hundred per cent. and I say so because of paragraph 5 of the Bill, which seems to me to announce a very rightly conceded freedom to women. That paragraph reads as follows—

That from my point of view as a marriage officer enables a mistake which may have been made to be put right. Marriages may be happy for years, till quite unforeseen circumstances intervene. If a mistake has been made, as years prove, in being married in community of goods, this Bill enables the woman to escape from the dilemma in which she may find herself through no fault of her own.

I do not propose to reply in detail. I just want to say in reply to the hon. member for Krugersdorp that the object of this Bill is to maintain marriage in community of property. But if there is no antenuptial contract excluding the marital power, the woman will still be able to have control over her earnings. I wish to say that I accept the amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.

One had hoped that in discussing this important motion members on both sides of the House would very definitely have confined themselves to the subject itself, and that they would have gone into the merits of the question. Anyone having listened to the speeches so far will concede that that has been the position in regard to the speeches on this side of the House. The Hon. the Leader of the Opposition as well as the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) and the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) have discussed the matter objectively and dealt with it on its merits. I also wanted to do so. Unfortunately the speeches made here by other members, partly even by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, but particularly by the hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler) and the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) were of such a nature that one is compelled to react to those speeches. As regards the speech of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister I shall come to that later on. As to the speech by the hon. member for Kimberley District he will pardon me if in the circumstances I do not refer to that today. I want, however, to say something about the speech of the hon. member for Hospital. Under ordinary circumstances one would have kept quiet about this unsavoury speech, and one would have treated it with the contempt it deserves. The fact, however, that it was greeted by some members in this House with applause and joy, not only filled one with complete surprise, but it has forced me briefly to reply to it.’ The whole speech can be summed up in one sentence, by saying that for one part it consisted of self glorification and bombastic boasting, and for the rest it was a conglomeration of untruth and unsavoury allegations, not only against this party but against Afrikaner members and even against Afrikaans institutions such as the Reddingsdaadbond. As regards the self glorification or the boasting of the hon. member for Hospital, I want to remind hon. members of the arrogant manner in which he used the names of Father Kestell, President Steyn and Gen. Hertzog, as though he really was a bosom friend of those great Afrikaners. The hon. member actually gave us to understand that a few days before Gen. Hertzog’s death he was on his, Gen. Hertzog’s, farm, and that Gen. Hertzog told him a number of important things.

That is untrue.

The trouble with the hon. member for Hospital is that he is a man who suffers from an imagination which cannot be regarded as being altogether normal. Does he imagine that Gen. Hertzog would have told him, of all people in the world, all kinds of important and confidential things?—him, a man whom Genl. Hertzog probably never greeted, a man who right throughout his life probably had a feeling of resentment against Gen. Hertzog because in 1924 Gen. Hertzog would not give him a seat his Cabinet. The hon. member’s imagination even led him to imagine that he could be considered for a post in the Cabinet. I know that some people suffering from megalomania do disclose this tendency, namely to imagine themselves to be some great historical person. Thus we have heard of unfortunate people who have imagined themselves to be Napoleon. Others, again, who thought that they were President Roosevelt. It reminds me of a joke which has been told about the present Minister of the Interior. It is stated that he paid a visit to Valkenberg one day. One of the inmates is alleged to have asked him who he was. The story goes that he replied that he was the Minister of the Interior, to which the patient retorted: “Alright, my friend, you’ll be cured. When I arrived here I imagined that I was Gen. Smuts.” But in regard to the hon. member for Hospital the position is somewhat different. He imagines that every important person and every statesman throughout the world is his bosom friend, so much so that those statesmen really look upon it as an honour to be Arthur Barlow’s friend. Thus, for instance, if one spends 6d. in buying Arthur Barlow’s Weekly, one continually has to read of “my friend Gen. De Wet,” “my friend Barry Hertzog,” “my friend Jannie Smuts.”

My friend Strydom.

“And my friend Winston Churchill.” And he even goes so far as to speak of “my friend Alfred Milner” and one of these days it will be “my friend Joe Stalin.”

My friend Hitler.

What the hon. member for Hospital Hill needs is not a good dressing down in this House, but medical attention. Now, when I come to the other part of his speech, namely the unsavoury attacks and the unworthy insinuations against the Reddingsdaadbond and also against individual members on this side of the House, I can only say this, that never in all the years that I have been a member of this House have I listened to a speech that sank to such a low level and so defiled the atmosphere of this House as the speech made by that hon. member. In addition to the speech dragging the debate to a low level it was nothing but a whole string of untruths, of untrue allegations against the Reddingsdaadbond, against the Leader of the Opposition and against members on this side— unworthy allegations, to the effect that we were abusing the funds of the Reddingsdaadbond and that there were leaders on this side of the House who were using those funds to promote their own affairs; that on behalf of the Reddingsdaadbond they were drawing money out of the pockets of the poor, that they were not spending that money in the interest of the poor but for their own interests, and in the interests of this political party. Dirtier things than that, meaner things than that, have to my mind never been uttered in this House. There are hon. members opposite who know what the position is and who know that there is not a single front bencher here who either directly or indirectly is concerned in the management and control of the funds of the Reddingsdaadbond. We may be members of separate branches, but so far as the expenditure of the money is concerned, the control of the funds, not a single frontbencher on this side is either directly or indirectly concerned. We have not the slightest say over that control, neither directly nor indirectly. It is simply a mean and untrue insinuation made by the hon. member, and I shall leave it at that. Now I want to say a few words about the insinuation which the same hon. member made against the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer). He made the unsavoury insinuation that the hon. member for Humansdorp in his need had come to him and begged for a loan. The hon. member for Humansdorp not only stigmatised it in this House as untrue, but immediately after the sitting he tackled the hon. member for Hospital on the subject, and what was the hon. member’s reply? The hon. member said that he knew it was not so but he added; “You deserved such a remark—you had it coming to you”. In other words, he deliberately told an untruth here and afterwards admitted to the hon. member that he knew it was untrue but that the hon. member had it coming to him. I have already referred to the hon. member for Hospital as a journalist. He is the Editor and owner of Arthur Barlow’s Weekly. Col. Deneys Reitz, the ex-Minister of the Interior, one day in this House said of another journalist that he was the biggest liar in South Africa. I think all members in this House will agree with me that the hon. Col. Reitz did that particular journalist a gross injustice. In regard to the future, let me say this to the hon. member for Hospital, and I say it also as a friendly warning to all members in this House, that in view of the speech which the hon. member made here, a speech which sank to that low level, not a single member on this side of the House will in future take the slightest notice of him, or of any other member who is guilty of making that kind of speech here.

People outside will.

In this House we have to deal with matters on their merit, and we must refrain from making those personal and dirty insinuations.

The hon. member must withdraw the word “dirty.”

I shall withdraw the word, Mr. Speaker. And now I want to come to the speech which the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister made in London before the British Members of Parliament. From the very nature of things it was a most important speech, and what is more it was important in view of the things which the Prime Minister told those members of Parliament. It is important also in view of the things which he admitted in that speech. It is also important because of what he advocated, and further, it is important in view of the fact that the Prime Minister in that speech, according to his own statement, has apparently reached the stage where he no longer wants to be held responsible for what he has says or does. It is a serious state of affairs when the Prime Minister of a country himself states that he does not want to be held responsible for what he does or says. So that there shall be no doubt on this question, I want to quote word for word from the Prime Minister’s Speech as it appeared in the Johannesburg “Star”. He said this, inter alia—

If there can still be any doubt as to the Prime Minister’s meaning in using those words, I want to make a further quotation—

I think the Prime Minister will agree with me that there are various categories of persons who cannot be held responsible for what they say. First of all we have the people who have worshipped too freely at the feet of Bacchus to quench their thirst. We who know the Prime Minister would never place him in that category. Then we have the category of people who, because of their youthful age, or their old age, no longer fully realise what is going on. Then we have still another category, of people who do not speak on their own behalf but who simply are the mouthpieces of others. I do not think I am doing an injustice to the Prime Minister if I say he falls under the last category. He did not speak on his own behalf, but he was the mouthpiece of other people. True, it was his voice which spoke, but it was not he who spoke. If the Prime Minister spoke there on behalf of somebody else, and if that was the reason why he did did not want to be held responsible for his words, then I say that it is nothing short of a tragedy that a country should be governed by a Prime Minister who can no longer be held responsible for the things he deliberately says and does. And now I want to come to the contents of his speech. I have said that that speech is important because of the things which are admitted in it. In the first, place I want to point out that the Prime Minister said that Russia was going to be the Colossus which would stand over Europe. Russia would be the Colossus. The Prime Minister is now getting very scared of that ally of his and he is beginning to look for ways out of his difficulty. I would like to remind the Prime Minister that the other day, when in an interruption during his speech, we reminded him that he was going to scare Europe in regard to Russia when he said that Russia was going to be the Colossus which with its legs astride would straddle all over Europe, he denied that he had intended to refer to Russia. He tried to explain that he meant Germany. To me, it was so astonishing to hear the Prime Minister say a thing like that that I again consulted his London speech. In that speech I find that the Prime Minister warned the smaller countries of Western Europe, and he did not create the impression at all of his warning being directed against Germany. I think it might be best if I were to quote exactly what the Prime Minister said so that it may be clear to every one and anyone that on that occasion he meant Russia and Russia alone. This is what he said among other things—

It is perfectly clear that he only had one country in mind, and that was Russia, and if there is still any doubt about it, let hon. members listen to what he said further—

I proceed to quote—

He goes on—

In respect of whom? In respect of Russia, the grave danger which he has described as the Colossus of Europe which stands straddled across Europe. Now I just want to say this, that we in this House have year after year uttered warnings against the same danger. We have said that if the Allies were to win it would mean that Russia would be placed in a position of supreme power. We told the Prime Minister that the Allies were jumping in to go and fight on Russia’s side. We warned against that danger, and you will remember, Mr. Speaker, that that contention of ours was greeted with ridicule, but now the Prime Minister comes here and takes up the very same attitude. He associates himself with the very thing that we said because he realises the great danger to which Europe and particularly the smaller nations of Europe, are being exposed. That being the case, have we not the right again to ask the Prime Minister, “But what are you fighting for”? They are fighting Germany today. Why do they declare war against Germany. They declared war because they thought that Germany had unjustly invaded Poland. The invasion of Poland gave rise to this world war. In what respect is Germany’s position in regard to that invasion different from Russia’s position? Who invaded Finland? It was Russia, the Colossus which the Prime Minister is now so afraid of. Who invaded Poland, and who is now demanding its share of Poland? It is Russia which did so, and we notice that only recently Stalin told Churchill and Roosevelt that he did not need their assistance. He knows where to draw his boundary line in Poland. Who annexed Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania? What is the difference between the aggression committed by Russia and the aggression committed by Germany? And if the Prime Minister now realises that danger, why then does he carry on with this war which means simply destroying and wiping out anyone who stands in the way of that Colossus, and opening the world wide to the domination of Russia and communism? The Prime Minister further admitted—and this is also of great importance—that England after this war is going to be poor and exhausted and that England will be in an extremely weak position as against Russia and America. He used these significant words: “There is nothing left in the till.” Those were his words.

Aren’t you saying too much?

I notice that the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock) is laughing. If he wants to laugh, he should not laugh at me but at his own Leader, because those were his words. All sensible people, all people who use their intelligence, agree with the Prime Minister that England after this war will be extremely weak, and will go down in the scale and become a third rate power. The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) showed the House in the course of the debate that that was the position, but I would like to remind the House of a speech which I myself made in this House a year ago when I pointed out that England’s foreign investments had vanished to such a degree, that her national revenue had dropped to such a degree, that when this war is over she will economically no longer be a great power. The hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) may try and ridicule us when we say this, but those are facts, and everybody agrees there with the Prime Minister. Now, I want to come to what the Prime Minister advocated in view of these dangers which he himself quite rightly realised. I come to these sensational things—we cannot call them anything but sensational, which he advocated in order to avoid this danger. The first thing he pleaded for was that a triumvirate should govern the world. That triumvirate should consist of the United States of America, Russia and England. That, according to the Prime Minister, is the triumvirate which should govern the world. He departed from his old idea of a League of Nations. The power must now be placed in the hands of those great nations. The small nations no longer count and he only depends on the great nations. May I remind the Prime Minister of a speech which he made many years ago in which he said this: “The day of the small independent nations is past”. That is what he declared in all seriousness. So it is not the first time that he made this statement when in his London speech he declared that the day of the small nations was gone and that the world should be governed by this triumvirate. But at the same time he realises that in that triumvirate England will be in a hopelessly weakened position, and what he pleads for after that is put forward with the object of strengthening England’s weak position. His advice was that the small democracies of Western Europe should cast in their lot with that of the British Empire. That is the advice which he is now giving his own allies. That is the plan which he now wants to carry out against one of his allies. And what was the reaction to this dangerous proposal of the Prime Minister’s? The first reaction was that Russia turned all its subject parts into independent republics. I don’t want to discuss that point here any further. I only want to draw attention to this, that Russia is doing this with a twofold object. I notice that the hon. member for Klipriver (Mr. Friend) is shaking his head; he apparently does not know what is going on. America and England are astounded and flabbergasted at the step taken by Russia, but the hon. member for Klipriver shakes his head: he does not know anything about it. Russia’s first reaction was to grant immediate independence to all its subject countries, and I say that Russia does so with a twofold object. In the first place it wants to see to it that in this triumvirate after the war it will have at its disposal as many votes as possible so as to counterbalance the vote of the British Commonwealth of Nations and to counterbalance the votes of the United States of America, because Russia realises that America may perhaps get the votes of the South American Republics. Russia has reacted to the Prime Minister’s plan to get the small democracies more or less incorporated into the British Empire. Russia has stated in advance that she is prepared, if those countries are willing, to take Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and such countries under her wings—if they want to come under her wings, and she is prepared to give them independence within her own Commonwealth of Nations. She prepares the way for the annexation of all those small countries after the war, giving the appearance all the time that she will give them the right to dispose of their own affairs in the same way as England has given it to the States of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Russia says that those States will be independent and will have the right of self determination. Those are the explosive things which the Prime Minister gave voice to. They led to an eruption and I do not know whether the consequences of his speech are not really going to be much more dangerous—whether the position in Western Europe in consequence of his speech is not going to be much more dangerous than it already is. The third thing he suggested was that Great Britain which, politically, during the past century was breaking up and falling to pieces on a constitutional basis—because Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa were becoming independent—now has to go in the other direction. He suggests that this breaking up must be stopped, and this is his plan. He wants these various parts of the British Commonwealth of Nations together with England to have a say in the control and management and government of the British Colonies. In Africa and elsewhere the British Colonies are no longer to be governed from England, but they are to be converted into territories and in the control of the African territory South Africa, for instance, is to have a say. It it a “slim” plan on the part of the Prime Minister not only to restore the economic unity but also the political unity of the British Empire. He only put the position in different words. He has come back with a proposition which he pleaded for as far back as twenty years ago. In those days it was principally Canada under the leadership of Sir Wilfred Laurier and the Nationalist Party in South Africa under the leadership of the late Gen. Hertzog which frustrated that attempt of the Prime Minister. That attempt that the British Commonwealth of Nations should be a political and economic unit, the idea that it should be converted into something of that kind, was proclaimed by the Prime Minister even, in those days. But as I have explained Canada and South Africa frustrated that effort. Hon. members will appreciate that if the Dominions, together with England, are to manage the Colonies of the British Empire, this can only be done if over above all the Dominions there is a supreme body to co-ordinate those efforts at government. That is the idea of super state in the British Empire which the Prime Minister advocated twenty years ago. He again suggested now, because he sees that the natural process of breaking up has gone further and further and that it will end up in the British Empire as a Commonwealth ceasing to exist. He wants to prevent that and that is why he has suggested this scheme. I have already said that in the past it was principally due to Sir Wilfred Laurier in Canada and the Nationalist Party under the leadership of Gen. Hertzog that that effort failed. It is now again the Nationalist Party in South Africa and also Canada which are taking up a stand and which are not prepared to allow themselves to be induced to surrender what they have already secured, and allow the British Empire to be converted into an economic and political unit. The other day by way of interruption we told the Prime Minister that Canada was adopting the same attitude as we were adopting. We said that Canada was four square opposed to the ideal of an economic and political unit, and that MacKenzie King adopted the same attitude as the one we here in South Africa had adopted. The Prime Minister thereupon laughed at us and said we did not know what we were talking about. That is not so at all. He knows, of course that it is not so, but his followers may not know it, and that being so I want to refer them to a cabled report which came from Canada a few days ago. That cable report was published in the Cape Argus on the 1st February and reads as follows—

That is exactly what we on this side of the House are proposing: That the future peace of the world must be secured by means of co-operation between all the three countries which want peace, and that they must not be handed over to the mercy of these big countries. So far as our domestic affairs are concerned our point of view is that it is definitely in conflict with the interests of South Africa to have the British Empire as a political and economic unit. Now I want to go into the question as to what the economic results of the Prime Minister’s scheme are going to be if this scheme succeeds and the British Empire is so converted into a unit. I can quite understand that he as a great imperialist realises the danger to England, and that he wants to devise plans to prevent that danger. I want to draw attention, however, to the effects which his plan will have on the interests of South Africa. The Prime Minister is quite correct in declaring that England’s position has been economically weakened by this war. England’s position is becoming economically weaker because its foreign trade and investments are disappearing. England has spent her foreign investments in order to be able to finance the war. The hon. member for Kuruman has shown that to the House, and I quoted the figures last year to show the extent to which England’s foreign investments had already been disappearing during the past few years. I only want to say this in that connection, some three weeks ago one of England’s Ministers made a statement on this subject in the British House of Parliament. He stated that England’s invisible exports had already dropped by £200,000,000 during the course of the war. Hon. members are aware that invisible exports consist of interest on dividends, on foreign investments, insurance moneys, and shipping fees. The major portion of the invisible export consists of interest and dividends on foreign investments. Here we have the statement therefore by the English Government itself, that the revenue derived from this interest has dropped by £200,000,000 per year. That actually means that England’s foreign investments have dropped by more than half. Anyone who is familiar with the total amount of England’s foreign investments must know that. Now, the Prime Minister says that there is only one way to save England, and that is for England to seek such invisible export in a different manner. The British Government realises that England has to compensate itself in some other way for this loss. The British Government says that the only way is so to increase England’s export after the war so as to make up this loss of £200,000,000 in that way. That means that England after this war will have to develop its industries and its factories in such a way that it will be able to export on an enormous scale to other countries in order to make up that £200,000,000 in that way. Now, where is England going to export all those goods? England must have markets. We can now see what our Prime Minister had in mind and why he wanted to establish an economic unit in the Empire. We can also see what there is behind this Atlantic Charter. It amounts to this, that England, in order to recuperate, in order to restore its position, will have to have markets for its manufactured goods, and it is going to look for those markets in the very first place in the British Colonies and in the Dominions such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. But if we have to provide those markets for England’s manufactured goods in order to enable England to make good its losses it can have only one effect so far as we are concerned, and that is that our own industrial development will be handicapped and curtailed. It will mean that our own industrial development in South Africa will have to be stopped, so that Great Britain may be able to export, to South Africa. I want to warn the people of South Africa that that is what the Prime Minister had in mind, and that is what is being contemplated by the Minister of Commerce and Industries. We know that South Africa industrially can only develop at the expense of England. To the extent that we develop our own industries, to the extent that we manufacture what we need, to that same extent we are going to buy less from England and America and other countries, and if we develop our industries on a large scale, industries manufacturing everything that we need, it will mean that we shall purchase very, very little from England and America, and if the same thing happens in Canada, India and Australia, and everywhere in the world, what then is going to be England’s position? Consequently, it must be very clear that there is a great difference between hon. members opposite and ourselves. We consider that in the very first place it is our duty to look after the interests of our own country. South Africa’s white population must be made great and strong, if we are to hold our own against the large non-European population in this country, and we shall never be able to become a great nation unless we develop industrially. In the agricultural sphere we are a poor country compared with countries such as Australia, Canada, the United States of America and the Argentine, so in agricultural matters alone we shall never be able to compete with those other countries so far as export is concerned. We can only build up a large white population, and what is more, we shall only be able to defeat the undermining poverty in this country if South Africa develops its industries, in order to be able to give employment to the population of this country. Hon. members speak of social security. Do they imagine for one moment that we can ever have social security in South Africa by only giving old age pensions, alms and charity to the people? Where is that going to land us and where are we going to get the income, the revenue, to pay for these things? We can only increase our revenue if we develop South Africa industrially, if we develop our factories, and all our resources. It is only then that we shall be able to do all these things which are linked up with social security and so on. We want to do these things. Let the other side of the House help us: I want to appeal not only to Afrikaans speaking members opposite, to my fellow countrymen, but I also want to appeal to English-speaking South Africans. If they take a real interest in the welfare of South Africa, if they are really intent on building up a strong and virile people in South Africa, if they are intent on destroying poverty and want, then there is only one policy to be followed, and that is the policy of the Nationalist Party, but then hon. members must get away from the attitude which they have taken up so far, and if they won’t do that, if they want to use South Africa as a market for England or America’s manufactured goods, then all this talk of social security, all this talk of building up a great South Africa, means nothing.

Why did the public vote against the Nationalist Party?

Why was that? It was because many people have been misled on that issue, but I want to say this to the hon. member, that on the other side of the House there are many members who appreciate the seriousness of this matter, and who know that if South Africa is ever to become a great country then we have to do these things. But I ask in all seriousness whether we can possibly achieve those objects if we remain a member of the British. Empire? I ask this in all seriousness.

Yes.

If we remain a member of the British Empire we must adopt the attitude of the Prime Minister, and that means that we have to do everything in our power, even if it be at the expense of South Africa, to make the British Empire strong.

Nonsense!

But if we want to do these things really and truly then we must take up the attitude that the interests of South Africa come first and foremost and we can only do that by hon. members accepting our point of view that South Africa must become a Republic.

I am afraid that the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom), who has always struck me in the past as a sensible person, has damaged his reputation by his speech today. He now wants to give the House to understand that the Prime Minister’s speech indicated that he (the Prime Minister) wants to bind us to England and retard our industrial development by doing so. Surely the hon. member knows that that is not true. He knows as well as I do if there is anyone who has contributed to the development of the country by his policy and knowledge and action, it is the Prime Minister.

Who responsible for the iron and steel industry?

The hon. member now wants to draw the inference from the Prime Minister’s speech that the Prime Minister wants to bind us to the Commonwealth of Nations, that we must form an economic and state unit, and that that must result in a retardation of our industrial development. If that is not a sign of ignorance I do not know what it is. But I shall indicate the reason motivating that statement. They now want to escape the responsibility of having refused to participate in the war. That is the reason. Well, there is evidence today to show that as a result of the fact that we adhered to the policy of the Prime Minister and stood by the Commonwealth of Nations, developments have taken place in this country which otherwise would never have taken place. But what does the speech of the hon. member amount to? It comes down to two points. As far as his attempt to belittle the Prime Minister is concerned, I do not want to go into that. It is below my dignity to reply to it. But the one reason which he advanced was that he saw a great danger in our winning the war with Russia on our side, and the second reason was that he pleaded for isolation. He practically confirms the policy of his party in that respect. His first point, therefore, is the danger which threatens us if we win the war together with Russia. I think the hon. member owes us an explanation. He asks why we still carry on with the war. Is it his proposal that we should make peace with Germany, that we should commit treason against Russia and that we should attack Russia? It almost looks as though the hon. member wants to create an opportunity for his party to wage war against Russia, together with this side. We are in this war with Russia as our ally, and the advice of the hon. member is that we should make peace with Germany and fight against Russia on the side of Germany. We shall not accept that advice. We are not going to bring that disgrace on our nation, and certainly not as long as the Prime Minister leads us along the road along which he has led us up to the present. The speech which the Prime Minister made in London was read throughout the world and it received serious attention, and it is unworthy of the hon. member to put his own construction on what the Prime Minister said and to attempt to belittle him. The other question is that of isolation. I shall come to that at a later stage in my speech, but I just want to say at this stage that if their attitude is one in favour of isolation, let them say clearly that that is the policy of the party. It may be their policy. It is not our policy. We stand solemnly behind the Prime Minister in his desire to extend the Commonwealth of Nations, because in that direction lies our salvation and economic existence in the future. The whole election was fought on this point, and they have had their answer, and I am surprised that they still have the audacity today to revive this question. The House will give the same answer which the people of the country gave. First of all, I should like to mention a point which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stressed particularly, and that is that we, and the English newspapers too, misled the nation in connection with the so-called republic which they propose. Those were his words, that the English newspapers and we were systematically suppressing statements on this point, and that the newspapers were misleading their readers. Now I should like to read to the Leader of the Opposition his own words from his own newspaper, and I think that after having done so, if there is a member on the other side of the House who still has any political self-respect, he will get up and state that it was unbecoming of his leader to make such a statement. Even the supporters of the party on the other side do not want to follow the Leader of the Opposition in that doctrine of isolation. He has succeeded in driving his own people out of the party, and they told the English people that they did not want them. They have had great success in driving people out. The election showed that. I want to tell hon. members on the other side that I have much more respect for a member like the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom), who at least follows one path and adheres to his views. Even if I do not agree with him, he adheres to his course. But what about the Leader of the Opposition? I want to quote what he said and then ask whether he can accuse our newspapers of having lied to the people in connection with a republic. I have here various quotations from Die Burger. I have a quotation here dated September, 1941. But I should first like to make this point. This speech was made when members on the other side thought that Germany would win the war. Their policy has now changed, but those things were said to the people of South Africa at a time when they hoped that Germany would win the war. Today the whole speech of the Leader of the Opposition, and also that of the hon. member for Waterberg, revealed a new spirit. They now take it for granted that Germany is going to lose the war. Today they no longer rejoice at the prospect of a German victory, and they no longer think of the days when Russia was an ally of Germany, but today they say that there are indications that Germany is going to lose the war, and they now welcome the English-speaking people and everyone else. But what they said at that time will not be forgotten. I am now quoting from Die Burger what the Leader of the Opposition said at Pretoria (West) on the 28th September, 1941 [Translation]—

Hear, hear.

Of course, those who are “un-national” are we.

No.

I still have many things to quote. In Die Burger of the 5th March it is said that Dr. Malan stated in Cape Town on the 4th March [Translation]—

Hear, hear.

If that is the policy, well and good, but do not say then that we are deceiving the people. Your party, according to the speech of the Leader, wants to have the sole say.

You no longer understand Afrikaans.

That is tantamount to nothing but Nazism. Under the democratic system I have the right to advocate any system of government, but you want to deprive me of that right. On the 24th March, 1941, the Leader of the Opposition stated at Stellenbosch—

Naturally.

But you take an oath of allegiance as members of this Parliament.

That is not true.

Very well, call it a solemn pledge. By doing so you want to hold out to the nation that you do not take the oath and that you are not bound, but it is nevertheless a solemn pledge. There it is stated that those people who do not take the oath of allegiance to the republic will be regarded as persons who are not entitled to any say, and that they will be disenfranchised. What right have you to say that we are not telling the nation the truth? That is your policy. But that is not democratic; that is Nazism.

In America they must also swear allegiance.

On the 7th June, 1941, according to Die Burger, the Leader of the Opposition stated—

All political opponents will therefore be disenfranchised. The same thing was said in various parts of the country. According to Die Burger of the 16th June, 1941, the Leader of the Opposition stated at Christiana—

All the electors in South Africa, therefore, who do not follow the policy of the Nationalist Party, must be disenfranchised.

Just listen to that nonsense.

If you get into power, all those who do not follow your policy must be disenfranchised. Then we come to the 13th January, 1942, when the Leader of the Opposition said—

Not word is mentioned of English-speaking persons and their traditions and feelings.

On the 12th October, 1940, Die Burger stated that the Leader of the Opposition had spoken in the same vein, when he said—

What must the English-speaking people infer from that? [Laughter.] What must they infer from it? That the Afrikaans-speaking people only will have a say, because if it is said that the republic must be purely Afrikaans it is a qualification which makes it impossible for English-speaking persons to be members of the party and to have any say. The English-speaking people cannot plead for the continued existence of the British Commonwealth of Nations and our membership thereof. That is the practical inference to be drawn from this statement. The English-speaking people will have no say. Even among the members of the party on the other side there are many who could not agree to that. Take the Afrikaner Party and all the other sections of the population which have withdrawn from the party. Where are they today? Not in the Nationalist Party. I am only explaining that even your own people no longer feel at home in the party. But then the Leader of the Opposition says that we mislead the English-speaking people when we say that their culture and language will be endangered when the Nationalist Party comes into power. Is any further proof required to justify us in bringing these things to the notice of the people? I do not mind the Leader of the Opposition laying down that policy, but our policy is simply co-operation amongst all the sections of the population. They do not want that on the other side, according to the statements of their leader. At the time, when they thought that Germany would be victorious, this policy was constantly put to the nation. Now they want to depart from it, and today they hold it against us when we, point out these things. I know that many of the members on the other side do not agree with their leader as far as these things are concerned. I go on to quote. What did the Leader of the Opposition say at Cradock in 1940—

There the party is prepared to resort to compulsion to force the republic on a section of the nation. He goes on to say—

In other words, a dictatorship. The Leader of the Opposition wants a dictatorship in order to set the republic in motion. A la Hitler! First a dictatorship to get the republic, and after it has been formed, what then? Will the democratic system be restored? What happened in Germany? We have the right to warn the nation. Today members on the other side are naturally singing a slightly different tune. The election is over. I hope they will now see the folly of their past. Now I come to another point. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition puts this question to the right hon. Prime Minister: “What will become of South Africa after the war if, together with Russia, we are victorious?” In the first place we feel that under the democratic system it is we, after all, who will decide what our form of government shall be, not Russia. If our voters decide on a different system of government, if it is the will of the nation, we cannot do anything about it. In that case we shall accept it. But I cannot see why we should represent matters to the nation in this light, that if we win the war together with Russia, then all of a sudden all these terrible and dangerous things will come into existence and be carried out in the country. The people have become tired of all these things which have been represented to them. It is impossible further to intimidate the nation in this way. The hon. Leader of the Opposition speaks of Germany as a bulwark against communism. Well, as the Prime Minister has said, their policy changes from day to day; it is not something which is static. But what assurance have we from the Opposition that if Germany is victorious we are going to get a republic? What right did the Leader of the Opposition have to represent that to the nation? What right did he have to say that if Germany wins we are going to get our republic, that we would then be more sound economically, that we would then be better off? What right did they have to mislead the nation in that way, because it was nothing else but deception. How do they know what Germany would have done to us? And I should like to know in what respect the Nazi system would have been better for this country than any system of Russia’s. If the nation accepts Communism, why not? We cannot prevent it.

You are well on the road towards it.

Hon. members on the other side might just as well try to convince the people that a republic is the right thing, and if they convince the nation we shall have to accept it. That is the democratic system. The Leader of the Opposition wants to know what is going to happen after the war; what is going to happen when the depression comes? Then there will be fertile soil for Communism, for the spreading of Communism. Of course; we know that, but what would we have had if we had not participated in the war? Famine, not only a depression. I challenge anyone to rise and to prove to me that we would have had the development which we have had if we had remained out of the war.

What about Ireland?

Ireland is bankrupt and lives by the grace of England, just as Spain does. Today Spain has to beg for a little petrol and oil. That would have been our fate too. When we decided to participate in the war, it was not only a matter of duty, but a matter of guarding our economic interests. Why are the other small nations which are perhaps not so well disposed towards England, desirous of entering the war today? Because they feel that it will be in their economic interests, and to safeguard their future economic existence. But quite apart from military considerations, if we had hot participated, where would we have got our goods from; from where would we have imported our machinery to develop our industries? And if we had not had this development, where would our people have got employment, as they have today? Just ask the farming community. Look how they have progressed as a result of the policy of the Prime Minister. In the light of the experience we have it does not become the hon. member for Waterberg to come here and to attempt to represent matters as though the Prime Minister by means of his policy wants to retard the development of our industries; in the light of what the Prime Minister has done in the past, and in the light of the Bills which are before the House this year and will be laid before the House, clearly indicating the policy of the Prime Minister, that is unworthy of the hon. member. I just want to put a counter question. If we had remained neutral, the Leader of the Opposition must tell the people what he would have done. What would he have done to provide the farmers with markets, and what would he have done after the war? We would have come out of it without a friend in the world. No, we follow the Prime Minister. He is today acknowledged in the whole world as one of the greatest statesmen, if not the greatest, and in his company and under his guidance we face the future with courage. If we had remained neutral, what would have happened? We would then have been without a friend in the world, and what would have happened? This goes to show how bankrupt the Opposition is in connection with a foreign policy. At least they do admit now that there are signs that together with Russia we shall win this war. They also admit that Russia will come out of this war a mighty and powerful nation with great influence. But hon. members on the other side only want to vilely and insult Russia. And here we are, a small country, unable to move ourselves from one place to another without the permission of the great nations. They say that they are the greatest champions of industrial development, and nevertheless they are making enemies of other great nations by their inexplicable action in this House. Then I want to put this question to the hon. Leader of the Opposition: Does he expect these statements which he and his party make in this House, to assist us in establishing friendly relations with the outside world; can he expect the great countries of the world to become our friends if we stab them in the back in this way? That is impossible. I want to warn him, however. The people in the country realise these things today. In the platteland, where we have explained these things to the people, they realise what the position is, and but for the fact that many of them have been connected with that party for a long time, they would no longer have stood by the party. They no longer have the slightest faith in the policy of that party.

As a new member in this House, I listened very attentively to the speech of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister. The reason why I listened very attentively to that speech was because I sought guidance from him with regard to the welfare, of my people, as I should like to see it, and that is on a republican basis. Instead of finding guidance in his speech, I found on the contrary that the Right Hon. the Prime Minister made remarks in regard to that republic which were painful for me to hear. But I want to leave it there. I want to confine myself to two matters which are embodied in the motion of the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and I want to approach those two matters from the Calvinistic point of view. In the first place, I am a republican. I demand a republic, and in the second place I demand that that republic shall stand on a Christian basis. When I say that I am a Calvinist, I mean that I believe that God created peoples and nations, and that he will protect and guard them. I believe, therefore, that since he created the Boer nation in South Africa he will also guard that Boer nation, and grant them continued existence. Where does this republican idea come from; was it a product of the human brain? No, I say that it was a divine idea which is implanted in every heart of that nation. When we look back and ask ourselves how that nation was created, we find that it is a composition of elements which can assimilate. We find Frenchmen, Englishmen, Hollanders and Germans. Out of those assimilable elements was created this nation, and this nation immediately showed its identity. It revealed its own identity. This side is often reproached with the fact that we are in favour of a republic, and that we urge the establishment of a republic, and that we do so out of enmity towards the English-speaking born Afrikaners. I want to deny that emphatically. Why? Even in the days of the regime of the Netherlands East-India Company in South Africa we found that republics were established in Stellenbosch and in Graaff-Reinet, and that shows us that it was a divine idea, as I have already said, which was implanted at that time in the heart of this nation, and there too, they revealed that the republican idea was based on the Christian idea. It was further revealed by the Voortrekkers. They trekked with the rifle in one hand, the Bible in the other. So we found the Voortrekker as far as he went. It is sometimes painful to find how seldom remarks are made in this House in regard to the Boar nation as though there is no such thing in existence in South Africa. But I shall indicate to you that it does exist, and that it will continue to exist. How did it reveal its nationhood? It has creative ability; and what did it create? In the first place it created its own church. In the second place it created its own form of government, and in the third place it created its own language. Today that language has progressed to such an extent that the Boer nation can pride itself on having the Bible in its own language. What served the Voortrekker, what we found in the hands of the Voortrekker, still serves today as our guide on the road and the light at our feet. As an Oudstryder I cannot fail to ask sometimes what has happened that so many have fallen by the way? When I look at the history of other nations, I find that when the enemy enters the borders, or when the enemy has conquered, it is but a natural phenomenon to find amongst the conquered those who are prepared to join the ranks of the enemy. But when we responsible South Africans see and find that they see the enemy in their own people, and not in the British Imperialists, it becomes almost inexplicable to us. As a Calvinist I do not want to see an enemy in my own people, to whatever party organisation they may belong. I see my enemy in the British Imperialist. But these words of mine must not again be interpreted by my English-speaking friends as though I see my enemy in them. They live in South Africa, they were born here, and I cannot expect them at this moment to think of a republic as I think of a republic. But I just want to ask them to make investigations into what happened to the English people at the time of the existence of the republics? There the right hon. the Prime Minister sits. He can testify to what happened. During the regime of the republics there was no discrimination. What was the school syllabus? I went to school during that time and I learned English. There was hearty co-operation and no suggestion of repudiation. They had the rights of citizens. But how many of them, when the struggle came sided with the republics?

Many of them.

No, it was only a small number. But there is an excuse for that too. We feel that in South Africa a nation was coming into being. There were sentimental chains which bound the people. There were Crown Colonies next to us. There was the Cape and Natal, and consequently they could not see eye to eye with us. We want to admit that, but we want to put another question. The impression is created that inevitably we cannot develop as a country if we have a republic, and that we shall remain in the position in which we are today and that we shall not become a greater nation. In this connection, may I point to the position of Ireland and of America. For 700 years Ireland stood under the government of Great Britain. On the other hand we find that America broke away, and what are their respective positions today? America has become a republic. Ireland remained under the control of Britain, and now I want to ask hon. members this: Was the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) serious when he asked what will become of South Africa if we get a republic here? I think if the hon. member for Vereeniging had looked at these two examples, he would have come to the conclusion that the republican form of government is preferable to that of a monarchy. Why do we recommend that South Africa should be a republic? In the first place because we are convinced that it will be the only solution of the racial question. What is the position in America? When our English friends land in that country everything they see belongs to America. They see the country’s flag, its president and so on. In South Africa that is not yet the case. The Englishman who arrives in this country, sees things which remind him of England, and consequently he feels at home and that he is perfectly safe here. But how do we feel about it, especially I as Oudstryder? Let me say frankly that I am a British subject by conquest and not through my own free will. But notwithstanding that, I am prepared to offer the hand of friendship to every European Afrikaner who wants to make this country a great country and this nation a great nation. But there are a few things which must engage our attention. South Africa as a member of the British Common wealth of Nations has found that that membership has landed her in two wars. The first war was disastrous, but South Africa’s participation in this war will be a greater disaster. It will not only be a disaster but a catastrophe, and in this connection I want to touch on a point in the report of the Economic and Planning Council which gives us a glimpse of the position which will exist after the war. The Economic and Planning Council tells us that 80,000 European men, 30,000 European women and 120,000 non-Europeans will be unemployed —and that provision has been made for perhaps 15,000. I say that it is alarming to see those things. There is yet another factor. Not only have we been dragged into this war which in itself is catastrophic as far as we are concerned, but we are faced in South Africa with a great poor white problem. Who are those poor whites in South Africa; and what are the elements which make up those masses of Europeans who have been impoverished? Are they foreigners? No, the people who have been impoverished, rent asunder and who starve today, are blood of my blood, and I want to protest against a repetition of those conditions in our country. The only way in which to alter those conditions—conditions which are being created because South Africa is being sacrificed on the altar of Imperialism — and to remedy them to some extent is to convert South Africa into a free, sovereign, independent republic. Then there is another matter which I want to touch upon, and that is the danger of Communism. There will be hon. members who will say that we are again putting up a bogy. I remarked recently that that is denied, and I therefore want to read an extract from the Guardian of the 20th January in regard to the danger of Communism and in connection with the leaders of Communism. A congress was held and the following message from Johannesburg appears in the Guardian in reference to this congress—

It is no use mincing matters today in regard to this question. I said that I speak here as a Calvinist, and as such I say that Communism in South Africa is one of the greatest dangers which has even threatened this country. Why do I say that? Because the Communist’s aim is not only to dislocate everything in the economic sphere, but the Communist is the greatest enemy of that immortal soul which every human being possesses, and I want to say this to my English-speaking friends on the other side: you often talk of co-operation. Here we have common ground on which we can stand, and that is that as Christians we can stand on that ground against this darkness which threatens us in South Africa. In conclusion I want to mention just one further point. As Calvinists we say that the danger of Communism is great, in the first place because we have had a protest against it on the part of our churches. Unfortunately there are other churches which hold a different view. In that connection I just want to quote what appeared in The Forum a little while ago. The following passage appears in that journal—

Is it possible to allow the removal of the colour bar in South Africa? It is impossible, and I say emphatically that every one Who calls himself a Christian cannot but take up a strong attitude against Communism, the chief doctrine of which is that there is no God, that there must be no family life, that property must be a communal possession and that there must be no distinction on the ground of race or colour. In that respect I say that every Christian, however much we may differ in the political sphere, should hold the view that we have a common ground for offering resistance to this dark enemy.

When the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition moved his motion, he put forward as a reason for the establishment of a republic the international position and the Communistic avalanche. This afternoon the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) introduced another reason for the establishment of that republic, and that was economic reasons. I think we can deal with the hon. member for Waterberg in a few words. He has been dealt with to a certain extent by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood), but I would like to point out this to the hon. member for Waterberg, that when he tells this House and the country that South Africa is simply a dumping ground for the manufactured goods of the British Empire, he is making a travesty of the whole position. He is insulting our intelligence. His leader would not make such an assertion, because he is one of those who was instrumental in changing our customs system from a taxing machine into the present protective system, and that system has continued ever since, and as the result of that system very much in the way of goods has been imported from other countries rather than from England. I myself have regretted that a considerable portion of our goods has come from other countries, but for the hon. member to suggest that under a republic we would have greater freedom with regard to the selection of our goods, is an absolute travesty of the truth. Let me remind the hon. member of this fact; it was a Nationalist Party Government that entered into a wool pact with Germany, in which it was agreed that if Germany took £3,000,000 worth of our wool, we in return would buy manufactured goods from Germany to that amount. Hon. members will also remember that we bought railway engines; we bought other rolling stock; we bought aeroplanes and many other things from Germany at that time. I would also like to remind the hon. member that it was a Nationalist Party Government that entered into an arrangement with Italy, whereby we subsidised an Italian shipping company in order to improve our trade with West Africa and Italy. Under our association with the British Commonwealth of Nations we are absolutely and entirely free to buy where we wish, to make any bargain that we think is in our interests.

What would the Smuts Government have done?

I am dealing with what the Nationalist Party Government did. For the moment I am dealing with the motion coming from the Opposition benches and for that reason I must deal with the various points of view put forward. I want to remind hon. members also that in so far as our purchases were concerned, we bought very largely from Japan—we bought a good deal of rubbish too—and we spent a good deal of money. As far as our motor car import figures are concerned, I want to point out that we spent ten times more money in the United States buying American cars than we spent on buying English cars in England. I think these facts are sufficient to show that it is ridiculous to suggest that we should today accept the position that a republic is going to give us greater freedom in the economic sphere. I want to deal also with the position raised by the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He is very concerned about how the allied nations might cut up Germany, Poland, Finland, and those countries adjacent to Russia because, he says, if we do not retain strong nations there, a Communist avalanche will sweep over Europe. He says nothing about our past experience with regards to the Nazi avalanche that for the moment is sweeping over the whole of Europe; not a word about that. But I suggest this to the Leader of the Opposition and to the Nationalist Party, that if they would examine the history of Europe over a period of years—and I suggest that we can only judge the future by the behaviour of nations in the past—they will see that this aggression that has taken place since 1938 when Germany went into Austria is not peculiar to the Nazi system. Or let me put in this way: If we examine the history of Germany we will see that in 1866 a Prussian Government with a Prussian army forcibly incorporated the States of Saxony, Hanover, Kur Hessen and Nassau. Those States were forcibly incorporated into the German Empire. In 1870 they forcibly incorporated Alsace-Lorraine. In March 1938 they incorporated the free republic of Austria. In March 1939 they incorporated the free republic of Czecho-Slovakia. In September, 1939, they were the aggressors in Poland, and as the result of their annexation of Poland, they set this world war going. They attacked Norway, Holland, Belgium and other small states in the Balkans—free republics as they were. Now let me suggest this, that if it is to be a question of re-arranging Europe in order to make her safe from aggression and safe from some avalanche—whether it be Communistic or Nazi—one has to realise that up to now all the aggression has come from the German Empire and none of that aggression has come from Russia. Then I think one has to make this clear. We are sometimes told in speeches and in discussions that after all the Germans as individuals are very nice people, that they are kindly disposed towards us. But let me suggest this, that it is no more sound to accept the character of an individual German as the true character of the German nation as a whole, than it would be to take an English-speaking man or an Afrikaans-speaking man as truly representative of the whole British or Afrikaner nation. We are told that when this war is over it will be for us to remember that they are kindly disposed people, bewitched by Hitler, and that they are glad to be released from Nazi domination. The history of Germany does not show that. It shows that they have been right through history a hard nation, they have been brought up hardly, they have had to fight nature, and they have had to battle in many ways to establish themselves in the northern plains of Europe. They have shown that they are a hard nation, and Hitler himself has boasted on various occasions, that he is the hardest German that ever lived. It will be remembered that in the Great War the German army regulations prescribed frightfulness in the conduct of that war. It is known that German officers were more guilty of frightfulness than the rank and file during the 1914-1918 war. I say this, and history proves it, that the Nazi atrocities have been planned from the top. They have been systematically organised. Hundreds of thousands of men have assisted, and participated in these organised atrocities. Thousands, I should rather say millions, have stood up in Germany and have accepted that position. I think if you go through that period from 1914 to 1918, through the revolution in Germany and the Weimar Republic right up to the advent of Hitler, you will find that the outlook in Germany was one that showed that even with their republic, the Weimar Republic, when they came out with the doctrine that they are going to try to introduce socialism in Germany, they showed the same characteristics. Streseman set up a democratic republic in Germany, but that did not succeed in making much impression on the general pattern of the German nation, as has been shown from 1932 to the present day. I believe this, that when it comes to the settlement with regard to those nations mentioned by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, it must be made impossible for Germany ever again to be allowed to exhibit that characteristic that was shown in the shaping and securing and achieving of a Leviathan state and the formation of a Prussianised army as a preliminary to their absolute objective—power, trade and world domination. It is not so long ago that a well-known German writer said: “Vice is a mythological description for unprofitable transactions”. I suggest that now already the Germans are beginning to apply that to their position. It is interesting to notice also from the writings of a liberal German author named Rudolf Olden who wrote a book in 1941, after the war started—he had escaped from Germany—that he says in this book that a very different Germany might have arisen, and this is how he puts it in the book, “Is Germany A Hopeless Case?”—

Hitler was in power from 1932 to 1938 when he started aggression.

The point I want to make is that behind the Nazi screen or the Nazi facade, there is another Germany, and it is a Germany that I am trying to show has existed for hundreds of years, very actively since 1866, and that is a Germany less crude, less hysterical but certainly even more dangerous. I do not want to detain the House any longer, and as I have some further remarks to add, I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 10th February.